Is Pathfinder basically a "cloned" D&D 3.0/3.5?

Am I am in the tiny minority that sees Pathfinder as a very "sneaky" (though overtly) ripoff of D&D? In my humble opinion, I see it as nothing more than an exploitation of the OGL in that they created a game by putting a new name on it. What did they invent? What is unique to Pathfinder that makes it anything other than a well executed clone of D&D 3.0/3.5? I like the look and feel of a lot of what they produce but I can't bring myself to buy a single product. I am also in the minority that doesn't steal movies or music... BLUF: I think Pathfinder is akin to pirating intellectual property. They did it well, but they exploited bad practices by WOTC, fair game or stealing?

Here's a link. Short version: if you're using IP under license, you're not ripping someone off.

There is nothing sneaky about it.

And it's not an exploitation of the OGL. It's doing exactly what the OGL was designed to do.

When the original 3e team took over control of the D&D brand after TSR collapsed, one thing that they were very much concerned about was that the D&D brand might one day sit in limbo with no product support, held by a rights owner that would jealously guard a brand they weren't publishing from its fans. They wanted to ensure that whatever happened to a corporation, however a rights holder behaved, D&D would always belong to its fans and could never therefore be killed. They managed to sell to WotC management the idea of the OGL that was written basically to give D&D permanently and irrevocably to the fan community.

When 4e came out, management wanted to take the game back. They wrote a game that wasn't compatible with the OGL and wasn't released under it. Effectively, they tried to revoke the fans ownership of the game. Indeed, they even revoked the longstanding partnership with Pazio by which Pazio was effectively supporting TSR's brand and assuming a large amount of risk in printing what WoTC considered high risk/low profit IP centered supplements like modules and magazines. Pazio, which at the time was basically wholly dependent on WotC, was faced with corporate extinction.

But the OGL was designed specifically to prevent this from happening. So Pazio did exactly what the OGL was designed to do - ensure that regardless of corporate machinations, D&D would always be supported in some form - even if it was nothing more than a labor of love. But of course, Pazio quite rightfully in my opinion has thrived, producing fan-centered content that arguably more fans of the game admire and want to own than what WotC has been producing. WotC in the mean time tried to kill sacred cows, focused on mechanics over IP, tried to rewrite 30 years of canon, destroyed fan favorite intellectual property with things like the Spellplague, and spent more time creating a system for people who didn't like D&D than they did trying to develop a relationship with their existing fans. It doesn't bother me in the slightest that that didn't work out, and when 5e was announced it was announced with tremendous more humility than we saw with 4e. And surprise surprise, all that humility and due consideration for the customers' wants seems to have resulted in a system almost everyone admires, albeit it still seems too late to truly save the brand after the damage that was done to it.

But Paizo bears no blame for that. They didn't trigger the divorce.

Manchu2 said:

Am I am in the tiny minority that sees Pathfinder as a very "sneaky" (though overtly) ripoff of D&D? In my humble opinion, I see it as nothing more than an exploitation of the OGL in that they created a game by putting a new name on it. What did they invent? What is unique to Pathfinder that makes it anything other than a well executed clone of D&D 3.0/3.5? I like the look and feel of a lot of what they produce but I can't bring myself to buy a single product. I am also in the minority that doesn't steal movies or music... BLUF: I think Pathfinder is akin to pirating intellectual property. They did it well, but they exploited bad practices by WOTC, fair game or stealing?

Click to expand...

They used the OGL *exactly as intended* by its architects. That's not exploitation; it's proof of concept. If you license something to somebody, they're not stealing from you when they use it.

Manchu2 said:

Am I am in the tiny minority that sees Pathfinder as a very "sneaky" (though overtly) ripoff of D&D? In my humble opinion, I see it as nothing more than an exploitation of the OGL in that they created a game by putting a new name on it. What did they invent? What is unique to Pathfinder that makes it anything other than a well executed clone of D&D 3.0/3.5? I like the look and feel of a lot of what they produce but I can't bring myself to buy a single product. I am also in the minority that doesn't steal movies or music... BLUF: I think Pathfinder is akin to pirating intellectual property. They did it well, but they exploited bad practices by WOTC, fair game or stealing?

Click to expand...

delericho, Celebrim, and Morrus have it right. It's all legit. So if you're interested, go ahead and buy it with a clear conscience. Paizo even sells PDFs of the rulebooks for cheap on their website.

Also, check out www.d20pfsrd.com. Paizo follows put out more material under the OGL than WotC ever did and it is compiled on that site (along with some 3rd party materials).

They did with the OGL precisely what the OGL was intended to do, and in the process gave all those of us who didn't like 4e stable and high-quality support for a game they clearly loved and respected. There was never any sneakiness involved; it was certainly a complicated situation from a business perspective for Wizards, but Paizo was always pretty honest and open about what they were doing, and doing so within the framework provided by WotC. Let's remember Pathfinder was announced with the "3.5 Lives, 3.5 Thrives" motto, and the intro of the Core Rulebook makes as direct a mention of D&D as it was legally possible (saying that PF was a continuation of the 3.5 edition of the "father of roleplaying games", because they weren't allowed to explicitly say "We're remaking and updating D&D 3.5").

Though I've now moved from PF to 5e, what Paizo did for us 3e fans is something I'll never forget. And I think that, despite the divisions we endured as a community during the 4e/PF era, I have a feeling that PF was ultimately a great thing for the game and that is seriously moved and inspired WotC to make 5e the masterpiece it is.

Paizo used to run Dragon magazine and produce content for it, iirc, so they were even working with WotC before 3.5 ended.

When I first read the Pathfinder core rulebook, I’ll agree that it felt like they just took 3e, polished it up a bit, and repackaged it. Still, it's absolutely compliant with the OGL, which probably is the enduring legacy of 3e.

But over the years, it’s definitely gotten more and more of its own vibe, though.

What I wonder is whether Pathfinder would’ve succeeded like it did if 4e hadn’t been so, well, so 4e…

Manchu2 said:

Am I am in the tiny minority that sees Pathfinder as a very "sneaky" (though overtly) ripoff of D&D?

Click to expand...

Pathfinder is a 3.5 clone. Nothing "sneaky" about it. It used "3.5" in it's advertising when it was released.

They did it well, but they exploited bad practices by WOTC, fair game or stealing?

Click to expand...

Open Source is Open. Fair game.

I have to say I disagree. The intent, however poorly or successfully executed, was for D&D or D20 content to be "official" and still be published by third party; it was never for a third party to make a "new" game but supplements for the existing game. It was for gamers to have more options and more content, not a competing game.