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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 5477490" data-attributes="member: 957">I take it this is your official correction to your prior statement about how I had claimed an absolute at that was what you were challenging.So you invent the idea that we need to be cautioned and decree that we didn't already know that and then proceed to focus your entire response on this double straw man.Cool.I am 100% certain you could go find some John Doe who left 4E because a supported 3E system was available.  Your claim of "significant" is noted, but I see no evidence to actually support it.In the mean time, while you were spending all your energy beating the straw man, my initial point is still standing right over there untouched.On day PF-1 nobody other than Paizo insiders knew that Paizo would be providing on-going support for 3E. And yet a huge number of people were already rejecting 4E and choosing to play 3E or some close cousin despite the fact that no on-going published support existed.So Paizo thinks, we know our APs are our company's life blood.We can either:-Start supporting the current edition of D&D, published by WotC and carrying the D&D brand name on it.  or-Publish the 3E rules ourselves, lose the D&D brand name recognition and the ability to be on the marketing coat tails of a WotC and offer a decade old, freely available system up against the new shiny (which, btw, will be BRAND NEW on shelves within a few months of us making this choice)Why in the world would they make the second choice?  The answer is because it was highly obvious to anyone paying attention that a very significant chunk of the fan base was not interested in 4E and already intended to play 3E despite the fact that there was no on-going support for it.So, on day PF-1:-number of non-Paizo-insider people rejecting 4E for 3E with no support: significant enough that Paizo bet the farm on them-number of non-Paizo-insider people rejecting 4E for 3E because PF existed: zero.  (I hope we can agree on that on THAT date, the zero people in that group you have referenced qualifies as "not significant")That right there establishes the point I made and you challenged.  Paizo's choice was not made in today's marketplace.  It was made (or at least officially announced) in March 2008.  In March 2008, Paizo made Pathfinder because it became very clear that people wanted to choose 3E over 4E.Yeah, there were other reasons as well.  I don't dispute that.  But, remove this one reason, remove the reality of a strong pre-existing market base and all the other reasons are not going to be enough for them to throw their livings at it.So, are there *some* people now in the other group to which you speak?  I'm sure there are.  Are their numbers significant? No.  At least not on any scale that wouldn't require adding a new word to the english language to describe the high level of relevance of the "4E sucks/I'm done with 4E" numbers.But, at least you have retracted your claim that I made an absolute.  I appreciate that.</blockquote>

Verification