Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="transmission89" data-source="post: 8231287" data-attributes="member: 6688441">You offer a very well articulated position, though I respectfully disagree with your conclusion regarding competition.You’re right in that they didn’t necessarily chose competition but I’d say from a different perspective. They just wanted to use a souped up 3.x as their vehicle for their APs.When 4e proved controversial, the sales success of pf catapulted them into direct competition but I don’t think anyone (including paizo) expected this or even necessarily desired this. I also don’t think they expected this for pf2.They were forced by 5e in as much as the design space of 3e was already stretched and the larger market was perhaps finding it too cumbersome. So they wanted to improve pf their way, regardless of what 5e did.I just find it odd many are placing it in the same sphere as 5e and not any other rpgs, labelling it a failure for not doing what no one else is doing anyway.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="transmission89, post: 8231287, member: 6688441"] You offer a very well articulated position, though I respectfully disagree with your conclusion regarding competition. You’re right in that they didn’t necessarily chose competition but I’d say from a different perspective. They just wanted to use a souped up 3.x as their vehicle for their APs. When 4e proved controversial, the sales success of pf catapulted them into direct competition but I don’t think anyone (including paizo) expected this or even necessarily desired this. I also don’t think they expected this for pf2. They were forced by 5e in as much as the design space of 3e was already stretched and the larger market was perhaps finding it too cumbersome. So they wanted to improve pf their way, regardless of what 5e did. I just find it odd many are placing it in the same sphere as 5e and not any other rpgs, labelling it a failure for not doing what no one else is doing anyway. [/QUOTE]

Verification