For the record, I have no intention of playing Pathfinder just because I love to use Pathfinder adventure modules ("use" as opposed to "play them as written" - they make for amazing resources, but as written are pretty awful railroads replete with NPCs who lead the PCs by the nose for 16 levels).

But the fact that Pathfinder adventure modules will convert to Pathfinder RPG will probably not hinder me from buying Paizo's adventure modules in the future (which is their core product really). That's because I think conversion work will be pretty slim, since I am confident there will be handy fan-made conversion files available on Paizo's website of the very variety that already enables you to play Pathfinder adventure modules using 4E. The number of skill challenges you find in the newest modules suggest that Paizo is certainly not beyond taking what they deem to be good in 4E and leaving the (to them) less useful stuff behind.

But that's just scene-setting for my main point.

What people seem to be forgetting here is that Pathfinder as a product line is in a enviable position which WotC is currently struggling to achieve. WotC sold its core books but apparently has a hard time to find enough buyers of its follow up product. They actually cut down on follow up product pretty steeply, if you look at the fact that the Forgotten Realms product line for 4E is completed already. With Pathfinder it's the opposite. They don't have to convince people to buy their follow up product - adventure modules and source books - because they already have an extant customer stock of people subscribed to them.

In short, Pathfinder will succeed because it's succeeding already. It need not yet establish a healthy product line since it has accomplished that already. With 4E we have yet to see if they can follow suit.   Not least, the criteria by which a product line is "healthy" are much steeper for Hasbro than they are for Paizo. And that may well be the core problem.

Quote from: StormBringer;279700Aside from your assertion, how are the people at ENWorld not a 'randomly selected, small percent of a population'?

They're not randomly selected because they self-selected: they chose to join a specific forum. That alone tells you a lot about them: they're people who own computers or have access to one, who have internet service or access to same, who chose to join a specific forum on the internet. Additionally, they self-select as answerers of the poll itself; anyone who chose not to answer is left out.

Quote from: StormBringer;279700Or because they happen to congregate at the same place?  The latter one will knock a whole lot of surveys out of the running.

Absolutely. You have to be incredibly dubious of any sort of survey that doesn't include rigorous statistical controls; polls on websites are pretty much the definition of not-rigorous.

The joke we used to tell is that you can't poll the drivers at a Alfa Romeo rally to see how reliable their cars are, because the ones with unreliable Alfas never got there in the first place. Selection bias, plain and simple.

Quote from: StormBringer;279700No, but 10mil is an easy number to throw percentages at.  You aren't really hinging an argument on my choice of population size, right?

No, I was basing it on statistics, and I seem to have won that battle.

Snark aside, generally when folks make arguments, they do so based on facts. Generally when they throw around numbers, they're using real-world numbers unless they specify otherwise. Maybe I missed you doing so, but I certainly considered you to be making an argument based on real-world numbers.

And, yes, it does matter whether it's one million or 10 million. That's a huge difference. Your argument is that some number of folks aren't making the switch to 4e. The magnitude of that number matters - if 1,000 people aren't making the switch, that's trivial; but if it's 10 million...

Quote from: StormBringer;279700Aside from your assertion, how are the people at ENWorld not a 'randomly selected, small percent of a population'?  

You have what's called a population in statistics. That represents the whole that the results are supposed to represent. Thus if we want a poll to be representative of all D&D players, the population of our survey would be all D&D players.

In order for the sample to be random and thus reflect with some degree of accuracy the population, every member of the population must be eligible to be drafted into the sample. In a poll about all D&D players, that means each and every D&D would have to have a random chance of being selected to participate in the poll.

In the case of the EnWorld poll, there's no chance that every D&D player could be selected to participate. Some are not online. Some are not on EnWorld. Some didn't see the poll. So the sample isn't random. Responses were only collected from people who a) were online, b) went to EnWorld, and c) saw and responded to the poll.

Because of that, the population for the poll isn't all D&D players, but rather just people who a) are online and b) visit to EnWorld.

Quote from: StormBringer;279700Or because they happen to congregate at the same place?  The latter one will knock a whole lot of surveys out of the running.

It's this. And it isn't so much that the surveys, polls, etc., are "wrong," but that they don't represent a greater whole.

Quote from: StormBringer;279700I would expect people to be much less discriminating about dropping $8 on the next paperback in a series than $18,000 for the same brand of car.  Yet, the opposite appears true.

If you weren't comparing apples and oranges, that might be the case.

Quote from: StormBringer;279700You are trying to make the point that people will get the next in a series almost reflexively, yet they appear far more discriminating about their entertainment dollar.

Not reflexively, just that data about an $18,000 purchase doesn't reflect how folks will spend $8. If we were talking about $10 versus $8 or even $18 versus $8, that'd be one thing.

Quote from: StormBringer;279700You are implying sales are through the roof because 4e is way better than the previous version...

No. I think sales are through the roof because people like it, not because they like it better than [blank].

Quote from: StormBringer;279700...while dredging up McDonald's as an example of repeat business.  I think you will find almost no one to vouch for the quality of McDonald's food.

First, a common sense litmus test tells us that someone, somewhere, will indeed tell us that McDonalds has quality food.

But we're talking about business. In business, quality doesn't mean "tastes good." Quality is the ability of a product to meet consumer needs. Whether or not food tastes good is entirely subjective.

In the business sense, yes, indeed, McDonalds has quality food. Consumers go to fast food restaurants to get food fast. That's what McDonald's delivers. True, they may not always be the best tasting burgers, but that's generally not the most important consideration for people going to a fast food restaurant...

Seanchai

Quote from: Windjammer;279859. With Pathfinder it's the opposite. They don't have to convince people to buy their follow up product - adventure modules and source books - because they already have an extant customer stock of people subscribed to them...

You mean like DDI? Because uhm.. 33 adventures and counting in DDI right now. New ones every month. $4.95

Yeah, I know, it's supposed to be all hip and smug to laugh about DDI, but there's some good stuff there. Menace of the Icy Spire alone was worth it. There's also an adventure path (Scales of War) but I haven't bothered looking at it.

QuoteIn short, Pathfinder will succeed because it's succeeding already. It need not yet establish a healthy product line since it has accomplished that already. With 4E we have yet to see if they can follow suit.  [/b] Not least, the criteria by which a product line is "healthy" are much steeper for Hasbro than they are for Paizo. And that may well be the core problem.

Pathfinder is not really growing from what I can tell. I predict that by 2011- it will eventually MAYBE reach the same level of support for Arcana Unearthed (the Monte Cook game), but it might be gone altogether, who knows? 4E is simply put, an easier, more appealing game than 3e, much easier to teach and more fun to play with new players. It's less configurable and versatile by far, I will grant that. But, eh. I don't care. I don't play D&D because I really want to play Spycraft. I play D&D.

I seriously doubt they even made enough money selling Pathfinder to pay off Wayne Reynolds for his artwork. His paintings are expensive!

I know it seems impossible to say this out loud right here at the RPGsite, but in the real world? People don't care that much about loyalty to the ideals of the 1970s, the D&D legacy, the lifestyle, the brown booklets, "how hit points used to work",  artwork nostalgia or whatever else.

People in general? They just want to play a game, and if it's a game with cute little miniatures and you run around battling monsters and building your character up with items.. and oh, you get *powers* too? They'll play.  

I suspect at least 50% of Pathfinders main supporters have no intention of ever buying anything for it. Ever. The loudest cheerleaders here, how many Pathfinder items have you bought? Where are your Pathfinder campaigns? It's a passing concern at best what happens in Pathfinder, except that these people (unfairly to Paizo, really) see it as their personal champion in battle against the hated WOTC.

The remaining 50% of Pathfinders supporters are certainly made up of people who are unwilling to convert to 4th edition, but I bet those guys will eventually figure out on their own that

1) declaring allegiance to Pathfinder in order to protest or "send a message" had no effect whatsoever. 4e still came out.
2) If they really like 3e, and this isn't some StormBringer-esque malevolent "how can I jump in to try and ruin it for the mainstream D&D-players" nonsense, then they don't really need to support a whole other company to keep playing 3rd edition. They could just.. keep playing what they were playing. I mean.. I don't care. Plenty of adventures and other material out there and the ability to "build your own" is one of D&D3's greatest strengths.

But if you want to get in on that weekly gamenight with 40 people in the room, you'll probably want to be playing D&D4. Because that's what the norms (the hated, reviled, "mere hobbyists", not the dedicated scions of gaming that you guys represent) will be doing. And having a great time. At the end of it, you will be like WalkerP, the unhappiest gamer in the world. "I try to find gaming in my area.. and all anyone ants to play is D&D!" God, how I used to chuckle at him.

Or how about this for a suggestion:

There's a living Pathfinder campaign called the Pathfinder Society. They will have events at Gencon.

There will be RPGA events at Gencon.

Please compare attendance and numbers. Decide who is doing better on your own...

Quote from: RPGPundit;279737Possibly, unless perhaps if you'd dedicated the last several years before that to defending D&D, D20 and WoTC and was known as one of the most (in?)famous defenders of the game against its detractors...

But, clearly, your dedication was utterly false and self-serving. You threw the company and the game over in a heartbeat because they released 4e earlier than they said they were going to. You clung to D&D because of philosophical reasons.

Quote from: RPGPundit;279737Except that its a process a lot more involved and honest than that.

How so? What makes it more "involved and honest" than collecting posts off a message board and then either choosing to listen or not?

Quote from: RPGPundit;279737Dude, the BETA version has been out for quite some time now, and is apparently one of the top five bestselling RPGs of the year... Paizo is already making a killing here...

First, you're a fucking hypocrite if you bring up sales as a measure of success, popularity, or, really, whatever...

Second, if you actually don't give a damn about being a hypocrite and press on with your argument, I'll do what you do when presented with sales figures, etc., about 4e: stick my fingers in my ears, hum real loud, and pretend.

Third, wait, you find IGN to be more credible than a national newspaper's bestsellers list?

Fourth, you are talking about IGN's list, right? I don't remember seeing anything in the article that suggested their list was based on sales. Does anyone have a link to the article so we can all read or re-read it?

Quote from: RPGPundit;279737Yes, that's quite a conundrum, but couldn't you really say that about any game company, about any game?

To a degree. But Paizo very publicly repudiated its former associates, took a different tack, and is now taking a gamble on what is basically a new consumer base for them.

Seanchai

In my opinion, both sides are full of fail and the only real winner in this is SenZar. Campaign, anyone?

Quote from: Seanchai;279874In the case of the EnWorld poll, there's no chance that every D&D player could be selected to participate. Some are not online. Some are not on EnWorld. Some didn't see the poll. So the sample isn't random. Responses were only collected from people who a) were online, b) went to EnWorld, and c) saw and responded to the poll.

There is no chance every McDonald's patron could be selected to participate either.  Some don't take their receipts.  Some don't have access to a phone/the internet.  Some don't see the survey offer.  Responses are collected from people who a) got their receipt, b) went to the webpage/called the number, c) were able to navigate the menus to take the poll.

You are listing vague technicalities that are already taken into account for any poll.  People who go to the mall are self-selected for taking surveys.  It's not compelling.

QuoteBecause of that, the population for the poll isn't all D&D players, but rather just people who a) are online and b) visit to EnWorld.

What you and Engine have (I can only assume purposefully) refused to address is how the people at ENWorld are some hive-mind, or don't represent a reasonable cross-section of the larger population.  

QuoteFirst, a common sense litmus test tells us that someone, somewhere, will indeed tell us that McDonalds has quality food.

Which is why I said 'almost no one'.

QuoteBut we're talking about business. In business, quality doesn't mean "tastes good." Quality is the ability of a product to meet consumer needs. Whether or not food tastes good is entirely subjective.

How the food tastes is certainly a measure of the quality, subjective or not.  Customer service is subjective as well, but the consumer is considered the final arbiter when it comes to rating that.  You are approaching this as though an entire survey would consist of the question "Do you like McDonald's?"  The quality of the food and the quality of the customer service are tracked separately.  It would be preposterous to think these two scores would be routinely combined for an overall rating.  They may be looked at as affecting each other, however.  With three broad categories of Restaurant, Service and Meal, certainly a low score on Restaurant (because the place was filthy) would tend to lower the score for Service or vice versa.  But simply adding them all together for a final number is useless.

So, if you are talking about McDonald's as a convenience, you are talking about a very different perspective than McDonald's as a fine eatery.

QuoteIn the business sense, yes, indeed, McDonalds has quality food.

No, McDonald's has quality service, for certain definitions of 'service'.  McDonald's has spend ungodly amounts of money to update their menus and continue to adapt to the pressures of the market.  As you mentioned yourself, people tend to weight convenience over taste, so keep going back to McDonald's.  That has nothing to do with the separate category of taste, in which McDonald's consistently scored lower than even other fast food places.  Hence, they started changing their menus and offerings to bring that score up.  Had they only looked at their 'service' rating, or a blind combination of the three categories, they would not have changed their menus.

All that aside, ENWorld does have a selection bias to it, but not the one you mention.  They have the most damning selection bias possible in this case:  they are, to a greater or lesser degree, very supportive fans of D&D.  Much like Engine's example of the Alfa Romero fans, if fewer than half of them were interested in the 2009 8c Spider, a reasonable person would suspect there is something to be concerned about.  And much like the Alfa Romero rally drivers, the people at ENWorld have been over every nuance of their system for eight years.  If anyone would know about a problem, it would be them.

The question isn't "Is the poll wholly compliant with statistical norms and survey standards?".  No one has said it is.  The argument then leads to this deficiency completely invalidating the results.  While they may not be as accurate as desired, they don't have to be.  It is close enough for government work.  It shows that among the hard-core loyal fans of D&D, there is much less support than would be expected.  Because they aren't all of the same mind.  Their attitudes regarding D&D or games in general would be sufficiently random to represent a reasonable cross-section of general gamers.  At least, general D&D gamers.

Further, self-selection is really a problem when you are determining causes of discrepencies.  No one is trying to point out the reasons, merely that in a simple poll, response is not as high as was expected.  And there are methods for filtering out self-selection bias, but again, those aren't necessary, as this poll is just a rough estimate.  I mean, you don't whip out the HP statistical calculator and start hammering in the RPN when you ask a few friends if they like a movie, right?

We don't need calculus to determine that the numbers are too low for a poll conducted on a site that is ostensibly for fans of the game.  If the numbers had come back closer to 75% in favour, I would be saying that seems right, and shows that hardcore D&D fans seem to approve of the new edition.  The important point here is:  that didn't happen.  The Alfa Romero drivers hopped in the new model, took it for a spin, and came back with a negative review.


Seanchai[/quote]

Quote from: Seanchai;279874In the case of the EnWorld poll, there's no chance that every D&D player could be selected to participate. Some are not online. Some are not on EnWorld. Some didn't see the poll. So the sample isn't random. Responses were only collected from people who a) were online, b) went to EnWorld, and c) saw and responded to the poll.

There is no chance every McDonald's patron could be selected to participate either.  Some don't take their receipts.  Some don't have access to a phone/the internet.  Some don't see the survey offer.  Responses are collected from people who a) got their receipt, b) went to the webpage/called the number, c) were able to navigate the menus to take the poll.

You are listing vague technicalities that are already taken into account for any poll.  People who go to the mall are self-selected for taking surveys.  It's not compelling.

QuoteBecause of that, the population for the poll isn't all D&D players, but rather just people who a) are online and b) visit to EnWorld.

What you and Engine have (I can only assume purposefully) refused to address is how the people at ENWorld are some hive-mind, or don't represent a reasonable cross-section of the larger population.  

QuoteFirst, a common sense litmus test tells us that someone, somewhere, will indeed tell us that McDonalds has quality food.

Which is why I said 'almost no one'.

QuoteBut we're talking about business. In business, quality doesn't mean "tastes good." Quality is the ability of a product to meet consumer needs. Whether or not food tastes good is entirely subjective.

How the food tastes is certainly a measure of the quality, subjective or not.  Customer service is subjective as well, but the consumer is considered the final arbiter when it comes to rating that.  You are approaching this as though an entire survey would consist of the question "Do you like McDonald's?"  The quality of the food and the quality of the customer service are tracked separately.  It would be preposterous to think these two scores would be routinely combined for an overall rating.  They may be looked at as affecting each other, however.  With three broad categories of Restaurant, Service and Meal, certainly a low score on Restaurant (because the place was filthy) would tend to lower the score for Service or vice versa.  But simply adding them all together for a final number is useless.

So, if you are talking about McDonald's as a convenience, you are talking about a very different perspective than McDonald's as a fine eatery.

QuoteIn the business sense, yes, indeed, McDonalds has quality food.

No, McDonald's has quality service, for certain definitions of 'service'.  McDonald's has spend ungodly amounts of money to update their menus and continue to adapt to the pressures of the market.  As you mentioned yourself, people tend to weight convenience over taste, so keep going back to McDonald's.  That has nothing to do with the separate category of taste, in which McDonald's consistently scored lower than even other fast food places.  Hence, they started changing their menus and offerings to bring that score up.  Had they only looked at their 'service' rating, or a blind combination of the three categories, they would not have changed their menus.

All that aside, ENWorld does have a selection bias to it, but not the one you mention.  They have the most damning selection bias possible in this case:  they are, to a greater or lesser degree, very supportive fans of D&D.  Much like Engine's example of the Alfa Romero fans, if fewer than half of them were interested in the 2009 8c Spider, a reasonable person would suspect there is something to be concerned about.  And much like the Alfa Romero rally drivers, the people at ENWorld have been over every nuance of their system for eight years.  If anyone would know about a problem, it would be them.

The question isn't "Is the poll wholly compliant with statistical norms and survey standards?".  No one has said it is.  The argument then leads to this deficiency completely invalidating the results.  While they may not be as accurate as desired, they don't have to be.  It is close enough for government work.  It shows that among the hard-core loyal fans of D&D, there is much less support than would be expected.  Because they aren't all of the same mind.  Their attitudes regarding D&D or games in general would be sufficiently random to represent a reasonable cross-section of general gamers.  At least, general D&D gamers.

Further, self-selection is really a problem when you are determining causes of discrepencies.  No one is trying to point out the reasons, merely that in a simple poll, response is not as high as was expected.  And there are methods for filtering out self-selection bias, but again, those aren't necessary, as this poll is just a rough estimate.  I mean, you don't whip out the HP statistical calculator and start hammering in the RPN when you ask a few friends if they like a movie, right?

We don't need calculus to determine that the numbers are too low for a poll conducted on a site that is ostensibly for fans of the game.  If the numbers had come back closer to 75% in favour, I would be saying that seems right, and shows that hardcore D&D fans seem to approve of the new edition.  The important point here is:  that didn't happen.  The Alfa Romero drivers hopped in the new model, took it for a spin, and came back with a negative review.

Quote from: Seanchai;279881But, clearly, your dedication was utterly false and self-serving. You threw the company and the game over in a heartbeat because they released 4e earlier than they said they were going to. You clung to D&D because of philosophical reasons.

Not true. I didn't like everything about 3e, but I had respect for Wizards as a company, the process that created 3e, the people involved, and especially with the concept of the OGL and D20 as a system, which I adored (and still do adore).

QuoteHow so? What makes it more "involved and honest" than collecting posts off a message board and then either choosing to listen or not?

Ok, I see. You're pretending that they're throwing darts to determine what advice they'll listen to and which they won't, rather than the actual process of feedback that is going on. Gotcha.

QuoteFirst, you're a fucking hypocrite if you bring up sales as a measure of success, popularity, or, really, whatever...

Really? Hypocrite? You sure that's the word you're looking for here? Because I've always been a pretty big advocate of financial success as a measure of game-success.

QuoteSecond, if you actually don't give a damn about being a hypocrite and press on with your argument, I'll do what you do when presented with sales figures, etc., about 4e: stick my fingers in my ears, hum real loud, and pretend.

That tactic seems to work well for you, but its not what I was up to; I'm not pretending that 4e hasn't sold a lot of books, way more books in terms of sheer quantity than Pathfinder or any other RPG this year.  
The difference is that that sales does not equal financial success in and of itself. The measure of "financial success" is based on sales as compared to the investment put into the project and the company's expectations of sales results. THAT is what I'm doubting strongly as far as Wizards' hopes for 4e.

QuoteTo a degree. But Paizo very publicly repudiated its former associates, took a different tack, and is now taking a gamble on what is basically a new consumer base for them.

Yes, that's fair enough. And you have a point that were Pathfinder to be a financial failure for them, they'd be fucked, badly. But again, ANY company making the level of commitment to a product line on the same level as what Paizo is doing with Pathfinder would be pretty fucked if they failed, so while your point is technically correct, its not really relevant to the question of 4e.

RPGPundit

Quote from: StormBringer;279900What you and Engine have (I can only assume purposefully) refused to address is how the people at ENWorld are some hive-mind, or don't represent a reasonable cross-section of the larger population.

Please re-read my last few posts, then, which have been exclusively addressing how ENWorld cannot be assured of being a reasonable cross-section of the larger population.

Quote from: StormBringer;279900All that aside, ENWorld does have a selection bias to it, but not the one you mention.  They have the most damning selection bias possible in this case:  they are, to a greater or lesser degree, very supportive fans of D&D.

That would be another selection bias, yes. However, you're discounting all the other self-selection biases, without providing any reason for doing so.

Quote from: StormBringer;279900Much like Engine's example of the Alfa Romero...

Romeo.

Quote from: StormBringer;279900The question isn't "Is the poll wholly compliant with statistical norms and survey standards?".

Yes, that's exactly the question.

Quote from: StormBringer;279900We don't need calculus to determine that the numbers are too low for a poll conducted on a site that is ostensibly for fans of the game.

You understand that the sort of Alfa drivers who go to Alfa rallys aren't representative of Alfa drivers as a whole, right? They're the most dedicated fans, a group of people who have made this make of car important in their lives. Now, if you take a group of them out in a Brera, they're likely to say things like, "It's okay as a car, but it's just not an Alfa," or, "What's with all the weight? This car is no fun to drive at all." But if you take the whole Alfa driving population and survey them, they're likely to say the Brera is a beautiful car which drives and feels excellent.

The enthusiast is not representative of the entire buying populace. Surveying only enthusiasts will not produce results relevant to the entire buying populace. Surveying only enthusiasts from one particular group will not produce results relevant to the entire buying populace. Allowing enthusiasts to opt-in to a voluntary poll will not produce results relevant to the entire buying populace.

Could the results of this poll match those of the general population? Absolutely. But there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that. In the absence of such evidence, making the assumption that the results match is logically untenable.

Quote from: Engine;279967Yes, that's exactly the question.

Again, that is the question you want to address, because it is the only winning strategy.  It completely misses the point that a group of people who are hardcore fans are not flocking to the latest iteration.

QuoteYou understand that the sort of Alfa drivers who go to Alfa rallys aren't representative of Alfa drivers as a whole, right? They're the most dedicated fans, a group of people who have made this make of car important in their lives. Now, if you take a group of them out in a Brera, they're likely to say things like, "It's okay as a car, but it's just not an Alfa," or, "What's with all the weight? This car is no fun to drive at all." But if you take the whole Alfa driving population and survey them, they're likely to say the Brera is a beautiful car which drives and feels excellent.

Which is nice and all, but I wouldn't use that to gauge long term success.  Three laps out on the track might feel like the best car ever, but after a couple of months, they start to notice all that extra weight makes it less agile under road conditions.  The brakes aren't as tight as the last model, and getting them adjusted is a nightmare.  Any one of a dozen problems that don't get noticed immediately.  Problems that hardcore fans may have pointed out months earlier.

But again, this all beside the point.  No one is making the argument that this poll is rigorous enough to pass as a valid survey.  The real point that these smoke and mirrors is trying to obscure is that the people most likely to embrace a new edition are lukewarm about it.  Is that the whole argument?  Of course not, but it is an indicator.  You have the people who are most likely to champion a new edition, and most vocal about doing so, staying away in droves.  Perhaps not droves, but it's 50/50.  While the poll won't pass muster for accuracy or validity, the argument that it is wholly irrelevant is false.  If someone pointed to it and tried to extrapolate causes, self-selection bias would be a stronger argument.  As it stands, you would have to invalidate any customer service poll on those same grounds, so I am not finding that a strong counter point.

Because, that is what we are really talking about here.  A customer satisfaction survey.  Therefore, the argument really isn't how valid it is as a poll.  No one is claiming the end of RPGs because of these results.  No one is holding up the results and crowing "This!  This proves 4e is made of fail!!".  What people are asking is:  if 4e has a less than stellar reception at ENWorld, what does that say about long term viability?  If ENWorld isn't out there promoting the game online and off, can WotC pick up the slack?  There are all kinds of questions this points to and indicates a possible answer to.

(Personally, I think ENWorld has a reasonable cross-section of gamers that reflect the general population, but that is just an intuition from reading posts over there.  In other words, the odds of running into - or general ratio of -  'gamer type x' would be roughly equivalent between ENWorld and the general population.  In that light, it should be troubling that the numbers are so low.)

Quote from: StormBringer;279993Again, that is the question you want to address, because it is the only winning strategy.

Uh, I don't really care to "win," and I'm not utilizing a "strategy" to do so. I'm attempting to explain why this web poll cannot be assumed to be an accurate reflection of the full sales base of the product. I've no stake in the product, the argument, or much of anything else. I just like to caution people who are drawing unsupported conclusions from minimal information.

Quote from: StormBringer;279993No one is making the argument that this poll is rigorous enough to pass as a valid survey.

Any conclusion drawn from these results is simply logically untenable, unless the conclusion is, "X percent of the users who chose to reply to this poll on this site feel this way," and even that's subject to serious question.

Quote from: StormBringer;279993While the poll won't pass muster for accuracy or validity, the argument that it is wholly irrelevant is false.

Well, let's put it this way: in my opinion, any argument supported by facts which cannot "pass muster for accuracy or validity" is not provably accurate or valid.

Again, I'm in no way saying you are incorrect; what I'm saying is that this poll cannot usefully prove general trends. If you want to prove general trends, use something besides the poll, as indeed you've been doing.

Quote from: RPGPundit;279908Not true. I didn't like everything about 3e, but I had respect for Wizards as a company, the process that created 3e, the people involved, and especially with the concept of the OGL and D20 as a system, which I adored (and still do adore).

Because the company, the process, people, and core concept supported your views and your war against the Swine.

Quote from: RPGPundit;279908You're pretending that they're throwing darts to determine what advice they'll listen to and which they won't, rather than the actual process of feedback that is going on. Gotcha.

I don't have to pretend. There's a lot of advice on their and some of its contradictory. They can't possibly take all of it. And we know they haven't - because their boards and other boards are full of folks who say, "Pathfinder hasn't fixed what was wrong with 3.5. Instead, they beefed up the [blank] class, making the situation worse..."

Quote from: RPGPundit;279908Because I've always been a pretty big advocate of financial success as a measure of game-success.

Except when it comes to 4e...

Quote from: RPGPundit;279908The difference is that that sales does not equal financial success in and of itself. The measure of "financial success" is based on sales as compared to the investment put into the project and the company's expectations of sales results. THAT is what I'm doubting strongly as far as Wizards' hopes for 4e.

Uh-huh. Because Wizards has said a) that they sold over a year's worth of 4e in the first month of its release and b) that it wildly exceed their expectations. You know this. And so you've been talking for months now about how 4e is a success.

Quote from: RPGPundit;279908But again, ANY company making the level of commitment to a product line on the same level as what Paizo is doing with Pathfinder would be pretty fucked if they failed...

"Yes, that's quite a conundrum, but couldn't you really say that about any game company, about any game?"

Look at the goal posts shift. First it was "any company" and now it's "ANY company making the level of commitment to a product line on the same level as what Paizo is doing..."

As I said and as we both recognize but you won't admit, other RPG companies aren't making that sort of commitment. Can you even think of another one that has? Again, Paizo very publicly repudiated its former associates, took a different tack, and is now taking a gamble on what is basically a new consumer base for them.

Also, did you ever find that IGN list? That was your basis for saying Pathfinder had sold well, right?

Seanchai

Quote from: StormBringer;279900You are listing vague technicalities that are already taken into account for any poll.

No, actually, they're not. Consider, for example, the information I posted from Gallup about how they conduct their polls.

Quote from: StormBringer;279900What you and Engine have (I can only assume purposefully) refused to address is how the people at ENWorld are some hive-mind, or don't represent a reasonable cross-section of the larger population.

Yes, we have. We've posted information about the methods needed for the math in surveys and polls to represent a reasonable cross-section of the larger population. It's not esoteric math or methodology either - anyone with a statistics textbook or the ability to use Google could find the same information. That's just how statistics, random sampling, etc., work.  

Quote from: StormBringer;279900The question isn't "Is the poll wholly compliant with statistical norms and survey standards?".  No one has said it is.

No, but you and others have repeatedly said that the EnWorld poll is representative. It's not. It can't be as it didn't use a random sample.

Quote from: StormBringer;279900It shows that among the hard-core loyal fans of D&D, there is much less support than would be expected.

No, it shows among the hard-core loyal fans of D&D on EnWorld that support for 4e is less than expected (although I don't know whom is doing the expecting and how it's accomplished).

Again, if you want the EnWorld poll to demonstrate anything about the attitudes of the hard-core loyal fans of D&D, then it needs to follow the proper methodology.  

Quote from: StormBringer;279900Their attitudes regarding D&D or games in general would be sufficiently random to represent a reasonable cross-section of general gamers.

Except it's not. Statistically speaking, the poll doesn't mean a thing about any larger population. You brought up Gallup Polls as supporting evidence for your views. I posted information directly from Gallup about how you're wrong. This isn't my opinion. This isn't something I'm creating on the fly. This is how statistics works.

Seanchai

I got into fantasy roleplaying through Dungeons and Dragons 3rd Edition. For better or worse, to me D&D and the 3rd edition system are one in the same. After getting into a variety of different systems for different genres ( Chaosiums BRP, Kult's system, Storyteller 1 & 2, Palladium Megaversal system, to name but a few) I'm convinced that 3.5 fantasy is pretty much the best RPG system for fast paced tactical combat in close quarters. D&D 3.X offers players and DM's a lot of options when it comes combat. Miniatures may or may not be implemented. If they are, the  group can include as much detail as they ever want. Players are given to chance to participate in any capacity their players can. The level system is a perfect gauge for a player's prowess. The game rewards character growth through physical activity, but it also lets the DM put in effect other goal based systems. D&D makes dungeoncrawling fun and challenging by giving the players many options they can use if they are mindful of their characters strengths and limitations.
That piece-of-shit,World of Warcraft-wannabe 4th Edition dumbs down the game to the point of being condescending. It is a very stupid game that requires you to buy shitty plastic miniatures and cardboard dungeon pieces. 3rd Edition gave allowed you decide what is good for your game and what isn't.
Pathfinder is the cleanest iteration of the 3.0 version of the D20 System.  If you already own the 3.5 books then you may argue that buying the book is redundant. I lost all my 3.X books so I can't wait till Pathfinder comes out this summer.
Paizo is an amazing company who is being smart by going into the D20 market that Wizards of the Coast tried to destroy for no apparent reason. They definitely deserve my business.