Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dannager" data-source="post: 5473082" data-attributes="member: 73683">Again, this isn't supported by the metaphor. In choosing to no longer produce 3e, WotC did not directly starve it of resources. The environmental resources this metaphor assumes are the players and their investment in a given game. Perhaps WotC's decision made it more difficult for 3.5e to expand, but that decision alone did not cause the decline of 3.5e we observe. For instance, we can safely assume that if WotC stopped producing 3.5e but never created a new edition (and Paizo never produced Pathfinder), more people would be playing 3.5e than are currently doing so. We are forced to acknowledge that the added presence of new games (4e, PFRPG) contributed significantly to the starvation of 3.5e's resources.If you'd like to look at this another way, imagine WotC had (granted, foolishly) continued to produce 3.5e material while releasing 4e (and while Paizo released Pathfinder). Given the presence of all three supported games on the market, would you assert that 3.5e would maintain the same level of playerbase it had before 4e and PFRPG were released? I very much doubt it. The presence of newer games better "adapted" to the desires of the tabletop gaming community meant that 4e and PFRPG posed extremely strong competition to 3.5e.</blockquote>