A mini-rant re: Pathfinder and D&D

[gamerprinter]

Sorry for the derailing.

I don't think there is an excuse for "football hooliganism behavior" and more accurately speaking: I meant I don't understand why we as a community tolerate and participate in it instead of having a majority that frown on such infighting like in the volleyball circle. I mean, the TRPG community is full of smart people but why--hmm, I cannot articulate it. Are we so insecure that we need to defend our preferred style? It's all TRPG to me.

I'm new to ENWorld and to the forum culture but I have wondered why it isn't against forum rules to edition-war. Everyone gets upset usually! Lol :S

As for volleyball as a comparison yes it's not accurate. Volleyball had big rule changes over the years. Those of us who have played for more than 20 years sometimes miss the good old days but we have accepted "4E" lol. No infighting we just focus on the game. Apologies if my example rubbed people the wrong way

Edition warring isn't really tolerated, nor should be, to question why it happens at all, is what my response was about. It's natural, but that doesn't mean people should do it.

 

[molepunch]

Perhaps a lot of bad blood can be prevented if both camps agree that D&D is a trademark; AD&D, 3.x, 4E are rules sets of D&D; to not use D&D to mean TRPG or the-edition-I-love.

For me:
Does it involve dice? Yes
Do you play a character in a story? Yes
Do you have stats? Yes
Does it involve one person playing the GM? Yes
It is a TRPG!

PF = TRPG? Yes
PF = D&D? No
4E = D&D? No unless WotC deems so
4E = D&D 4E? Yes

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

At its foundation is an emotional response...and make no mistake, the emotional response is what happens first.

 

[Desdichado]

I don't think there is an excuse for "football hooliganism behavior" and more accurately speaking: I meant I don't understand why we as a community tolerate and participate in it instead of having a majority that frown on such infighting like in the volleyball circle. I mean, the TRPG community is full of smart people but why--hmm, I cannot articulate it. Are we so insecure that we need to defend our preferred style?

Regardless of what you can excuse or not, it certainly happens and is a significant fact of life. What exactly do you propose to "not tolerate it?" Take edition warriors out back and shoot them?

Edition wars are a fact of life in the RPG hobby. I generally find myself bemused by them for a time, until they get tiresome, then I just ignore them. That seems a lot more productive than running around trying to not tolerate them.

It's all TRPG to me.

Yeah, but it's not really about what it is to you, is it? It's about what it is to the entire community, and your view is no more valid (or invalid) than anyone else's on this particular question.

 

[gamerprinter]

Perhaps a lot of bad blood can be prevented if both camps agree that D&D is a trademark; AD&D, 3.x, 4E are rules sets of D&D; to not use D&D to mean TRPG or the-edition-I-love.

Well, without rehashing what I've already posted in this thread regarding specifically this point. When talking D&D as IP of WotC or as trademark and Pathfinder as IP and trademark of Paizo, so they are two different legal entities, I agree that's true. But when I talk about D&D, the game, and know that D&D has greatly changed it's rules between editions over the years, to me, Pathfinder is as much D&D the game, as all of them.

I consider D&D the IP, and D&D the game as two different things. And I don't mean D&D = TTRPG, as I don't consider most RPGs D&D, only those related to D&D over the years, using similar mechanics which are many, including most OGL based games, and games that emulated 1e and 2e.

To make all of the above a non-point, I generally talk PF only on the PF forum, and TTRPGs in the General Forum - I try to keep system specifics out of discussion in the General Forum, except for threads like these which specifically discuss both.

In the end, I don't try to make those with differing points of view upset. We cannot seem to decide on a specific definition of our terms, but I really don't plan on changing my POV regarding the subject, nor my definition. If it upsets some people, it's not my intention, but then it's really not my concern.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Incidentally, if the XP system was working I would XP Mercurius - I disagree with his premise, but I appreciate the fact that he wants the big tent back.

Hopefully I will remember that when the XP system is back up and running.

The Auld Grump

 

[Aldarc]

At its foundation is an emotional response...and make no mistake, the emotional response is what happens first.

If I could give you XP for "getting it," then I would.

 

[ssampier]

Say I work for a large paper company. I work for the company that makes Kleenex brand tissues. For whatever reason I don't work there any more.

I decide to start fresh and start a competing paper company. I start making facial tissues again. I use the same equipment and knowledge from my previous job. Are my tissues Kleenex?

Essentially, the brand is the thing. In the days of d20 if you were running a d20 compatible game which needs the PHB you'd still call it D&D. *

However, Pathfinder does not require the Dungeons & Dragons 3.5 PHB. It requires the Pathfinder Core Rule Book.

Semantics, yes.

* I think Mike Mearls had a blog post about this once.

 

[Argyle King]

If I ask for Coke, that's what I want.

If I ask for Pepsi, that's what I want.

If I simply ask for cola, both options are available.

 

[jonesy]

If I ask for Coke, that's what I want.

If I ask for Pepsi, that's what I want.

If I simply ask for cola, both options are available.

I asked for a Coke in this waffle house in Tennessee, and they gave me a Pepsi.

I asked why and they said "Pepsi is Coke here".