Remathilis
Legend
So, the announcement of the 2nd edition of Pathfinder seems to have ripped the scab off an old topic of which there is no reconciling.
No, not that one.
I speak of the Flavor of the Core rules. Specifically, whether the Player's Manual (PHB or Core Rulebook) should be setting agnostic OR have a default setting in it.
RPGs float between two settings: ones that have an specific setting detailed in the core of the game, and ones that are toolsets designed to be fleshed out by the GM. Some rule sets are defined by their setting (Anyone playing the One Ring is playing in Middle Earth) some are defined by their lack (GURPS cares not if you use it for fantasy, sci-fi, or anything else you can think of). Others fall somewhere in between, and its in this Middle Ground that D&D and its cousin Pathfinder have lived for most of their lives. D&D began life very agnostic of setting; Greyhawk and Blackmoor weren't settings for D&D as much as they way its creators assembled their campaigns. However, even with that, it still had a sort of meta-implied setting defined by the rules and assumptions: it was a world where clerics used blunt weapons, dragons came in 5 chromatic colors that aligned to their breath weapons, hobbits didn't use magic and the forces of Law and Chaos were so palpable they had special languages adherents could speak. Yet much of the middle ground was intentionally left blank.
Until time marched on and the blanks got filled in. Officially. As more books came out, more of the world got hammered down and defined, both at a meta-level (LG paladins and druids, subraces of elves and dwarves, ecologies for orcs and goblins) and at a world-building level (as the Greyhawk Portfolio began to define Gygax's world, followed by the far-more detailed worlds of Krynn and Faerun). Lore built upon lore (as the Great Wheel beget Planescape which beget the Blood War). And while the 1e and 2e PHB didn't endorse any specific setting, the "World of D&D" as the game rules defined shaped up. Sure, the names of the Gods, continents or villages changed, but most of D&D was defined by the assumptions laid out in the rules (either adhering to them or intentionally breaking them).
Its the Post TSR era that the idea of a defined "default setting" takes shape. The 3e PHB tried to use Oerth as a backdrop, but aside from the PHB deities and a few odd references, the rules seem mostly devoid of Greyhawk. Its this model that Pathfinder borrowed for its Core Rulebook; Golarion is implied in the rule but beyond the deities list and a few references in the Bestiary, the core books are devoid of the setting. At this point, we can say the game has slowly been shifting closer to "setting" than "toolkit" but still firmly on the toolkit side of the line. That's going to change.
4e was the first edition to define D&D not just by its meta-implied setting (and nods to a generic setting for proper nouns) but as proper setting. Nentir Vale is scattered all through the 4e game in its lore, art, and mechanics. Moreso than any other edition, 4e married setting to system the way Edge of the Empire is married to the Star Wars setting. Its can be debated if the changes wrought to the lore were good or bad (that is an argument beyond the scope of this post) but there is no denying Nentir was front and center, and other settings (such as Faerun, Eberron, and even Athas) changed to accommodate those assumptions. 5e, to their credit has walked this back; somewhat. Faerun is used as a "default" setting when examples are needed (though nods to other settings are found as well) most of 5e has set forth to define the D&D Multiverse as far more set thing than, say, the 2e core books do. The pendulum might have swung back from 4e, but its still firmly on "setting" side.
Which brings us to Pathfinder and its more "Golarion tied" rules in its 2nd edition. As I said, the PF CRB was... generic mostly. Sure, Golarion got nods and used as examples, But the CRB has as much to do with Golarion as the 3e PHB did with Greyhawk. In fact, it could easily swap the Golarion references with Greyhawk ones and little would change. That might have helped when people were reacting badly to 4e's changes, but now its genericness is almost a liability; I could easily use my 5e PHB to run Golarion instead of the Core rulebook and I'd miss out on little. Add to the fact that both systems are free to use under OGL and you realize that both systems need an advantage that the other cannot replicate, and you see quickly that advantage is their lore.
Stripped of all mechanics, Pathfinder is still very different than D&D despite their common ancestry. A D&D goblin and a Pathfinder goblin are worlds apart in difference despite being roughly in the same place on the food chain. The D&D planes are very different than the Pathfinder ones, even when planes like Hell and the Abyss overlap. D&D has monsters like ithilids and Pathfinder has stats for Shoggoths. The difference in Daemons and Yugoloths is tremendous despite filling the NE Outsider role. Ideally, the difference between both games should be evident even when rule mechanics aren't emphasized. And there is one way for both games to do that.
Embrace their settings.
For D&D, that means continuing to embrace and define the D&D multiverse, spelling out when a specific world changes things but also defining the "common ground" for things like elves, orcs and dragons. It also means using a world like Faerun as the "starting point" for which other settings are compared. For Pathfinder, its embracing elements of its lore into its rules; after 10 years and hundreds of supplements there is no reason for them to keep to only the seven races and eleven classes it inherited from 3e. The words "goblin alchemist" and "dragonborn warlock" should be unique to their respective core books (but the concept need not be, as the game expands and new ideas are added in supplements). Sitting down to play either game should feel different not just mechanically but thematically as well. The books should invoke their worlds and explain to new players (regardless if they are familiar with the other) what makes them different beyond how attack rolls are calculated.
In short, they need to define what makes Dungeons & Dragons different from Pathfinder and what makes them different that hundreds of other retro-clones and fantasy heartbreakers out there. Because the era of "Generic Fantasy RPG" is over. And gaming will be better for it.
No, not that one.
I speak of the Flavor of the Core rules. Specifically, whether the Player's Manual (PHB or Core Rulebook) should be setting agnostic OR have a default setting in it.
RPGs float between two settings: ones that have an specific setting detailed in the core of the game, and ones that are toolsets designed to be fleshed out by the GM. Some rule sets are defined by their setting (Anyone playing the One Ring is playing in Middle Earth) some are defined by their lack (GURPS cares not if you use it for fantasy, sci-fi, or anything else you can think of). Others fall somewhere in between, and its in this Middle Ground that D&D and its cousin Pathfinder have lived for most of their lives. D&D began life very agnostic of setting; Greyhawk and Blackmoor weren't settings for D&D as much as they way its creators assembled their campaigns. However, even with that, it still had a sort of meta-implied setting defined by the rules and assumptions: it was a world where clerics used blunt weapons, dragons came in 5 chromatic colors that aligned to their breath weapons, hobbits didn't use magic and the forces of Law and Chaos were so palpable they had special languages adherents could speak. Yet much of the middle ground was intentionally left blank.
Until time marched on and the blanks got filled in. Officially. As more books came out, more of the world got hammered down and defined, both at a meta-level (LG paladins and druids, subraces of elves and dwarves, ecologies for orcs and goblins) and at a world-building level (as the Greyhawk Portfolio began to define Gygax's world, followed by the far-more detailed worlds of Krynn and Faerun). Lore built upon lore (as the Great Wheel beget Planescape which beget the Blood War). And while the 1e and 2e PHB didn't endorse any specific setting, the "World of D&D" as the game rules defined shaped up. Sure, the names of the Gods, continents or villages changed, but most of D&D was defined by the assumptions laid out in the rules (either adhering to them or intentionally breaking them).
Its the Post TSR era that the idea of a defined "default setting" takes shape. The 3e PHB tried to use Oerth as a backdrop, but aside from the PHB deities and a few odd references, the rules seem mostly devoid of Greyhawk. Its this model that Pathfinder borrowed for its Core Rulebook; Golarion is implied in the rule but beyond the deities list and a few references in the Bestiary, the core books are devoid of the setting. At this point, we can say the game has slowly been shifting closer to "setting" than "toolkit" but still firmly on the toolkit side of the line. That's going to change.
4e was the first edition to define D&D not just by its meta-implied setting (and nods to a generic setting for proper nouns) but as proper setting. Nentir Vale is scattered all through the 4e game in its lore, art, and mechanics. Moreso than any other edition, 4e married setting to system the way Edge of the Empire is married to the Star Wars setting. Its can be debated if the changes wrought to the lore were good or bad (that is an argument beyond the scope of this post) but there is no denying Nentir was front and center, and other settings (such as Faerun, Eberron, and even Athas) changed to accommodate those assumptions. 5e, to their credit has walked this back; somewhat. Faerun is used as a "default" setting when examples are needed (though nods to other settings are found as well) most of 5e has set forth to define the D&D Multiverse as far more set thing than, say, the 2e core books do. The pendulum might have swung back from 4e, but its still firmly on "setting" side.
Which brings us to Pathfinder and its more "Golarion tied" rules in its 2nd edition. As I said, the PF CRB was... generic mostly. Sure, Golarion got nods and used as examples, But the CRB has as much to do with Golarion as the 3e PHB did with Greyhawk. In fact, it could easily swap the Golarion references with Greyhawk ones and little would change. That might have helped when people were reacting badly to 4e's changes, but now its genericness is almost a liability; I could easily use my 5e PHB to run Golarion instead of the Core rulebook and I'd miss out on little. Add to the fact that both systems are free to use under OGL and you realize that both systems need an advantage that the other cannot replicate, and you see quickly that advantage is their lore.
Stripped of all mechanics, Pathfinder is still very different than D&D despite their common ancestry. A D&D goblin and a Pathfinder goblin are worlds apart in difference despite being roughly in the same place on the food chain. The D&D planes are very different than the Pathfinder ones, even when planes like Hell and the Abyss overlap. D&D has monsters like ithilids and Pathfinder has stats for Shoggoths. The difference in Daemons and Yugoloths is tremendous despite filling the NE Outsider role. Ideally, the difference between both games should be evident even when rule mechanics aren't emphasized. And there is one way for both games to do that.
Embrace their settings.
For D&D, that means continuing to embrace and define the D&D multiverse, spelling out when a specific world changes things but also defining the "common ground" for things like elves, orcs and dragons. It also means using a world like Faerun as the "starting point" for which other settings are compared. For Pathfinder, its embracing elements of its lore into its rules; after 10 years and hundreds of supplements there is no reason for them to keep to only the seven races and eleven classes it inherited from 3e. The words "goblin alchemist" and "dragonborn warlock" should be unique to their respective core books (but the concept need not be, as the game expands and new ideas are added in supplements). Sitting down to play either game should feel different not just mechanically but thematically as well. The books should invoke their worlds and explain to new players (regardless if they are familiar with the other) what makes them different beyond how attack rolls are calculated.
In short, they need to define what makes Dungeons & Dragons different from Pathfinder and what makes them different that hundreds of other retro-clones and fantasy heartbreakers out there. Because the era of "Generic Fantasy RPG" is over. And gaming will be better for it.
