Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Shasarak" data-source="post: 6936371" data-attributes="member: 94143">If you want to make the argument that more books = shorter lifespan of an edition then maybe you could at least give some supporting evidence that such and such edition had so many books and lasted for this many years as compared to this edition that lasted for a shorter time with more books.Instead what I see on your blog is things like: more content makes a game harder to play which in theory is true but in practice is not because simply you dont use what you dont use.&nbsp; For example if you have a choice of 100 classes but you have four players at your table then you do not need to reference the other 96 classes just the 4 that you are using.&nbsp; If you have a million monsters to choose from you dont need to know what the other 999,999 do to run the one that you are using.&nbsp; If you are not using the occult adventures book then you do not need to know what the rules are for a kineticist.And also the Choice paradox that you claim confuses people does not seem to be represented anywhere else in our society.&nbsp; When you go to your supermarket to buy peanut butter you do not see two choices there, chances are you have a whole section of peanut butters to choose from and yet people still seem to be able to complete their shopping in a reasonable time without freezing in front of every section that they walk past.Now while I could go through your other points it does not fundamentally address the premise of more books = shorter lifespan of an edition.&nbsp; One notable exception to your premise is <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifts_(role-playing_game)" target="_blank">Rifts</a> which appears to have lasted for 21 years with about 80 books published during that time.&nbsp; So while I dont expect you to meet the standards of a peer reviewed journal on the other hand some figures and analysis to support your claim would be appreciated.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Shasarak, post: 6936371, member: 94143"] If you want to make the argument that more books = shorter lifespan of an edition then maybe you could at least give some supporting evidence that such and such edition had so many books and lasted for this many years as compared to this edition that lasted for a shorter time with more books. Instead what I see on your blog is things like: more content makes a game harder to play which in theory is true but in practice is not because simply you dont use what you dont use. For example if you have a choice of 100 classes but you have four players at your table then you do not need to reference the other 96 classes just the 4 that you are using. If you have a million monsters to choose from you dont need to know what the other 999,999 do to run the one that you are using. If you are not using the occult adventures book then you do not need to know what the rules are for a kineticist. And also the Choice paradox that you claim confuses people does not seem to be represented anywhere else in our society. When you go to your supermarket to buy peanut butter you do not see two choices there, chances are you have a whole section of peanut butters to choose from and yet people still seem to be able to complete their shopping in a reasonable time without freezing in front of every section that they walk past. Now while I could go through your other points it does not fundamentally address the premise of more books = shorter lifespan of an edition. One notable exception to your premise is [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifts_(role-playing_game)"]Rifts[/URL] which appears to have lasted for 21 years with about 80 books published during that time. So while I dont expect you to meet the standards of a peer reviewed journal on the other hand some figures and analysis to support your claim would be appreciated. [/QUOTE]

Verification