"What's with the whole "Designed For..." thing?" Topic

It seems like this is the new thing. I saw terrain labeled as "Designed for Infinity" before I had ever even heard of Infinity, and now PlastCraft are labeling their new desert dwellings as "Designed for SAGA".

That strikes me as an odd and possibly double-edged marketing ploy. On the one hand, I totally get that there might be an exciting new game out there and the manufacturer wants to hitch a ride on the wave of excitement. There might also be specific in-game needs (such hex-based terrain for BattleTech) that the product is designed to support.

On the other hand, it might limit the general appeal of the product by making it seem that it's exclusive only to that game or ruleset. "Oh, this is only for Infinity? Then I'll take my money elsewhere, since I'm too much of an unenlightened Neanderthal to be able to play said game system."

Honestly, I don't much care for the exclusivity argument. GW is bad enough with their "GW Hobby" shtick; now we have Infinity and SAGA putting on the same airs? That rubs me the wrong way. Am I the only one?

I think for Infinity, it's that the game has a very specific setting look, and labelling it as such will draw players to purchase it.

And it often means the two companies cross-market. So I say "designed for Infiniti" and you put me in your rule book, while I use your figs and stuff in my ad pictures.

It is useful for a lot of things. People who don't know what they are doing, like those buying things for loved ones, or people who are new to the hobby can get what they need without questioning it.

It is a pretty good idea actually. I can't imagine why it would actually bother anyone. Surely no one out there is such a sheep that they only use things for what a gaming company tells them.

It says designed for, not only to be used for. Directs people who play those games to the product but doesn't stop you using it for anything else or using other terrain for those games. Some gamers do need everything spelling out for them however as evidenced by the number of questions about rule sets asking if they can be used for other periods.

Some also use it as a way to say their product is compatible with a game when they don't have a license with the producing company to produce 'official' accessories.

It's just marketing talk, i think.

It's "Designer Terrain", specifically made to be used only with certain rules sets.

I've noticed quite a bit of winter terrain lately, but little of it has mentioned Frostgrave.

Grelber

Using the game name in its description can also open the seller up to lawsuits. "It is designed for game X so all profits belong to us because you used our name" or other GW style tricks.

It would be nice if the company mentioned the scale AS WELL as what game it's designed for… I had to ask once.

I don't know the buildings in question, but IIRC, SAGA needs 'small' and 'large' buildings to accomadate a certain number of figures. I would assume that these buildings meet the requirements.

This dates back to the days when the Blumes were in control of TSR. If you published a module (or produced miniatures, etc.) that was for D&D, and said "for D&D", they'd sue you for your back teeth, claiming that it implied TSR approval. So the "designed for use with" disclaimer came into use.

Before the OSR, a lot of the retro D&D guys would also do something like "designed for use with the worlds premier fantasy roleplaying game" or some such :-)

True. The turning point was the case against Mayfair, where the court ruled that "designed for use with D&D" did not in any way imply TSR approval. Of course, the
Blumes were rather stupid to take a company owned by two IP lawyers to court on such an issue.

Hah, yeah, no kidding.

Though I think it probably had the desired chilling effect for quite some years.

Palladium has been pretty trigger happy to take down fan stuff as well.

Meanwhile WOTC, much as I dislike their take on D&D, embraced the fans and gave them the keys and made bank.

Oh, it gets worse than that. Waaaay back in the day … when I was in high school, so the late 1970s … TSR threatened me for selling homemade character sheets labeled "Not approved for use with D&D" through a local bookstore.

Yeah. They threatened a high school kid, selling character sheets typed up on Dad's typewriter and, if I recall correctly, mimeographed, for a total profit of about $10 USD, because the term "D&D" was mentioned in any way at all.

Then there was the situation back in the 90s when they claimed that it was prohibited to distribute anything that used the stat format from D&D, even to your own gaming group. They literally said you could not invent a monster or an NPC and give the description to your players. The only legal way to play D&D (well, they were calling it AD&D at the time, to try to shaft Dave Arneson) was to buy published modules, period.

This was followed, not too long after, by TSR going belly-up and being bought out by WotC, who had a clue and knew how to use it. All other issues aside, the game industry has been much better for it.

Ouch, that's pretty nuts.

Yeah, TSR were wicked out of touch. Too bad. :(

Surely no one out there is such a sheep that they only use things for what a gaming company tells them.

Seventeen US dollars. Available in four colors. Someone out there is saying "BAAAAAAA", that's for sure.

:)