So, I'm new to the whole "talking about RPGs" thing. I don't have a television, or a radio, and my internet usage is down to slashdot, HardOCP, and a few forums. My point being, it's hard to hear about new things without help, and even then, you often don't get the whole picture. For instance, I've heard 2 things about Pathfinder, basically that it's excellent, or that it's awful.

So, what is it? I don't mean, "Is it good?" because that's not a meaningful question [although I welcome opinions, as well...once you've delivered the facts]. I mean, is it a regularly-published adventure line for GMs, being followed up with an RPG of its own? I've been to the Pathfinder web site, and that's what it's told me, but so much of what I want to know simply isn't available there: who is it intended for? What sort of subject matter does it explore?

More significantly, the sort of things that will never be on the web site: is this just dungeon-crawling, adventuring? Specifically, is it what so often gets called "old-school" or "traditional" gaming, which seems largely to be monster-to-monster, trap-to-trap? Or are there metaquandries, like moral choices, do you save the victim or chase down their attacker, are goblins redeemable, what is the nature of the evil gods, that sort of thing? Do the players drive the direction of the game by their character's choices, or does the GM set them on a path they're expected to follow with some degree of closeness?

I'm not here to judge Pathfinder as "Good" or "Bad." I'd just like to know if it's something that's up my alley or not. In that spirit, as much factual information as possible would be helpful; personal opinion is welcome, but please, temper it. [I'm getting a little worn by all the interpersonal interaction at the expense of useful roleplaying discussion; does it show?]

If you go to Paizo's site, you can find information on it - specifics. It's essentially Paizo's own update of 3.x for purposes of supporting their adventure publishing.

IOW, they won't be going with the officially sanctioned WotC D&D rules, but their own house system based on the d20 SRD and the OGL.

We have some discussion of it over on d20 Haven, though frankly it's died down. This announcement of Monte Cook might spark it again...

Depending on the GSL wording might they not be interested in severing ties with the d20 SRD, because they can't use the D20 logo anymore anyway?  Or do you think they'll be fine with not having any content overlap with 4e?

P.S. I was supprised that Cook signing up hadn't been mentioned here before. I think that's a pretty big deal recognition-wise, even given how solid Paizo's line-up of writers is already.  EDIT: Oh wait, there the thread is.

Quote from: DwightDepending on the GSL wording might they not be interested in severing ties with the d20 SRD, because they can't use the D20 logo anymore anyway?  Or do you think they'll be fine with not having any content overlap with 4e?

The SRD is an OGL artifact, not a D20 licence artifact: you can quite happily use SRD content in plain OGL products (witness Mongoose doing exactly that for their Pocket Player's Handbook and DM Guide, which IIRC don't have the D20 logo on them because then they wouldn't have been able to include character gen rules and experience tables).

Pathfinder is Paizo's version of 3.5. They're keeping some stuff and they're changing some stuff. It'll be used in their Pathfinder modules and other materials.

Right now, they're doing a massive alpha test on their website. Fans and log into their forums and provide feedback about the rules thus far. Every once and a while, Paizo will release updated PDFs of the rules as they stand at that point.

Seanchai

Okay, I feel like I have a pretty good sense of what it is, in terms of what purpose it serves. But is it, I don't know, interesting or fun? Why?

Maybe I should come at this a different way: I like open-ended game worlds with a fully-accessible setting where the players drive the decisions and adventures and tactics, where the GM drops you in Sarth and says, "Okay, sea to your south and land everywhere else. Where do you go?" I like realistic, complex characters [pushing the limits of melodrama, I fear, one of my many flaws] in realistic, complex situations. I don't like set-piece battles or GM-forced engagement of the plot.

Based on that, would I find utility in Pathfinder?

Quote from: EngineBased on that, would I find utility in Pathfinder?

The modules for Pathfinder would be anathema to your approach.  The system may still work, but probably not any better or worse than 3.5.  I suspect Pathfinder's system will better support the play you desire than 4e will, but that's only an uneducated guess.

Quote from: WarthurThe SRD is an OGL artifact, not a D20 licence artifact: you can quite happily use SRD content in plain OGL products (witness Mongoose doing exactly that for their Pocket Player's Handbook and DM Guide, which IIRC don't have the D20 logo on them because then they wouldn't have been able to include character gen rules and experience tables).

I think we'll have to wait till June 6th to find out which distinction matters.

Basically Pathfinder is 3.5 D&D with some of the rules smoothed out and fixed, and slight power boost.  If you already use 3.5, then switching to Pathfinder is a breeze.  If you can't stand 3.5, you won't like Pathfinder either.

Quote from: EngineMaybe I should come at this a different way: I like open-ended game worlds with a fully-accessible setting where the players drive the decisions and adventures and tactics, where the GM drops you in Sarth and says, "Okay, sea to your south and land everywhere else. Where do you go?" I like realistic, complex characters [pushing the limits of melodrama, I fear, one of my many flaws] in realistic, complex situations. I don't like set-piece battles or GM-forced engagement of the plot.

Brother. I've found this Promised Land. And, for better or worse, there isn't a D20 in sight.

As for Pathfinder, it's still got a long way to go. There could be a number of changes between now and whenever. But at the heart, now more than ever with Monte Cook on board, I suspect it'll be D&D 3.5 with some mechanics refinements.

Quote from: jrientsThe modules for Pathfinder would be anathema to your approach.

I was afraid of that. Actually, I should stop looking at anything one might reasonably call a module; "setting" is usually okay for me, but "adventure" or "module" usually implies a degree of GM control I don't leverage. And, of course, the system itself, however good it might be, or preferable to 3.5e, is largely immaterial to me, anyway.

Ah, well. I'm pleased something new out there is getting some attention; just because it isn't useful to me specifically is meaningless: I'm just glad somebody's getting what they want today!

Quote from: DwightI think we'll have to wait till June 6th to find out which distinction matters.

Not really; there's not much the GSL can do to the OGL, it's unrevokable.

Quote from: WarthurNot really; there's not much the GSL can do to the OGL, it's unrevokable.

Not directly. But it could require those using the GSL to no longer publish the same IP using the SRD.

Quote from: EngineBut is it, I don't know, interesting or fun? Why?

Sure. We hung out last week, had a few beers, watched the game. I thought, overall, Pathfinder was pretty cool. He did fart into my couch a few times, which I didn't care for, however.

Seriously, shrug. It's not out yet. It's not remotely close to being finished. I'm going to get it regardless, but I'm not excited about it because it seems to be moving farther and farther away from 3.5 and closer and closer to Iron Heroes. I already own both those games and don't need another version on my shelf.

Now if it basically built on the shelves of 3.5 materials I already have...




...I probably would still never play it. But, intellectually, I'd like it better.

Is it a good fit for you? Shrug. It's not out yet. It looks like there'll be a lot of Pathfinder setting material, so maybe it'll work for you...

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiIt's not out yet.

Another excellent point raised: that of branding. See, Pathfinder is already out, and has been for a while. Pathfinder RPG, on the other hand, is not already out. [That's all per my understanding, which should be considered...limited.] I think adding "RPG" to your D&D setting probably doesn't differentiate them enough when you decide to make your own game.