Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 5049364" data-attributes="member: 29398">Sorry for the delayed response; I don't always get in here every day...I've said it many times, but once more never hurts: WotC's market research (what they used going in to 3e) was badly-enough flawed to be close to garbage.I don't know if it's still out there, but there was an article booting around online for a long time by Ryan Dancey regarding that research and how it was conducted.  The salient points for this discussion were:The research was done in the 1998-99 period.  If you put your age down as higher than a certain amount (I think it was 35, it might have been lower) your response was thrown out.  Which means, all the responses from older gamers, including:- those who got in during the late '70's-early '80's while in college and stayed in, thus around 20 years old then and mostly too old for the late '90's survey criteria- those who simply got into the game later in life- mewere invalidated...yet simple logic dictates that older, more settled players are very likely going to have longer, more settled games and campaigns.  But settled campaigns don't represent a high-buy market...By excluding these responses, they tailored the survey to produce the results they wanted (i.e. to indicate shorter, less stable campaigns as the norm) and then designed the game to suit those results.Too bad.  But if you ever settle down in Victoria BC, join my game and I'll convince you otherwise. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />But, even to that extent, you admit it was a consideration. (see below)  And nor should they, really.  It was more "here's what works for us, and we know it works; but if it doesn't work for you then tweak it till it does".  Quite a different approach than pretty much any edition since...  Which contradicts what you say above.  Balance *was* a design goal, as defined by how balance worked at EGG's table and-or the tables of others with whose games he had experience or knowledge.  And even if that balance was intended to be similar to RC's balance-in-play, it's still balance by design.Lanefan</blockquote>

Verification