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

[Mistwell]

You're avoiding again. You jumped in and replied to my statement about the tangent (D&D iconics were asked for Pathfinder iconics were presented... was what was asked for given??) and now are trying to divert the discussion I and a few others were having into one about something different. No you answer the question you jumped in on and then we can move to what you want to discuss...

I am not trying to divert anything - you're free to have your discussion. But I, and everyone else, were discussing perceptions of inclusiveness in "D&D" when that iconics issue arose. The whole purpose of the iconics issue was to discuss perceptions of inclusiveness as seen in the issue of "D&D" iconics. You're free to comment on that or not - but you can't both comment on it and then pretend you were not commenting on it simultaneously. You're not Schrodinger's Cat.

 

[Imaro]

I am not trying to divert anything - you're free to have your discussion. But I, and everyone else, were discussing perceptions of inclusiveness in D&D when that "iconics" issue arose. The whole purpose of the iconics issue was to discuss perceptions of inclusiveness as seen in the issue of "D&D" iconics. You're free to comment on that or not - but you can't both comment on it and then pretend you were not commenting on it simultaneously. You're not Schrodinger's Cat.

I can however comment on a specific thing being wrong without commenting on the larger issue at hand.

 

[Shasarak]

And yet Pathfinder iconics were listed.

Yes, DnD iconics. What are you confused about exactly?

 

[Mistwell]

I can however comment on a specific thing being wrong without commenting on the larger issue at hand.

Sure, but that's not what you did. The specific thing you commented on was purely in the context of perceptions of inclusiveness in "D&D". If you mistook it for a more general question about semantics or linguistics or brands or licensing technicalities or the opinions of Paizo employees, that's not on anyone else. You jumped in on a discussion of perceptions of inclusiveness in "D&D" and how that relates to "D&D" iconics, and then decided to scold others for not perceiving the topic the way you perceived it (which was devoid of it's context).

 

[Shasarak]

I've heard there are PathFinder comics; are they still making those?

Yeah, they are currently doing a mash up of the Iconics with famous Pulp characters like Red Sonja.

Who knows maybe Valeros is just a better character then Regdar but I always had a soft spot for Lidda.

 

[Imaro]

Sure, but that's not what you did. The specific thing you commented on was purely in the context of perceptions of inclusiveness in "D&D". If you mistook it for a more general question about semantics or linguistics or brands or licensing technicalities or the opinions of Paizo employees, that's not on anyone else. You jumped in on a discussion of perceptions of inclusiveness in "D&D" and how that relates to "D&D" iconics, and then decided to scold others for not perceiving the topic the way you perceived it (which was devoid of it's context).

For some perspective on where I am coming from... as a black gamer with an all black/latino main group that is also composed of 50% women I am really trying to avoid commenting on the larger issue at hand because I have a feeling it can't go anywhere but political for me.... The gamers in my group very easily identify Pathfinder vs. D&D as well as how those games have approached diversity differently during the 4e era (of course since we are all non-white this issue probably comes up alot more for us than it would in a mixed white or all white group)... and this goes for other roleplaying games as well. Games like Pathfinder, Earthdawn, Exalted, WoD and so on have been ahead of D&D as far as inclusiveness is concerned, at least from our perspective, for a long time.

Did the paragraph and artwork and other efforts influence us? Well I am actively conscious about these types of things so yeah it did, this is the first edition of D&D where all of us (total of 6)have bought a PHB and 2 others (total of 3) have bought DMG and MM's... usually we buy 2 PHB's, 1 DMG and 1 MM and share the books...but this time because I had heard about the more inclusive direction and I brought it to the attention of our group we all made a decision to support the direction they decided to go in through economics. the thing is you'd be surprised at how many minorities are moving towards this way of thinking... voting with our dollars.

Now the thing that irritates me about the Pathfinder is D&D thing is that no for us it wasn't... we can differentiate companies and games and we do because it's important to us, we have chosen to support certain games purely because they are more inclusive and Pathfinder and D&D were not the same in this aspect. When someone claims they are the same it speaks to a viewpoint that, IMO, doesn't take into consideration that minorities in general can make conscious and informed decisions about this type of thing, especially in the age of the interwebs. It seems to be claiming we can't differentiate between two companies with similar products but different levels of inclusiveness... and quite frankly seems to come from an already included (i.e. heterosexual white male) mindset that doesn't have to think about such things in the context of who and what they support since they are always included... Pathfinder, D&D it doesn't matter it's all the same... only it's not.

 

[Shasarak]

Did I say that... or are you conveniently ignoring all the other factors I listed?

Where was one of my factors being replaced by a new edition of Dungeons and Dragons

Well you did say that it needs its own forum, right? For example 4e does not have its own forum it is lumped together with older D&D Editions (4E, 3.x, 2E, 1E, OD&D), D&D Variants, and OSR Gaming.

Hang on, OSR gaming is not DnD by your definition so how can it be together in the same forum as 4e?

Is Morrus just lying to us? Or is your definition just nonsensical? I know which one I am picking.

Again... all the other factors I listed... here's a few more... the title of the game being Pathfinder, not having the rights to publish D&D IP...and the numerous other ones I listed. You know actual facts that support the idea that Pathfinder is not the same as D&D...

Yeah, and you know what? Advanced Dungeon and Dragons is not the same as Advanced Dungeon and Dragons 2nd edition or Dungeons and Dragons 3e or Dungeon and Dragons 4e or Dungeon and Dragons 5e or Pathfinder.

What other facts do you want to support Pathfinder being the same as DnD? Because everyone knows that you have to have a Beholder in your game otherwise you are not playing DnD.

 

[Imaro]

Well you did say that it needs its own forum, right? For example 4e does not have its own forum it is lumped together with older D&D Editions (4E, 3.x, 2E, 1E, OD&D), D&D Variants, and OSR Gaming.

Hang on, OSR gaming is not DnD by your definition so how can it be together in the same forum as 4e?

Is Morrus just lying to us? Or is your definition just nonsensical? I know which one I am picking.



Yeah, and you know what? Advanced Dungeon and Dragons is not the same as Advanced Dungeon and Dragons 2nd edition or Dungeons and Dragons 3e or Dungeon and Dragons 4e or Dungeon and Dragons 5e or Pathfinder.

What other facts do you want to support Pathfinder being the same as DnD? Because everyone knows that you have to have a Beholder in your game otherwise you are not playing DnD.

That's it keep focusing on one of the MANY factors I listed...

 

[Hussar]

I'm just pointing out that in a discussion about inclusiveness in the hobby, it's a mite odd to start making arbitrary distinctions about which parts of the hobby you can talk about. Ironic, even. I mean, you're excluding Pathfinder from D&D not because it's so firmly rooted in a D&D edition so as to be interchangeable with that edition, but because of it doesn't have the proper mark on it. A mark that has meant many different things across its varied owners. Seems... a bit convenient.

Arbitrary? Really? Owned by a different company. Not ACTUALLY called D&D. Only compatible with one out of print edition, and, even then, not really compatible anymore.

But, again, I've already given them mad props for being so inclusive. They are a standard that a lot of games should aspire to.

 

[Shasarak]

That's it keep focusing on one of the MANY factors I listed...

Do you also get annoyed when people ask for a Coke when they actually want a Sprite?

I am sure you have many important factors.