Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 5608666" data-attributes="member: 18280">Oddly enough, I'm not surprised.And, yet, Paizo consistently chooses to go beyond what the OGL mandates.You're right; WotC saw into the future, and decided to pull their game from the OGL because they knew that, if they did that, Paizo would make a better selling game.&nbsp; Sheer genius.Or, perhaps, Paizo is only in this position because 4e is not OGL?I know what seems most likely to me.&nbsp; I remember how many publishers were eager to jump into 4e with both feet, until the GSL cooled their ardour.&nbsp; There is no doubt in my mind that 4e with an OGL would have rendered Pathfinder moot.&nbsp; For one thing, Pathfinder was a direct response to the GSL!Strong fluff, a desire to make the mechanics match the fluff (rather than the other way around) and listening to what the customers want (rather than telling them what they will want).3e was a rousing success -- WotC, as a point of fact, could and did make a success out of an SRD-based game -- but a combination of a few substandard follow-up products late in the cycle, a revision designed to promote their mini line, sucky adventures, and (IMHO) a failure to understand the elements of the original game, drove enough people away from official products and to better 3pp products.&nbsp; Some of which were written by the same folks!&nbsp; No one wants to be told how to play.&nbsp; No one wants to be told that what they enjoy is wrongbadfun.&nbsp; No one wants the producers of D&amp;D to speak to them &quot;from on high&quot;.4e continued this same trend.Obviously so.&nbsp; Or, perhaps, better to say that the D&amp;D WotC wanted to produce was not what enough people wanted, and the D&amp;D Paizo produced was based on what people wanted first and foremost. I play fantasy games; I do not believe in Rumplestiltskin.And look where it got them.&nbsp; The 800-lb gorilla has left the building.RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 5608666, member: 18280"] Oddly enough, I'm not surprised. And, yet, Paizo consistently [i][b]chooses[/b][/i][b][/b] to go beyond what the OGL mandates. You're right; WotC saw into the future, and decided to pull their game from the OGL because they knew that, if they did that, Paizo would make a better selling game. Sheer genius. Or, perhaps, Paizo is only in this position because 4e is not OGL? I know what seems most likely to me. I remember how many publishers were eager to jump into 4e with both feet, until the GSL cooled their ardour. There is no doubt in my mind that 4e with an OGL would have rendered Pathfinder moot. For one thing, Pathfinder was a direct response to the GSL! Strong fluff, a desire to make the mechanics match the fluff (rather than the other way around) and listening to what the customers want (rather than telling them what they will want). 3e was a rousing success -- WotC, as a point of fact, could and did make a success out of an SRD-based game -- but a combination of a few substandard follow-up products late in the cycle, a revision designed to promote their mini line, sucky adventures, and (IMHO) a failure to understand the elements of the original game, drove enough people away from official products and to better 3pp products. Some of which were written by the same folks! No one wants to be told how to play. No one wants to be told that what they enjoy is wrongbadfun. No one wants the producers of D&D to speak to them "from on high". 4e continued this same trend. Obviously so. Or, perhaps, better to say that the D&D WotC wanted to produce was not what enough people wanted, and the D&D Paizo produced was based on what people wanted first and foremost. I play fantasy games; I do not believe in Rumplestiltskin. And look where it got them. The 800-lb gorilla has left the building. RC [/QUOTE]

Verification