Is the D&D brand name really that important?

[fuzzlewump]

Also, keep in mind not all of us have established groups. Dnd is the lowest common denominator in my experience in getting new groups together. Then that group can move on to other things, but you can bet only 1 person in the group has played before whatever game we will play next, so everyone will have to learn it unlike Dnd.

 

[Izumi]

People like to belong to things, esp successful things.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

The D&D name matters, but less today than it did four years ago. It's recognized, but it has a lot of baggage that comes with it.

Pathfinder isn't as big a brand, but Paizo has handled the brand so well that it's begun to matter. Moreover, it doesn't have the baggage attached. Plus, it's a pretty good name.

If 5E fails in it's goals, then I think Pathfinder stands a chance to become the top brand in the industry.

For Hasbro, D&D needs to be the top brand. For that to happen, Fifth Edition needs to bring former D&D fans back into it's fold. It needs that brand loyalty that it lost during the Edition Wars.

This requires a unifying and inclusive system that people really like, strong support, and quality products.

 

[foolish_mortals]

It's becoming this odd thing to me and doesn't carry the power it once had. I can read threads here where people use 4th ed terminology and it seems so alien to me. The 4e concepts are putting some kind of barrier up between me and players of a certain edition. I didn't have that experience when they moved from 2nd to 3rd. Some of the things I've heard about 5th makes me wonder if its really going to change that experience. Am I going to see comments by 5th players that seem like dnd to me then turn around with some completely alien concept and come across as a GURP player? To unite we can't keep layering on new concepts that divide everyone.

foolish_mortals

 

[Anselyn]

Pathfinder isn't as big a brand, but Paizo has handled the brand so well that it's begun to matter. Moreover, it doesn't have the baggage attached. Plus, it's a pretty good name.

But - how much of the edition wars is because the Pathfinder players aren't sitting thinking: Hey, I'm playing Pathfinder. It's a good game, where one can imagine other players thinking that about Call of Cthulhu or Traveller.

Instead they might be thinking or feeling : Hey, I'm playing Pathfinder. It's the thing that D&D should be/ should have been/would be if right-thinking D&Ders got their way.

That's were wishful brand loyalty crept in and the resentment.

P.S Apologies to Pathfinder players who don't feel this. Free feel free NOT to tell me that your the exception that proves the rule. Feel free to consider why we seem to have escaped the equivalent of an edition war on say GURPS vs Hero.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

The name matters insofar as it has brand recognition, but brand loyalty...I dunno. I certainly don't have any, and frankly, I worry about anyone who uses "heart of hearts" type language to describe their feelings about a game.

I guess that's why I'm not a sports fan, or a McDonald's customer. (MD loyalists especially worry me; fast food used to be cheap, tasty and fast. Now all it's got left is 'fast' and 'causes cardiac arrest.' Why are you still eating there?!)

 

[billd91]

In some ways it is important, in other ways it isn't. It's certainly important to WotC because it means sales. It means penetration of the public mind to an extent no other pen and paper RPG has achieved.

For us gamers, many of whom play a variety of games and are always looking for new ones to try, it doesn't mean quite as much. In fact, our favorite games may have a lot less market share and be a lot less well known.

Nevertheless, D&D, because of its position for so long as market leader and because of how widely known it is, is the closest thing to a real shared experience we gamers have. Most of us have played it. If we move to a new town and have a hankering to start up a gaming group, it will probably be the one with the largest pool of ready players. If you go to a random convention with RPG events, will there be a D&D event? More likely than not and more likely than pretty much any other game.

And it feels kind of cool to be a part of a group that large. You may fight tooth and nail online over things like game design, you may not get along personally, yet you're still part of the same specialized group. You're one of the initiated. You see a guy with a PH tucked under his arm at the university, you may be able to strike up a conversation. Or maybe it's just a knowing nod to acknowledge that you're both part of the same fandom. The better known or the stronger the brand, the more you can do this sort of thing and have that feeling. And if you're young, feeling alienated from the dominant jock mouth-breathers in your school, knowing there are other people out there with similar interests - hell, a large group out there with at least one shared passion - that's valuable.

 

[Jawsh]

and frankly, I worry about anyone who uses "heart of hearts" type language to describe their feelings about a game.

Me too. I guess it should not be surprising that the people who end up working at WotC are people who talk that way about D&D. Suck-ups.

 

[hanez]

Instead they might be thinking or feeling : Hey, I'm playing Pathfinder. It's the thing that D&D should be/ should have been/would be if right-thinking D&Ders got their way.

Thats probably EXACTLY what it started out as.

We had just finished our Age of worms Adventure path, that I was runing with my dungeon magazine subscription. My players thought I was a monumental genius for that campaign (lil did they know I ran it mostly as is).

Then a new edition came out and my reaction was... AWESOME!!!! I loved 3rd more then 2nd, of COURSE I'm going to love 4th more then 3rd! K, Players sell all your books we are moving!

Then they cut paizo from D&D... Ok.. Odd thing to do just when Paizo is making epic adventures, but thats fine, Ill get DDI, I even bought a LCD projector to get all digital with the tabletop!

Then we played for a year, with WOTCs adventure path. And the paths sucked, big time. And the classes ohhhhh the classes, you know what they were ok, but they all felt the same, and they didnt feel like their D&D counterparts. No matter what you say about the 2e/3e transition, a 2e fighter felt like a 3e fighter. This was no longer true in 4e.

So they fractured expectations, they damaged there brand, not because 4e was bad, but because it was sooo different and brands need more consistency than that.

Because of that incosistency, I have no idea what to expect from 5e, are all classes going to have the same amount of at wills, encounters and dailies? Seems like a lot of people are expecting that, while I'm expecting a fixed, more balanced, elegant, and customizable version of 3e or 2e.

Well have to wait and see, until then Ill be playing pathfinder

 

[billd91]

P.S Apologies to Pathfinder players who don't feel this. Free feel free NOT to tell me that your the exception that proves the rule. Feel free to consider why we seem to have escaped the equivalent of an edition war on say GURPS vs Hero.

It's pretty obvious - GURPS and Hero were never part of the same brand, nor even the same family. One didn't shift the trappings and features of the other while trying to maintain the same identity.