Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TheAuldGrump" data-source="post: 5752879" data-attributes="member: 6957">He actually has not said much about 4e, one way or another. The closest thing to 'bad' that he has said about 4e is that it was not ideal for the kind of adventures that Paizo wants to write.You may want to review the lead up to both 4e and to Pathfinder, as the two are intertwined.WotC kept procrastinating on the GSL, both about the rules and the terms of the license itself. In point of fact the license was not released until the game itself was gleaming on the horizon*.Paizo had subscriptions to fill and adventures to write, with WotC not releasing anything to work with.So, Paizo decided to skip 4e and to release Pathfinder rather than wait For WotC to finish the RD that they had promised to have finished months ago.The game itself is almost incidental to why Pathfinder was written, even the horrible, bad, awful GSL is less important than the fact that the horrible, bad, awful thing was more than six months too late to be useful for any company wanting to release on opening day.The fact that it turns out that there are more people that wanted to stick with the 3.X architecture than Paizo expected (and certainly more than WotC expected) is only icing on the cake.The Auld Grump* Or, depending on your viewpoint, 'the GSL was slumping rancidly on the horizon'....</blockquote>