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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 5805885" data-attributes="member: 48965">Cool, so you're agreeing with me.  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... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused    :confused:"  data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" />... uhm, ok.   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.  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.  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.  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.  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?  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.  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.</blockquote>

Verification