Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dire Bare" data-source="post: 9644828" data-attributes="member: 18182">The Pathfinder brand . . . products designed to work with D&D 3E, was in response to Paizo losing the Dragon & Dungeon magazine licenses and realizing their business depending on WotC wasn't sustainable.Transitioning Pathfinder into it's own 3E retro-clone was in response to WotC initially dragging it's feet on a 4E SRD & OGL, and then delivering a not very open GSL.So, if 4E had been an open game . . . Pathfinder the brand would exist, but would Pathfinder the game? Maybe, maybe not!There is no doubt that 4E's game design, world design, and marketing ruffled a lot of D&D fans' feathers and ignited a new phase in the never-ending Edition Wars that was hotter than ever before . . . and it ultimately failed to achieve the goals WotC had for designing it in the first place (bringing D&D into corporate level profit goals) . . . but how many players refused to adopt 4E really? Was there ever any reliable data on that? IME, it's just folks pouring their assumptions into the game and how well it did or didn't do.</blockquote>