Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 7978417" data-attributes="member: 957">ah yes, and we get back to the Pathfinder fans were just bad people more interested in being mean to 4E than playing a game they like cliche. Source?  Data to back this up?  Anything? Again, I will completely agree that 4E lost fans all by itself and PF was there to pick up the pieces. But you are the guy who just claimed that crushing Call of Chthulu is evidence of how well PF2E is doing.  And now you are saying that OSR games were a bigger deal than PF at its peak was?  It is absurdity.Depending on how you look at the data, VtM may or may not have grabbed ONE quarter.  I'll agree that it was neck and neck, as I've referenced for early 4E just above.  So good for them.  But that was in the "D&D" is dying days of 2E.  At least PF kept people playing a D&D style game.There is some similarity.  But you seem to be squinting to get the view you are comfortable with.Well, yes.  I love 3.5.  I think Paizo did quite an admirable job of maintaining it.  But certainly they built success on 3.5.  They didn't build the game itself.  And people have slammed them on that point since Day 1.And it is a shame that it appears their chance to build a legacy of their own has been squandered.</blockquote>