Pathfinder 1E This is why pathfinder has been successful.

[Hautamaki]

My preferred playstyle could hardly be further from this. I've had 3 PCs, in total, die in a 3 year (and now 15th level) 4e campaign, and each time have discussed with the player whether or not he wants to keep playing that PC. Two said yes, one no - he had an idea for a new PC. For the two that said yes, I contrived for the god of death to send them back into the world. In one case, this has ended up establishing a major story element for that PC, which has become a big focus of play.

Besides these 3 deaths, there were 3 other occasions when a PC could have died, but because the player wanted to keep playing the PC, and given the circumstances in the game, I was able to treat the situation as one of unconsciousness rather than death (this being a feature of the 4e rules).

If the player still thinks they have something they want to do, in the game, with their PC then I don't want to get in the way of that. I would find a turnover of 20 PCs in one adventure completely fatal to building up any sort of emotional or thematic investment in those PCs and the story that their activities are going to constitute.

Yes, but I wouldn't normally use that description. (I've forked my elaboration on this point to a new thread.

I like that style of game too, but my players are nowhere near ready for it. They are first time players still exploring different character options, figuring out rules, and enjoying the novelty of killing caves full of monsters and taking all their stuff.

Now that they've finished the Keep on the Borderlands and a few other short one-off modules I think they are getting close to ready to start thinking about longer term more epic-narrative type play.

 

[lucek]

Uhm... technically Pathfinder is a retro-clone. It is a slightly tweaked version of an edition of D&D that is no longer being published by the company that owns the D&D brand.

As to your second point... I'm sorry but there's a big difference between using the products, work, goodwill, etc. that one did for D&D and leveraging it to better sell one's product, which quite a few companies did during and after the OGL era, as opposed to using the actual brand name. Pathfinder used the D&D brand name to succeed just as much as OSRIC, Labryinth Lord, or any other retro-clone did... and if that's the supposed key to their success why weren't other retro-clones as successful?

EDIT: The thing I find strange about this argument is that back when PF was announced many 4e fans claimed that lack of brand recognition (for Paizo and Pathfinder in general) would be one of the reasons the game would fail and/or not be as popular as D&D.

First off cite? I never said that PF was going to fail because it didn't use the D&D brand name, nor have I ever read anyone who has said that. Next you are ignoring the facts I've pointed to you several times now that Paizo is a spin off of WOTC and Pathfinder is sold by game stores as D&D 3.75.

OSRIC is a clone of 1st ed. IE it is a game designed to feel and function like another game. Same with Labyrinth Lord. Pathfinder is the rules/classes/magic/feat/monsters of 3.5 with barely enough changes that a single splat book can be used to explain them and is often played with books from 3.5. I will also mention that the 2 games you listed were clones of a game that died decades before they were released, while PF was printing rule books less than 2 years after D&D 3.5 was out of stock.

 

[Imaro]

First off cite? I never said that PF was going to fail because it didn't use the D&D brand name, nor have I ever read anyone who has said that. Next you are ignoring the facts I've pointed to you several times now that Paizo is a spin off of WOTC and Pathfinder is sold by game stores as D&D 3.75.

There was a long thread on ENworld that was recently ressurected that had numerous reactions to the announcement of Pathfinder, I'm not going back and searching for it for you but there were quite a few posters who claimed Pathfinder had no brand name recognition and this would contribute to it's failure. If it's important for you to be informed about the matter then by all means look it up, but I'm not going to spend the time doing it for you. OAN... nowhere have I claimed that you specifically said "PF was going to fail because it didn't use the D&D brand name.". What I have claimed is that it didn't use the brand name recognition of D&D to succeed.

FYI... Paizo is not a "spin off" of WotC, it's a seperate company that employs former employees of WotC and Pathfinder is sold in game stores as "Pathfinder" not as "game 3.75" or as "D&D 3.75"... though I have heard it refered to as such by fans.

OSRIC is a clone of 1st ed. IE it is a game designed to feel and function like another game. Same with Labyrinth Lord. Pathfinder is the rules/classes/magic/feat/monsters of 3.5 with barely enough changes that a single splat book can be used to explain them and is often played with books from 3.5. I will also mention that the 2 games you listed were clones of a game that died decades before they were released, while PF was printing rule books less than 2 years after D&D 3.5 was out of stock.

Sooo... Pathfinder is a game, designed to feel and function like another game (D&D 3.5) with small tweaks (which both OSRIC and Labyrinth Lord, as well as many other retro-clones also have)... and is largely compatible with the material from the edition it is based off of (Like OSRIC and Labyrinth Lord, and every other retro-clone). Finally all were printed after the edition they were based on was no longer published by the current owner of D&D... and the difference is??? I'm trying to follow your logic, but it's just not making any sense to me.

 

[pemerton]

Question... How would a casual gamer or a lapsed gamer or even a non-gamer familiar with the D&D brand name... But unaware of the different versions or that there was a 3.5 system connect that poster to D&D?

They wouldn't, would they? Unless they recognised the red dragon and the adventuring scene.

Can the success of Pathfinder be chalked up to "leveraging the D&D brand name"

this seems to be leveraging of system or mechanics recognition as opposed to the brand name of D&D

Are we talking about leveraging a brand, and brand loyalties, or a brand name?

My daughter has a pencil case that came from Thailand, and is covered in pictures of cartoon bears that are near-identical to Disney's Whinnie-the-Pooh. Nowhere does it say "Pooh Bear", but then most of Disney's stuff for 3 year olds doesn't bother saying "Poo Bear" either, because most 3 year olds can't read. I would still say that the knock-off pencil case is leveraging Disney's brand. I don't think it would sell otherwise.

I see two differences from OSRIC. First, OSRIC (as far as I know) has no promotional posters. Two, OSRIC has nothing to suggest it is AD&D except the art and the font. This is much more oblique than "3.5 Thrives" - "3.5" is a well-establishd name for a particular edition of D&D.

 

[pemerton]

Paizo is not a "spin off" of WotC

Paizo came to prominence because it was licensed by WotC to publish the D&D house magazines.

Pathfinder is a game, designed to feel and function like another game (D&D 3.5) with small tweaks (which both OSRIC and Labyrinth Lord, as well as many other retro-clones also have)... and is largely compatible with the material from the edition it is based off of (Like OSRIC and Labyrinth Lord, and every other retro-clone). Finally all were printed after the edition they were based on was no longer published by the current owner of D&D... and the difference is??? I'm trying to follow your logic, but it's just not making any sense to me.

The difference was explained. PF was marketed as a continuation ("3.5 thrives") of a game that was (at least at my local game store) still in stock, and still with a live commercial market- the biggest commercial market in RPGs, in fact.

Whereas when OSRIC was released (i) it was not released via physical retailers, (ii) had to the best of my knowledge no marketing oustide of internet forums, and (iii) was resurrecting a market that had been dead for around 15 years.

The legal structure of PF and OSRIC etc might be similar (though that itself is arguable, as there is a respectable view that OSRIC is not lawful under the OGL), but their market situations are barely comparable.

 

[lucek]

There was a long thread on ENworld that was recently ressurected that had numerous reactions to the announcement of Pathfinder, I'm not going back and searching for it for you but there were quite a few posters who claimed Pathfinder had no brand name recognition and this would contribute to it's failure. If it's important for you to be informed about the matter then by all means look it up, but I'm not going to spend the time doing it for you. OAN... nowhere have I claimed that you specifically said "PF was going to fail because it didn't use the D&D brand name.". What I have claimed is that it didn't use the brand name recognition of D&D to succeed.

FYI... Paizo is not a "spin off" of WotC, it's a seperate company that employs former employees of WotC and Pathfinder is sold in game stores as "Pathfinder" not as "game 3.75" or as "D&D 3.75"... though I have heard it refered to as such by fans.

Every store I've gone to the sales staff uses pathfinder and D&D 3.75 interchangeably. It might not say that on the book but it shore as hell dose on the stores literature.

Sooo... Pathfinder is a game, designed to feel and function like another game (D&D 3.5) with small tweaks (which both OSRIC and Labyrinth Lord, as well as many other retro-clones also have)... and is largely compatible with the material from the edition it is based off of (Like OSRIC and Labyrinth Lord, and every other retro-clone). Finally all were printed after the edition they were based on was no longer published by the current owner of D&D... and the difference is??? I'm trying to follow your logic, but it's just not making any sense to me.

Pathfinder wan't designed to imitate D&D 3.5, It copied 3.5 nearly verbatim. Assuming you aren't talking about some other definition a clone is like a video game clone. Someone can say Quake was a Doom clone but Source wasn't a clone of Quake engine, but was just a modification.

 

[Imaro]

They wouldn't, would they? Unless they recognised the red dragon and the adventuring scene.

Wait, wait, wait. Can you please provide a link to this particular red dragon in this specific adventuring scene that lapsed players, casual players and non-players of D&D would recognize... or are you really trying to claim that this...

Is suppose to be some kind of combination of this...

And...

That would (moreso than any other fantasy rpg with a dragon and warrior on it's cover) instantly register with lapsed, casual and non-D&D players. If so, I'm sorry but I feel you are really grasping for straws here... even ignoring the fact that most lapsed and casual players would be more familiar with AD&D than the Basic sets.

 

[Imaro]

Are we talking about leveraging a brand, and brand loyalties, or a brand name?

The original post by BryonD refrenced name recognition... so yes we are talking about a brand name... thus why lucek keeps claiming in all the stores his been in Pathfinder is reefered to as D&D 3.75... not Pathfinder.

I see two differences from OSRIC. First, OSRIC (as far as I know) has no promotional posters. Two, OSRIC has nothing to suggest it is AD&D except the art and the font. This is much more oblique than "3.5 Thrives" - "3.5" is a well-establishd name for a particular edition of D&D.

So one minute you're claiming the art of the Pathfinder corebook is more than enough to associate it directly with the D&D name... but that's not the case with OSRIC? As far as the promotional posters go, OSRIC has what amounts to the same thing on it's website (as do almost all of the retro-clones) so in my mind it seems you are arguing moreso that Pathfinder was able to market to a larger audience than any difference in their actual marketing speak. Finally to address your last point... 3.5 is a well established name for an open gaming system... not for D&D. D&D is whatever WotC decides to put the name on.

 

[Imaro]

Paizo came to prominence because it was licensed by WotC to publish the D&D house magazines.

What does this have to do with Paizo being a "spin off" of WotC? For Paizo to be a spin off of WotC... WotC would have had to create Paizo... it didn't.

The difference was explained. PF was marketed as a continuation ("3.5 thrives") of a game that was (at least at my local game store) still in stock, and still with a live commercial market- the biggest commercial market in RPGs, in fact.

Whereas when OSRIC was released (i) it was not released via physical retailers, (ii) had to the best of my knowledge no marketing oustide of internet forums, and (iii) was resurrecting a market that had been dead for around 15 years.

The legal structure of PF and OSRIC etc might be similar (though that itself is arguable, as there is a respectable view that OSRIC is not lawful under the OGL), but their market situations are barely comparable.

That's all well and good... but has nothing to do with what I stated. I stated that the retro-clones used the name recognition of D&D just as much or more than Pathfinder... all you've shown is that there were a ton of other circumstances that contributed to Pathfinders success. Thanks for supporting my point.

 

[Imaro]

Every store I've gone to the sales staff uses pathfinder and D&D 3.75 interchangeably. It might not say that on the book but it shore as hell dose on the stores literature.

I can guarantee you Paizo has never given them literature that references Pathfinder as "Dungeons and Dragons 3.75". If they did you can bet WotC would be suing them right now. as to the employees at your store... Paizo isn't responsible for how they choose to represent PATHFINDER products.

Pathfinder wan't designed to imitate D&D 3.5, It copied 3.5 nearly verbatim. Assuming you aren't talking about some other definition a clone is like a video game clone. Someone can say Quake was a Doom clone but Source wasn't a clone of Quake engine, but was just a modification.

First... this isn't about videogames. Two, Pathfinder has tweaked the original 3.5 rules, otherwise it wouldn't be called 3.75. Thus it is not a straight reprint and is comparable (in the amount changed) to many of the retro-clones available right now. Honest question, have you read or played any of the retro-clones?