3 Reasons Why I’m Not Running Pathfinder
One of the things that naturally comes about in a discussion of switching from D&D to another game system is Pathfinder. Because the community has embraced Pathfinder as a way for fans of 3rd Edition to continue playing their game while getting new product, there is this illusion that the whole world is in “D&D vs. Pathfinder” mode.
I think that perception may be a bit overblown. Let’s face it: most D&D players aren’t switching to Pathfinder (or anything else). They play D&D. That’s what they’ve always played, and unless it says “Dungeons and Dragons” on the cover, they’re not going to buy it.
On top of that, there are other choices. If you don’t like 4E, there are plenty of gaming systems out there. Pathfinder is one of the youngest, and it’s not the best-selling. Even without insider information, I guarantee that there are still more RIFTS players than Pathfinder players. That can, and probably will, change. But, my point is that it’s not a “D&D or Pathfinder” decision - it’s a “D&D or Non-D&D” decision.
So, why am I looking at another system instead of switching to Pathfinder? Several reasons.
Pathfinder isn’t yet a proven product
Here’s the fact: Pathfinder still sells less than most non-D&D RPGs, and it will for a long time. They’re only in Beta, and the full game isn’t due out for a year. Could the final product be better than 4E and wind up atop the market? Sure, it’s possible. But it’s not happening any time soon.
I’m not especially interested in playtesting someone’s game, and I’m certainly not interested in playtesting it for a year or more. Come talk to me when Pathfinder’s been in the game for a decade, and then we’ll talk about a long-term commitment. In the meantime, it’s a novelty worth exploring, but still a novelty.
Pathfinder isn’t D&D
Pathfinder is a fine product. It’s a good-looking game, from what I can tell. It’s certainly an offshoot of D&D. Most of the designers have professional experience designing D&D.
However, Pathfinder is not D&D.
What do I mean, exactly? I’m not writing esoterically. I simply mean this: Pathfinder is owned by Paizo. Paizo doesn’t hold the intellectual rights to Dungeons and Dragons. I’ve heard people say “4E is OK, but it’s not D&D.” They’re wrong. 4E, like it or not, is D&D. Pathfinder is not D&D.
If folks want to suggest that Pathfinder is somehow the “spiritual descendant” of D&D, that’s OK by me. But for me, the name on the box defines the product. Maybe I like the new D&D, maybe I don’t. No matter. It’s D&D.
For a long time, I’ve been a D&D player. If I’m going to switch to something else, I’m going to consider all possibilities, plain and simple. Pathfinder is one, Vampire is another.
You’ll carefully notice that I don’t hate Pathfinder or think Paizo is the devil. I hope the product does well alongside D&D. More good games make for a deeper industry, which means better product all around.
Pathfinder doesn’t solve any problems
I need a new set of rules. I’ve complained for a long time that I just can’t keep up with the sheer number of rules available for third edition. 4E solves that problem; so does Vampire. Heck, Toon: The RPG solves that problem. Pathfinder is the one product that doesn’t offer me a rules reset.
Add to that the fact that our gaming group has certain dynamics that center around D&D rules. That’s a nice way of saying I’ve got a couple of power gamers at my table. Power gaming is fine, but I’d like to see something new at the table. A rules reset is one way around that. For a while, at least, my power gamers will be on equal footing with one another (and with me as their GM).
What do you think? Are you going Pathfinder? If so, how do you see it?
Like this post? Get updates via feed or via Email.
- What I Learned from Gen Con 2008 - Part 2
- Optimization and CR
- D&D: Still Kicking Ass After Forty Years
- What I really know for sure about 4th Edition Dungeons and Dragons
- 4E: My “Final” Analysis ?
Comments
12 Responses to “3 Reasons Why I’m Not Running Pathfinder”
Leave a Reply
-
Updates
To an extent, I agree. Purely for the sake of playing Devil’s Advocate though, I’m going to…. ummmm…… play Devil’s Advocate.
All in the goodly cause of furthering debate, of course
I think it’s narrow to say that people aren’t going to play Pathfinder because it’s not D&D. Lots of things aren’t D&D, and they still get played. I’m pretty sure the Warhammer crowd aren’t going to suddenly stop playing because they wake up one day and think “Wait a minute! This isn’t D&D!”.
- Pathfinder isn’t yet a proven product -
Neither is 4e D&D. In fact, you could argue that Pathfinder is MORE of a proven product than 4e because it’s intentionally built on proven mechanics and systems. 4e, on the other hand, has introduced a lot of new, unproven mechanics - and (in the case of Skill Challenges) already required a pretty major revision.
- Pathfinder isn’t D&D -
Neither is 4e D&D - if, by D&D you mean 3rd Edition D&D where the players begin relatively weak and advance in power while collecting magic items and the magic-users memorize their spells from lists.
Now I don’t buy that “4e isn’t D&D” nonsense either (it says it’s D&D right on the cover) but it might not be the kind of D&D some folks want to play. Pathfinder offers an alternative way to play D&D. Granted, it’s not got the words on the cover (and therefore may lack the selling power), but it’s also much more backwards compatible, which increases it’s selling power as compared to 4e. Swings and roundabouts, really.
- Pathfinder doesn’t solve any problems -
Yes and no. It’s still got a way to go when it comes to lessening the burden of the GM. That’s where 4e really shines. I reckon a DM’s prep work is halved (at least) under 4e compared to 3e. Pathfinder would struggle to beat that.
On the other hand, it ignores some of the spurious “problems” that were bandied about as issues during the 4e launch. In my game at least, “Save or die” effects weren’t viewed as a problem until 4e came along, and that’s something Pathfinder handles, imho, better than 4e.
Also, 4e brings it’s own problems - most notably it’s over-dependence of miniatures to play. This limits being able to play 4e either face-to-face, or over Wizards’ vapourware app that’s not going to even see the light of day until 2009 (if then, I suspect). Third party solutions are coming, but 4e is never going to be a game you can play over IRC, for example.
For virtual gamers, that’s a big loss, and a problem that doesn’t exist with Pathfinder. Ironic when 4e D&D is supposed to be the digital gamer’s friend.
Overall Pathfinder provides a great option if you like 3e and want to see it’s continued support. Sure, it’s not perfect - no game is - but it’s well worth a close look if you’re not a fan of the 4e playstyle.
greywulfs last blog post..Audrey Hepburn would make a kickass elf
Yeah, I’m not sure about all your points there, but the fact of the matter for my group was that if we didn’t like 4e, we were done playing D&D. (Pathfinder included.) There were just too many problems that we saw as core to the system in 3e to keep playing. Fortunately, all the groups I play with like it. But even in some alternate reality where we don’t like 4e, we wouldn’t go to Pathfinder since it’s built on the same things we don’t like.
By its not being D&D he means that its doesn’t have the Dungeons and Dragons TM on it therefore while Pathfinder is a new product, 4E is officially a D&D product by name only.
Pathfinder fixes alot of things that 3.5 got wrong. Does it fix it completely, nope, but then its still in progress. 4E throws the baby out with the bathwater.
Its a game… if you aren’t having fun, why play it. Thats what it really boils down to in the end.
Apis
***A rules reset is one way around that. For a while, at least, my power gamers will be on equal footing with one another (and with me as their GM).***
Just needed to comment on this portion. If you think for a second that if the certain people you are referring to take interest in 4E won’t study the rules like a college mid-term and bend them to their will you are kidding yourself.
We’ve seen it time and time again. It all depends on the mindset of the person. Two people will make two very different characters when presented with the same rule set.
Rules reset will fix everything is an illusion.
@ All -
Excellent comments. Truly, I appreciate the discussion.
The bottom line, for me, is that Pathfinder doesn’t fix my problem, and that 4E will, for a while. It’s not a panacea, but it is a band-aid.
I don’t think Pathfinder is a bad game. I hope I was clear on that…
I guess I’m too old, too, to get into the “D&D in name only” discussion. If I wanted to go that route, and be a D&D spiritual purist, I’d have gone Hackmaster when 3E came out.
More follow-up later!
@Bob. I look forward to it. Excellent discussion, all
greywulfs last blog post..So these Kobolds walk into a bar
@ Greywulf - The vast majority of D&D players are casual players. They don’t blog, they don’t go to Gen COn, and they don’t participate in discussion boards. Those are the folks that are only dimly aware, just now, that D&D has a 4th edition, and that likely have never heard of Pathfinder.
Those are the folks that aren’t going to play Pathfinder because it’s not D&D. They are the silent majority.
As to 4E being a proven product, WotC has proven itself over the long haul. Paizo has proven itself over the short run. That’s what I mean by a proven product: stability from the market perspective.
As to solving problems - my problems had little to do with specific mechanics and more to do with a group dynamic. Nothing Pathfinder can do, as long as it’s built on the 3E rules to start with, can fix that group mechanic.
@ G (and Greywulf, continued) Only a rules reset can change that group dynamic I’m talking about. And as I mentioned earlier, it can only do that for a while. It took 3E about 7 years to get to the place where I could no longer keep up with my players.
I’m OK investing in a new system if it does that for me. 7 years is usually 2 good campaigns for us.
“But for me, the name on the box defines the product.”
I really can’t buy that. A game is what it is. There is no reason to privilege the name over the producer, the ISBN, or the page count for that matter. If Hasbro swapped the names of two of its other games, say Scrabble and Yahtzee, that wouldn’t make Yahtzee Scrabble and Scrabble Yahtzee… it would just make them look like fools.
And that the problem WotC has now that they called their new game Dungeons & Dragons.
***I’d have gone Hackmaster when 3E came out.***
I have all the books and Little Keep on the Borderlands if you wanna give it a look =) THAC0 ftw.
Apis
@ Vin - You’re absolutely entitled to your opinion. But 4E is D&D - whether you or I like it. That’s my point; our analysis of the product is irrelevant to the product’s identity.
@ G - Waiting for you to run that one, my friend. I’ll play, though. Lucinian Silvermoon hasn’t seen the light of day in a decade
Thats because we killed him most horribly until DM fiat brought him back
lol
Ok I see a lot of points here.
4E I did not like this version of D&D, why because it offered very little in character development. Warhamer or warhammer 40K broken daow to a smaller scale would be exactley the same, albiet warhamer is more simple.
Pathfinder, after playing Pathfinder for a month now I realy enjoy the game as they give a diverse background to the world your in with plots and adventure and the option that keeps power gamers on equal footing.
I cannot get enough of Pathfinder, when I picked up 4E played it for 2 months I was bored, and a lot of players in my group were as well, since WOTCF pulled the OGL on 3.5 we went on a quest to discover a new game and we did. Pathfinder it brings back all the things we wanted in our games character development.
If you like 4E thats fine but as for our group and our community group we shelved 4E and took up Pathfinder.
Maybe in 4 years WOTC will bring out another system with D&D on the bax and we may give that a go. but until then Pathfinder has our blessing