Pathfinder 1E This is why pathfinder has been successful.

[Imaro]

Well, I'm going with what I'm assuming about what is stated on the poster.

Cool, so you're agreeing with me.

Well, yes, you could say that. That's why I'm not planning to hire you to do my marketing. I want marketing that leverages something most of my desired market will recognise - D&D v3.5 - not something most of them have never heard of - the Revised (v3.5) SRD.

Well, I never asked you to hire me for anything... so I guess we're good on that front. Secondly, I find this funny since most of the time when discussions are being had about 3.5... it's the online SRD that's being quoted and referenced. But yeah, most gamers of 3.5 D&D (which we have already established was the market they were going for) have never heard of the SRD... ... uhm, ok.

OK, this puzzles me a bit - what is needed to make the 3.5 PHB, MM and DMG "distinctly D&D" - mind flayers and Vecna?

I think you already know what is distinctly D&D vs. what is the open 3.5 d20 system. If not compare your D&D 3.5 corebooks (asuming you even have them) with what is available in the SRD... it's pretty simple.

Here's how I see it. In the preface to AU/AE, Monte Cook says "Here's a game based on D&D 3E/3.5E. It's a bit different in some respects, but if you know how to play one of those you'll be able to play this, and if you like one of those you'll probably enjoy this". In the preface to PF (assuming the quotation of it above is accurate), Monte Cook says "Here's a game that is the successor to 3.5 in the same way that 3.5 was the successor to 3E".

So he specifically referenced D&D in AU/AE and thus directly leveraged D&D brand recognition... as opposed to PF where he only referneces 3.5 and thus goes for system recognition. Ok.

I think the difference between these two is fairly clear. There might be different ways to describe it - both are leveraging the would-be customers familiarity with D&D, but only the latter is saying "This game is the successor to D&D 3.5."

See and I read that as it is the successor to the 3.5 version of the d20 system. So I guess you can add the words D&D into what he actually said (just like the poster) to suppport your interpretation... or we can look at the fact that in AU/AE he specifically references D&D but doesn't in Pathfinder and wonder why that is...Hmmmm.

In the quote you just posted, s/he uses the phrase "brand recognition", not "name recognition". The relevant brand would be "3.5" - which, as I've pointed out, appears in non-tiny typeface on the cover of the D&D core books for which PF is a substitute.

No, and this is exactly why I quoted BryonD's post because I figured you might ignore the question s/he was actually asked and answered yes to. It's only after answering BryonD's question that lucek goes on to claim that Pathfinder had brand recognition and was sold as D&D, amongst other things.

I don't agree with this. The claim that lucek made was perfectly clear - that Paizo, via PF, is leveraging customers' familiarity with, and desire to continue buying and playing, D&D 3.5. I believe that that claim is true. I believe that that is what Paizo set out to do, why they published and distributed that poster, and what they have in very large part been successful in doing.

Really because just a few posts ago you claimed that lucek only commented on whether PF was a retro clone or not... so is it clear? IMO, lucek combined a few claims in his/her answer to BryonD's post and one of those is what I called him/her on. This is even more apparent when the posts further back between lucek and BryonD about Pepsi, coke and Birch beer are referenced.

The thing I find interesting is anyone who wanted to "continue" playing D&D 3.5... more than likely had the corebooks along with the distinct elements of D&D that were in those books... and which are missing in the PF corebook. So tell me what exactly, besides the system that is not intrinsically D&D but an open d20 system many have used, modifed and published games based upon did Pathfinder leverage? That's what's missing in this argument. How were the things that are specific to the D&D brand leveraged?

I also think that what lucek meant by Paizo being a "spin off" was pretty clear. S/he meant that Paizo got its start under the wings of WotC. Which, as far as I am aware, is true - Paizo got its start by being the licensed publisher and distributor of WotC's house organs.

The problem is a spin off of a corporation actually means something specific, in the same way a spin off of a tv show means something. Of course this is easily remedied by admitting one mis-spoke and moving on.

I mean, is anybody really confused as the content of lucek's views about Paizo's marketing and entrepreneurial success? They seemed crystal clear to me. lucek is saying Paizo got to where it is today by beginning in WotC's orbit and then breaking away by leveraging the market's familiarity with the product that WotC had just retired. And that strikes me as a pretty accurate summary.

The devil's in the details... the same way lucek claimed that Pathfinder was marketed with literature from Paizo that stated it was D&D 3.75. This is utterly false. I may have no problem with his larger opinion of how Paizo and Pathfinder achieved success... but that doesn't mean I won't call him/her on information I feel is false that he posts to support those conclusions. You on the other hand seem to want to brush past the details, because you agree with the conclusion.

 

[billd91]

Also, I think it's important to remind players that they don't HAVE come come at every encounter at full power.

Indeed. In fact, according to adventure writing guidelines, 3.5 suggests that only about 50% of the encounters be at EL. The DMG suggests 30% should be below EL. There's plenty of justification for holding back and the DM giving the PCs reasons to hold back.

With respect to the Greyhawk Grognard blog, having a dynamic situation is a great way to discourage a 15 minute adventuring day. When my players retreated from the Slavers' Stockade in my 3.5 Modules Classics Campaign, it gave the beleaguered defenders a chance to fortify against return visits. They also sent out big patrols too, one of which tracked down the PCs leading to a fight in a torrential downpour. The PCs, to their credit, usually found a novel way into the fort which made for great play on their part. Eventually, I had the defenders even collapse one of the subterranean tunnels to prevent the PCs coming in that way again.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

The first quote had nothing to do with the setting or feel of the book.

I was quoting them for my main thesis here. Does that first quote show a book designed to and by extension a company that cares about good setting writing.

Yes it does, because they do. You quoted from a preface about the evolution of the rules. So, use a similar quote from those other games, rather than comparing a preface to the supporting fiction.

Shall we quote from the section on dice rolling conventions for Vampire? (The other two games I am unfamiliar with, but I am certain that they also have sections on reading dice and creating skill DCs, by whatever name.)

If you are not willing to compare like sections then you have created a strawman argument, and frankly, you should know better.

Vampire/World of Darkness), in particular could have benefited from a preface explaining the evolution of the setting and engine from Masquerade - though Masquerade had the better engine in my opinion. (More accurately, Requiem/nWoD has a terrible engine. The setting is fine, but I want nothing to do with their new game system.)

So, yes, I would take the preface from Pathfinder over the angsty birds approach used in Vampire. I can create my own settings, I want to understand the structure of the setting more than I want to read someone's fan fiction based on that setting.

The Auld Grump

 

[lucek]

Yes it does, because they do. You quoted from a preface about the evolution of the rules. So, use a similar quote from those other games, rather than comparing a preface to the supporting fiction.

Shall we quote from the section on dice rolling conventions for Vampire? (The other two games I am unfamiliar with, but I am certain that they also have sections on reading dice and creating skill DCs, by whatever name.)

If you are not willing to compare like sections then you have created a strawman argument, and frankly, you should know better.

Vampire/World of Darkness), in particular could have benefited from a preface explaining the evolution of the setting and engine from Masquerade - though Masquerade had the better engine in my opinion. (More accurately, Requiem/nWoD has a terrible engine. The setting is fine, but I want nothing to do with their new game system.)

So, yes, I would take the preface from Pathfinder over the angsty birds approach used in Vampire. I can create my own settings, I want to understand the structure of the setting more than I want to read someone's fan fiction based on that setting.

The Auld Grump

OK so you like setting light. Got it. But given I wasn't talking about the contents but the intent behind putting the passages on the first page of text.

 

[Imaro]

The first quote had nothing to do with the setting or feel of the book.

I was quoting them for my main thesis here. Does that first quote show a book designed to and by extension a company that cares about good setting writing.

Wait your thesis is that unless a roleplaying book opens with a piece of fiction... the company that produced that book doesn't care about good setting writing?... What?? I guess the companies responsible for Heroquest, Gurps, etc. don't care about good setting (regardless of the number of setting supplements they've produced).

OAN: You do know that the default setting book for the Pathfinder roleplaying game is a totally seperate book called The Inner Sea World Guide... and guess what, it opens with fiction.

EDIT: Of course this is probably one of those irrelevant details that pemerton will be along shortly to clarify and explain away while interpreting what you really meant.

 

[S'mon]

I was under the impression that those adventures were being produced mainly by Expeditious Retreat and Goodman. Were there others?

He called it not just "not nice" but infringing. I think (maybe I should say I infer) that his view is based on violation of the Product Identity provisions of the OGL.

You're a better commercial and IP lawyer than me. So is Clark Peterson, I suspect. Is jurisdiction relevant? I have a vague recollection that OSRIC's publisher is in the UK, not the US, and that that was thought to be of some signficance at the time.

To my knowledge Clark Peterson is a lawyer (& now a judge), but not an IP lawyer, and has not claimed particular expertise in IP law. I believe David Kenzer of Kenzer & co is a multiclass IP lawyer/game designer - Kenzer & Company - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - hence their non-OGL release of the 4e Kingdoms of Kalamar.

The OGL is more of a contract issue than an IP issue - luckily, I teach both! I don't see any big significance in the lead OSRIC designer being UK based, although the slightly Manichean approach US courts take to legal disputes may have some relevance in a desire not to appear to be 'the bad guy' - English common law normally doesn't concern itself with whether your behaviour is bad, when it comes to defending a breach of contract case it's very much about your strict legal rights.

One way jurisdiction is relevant is damages - we very rarely have punitive damages here, so suing for trivial infringements is a bad idea. Even if you win nominal damages you could end up paying the respondent's costs.

 

[lucek]

Wait your thesis is that unless a roleplaying book opens with a piece of fiction... the company that produced that book doesn't care about good setting writing?... What?? I guess the companies responsible for Heroquest, Gurps, etc. don't care about good setting (regardless of the number of setting supplements they've produced).

OAN: You do know that the default setting book for the Pathfinder roleplaying game is a totally seperate book called The Inner Sea World Guide... and guess what, it opens with fiction.

EDIT: Of course this is probably one of those irrelevant details that pemerton will be along shortly to clarify and explain away while interpreting what you really meant.

Ok not responding to you anymore. Seriously stop misrepresenting my points. I don't care if it is the internet or not attacking straw men is just being an ass.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Ok not responding to you anymore. Seriously stop misrepresenting my points. I don't care if it is the internet or not attacking straw men is just being an ass.

Dude, you started your thesis with a straw man. Do not complain when people label it as such.

Seriously, do not compare unlike portions of the book, then get annoyed when folks point that out.

Do not put words in peoples' mouths unless you want them to bite your fingers.

No where do I say that Pathfinder is setting light. It is not - instead Paizo dedicated an entire, but separate, book to the setting, while WoD was crammed into the same book with the rules.

For amount of overall setting content, do you really want to start counting pages? WoD will lose by quite a bit, given that Paizo has an entire series dedicated to nothing but setting material, has setting material in every release for their Adventure Paths, and puts just a little bit of setting material into their adventures outside of the Paths.

You posited a flawed argument, then tried to shore it up by cherry picking examples.

The Auld Grump

 

[lucek]

No where do I say that Pathfinder is setting light. It is not - instead Paizo dedicated an entire, but separate, book to the setting, while WoD was crammed into the same book with the rules.

First you never said PF was setting light, but more importantly, I never said you did. You stated you liked a flexible setting that you could mold to fit what you liked. I call that setting light.

No where do I say that Pathfinder is setting light. It is not - instead Paizo dedicated an entire, but separate, book to the setting, while WoD was crammed into the same book with the rules.

For amount of overall setting content, do you really want to start counting pages? WoD will lose by quite a bit, given that Paizo has an entire series dedicated to nothing but setting material, has setting material in every release for their Adventure Paths, and puts just a little bit of setting material into their adventures outside of the Paths.

Again no one claimed that PF was setting light, I simply claimed that the material was inferior to a lot. Paizo in my opinion went for the shotgun approach giving a lot of material with little depth and feel supporting it.

Now to the big one,

Dude, you started your thesis with a straw man. Do not complain when people label it as such.

I referred to the op were it was claimed that the reason for PF's success was due to it's setting and story. I'll retract everything I said if you can show an alternative interpretation that is incompatible with my reading.

I'm no hypocrite. I will never accuse someone of doing something I'll do intentionally.

 

[BryonD]

Does Pathfinder have more brand recognition than Trailblazer?