Creative Director
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
The first time we used "Pathfinder" publicly was as the name of the monthly Adventure Path. Next came the in-world organization. Next came the RPG.
But books with the word "PATHFINDER" in logo form have existed since Burnt Offerings. That we ended up calling our RPG that name may be a source of the confusion, but the RPG itself did not exist before the Pathfinder Core Rules. The game we built adventures for was D&D, using the OGL—if you wanted to build characters for those adventures, you used the D&D Player's Handbook, and if you were the GM, you used the D&D Dungeon Master's Guide and Monster Manual.
"Pathfinder" to me is more than just the RPG rules. It's the world of Golarion (which predates the RPG rules by a few years). It's the adventure card game (which post-dates the RPG by a few years). It's our novels. It's video games. It's miniatures. It's an entire brand.
I'm honestly not really sure what the point of starting this thread up was, unless it was to obliquely challenge our decision to call the 2nd edition of the RPG that and not a "3rd edition". Which it is not. It's the 2nd edition of the Pathfinder RPG.
It was not my intention to change the name of 2nd Edition, no.
I just had an idea, wanted to share it, and (apparently) went about it in the worst way possible.
If I ran an AD&D game set in Golarion, am I playing Pathfinder?
I have to disagree because pathfinder 3.5 has some feats and items that are crazy even by 1st edition pathfinder standards.
Does it? I don't recall anything in the 3.5 material that's up on archives of nethys that seemed "crazy". Have some examples?
It was not my intention to change the name of 2nd Edition, no.
I just had an idea, wanted to share it, and (apparently) went about it in the worst way possible.
I think your presentation was fine. It's just that it sounds like you're in a fairly small minority in wanting to clear up this potential source of confusion.
It seems to me people are struggling to take "I want to avoid confusion in these three disparate situations" at face value since, for most of us, there isn't any significant confusion.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It was not my intention to change the name of 2nd Edition, no.
I just had an idea, wanted to share it, and (apparently) went about it in the worst way possible.
I don't think it was the worst way possible but... when you say the title is clickbait, you tell people who disagree that their opinions are off topic and you don't seem interested in the fact most people replying disagree on the core premise... it might not have been off to the best start.
A better way might have been "Do we need a new name for the older PF material released before the PF1 CRB? Does anyone see people confused about it?" That way you're inviting a discussion and opening the floor to ideas and suggestions, not seeming to demand people agree with you or be quiet.
Oh be quiet you. /tongue-in-cheek
Or a thread about Pathfinder's Smurfing, it seems...
Does "Pathfinder" refer to the setting, or the rules set, or either depending on context?
Paizo has said, in effect, that there's only one setting (because they said that you can run games in the setting with the PF2E rules set without having to make significant (any?) changes to the setting). Historically, there have been three rules sets: D&D 3.5, PF1E, and PF2E.
So, one setting, three rules sets. Wtp? :-)