A mini-rant re: Pathfinder and D&D

[MichaelSomething]

I like to refer to Pathfinder as a different entity from D&D in order to help establish its unique brand identity.

 

[The Shaman]

Pathfinder is D&D.

Is Castles and Crusades also D&D?

How about Lamentations of the Flame Princess?

Or Mutant Future?

 

[Traveon Wyvernspur]

To me they are ALL D&D, if I want to be specific about what version I'm playing I will say 2E, 3E, 3.5E, Pathfinder, or 4E to clarify, but if someone asks what I'm doing this weekend, I'll say "I'm playing D&D." If they want to know specifics I'll say, "Pathfinder." But to me personally, they are all the same when it comes down to having fun with a group of friends to adventure through dungeons and killing dragons.

 

[Mercurius]

Danny, I've got to go back to a meeting, but are you saying that if bought the rights to Fuji apples and renamed them "Gulagogs" then they would no longer be apples?

Further, you say that 4E is not D&D to you because it doesn't scratch your D&D itch; does Pathfinder scratch that itch and, if so, why is it not D&D to you?

It seems that we're dealing with nebulous uses of definitions. Sometimes something is D&D if the brand name says it is, sometimes it is D&D if follows the same rules, sometimes if it "feels like" to oneself. Which is it? And can we apply that universally or not? Are we defining legalistically or subjectively or what?

 

[Reynard]

I've been noticing for some time that somehow or other, the word "Pathfinder" is being used as if it is a different entity than "Dungeons & Dragons." Now certainly it is a different entity than "4th Edition" or "AD&D" or "BECMI" but let's get one thing very clear: Pathfinder is D&D. It is not a different game; hell, it is barely a different edition from 3.5E.

I know people realize this, but the way language is used is as if it is a distinctly different game. I see phrases such as "I stopped playing D&D and converted to Pathfinder" or "Since playing Pathfinder I see no reason to ever play D&D again." Folks, Pathfinder is D&D. And there's nothing wrong with that!

Maybe this kind of thinking serves Paizo or maybe it doesn't, I don't know, but what it does do is split the community into two artificial categories: D&D players and Pathfinder players, as if we're talking about D&D and Warhammer. On one hand, there's no problem with that--RPGs are RPGs, and we're all one big happy family. But my point is that the distinction of Pathfinder and D&D is artificial and misleading, as if they're two separate species when the former is a type of the latter.

Pathfinder is D&D.

And yes, so is 4E.

They are both different types or variations of D&D, but both are within the "D&D Family" (or D&D species or sub-species). Furthermore, Pathfinder is no more (or less) than a revised and re-packaged version of 3.5E D&D. In some ways you could say it is more D&D than 4E in that it is closer to another form of D&D than 4E is (this is not to say that 4E is not real D&D, but that it is more uniquely distinct from other forms of D&D than Pathfinder is).

I only refer to Pathfinder as Pathfinder when talking to gamers (on the internet or otherwise). When talking to non-gamers, I just say "D&D" (like "I run a biweekly D&D game down at the comic book store," when I am really running Pathfinder).

The reason is simple: gamers know the difference and you will confuse them if you conflate terminology. Gamers use very precise terminology, even going so far as to differentiate between the 3 flavors of basic and the Skills & Powers era Second Edition. Asking gamers to just say "D&D" is both silly and counterproductive.

Now, do I consider Pathfinder to be D&D? Yes!

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Actually, Neanderthals and Cro Magnons are different species, albeit closely related ones, which is my point. D&D is not Pathfinder, Pathfinder is not D&D.

It depends on which definition of the term 'species' you mean - there is some evidence that they were mutually cross fertile, which indicates breed, not species. (Yes, biologists, anthropologists, and zoologists still argue these things... and have slightly different definitions.)

The Auld Grump

 

[Felix]

"I stopped playing 4E and converted to Pathfinder."

"I stopped playing D&D and converted to Pathfinder."

You should ask Hasbro if Paizo is allowed to put "Dungeons and Dragons" on their books' covers. I suspect their legal folks would say no.

As a brand, then, Pathfinder is certainly not D&D.

So I'd think you're trying to use D&D more as a catch-all, rather like the term RPG, though perhaps the metric you're using is one of feel rather than structure.

As for feel, D&D can encompass a wide range of styles, from grim Hyborian adventures to magic-saturated high fantasy quests; because of this wide range, D&D may capture the feel of many different systems, like Pathfinder or Pendragon, but in its breadth it loses specificity.

In the end, if you define D&D such that it includes Pathfinder, then what does "I play D&D" really mean? It would only mean something to folks who don't play, and who aren't familiar with the broad spectrum of systems and styles of play in the RPG market; you may as well say "I play RPG's" Effectively, it becomes meaningless for anyone involved in the hobby, requiring further elaboration.

"I play D&D."
"Oh, so you play 4E?"
"Not actually, I play:

Choose Option:
--Pathfinder
--3.5
--3.X
--2nd Edition
--Iron Heroes
--You Get The Point​

If we're not treating D&D as a brand, then it's either specific enough to connote meaning (in which case Pathfinder /= D&D), or it's so broad as to lose all meaning.

 

[Rolflyn]

I suspect there are three main schools of thought with regards to this (of course several others will present themselves in this thread):

*4e fans who are critical of PF, who think that 4e is the definitive or best version of D&D and that PF is inferior, and would prefer that the D&D label be applied only to their game.

*PF fans who are critical of 4e, associate the D&D name with 4e, and would prefer to distance themselves from it.

*People who aren't partisan and don't care.

You missed the group of 3rd edition and earlier players who don't think PF is superior to those previous versions, but allow D&D to cover the entire spread of D&D games.

It's also worth noting that many people use the term D&D broadly to encompass any number of rpgs that are neither 4e nor PF, simply because people associate the term with rpgs, which is perfectly fine.

Yes, when we play Mazes&Minotaurs or Arcana Unearthed or someone's homebrew mash up of fantasy rules, we call it D&D. But not when we play superheros with Icons or Mutants&Masterminds, or when we play scifi with FATE or Star Wars Saga, the we say we are playing "supers" or "star wars" or "that cyber game" or whatever.

 

[Crothian]

Pathfinder is not D&D. The first clue is the name is different. Now, the games might have some similarities but I can't just make a D&D character and sit down at a Pathfinder game and be ready to go. Pathfinder not being D&D is a good thing. That means it is strong enough to stand on its own and it doesn't need to be lumped with something it is not. I think calling Pathfinder D&D is insulting D&D just like calling D&D Pathfinder would be insulting Pathfinder. I play Pathfinder and O play D&D and they are certainly not the same thing.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Danny, I've got to go back to a meeting, but are you saying that if bought the rights to Fuji apples and renamed them "Gulagogs" then they would no longer be apples?

Pathfinder is more than a mere name change for D&D. There are mechanical & fluff differences.

Lancia made a legendary vehicle called the Stratos. One of those is currently worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. A company called Hawk makes a kit version of it that can be had for less than a tenth of that. Many of the parts are 100% interchangeable.

However, the Hawk version is better made and more dependable.

There is a similar story going on with the Jaguar S type and a company that makes a new version of it.

In both cases, there are many similarities, but the differences that exist are real & meaningful.

Just like the distinction between D&D and Pathfinder.

Further, you say that 4E is not D&D to you because it doesn't scratch your D&D itch; does Pathfinder scratch that itch and, if so, why is it not D&D to you?

While I own the books, I've not been able to convince anyone to play it- or any of the 3.X games- because nobody wants to learn the rules differences. (And I'm not exactly pushing them, either.)

So the answer is that I really don't have data on whether it scratches that itch or not. (it may, but that isn't a real answer.) I can only go by what I see on the page.

And what I see on the page is no more or less deserving of the title you wish to crown it with than the games I mentioned before...and I'm not going to use one company's Trademarked name to describe a family of a half-dozen or more very similar but distinguishable products.