Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5805407" data-attributes="member: 42582">Imaro, you said this:And that is primarily what I was replying to. You said that PF differs from OSRIC only in "larger audience", not in marketing speak. For the reasons I stated in my reply, I don't think that's remotely true - apart from anything else, OSRIC is not being sold into a market and so has no marketing speak.But the bigger difference is this - Paizo sent a poster saying "3.5 Thrives" to "game stores everywhere". That is, they actively solicited purhcases from strangers by appealing to "v 3.5" - the version of D&D those potential customers has until recently been purchasing, and in most cases probably still were playing. This is radically different "marketing speak" and marketing activity from anything OSRIC has done - it has no reference to any version of D&D on any of its promotional verbiage (and, indeed, it is crucial to its tenuous legality that it not do so) whereas PF has such a reference front-and-centre on its widely distributed promotional poster.As for disingenuity, I don't think I'm being disingenous at all. I'm saying what I think - PF is about entrepreneruship, and marketing, and using every possible technique to take ownership of a market that someone else created (namely, the market of people who will spend money on D&D 3.5 materials). The OSR retroclones are about hobby gaming. PF is a commercial product. The OSR retroclones are not (Castles and Crusades apart, but for that very reason - plus others - I woudn't categorise it as a retroclone). How much blunter do you want me to be?EDIT: I may be in a minority by classifying RPG products by reference to their commercial characteristics rather than either (i) their legal characteristics (what trademarks they bear, what licences they are subject to, etc) or (ii) their textual characteristics (what rules, guidelines and fiction do they contain). But particularly when one is talking about the marketing of RPG products, and the creation of new markets for them or disputes between commercial competitors over existing markets, I think the classification that I am deploying is the overwhelmingly salient one.</blockquote>

Verification