Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
"The Future of D&D" (New Core Books in 2024!)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="doctorbadwolf" data-source="post: 8410464" data-attributes="member: 6704184"><p>LOL sure. Definitely the person you disagree with that has the bias, not you.</p><p></p><p>Wotc doesn't know how many DDB players there are. You'd need to go to fandom for that information, the company that owns DDB. </p><p></p><p>We have two separate sources of information telling us what is common and what is uncommon amongst dnd players, and both have much more information available to them than you or I do.</p><p></p><p>If feels like? I'm not sure what to do with that, honestly. </p><p></p><p>You seem to have a strong desire to discount data that disagrees with your perception, even though both of the two companies with access to large amounts of player data agree on the results.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Sure it does. If you have a group of a few hundred thousand, and take thousands with a slight different circumstance to see the effect of that circumstance on the larger group, you have useful data about what the larger group would look like if they all had the same circumstance as the sample group. </p><p></p><p>You seem to want to argue against some idea of this data being definitive and beyond doubt, but that isn't what anyone is saying. It's indicative and useful, which is all survey data can ever be without the sample size being equal to the whole, which never happens.</p><p></p><p>A few percentage points wouldn't change the rankings of most popular subclasses. It certainly wouldn't change which is at the top, which is at the top by a decent margin. It absolutely wouldn't erase the fact that Wizards, which is a wholly separate company, agrees that the data supports the fact that Champion Fighters are very much the most popular class, standard human is the most popular race option, and the simplest and most classic forms of each class are the most played forms of each class.</p><p></p><p>And yet, we also have the earlier DnD Beyond (which again, is separate from Wizards of The Coast) data which also put Dragonborn in roughly the same place, so we can easily and safely conclude that Dragonborn are in the top ten of popularity, but that nothing challenges the standard human for popularity except perhaps variant human. </p><p></p><p>Since wotc has also said repeatedly and with complete confidence that standard human is the most played race option by a significant margin, and we can observe from their behavior and the art they use that Dragonborn are quite popular in spite of being disappointing mechanically, and online discussion in places not known for being home to a lot of optimization talk seems to run in the same direction, it really seems like personal bias is the only reason to doubt that data.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="doctorbadwolf, post: 8410464, member: 6704184"] LOL sure. Definitely the person you disagree with that has the bias, not you. Wotc doesn't know how many DDB players there are. You'd need to go to fandom for that information, the company that owns DDB. We have two separate sources of information telling us what is common and what is uncommon amongst dnd players, and both have much more information available to them than you or I do. If feels like? I'm not sure what to do with that, honestly. You seem to have a strong desire to discount data that disagrees with your perception, even though both of the two companies with access to large amounts of player data agree on the results. Sure it does. If you have a group of a few hundred thousand, and take thousands with a slight different circumstance to see the effect of that circumstance on the larger group, you have useful data about what the larger group would look like if they all had the same circumstance as the sample group. You seem to want to argue against some idea of this data being definitive and beyond doubt, but that isn't what anyone is saying. It's indicative and useful, which is all survey data can ever be without the sample size being equal to the whole, which never happens. A few percentage points wouldn't change the rankings of most popular subclasses. It certainly wouldn't change which is at the top, which is at the top by a decent margin. It absolutely wouldn't erase the fact that Wizards, which is a wholly separate company, agrees that the data supports the fact that Champion Fighters are very much the most popular class, standard human is the most popular race option, and the simplest and most classic forms of each class are the most played forms of each class. And yet, we also have the earlier DnD Beyond (which again, is separate from Wizards of The Coast) data which also put Dragonborn in roughly the same place, so we can easily and safely conclude that Dragonborn are in the top ten of popularity, but that nothing challenges the standard human for popularity except perhaps variant human. Since wotc has also said repeatedly and with complete confidence that standard human is the most played race option by a significant margin, and we can observe from their behavior and the art they use that Dragonborn are quite popular in spite of being disappointing mechanically, and online discussion in places not known for being home to a lot of optimization talk seems to run in the same direction, it really seems like personal bias is the only reason to doubt that data. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
"The Future of D&D" (New Core Books in 2024!)
Top