Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bacon Bits" data-source="post: 8627944" data-attributes="member: 6777737">I'm not sure you understood that statement. Sean wrote, "Unlike some of the discussions which rage from time to time about the nature of game design paradigms, the above information was extracted from general market research data that had as much bias as possible removed."So he's not claiming it's without any bias. Quite the opposite. He's just saying it's actually had some control for bias, whereas anything else was barely above speculation and rumor and anecdote.Now, yes, the research study was just done on D&D players. WotC just bought TSR, so it makes sense that they study who their customers are and what they want, especially because TSR had absolutely no information at all. Which is kinda why they imploded.However, as far as I'm aware, it remains still the largest professional market research ever done on the TTRPG industry that we have any information about. In spite of its flaws and age, it's still the best thing we really have.I don't understand. Are you claiming that PbtA players don't fall on a strategic-tactial axis or that they don't fall on a story-combat axis? Or that there are zero PbtA players who could be Thinkers, Power Gamers, Storytellers, Character Actors, or generalists?Like I get that PbtA doesn't have a lot of mechanical tactics, but you can still be a tactically minded player in the typically very combat focused Dungeon World. A player can still interact with a PbtA scene tactically.Or are you just not happy that a study done in 1999 on D&D didn't account for a 2010 game system? I don't think that's seriously what you mean, but you kind of skipped the part where you explained it.</blockquote>

Verification