A mini-rant re: Pathfinder and D&D

[delericho]

When I'm talking to a gamer, I'll indicate specifically what game I'm playing. Indeed, for some games (Star Wars, Shadowrun, WFRP, and D&D), I'll specify the particular edition, because there are significant differences, and exactness helps. Therefore, I won't say I'm playing D&D when I'm actually playing Pathfinder.

When talking to a non-gamer, I'll say I play RPGs (or, more properly, role-playing games). If they're still blank, I'll go with "like Dungeons & Dragons", but I do try to avoid that.

When talking brands, Pathfinder very definitely is not D&D. Indeed, with the miniatures, the comics and the MMO, Paizo seem to be trying really hard to diversify their brand, and to increase awareness of it as its own thing. And it's only fair to support them in that.

Indeed, if the D&D RPG is in trouble (per the "Escapist" threads), it is even more important to support the Pathfinder brand as its own thing - if the D&D RPG fails, we would be better placed if the "RPGs == D&D" thinking were broken. Having two strong brands in that field really helps us if one of them suddenly goes away.

 

[gamerprinter]

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."

If you read what I wrote in any of my posts, I've always said - I don't know what the person making any statement without clarification, means. They might mean exactly as you. I'm not saying they're not for certain. In any incomplete statement, "certainty" is what we don't have.

I'm not putting words in anybody's mouth, for or against a point. I'm saying, I just don't know for sure, and I won't hazard to guess. Something that isn't clear, can't possibly be insulting until you have all the information. An assumed insult based what you think someone means, when they are not being clear at all - is actually kind of crazy.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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

My brother from another mother!

I've said as much a dozen times at least.

 

[Aldarc]

I choose to not. It is my opinion. I am not forcing it on anyone. By stating one's opinion one allows that others may understand from where their arguments stem - a point of reference.

As long as you state that X edition is not D&D for you as opposed to making a categorical statement that about edition, then that's fine.

Just because something is labeled as something, doesn't make it so. If the game of Monopoly was redesigned so that you no longer bought houses and hotels, but instead souped up your spaceship for intergalactic trade warfare, would you consider it Monopoly? It may have the same name, but no, it wouldn't be the same game.

This analogy doesn't work since there were rule changes between editions of D&D, but there were not rule changes between Monopoly. Really, the changes of 4E amount to house rules about Chance and Community Chest cards and switching some of the place names. But I really don't particularly care to drag that up on this thread, so considering this issue dropped.

Oh, and I actually did qualify my original statement - the part that says "And for me". Funny how when quotes are torn apart, one seems to use only those couple of words that seem to try to make their point...

You did, and I drew a parallel with the "fanon discontinuity" phenomenon. Then I moved on to the broader issue I saw in the thread. So the passive-aggressiveness in the bold against me is unneeded.

If you read what I wrote in any of my posts, I've always said - I don't know what the person making any statement without clarification, means. They might mean exactly as you. I'm not saying they're not for certain. In any incomplete statement, "certainty" is what we don't have.

I'm not putting words in anybody's mouth, for or against a point. I'm saying, I just don't know for sure, and I won't hazard to guess. Something that isn't clear, can't possibly be insulting until you have all the information. An assumed insult based what you think someone means, when they are not being clear at all - is actually kind of crazy.

Nevertheless, saying "4E is not D&D" should be avoided unless there is an accompanying subjective personal qualifier, as the categorical implication that is inherently present in the text is all the apparent without the clarification.

 

[The Shaman]

*snip*

That doesn't answer my question.

If Pathfinder is D&D, as you stated it is in your original post, then is Castles and Crusades also D&D? Is Lamentations of the Flame Princess D&D? Is Mutant Future D&D?

 

[Nagol]

That doesn't answer my question.

If Pathfinder is D&D, as you stated it is in your original post, then is Castles and Crusades also D&D? Is Lamentations of the Flame Princess D&D? Is Mutant Future D&D?

As I pointed out way above, if those are D&D then the brand identity is gone and it has become a general-use category. That's something I think the owners of the trademarks would prefer to not happen.

 

[Lwaxy]

We often call Pathfinder D&D 3.75 and will continue to do so. Yup, there are new fluff sand flavors, which is good. We've converted to 3.75 with some house rules to keep the important 3.5 stuff around.

Among gamers, we call it Pathfinder though, this edition of D&D just got a new name for us.

D&D 4 is not D&D 4 for us but "that other D&D" .

But then, we were always a weird and chaotic crew.

 

[Mercurius]

That doesn't answer my question.

If Pathfinder is D&D, as you stated it is in your original post, then is Castles and Crusades also D&D? Is Lamentations of the Flame Princess D&D? Is Mutant Future D&D?

Actually, I did answer your question. Read it again.

 

[MoxieFu]

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

I still wish that 4E had been released as the new Miniatures game and that they had released a Basic Box for 3E. I don't think there were enough Miniatures players to alienate with a reboot of the game and the Basic Box would be the tool for drawing in new players. That would put them in a good position for a game with "complexity dials."

 

[William Ronald]

When I'm talking to a gamer, I'll indicate specifically what game I'm playing. Indeed, for some games (Star Wars, Shadowrun, WFRP, and D&D), I'll specify the particular edition, because there are significant differences, and exactness helps. Therefore, I won't say I'm playing D&D when I'm actually playing Pathfinder.

When talking to a non-gamer, I'll say I play RPGs (or, more properly, role-playing games). If they're still blank, I'll go with "like Dungeons & Dragons", but I do try to avoid that.

When talking brands, Pathfinder very definitely is not D&D. Indeed, with the miniatures, the comics and the MMO, Paizo seem to be trying really hard to diversify their brand, and to increase awareness of it as its own thing. And it's only fair to support them in that.

Indeed, if the D&D RPG is in trouble (per the "Escapist" threads), it is even more important to support the Pathfinder brand as its own thing - if the D&D RPG fails, we would be better placed if the "RPGs == D&D" thinking were broken. Having two strong brands in that field really helps us if one of them suddenly goes away.

I think supporting the brands of what games we play is important. I may use Dungeons and Dragons in talking to a non gamer when I discuss Pathfinder. Or I may say Pathfinder, similar to Dungeons and Dragons.

Regardless of what we play, we can treat each other with respect. In the end, we gamers have a lot in common with each other.