Pathfinder 1E This is why pathfinder has been successful.

[pemerton]

I'm confused on how one let's it's consumers know that it is using the 3.5 version of the (open) d20 system... without in any way refering to 3.5

I might be missing something in this question.

You can't refer to the 3.5 SRD without using the term 3.5.

But I think if we tallied up all the utterances of "3.5" that have occured since 3E was revised, most of them would be intended by their speakers, and taken by their audiences, to refer to D&D 3.5, not Revised (v3.5) SRD.

I believe that Paizo, in labelling it's poset "3.5 Thrives" (as opposed to, say, "the 3.5 SRD thrives") is trading on that usage. The 3.5 that it is inviting the reader of the poster to believe is thriving is not the SRD - it is the game from which that SRD is distilled, namely, D&D 3.5.

I also find it amazing how the original statement has been willfully twisted by certain posters to obfuscate what was originaly stated

The original statement, by lucek at post 288, was that "Pathfinder isn't a retro clone. It was sold as a tweaked version of 3.5."

You seem to be the only person in this thread who thinks "brand name" is important - you were the first to use that phrase, in post 291. I talked about "brand recognition". From the fact that lucek has subsequently said that s/he is not interested in playing "pidgin chess", I infer that s/he doesn't think that your foucs on the phrase "brand name" is very helpful either, in terms of working out whether what s/he originally said is true or not.

I would say that a big and widely distributed poster saying "3.5 Thrives" would be a good way to sell an RPG as a tweaked version of 3.5.

 

[Hussar]

Just popping in because someone else is saying my point much better than I do:

Greyhawk Grognard: The Fifteen Minute Workday

Cheers Mr Bloch.

 

[Imaro]

I might be missing something in this question.

You can't refer to the 3.5 SRD without using the term 3.5.

But I think if we tallied up all the utterances of "3.5" that have occured since 3E was revised, most of them would be intended by their speakers, and taken by their audiences, to refer to D&D 3.5, not Revised (v3.5) SRD.

I believe that Paizo, in labelling it's poset "3.5 Thrives" (as opposed to, say, "the 3.5 SRD thrives") is trading on that usage. The 3.5 that it is inviting the reader of the poster to believe is thriving is not the SRD - it is the game from which that SRD is distilled, namely, D&D 3.5.

Soo.. you're going with what you're assuming as opposed to going with what is actually stated on the poster. On the other hand I could just as easily say that I believe that Paizo, in labeling it's poster "3.5 Thrives" (as opposed to say, "D&D 3.5 thrives") is purposefully avoiding the actual usage of the D&D brand. That the 3.5 that is is inviting the reader of the poster to believe is thriving is the 3.5 d20 system... especially since Pathfinder has no rights to use anything that makes the 3.5 system distinctly D&D, such as specific IP.

The original statement, by lucek at post 288, was that "Pathfinder isn't a retro clone. It was sold as a tweaked version of 3.5."

This isn't where the conversation between I and lucek started... It started here... BryonD stated (and I referenced this post in later posts of my own)...

There is a time when you could have said "Coke", but Pepsi would have been just another "birch beer". But without that name it had to make its own name. Pepsi did. Birch Beer did not.


Name recognition is REALLY important. PF doesn't have that. Well, it does NOW, just like Pepsi does NOW. But it didn't.

It did have system recognition. But OSRIC should have kicked its butt on that front. The other poll going says that 1E is a more popular system.

To which lucek replied...

To review yes it did. When Pathfinder launched it had brand recognition. It is D&D, lets not kid ourselves. That's what Paizo sell it as, that's what stores sell it as.

He states it had name recognition... and that it "is D&D"... this is where I replied...

Sooo then wouldn't this mean every retro-clone on the market has the same brand recognition since they are, for the most part, sold on the idea of being just as much "D&D" as Pathfinder?

EDIT: Actually some might make an argument that a few are sold on that idea even moreso than Pathfinder.

But if you had actually went back and read my first post in this thread you would have known that.

You seem to be the only person in this thread who thinks "brand name" is important - you were the first to use that phrase, in post 291. I talked about "brand recognition". From the fact that lucek has subsequently said that s/he is not interested in playing "pidgin chess", I infer that s/he doesn't think that your foucs on the phrase "brand name" is very helpful either, in terms of working out whether what s/he originally said is true or not.

Then s/he shouldn't have made the claim... or should admit that s/he mis-spoke, or just like the claim of Paizo being a spin off corporation of WotC, it is wrong. It's easy to dismiss something as less important once proven wrong... but if it wasn't important it wouldn't have been brought up.

I would say that a big and widely distributed poster saying "3.5 Thrives" would be a good way to sell an RPG as a tweaked version of 3.5.

I agree, especially when leveraging the 3.5 system... I don't think however that it in any way leverages the intrinsic properties of D&D that are not a part of that open system.

 

[Imaro]

Pathfinder was created to serve their main productline as a basic rules system. Since all their Dragon/Dungeon magazine support was based on WotC's 3.5 rules, they were already familiar with that, and thought it unnecessary to create a non-3.5 based game. So they created Pathfinder instead.

Wow... this sounds strangely similar to the reasons that OSRIC was created and published (as an in-print ruleset to support adventure publishing and sales)... who would have thought it??

 

[Remus Lupin]

Just popping in because someone else is saying my point much better than I do:

Greyhawk Grognard: The Fifteen Minute Workday

Cheers Mr Bloch.

That's helpful to me, and clarifies for me where the "15 minute day" problem comes from, namely the extended dungeon crawl. I agree that here it can be a problem for precisely the reason the article mentions (and of course now all the references to the caves of chaos are clicking into place for me as well!).

While I played some dungeon crawls when I was younger, I think that my baseline dungeon crawl experience was running "Sunless Citadel" with 3e first came out. There is certainly a lot of temptation for 15 MAD tactics in that dungeon, particularly early on and throughout the first level, because encounters with the kobolds and goblins can lead to quick exhaustion of resources. Of course, the module also offers possibilities to role-play at least some of that (and gave us all the iconic kobold minion, Meepo!)

But I pressed my players not to 15 MAD it by reminding them repeatedly that they were on a rescue mission. While it was eventually necessary for them to rest up, heal and refresh spells, as the DM, I was responsible for ensuring that the momentum of the game was appropriate both to the story being told and the abilities of the characters. So while I'd remind them that they were on a rescue mission, I also recognized that rest was both necessary and possible in the citadel and tried to make allowances.

But as with a lot of narratives, time is flexible in an RP situation. So while the bulk of your at table time might be spent on a combat with the kobolds or a troll, a lot of the actual "in game" time is spent checking for traps, exploring hallways, opening chests, etc. Since the encounters feel so central, it seems like it's all you do unless the DM makes an effort to give life to the rest of your adventuring experience, in which case, your 15 MAD may be more like a 5-6 hour adventuring day. Still short, perhaps, compared to what you might otherwise do in real life, but not as brief as its often made out.

Also, I think it's important to remind players that they don't HAVE come come at every encounter at full power. In fact the rules are constructed in such a way that there's an assumption that an average party at an appropriate EL will use a specific portion of its resources per encounter. So you ought to be able to gauge how close you are to needing to rest by how many level appropriate encounters you've had.

 

[Hussar]

So you ought to be able to gauge how close you are to needing to rest by how many level appropriate encounters you've had.

By and large I agree with this, but, there is a bit there that gets lost in the wash. Sure, you're supposed to burn through about 20% of resources in an EL par encounter. The problem is, in play, that 20% tends to come from one or two characters, instead of being spread around. So your fighter gets dropped down to single digit hit points, necessitating healing him up. And, because he just might take that much damage the next time, there's a big temptation to heal him to full.

The other issue is swinginess. A CR=PC level monster can, by and large, drop and/or kill a standard PC in a single round. Not highly likely, but, certainly possible. Add in critical hits and the chances go up as well. Go into a combat with less than full hit points, and the chances of PC death also increase. Which rolls us back around to the incentive to make sure that everyone goes into a combat at full health. Meaning the cleric gets sucked dry pretty quickly.

As I said earlier, as soon as we moved away from Vancian casting (lots of healing wands, Reserve Feats, that sort of thing) the 15 MAD vanished.

 

[pemerton]

Soo.. you're going with what you're assuming as opposed to going with what is actually stated on the poster.

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

On the other hand I could just as easily say that I believe that Paizo, in labeling it's poster "3.5 Thrives" (as opposed to say, "D&D 3.5 thrives") is purposefully avoiding the actual usage of the D&D brand. That the 3.5 that is is inviting the reader of the poster to believe is thriving is the 3.5 d20 system

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.

especially since Pathfinder has no rights to use anything that makes the 3.5 system distinctly D&D, such as specific IP.

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?

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".

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."

He states it had name recognition

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.

Then s/he shouldn't have made the claim... or should admit that s/he mis-spoke, or just like the claim of Paizo being a spin off corporation of WotC, it is wrong. It's easy to dismiss something as less important once proven wrong

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.

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.

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.

 

[pemerton]

I pressed my players not to 15 MAD it by reminding them repeatedly that they were on a rescue mission. While it was eventually necessary for them to rest up, heal and refresh spells, as the DM, I was responsible for ensuring that the momentum of the game was appropriate both to the story being told and the abilities of the characters. So while I'd remind them that they were on a rescue mission, I also recognized that rest was both necessary and possible in the citadel and tried to make allowances.

I tend to prefer that this momentum/pacing emerge somewhat organically from play, rather than from GM pressure. When you say that you "pressed" your players, can you elaborate how you did this?

But as with a lot of narratives, time is flexible in an RP situation. So while the bulk of your at table time might be spent on a combat with the kobolds or a troll, a lot of the actual "in game" time is spent checking for traps, exploring hallways, opening chests, etc. Since the encounters feel so central, it seems like it's all you do unless the DM makes an effort to give life to the rest of your adventuring experience, in which case, your 15 MAD may be more like a 5-6 hour adventuring day.

I think this solves the aesthetic issue (if that is a problem), but it can leave the balance issue still unresolved, if the casters are getting to nova through fewer encounters and therefore overshadow the non-casters.

 

[Remus Lupin]

I tend to prefer that this momentum/pacing emerge somewhat organically from play, rather than from GM pressure. When you say that you "pressed" your players, can you elaborate how you did this?

Well, it was pretty straightforward. The players would have a few encounters, and then someone would look at their sheet and say "I'm down some hit points, and the casters would say, "Hrm. I'm down a few spells" and then they'd look at one another and say "Maybe we should rest."

I'd let them talk it through a bit on their own, and if it seemed like they'd forgotten that they were there to rescue someone, whose fate was still unknown, I'd gently remind them: "Ahem. Remember, this is a rescue mission." They would still make up their own minds, and I'd react accordingly, but I didn't want them forget that they were there on a mission.

I think this solves the aesthetic issue (if that is a problem), but it can leave the balance issue still unresolved, if the casters are getting to nova through fewer encounters and therefore overshadow the non-casters.

I agree, there still remain mechanical issues that can come up, as Hussar also notes above. At low levels though, I tend to find that the problems involve the fighters' offensive resources tend to be renewable while the casters' generally aren't, which means that fighters don't lose their ability to deal damage from encounter to encounter (generally), and their main concern then becomes staying standing. The casters become less and less effective as they day progresses, and thus have a greater incentive to push for a rest.

For fighters, if you've got a cleric in the party and/or a wand of healing, they can go on and on. Once the caster has blown his main offensive spells, they wind up at low levels resorting to the crossbow or just trying to stay out of the way. I did this many times as a low level wizard. Of course I also tend to play blasters, so I like being effective in a fight. Maybe if you're a buff and sabotage style caster, this is less of an issue.

 

[lucek]

The first example is the best writing of any of your quotes - it explains why, without having the over wrought prose of Vampire, or the pseudo noir of Dread and Engine Heart.

Not the reaction you want, I am certain, but I will take they 'why' over the prosey fanfic, every time. Mind, the example chapter fiction from Pathfinder isn't great, either, but....

The Auld Grump

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.