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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 8239989" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Aldarc is correct here.You entirely changed the framework of the theoretical longitudinal study I was proposing...and you weren't changing it for the better.The study proposes two populations:* Homo sapiens circa about 100 k years ago till today (by this point we were effectively passing down martial arts/craft/artisanship through generations).* TTRPGing players circa mid 70s till today.Then,1) Examine what % of functional (not tails of the distribution...just part of the normal distribution) martial artists (anything physical including sport), craftfolks, AND (not OR...AND) artisans emerged perpetually from the populace and how (it emerged exactly as I proposed it emerged above).  This is because (a) they're kindred in their nature and (b) kindred in the means by which they were passed down.2) Do the same thing with GMs (and don't break it down into GMs by game or by playstyle...ALL OF THEM).Its straight-forward.  (1) has an enormous % of functional martial artists, craftfolks, and artisans across Homo sapien history.  (2) has an extremely low % of functional GMs across TTRPGing history.  The way (1) achieved their prolific production is entirely different than the way (2) failed to achieve prolific production.Perhaps (2) could use more of the approach of (1) to increase their production of functional GMs as a % of population.[HR][/HR]Now if you change the longitudinal study, you'll be looking at and answering something different.  Specific subgroups such as Cobblers vs Story Now GMs for 4e is something else entirely.  If you change it from the normal distribution to studying one of the tails (are we more apt to get freakishly good Cobblers or freakishly good Story Now GMs for 4e) is, again, something else entirely.But...why would you do that?</blockquote>

Verification