| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Trying this again.
Now that we have two editions of Pathfinder, a fair amount of setting material from D&D 3.5, and multiple playtests and Unchained too, it can all be potentially confusing as to which Pathfinder system or subsystem someone is referring to. Do we need a new name for some of the older PF material released before the PF1 CRB to help clear things up a bit?
I propose "Pathfinder Classic" or "Classic Pathfinder" if you prefer, as being an informal possible name for the Pathfinder setting as it existed under the 3.5 D&D rule set. I often hear it referred to as Pathfinder 3.5, which is fine I guess, but it can get convoluted once Pathfinder 3rd Edition actually does release one day. Best get ahead of it now I say.
1st Edition, 2nd Edition, and Unchained can remain as they are I think. Very little to mix up there. Playtests are likely fine too. "1st Edition Playtest" and "2nd Edition Playtest" leave very little to the imagination.
What do you think? Have you ever personally encountered any confusion, or know someone who has? Even if not, what do you think of the idea?
It's the same setting though, isn't it?
Classic is already used for PFS1 to differentiate normal play from the Core Campaign.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The core of what some of us were trying to get to in your other post is this: you are grouping unlike things in your attempt to avoid confusion.
PF1 is an edition of a game system, PF2 is an edition of a game system, the 3.5 setting materials are no different than the Ravenloft setting materials or the Ebberon setting materials.
Giving these materials a “Pathfinder edition” name to differentiate them from the PF1 System and the PF2 System creates an unnecessary complexity that can lead to exactly the kind of confusion you are hoping to avoid.
Example. We create the Pathfinder Classic designation to avoid confusion if/when there is a PF3. 10 years from now there is a PF3, new players come to these forums and find forum posters discussing PF Classic, PF1, PF2 and PF3. They incorrectly assume, because we’ve erased the context, that PF Classic is its own game - independent of the other 3. Suddenly they are of the impression that there are actually 4 editions of PF, they assume Classic to be the first edition in a fashion similar to Basic D&D. We’ve obfuscated the context in which the Settings Materials were released to avoid confusion when all that was needed was to continue calling them the Pathfinder Setting Materials for 3.5 and then clarifying that it was originally published for D&D if someone is legitimately confused by it.
Classic is already used for PFS1 to differentiate normal play from the Core Campaign.
Hmm, yes, that could pose a problem. I hadn't considered Pathfinder Society having its own naming conventions already in place. Perhaps alternative naming suggestions are in order then?
The core of what some of us were trying to get to in your other post is this: you are grouping unlike things in your attempt to avoid confusion.
PF1 is an edition of a game system, PF2 is an edition of a game system, the 3.5 setting materials are no different than the Ravenloft setting materials or the Ebberon setting materials.
Giving these materials a “Pathfinder edition” name to differentiate them from the PF1 System and the PF2 System creates an unnecessary complexity that can lead to exactly the kind of confusion you are hoping to avoid.
Example. We create the Pathfinder Classic designation to avoid confusion if/when there is a PF3. 10 years from now there is a PF3, new players come to these forums and find forum posters discussing PF Classic, PF1, PF2 and PF3. They incorrectly assume, because we’ve erased the context, that PF Classic is its own game - independent of the other 3. Suddenly they are of the impression that there are actually 4 editions of PF, they assume Classic to be the first edition in a fashion similar to Basic D&D. We’ve obfuscated the context in which the Settings Materials were released to avoid confusion when all that was needed was to continue calling them the Pathfinder Setting Materials for 3.5 and then clarifying that it was originally published for D&D if someone is legitimately confused by it.
I think it's pretty well understood that they are unlike things, and that's fine. Unlike things can still be labeled.
I'm not sure why anyone would think it a separate edition when no one has claimed that, and when it doesn't have "edition" anywhere in the name. In any case, it would be less confusing then simply calling it "Pathfinder," or "the Pathfinder Setting;" and less of a mouthful then "the Pathfinder Setting under the D&D 3.5 rule set."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's pretty well understood that they are unlike things, and that's fine. Unlike things can still be labeled
Yes, but by their very nature as things that are not the same they don’t need to be differentiated from each other - which is your entire premise.
I'm not sure why anyone would think it a separate edition
Because “Pathfinder Classic” sounds like the name of a Roleplaying game and not a setting splatbook.
In any case, it would be less confusing then simply calling it "Pathfinder," or "the Pathfinder Setting;" and less of a mouthful then "the Pathfinder Setting under the D&D 3.5 rule set.".
Golarion 3.5, 3.5 Pathfinder Setting, Pathfinder Chronicles are all clearer than those intentionally awkward suggestions, and have the benefit of already being terms that are used.
Finally, how many people have actually expressed confusion about this recently?
|
The only need for differentiation I see is between Golarion under PF1 and Golarion under PF2.
Because the change in PFRPG editions obfuscated a bit the changes in the possibilities given by the setting. As in some PCs you could build in Golarion 1 you cannot build in Golarion 2.
Note though that Golarion 2 is closer to James Jacobs' vision (Golarion 0?).
The Pathfinder setting supplements for D&D 3.5e
It wasn't an edition of a game system, it was a bunch of 3rd party splat books for 3.5, and I think that how we refer to it should acknowledge that.
If Kobold Press later publish their own game system, we wouldn't call their books for pathfinder "Koboldverse 1st edition", as that would be misleading (and kind of takes the acknowledgement of paizo having made 99% of the rules and information that the KP books supplement).
In a similar manner, to call the pathfinder campaign setting books from the 3.5 days a name that implies it is a whole edition unto itself kind of takes away from acknowledging the hard work the designers of 3.5 put in that made those splat books possible.
Pathfinder 1 and Pathfinder 2 get to be "editions" because they are a complete game system instead of just a supplement to someone else's product.
(This is why I love that both of the pathfinder core rulebooks have a thanks to creators of D&D and to the designers of D&D 3rd edition).
It's like counting MS Windows editions: 1, 2, 3, 3.1, 95, 98, ME, NT, 2000, XP, Vista, 7, 8, 10
Pathfinder: 3.5, Beta 1, 1, ACG, Beta 2, 2
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the real question is whether we call this 'Ravingdork makes an identical thread because the first didnt go exactly as planned' and the other one 'Ravingdork's Original" or just call it Ravingdork 1 and 2.
But we have to consider all the previous threads as it's own edition. So this is ravingdork 3.... Thousand
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Trying this again.
Do we need a new name for some of the older PF material released before the PF1 CRB to help clear things up a bit?
No.
This isn't geology where it's useful to denote geologic periods for reference due to major world-change. This is a game, where people fall into two broad categories: those of us who lived through the earlier periods and don't need or benefit from reconning history and those who haven't, who very rarely will care about history.
In a nutshell...
Assuming a non-zero number of new players show up and somehow stumble upon Golarion 3.5e material and can't fathom that it's nothing to do with Pathfinder 2nd Edition - which is the only thing being marketed at them - why would you imagine they'd locate some eleven-years-later retroactive rename project and become enlightened?
This feels like a project to rename RMS Titanic to "Titanic On The Ocean Floor" because someone might stumble through the dictionary and discover "titanic" means large, and be unable to unravel the conflict.
I normally support you in general, but this strongly seems to me as random imaginary make-work for zero benefit to any actual person.
"D&D Pathfinder."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder Episode 1: The Phantom Merisiel
"D&D Pathfinder."
So is it D&D or Pathfinder? :P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So is it D&D or Pathfinder? :P
Yes...
Trying this again.
Do we need a new name for some of the older PF material released before the PF1 CRB to help clear things up a bit?No.
This isn't geology where it's useful to denote geologic periods for reference due to major world-change....
Hey! How about Jurassic Pathfinder?
>:)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
3.5, before the CRB the content wasn't really any different to 3.5 content and was all based on what was needed for that ruleset.
It is no different from any other 3rd party content of the time.
3.5, before the CRB the content wasn't really any different to 3.5 content and was all based on what was needed for that ruleset.
It is no different from any other 3rd party content of the time.
It’s worth nailing down exactly what it is, so that we know whether this thread should be moved to The PF1 forums, the PF Accessories forums, or the 3.5 forum in Gamer Life.
It seems sufficient anyway to just refer to products or campaigns by name. Like "In Elves of Golarion" (a 3.5e supplement), or "In my homebrew 3.5 game set on Golarion", or "in my Second Darkness game I converted to PF1", etc.
If we're talking about an artifact of the book or campaign, we can refer to the book or the campaign. If we're talking about an artifact of the ruleset, we can talk about the ruleset. If we're talking about the setting then it's pretty much the same setting throughout, it just refines over time so you can refer to temporal signatures.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, is this carry-over from that other thread?
I.....yeah, why? I'm kind of on Anguish's side here. Talk about a spell that requires a lot of semantic components. This question has been answered repeatedly, and just because it doesn't have a snappy name doesn't mean those answers aren't valid.
The Pathfinder setting supplements for D&D 3.5e
It wasn't an edition of a game system, it was a bunch of 3rd party splat books for 3.5, and I think that how we refer to it should acknowledge that.
Or perhaps "The Golarion setting" instead. Either way, this is well understood.
/thread
Unless we're just gonna keep making joke titles. I'm a movie nerd, let's do this:
The Golarion Before Pathfinder
The Pathfinder That Time Forgot
Golarion III.V: The Beginning
Aroden: Covenent
Pathfinder: Rise of the Adventurers
When do you need to distinguish, ravingdork where this distinction is going to help?
What’s an example sentence?
Unless it comes up a lot, jargon is more trouble than it’s worth, imo.
"D&D Pathfinder."So is it D&D or Pathfinder? :P
Yes.
This is some serious déjà vu... I could have sworn we already went over this and didn't find a reason to bother with special designation as they'd be more confusing and trouble that what we have now.
This is some serious déjà vu... I could have sworn we already went over this and didn't find a reason to bother with special designation as they'd be more confusing and trouble that what we have now.
For some reason this issue is apparently so important it required a second thread to be made by the same OP before the original thread even dropped off the first page.
For some reason this issue is apparently so important it required a second thread to be made by the same OP before the original thread even dropped off the first page.
It was more urgent even than that. This thread was created while the first thread was still actively getting replies.
For some reason this issue is apparently so important it required a second thread to be made by the same OP before the original thread even dropped off the first page.It was more urgent even than that. This thread was created while the first thread was still actively getting replies.
I'm either too drunk or not drunk enough for this... I'm not sure which.
Well you done still typed gram gram correctly so I'd say not enuff...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I started the original thread with a bad attitude, and I think it showed. In hindsight, the way I acted was embarrassing.
I created this thread in the hopes that the embarrassing thread would die off and people would pursue discussion in this one. It was my attempt to bury my misdeeds and create a more welcoming environment that better promoted discussion of the original topic.