CaptPike wrote: deaddmwalking wrote:I feel bad responding to two of your posts one after the other, but I feel this needs to be said.
You having data only helps if either you share it or I trust you to use it well and not have any reason to lie or mislead. Neither of those is the case here.
My having data only helps
whom if I share it or you trust me? If I claim to have data
and I refuse to share it, you might have a point. On the other hand, if the data
has been shared and you don't trust it, you should probably explain why. In good scientific fashion, the data has been made available for you to review. But let's talk about the larger point. You don't understand sampling. For all your claims to 'logic' you're being an idiot.
Since you brought this up before, imagine that I have a limited data set of temperatures in Texas from June to the end of November. Let's say further that over that time, the temperature dropped on average 1/4 of a degree per day. Over 180 days, the temperature has fallen 45 degrees. The data (while limited) is alarming. If this pace continues, we'll be dealing with a solidly frozen state before another six months passes.
The data
indicates the temperature is falling. If I understand the seasonality I can argue that the data doesn't show that the temperature will
reverse, but that it will. But what I can't do is claim that the data actually shows the temperature
was rising.
The data with 4e across the board indicates a failure. For myself, I don't care. It wouldn't matter to me if 4th edition were the most popular edition and everyone I knew played it or if (as it appears) it was one of the least popular editions and I know more people playing AD&D than 4th. I keep using the term 'failure' as if we agreed on what it means. You can't say I 'don't have data' for 4e's failure if you allow me to define failure the way I like.
4th edition is a
failure to me because it drove me from a regular purchaser of gaming books into a non-purchaser (ie, drove me from the market). I bought some Pathfinder immediately after the shift, but ultimately decided that it didn't do what I wanted. There are problems with 3.x - believe me, I KNOW the problems. I would have liked a 4th edition that actually addressed those problems, but that's not what we got. And Pathfinder didn't do it, either. So to me, both were a 'failure' because they failed to build on what 3x got right and address the things it got wrong.
CaptPike wrote:
If his reasons were good, I would have listened just like if some random
poster had responded with it.
You might have responded the same, but I seriously doubt you'd have listened.
CaptPike wrote:
I can understand why he said it, there ARE advantages to having overlap between classes but unless you make class features way more important then they were in 3e or 4e then powers are what defines classes so they need to be different (for the most most part) if you want classes to be different.
Interestingly, a large number of people
feel that the powers in 4e are 'too similar' between classes. Calling two powers that do the exact same thing different names doesn't
actually make them different. By your 'logic', 4e, even with different power lists, classes were not sufficiently differentiated because they largely had the same powers with different names. A rose by any other name...
CaptPike wrote:
when have I ever said that my feels should matter to you? I have said them because someone asked me or because I was needed an example.
Who asked you? I mean, seriously. You're a new poster here. Who summoned you and said they wanted your opinion?
I think it's fine that you came
uninvited. I did, too. The reason to have a forum like this is to discuss ideas and best practices - to expose yourself to other points of view and perhaps improve your own. To do this, you have to be willing to put out your viewpoint and
defend it. Your 'feelings', if they 'only matter to you' don't need to be shared. Your expressing them
implicitly claims value for them.
CaptPike wrote:
Will you stop lying about you knowing for sure, with no doubt that 4e failed? if you just said "I think 4e failed" I would not care, even if you said "4e failed (but I do not know for sure because large chunks of data are missing)" that would also be ok. But you all are claiming fasts you can not possbily have and are putting down something I love in the process for no reason.
And why should you care if I say 'I know 4e failed'? Does it cause you physical pain? I have 'reasons' for claiming to 'know'. You don't think my 'reasons' are sufficient to make the claim. But you are not the judge who gets to determine whether my ideas are sufficiently supported by data to make a claim. Nor are you the judge who gets to determine if I am right after I present that information to you. I don't care to convince you - I don't even care if 4e is a failure or not. If you think that I am spreading misinformation you could try to convince me that my data is unsound (preferably by providing contrary evidence) but you have refused to do that. Instead, you insist that unless you have 'perfect knowledge' you cannot make a claim. I 'know' that the war of 1812 ended in 1814, but I don't have 'perfect knowledge'. Do you know that there was a Japanese soldier that didn't surrender until 1974. Does that mean the war continued past 1945? Your claim that '4e was successful' is like claiming 'the war isn't over' in 1970 and that 'Japan could still win'.
Tellingly, whether 4e was or was not a success is simply a matter of historical curiosity - 4th edition has been relegated to the dustbin of history.
CaptPike wrote:
I know that but does that let them understand the words on the PHB better then me? does it let them see problems with it I do not see? if so why did they not spell them out?
I trust facts, I trust logic, I do NOT trust anyone who wants me to trust them for no reason other then what they do.
Can you imagine a reality in which some people understand something better than you? Can you imagine being blind to a problem? If not, there's no reason for anyone to trust anything you say. I'm not saying you shouldn't say
anything (but I can say the world would likely be a better place), but you have to accept that the same reasons other people might be wrong apply equally to you. If you want to challenge a consensus view, you need to be prepared for challenges. There are times when the majority
are wrong. But if you believe that to be the case, present
evidence. If your feeling is different, but every feeling is equally valid, why argue? Just because you feel demeaned if every statement is not prefaced with 'Based on the information I have at hand, my feeling is'. Can you even imagine that world?
Based on the information I have at hand, my feeling is that lunch would be a good idea. Based on the information I have at hand, my feeling is that Mexican food would be ideal. Based on the information I have at hand, my feeling is that we should avoid 'Dirty Sanchez's Mexican Restaurant'. Based on the information I have at hand, my feeling is that name may refer to a sexual act, which, based on the information I have at hand make me feel that we're likely to suffer an illness if we eat there.
I much prefer 'let's get Mexican but let's go to a place with an 'A' rating from the health inspector.
Maybe the health inspector has an agenda. I don't know him. But without evidence to the contrary, it is generally safe to believe the data you have. If you suspect it, you should generate your own data set for evaluation. So, feel free. Show us where 4e succeeded if it matters that much to you.
CaptPike wrote:
EDIT: my point was the who said the argument does not matter, that his logic was not enough and it does not matter who said it. If he had information I do not he should have said that.
People don't have to reveal all of the information they use to make a declaration. Nor do they have to assume what knowledge you have access to. If I say 'Iraq is located in the Middle East', I likely assume that you can easily verify that information. It doesn't matter if I'm a former Iraqi dictator living under an assumed name in Switzerland or if I'm a 2nd grade student at Washington Elementary with access to a globe. If you don't believe the claim, the facts may become relevant. There are all kinds of ways you can challenge an assertion.
You don't think that 'changing the powers' would have fixed 4th edition. I
agree. The reason I agree, though, is very different. 4e was a pile of fail so hard that
nothing could have fixed it. (Again, I may be willing to amend my statement if we agree of a definition of 'failure' - in this case, I have based it entirely on not having an out-of-combat action resolution system which seems a critical function for any role-playing game.