Pathfinder 1E The good man WotC and the scoundrel Paizo

[Fifth Element]

We didn't have "nearly none." What we had was understanding of gamer desires and attitudes (both good and bad) and a better ability to reason along a path to predicting what would happen.

A better ability? That's quite an assumption. And an unprovable one at that.

In fact there are all kinds of assumptions underlying this. You're assuming, for example, that WotC didn't foresee the split in the market that resulted from the GSL vs OGL. It's quite possible that they did foresee it, but decided it was worthwhile abandoning the OGL anyway (cost-benefit analysis). We don't know. There's all kinds of things that we don't know, but you're quite certain that you know better than they do.

When your conclusions are based on your (unstated) assumptions, your conclusions are only as good as your assumptions. Get your assumptions wrong, and your conclusion no longer follows.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Save hate and anger for things that really matter, folks.

Good advice, and since I truly don't hate WotC (at this point, since they publish literally nothing I want to buy, I've progressed beyond feeling abandoned to feeling indifferent), advice that I'll take.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

This does not prevent a company from recreating character advancement rules of their own and adding it in on top of the Open Content of another company (in this case WotC), which is what Paizo and others have done. Moreover, any character creation and advancement rules declared open content by any other party (other than WotC) to the OGL is thereafter open.

So, are Pathfinder's Character Creation & Advancement rules vastly different from those of 3.x?

Except that many people did. But they were just "lucky," right?

I've yet to see concrete evidence provided by anyone that the results of WotC's decisions are "wrong" for the goals they intended to meet with those decisions. If you can't even measure the success of the results in the eyes of the decision-maker, how can you possibly determine if they were right or wrong to make those decisions in the first place?

The results have obviously turned out to be "wrong" for many people outside of WotC, but that has no real bearing on whether it was the right decision for WotC.

 

[billd91]

I think this particular line needs addressing.

If anyone around here actually hates WotC...

The world is filled with some really bad stuff. Business decisions about a leisure activity hobby games is, as far as I can see, small potatoes. Tater tots, even - itty-bitty, and not even a real potato any more. With the no-politics, no-religion rules around here, there should be darned little on these boards that merits more than a minor annoyance to you.

Save hate and anger for things that really matter, folks.

How about you DON'T tell us how we should feel? I don't hate WotC. I'm just disappointed by them. But DO NOT presume to tell me how I should feel about ANYTHING.

 

[Dannager]

How about you DON'T tell us how we should feel? I don't hate WotC. I'm just disappointed by them. But DO NOT presume to tell me how I should feel about ANYTHING.

Why not? I think "Compared to the heavy stuff the world is going through all the time, the nuances of tabletop RPGs aren't worth getting your hate engines revved up over," is pretty solid advice.

 

[billd91]

Why not? I think "Compared to the heavy stuff the world is going through all the time, the nuances of tabletop RPGs aren't worth getting your hate engines revved up over," is pretty solid advice.

Whether or not that would be good advice from someone who knows me, you don't know me. You don't know anything about me save what I present here. You have no right whatsoever to tell me what I should or should not feel about anything at all. Full stop.

Presuming to tell people what they should or should not feel is part of the INcivility that has driven this board's edition warring. It's within the rights of the moderators and owner of the boards to tell us how we should behave in the posts we make, but it is not their right to tell us how we should feel. Nor is it yours.

You may think it's worthwhile for people to remember that RPGs are a leisure hobby, relatively insignificant compared other issues of note. But allow me to remind you that you don't get to decide what is important or unimportant, worthy of anger or not worthy, for anybody but yourself.

 

[Mark CMG]

To clarify (hopefully):

Wizards of the Coast may have made some bad decisions regarding 4E, even using my defiition of a bad decision.

Apology accepted. [/SColbert]

 

[JoeGKushner]

Toke and pass man. Toke and pass.

 

[Dannager]

Whether or not that would be good advice from someone who knows me, you don't know me. You don't know anything about me save what I present here. You have no right whatsoever to tell me what I should or should not feel about anything at all. Full stop.

Holy god.

"A tsunami just erased multiple cities from the face of the planet and an oppressive regime is slaughtering protesting civilians. You should save your anger and hate for serious matters like this."

"YOU DON'T KNOW ME!"

 

[billd91]

Holy god.

"A tsunami just erased multiple cities from the face of the planet and an oppressive regime is slaughtering protesting civilians. You should save your hate for serious matters like this."

"YOU DON'T KNOW ME!"

So you're assuming that a massive human tragedy in one or more places on this globe should somehow invalidate other feelings on other topics? Some of us have feelings to spare on more than one subject.

But again, who are you to decide what my or anyone else's feelings should be?