They should find my commentary interesting as I answered No to the question if I currently play any version of D&D, but answered appropriately for the pathfinder related questions. I did note in their comments t hat they should have substituted D20 for D&D, as I do not consider Pathfinder a version of Dungeons and Dragons, but a closely related game.
That's funny the name says LazarX not ProfCirno on the first bait on the line. But if possible I guess the safe answer is to automatically blame the first one to defend 4E.
I'm sorry, but I've been playing D&D since I started in '88' and no matter what rules I used, it's what my friends and I brought into it that made it what it was.
One of D&D's major strengths was the OGL, and Hasbro removed it. My main reason for hating 4E is the publisher, not the game. Sure, it's a little video-gamy (I don't really care for the minion mechanic)but the game itself seems...well, decent. I prefer Pathfinder on both fronts.
However, I do tell people I play D&D. It's either that or start a 5-hour rant against Habsro, Wizards of the Coast, dragonborn and dwarf miners.
Can we not sidetrack the thread with an edition war?
/\ Aardvark, he wasn't baiting anyone. He was saying he didn't refer to Pathfinder as D&D.
EDIT: On another note, I recently introduced some non-gamers to Pathfinder. One of them referred to it as a "D&D spinoff".
The problem I have with people's "It's not D&D it's Patfhinder" statements is I doubt most of them say:
"It's not Velcro, they are hook and pile fasteners"
"It's not Scotch tape, it's invisible tape"
"It's not Kleenex, it's facial tissue"
"It's not a Q-tip, it's a cotton swab"
or
"It's not a Band-aid, it's an adhesive bandage"
These are all things that are brand names, but as a society we have adopted them as the prime nomenclature for an article of that type.
When someone says D&D, most of society (those that have heard of it) generally understands that someone is talking about a Fantasy RPG. To make a point of saying, "Excuse me, you made an error, it's not D&D it's Pathfinder" to me personally comes off as seperationist. It's all one hobby.
Find a post where I made a point of distinguishing all the things I dislike about Pathfinder as an IP, either here or on WOTC boards (same alias there).
There's only one reason to mark that distinction of "It's not D&D, it's Pathfinder" in a D&D survey, and it's to let people clearly know what your opinion is on the matter. Why can someone not mention D&D without the haters jumping out of the woodwork? When I don't like something about a game, I tend to just ignore it instead.
|
Yay another good thread derailed by the usual edition war garbage.
Why can someone not mention D&D without the haters jumping out of the woodwork? When I don't like something about a game, I tend to just ignore it instead.
They have nothing better to do imo. While trying to increase an already non-existant street cred with the gaming community. I really getting tired of threads turning into an edition war at the first opprtunity.
It would seem that things are dividing along party--er, edition lines. How about we move this discussion elsewhere? Maybe to a forum that tolerates edition wars, because I'm pretty sure Paizo doesn't.
The guy just posted what he voted, and then the 'haters jumped out of the woodwork'. Even if he is trolling, the worst response to that is to call him a troll.
Report him, and let the mods decide, or drop it.
I think you guys are overstating things just a bit...
Before I moved, I went to my FLGS and traded all my 4e stuff for some PF items. I just like it better. The guys at the store said that in their area, it's about 50/50 as far as customer preferences between the two. That's great for them. More stuff to sell, more happy customers getting what they want. It's all good.
My impression is that Paizo is very dedicated to their fans, and I really like this version of 3.whatever. PCs are all improved and more powerful than before. The newer classes have been well-received, after a lot of feedback and tweaking, and it's that sort of back-and-forth with a personal touch that keeps me coming back.
One system isn't "better" than another. It's just a matter of personal taste. I'm hoping that Paizo waits a long time before a 2.0 version comes along. Long term play will show what needs fixing, and what works fine as-is. I'm pretty happy with it RAW, so far.
That said, they sell books. If they keep the quality and balance as good as they can make it, they'll all retire richer than me.
One vote for PF.
And I'm saying that Pathfinder doesn't even really constitute as "3.75," it is "3.55." It's really not a different game at all, at least not the game itself.
Yes yes I know people are going to talk about IPs and such. But the game as it is as a game is more or less 3.5 with a few changes.
Well...if you look at it one way there are more differences between 3.5 to Pathfinder than say 3.0 to 3.5...so it is atleast D&D 4th ed(or if you don't want to go that far...than it could be 3.99)...if you look at the level of changes.
There are alot more than just a few changes...heck I would say there was less change between 1st AD&D and 2nd AD&D.
|
|
And I'm saying that Pathfinder doesn't even really constitute as "3.75," it is "3.55." It's really not a different game at all, at least not the game itself.
I must admit I never owned or played 3.0, just 3.5, but I have scanned through some 3.0 stuff, own a couple of 3.0 supplements and have read the 3.0 conversion guide, and PF seems to me to be a similar level of change that D&D underwent between 3.0 to 3.5, so using the term 3.75 is, if anything being generous as it implies that PF is only half as much of a change.
|
|
D&D is dead; 4th edition killed it. Pathfinder is all that is left of a once great game. Hold on to it as long as you can...
Sigh, D&D isn't dead, either as a branded game or as a feel you get when you game.
Didn't you get the memo? Edition Wars are Over!
I'm sorry, but I've been playing D&D since I started in '88' and no matter what rules I used, it's what my friends and I brought into it that made it what it was.
A Huge +1. Whatever the name it takes Roleplaying is friends, dice rolling, tons of fun, pizze, beer & soda, and friends, friends, friends... The fact I don't play 4E and support Paizo doesn't mean I have to spit on WotC and on all guys who made a different choice.
Thanks Aardvark Barbarian for stating what should be obvious to everyone.
Grow up guys !
Bran.
I'm sorry, but I've been playing D&D since I started in '88' and no matter what rules I used, it's what my friends and I brought into it that made it what it was.
A Huge +1. Whatever the name it takes Roleplaying is friends, dice rolling, tons of fun, pizze, beer & soda, and friends, friends, friends... The fact I don't play 4E and support Paizo doesn't mean I have to spit on WotC and on all guys who made a different choice.
Thanks Aardvark Barbarian for stating what should be obvious to everyone.
Grow up guys !
Bran.
It's posts like these that really confuse arguments, and not in the good way. How is it being 'more mature' if you feel the need to 'spit on' people you're saying you're more mature than? Everybody is jumping on this one guy who barely said a thing, and ignoring the other much more inflammatory remarks that came later.
This isn't a place to debate about which side is more mature and fair. This is a place to talk about a poll. Anybody who wants to debate the former needs to just move. Don't expect the other side to drop it if you won't.
With that in mind, I'll not be making any more posts on the matter.
One of D&D's major strengths was the OGL, and Hasbro removed it. My main reason for hating 4E is the publisher, not the game.That's a bit wonky given that for the bulk of it's history, from Basic D+D through edition 2.5, the game was even more closed than 4th edition is now. The OGL represents an aberration in D&D's history, not the norm.
Hey, I'm just saying why I liked third edition, not saying why 4E sucks.
Whatever the name it takes Roleplaying is..., dice rolling, ....
So all those diceless RPG are not Role-playing game? mmm
|
The problem I have with people's "It's not D&D it's Patfhinder" statements is I doubt most of them say:
"It's not Velcro, they are hook and pile fasteners"
"It's not Scotch tape, it's invisible tape"
"It's not Kleenex, it's facial tissue"
"It's not a Q-tip, it's a cotton swab"
or
"It's not a Band-aid, it's an adhesive bandage"These are all things that are brand names, but as a society we have adopted them as the prime nomenclature for an article of that type.
When someone says D&D, most of society (those that have heard of it) generally understands that someone is talking about a Fantasy RPG. To make a point of saying, "Excuse me, you made an error, it's not D&D it's Pathfinder" to me personally comes off as seperationist. It's all one hobby.
Find a post where I made a point of distinguishing all the things I dislike about Pathfinder as an IP, either here or on WOTC boards (same alias there).
There's only one reason to mark that distinction of "It's not D&D, it's Pathfinder" in a D&D survey, and it's to let people clearly know what your opinion is on the matter. Why can someone not mention D&D without the haters jumping out of the woodwork? When I don't like something about a game, I tend to just ignore it instead.
+S
If I meet a roleplayer I'll say I play Pathfinder, I.E. I've established that this person is knowledgable enough to know what I'm talking about when I say that, but if I'm talking to people who aren't roleplayer, or even casual players who don't follow editions, I'll say, I play DnD, and then If they want more info explain that I play Pathfinder.
Just like if someone asks me if I have band-aids in the house I say yeah, go get them and then say as I'm handing them over, "Well, they're actually first-aid brand fabric bandages, do you still want them?" or I'll just leave it at yeah.
The problem I have with people's "It's not D&D it's Patfhinder" statements is I doubt most of them say:
"It's not Velcro, they are hook and pile fasteners"
"It's not Scotch tape, it's invisible tape"
"It's not Kleenex, it's facial tissue"
"It's not a Q-tip, it's a cotton swab"
or
"It's not a Band-aid, it's an adhesive bandage"These are all things that are brand names, but as a society we have adopted them as the prime nomenclature for an article of that type.
Yeah like PC's! Except for that whole pesky Mac vs. PC thing. 'cause you know Mac's actually ARE PC's as well. I know that when I talk about them I say "Windows based PC" or "Linux based" or "Mac".
For the record, when I ask for a tissue I ask for a tissue. Basically becasue in our house all we buy are Kleenex. When I'm out and I need a tissue and I'm ata corner stor or something about to buy one? I specifically ask for Kleenex brand. But maybe that's just me.
I ask for tape not Scotch tape. I make the distiction between regular tape and lets say duct or electrical tape but that's about it.
You got me on the other two though.
When someone says D&D, most of society (those that have heard of it) generally understands that someone is talking about a Fantasy RPG. To make a point of saying, "Excuse me, you made an error, it's not D&D it's Pathfinder" to me personally comes off as seperationist. It's all one hobby.
See again here's where we're obvious different. I describe the games I run as what they are, A supers RPG or a Fantasy RPG. If people go what's that? I say, as I have many times before "You know D&D?" "Yeah" "It's like that."
I dont blanketly call everything D&D becasue it's NOT D&D. I learned that back in 7th/8th Grade when I discovered othe Fantasy RPG's other than D&D. We called Rolemaster by name, we called Tunnels and Trolls by name. OTHER people out side of our group lumped in eeverything together as D&D but that was mostly out of ignorance.
When I started playing Mavel Super Heroes, Champions and V&V we definitley didnt call those D&D. Why becasue theyre NOT. Not even close to what D&D.
So please stop trying to lump everyone who differentiates between the games that they play as separationaist. It's no less baiting than what youre claiming other people are doing.
It's not all ONE hobby apparently.
If it were one hobby we'd probably be all playing the same games. The same type of games. The same genre of games. The same sub genre / sub set of games. But we're not. I dont play what Bob plays. So I have no interaction with Bob. He plays his game over THERE and I play my game over HERE. Bob and his game might as well not even exist to me. He's not part of my community and that's fine.
We all play RPG's but to call us a community? With what I've seen go down here on this board, over at EN World and even in Real Space? I dont think I'd call us a "Community". Especially if a thread can almost collapse like this in the space of a few posts at the mention of "It's not D&D, it's Pathfinder." This is what people are getting offended by? It's actually NOT D&D. 4E IS D&D. It actually IS A game called Pathfinder. It's like the reverse argument to when people say "4E doesnt feel like D&D to me" and the 4E defenders attack those people saying "Clearly it IS D&D. It says so right on the books." You cant win for losing...
A Huge +1. Whatever the name it takes Roleplaying is friends, dice rolling, tons of fun, pizze, beer & soda, and friends, friends, friends... The fact I don't play 4E and support Paizo doesn't mean I have to spit on WotC and on all guys who made a different choice.
Thanks Aardvark Barbarian for stating what should be obvious to everyone.
Grow up guys !
Bran.
So wait...a little over a year ago when I go my Pathfinder Group together and I didnt know ANY of my players I wasnt roleplaying? Becasue we werent friends then. Not really sure that even after a year and a half that we're freinds NOW. We don't consume pizza and beer either.
I mean some of my players drink soda...
I dont play 4E and I'm a pretty staunch Paizo/Pathfinder supporter but your statements arent really helping the situation here.
Whatever the name it takes Roleplaying is..., dice rolling, ....
So all those diceless RPG are not Role-playing game? mmm
Diceless... ugh!
I think Bran is saying that role-playing, D&D-style anyway, is rolling dice and hanging out with friends, regardless of edition.
And let's be really honest here; anyone who played D&D, from the TSR days on up, pretty much considers PF to be right up there with the current 4th edition. Really, there are two living versions of D&D, right now, at the same time. Who knew the OGL would have ever made that possible?
D&D is dead; 4th edition killed it. Pathfinder is all that is left of a once great game. Hold on to it as long as you can...Sigh, D&D isn't dead, either as a branded game or as a feel you get when you game.
Didn't you get the memo? Edition Wars are Over!
Sadly, the answer is no. The Edition Wars are not over. In fact, they have only just begun...
|
Sadly, the answer is no. The Edition Wars are not over. In fact, they have only just begun...D&D is dead; 4th edition killed it. Pathfinder is all that is left of a once great game. Hold on to it as long as you can...Sigh, D&D isn't dead, either as a branded game or as a feel you get when you game.
Didn't you get the memo? Edition Wars are Over!
Wait, there is an Edition War between "full" Pathfinder and the Beginner's Box? Already? ;)
Sadly, the answer is no. The Edition Wars are not over. In fact, they have only just begun...D&D is dead; 4th edition killed it. Pathfinder is all that is left of a once great game. Hold on to it as long as you can...Sigh, D&D isn't dead, either as a branded game or as a feel you get when you game.
Didn't you get the memo? Edition Wars are Over!
What is this, a movie trailer?
"...we thought the Wars were over. They had only just begun."*Cue Denny Schneidemesser music*
D&D is dead; 4th edition killed it. Pathfinder is all that is left of a once great game. Hold on to it as long as you can...
Total and Complete agreement.
What is this, a movie trailer?
"...we thought the Wars were over. They had only just begun."
*Cue Denny Schneidemesser music*
I want to see this movie, lmao.
When I speak, I do it to communicate with another person. Using "Pathfinder" is more accurate yet less likely to convey information. Yes, I can - and sometimes do - explain myself. Still, the information-density in "D&D" is very high. I don't need to explain that Nissan has nothing to do with how I game.Dungeons & Dragons is IP owned by WotC, Pathfinder by Paizo. One of these companies I fully support, the other I do not. So, why would I say that I play with an IP wholly owned by a company I do not support, taking credit away from the company I do support?
Therefore, "I don't play D&D, I play Pathfinder!"
Well for the purposes of this thread, which is about a gaming specific poll, I was assuming a conversation between gamers.
To outsiders, yeah. I'll tell them I play D&D or 'a game like D&D', because it has name recognition.
But, that's really a different conversation.
I'm not baiting anything.
Hey look real quick I'm going to solve all the edition wars forever so long as you follow this guide. Ready?
Step 1) Am I about to say "I hate <edition>" or "This edition is <negative nonsense attribute>?" or "<edition> killed D&D?"
Step 2) Don't.
G*#+!!n, I'm a genius. I really do live up to my username.
That isn't to say you can't criticize! But make it constructive, yes? "$e IS AN MMO" and "PATHFAILURE IS JUST A MONEY GRAB" aren't constructive. "I dislike how utility powers have more emphasis on combat" and "I think Pathfinder would be a lot better if it changed more things from 3e an hadn't bent over for 'backwards compatibility'" are!
For example: "4e killed D&D." What does this add to the conversation? Well, we know you irrationally need to scream your hate at every chance you get. Sadly, that's all we learn. What can we discuss on this? Not much.
Take this example however: "I dislike the setup WotC has made for skill challenges. Even in cases where they would be useful, the fan-made Obsidian system is far better for it; the WotC system is too artificial both mechanically and how it plays out." See, we learned a lot there! And we have a big diving board to jump off into discussion!
Don't fall into this trap: "<game> is like a video game." Now, I know what you meant to say: "this game shares attributes with a video game." But does that tell us anything concrete? Sure, someone is bound to call me a 4e fanboy or something silly like that, but this is hardly a 4e only complaint! Man, did any of you see the 2e->3e transition? That's old hat! 3e was widely proclaimed to be Diablo! It didn't add anything to the conversation then, it adds nothing now.
Now, as for "It's not D&D," my complaint regarding it is that Pathfinder is starkly similar to 3.5. See, all those "examples" I made up there about 4e and Pathfinder are ones I feel. I think Pathfinder overall changed simply too little.
Let us say that it changed more then I give it credit for and that it is closer to 3.75. It still uses the 3.5 chassis. Not the d20 chassis, but explicitly the 3.5 chassis. The core game underneath is still D&D 3.5 edition. When I say Pathfinder is D&D I'm not talking about Intellectual Property or anything like that. I mean that the inherent gaming experience is still that of the 3.5 edition of D&D. I don't even see how that's arguable - that's precisely why Pathfinder is popular! Because you all love 3.5!
I don't care what you all say. DDO killed D&D. It plays just like a video game, and it failed to simplify the Grapple rules sufficiently. It's not a real tabletop RPG.
Anybody who disagrees is stupid, and probably has an annoying pet chihuahua. Since chihuahuas are ugly little demons, we can deduce that their owners are stupid.
There. I just out-logic'd you all. Now that the rest of us can all agree on everything, and we can move on.
|
D&D is dead; 4th edition killed it. Pathfinder is all that is left of a once great game. Hold on to it as long as you can... [/QUOTE
The irony? 3.0 was just as large of a change (if not moreso) from 2E than 4E was from 3.5. And I mean both mechanically and aesthetically (ie, it "felt" different). If a single edition "killed" D&D, it was 3.0.
Wait, there is an Edition War between "full" Pathfinder and the Beginner's Box? Already? ;)Sadly, the answer is no. The Edition Wars are not over. In fact, they have only just begun...D&D is dead; 4th edition killed it. Pathfinder is all that is left of a once great game. Hold on to it as long as you can...Sigh, D&D isn't dead, either as a branded game or as a feel you get when you game.
Didn't you get the memo? Edition Wars are Over!
Dropped in read a few posts, the usual edition discussion... Then I saw that post and thought of Yoda at the end of Epispde II. To paraphrase "begun these Edition Wars have..." :D
The irony? 3.0 was just as large of a change (if not moreso) from 2E than 4E was from 3.5. And I mean both mechanically and aesthetically (ie, it "felt" different). If a single edition "killed" D&D, it was 3.0.
Damn. I'm drawn in... No, not for me. I've played since 1974 and there has always been a significant carry over from version to version. A feeling. A sense of continuity. I felt it with original D&D to 1E AD&D, 1E to 2E... and 2E to 3 / 3.5. But not with 4E. It's an OK game, but it didn't have that "feel" for me. Pathfinder does. If I was new to the game 4E might have filled the bill (although I suspect I would still have gone PF -- the style suits me better), as it was, it was no contest. My 2 cp.
Damn. I'm drawn in... No, not for me. I've played since 1974 and there has always been a significant carry over from version to version. A feeling. A sense of continuity. I felt it with original D&D to 1E AD&D, 1E to 2E... and 2E to 3 / 3.5. But not with 4E. It's an OK game, but it didn't have that "feel" for me. Pathfinder does. If I was new to the game 4E might have filled the bill (although I suspect I would still have gone PF -- the style suits me better), as it was, it was no contest. My 2 cp.
+1
Though this is just a opinion not a slight against 4th ed.
|
Wait, there is an Edition War between "full" Pathfinder and the Beginner's Box? Already? ;)Sadly, the answer is no. The Edition Wars are not over. In fact, they have only just begun...D&D is dead; 4th edition killed it. Pathfinder is all that is left of a once great game. Hold on to it as long as you can...Sigh, D&D isn't dead, either as a branded game or as a feel you get when you game.
Didn't you get the memo? Edition Wars are Over!
The Beginner's Box is clearly PF1.5.
The Beginner's Box is clearly PF1.5.
NO!NO!NO! YOU ARE WRONG!
IT IS CLEARLY PF 0.5!
Kidding aroung...
Damn. I'm drawn in... No, not for me. I've played since 1974 and there has always been a significant carry over from version to version. A feeling. A sense of continuity. I felt it with original D&D to 1E AD&D, 1E to 2E... and 2E to 3 / 3.5. But not with 4E. It's an OK game, but it didn't have that "feel" for me. Pathfinder does. If I was new to the game 4E might have filled the bill (although I suspect I would still have gone PF -- the style suits me better), as it was, it was no contest. My 2 cp.
The irony? 3.0 was just as large of a change (if not moreso) from 2E than 4E was from 3.5. And I mean both mechanically and aesthetically (ie, it "felt" different). If a single edition "killed" D&D, it was 3.0.
That's cool.
4e feels like D&D to me, just as 3e and 2e did.
If any single edition "killed" D&D it was none of them because D&D ain't dead.
If any single edition "killed" D&D it was none of them because D&D ain't dead.
Exactly.