D&D 5E Should martial characters be mundane or supernatural?


log in or register to remove this ad


Voadam

Legend
No I didn't, I actually said the opposite. I did not say it caused the popularity of the game, I said it did not hinder it.

To illustrate this for you between two things that are obviously not related - 5e coincided with the Apple release of IPhone 6. There is a temporal correlation between Apple releasing the IPhone 6 and the explosion in popularity off 5E. Even though there is a correlation, we can not show causation. We can't show through that correlation that the IPhone 6 caused the increase in popularity. However, through the correlation we can refute a hypothesis that release of IPhone 6 made the game less popular.

This example is similar. We know the explosion in popularity in 5E is correlated in time to the generalization of magic in the rules. We can not show this generalization of magic caused the increase in pupularity in the game, but it does refute the hypothesis that it made the game less popular.
You are just saying a tautology, that no factor stopped D&D (or made it more popular) from being as popular as it is, because D&D is as popular as it is.

You are not showing that any of these factors were not actually a hindrance to D&D popularity, just not enough of a hindrance to prevent D&D's actual popularity level as it exists because D&D is at that level of popularity because of/regardless of/or despite those aspects.

Knowing the Iphone timing is correlated with D&D popularity explosion does not show whether the Iphone took away from D&D's popularity and made it less popular than it would have been without the hindrance of the Iphone. We can only conclude that if the Iphone was a hindrance then it was not enough of a hindrance to stop the explosion of popularity from being as big as it was. It could have been a huge hindrance, but was outweighed by other factors propelling D&D's popularity.
 

ECMO3

Hero
We can only conclude that if the Iphone was a hindrance then it was not enough of a hindrance to stop the explosion of popularity from being as big as it was.

Exactly ... neither the IPhone 6 or generalizing magic "sucked all the fantasy out" of D&D for most of the players.

That is exactly what I am stating.


It could have been a huge hindrance, but was outweighed by other factors propelling D&D's popularity.

Not huge considering the explosion, it is conclusively not a significant factor because the explosion happened coincident with this change. Your argument here is that it might be some minor, minimal additional benefit if they had not changed that as well. You are now changing the entire premise of the statement.

Further why isn't anyone asking those making claims about the game less popular do to the new magic generalization asked to defend that position at all? Why is that postion accepted without question when the data very clearly implies this is not the case?
 

Voadam

Legend
Not huge considering the explosion, it is conclusively not a significant factor because the explosion happened coincident with this change.
Absolutely it could have been huge, it just would have to be outweighed enough by other factors to get to where the popularity is. It could not have been net more huge than the popularity enhancing factors, but it could have been minor or huge.

Say 5e D&D's popularity generated a theoretical billion dollars net for Hasbro. If the zeitgeist would have generated ten billion dollars worth of popularity value for Hasbro but the Iphone 6 cost D&D nine billion of that value, then the Iphone would have been a huge hindrance and a significant factor, even though 5e D&D's popularity generated a billion dollars net.

Any single factor could potentially have been a hindrance, no impact, or a boost to D&D's existing popularity. We need more to make a conclusion about a specific factor.

D&D's popularity on its own does not refute whether any one factor was a hindrance or not.
 

Voadam

Legend
Further why isn't anyone asking those making claims about the game less popular do to the new magic generalization asked to defend that position at all? Why is that postion accepted without question when the data very clearly implies this is not the case?
That's easy, those were just put out as assertions just like your original claim about it propelling D&D's popularity. Both sides were just opinions to be agreed with or not in an absence of data for which no real conclusion could be made. I had no interest in accepting or challenging either view.

Then you claimed you could show it did not hinder D&D's popularity and I was interested in how you thought that could be shown.
I can't prove that it has sparked the popularity in the game, but I can certainly show it has not hindered it.
 

ECMO3

Hero
Absolutely it could have been huge, it just would have to be outweighed enough by other factors to get to where the popularity is. It could not have been net more huge than the popularity enhancing factors, but it could have been minor or huge.

No it can not be in comparison to the other factors.

That's easy, those were just put out as assertions just like your original claim about it propelling D&D's popularity.

I never asserted this, on this thread or any other. I very clearly said I "THINK" it did this.

Both sides were just opinions to be agreed with or not in an absence of data for which no real conclusion could be made.

We absolutely, 100% have conclusive data that changing to a general magic framework did not "suck the fantasy out of the game".

Say 5e D&D's popularity generated a theoretical billion dollars net for Hasbro. If the zeitgeist would have generated ten billion dollars worth of popularity value for Hasbro but the Iphone 6 cost D&D nine billion of that value, then the Iphone would have been a huge hindrance and a significant factor, even though 5e D&D's popularity generated a billion dollars net.

But if it "sucked the fantasy out of the game" it would have not have generated a $10B.


Any single factor could potentially have been a hindrance, no impact, or a boost to D&D's existing popularity. We need more to make a conclusion about a specific factor.

We do not need more data to prove a negative superlative statement. It clearly did NOT stop 5E from achieving the popularity it has established to date. In your example it did not hinder the rise to $10B. Your argument is maybe it could have done even better, which is a completely different argument.
 

James Gasik

We don't talk about Pun-Pun
Supporter
I think it has made the game great and propelled 5E to heights never before seen.
So when you said this, to me you were saying "the change to magic made 5e great".

Then when you clarified your statement and said "the change to magic did not hinder 5e's rise to greatness" (EDIT: paraphrased), I questioned if you thought that a different approach couldn't have made the game greater. I didn't, from that statement, get the impression you were saying "the change to magic did not hinder 5e's rise to greatness to it's current level", which is a very different statement.

If the current magic hindered D&D's rise in popularity by making it less popular than it could have been, that is a problem, even if the game is currently wildly popular. A hindrance is a hindrance.

We have no way of knowing either way if it was a hindrance or not.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
No I didn't, I actually said the opposite. I did not say it caused the popularity of the game, I said it did not hinder it.

To illustrate this for you between two things that are obviously not related - 5e coincided with the Apple release of IPhone 6. There is a temporal correlation between Apple releasing the IPhone 6 and the explosion in popularity off 5E. Even though there is a correlation, we can not show causation. We can't show through that correlation that the IPhone 6 caused the increase in popularity. However, through the correlation we can refute a hypothesis that release of IPhone 6 made the game less popular.

This example is similar. We know the explosion in popularity in 5E is correlated in time to the generalization of magic in the rules. We can not show this generalization of magic caused the increase in pupularity in the game, but it does refute the hypothesis that it made the game less popular.
That doesn't work, though. You can't actually show that lots of people buying IPhone 6s didn't keep them from being able to afford to buy into 5e and/or didn't play in their phone to the point where they didn't by 5e when they otherwise would have due to lack of time.

Since you can't actually prove that these things didn't hinder, you can't actually refute the idea. I'm not saying they did hinder, only that your logic doesn't really follow through.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Not huge considering the explosion, it is conclusively not a significant factor because the explosion happened coincident with this change. Your argument here is that it might be some minor, minimal additional benefit if they had not changed that as well. You are now changing the entire premise of the statement.

Further why isn't anyone asking those making claims about the game less popular do to the new magic generalization asked to defend that position at all? Why is that postion accepted without question when the data very clearly implies this is not the case?
Again, your logic doesn't follow through. You can show that it didn't hinder D&D from being as popular as it is, but if the popularity explosion would have been twice as large had it not been for the IPhone 6, then the IPhone six was a major hinderance. You're conflating "not hindering D&D from reaching it's current popularity level" with "No hinderance to popularity." Those aren't the same.
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top