D&D 5E After 2 years the 5E PHB remains one of the best selling books on Amazon

[Imaro]

People are more likely to perceive non-white iconics in Pathfinder as "part of D&D" than they are to perceive iconics in Kre-O toys as "part of D&D" is my point. And yet you said you consider anything branded as D&D, which includes Kre-O toys, as D&D, but not Pathfinder. That seems to be flawed logic. If the potential game-playing public perceives Pathfinder to be D&D and as inclusive, that's relevant to a discussion of how D&D is perceived by the public in terms of inclusiveness. It's certainly at least as relevant as the branding on some lego-type toys.

Most people have never seen a Pathfinder book and are more likely to see D&D Kre-O toys in a toy store. And I'd argue the gaming public knows in general the difference between D&D and Pathfinder. They sure seemed to during the run of 4e. Instead of sticking to the question that was asked... about D&D iconics... you are making wide sweeping assumptions you can't know one way or the other and assuming they must be true. On the other hand if we go by what was specifically asked for... well we (especially those of us participating in this conversation) know Pathfinder iconics are not D&D iconics.

 

[Shasarak]

D&D is a brand owned by Hasbro... Pathfinder is a different brand owned by Paizo, they are not the same thing.

No it is not, DnD is Open source under the d20 OGL.

 

[Shasarak]

Most people have never seen a Pathfinder book and are more likely to see D&D Kre-O toys in a toy store. And I'd argue the gaming public knows in general the difference between D&D and Pathfinder. They sure seemed to during the run of 4e. Instead of sticking to the question that was asked... about D&D iconics... you are making wide sweeping assumptions you can't know one way or the other and assuming they must be true. On the other hand if we go by what was specifically asked for... well we (especially those of us participating in this conversation) know Pathfinder iconics are not D&D iconics.

Pathfinder iconics are DnD iconics because Pathfinder is DnD. Sajan is a Black Human Monk, Kyra is a Black Human Cleric and Seelah is a Black Human Paladin.

I do not really understand why you would choose to deliberately ignore these efforts to be as inclusive as possible. Heck, there is even a fat Valeros iconic now for those plus sized players.

 

[Mistwell]

It's pretty odd that people want to ask the question, "Is D&D perceived to be inclusive?" but are not willing to ask the question, "What do people perceive to be D&D?"

To know if people perceive D&D to be inclusive, you'd have to know what it is they're perceiving as D&D to begin with. And if people perceive Pathfinder to be part of D&D, then of course that's relevant to this question. This pedantic argument over technicalities about what is and is not licensed officially under a brand is not really meaningful for how D&D is perceived. Heck, if people perceive World of Warcraft to be D&D, then that's relevant to how people perceive D&D and inclusiveness in D&D.

 

[Shasarak]

As to "Iconics," they do actually have characters who appear throughout the Core books, and I presume they named them and developed little stories, but they did not repeat the 3.x marketing mistake of thinking much of anybody would care.

Would it surprise you to find that that "anybody" does care about them enough to even spawn a Comic series on these "iconics".

But I guess if WotC can not make something work then no one can, amiright?

 

[Imaro]

No it is not, DnD is Open source under the d20 OGL.

No... D&D isn't... select parts of a specific edition are.

 

[Imaro]

Pathfinder iconics are DnD iconics because Pathfinder is DnD. Sajan is a Black Human Monk, Kyra is a Black Human Cleric and Seelah is a Black Human Paladin.

I do not really understand why you would choose to deliberately ignore these efforts to be as inclusive as possible. Heck, there is even a fat Valeros iconic now for those plus sized players.

I'm not ignoring Paizo's efforts for Pathfinder... I'm saying they have no bearing on TSR/WotC/Hasbro's efforts with D&D...

 

[Imaro]

It's pretty odd that people want to ask the question, "Is D&D perceived to be inclusive?" but are not willing to ask the question, "What do people perceive to be D&D?"

To know if people perceive D&D to be inclusive, you'd have to know what it is they're perceiving as D&D to begin with. And if people perceive Pathfinder to be part of D&D, then of course that's relevant to this question. This pedantic argument over technicalities about what is and is not licensed officially under a brand is not really meaningful for how D&D is perceived. Heck, if people perceive World of Warcraft to be D&D, then that's relevant to how people perceive D&D and inclusiveness in D&D.

Because no one can prove how "people" perceive specific retro-clones, other games, or anything else. You're assuming your view (Pathfinder is perceived as D&D by the majority of... gamers??) is correct but there's no reason to actually believe that.

 

[Mistwell]

Because no one can prove how "people" perceive specific retro-clones, other games, or anything else.

We don't need a firm answer we just need a vague one to talk about this topic. You're literally appear to be saying if we cannot put a number on something then we cannot talk about it - in a topic about how people perceive racial and gender and sexual orientation stereotypes in D&D. Is none of this ringing as slightly ironic to you? I mean, you've not put forth a single shred of evidence that this PHB paragraph and the artwork actually had any meaningful impact on sales at all, and are arguing that simultaneous with arguing people cannot talk about whether Pathfinder is perceived to be D&D or not because nobody can nail down numbers on it? That seems highly hypocritical in terms of standards.

How about you pick a position: 1) You need hard proof of how people perceive things, in which case given you have no hard proof the PHB paragraph and artwork had any impact on sales we shouldn't even discuss it; or 2) You don't need hard proof of how people perceive things just sound analysis and reasoning and anecdotes, in which case both Pathfinder being perceived as part of D&D and the PHB paragraph/artwork are fair topics for discussion.

It doesn't make any sense to try and straddle that fence. Either perceptions matter without hard evidence, or they do not.

 

[Shasarak]

I'm not ignoring Paizo's efforts for Pathfinder... I'm saying they have no bearing on TSR/WotC/Hasbro's efforts with D&D...

The question was not about TSR/WotC/Hasbro's efforts with D&D. The question was about inclusiveness in DnD which absolutely includes Pathfinder under its very large tent.

Just because you may not like it has no relevance.