A mini-rant re: Pathfinder and D&D

[Aldarc]

Accepted then - I do not claim that 4e is not D&D. I avoid calling it that, I do not think of it as such, but I do not claim that it is not.

This habit is likely unnoticeable, given that in the name of clarity I typically call D&D 3e just '3e' and D&D 3.5 just '3.5' - so calling D&D 4e just 4e is pretty much an invisible difference. The reason is different, but the actual practice is identical. (I'd roll my eyes at me, if only I could).

The Auld Grump, how dare you not notice my invisible rebellion?!

It's amazing how often these debates about "what is D&D" come down to issues of semantics. I just want people to have the most fun with whatever edition of D&D, or other non-D&D tabletop RPG system, they enjoy best without being made to feel delegitimized as if they are not playing "true D&D" by playing someone's non-preferred edition. That's hardly conducive to a healthy RP community.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

It's amazing how often these debates about "what is D&D" come down to issues of semantics. I just want people to have the most fun with whatever edition of D&D, or other non-D&D tabletop RPG system, they enjoy best without being made to feel delegitimized as if they are not playing "true D&D" by playing someone's non-preferred edition. That's hardly conducive to a healthy RP community.

One problem is that there are a fair number of people that cannot accept that some folks really and truly do not think that 4e feels like D&D.

I often wonder how 4e would have been accepted had it been introduced as D&D: Tactics! or even (gasp) D&D: Essentials! while keeping 3.X afloat.

The flip side of the two games being so different is that they did not need to compete - 4e could have been sold as another property in the same line. WotC could have controlled both sides of the split, then, if 4e proved greatly more popular, phased out 3.X over time. Or, if the two games were balanced as Pathfinder and 4e are now, the two properties could have been maintained in parallel. 4e could have been marketed as a 'tactical role playing game' or the like, it is possible that folks that are now on either side of the debate might have invested in at least the first few books..

The reason that they did not do so was likely fear that the market would split - but since the market has split anyway then they managed to create the situation that they feared, without any of the possible benefit.

Hindsight is always 20/20, though often seen through rose colored glasses..

The Auld Grump

 

[gamerprinter]

I am NOT arguing against what feels like D&D to you or your preferences, so stop pretending like I am. It's just a strawman. Saying that "it does not feel like D&D to me" is not insulting - nor have I suggested that it was - as that's stating your preference. Saying that "4E is not D&D" basically carries the implication that people who play and enjoy 4E D&D are not playing D&D, and that is insulting.

That's the point of my post, nothing that I stated was implying anything about you. So I'm not pretending like you are anything.

The only thing "4e is not D&D" implies is that to that particular person's belief, it doesn't fit into what they feel is D&D. There is no hidden implication pointing to anyone else's belief. You are making some invisible connection that doesn't exist. It's just a statement, not an attack.

What anyone believes to be true or not true, should in no way apply to anyone else directly or indirectly. You're reading in the implication - it's not implied, however.

 

[Aldarc]

The only thing "4e is not D&D" implies is that to that particular person's belief, it doesn't fit into what they feel is D&D. There is no hidden implication pointing to anyone else's belief. You are making some invisible connection that doesn't exist. It's just a statement, not an attack.

What anyone beliefs to be true or not true, should in no way apply to anyone else directly or indirectly. You're reading in the implication - it's not implied, however.

I'm not making some sort of "invisible connection." It's informal logic. There is indeed a hidden implication in the statement "4E is not D&D," regardless of whether it's intentional or not. As I said, "4E is not D&D" is a plain-and-simple categorical statement. There is no statement of feeling or personal preference in that statement. There's no more implication of "what they feel" in the aforementioned statement than there is in "a fish is not a bird." Therefore, the statement "4E is not D&D" does indeed categorically imply that those playing (and by extension, enjoying) 4E are not playing "D&D," as it falls outside of the category of "what is D&D." You may not think of it as an "attack," but it is at the least unintentionally insulting to those who do see and enjoy 4E as legitimate D&D. But you can change all that by simply adding a subjective qualifier that does indicate that you are stating an opinion and your personal preference, as opposed to a categorical statement.

 

[gamerprinter]

I'm not making some sort of "invisible connection." It's informal logic. There is indeed a hidden implication in the statement "4E is not D&D," regardless of whether it's intentional or not. As I said, "4E is not D&D" is a plain-and-simple categorical statement. There is no statement of feeling or personal preference in that statement. There's no more implication of "what they feel" in the aforementioned statement than there is in "a fish is not a bird." Therefore, the statement "4E is not D&D" does indeed categorically imply that those playing (and by extension, enjoying) 4E are not playing "D&D," as it falls outside of the category of "what is D&D." You may not think of it as an "attack," but it is at the least unintentionally insulting to those who do see and enjoy 4E as legitimate D&D. But you can change all that by simply adding a subjective qualifier that does indicate that you are stating an opinion and your personal preference, as opposed to a categorical statement.

Not everyone speaks (posts in a forum) uses the clearest language. To those who try to be succinct and exact in their use of terms, as both and you and seem to share - not everyone have those skills. This is not a court of law, statements may or may not precisely match your or my reading of a given statement.

Saying X is not X, should not automatically carry any additional unsaid statements. If it's not clearly stated, one cannot assume it has some greater meaning.

To do so, is simply putting words into peoples mouths.

If someone states clearly that X game is not X, and anyone is playing X is really playing Y. Then, Hell yes, the person stating such thing would be saying something insulting and would deservedly get your retort. I'm behind you on that.

But without additional explanation from the person stating "4e is not D&D" in what he really means - I can't put words in his mouth, and 'finish their sentence', as I don't really know what they mean. Not everyone's logic is sound.


I'm just thinking your assumed 'insight' on what they are stating, might be mistaken.

Edit: and to the arguments that a fish is not a bird, is silly. While 1e, 2e, 3x, and even 4e share some elements, class names, some kind save mechanic, etc. We must all agree that there are differences in all those editions. Yet, most, call all of them D&D even though they are definitely not identical. What is called a fish, by any other name is still a fish. However a game is more ephemeral than that. Not everyone shares the same definition of terms.

To some people anything with the name D&D on the cover is D&D, I think that's your belief and a sound one.

To some people D&D is any kind of fantasy based RPG with fighter, magic-user, elf, dwarf - which includes many, many games that don't have the words D&D anywhere on it. (Pathfinder, C&C, HARP, BECMI, etc.)

To some people AD&D 1st or 2nd edition is the only D&D, and anything else is a different game.

If we all shared the same definition of terms and the same sound logical arguments, then assumptions could possibly be drawn. This isn't the case, so filling in the blanks on someone else's statement is irresponsible. We can't possibly know what any given person's statement truly means without clear clarification. For many members here, English isn't their primary language.

 

[Azgulor]

I think Mercurius may have been reading RD's posts on the recent history of WotC and has come to the conclusion (rightly, I believe) that the D&D brand, can't make the Hasbro "core brand" mark of $50M. If RD is correct, this would put D&D in the sink-or-swim column & Mercurius wants the D&D to remain strong.

If Pathfinder continues to grow in popularity, its own increasing brand awareness (future MMO, now comic book) is the first sizeable threat in a while that could eat into that D&D brand awareness. And no, I'm not getting into the Pathfinder is bigger than D&D argument -- it's irrelevant unless its absence would push D&D past the $50M number.

However, calling Pathfinder, Arcana Evolved, or any other OGL game "D&D" isn't necessarily protecting the brand. It certainly isn't putting money in the WotC coffers.

For some of my adult players, the term D&D is still used b/c that's what they started with way back when. My kids and their friends, however, have never played D&D. If you ask them what they are playing, they are playing Pathfinder.


Another thought on this whole thing -- Why does D&D get this blind loyalty from some? Why doesn't the incarnation of the game matter? I don't refer to Call of Duty as Halo because I love that series and it was my favorit first-person shooter or whatever... They're both First-Person Shooters with largely similar gameplay.

Pathfinder is Pathfinder. 4e is D&D. It's not a form of D&D I wish to play, so the brand is largely dead to me other than from a nostalgia standpoint. However, if I wanted to play D&D, I've got several editions on my bookshelf that haven't spontaneously disintegrated to make way for 4e.

Pathfinder, meanwhile, while able to provide a D&D-like experience, has evolved beyond it's 3.5/OGL roots. It's a different (& better) game, its popularity is on the rise, and Paizo has earned the right for it to have its own brand awareness.

 

[Aldarc]

Not everyone speaks (posts in a forum) uses the clearest language. To those who try to be succinct and exact in their use of terms, as both and you and seem to share - not everyone have those skills. This is not a court of law, statements may or may not precisely match your or my reading of a given statement.

Saying X is not X, should not automatically carry any additional unsaid statements. If it's not clearly stated, one cannot assume it has some greater meaning.

To do so, is simply putting words into peoples mouths.

If someone states clearly that X game is not X, and anyone is playing X is really playing Y. Then, Hell yes, the person stating such thing would be saying something insulting and would deservedly get your retort. I'm behind you on that.

But without additional explanation from the person stating "4e is not D&D" in what he really means - I can't put words in his mouth, and 'finish their sentence', as I don't really know what they mean. Not everyone's logic is sound.

Then we can equally not say or assume that when someone says that "4E is not D&D" they are implying their personal preference about what D&D feels to them and are not making a categorical statement, as that would also require "putting words in their mouth." English may or may not be the primary language of people here, and people may or may not use the clearest of language or logic. Nevertheless, people should be aware of what their language does imply and how that language can possess offensive implications for players of 4E. And my stance on this issue would be the same regardless of the edition: i.e., "xE is not D&D."

 

[Gentlegamer]

Neither 4e nor Pathfinder are D&D. Nor are Castles & Crusades, nor Hackmaster.

OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord, and Swords & Wizardry might be D&D.

also

Video games are not role-playing games. That is, the term "TRPG" to distinguish from "cRPG" is incorrect. They are wholly different game-forms.

 

[Mercurius]

Still wondering, @Mercurius .

I remember having a similar discussion about a year ago in which I came to four general views as to what D&D is, and all are "true":

1) D&D is what feels like D&D to me (personal/subjective)
2) D&D is what is branded as D&D (legal)
3) D&D is any game that bears the same general rules and principles of some form of branded D&D (OGL, retro-clones, etc)
4) D&D is any RPG or nerdy activity that bears some passing resemblance to D&D ("non-gamer perspective")

It seems that the discussion is bouncing back and forth between 2 and 3; I think they're both true, depending upon what perspective we're taking (just as Danny saying "4E is not D&D to me" is true, but only from the first perspective; it is actually false from the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th perspectives).

It might also be a matter of to what degree a game is related to D&D, or "part of the family." Pathfinder is, in a way, a daughter of 3.5 that got married and changed her last name. Some of the retro-clones are similar, although some are more akin to cousins. But they are still all closely related. Savage Worlds, on the other hand, is more distantly related but still has a common ancestor.

 

[Matt James]

My pants are comfy today. And yes, this post contributes an equal amount to this discussion.

Do what makes ya horny. No one can ever tell you you're wrong. The same goes with the RPG you decide to enjoy.