Pathfinder 1E The good man WotC and the scoundrel Paizo

[Dannager]

This December will mark the tenth year I have been publishing under the OGL. I wonder how soon I will be accused of using the OGL to take WotC marketshare?

I don't think 3pps are really in danger of "stealing" WotC market share unless they decide to produce their own core game designed to compete directly with WotC's current products.

 

[Fifth Element]

Its never too late to follow the path of niceness.

But I'd say it's probably too late for it to have an effect. There is a well-entrenched feeling that WotC is an evil corporation, while Paizo is all butterflies and candy canes. It would take a great deal of effort to change that impression, if it could even be changed at this point.

 

[Chainsaw Mage]

(The title is taken from Philip Pullman's book, «The good man Jesus and the scoundrel Christ»)

WotC . . . a candy-stealing, evil monster who wants to kill D&D and kick its corpse until it is barely recognisable; a company who failingly wanted to appeal to videogame players, who releases books, supplements, and new editions only for money grabbing purposes.

Sums it up okay for me.

 

[Wicht]

But I'd say it's probably too late for it to have an effect. There is a well-entrenched feeling that WotC is an evil corporation, while Paizo is all butterflies and candy canes. It would take a great deal of effort to change that impression, if it could even be changed at this point.

I don't know. I've never thought they were evil. And I don't think many people actually do (with some vocal exceptions), though some try to paint most non-4e players with that broad brush. They just aren't making anything I want to buy, and I think their RPG department is floundering.

 

[Mark CMG]

There is a well-entrenched feeling that WotC is an evil corporation, while Paizo is all butterflies and candy canes.

Naw, that's bull. There might a few extremists who actually think that way (and a few others who like to perpetuate that sort of belief) but the vast majority aren't that fanactical. It ain't about good and evil, it's about good and bad decisions.

 

[Fifth Element]

Naw, that's bull. There might a few extremists who actually think that way (and a few others who like to perpetuate that sort of belief) but the vast majority aren't that fanactical. It ain't about good and evil, it's about good and bad decisions.

I certainly wasn't saying that everyone feels that way; but the feeling is there among a segment and that feeling is not going to be dissuaded at this point.

It certainly is about good and bad decisions; with "good" and "bad" being entirely subjective depending on your tastes.

 

[Mark CMG]

I certainly wasn't saying that everyone feels that way; but the feeling is there among a segment and that feeling is not going to be dissuaded at this point.

A negligible number, IMO, are that extreme. Trotting out there are extremists during any debate is disingenuous.

It certainly is about good and bad decisions; with "good" and "bad" being entirely subjective depending on your tastes.

IMO "entirely subjective" is a broadbrush way to discount the results from decisions that don't suit a point someone might be trying to make.

 

[Dannager]

IMO "entirely subjective" is a broadbrush way to discount the results from decisions that don't suit a point someone might be trying to make.

I don't think it's an attempt to discount results, but rather an attempt to discount perceptions that the results or the decisions behind them were inherently "good" or "bad".

 

[Fifth Element]

IMO "entirely subjective" is a broadbrush way to discount the results from decisions that don't suit a point someone might be trying to make.

When you're dealing with peoples' personal tastes (in games and gaming accessories, in this case), "entirely subjective" is the appropriate phrase, I think.

 

[Fifth Element]

I don't think it's an attempt to discount results, but rather an attempt to discount perceptions that the results or the decisions behind them were inherently "good" or "bad".

That's it. Reotractive evaluation of decision-making is often unfair, since such evaluation is made with more information than was available when the decision was made.