At What Point Does PF Become Its Own System?

[Remathilis]

There are no expiry dates on game systems, to me. I still play OD&D and AD&D. The notion that a design would become "outdated" is something that really makes me scratch my head in disbelief.

The only incentive I see to have a new edition of a game is to basically re-sell core books to its core audience, since core books are the only real sellers in an RPG line of products. The rest is just marketing speech destined to sell the idea of buying the same stuff all over again, as far as I'm concerned.

Game design evolves. For example, I don't see too many people who think that changing the Save System from Five Arbitrary Categories (Wands, Dragon Breath, Death Magic) to Three saves based on type of resistance (Fort, Ref, Will). Unless your specifically going for the nostalgia factor, I don't see a point to making a d20-based game that emulates the old save categories again.

More to the point; I see Pathfinder eventually tightening up and better integrating certain design elements that will make former material obsolete. Reducing the number of status conditions, speeding up combat resolution (a continuation of the work done by CMB/CMD), revamping how magic items are designed, or simplification of monster creation/stats are all things PF could continue on and, by removing the vestiges of backwards compatibility, truly innovate on in a way different from how WotC chose to do so (and perhaps stay a little more "true" to the source material than WotC did).

While anyone can play (and enjoy) older games for their own merits, I seriously doubt you could sell an AD&D 1e game in a modern gaming store today*; games and gaming have evolved from that point.


* Ignoring, for the moment, the OSR, which does base part of its appeal on mimicking the Older style of gaming. A brand new game with AD&D's level of development would never survive, as evidence by the sheer number of fantasy Heartbreakers out there, even by Gygax himself...

 

[Azgulor]

At GenCon, my friend and I were at the Paizo booth and flipping through the very cool Advanced Players Guide. I posed the question to him, "at what point does Pathfinder become its own system?"

This means that when, in your opinion, will there be enough changes to the rules that a 3.5 player who has no familiarity with Pathfinder will be confused by new terminology, new character options, new rules subsystems, etc.? At what point will the differences between PF and 3.5 become so great that the two will not be compatible?

My friend's answer to this question was "today" (meaning, the day of the release of the APG.)

I think there may still be another year or so until a PF player and 3.5 player can't sit at the same table together.

Anyone else like to chime in on the debate?

Retreater

If you look solely at game mechanics compatability, I'd side with you. In fact, I think it's probably more than a year. However, I think the need or desire to import 3.5 material diminishes with each PF RPG & PF-compatible release.

However, I agree with your friend that as a RPG, the release of the APG lets Pathfinder stand on its own. I would have almost been ready to make the claim with the Game Mastery Guide but the APG pushed it over the top for certain.

I say this for several reasons:

1. The APG showcased the strength & flexibility of the game. By showcasing in a single volume the sheer # of ways variant mechanics could be applied to characters, the PFRPG had moved far beyond the "well done house-ruled 3.5" that some detractors labeled it.

2. It was the anti-WotC splat. The APG, while having many of the splat elements (classes, feats, spells), diverged from the conventional wisdom of tightly-themed splatbook. The content within the APG would have been doled out over several books under WotC or would have been limited in scope if produced by a 3PP. We'll see how Ultimate Magic & Ultimate Combat turn out, but in my view, the PFRPG supplement hardbacks have much more in common with the depth & focus of GURPS supplements than they do with the 3.5 WotC splats.

3. It validated the "limit the # of core classes" concept. The archetype concept and the sheer number of them per class showed that new classes weren't always required to support a new concept. (That said, I still like new classes that are done well -- Genius Guides & Fist Full of Denari I'm looking at you. Keep 'em coming!)

4. It blended the familiar with the new. The Cavalier is one of the best "knight" classes I've ever seen & the application of the Cavaliers orders followed the customization theme of the book. The Oracle & Witch, while familiar concepts in fiction & myth, rarely fit neatly into the Wizard, Sorceror, & Cleric classes. The Alchemist, IMO, gets the award for "Class I never saw coming" but it's interesting, flexible, and an easy concept for a player to latch on to. These classes showcased Paizo's RPG-writing chops & illustrated how the PFRPG is standing apart from it's D&D predecessor.


Between the options presented within the APG, the new subsystems of the GMG (haunts, chases, gambling, community rules), and the expansion rules contained in the APs (exploration & settlement, kingdom-building, fiendish possession, etc.) the scope of the PFRPG is exploding, yet it is doing so without crushing the game with rules bloat. Many of these new subsystems are elegantly designed, easy to grasp, are easy to integrate, yet are entirely optional.

Thats my 2 cents, anyway.

 

[Odhanan]

Game design evolves. For example, I don't see too many people who think that changing the Save System from Five Arbitrary Categories (Wands, Dragon Breath, Death Magic) to Three saves based on type of resistance (Fort, Ref, Will). Unless your specifically going for the nostalgia factor, I don't see a point to making a d20-based game that emulates the old save categories again.

Nostalgia? Like that's not a trolling argument that's been used ad nauseam.

Alright. I'm just not in the mood to go on with this sort of silliness. Welcome to my ignore list.

 

[Azgulor]

One more thought regarding my "mechanically compatible yet now it's own game" post.

Henry's comment of "standing on the shoulders of giants" made me think of this. The compatability of PF with earlier 3.x material is a virtue, not a flaw, nor does it indicate that the PFRPG can't be/isn't it's "own game".

Using cars as an example, the Porsche has a steering wheel, tires, engine, etc. the same as a Model T. Essentially, many of the same mechanical structures exist. Driving a Porsche utilizes many of the same skills as driving a Model T (steering, accelerating/decelerating, parking, etc.).

However, despite the fact that the Porsche would never have existed if those early automobiles hadn't, no one would claim that a Porsche is just a "modified Model T". The Porsche has additional designs, components, & features that have improved it far beyond it's predecessors.

I know the analogy isn't perfect, but the point I'm trying to make is that the PFRPG is as much it's own game as Basic/Expert D&D --> AD&D --> 2e --> 3e were all their own game. The only real difference is that in the case of PF, Paizo doesn't own the D&D brand name. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think if the PFRPG had been put out by WotC and called D&D 4e, few people would even entertain the notion that it wasn't "its own game".

 

[Philosopher]

Nostalgia? Like that's not a trolling argument that's been used ad nauseam.

While I've never felt the need to explain away another person's preference as being due to "nostalgia", I've never looked at it this way before. Thanks for posting the link.

 

[Jhaelen]

By that logic, the Black Company and Thieves World are entirelyh different games as well no? Which means the core of the system is irregardless and if Pathfinder changed something as minor as... a feat, that it would be a 'new' system.

Well, I don't know either game, so I cannot tell how much they changed the system. Changing a single feat will probably not make something a new system but it may well be sufficient to invalidate common knowledge gained from experience with the system.

Imagine a feat like this:

'Gestalt' feat:
Taking this feat will grant you all of the abilities of a class in which you don't have any levels up to the current class level in your highest class.

That's the kind of change that will transform a system into something new.

Heck, running 3e core at the tail end compared to running it with Warlocks, Reserve Feats, Psionics, and Nine Swords feels like different game systems.

Well, I think, there's a (slight) difference: These don't change anything about the existing system, they just add to it, providing new options.
Unless someone is playing a Warlock/Psion/Martial Adept, none of it's new class mechanics will have any effect on your game.

Reserve Feats are actually a change that some may consider fundamental and a change that may affect existing characters. I don't feel that their effect is pervasive enough to transform the game, though.

Pathfinder changes the core classes, though. So, playing a Pathfinder Monk is different from playing a 3e Monk. All of the classes are changed, and for many of them (if not all) the changes are significant enough, that you can no longer draw on your experience with their 3e versions when discussing the Pathfinder classes.

 

[Remathilis]

Nostalgia? Like that's not a trolling argument that's been used ad nauseam.

Alright. I'm just not in the mood to go on with this sort of silliness. Welcome to my ignore list.

Seeing that you'll never read this, its moot but...

I don't see it as a bad thing. Its a clamoring for things that have come before; a different (and older) gaming philosophy. But don't make the mistake that thinking that its the equal of the games of 2010 either.

For example, if I created a Pathfinder class that gave 2 hit dice at first level, gave + 1 to hit/damage every 2 levels, but didn't allow the character to pick ANY feats (even the standard odd-number level ones) or wear any magical items; people would be up in arms. Its not balanced! It breaks the current power acquisition scale! It doesn't fit with the other classes!

Yet AD&D 1e's monk did just that! It sticks out against the other classes like a sore thumb! So does exceptional strength, for that matter. I don't think we'll ever see a OGL game that uses something like that UNLESS its trying to emulate that brand of old-school play.

There will come a point that even 3e's system will begin to show its "exceptional strength" concepts and people will want something a bit more "modern". That is when PF 2.0 will come.

Nostalgia isn't a black word (even though a lot of people use it as such) its just a desire for an era of play that has come and is now gone from modern RPGs.

 

[Terath Ninir]

I'll tell you when it becomes a new system: now. Why?

My 8 year old son just started roleplaying. We were thinking about getting him into gaming, but I didn't want to drag out my old 3.5 books. They all felt all old and moldy. But then I remembered Pathfinder and bought a copy. It fixed most of what I hated about 3.5 (except polymorphing), so I thought what the hell, let's try this. So we helped him roll up a Pathfinder character and he's played 6 sessions now and is hooked.

All he knows is Pathfinder. I'm not even sure he knows what D&D is. So it's its own thing, now. He's a Pathfinder player, not a D&D player.

 

[Azgulor]

I'll tell you when it becomes a new system: now. Why?

My 8 year old son just started roleplaying. We were thinking about getting him into gaming, but I didn't want to drag out my old 3.5 books. They all felt all old and moldy. But then I remembered Pathfinder and bought a copy. It fixed most of what I hated about 3.5 (except polymorphing), so I thought what the hell, let's try this. So we helped him roll up a Pathfinder character and he's played 6 sessions now and is hooked.

All he knows is Pathfinder. I'm not even sure he knows what D&D is. So it's its own thing, now. He's a Pathfinder player, not a D&D player.

This is similar to my experience as well. I introduced my children to role-playing games some months ago. While they are familiar with the D&D brand from the old D&D cartoon, when they want to game it's "Can we play Pathfinder" and when they're telling their friends about it, the Pathfinder brand is what is being used.

 

[LurkMonkey]

At GenCon, my friend and I were at the Paizo booth and flipping through the very cool Advanced Players Guide. I posed the question to him, "at what point does Pathfinder become its own system?"

I guess it boils down to what the terms 'game' and 'system' mean.

Pathfinder is built on the OGL D20 system. The original purpose of OGL was to make a 'open-source' mechanic that could be utilized by 3rd parties so that they didn't have to reinvent game mechanics over and the could all be used intermeshed.

Now, Pathfinder remains dedicated to this philosophy. But, as time goes on, Pathfinder will slowly evolve away from the original code. However, they are keeping their innovations 'open-source' as well.

So the 'system' will always be OGL D20 based, but the 'game' will more fully change into Pathfinder over time. Much as Windows Vista still holds MS-DOS at the bedrock of its code. I am sure the most favorite pieces of 3.x will be fan/3pp revised to fit smoother into the new game rules. The broken/uninteresting stuff will fall by the wayside, as it always has.