A mini-rant re: Pathfinder and D&D

[Mercurius]

I've been noticing for some time that somehow or other, the word "Pathfinder" is being used as if it is a different entity than "Dungeons & Dragons." Now certainly it is a different entity than "4th Edition" or "AD&D" or "BECMI" but let's get one thing very clear: Pathfinder is D&D. It is not a different game; hell, it is barely a different edition from 3.5E.

I know people realize this, but the way language is used is as if it is a distinctly different game. I see phrases such as "I stopped playing D&D and converted to Pathfinder" or "Since playing Pathfinder I see no reason to ever play D&D again." Folks, Pathfinder is D&D. And there's nothing wrong with that!

Maybe this kind of thinking serves Paizo or maybe it doesn't, I don't know, but what it does do is split the community into two artificial categories: D&D players and Pathfinder players, as if we're talking about D&D and Warhammer. On one hand, there's no problem with that--RPGs are RPGs, and we're all one big happy family. But my point is that the distinction of Pathfinder and D&D is artificial and misleading, as if they're two separate species when the former is a type of the latter.

Pathfinder is D&D.

And yes, so is 4E.

They are both different types or variations of D&D, but both are within the "D&D Family" (or D&D species or sub-species). Furthermore, Pathfinder is no more (or less) than a revised and re-packaged version of 3.5E D&D. In some ways you could say it is more D&D than 4E in that it is closer to another form of D&D than 4E is (this is not to say that 4E is not real D&D, but that it is more uniquely distinct from other forms of D&D than Pathfinder is).

 

[Morrus]

So what phrasing should we use when we convert to Pathfinder from D&D? "Paizo's version of D&D 3.5"? Seems much easier to use the name on the front of the book. Plus I'm sure Paizo would prefer that we call Pathfinder Pathfinder.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Pathfinder is D&D.

No more so than Arcana Unearthed or Arcana Evolved is. Or FantasyCraft. Or Midnight. Or...

Pathfinder- and all of the 3.X games- are to D&D what Neanderthals are to Cro Magnons- extremely close relatives that share many of the same traits and can even intermingle with minimal difficulty...but not identity.

And yes, so is 4E.

Not to me. It's a good FRPG, and I enjoy playing it, but it doesn't scratch my "D&D itch" at all.

 

[gamerprinter]

While I don't know about all your examples. Sometimes I use PF as separate to D&D simply to be polite to those who might disagree and consider to D&D to be only that which has the brand name D&D.

But I basically agree with you that Pathfinder is in fact another version of D&D.

 

[Mercurius]

So what phrasing should we use when we convert to Pathfinder from D&D? "Paizo's version of D&D 3.5"? Seems much easier to use the name on the front of the book. Plus I'm sure Paizo would prefer that we call Pathfinder Pathfinder.

Honestly, it doesn't matter to me what phrasing is used and, in the end, Pathfinder is Pathfinder. I'm just pointing out how the language is subtly deceptive and that Pathfinder is not a distinct game from D&D but a form of D&D, a slight revision and repackaging of 3.5 D&D.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Pathfinder is a different game from the current edition of D&D.

Both Pathfinder and 4e are current games, trying to use D&D to cover both would be both confusing and inaccurate.

So, I will continue to use 4e when I mean 4e, Pathfinder when I mean Pathfinder, 3e when I mean the original version of third edition, 3.5 for the revised edition of third edition D&D, and 3.X to mean any edition of the third edition architecture, most often including Pathfinder.

That I do not like 4e has no bearing on this, I would find it confusing going the other way 'round, too.

They are different current games.

The Auld Grump

 

[Ahnehnois]

I suspect there are three main schools of thought with regards to this (of course several others will present themselves in this thread):

*4e fans who are critical of PF, who think that 4e is the definitive or best version of D&D and that PF is inferior, and would prefer that the D&D label be applied only to their game.

*PF fans who are critical of 4e, associate the D&D name with 4e, and would prefer to distance themselves from it.

*People who aren't partisan and don't care.

None of those groups has any reason to change the nomenclature currently being used.

***

It's also worth noting that many people use the term D&D broadly to encompass any number of rpgs that are neither 4e nor PF, simply because people associate the term with rpgs, which is perfectly fine.

 

[Mercurius]

No more so than Arcana Unearthed or Arcana Evolved is. Or FantasyCraft. Or Midnight. Or...

Not quite. Or rather, those are all different categories. Fantasy Craft is further from 3.5 than Pathfinder is. Midnight is mainly a campaign setting.

But yeah, you could say that all of the above are in the same species (like your Neanderthal/Cro-Magnon example). But my point is that the language use implies a different species, or at least further apart than they actually are. We're talking about a difference of degree.

Not to me. It's a good FRPG, and I enjoy playing it, but it doesn't scratch my "D&D itch" at all.

To quote Bill Lumbergh, "Mmmm, yeah, I'm gonna have to go ahead and sort of disagree with you." And leave it at that.

 

[Mercurius]

Let me try to clarify something (once more). I'm not suggesting that anyone use different nomenclature, but that they way that the word Pathfinder is sometimes (even often) used is subtly deceptive and even erroneous. For instance, which of the following statements is true and which is deceptive/erroneous:

"I stopped playing 4E and converted to Pathfinder."

"I stopped playing D&D and converted to Pathfinder."

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Originally Posted by Dannyalcatraz
No more so than Arcana Unearthed or Arcana Evolved is. Or FantasyCraft. Or Midnight. Or...

Not quite. Or rather, those are all different categories. Fantasy Craft is further from 3.5 than Pathfinder is. Midnight is mainly a campaign setting.

I don't think any one of those is any more or less D&D than Pathfinder is.

But yeah, you could say that all of the above are in the same species (like your Neanderthal/Cro-Magnon example). But my point is that the language use implies a different species, or at least further apart than they actually are. We're talking about a difference of degree.

Actually, Neanderthals and Cro Magnons are different species, albeit closely related ones, which is my point. D&D is not Pathfinder, Pathfinder is not D&D.

For instance, which of the following statements is true and which is deceptive/erroneous:

"I stopped playing 4E and converted to Pathfinder."

"I stopped playing D&D and converted to Pathfinder."

I see nothing deceptive or erroneous in either statement. (I know this comes as a surprise.)