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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Maggan" data-source="post: 4301039" data-attributes="member: 6616">Is Pathfinder a stellar example of open design as a good recipe for marketing success? We'll see if the interest is sustained until launch. And the fact that it doesn't say "D&D" protects it from much of the worst griping; Paizo isn't "butchering" (my word) D&D, they're creating Pathfinder, which will be a lot easier to sell. Not that the reactions have been unequivocally positive as to the path Paizo is taking with the 3.5 rules set. So they're not out of the woods by a long stretch yet.In my mind 3e wasn't developed as an open process, I don't recall a dialogue with the fans as such.I've seen some nasty reactions when allowing fan input. Black Industries had a hard time managing expectations about and reactions to the (then) new WFRP, resulting from a combination of making some big changes and vocal fans (they don't get much vocal than WFRP fans). Of course, BI weren't really the most diplomatic custodians at the time, so that's also one thing to consider.Also witness the furor over DDI on the Gleemax boards. Imagine having that reaction for a year. Because that's what I think an open process would result in. For very little benefit to WotC, by the way.And again, take note of the negative impressions about the statements from WotC of earlier editions that are being expressed in this thread. Now imagine to have WotC try to discuss changes from a previous edition, candidly and in a spirit of improvement, for a full year, without stepping on any toes.Inconceivable, to borrow the words of a devious little bastard.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> YMMV, of course. I just don't think open design of D&D is a feasible strategy for product development. Not PR wise, nor commerically./M</blockquote>

Verification