A mini-rant re: Pathfinder and D&D

[kitsune9]

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.

This.

 

[The Shaman]

Shaman, we're at an impasse. You want me to answer a certain way then, when I explain why I can't answer it that way and offer another way to answer, you don't accept it.

You can answer the question, 'Is Pathfinder D&D?' but you can't answer the question, 'Is Castles and Crusades also D&D?'

I find that puzzling. And then again, I don't.

 

[molepunch]

Argh.

May I be candid? This is like hearing what Christianity and Islam have to say about what the One True Religion is. Or hearing fans argue which Final Fantasy is the real Final Fantasy and which is more or less or not.

I will never understand why some people take edition-love or system-love so seriously, but the way I see it, we should define D&D the way the normal-Joe would define it and keep all the veiled edition-championing, if any, in check: which is to say I think Pathfinder is Pathfinder and all editions of D&D is D&D--no loaded meaning or subtext needed, here, now, or ever.

D&D is not a taste, or a category of gaming (card games, board games), or a school of thought; it is a particular rule set for a tabletop role-playing. I understand that some people use the term 'D&D' synonymously with 'TRPG' but they really shouldn't. We don't say we're going to play basketball when we mean we're going to play sports, even if basketball were the most popular type of sport among sport fans.

Is 4E less D&D than Pathfinder? I, for one, could care less because honestly, we are all part of this one big happy family of nerds and we really need to stop attacking each other for liking a certain rule set over another.

A. I like dogs.
B. You like cats.
C. We both just love our pets.
D. Dogs are real pets. Cats are fickle.
E. Cats are real pets. Dogs are just hardwired to obey and follow like a moron.

Let's all focus on C!

 

[Mercurius]

You can answer the question, 'Is Pathfinder D&D?' but you can't answer the question, 'Is Castles and Crusades also D&D?'

I find that puzzling. And then again, I don't.

It has become clear that you aren't comprehending what I've been saying to you. First, I said that I don't feel like I know C&C (or the other two games you mentioned) well enough to make that judgment, so why is it "puzzling" that I won't give you the kind of answer that you want? I own Pathfinder and have at least perused its contents, whereas I've only read about C&C and seen the books in stores. I don't know Pathfinder well enough to definitely state how similar it is to 3.5, but my sense is that it is very similar, far more similar than 4E is, and essentially equivalent to a "3.75E".

But again, you're simply not getting the multiple contexts/perspectives/definitions thing. Pathfinder is not D&D in my 2nd view, but it is in category 1 (for me), 3 and 4. From what I know of C&C, it is pretty similar in that regard.

Satisfied?

 

[Mercurius]

I hear you [MENTION=6683467]molepunch[/MENTION] and, in the end, agree with your "we're all one big happy family" thing. That's one of the reasons I offered four possible definitions for what D&D is, which allows everyone to answer it as they like and also (imo) gives the most comprehensive range of perspectives without getting too out of hand.

If anything, my initial point was that many speak of Pathfinder as if it is an entirely different game from D&D when it seems rather clear to me it is very much in the "close family" of D&D; at most, a cousin (but really more like a daughter that married away and changed her last name).

I also agree that it is odd how seriously folks can get in terms of their identification with games. I mean, we're talking about games.

 

[TarionzCousin]

Why can't you answer the question with the same directness with which you decalre Pathfinder to be D&D?

Shaman, Mercurius has answered your question. It obviously isn't the answer you want, but please let it be. Your continued demands are cluttering up this thread and detracting from its honest, philosophical bent.

Please stop.

 

[BriarMonkey]

... [ stuff] ...

My opinion is mine. You will not change it. And to get so worked up over not being able to change it seems, well, odd. That's a lot of energy being spent on something that has no impact on your own views - much less your ability to enjoy the games you prefer to play.

As is borne out within this thread, no one's opinion will change, and while many have the same, or similiar, opinions, others do not. There is an impass that will not be resolved.

So, if one defines D & D by its licenses and trademarks, it means one thing (especially under a legal viewpoint). But, if one defines it as an experiance, concept, or an ideal, then it is a whole different animal. And it is here where there is no ground gained between ideals.

[sigh] I shall go about my business on other threads. Cheers.

 

[Umbran]

Why can't you answer the question with the same directness with which you decalre Pathfinder to be D&D?

Shaman, he is not required to answer the question at all, much less in exactly the way you desire it. The fact is that he has given you an answer. Accept it, and move on, please.

 

[The Shaman]

Your continued demands are cluttering up this thread and detracting from its honest, philosophical bent.

"Honest?"

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 don't know Pathfinder well enough to definitely state how similar it is to 3.5, but my sense is that it is very similar, far more similar than 4E is, and essentially equivalent to a "3.75E".

We have different ideas about what defines honest discourse, but telling people, 'U r duing it rawng,' then admitting you don't really know what you're talking about, doesn't strike me as a particularly forthright way of contributing to a conversation.

My question is on point, by the way. All three games are derived directly from the OGL, the same way Pathfinder is. C&C is billed as a d20 version of AD&D and LotFP is based on BECMI. MF is perhaps the most interesting question, because while it calls out MA and GW, it's fully cross-compatible with Labyrinth Lord, moreso than say GW with D&D.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

While I agree as the red text strongly states that Mercurius has answered the question, I share The Shaman's frustration.

The thread started with declarations of philosophical identity, and The Shaman and I have repeatedly made a point of highlighting the existence of other games that are no less connected to 3.5Ed, 3Ed, and other editions, all of which goes right to the heart of the question.

So when someone posts unequivocally that XRPG has identity with D&D, but "doesn't know XRPG well enough to definitely state how similar it is" and likewise cannot speak to the possible identity YRPG, ZRPG, NRPG, etc. have with D&D, it feels like there is a bit of shenanigans going on.

And in all honesty, these are the same kind of responses Mercurius got in 3-4 threads last year when starting with similar premises about D&D's identity.