Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="UngainlyTitan" data-source="post: 5265506" data-attributes="member: 28487">Yes no and maybe? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />It really depends on how you read the struggle to produce the GSL. To have kept Paizo on board would have required a resolution of the GSL to third party satisfaction well in advance of the launch of 4e otherwise WoTC were asking Paizo to stick with them on a promise. This would have been too much to ask as Pazio would have been betting the company.I think that there were elements in WoTC management that wanted no GSL and to kill the thrid party market and I think that they kinda won.Now had WoTC being more open to third party and kept Paizo on board would have it made a difference to people now playing Pathfinder/3.x. Well aside from the obvious they may well still be playing 3.x or moved on to other systems.Better adventures for 4.e may well have converted some but I think Paizo would have developed their own game in time anyway. I believe this because the pulling of Dragon and Dungeon and the announcement of 4e show that Paizo was in a precarious position being dependant on WoTC for  a market for their products and they would have moved to create their own IP anyway.They may well have taken more time about if the GSL had been more generous.</blockquote>

Verification