At What Point Does PF Become Its Own System?

[Jor-El]

I think its definately "its own system" now. Some might say that it doesn't count because they're building on a framework that someone else created, but I say horsefeathers to that!

Many of the folks at Paizo worked at WoTC during 3E, and some worked for good ole TSR. It's their game as much as anyone else's, because they had a hand in what 3E was already.

There's really no reason for Pathfinder to be a "totally new system".

Completely new mechanics and paradigms that would make it incompatible with earlier iterations of the game would not give it any special legitamacy in my opinion.

 

[Philosopher]

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.

What this shows is that Pathfinder is its own brand, not that Pathfinder has its own system.

I think its definately "its own system" now. Some might say that it doesn't count because they're building on a framework that someone else created, but I say horsefeathers to that!

Many of the folks at Paizo worked at WoTC during 3E, and some worked for good ole TSR. It's their game as much as anyone else's, because they had a hand in what 3E was already.

There's really no reason for Pathfinder to be a "totally new system".

Despite your initial claim, the rest of what you say here seems to support the view that Pathfinder is not its own system. The issue, as I understand it, isn't whether Paizo came up with their own system, it's whether Pathfinder is a new system.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

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.

Yup, nor is the word "modern" necessarily a compliment.

 

[Azgulor]

What this shows is that Pathfinder is its own brand, not that Pathfinder has its own system.

True. However, at some point Brand & System become synonymous with one another.

Also, I addressed the mechanical reasons for "yes, it's its own system" upthread. There's no more reason a RPG built on an open-source initiative has to scrap everything and start over to establish itself as its own game.

 

[Remathilis]

Yup, nor is the word "modern" necessarily a compliment.

Yup. Case in point: I'm not a fan of "modern" D&D.

 

[Jor-El]

Despite your initial claim, the rest of what you say here seems to support the view that Pathfinder is not its own system. The issue, as I understand it, isn't whether Paizo came up with their own system, it's whether Pathfinder is a new system.

Nope. Just trying to state that it doesn't have to be completely new to be its own system.

The second part of what I was saying was in response to the implication some make that Paizo doesn't deserve any credit for Pathfinder's success because they didn't do all the work themselves. A sentiment that has been expressed in numerous other threads.

 

[Philosopher]

True. However, at some point Brand & System become synonymous with one another.

They normally go together, but not always. With the OGL, you can have two or more games with the same system that have different brands. Also, the Menzter Basic Set and the Essentials Red Box use the same brand (and even look almost identical), yet have very different systems.

Nope. Just trying to state that it doesn't have to be completely new to be its own system.

The second part of what I was saying was in response to the implication some make that Paizo doesn't deserve any credit for Pathfinder's success because they didn't do all the work themselves. A sentiment that has been expressed in numerous other threads.

Then I misunderstood you. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Henry]

They normally go together, but not always. With the OGL, you can have two or more games with the same system that have different brands. Also, the Menzter Basic Set and the Essentials Red Box use the same brand (and even look almost identical), yet have very different systems.

However, at what mark are they really different systems? Is it the die mechanic they use for attacking -- namely, rolling a twenty-sided die and comparing to a target number that represents someone's defense? They both do that. Is it the concept of a saving throw, that being rolling a twenty-sided number and comparing to a static target number to determine success or failure of a magical effect or chance of misfortune? Actually, they both do that, too. Is it hit points? Weapons doing different die types for damage? Wizards casting spells that can only be used once each day? Strongly-defined character archetypes with class features?

That's why I don't think "is it its own system" matters that much. Essentials 4E and the old Mentzer game do differ in lots of ways, but where do you draw the line of "on THIS side it's complete redesign and on THAT side it's a knock-off with minor changes"? 10% difference? 20% difference? 50%?

Let's say you use the "Derivative Work" standard -- there is no fixed percent, it just has to "contain sufficient new expression, over and above that embodied in the earlier work for the latter work to satisfy copyright law’s requirement of originality." I'd argue Paizo does that, from subtle changes to spells, to the reworking of both the skill list and the method of acquiring skill bonuses in a skill, to whole-cloth additions to classes a la the Sorcerer bloodline abilities, to whole new classes that did not exist before, such as the Alchemist, Inquisitor, and the Summoner. Oh, and I forgot to mention the rework of the grapple, trip, Combat Maneuver rules, too.

Throw on hundreds of images worth of different artwork, and completely different trade dress, completely independent of the D&D trade dress, and I'd say that it qualifies -- IF it even mattered, which is my original supposition.

 

[Votan]

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.

This is a very good point. My test is that you could mix and match the material from the two systems (which is currently possible). But it is true that 3rd edition AD&D evolved and changed a lot over the lifecycle of the edition and the final years felt very . . . different than the earlier ones.

Some of the tropes that I see as being key design issues with 3.5 D&D really only showed up when we had 20-odd supplementary books.

Pathfinder is definitely the same system, in terms of engine, but seems to be trying a new direction. I am looking forward to my Advanced Player's Guide arriving from Amazon to see for myself the Paizo flourishs . . .

 

[Philosopher]

However, at what mark are they really different systems? Is it the die mechanic they use for attacking -- namely, rolling a twenty-sided die and comparing to a target number that represents someone's defense? They both do that. Is it the concept of a saving throw, that being rolling a twenty-sided number and comparing to a static target number to determine success or failure of a magical effect or chance of misfortune? Actually, they both do that, too. Is it hit points? Weapons doing different die types for damage? Wizards casting spells that can only be used once each day? Strongly-defined character archetypes with class features?

That's why I don't think "is it its own system" matters that much. Essentials 4E and the old Mentzer game do differ in lots of ways, but where do you draw the line of "on THIS side it's complete redesign and on THAT side it's a knock-off with minor changes"? 10% difference? 20% difference? 50%?

Absolutely. However, the endpoints can be clearly different from each other, even if there is a continuum in between. By analogy, I certainly look older than I did 20 years ago, even though no significant changes occurred on a day-to-day basis. So while we may not be able to draw a line, the question of when Pathfinder becomes its own system still makes sense, just as it makes sense to say I look older now than I used to.

Let's say you use the "Derivative Work" standard -- there is no fixed percent, it just has to "contain sufficient new expression, over and above that embodied in the earlier work for the latter work to satisfy copyright law’s requirement of originality." I'd argue Paizo does that, from subtle changes to spells, to the reworking of both the skill list and the method of acquiring skill bonuses in a skill, to whole-cloth additions to classes a la the Sorcerer bloodline abilities, to whole new classes that did not exist before, such as the Alchemist, Inquisitor, and the Summoner. Oh, and I forgot to mention the rework of the grapple, trip, Combat Maneuver rules, too.

Throw on hundreds of images worth of different artwork, and completely different trade dress, completely independent of the D&D trade dress, and I'd say that it qualifies -- IF it even mattered, which is my original supposition.

But if new classes or variations on a class made for a new system, then the entirety of 3.5 would encompass more than one system, which is not the case. I suppose it depends on what one means by "the system". I focus on the basic d20 mechanic, along with classes (having classes, not necessarily a specific set of classes), AC, the three saves (and how they work), and other generic features.