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.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
This Game is Deadly
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="Mistwell" data-source="post: 6346651" data-attributes="member: 2525"><p>It means what I said it means. That it's a well-represented view. Not a sure bet that it is a majority view, not a sure bet that it is 100% anything. I also said it "Tends to indicate" which is another way of saying "It increases the odds that". I'm pretty careful when talking about these things. I've never said, or implied, that what WOTC was a sure bet to get them what the majority wants.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No what you said was, "As far as the assumptions of 4E being incorrect. I think one must take those comments with more than a grain of salt: if they're coming from the recent Schwab article, they're from someone who didn't actually like 4E in the first place. Moreover, they're exactly the sort of thing you'd say when you're making changes... they're just done with a better Diplomacy check than during the 4E period."</p><p></p><p>So in that paragraph you said that the comment is coming from someone who did not like 4e in the first place, and therefore the obvious implication (or else the claim has no meaning) is that he's intentionally biasing his claim towards his own preferences. The second part of your paragraph implies (because again it has no meaning otherwise) that what they are saying is just for public relations purposes, IE what their actual data says does not play a role in their goals in saying it.</p><p></p><p>So no, none of what I was replying to had a damn thing to do with missing options in a playtest and had everything to do with you implying people lying and engaging in a conspiracy, which runs counter to them keeping their jobs, to satisfy their own preferences and biases for the game. It's an extraordinary claim, and I am waiting for your extraordinary evidence to back it up. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Explain to me why polling here indicates he can be part of a 3-person response while 60 people will respond the other way? I asked you before how this silent support for him could be played out in the polling, and how generally it's negative voices who are MORE willing to post their thoughts on the Internet than positive ones, and I didn't see you respond. If you want me to accept this claim that RE has some secret silent significant support behind the scenes, you'll have to answer those issues.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Mistwell, post: 6346651, member: 2525"] It means what I said it means. That it's a well-represented view. Not a sure bet that it is a majority view, not a sure bet that it is 100% anything. I also said it "Tends to indicate" which is another way of saying "It increases the odds that". I'm pretty careful when talking about these things. I've never said, or implied, that what WOTC was a sure bet to get them what the majority wants. No what you said was, "As far as the assumptions of 4E being incorrect. I think one must take those comments with more than a grain of salt: if they're coming from the recent Schwab article, they're from someone who didn't actually like 4E in the first place. Moreover, they're exactly the sort of thing you'd say when you're making changes... they're just done with a better Diplomacy check than during the 4E period." So in that paragraph you said that the comment is coming from someone who did not like 4e in the first place, and therefore the obvious implication (or else the claim has no meaning) is that he's intentionally biasing his claim towards his own preferences. The second part of your paragraph implies (because again it has no meaning otherwise) that what they are saying is just for public relations purposes, IE what their actual data says does not play a role in their goals in saying it. So no, none of what I was replying to had a damn thing to do with missing options in a playtest and had everything to do with you implying people lying and engaging in a conspiracy, which runs counter to them keeping their jobs, to satisfy their own preferences and biases for the game. It's an extraordinary claim, and I am waiting for your extraordinary evidence to back it up. Explain to me why polling here indicates he can be part of a 3-person response while 60 people will respond the other way? I asked you before how this silent support for him could be played out in the polling, and how generally it's negative voices who are MORE willing to post their thoughts on the Internet than positive ones, and I didn't see you respond. If you want me to accept this claim that RE has some secret silent significant support behind the scenes, you'll have to answer those issues. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
This Game is Deadly
Top