Pathfinder 1E Is Pathfinder D & D?

[TheAuldGrump]

To me, Pathfinder *was* D&D. Now it's Pathfinder.

When I describe the RPG I'm playing, I say "Pathfinder" not "D&D". (That has taken some getting used to!)

That is pretty much exactly what happened to me. It is a weird feeling.

Like admitting that a friend is dead is about as close as I can come, not nearly as bad as the loss of a friend, but the same resignation that they will never be a part of your life again.

Gods, but I am maudlin tonight.

The Auld Grump

 

[GreyLord]

I don't consider that 3e or 3.5 were D&D. It's a bigger deviation from D&D than 4e was to 3e. I find it hypocritical of all the 3e fanboys who claim foul on 4e but don't say the same thing about 3.X edition.

That said, I see 3e and 3.5 the SAME GAME as Pathfinder. It's closer to 3.x then just about any game has been to it's predecessor. I'd say it's closer to 3.5 than 3.5 was to 3e. If you consider 3.x D&D you'd consider Pathfinder D&D.

It's the opposite of AD&D/D&D and 3.X/D20. In there the rules were different, but someone tried calling it the same name.

In D20/3.X and Pathfinder, the rules are basically the same with some tweaks, they just renamed it.

In fact, I think I'm HAPPIER with it being called Pathfinder then 3.X since there is NO illusion or hiding that it's D&D. It's now its OWN GAME like it should have been from the first. It should have always been called something other then D&D, now it is.

So is it D&D? As already stated, depends on what your definition of the game is, and whether you considered 3e and 3.5 as D&D or not.

For the intents and purposes of this forum, as long as I'm calling 3.X D&D which I suppose I do so others understand what I'm saying most of the time, I think it would fall under that framework of D&D.

PS: Now on whether it's a better game or not than D&D...I'm much happier to acquiesce that Pathfinder is a great game for what it's designed to do, however when it was called 3.X I consider it an atrocity in many ways. Why...it truly is all in the name. One was trying to say it was something it wasn't, the other resides happily in being what it is. Pathfinder may even be better then D&D (and note I'm talking about the REAL D&D, not the 3.X editions or 4e) in mechanics and gameplay...but I'm one of those old school grognards another thread refers too, and I'm constantly grumpy!

 

[DaveMage]

Shall we get off your lawn, too, GreyLord?

(Dang kids!!!)

 

[Perram]

Pathfinder, in my opinion, certainly is a version of D&D. My favorite version so far!

But it is certainly carving out its own identity at this point, and I think that is a good thing. While the first release of the game stuck pretty close to the source material, it really is becoming its own thing now.

So I say I play Pathfinder now. I call myself a GM not a DM.

But in the grand scheme of things? This are small differences that only us gamers will notice.

 

[Holy Bovine]

I see these kinds of threads a lot - here and on other boards. They all seem to ignore one key question in my mind

Does it really matter?

I mean I've played every edition of the game (except OD&D (1974) - sorry diaglo!) and have even recently bought Pathfinder. All of them are (or look) fun but does it matter what the hell is printed on the cover? Gamers get way to wrapped up in worrying if their game of choice is the popular/right/wrong/etc one while forgetting is makes not one damned bit of difference. If you enjoy it play it! All the rest is just smoke and thunder.

 

[HalfordAskold]

To me, Pathfinder *was* D&D. Now it's Pathfinder.

When I describe the RPG I'm playing, I say "Pathfinder" not "D&D". (That has taken some getting used to!)

Great way to say it about Pathfinder was D & D, and now its Pathfinder. Yes. Thank you for that insight.

 

[HalfordAskold]

I see these kinds of threads a lot - here and on other boards. They all seem to ignore one key question in my mind

Does it really matter?

I mean I've played every edition of the game (except OD&D (1974) - sorry diaglo!) and have even recently bought Pathfinder. All of them are (or look) fun but does it matter what the hell is printed on the cover? Gamers get way to wrapped up in worrying if their game of choice is the popular/right/wrong/etc one while forgetting is makes not one damned bit of difference. If you enjoy it play it! All the rest is just smoke and thunder.

I am old school too (1977) and what I was wondering, as I talked with old gamers where I am it, and I delve into Pathfinder, it is the logical (imo) progression of what D & D started, game mechanic wise. I know old gamers who only play original D & D... from the original small booklets. They don't play anything beyond that. But as 4E holds NO interest to me, nor do any of the other old gamers play 4 E either, it got me wondering. Its the 'feel'. And no, again that's not a bad thing. I think by saying 'We're off to play D & D' to the mundanes, they can understand it. The term Dungeons and Dragons is a part of our culture. I know people who love Arduin Grimore, and they make sure people know it's NOT D & D.

I was just wondering what other gamers, else where thought. Keep it going, I find how people look at this very fascinating.

 

[gamerprinter]

I see these kinds of threads a lot - here and on other boards. They all seem to ignore one key question in my mind

Does it really matter?

I mean I've played every edition of the game (except OD&D (1974) - sorry diaglo!) and have even recently bought Pathfinder. All of them are (or look) fun but does it matter what the hell is printed on the cover? Gamers get way to wrapped up in worrying if their game of choice is the popular/right/wrong/etc one while forgetting is makes not one damned bit of difference. If you enjoy it play it! All the rest is just smoke and thunder.

Oh, I don't think this thread is trying to prove what matters and what doesn't. The OP is asking it as a philosophical question - not as a line drawn in the sand.

I don't think anyone is taking this too seriously. More like wondering how people feel about this particular game, is all.

 

[jimmifett]

Currently for me, "D&D" is 4e, Pathfinder is Pathfinder. I play both now (but still prefer 4e, esp to DM). Together, they both occupy the FRPG genre for me, as opposed to say, Gurps, which I like for sci-fi and modern, L5R for JFRPG, and a choice of Gurps/DC/Heroes for supers games.

As for previous editions (prior to 3.x), it's just not "D&D" to me, but "generic oddball fantasy system". I've tried to read through it, but the writing and presentation is horrible. I guess that is "Gygaxian", to which I personally equate with needlessly wordy, confusing, and contradictory.

Maybe if someone reorganized and re-presented the rules clearly, I'd be much more inclined to try again.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

Maybe if someone reorganized and re-presented the rules clearly, I'd be much more inclined to try again.

If you're ever interested in trying again, you might look at the retroclones, if you haven't already: OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord, and the like. They're a bit better organized, and may be more palatable. They're also free.