I think that all it would do is force pathfinder 2e witch would be just enough diffrent to be it's completly own game, with as much ties to D&D as Rifts, Rolemaster, and Dark age Vampire..
That would depend on whether the OGL door drifts shut or slams shut. If it slams shut, that
at best means Paizo have to do a rush job on PF2.0, leading to substandard game. At worst, and more likely, it kills them stone dead.
But even the "drifts shut" option does nobody any favours. There's no appetite, either amongst PF players or even from Paizo, for a second edition at this time, never mind one that is significantly different. It is the very similarities to D&D 3.5e that are the major draw of the game. An enforced edition change would, I don't doubt, be accepted by the PF fans... but it's not a good outcome for anyone.
You know I had this same arguement in the hackmaster thread, I don't know what people take as insulting about the term retro clone
Well, it implies a lack of creative effort. But that's not really important - the term is
inaccurate, and if you're going to object to Pathfinder being called "the true D&D" (or whatever) then you really should be adopting the same standard in your own terminology. Pathfinder is no more a retroclone than Star Wars d20, or d20 Modern... or 4e for that matter.
So fine what term should I use for a game based on continueing a.previuse edtion of D&D?
For the most part, I'd suggest referring to them by name. Failing that, spinoff games works, as would near-D&D.
But, to be honest, I don't mind Pathfinder either being counted amongst the editions of D&D
or being counted as a retro-clone. Neither is actually accurate, but both have enough of a grain of truth that people will know what's being talked about.
What I do find problematic, though, is an objection to the one that simultaneously makes use of the other. Either both are acceptable, or neither.
Pathfinder the awsome game is great, Pathfinder the fantasy rpg that might unseat d&d as top rpg is no more a problem today then white wolf was in the 90's. Pathfinder being the one true spirit of D&D is BS... It has no more right to that claim then Myth and Magic.
All true.
Just the fact that every other spinoff game (is that better then retro clone?) put togather has less arguements with 4e fans on WotC web site in a year then pathfinder does in a week shows a current amount of problem.
Eh, if Pathfinder wasn't top dog, the arguments would be about Hackmaster instead, or DCC, or C&C, or whatever. Provided there was any one serious competitor to 4e, those arguments were inevitable.
It's just a tribalism thing. In Glasgow you get exactly the same tenor of debate over Ranger v Celtic (although with added death threats). On other sites (or even this one), you can guarantee
long threads by posting tirades about the Star Wars prequels. Or Star Wars v Star Trek. Or Kirk v Picard. Or Coke v Pepsi. And don't get me started on politics...
Basically, there are a handful of hugely emotive topics where people instinctively pick sides, and they're going to fight their corner. And the less important the issue
actually is, the more emotive the discussions tend to get, and the dirtier the fight is liable to be.
There comes a point where you just have to shake your head, comment that "somebody is wrong on the internet", and tune it out. Otherwise, insanity beckons.
Incidentally, it's quite likely that the Edition Wars have actually been good for sales of both Pathfinder and 4e. That's a massive, ongoing tide of free advertising right there. (Note that that presupposes they both existed, and that had the same relative levels of acceptance... just without the controversy. Obviously, had Pathfinder not existed at all, things would have been hugely different for 4e.)
