WotC is right to avoid the word "edition."


log in or register to remove this ad


Because that's how statistical sampling works.
no it isn't... again, if I take a poll of 5,000 people spread out over all 50 states (so 500 per state) with no more then 200 per mall... but my survey is outside of malls, and ask "Who do you think makes a better burger Mcdonalds, or Burger King" that would stand up to most review... it would not be perfect, you could argue the neighborhood of these malls, or the demographics (men/women race ect) but not that I sampled from everywhere...

now if I sample 5,000 people across 5 states all in big cities outside of Mcdonalds... even though it's still 5k people that is not even CLOSE to as accurate (although I bet BK still gets some small amount of votes)

OK, thst was the argument I was engaged in. "What flies in AL" is a weird subset of the game, not the official or normal way that itn is played.
except you included Cons, and homebrew store games and said that everyone that is in THOSE live environments are outliers without showing what makes them an outlier (Especially since you admitted to knowing groups that mix those that do and those that don't, so it should be easy to show what makes them different)

NOBODY gets to just wholesale exclude everyone at Cons, Stores, or AL games from all feed back... but you are trying to
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
no it isn't... again, if I take a poll of 5,000 people spread out over all 50 states (so 500 per state) with no more then 200 per mall... but my survey is outside of malls, and ask "Who do you think makes a better burger Mcdonalds, or Burger King" that would stand up to most review... it would not be perfect, you could argue the neighborhood of these malls, or the demographics (men/women race ect) but not that I sampled from everywhere...

now if I sample 5,000 people across 5 states all in big cities outside of Mcdonalds... even though it's still 5k people that is not even CLOSE to as accurate (although I bet BK still gets some small amount of votes)


except you included Cons, and homebrew store games and said that everyone that is in THOSE live environments are outliers without showing what makes them an outlier (Especially since you admitted to knowing groups that mix those that do and those that don't, so it should be easy to show what makes them different)

NOBODY gets to just wholesale exclude everyone at Cons, Stores, or AL games from all feed back... but you are trying to
Nobody is being "excluded," but most people who are playing are notnpkaying in those environments. That means they are exceprionw, not the rule.

It more like standing outside of McDonalds and king people coming outnifntheynprefer McDonalds or Burger King. A flawed sampbased on self-selection.
 

Nobody is being "excluded," but most people who are playing are notnpkaying in those environments.
please stop pretending I said things I didn't
I NEVER!!!!! said that most people are playing in that environment.

is there one of those fancy bad faith argument things when someone changes what is being argued so they can be said to be right about something?
That means they are exceprionw, not the rule.
no it doesn't... nothing about playing in AL (or Cons or Store games that you seem to have dropped so do those count now?) make you diffrent. ESPECIALLY when you yourself know that some groups people DO play in both.
It more like standing outside of McDonalds and king people coming outnifntheynprefer McDonalds or Burger King. A flawed sampbased on self-selection.
no it isn't... my analogy fits pretty well... AL is in every state, as far as I know every state has at least 1 gaming store as well (although I wont say I know that for sure)
 

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)
okay, but again, you can SHOW what the difference is. It isn't just "These people are abnormal cause I say so"
Nobody's saying "these people are abnormal". We're saying they may not be representative of the whole community and should not be considered representative of the whole community, at least not with great confidence.
if someone (anyone) can show a difference that we can test for (and plenty of us know both people that do and don't attend cons/organized play/store games) what we would expect to be different between the two, I will relent... but not "Trust me it's different"

and if you point out "Hey, most of those down votes are X Y Z people little to none of them are type A or type B or type C" then you have an argument... so far the argument is "I don't want to tell you the difference"

wait... no that's my argument, that HE is putting the burden of proof on the wrong side.

except that isn't what happened.. HE IS MAKING THE ASSERTION that they are not in fact representative... he is providing 0 evidence. just "Trust me they don't count"

why is that the presumption (other then cause you say so, or it would hurt your argument if that wasn't true)
Sample bias is a serious challenge in trying to make inferences about a broader population with high degrees of confidence. In the case of using the AL player population, there may be characteristics of that population distinct from the population you're excluding - the Non-AL players. They may be more inclined to play the game without a lot of house rules, with a broader mix of player types, in public spaces, with a full array of in-book options rather than curated subsets of the game, etc than the players who aren't participating in AL. And any of those could affect the results you'd see on a play test survey.

Think of the old, premature headline "Dewey Defeats Truman" in the 1948 election. The Chicago Tribune published that because it relied on a telephone survey to predict the results of the close election. But telephones in 1948 were still kind of a luxury and overrepresented people with wealth and stable addresses - people more likely to vote Republican than Democrat. Because that sample was biased, the Trib got the headline wrong, got egg on their face, and made for a fabulous photo op for Truman.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
please stop pretending I said things I didn't
I NEVER!!!!! said that most people are playing in that environment.

is there one of those fancy bad faith argument things when someone changes what is being argued so they can be said to be right about something?

no it doesn't... nothing about playing in AL (or Cons or Store games that you seem to have dropped so do those count now?) make you diffrent. ESPECIALLY when you yourself know that some groups people DO play in both.

no it isn't... my analogy fits pretty well... AL is in every state, as far as I know every state has at least 1 gaming store as well (although I wont say I know that for sure)
So what, McDonalds is in every state, too. But you aren't likely to find hardcore Burger King affficiandos exiting McDonalds for the survey. That's the point, the sampling size is skewed and more importantly we don't know how thst effects the results. That's why the assumption is thst it is not representative.
 

Nobody's saying "these people are abnormal". We're saying they may not be representative of the whole community and should not be considered representative of the whole community, at least not with great confidence.
here is what we have

a subset that pays for beyond (not the full amount cause again not incognizant number are just free trials)
a subset that plays in stores and cons
a subset that plays AL
a subset that answer surveys
a subset that post on here (or other social media)

and some of that is overlap (Me myself I am 4 of those 5)

and our own personal experience.

NOBODY, not even WotC has a perfect set of information... BUT they do have the people who pay for beyond, people who post on here/other social media, and those that play AL and the people who answer surveys... BUT they don't have some scientific study.

so discounting ANY of the samples for being not well rounded is to discount ALL of them... and then we are back to our own experience (that I am sure people will say doesn't count)
Sample bias is a serious challenge in trying to make inferences about a broader population with high degrees of confidence.
correct, but again, nobody here has BETTER information... so when you ask for 'high degrees of confidence' you are just saying "SHUT UP STOP TALKING" in a nicer way... we don't have ANY high degree of confidence in ANY of this.
In the case of using the AL player population, there may be characteristics of that population distinct from the population you're excluding - the Non-AL players.
okay so show that work... what is it?
They may be more inclined to play the game without a lot of house rules, with a broader mix of player types, in public spaces, with a full array of in-book options rather than curated subsets of the game, etc than the players who aren't participating in AL. And any of those could affect the results you'd see on a play test survey.
okay, and again this is disproved as soon as you say that they also play in home games...
Think of the old, premature headline "Dewey Defeats Truman" in the 1948 election.
so we are back to "nobody knows, so nobody can talk about it"
The Chicago Tribune published that because it relied on a telephone survey to predict the results of the close election.
intresting word there 'close race' there is a reason we have margins for error... but we have to stop this is 100% agains the rules to talk about
Republican than Democrat.
PLEASE do not use those words... they will get this thread closed
 

So what, McDonalds is in every state, too. But you aren't likely to find hardcore Burger King affficiandos exiting McDonalds for the survey. That's the point, the sampling size is skewed and more importantly we don't know how thst effects the results. That's why the assumption is thst it is not representative.
show me better results then. notice that you are again arguing that this is so biased... but you can't show HOW it is biased.
 



Parmandur

Book-Friend
except YOU are claiming they are biased without showing any reason to call them that
We know that it is a skewed sample, by definition. As @billd91 pointed out, that's the default assumption, particularly when talking about a fraction of a percent of the total population. But more importantly, we don't know how the sample skews!

But the main point is thatbAL rules are not a good measure of the game, because they are artifical and rigid by nature.
 

Iosue

Hero
except YOU are claiming they are biased without showing any reason to call them that
They are biased because they are biased. They have an inherent selection bias. You can get results from such a sample, but that usually involves various statistical analyses to demonstrate that any differences are unlikely to be result of random chance. And even then, any study that involved such a sample would still note that there was a selection bias when noting the limitations of the study.

But we're not even really talking about obtaining results from a study that uses AL as a sample, are we?
 


HammerMan

Legend
show me better results then. notice that you are again arguing that this is so biased... but you can't show HOW it is biased.
Yes, exactly! That's my point.
except YOU are claiming they are biased without showing any reason to call them that
We know that it is a skewed sample, by definition. As @billd91 pointed out, that's the default assumption, particularly when talking about a fraction of a percent of the total population. But more importantly, we don't know how the sample

Both of you are being the problem here, but I want to use this to show the bigger issue.
As a community we stink at talking to each other (as someone into comics and movies I will not say we are the only ones) and this is a great time when we should be acting better.

Don’t try to win arguments try to talk and this place (and others) will be better for it. I am about to get back to game 3 of a playtest with 2 teenage new players and I would be embarrassed to show them this is how we talk here.
 


Reynard

Legend
No it isn’t.
And you have been in enough threads where this has been argued.
And yet people can't ever seem to show what they want when they ask for a "complex martial" that isn't already provided by multiple 3PPs. At this point one can assume there is nothing that could possibly fill this "need."
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
And yet people can't ever seem to show what they want when they ask for a "complex martial" that isn't already provided by multiple 3PPs. At this point one can assume there is nothing that could possibly fill this "need."
The cynic in me says the call for a complex martial comes largely from those who would have their cake and eat it too; who want a character with all the capabilities of a full-on Fighter but which also has spells or other quasi-magical abilities baked in for those times when fighting isn't the best course of action. Think Gish, or Warlord, or Swordsage; that type of thing, only leaning a bit toward the warrior side.

In other words, a jack-of-all-trades character that is in fact a master-of-all-trades - the type of character that is the bane of party play as it has no real weaknesses for the rest of the party to shore up.

Because otherwise, there's really only so much complexity you can put into a hit-it-till-it-falls-over warrior archetype before you either make it not a warrior any more or you make it something better suited to a supers game.
 

Both of you are being the problem here, but I want to use this to show the bigger issue.
As a community we stink at talking to each other (as someone into comics and movies I will not say we are the only ones) and this is a great time when we should be acting better.

Don’t try to win arguments try to talk and this place (and others) will be better for it. I am about to get back to game 3 of a playtest with 2 teenage new players and I would be embarrassed to show them this is how we talk here.
we are all in edition war mode... I admit it, but lets be honest you are effected by it too
No it isn’t.
And you have been in enough threads where this has been argued.
but part of it is the fact that we only get responses to things that enrage (funny how close to engage that is).

if I post 3 threads and 2 are positive about things I love and 1 about the problem I have with martial characters the only one that will get traction will be the martial one... and even then half of it will be likre this
The cynic in me says the call for a complex martial comes largely from those who would have their cake and eat it too;
see only trying to pick at and try to fight about it.
who want a character with all the capabilities of a full-on Fighter but which also has spells or other quasi-magical abilities baked in for those times when fighting isn't the best course of action. Think Gish, or Warlord, or Swordsage; that type of thing, only leaning a bit toward the warrior side.
lol you mean a hexblade or a warrior cleric or bard, or the bladesinger.... you know the classes that are just that.
In other words, a jack-of-all-trades character that is in fact a master-of-all-trades
again you are mistaken for "we want things as good as what others have" for "give us everything" but I can see how it's hard to see when the casters are pretty close to having it all
Because otherwise, there's really only so much complexity you can put into a hit-it-till-it-falls-over warrior archetype before you either make it not a warrior any more or you make it something better suited to a supers game.
look to 4e to manage to not be a super game, not be a non warrior... but still have options and power.
 


The Weather Outside Is Frightful!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top