Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Willie the Duck" data-source="post: 9033986" data-attributes="member: 6799660">This probably does explain things a bit. Lots of people who played a lot of 1e actually started with oD&D, B, BX, or BECMI/RC/Intro Boxes. That so many of them eventually went to AD&D explains how 1e could be such a good performer core-book-wise, but the people still not count in the analysis*. There is also probably quite a bit of drop-off effect/staying power issues that contribute, but I don't have what I think about that completely formulated in my mind. *Should probably check to see how well Metzer/RC/Intro Boxes did during '89+ to see if 2e had a similar effect.<anecdotal> I know a lot of people who came back to D&D with 3e -- usually after a hiatus where they explored other games like GURPS or White Wolf WoD or some other game that had their heyday in the 80s-90s. I know some people who came back to D&D with 3e after a long break from playing TRPGs in general (often that break between having kids and the kids being old enough to leave alone without a sitter). I only know a significantly smaller number of people who started with 3e or 4e. Throw in that some are still playing those editions or Pathfinder (and thus less likely to answer WotC surveys), and I can believe that they aren't well-represented.As far as I am concerned, we still do not have any actual statements from WotC (representing anything one way or another). We have one report from a gaming journalist* reporting back what WotC presented. Did WotC indicate that they were discussing 'D&D players' or 5e players (or even just survey respondents)? I suspect that nuance was wiped away by the journalists word choice. I bet the WotC representative at the time was a little more careful in identifying the actual population about which summary statements were made, but if they were a marketing person, they may well have not/gotten it wrong**. Regardless of what they actually said, it was probably obvious from the preceding and subsequent sentences spoken which clearly identified who they were trying to talk about, and we simply don't have access to that. *who probably had no idea we would be parsing every phrase they used for ammo in an online tempest in a teapot  -- and hopefully also wouldn't care**and I think 'the marketing person wasn't perfectly scientific accurate to the technical definition of words at least somewhat distinct from 'they are misrepresenting themselves,' at least in terms of implied intent (the difference between 'being wrong' and 'lying').It was a big conference, and they didn't just invite Geekwire. Does anyone have any resources or know any other places we should be looking or other people at those presentations where we could get any clarification? I'm all for further discussion about the implications of the case if Geekwire communicated perfectly exactly what was stated, I just have near little trust that it is accurate (and near zero trust that we have reason to believe it is). Something wasn't brought through the game of telephone -- the Gen X category was listed as 'Gen X or older,' the population was stated to be 'of respondents' or 'current 5e players' or the like, or similar.</blockquote>

Verification