Just over three years ago, I speculated in a post on this blog about how, regardless of how good or bad Dungeons & Dragons 4E would turn out to be, I wasn’t likely to start playing Pathfinder. That post, for good or bad, has become one of the most-read (and most-commented) posts on this blog.
In some ways, that phenomenon is less about what I actually wrote and more about how angry and frustrated some gamers were in the wake of the 4E announcement. The gist of that post was, more or less, “I’m not going to run Pathfinder because I’m ready for something new. 3E is played out for me, and no amount of tweaking will fix it.” There was more to it, which you’re welcome to read for yourself.
At any rate, it’s now late 2011 and my position hasn’t changed. I’m not running Pathfinder. Some of my old reasons have dropped away (exactly as I predicted they would). For example, I said back then that Pathfinder wasn’t a proven system. It wasn’t. Today it is. I also said back then that Pathfinder would probably prove to be a fine game. It most certainly seems to be. But it’s not for me, and here’s why:
- Pathfinder doesn’t fix my fundamental problem with 3E – system mastery. This topic has been explored elsewhere, but the bottom line is this: in 3E, there is a wide variance in character power based on the player’s degree of system mastery. This makes it frustratingly difficult to create balanced encounters, and it frankly turns off some of my players. While Pathfinder certainly seems to have “fixed” some problems, the core design element that I most dislike in 3E is still present. See below for more on this.
- Pathfinder doesn’t have the deep product line that D&D has. There are plenty of good Pathfinder products out there, and plenty of good third-party Pathfinder products, too. However, Pathfinder has yet to match D&D in terms of the wide variety of products available – from DDI to the board game line to the new box sets and more. This isn’t a bad thing for some folks. In my case, I really like lining my shelves with cool books and having tons of resources.
- The Organized Play component of Pathfinder is less supported (at least in my area) than D&D’s Organized Play. Every Wednesday, I walk into my Friendly Local Gaming Store and play Encounters. About once a month, I’ll be running the new Lair Assault program, there, too. If I want to play D&D in an organized manner, I have tons of options at every major convention, and can enjoy a smaller, more close-knit experience at DDXP. Add in the increasing quality of the OP products for D&D, and I’m totally thrilled.
More food for thought
I could throw out more reasons.
There is a small-but-vocal element of the Pathfinder community that are simply bitter jackasses who do little more than whine all day about how WotC “killed D&D.” (They should take a lesson from the OSR folks, and realize that 3E is just as far a cry from “real” Dungeons & Dragons as 4E). Oh, and in case you didn’t read that second sentence: this is a “small-but-vocal” group. If you aren’t in the habit of whining about 4E in a public and rude way, it doesn’t apply to you.
I could also talk about how my current gaming group prefers 4E, or about the hubris of some (again, a small minority) of Pathfinder designers who have declared Pathfinder to be the one-and-only true “spiritual heir” of D&D.
These things are really only minor hurdles. Even the issues of Organized Play and the depth of the product line are issues that Paizo could overcome in time.
An unresolvable problem
What Pathfinder will never overcome, however, is the basic premise that good roleplaying requires an intricate understanding of complex mechanics and how they relate to one another. 3E is built on the premise of system mastery. In this regard, Pathfinder is certainly a spiritual heir to that edition of the game. Pathfinder fans and designers don’t see this as a flaw, nor should they necessarily. For me, however, it’s a deal breaker. Three years ago when I said that Pathfinder didn’t solve any of my problems, this is what I was talking about.
Pathfinder is a great game. Just like 3E was a great game. I should know; I played 3E for the better part of a decade. Even today, I would prefer 3E or Pathfinder to many other games.
But unless Pathfinder does what 4E did and redraws some of the basic assumptions of the game and puts out a new version, I’m not likely to run a Pathfinder game. I’ll play a pickup game with friends, I’ll page through the books admiring Wayne Reynolds’ artwork and the interesting world of Golarion, but given my druthers I’d rather play 4E.
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
I have to agree on one major point with regard to pathfinder vs. 4e; Pathfinders support is definitely not as pronounced as 4e as far as making its’ presence known at game stores and such. I have a feeling that WOTCs’ marketing strategies have a lot to do with that to be honest.
After having had the chance to play 4e for about 6 months now i came to the conclusion last week that 4e just doesn’t feel like the role playing of d&d i grew up with. Honestly, i’m not even really trying to work up some sense of nostalgia for “old school d&d”. Up until 6 months ago, i hadn’t even played d&d for close to 10 years, so i hadn’t even really had the chance to play the 3.5 rules to experience that. What i do know is that last week it just slapped me in the face that 4e feels waaaaay to much like i’m playing an extremely slowed down turn based version of world of warcraft and ultimately, that just pisses me off from a role playing perspective. If i want to play an MMO , then i will play warcraft or the like, but if i’m going to sit down with my friends and do some role playing, i don’t want to feel like i’m just going through the motions of some mechanical robotic routine or much like an MMO, just button mashing, except turn based lol.
I actually stumbled by pure chance onto pathfinder on amazon while looking up the hardback books for 4e and after reading a bit about it from customer reviews, it set me on a very long, in depth research about the game and also to all the insane debating in forums and websites about which is better and why and to which is the reason i stumbled onto your website today hehe.
The more and more i’ve been reading and after spending some time looking at all the books and supplements for both systems at my local hobby store, i began to understand what a tremendous difference there is between the two systems. Ultimately, for me at least, it boils down to what each game adds as far as details about subtle things like race, class and even the monster details. Pathfinder ,like its’ D&D predecessors has ALOT of flavor and details whereas i really feel like 4e is just a money making rip off scam that gives me very little detail. All these hardback books for 39.00 is quite honestly a joke. After checking out, quite literally, all the 4e stuff that’s out currently, i really feel like this stuff is just being nickle and dimed to us and i simply can’t justify the kind of money they want for the info they include.
I guess to sum up my points i would just say from my experience, 4e = MMO style play and their books just don’t pan out to be worth the money for the info they offer. I kind of feel like i “have to buy” all the 4e stuff they pump out to be able to really enjoy any kind of real flavor for the game. I don’t see quite the same effect from pathfinder stuff. I could have a great time and make alot of cool stuff from just the core book and bestiary books for a very long time! Plus all the little details i see in pathfinder i found incredibly rewarding to spend my time reading and learning about. Also, i would disagree that pathfinder doesn’t have alot of supplements. The do in fact have an entire supplement of 3.5 material from d&d to draw from. From i’ve been reading, paizo even offers a conversion guide to do that very thing,so to say there isn’t much supplementation is a bit misleading. In fact, one of the things i’ve been considering using the pathfinder system for is the old RAVENLOFT story,but yea, theres A TON of stuff to draw from
Sorry for the long post, but i thought i would try to flesh out my full thoughts to contribute to this fine discussion
Thanks for keeping this going! I have thoroughly enjoyed reading everyone’s input and comments 
I’m inclined to agree with your views, Bob. I’ve played a great big stack of different rules sets since 4th Edition was released. It’s an exciting experience to try new things, visit new worlds, and slay a dozen different variations of classic and iconic monsters. From Rifts to AD&D, from Dark Heresy to Traveler to Spycraft, there’s never a dull moment. My first experience with D&D came about a little while before 3rd updated to 3.5 to hotfix a bunch of issues and explain things that needed better explaining.
Admittedly 3.X had a tonne of upsides to it. A rule for nearly everything in fact. And if there wasn’t, the Open Gaming License meant that a 3′rd party could fill holes or publish their own stuff without going through a lengthy legal process. Mighty fine of WotC to do that for them. Paizo, among other companies, built their reputations and products off of this. Heck, they’re even pretty good. Certainly the Art is amazing.
When 4e came out though, that was about the time that I realized that it’s designed to be more… User friendly. The Skill selection was pointedly simplified, Feats are easier to handle, and the extensive multi-classing is replaced with a “Dip” system. From a Business perspective, it’s a perfect way to get new people into the hobby.
Paizo… has built a wonderful world. Their system is solid, though clunky and easy to break (not to the extent of Big Eyes Small Mouth, mind), and much more focused on mechanics then most people who tote it’s brilliance would ever admit. 4 is built around combat mechanics and dramatic skill challenge. From behind the screen, 4 is probably the friendliest and easiest to use from a GMs seat.
And at the end of the Day, if my niece wants to be an adorable Elf Princess, my book will say Dungeons and Dragons. The number is just a matter of Age and Taste. Cheers.