I used to call it D&D, but now I say Pathfinder.
I call it Pathfinder. If I were playing D&D I'd call THAT D&D. As it turns out I'm playing Pathfinder so I call it that.
My group calls it Pathfinder, but that's because we also run a 4e game every once in a while (though Pathfinder is still the favorite).
My only comment on what is or isn't DnD is that if 4e isn't DnD, then neither was 3e/3.5. Both were drastic changes from earlier editions. That doesn't make either of them more or less "DnD" than the other.
|
It all comes down to this. 4th ed is a good thing, even if you hate it. Just like World of Darkness, Shadowrun, Mutants and Masterminds, Dark Heresy and Warhammer are all good things. Put simply the more games that are out there the more the gaming sector grows and that can only be a good thing.
Is F.A.T.A.L. a good thing?
And kind of on topic, since the very existence of the question implies the further query as to what to call 4th edition.And I find such an inference a poorly-veiled justification for edition-warring; edition-warring which renders Paizo.com just a little more insular each time.
I'm not particularly fond of the edition war (more puzzled really). However, in this particular case I think it's something subtly different. After all, people are usually keen to point out that they're 'not interested in starting an edition war or anything..." so it can't be that, right?
I think it stems from the personal reasons they have for choosing pathfinder. For many it was the case that '4E is too big a change and/or in a direction I dont like - PF is more how I envisaged 3.5 developing' and if that's true it makes sense to call PF D&D. What I find odd is the desire to articulate this. After all, by the only objective measure, D&D(TM) is D&D and Pathfinder(TM) is Pathfinder. I suspect it's akin to the pepsi/coke and mac/IBM arguments.
|
It all comes down to this. 4th ed is a good thing, even if you hate it. Just like World of Darkness, Shadowrun, Mutants and Masterminds, Dark Heresy and Warhammer are all good things. Put simply the more games that are out there the more the gaming sector grows and that can only be a good thing.Is F.A.T.A.L. a good thing?
Heh. I knew someone would mention that.
Short answer no, not a good thing. But there is a world of difference between F.A.T.A.L. and 4th ed.
Mind you, F.A.T.A.L. does provide us with a benchmark for awfulness so at least it has that going for it. The worst RPG ever is kind of an achievement right?
Clouds, silver linings etc.
It all comes down to this. 4th ed is a good thing, even if you hate it. Just like World of Darkness, Shadowrun, Mutants and Masterminds, Dark Heresy and Warhammer are all good things. Put simply the more games that are out there the more the gaming sector grows and that can only be a good thing.Is F.A.T.A.L. a good thing?Heh. I knew someone would mention that.
Short answer no, not a good thing. But there is a world of difference between F.A.T.A.L. and 4th ed.
Mind you, F.A.T.A.L. does provide us with a benchmark for awfulness so at least it has that going for it. The worst RPG ever is kind of an achievement right?
Clouds, silver linings etc.
As an example of what to avoid, I would say it is a good thing. Some game has to be the inevitable scapegoat; may as well have it be one that genuinely deserves it.
My players (which includes my wife) and I all call it Pathfinder. Of course, when I am in a game store or hobby shop, I am free to say Pathfinder.
But I find myself in situations where it is necessary to refer to D&D. For instance, when I am selling gaming terrains at conventions, I get people who do not know anything about it, and D&D just happens to be some quick shorthand to getting them to understand what it is I am selling.
My gaming group has switched to PF for over a year now, maybe close to two, and we still call it "DND" when we're discussing it with other people. Like, we say "Are we playing DND on Friday?" instead of "Are we playing Pathfinder on Friday?" I also notice that when I stick PF games into my schedule, I type "DND." My wife still calls it DND.
Anyone else notice the same thing? Note for the sake of discussion, nobody I've talked to bothered playing DND4thED.
Yeah, to me D&D is a genericized trademark at this point. Maybe if I liked the name Pathfinder I would use it, but Pathfinder is the name of a Nissan, so it's D&D.
I fall under the "We play D&D no matter what game crowd". It's just easier on us since we have alot of rotation in and out of our group. Shadowrun and pathfiner and cinematic unisystem, etc are all coded D&D for shorthand, the specific game is called such the night we play it...
I call it D&D. If anyone asks me what edition, I say Pathfinder.
Still call it DnD. Most of the people that play in my weekly game, which is currently Pathfinder/3.5, think that Pathfinder is what 4E should have been.
|
My gaming group has switched to PF for over a year now, maybe close to two, and we still call it "DND" when we're discussing it with other people. Like, we say "Are we playing DND on Friday?" instead of "Are we playing Pathfinder on Friday?" I also notice that when I stick PF games into my schedule, I type "DND." My wife still calls it DND.
Anyone else notice the same thing? Note for the sake of discussion, nobody I've talked to bothered playing DND4thED.
Only when talking to non-gamers
I think it stems from the personal reasons they have for choosing pathfinder. For many it was the case that '4E is too big a change and/or in a direction I dont like - PF is more how I envisaged 3.5 developing' and if that's true it makes sense to call PF D&D. What I find odd is the desire to articulate this. After all, by the only objective measure, D&D(TM) is D&D and Pathfinder(TM) is Pathfinder. I suspect it's akin to the pepsi/coke and mac/IBM arguments.
Well sir, I commend you for being level-headed, even in the face of my lack of patience for anything remotely resembling an edition war. :)
I think it stems from the personal reasons they have for choosing pathfinder. For many it was the case that '4E is too big a change and/or in a direction I dont like - PF is more how I envisaged 3.5 developing' and if that's true it makes sense to call PF D&D. What I find odd is the desire to articulate this. After all, by the only objective measure, D&D(TM) is D&D and Pathfinder(TM) is Pathfinder. I suspect it's akin to the pepsi/coke and mac/IBM arguments.Well sir, I commend you for being level-headed, even in the face of my lack of patience for anything remotely resembling an edition war. :)
I put it down to a philosophy/maths degree. My wife says it's because I'm a libra. ;)
It's easier for me since I don't care - I quite like both games (4ed suits our group better, but I don't have a strong preference one way or the other) and I'm not particularly fussed when people generalize from their own unpleasant experiences. We all do that, from time to time.
Yes it is. Can we please stop mentioning 4E in a thread that has nothing to do with it?
(I'm not hating on WOTC's 4e, it's a perfectly fine game, it's just not D&D anymore.)
Bwahahahahaha! It wasn't until AFTER you posted this that people really started bashing 4th ed.
"Isn't it ironic, that this song is not ironic?"Bawahahaha!
But yes. I call pathfinder D&D, just like I often call d20 modern D&D if Im lazy
|
Bwahahahahaha! It wasn't until AFTER you posted this that people really started bashing 4th ed.
"Isn't it ironic, that this song is not ironic?"
Bawahahaha!
Yes, it's ironic that people keep posting about 4E after I asked them not to post about 4E.
Wait, that's not ironic at all. That's just me being ignored.
Oh well. How silly of me to try and stop something once it has started. Might as well hold back the tides.
It all comes down to this. 4th ed is a good thing, even if you hate it. Just like World of Darkness, Shadowrun, Mutants and Masterminds, Dark Heresy and Warhammer are all good things. Put simply the more games that are out there the more the gaming sector grows and that can only be a good thing.Is F.A.T.A.L. a good thing?
Wow. Thanks for that. Having never heard of FATAL, I had to go and do some research on what that was. I thought you were talking about HoL, but I was wrong. Now, I've got to scrub my brain with some steel wool.
EDIT: I removed a question about the game. On second thought, I'd rather not know.
I cannot even begin to think of how depressing your life is when you define your tastes by what you hate, rather then what you enjoy. What a sad thread.
Yes, because PF is heir to the house that Gary and Dave built, not 4th edition.
"The new D&D is too rule intensive. It's relegated the Dungeon Master to being an entertainer rather than master of the game. It's done away with the archetypes, focused on nothing but combat and character power, lost the group cooperative aspect, bastardized the class-based system, and resembles a comic-book superheroes game more than a fantasy RPG where a player can play any alignment desired, not just lawful good"
- Gary Gygax, 2004
Sorry bros, Gygax thought your game was awful.
Edit:
You aren't doing the industry any favors by encouraging social censor. I remember when DnD was played by a bunch of social outcasts - geeks, before "geek" was cool. And, because we were all social outcasts (because we were doing calculus in junior high school or had a deep interest in history or whatever - because of how we *thought*), the DnD table was a place where we respected how each other thought and allowed people to express how they thought. Today, if somebody thinks they don't like 4e, there's a whole lot of people who think that should be treated like some dirty little secret. There's no way that this kind of social censor is good for the industry.
Never once have I seen a 4e fan hate Pathfinder and try to censor it. Never once. Now, ask me how often I've seen people say that about 4e. (For reference: this thread)
There is something fundamentally flawed in edition warriors, in that they think everyone is as much of a zealot as they are.
Paizo fans have grown quite a bad reputation outside of these forums. This thread is why.
Internet vitriol is cheaper than Enron stock and gets doled out at the drop of a hat. Just because some people think that 4e should die in a fire doesn't mean that they feel the same way about 4e players. We can hate the game without hating the player. I'm sure two geeks in an edition war would drop the foam weapons as soon as they hit on something that they both like.
As to why i would care about an edition i don't play: it splits the player base. In a certain geographic area i can feasibly get to to game there are only a certain number of geeks. If said geeks are running 4e that means fewer groups i can theoretically hook up with. Its not a HUGE concern, but it might justify some gripes if you live in banjo territory.
Fortunately, it's possible to not like something without defining your life by that dislike. I mean, I dislike cauliflour about as much as I dislike 4e. I can't imagine having my life defined by that dislike. It'd be about as ridiculous as berating someone into never expressing their dislike for cauliflour or 4e. Well, no. Attempting to berate someone into never expressing their dislike of cauliflour or 4e - to actually try to socially censor someone from expressing such dislike - is FAR, FAR more ridiculous.
"Socially censor?" Did you literally make up a phrase to defend your obsession over attacking an elfgame you dislike?
Here's me not having an emotional crisis over what Gygax did and did not like. Here's me not saying "Gygax shouldn't have expressed his dislike for the game", instead I respect his right to express his opinion and I respect his right to have an opinion that disagrees with mine.
Here's me pointing out that part of my post wasn't directed at you, seeing as how I literally quoted someone who was not LillithsThrall right before saying it.
Edit:
As to why i would care about an edition i don't play: it splits the player base. In a certain geographic area i can feasibly get to to game there are only a certain number of geeks. If said geeks are running 4e that means fewer groups i can theoretically hook up with. Its not a HUGE concern, but it might justify some gripes if you live in banjo territory.
I'd rather people play a game they enjoy then play a game they dislike. If 4e is a game they enjoy more then Pathfinder, I'm glad they're playing it. If Pathfinder is a game they enjoy more then 4e, I'm glad they're playing that. I don't get this, to be honest. "I hate 4e because people would rather play it?" Just seems strange to me.
Don't forget that there's 3e fans out there who hate Pathfinder for that very same "splitting."
As to why i would care about an edition i don't play: it splits the player base. In a certain geographic area i can feasibly get to to game there are only a certain number of geeks. If said geeks are running 4e that means fewer groups i can theoretically hook up with. Its not a HUGE concern, but it might justify some gripes if you live in banjo territory.
Oh, I think there is room enough for everybody. Sure, some remote communities might make it hard to find a game, but I think that is more a product of the community than a splitting of the player base. I used to live in New Mexico, and had to drive 120 miles, 240 round trip, just to find another game geek. The game I found was the Star Wars CCG, NOT D&D, but I embraced what was available. If I had found Rifts, Rolemaster, Gurps, Vampire, or any other non-mainstream game (Scrabble, Monopoly, etc.), I would have played that instead.
In less-remote areas, having a variety of games actually becomes a benfit. Game stores find it easier to operate when they can sell a variety of products instead of one or two things, and like it or not, ALL tabletop RPGs are dependant on brick-and-mortar stores. Heck, ALL fantasy/scifi games of any type are dependant upon brick-and-mortar game stores. Without them, finding the right rule system for your group, or even finding a group at all, becomes MUCH more difficult. I speak from experience. I drove 120 miles one-way because it was the closest game store to where I lived. I only found the Star Wars game because of the game store.
Also,
LilithsThrall: Thanks for removing the post.
I still play 3.5e and Pathfinder, so I don't generally call Pathfinder D&D in conversation.
I occasionally will refer to D&D 4th Edition when referring to that game, but usually I call it 4th Edition or 4e.
More recently, I've come to realize that I also refer to D&D 3.5 just as 3.5e most of the time, even in my head.
If people ask me what I play, I'm most likely to say Pathfinder because I don't want to confuse someone.
I never played any version of Dungeons and Dragons prior to 3.x so if I refer to an older version, I'm usually referring to a specific book and most of those are "AD&D," "Ravenloft," or "Masque of the Red Death" books as far as I'm concerned.
I don't hate on 4e, I just don't desire to play it.
I do, however, hate what 4e did to the Forgotten Realms. The poor, poor Realms. Luckily Golarion showed up and captured my imagination, or I'd still be whining about FR.
Well, personally, I predominantly call it "Pathfinder" for a few reasons:
1) That's it's name. Paizo deserves the recognition for the work they do, and if I send someone business, I want to send them business.
2) I have a few family members who were and still are very much so part of that group of people who became convinced long ago that D&D is inherently evil, occultist (seriously, Spell-check? "Occultist"?), and/or detrimental to mental health. While I've had that conversation before, it's not worth retreading again, so now the hobby that allows me to interact with others in a social setting by cooperative story-telling is not D&D - I can genuinely say "Pathfinder" and everyone's happy! :D
3) I also play 4E, though rarely. While I like it substantially less than Pathfinder, I find it an enjoyable game for what it is. (To the curious, I just call it "4E" and avoid the topic, if it comes up).
4) I like the name!
But occasionally in talking with my wife or gaming buddies I do slip into referring to it as "D&D".
I--and everyone at my table--call it Pathfinder, but occasionally somebody calls me the DM instead of GM. For the most part, we use the proper name.
But, like has been stated previously, some of us play D&D; not differentiating between the two would be confusing, at times! ;)
I sometimes use "D&D" as a synonym for all role-playing gaming, but I also call the various games by their correct names pretty regularly, too.
If I'm talking to non-gamers, I use "D&D" more often, because it is well known.
-Kle.
This tends to be my approach.
At this point, I see "D&D" in the same category of Kleenex and Coke. The name transcends the actual brand and represents the wider scope of similar products. So what name I use depends on who I'm talking to and how deep I'm going into the subject.
I'd rather people play a game they enjoy then play a game they dislike. If 4e is a game they enjoy more then Pathfinder, I'm glad they're playing it. If Pathfinder is a game they enjoy more then 4e, I'm glad they're playing that. I don't get this, to be honest. "I hate 4e because people would rather play it?" Just seems strange to me.
Would they dislike Pathfinder? Do they feel that 4e is a better game or do they gravitate towards it simply because of the name recognition? Are they even aware that pathfinder exists?
Pathfinder is my first tabletop game, so I suppose I don't have the preconceptions that some people have in regards to its origins. I chose it not because I thought 4E was an inferior system, but because I thought, "Huh. Pathfinder only has like 3 rulebooks and 4E has like 50. IMMA KEEP MAH MONEY."
So, yeah. I call it Pathfinder. Or the occasional Pee Eff. Because abbreviations are still all the rage.
Pathfinder is my first tabletop game, so I suppose I don't have the preconceptions that some people have in regards to its origins. I chose it not because I thought 4E was an inferior system, but because I thought, "Huh. Pathfinder only has like 3 rulebooks and 4E has like 50. IMMA KEEP MAH MONEY."
So you're saying the lack of rules bloat was a factor in your decision to adopt Pathfinder vs. 4E?
Interesting...
|
And so another thread becomes a 4E bash-fest. I suppose in this case it was inevitable...
The sad part is I'm sure the O[p was just curious as to whether fellow gamers called D&D either PF or D&D. I'm 1000% certain that the thread topic called for not edition warring but what you can do. That's what happens when people have too much time on their hands. Not only that apprently it's justified too. Which is why I always word my threads very carefully. Then some posters on this board wonder why 4E fans get defensive. I wonder why. As for freedom of speech to often I have seen both in and outside the net of how people engage in bad hebavior than hide behind freedom of speech. Sure say what you want. One also lose the right to be offended when others call you out on what you say. You can't have it both ways.
To the OP I call it D&D. No matter the edition or the company who produces it. As long as I'm having fun who cares. I like Coke I don;t like Pepsi. I don;t refer to Pepsi as the "other" soft drink. Seems a poinltess and silly thing to do.
|
|
Whining that you don't like 4th ed is old; very, very old. Just remember that without D&D roleplaying in general would suffer. You may not like the game in it's current incarnation but whining about it just makes the board look elitist, petty, negative and childish. Not a good advert for Pathfinder players frankly. Pack it in. Seriously.
+1
Less elitist, petty, negative and childish behavior would be very much endorsed on my part as well.
+2
You know what else is old? The fact that no one here seems to remember a time when leading right up to the release of 4th Edition where 4E proponents were enjoying the fact that 4E was coming but more so that 3x was on it's way out because it was "broken and unplayable".
Some of these people took every opprotunity to take pot shots at the "outgoing" system AND the people who still played and enjoyed that system. Calling them number crunchers accountants and munchkins and any other derogatory name they could think of during the transition.
These same people while deriding their "fellow gamers" would taunt them with "You'll be playing 4E in less than a year. What else are you going to do?" Despite the fact that some of us had actually tried the game or had been part of the play-test and didn't really care for it.
And when Paizo announced that they'd be doing Pathfinder (the RPG) how many of those same 4E people spread misinformation about WHY and how Paizo came to that decision. Saying things like Paizo was STEALING from WOTC. Saying things like Paizo staff hates 4E and is doing this just to try and stick it to WOTC. That Pathfinder will fail miserably and that they'll be sorry and a bunch of other such nonsense.
I've said this before and I'll say it again the crap comes from both sides. I think the 4E people have VERY selective memories when it comes to this stuff. I would visit the WOTC boards during the Pathfinder RPG announcement and the vitriol toward Paizo from that place was borderline nuclear. So please dont tell me that this is Paizo proponents ganging up on and bullying the poor 'ol 4E people and that there's no one on the 4E side of the fence who doesn't initiate these things. I remember things very differently.
Are the 4E snipes here sometimes unwarranted? You bet. Should they stop? Hell yes. But on the other hand you dont need edition warriors popping up into a thread to defend 4E from what may have been a harmless comment or an unintentional slight and trying to put that person to the sword for it. Sometimes it's just better to let it go. SOMETIMES.
Sometimes it's just better to let it go.
Physician, heal thyself?
That aside, I was one of the people who thought most of the 4E naysayers would be playing it in a few years. Why? Simple -- that is what I watched happen EVERY OTHER TIME. In this case, however, I was wrong. Paizo did what I thought was impossible, and I readily admit that the OGL changed the game in a way I fundamentally failed to understand.
I will also note that, if I recall correctly, I made most or all of these statements in reference to 3.5, before Pathfinder was even announced.
Finally, as you yourself admit, none of this justifies the endless 4E sniping years down the road. I'm not trying to "put anyone to the sword." But enough, already!
Also? I really think that we need to avail ourselves of the notion that we're all one big happy gamer nation. Or we should try to be.
If you're playing games that I dont play or have no interest in playing? I HAVE NOTHING IN COMMON WITH YOU ON THAT FRONT.
If all you want to talk about is how broken 3x and Pathfinder is and how unplayable it is? Your not someone I want to be around. Whether it's online or in person. Likewise if youre talking trash about 4E. I try to dissuade that sort of thing at my own table. I'm not a fan of it at all. You should be talking about how AWESOME and how much you do enjoy something as opposed to tearing something else down. Especially if it's something that youre doing for fun.
I dont really talk about games I dont like. I simply DONT PLAY THEM.
Someone playing 4E has no bearing on my existence as a gamer. AT ALL. The same way GURPS or RIFTS players have no bearing on my existence as a gamer.
If D&D died and went away tomorrow, I'd STILL be playing Pathfinder or M&M or Spycraft or something else that I wanted to play. Not saying that I want it to go away or die, but it wouldnt change anything for me.
When 4E was announced I came This || close to giving up on gaming. Because I saw that it was getting harder and harder to find and organize a 3.5 game because everyone was all over the new shiny. When I did find a group and stuck with them during the transition to pathfinder all of a sudden there were more players to choose from, people were starting groups again. I don't NEED D&D in my life. I missed it for awhile being that I've played almost every incarnation of the game since I was 12, but now 4E provided me with a clean break.
Which brings me back to the topic. I call my games PATHFINDER because that's what I'm playing. It's NOT D&D. If someone asks me what game I'm playing I'm not going to say D&D because if theyre interested in following up I dont want to send them to find D&D. I want to send them to find Pathfinder. If Im playing Champions in the HERO SYSTEM I'm not going to send someone who asks to play Mutants and Masterminds or Marvel Super Heroes. I'm going to say Hero System Champions.
I understand the desire for short hand. I'm mainly addressing those in this thread who have said mentioning that level of detail is unnecessary. It's not if you want the game that you enjoy and like to continue to be supported. If you really dont care that much, great I get that. But I do. As far as I'm concerned Paizo / Pathfinder saved my gaming life and I'm pretty grateful for that.
|
|
the thing is its gotten to the point that any and every thread that is posted if you do not word it from the first to have no anit-4E comments ends up having some sort of anti-4E posting in it. Unless the topic does not lend itself to it them luckily it does not. If I start a thread "how have you houseruled PF?" and unless I specifically ask for no anti-4E comments someone feels the need to add them. I know that 4E is not for everyone yet there is a reason why this foum is starting to get a bad reputation. Its one thing to hate an rpg. Its another thing to take every any opprtunity to do so. When that happens it kind of makes me embrassed to be part of the hobby.
You know what else is old? The fact that no one here seems to remember a time when leading right up to the release of 4th Edition where 4E proponents were enjoying the fact that 4E was coming but more so that 3x was on it's way out because it was "broken and unplayable".
You're right, we should continue this edition war that started literally years ago and is at this point based almost entirely around Pathfinder fans being pretty much obsessed with needing to knock down 4e. That's the right, logical, good path to take.
Incidentally, I've yet to see this. Like, at all. I've yet to see on 4e forums here anyone go into a big rant on how they hate Pathfinder. I've yet to see anyone do that on WotC's 4e forums (though god knows I see a lot of Pathfinder fans pop up to tell everyone how bad their game is). I have yet to see it in WotC's general RPG forums. I haven't seen it in EN World's general forums. Or their 4e forums.
The only place I've seen people attack Pathfinder are on forums still devoted to 3e.
Edit:
Are the 4E snipes here sometimes unwarranted? You bet. Should they stop? Hell yes. But on the other hand you dont need edition warriors popping up into a thread to defend 4E from what may have been a harmless comment or an unintentional slight and trying to put that person to the sword for it. Sometimes it's just better to let it go. SOMETIMES.
Right, I know how it works. It isn't an edition war until 4e fans stand up for themselves.
Saying, "I don't like 4e" isn't the same as dressing up like a dual weapon carrying dark elf and burning giant d20s in 4e's front yard. As for "social censor", it's a term used in the social sciences. It refers to attempts to use social pressure to take away peoples' freedom of speech.
I literally have no idea what you're babbling about.
You posted it in a public thread and it made my point for me. But, of course, you are intent on treating dislike of 4e as a dirty little secret.
Nobody is treating dislike of 4e as a dirty little secret, though with how loud you scream about it at the drop of a hat I don't think anyone could even if they wanted to.
I see more talk about 4e on these forums then I do in the 4e forums. Y'all are obsessed.