Quote from: Mistwell;1110440Dude, they really, REALLY don't. In no sense are you anywhere close to accurate on this. Not even kinda. This is an island of just you. Pretty sure almost everyone (you might say an overwhelming majority, even) comprehend that majority means more than 50%. It's a concept taught in math and civics and history and the sciences. You're going to be hard pressed to find any field which uses it the way you're trying to use it.

I see you conspicuously did not mention the business world. It amuses me greatly that most people understood me while the same nattering nabobs of negativity insist that they do not understand.

Quote from: jeff37923;1110450I see you conspicuously did not mention the business world. It amuses me greatly that most people understood me while the same nattering nabobs of negativity insist that they do not understand.

You...realize my entire career is running a small business, right? And I am a corporate attorney. Who writes contracts. About stocks, and the board, and voting rights. Which includes clauses like "majority". Which always - ALWAYS - mean more than 50%.

I think you got "plurality" confused with "majority" and decided to dig in rather than admit it, even though you realized that mistake a while ago.

It's weird.

The textbook business school (Harvard, etc.) definition of a majority shareholder is any single entity (including conglomerates, equity firms, investment groups, etc.) that owns 50.1% of outstanding stocks. Anything less than that is a minority shareholder.

A controller (or controlling interest) may be a minority shareholder if they own golden stocks (stocks with elevated voting rights) or have the cooperation of other minority shareholders to achieve a majority. This is considered hostile behavior (legally speaking of course) and the legality of such behavior varies by state.

But by any legal definition, a majority shareholder owns at least 50% of outstanding stocks plus one.

https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2018/04/26/controlling-shareholder-transactions/

"Key Principles Relating to Controller Status
The general principles that have been established by the Delaware courts relating to control are as follows:

A majority stockholder generally is a controller. A more than 50% stockholder almost always will be deemed to be a controller--absent circumstances, such as contractual or other restrictions on the voting of its shares, which indicate that the stockholder does not have the ability to appoint, elect or remove a majority of directors or to block or bring about action by the board. Of course, as discussed, a controller may seek to "disable" its control with respect to any given transaction (for example, by being separated from the board's consideration of the transaction and agreeing to fully support any alternative transaction approved by the board or subjecting the transaction to a fully informed and uncoerced vote of the unaffiliated stockholders).

A minority stockholder generally is not a controller. There has been a high bar to establishing that a less-than-50% stockholder is a controller. The most critical part of the inquiry is whether the person (or group) has "actual control" over the board (rather than solely operational or managerial control). In other words, whether through equity ownership, contract or other rights, personality or status (for example, as a founder), and/or as a practical matter for any reason, can the person appoint, elect or remove a majority of the directors, block or bring about action by the board, or have a dominating influence over the board's decision-making? Generally, to be deemed a controller with respect to a given board decision, (a) the person must have, directly or indirectly, actually exercised control with respect to the specific decision (i.e., the person dominated the directors in the board room) or (b) the person must generally exercise control over a majority of the board (i.e., the person's control "looms over" the board)."

Quote from: Alex K;1110158Why are millennial players ONLY interested in 5e?

I don't know, why are boomers assholes who want to bitch about every other generation, when theirs is complete trash?

Do you see what I did there?

Quote from: GnomeWorks;1110457I don't know, why are boomers assholes who want to bitch about every other generation, when theirs is complete trash?

Do you see what I did there?

Oooooooooooooooooooooooooh.... I see what you did there! It's also mostly true. Those crotchety old fucks needs to settle the fuck down.

In related news...

I'm having a SHIT time recruiting for any game. I have no idea how I'm going to make this shit happen but I'm not giving up. Probably move back to HERO so I can test out my first offering. Maybe I'll entice people with free books, swag or donuts. I thought it was system, but not getting any interest in SWADE either. Maybe because I'm running on SAT? I have a M-F 11 - 9pm job. I can't run on weekdays. Why can't these fucking kids just do what I tell them to?!?!!!!??!

Quote from: Razor 007;1110385Only if you want to play the first 5 levels and stop.  Which is a cool way to play; but not the only way.

5-6 levels from SS/EK then print and staple the Basic Rules is a good way to go IMO - you get a nice complete 1-20 game which can be expanded with hardbacks etc if funds allow, and is even fully compatible with the WoTC campaign adventures.

I printed and bound a copy of the 180 page 5e Basic Rules pdf and it is a great game in its own right, with a bit of a neo-OSR feel.

Quote from: Cloyer Bulse;11104085e is not written for hardcore gamers, it's written at a very low level for maximum public accessibility and saturation, which is the main reason I could never get into it.

Well I think anyone who knows me would say I'm a hardcore gamer; not all hardcore gamers like maximum rules crunch. Heck most of us played 1e AD&D back in the day ignoring half the 'rules'.

It's not new. Back in the TSR days, there were the "we only play AD&D" people and the "hey, what are we playing this week?" people. For every 5 gamers, I assume 1 will play something not-D&D.

And that's fine because that 1 player is almost always the best of the 5 and who you'd want at your table.

D&D is a hobby onto itself. Other RPGs can be considered a sub-hobby or hobby-adjacent.

Quote from: jeff37923;1110434I bought the Essentials Kit and much of the writing is just plain bad, like the staff decided that since they are already on top that they do not have to even try anymore. Thing is that with a lot of the newer players, since they do not have a lot of experience with RPGs in general or even a variety of different RPGs in particular, they do not even know that they are not getting their money's worth with writing that poor.

I think they're getting their $20 worth. I'd say 5e writing (including EK) is generally plain dull, rather than 'bad' per se. The adventures also tend to be dull in presentation. This drives me to go buy Venger Satanis madness just to feel alive.

Quote from: S'mon;1110474This drives me to go buy Venger Satanis madness just to feel alive.

Venger's new setting Cha'alt is very cool.

Quote from: Mistwell;1110451You...realize my entire career is running a small business, right? And I am a corporate attorney. Who writes contracts. About stocks, and the board, and voting rights. Which includes clauses like "majority". Which always - ALWAYS - mean more than 50%.

I didn't know that you were until you just told us.

This explains why you are so butthurt over my colloquial use of the word.

Quote from: Mistwell;1110451I think you got "plurality" confused with "majority" and decided to dig in rather than admit it, even though you realized that mistake a while ago.

Maybe, but I'm not a lawyer. Most of the people reading this are not lawyers and I wanted to communicate to that MAJORITY of people. So I used language that would be understood by people who were not "corporate attorneys".

Quote from: Mistwell;1110451It's weird.

No, it is hysterical! You are losing your shit over a word that has a specific definition in your profession! I'm very amused!

Quote from: S'mon;1110474I think they're getting their $20 worth. I'd say 5e writing (including EK) is generally plain dull, rather than 'bad' per se. The adventures also tend to be dull in presentation. This drives me to go buy Venger Satanis madness just to feel alive.

The rulebook is pretty good, it is the adventures that poorly written IMHO. If they just kept that rulebook and added on a selection of monsters for those levels, a section on treasure/magic items, and a quick how-to on adventure creation it would rival B/X D&D.

5E is the easiest edition to find and run and play at the moment. Given how the younger generation is more used to using the Internet and Social media when doing their research.  While too many of the older players and DMs in the hobby at least from what I can see are VERY unwelcoming and just can't help drawing lines in the sand, and engaging in edition warring and coming of as uncompromising Grognards who hate change. Well it's not too hard to see why they play 5E imo. If it's not calling out the younger generations dislike for older editions "what's wrong buttercup can't handle Thaco" to those like Pundit shitting on players running any non-standard core race. To complaining about using tablets and apps at the gaming table. To just being very unwelcoming of the younger generation. Not all yet way too many who forget they uses to be in the place of the millennials entering the hobby. Players and DMs must play and run their way and only their way or it's the shits.

No surprise why they prefer 5E.

Quote from: jeff37923;1110450I see you conspicuously did not mention the business world. It amuses me greatly that most people understood me while the same nattering nabobs of negativity insist that they do not understand.

Quote from: jeff37923;1110477I didn't know that you were until you just told us.

This explains why you are so butthurt over my colloquial use of the word.



Maybe, but I'm not a lawyer. Most of the people reading this are not lawyers and I wanted to communicate to that MAJORITY of people. So I used language that would be understood by people who were not "corporate attorneys".



No, it is hysterical! You are losing your shit over a word that has a specific definition in your profession! I'm very amused!

No, "Most People", some might even say the MAJORITY, REALLY did not understand you.  Note the replies you got.

Quote from: jhkim;1110019This is a tangent - but can you unpack your answer here, jeff37923? Offhand, I would say that less than 50% is a minority share. What defines a minority vs a majority share to you?

Quote from: jhkim;1110046I would call 51% or more a majority, and 49% and less a minority. There might be some other terms for this, but I don't think my nomenclature is crazy or anything.

Quote from: Mistwell;1110095Um, no? Because, by definition, another voting block exceeds 50% or else sufficient numbers are voting with you to exceed 50%. There is no scenario where your statement can be correct, unless a meaningful block is not voting at all.

And rest assured they spoke for others.  I also had absolutely no clue what you were prattering on about or what you thought you were demonstrating with your posts, which were objectively wrong.  You clearly got plurality confused with majority, which is fine, but my god, you have kept digging relentlessly since finding yourself in that hole.  Note that literally NO ONE had your back or said 'oh yeah my conception of a majority is the same'.  

Sorry but the "appealing to the imagined majority", taking the presumption that your viewpoint is the majority one as a means of bolstering its supposed merit, especially when you have no evidence to support such a position, is one of my biggest pet peeves.  Combine that with the fact that you were so wildly and demonstrably wrong in this, and I was a little irked.  I don't mean to offend, but dude, you should have quit while you were ahead, or way less behind than you are now.

Quote from: sureshot;11104865E is the easiest edition to find and run and play at the moment. Given how the younger generation is more used to using the Internet and Social media when doing their research.  While too many of the older players and DMs in the hobby at least from what I can see are VERY unwelcoming and just can't help drawing lines in the sand, and engaging in edition warring and coming of as uncompromising Grognards who hate change. Well it's not too hard to see why they play 5E imo. If it's not calling out the younger generations dislike for older editions "what's wrong buttercup can't handle Thaco" to those like Pundit shitting on players running any non-standard core race. To complaining about using tablets and apps at the gaming table. To just being very unwelcoming of the younger generation. Not all yet way too many who forget they uses to be in the place of the millennials entering the hobby. Players and DMs must play and run their way and only their way or it's the shits.

No surprise why they prefer 5E.

I think it has much more to do with people their own age always trying to get people to play PbtA or some other shit.

By the time they get to you, they are real tired of trying not D&D games.