Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 5445037" data-attributes="member: 957">First an aside, I agree that WotC won't be supporting older editions through DDI any time soon.It is interesting to imagine a one stop digital home for &quot;Dungeons and Dragons&quot;.&nbsp; And it is even easy to imagine how that *might* end up being a huge winning choice after some start up.&nbsp; But, it is really hard to see that being in WotC's current plan.On you comment here, it is difficult to divide between the effect of the 3X ruleset and the effect of the OGL.&nbsp; Clearly Pathfinder would not exist if it were not for the OGL.&nbsp; So it is a fundamental piece.But, you can't write off the appeal of the rules.&nbsp; (As always, no comment intended on anyone's individual tastes, I am talking about overall market).Pazio announced Pathfinder in March 2008. It was before 4E was released, but the market mood toward 4E was loud and clear.&nbsp; If a groundswell of fans were going, a lot of 3PPs would have held their nose and gone GSL.&nbsp; No doubt they would have set aside a lot of their IP first.&nbsp; But they would have gone that way.&nbsp; And even baring that, had Paizo still not gone 4E, they would not have gone 3E if there was not a clear market there.&nbsp; (I think the awesome results exceed their &quot;very good&quot; expectations, but the expectations of &quot;very good&quot; were reasonably founded.)3E (or at least D20/OGL) was frequently criticized for stifling innovation because such a huge chuck of the market went that way.&nbsp; Again, the OGL was critical, but if players were not at least ok with the ruleset, the OGL would have sunk at the dock.From a market point of view, 3E brought diverse gamers together.&nbsp; 4E simply doesn't offer the inclusion.Heh, got long winded above....Yeah, &quot;design paradigm&quot;....</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BryonD, post: 5445037, member: 957"] First an aside, I agree that WotC won't be supporting older editions through DDI any time soon. It is interesting to imagine a one stop digital home for "Dungeons and Dragons". And it is even easy to imagine how that *might* end up being a huge winning choice after some start up. But, it is really hard to see that being in WotC's current plan. On you comment here, it is difficult to divide between the effect of the 3X ruleset and the effect of the OGL. Clearly Pathfinder would not exist if it were not for the OGL. So it is a fundamental piece. But, you can't write off the appeal of the rules. (As always, no comment intended on anyone's individual tastes, I am talking about overall market). Pazio announced Pathfinder in March 2008. It was before 4E was released, but the market mood toward 4E was loud and clear. If a groundswell of fans were going, a lot of 3PPs would have held their nose and gone GSL. No doubt they would have set aside a lot of their IP first. But they would have gone that way. And even baring that, had Paizo still not gone 4E, they would not have gone 3E if there was not a clear market there. (I think the awesome results exceed their "very good" expectations, but the expectations of "very good" were reasonably founded.) 3E (or at least D20/OGL) was frequently criticized for stifling innovation because such a huge chuck of the market went that way. Again, the OGL was critical, but if players were not at least ok with the ruleset, the OGL would have sunk at the dock. From a market point of view, 3E brought diverse gamers together. 4E simply doesn't offer the inclusion. Heh, got long winded above.... Yeah, "design paradigm".... [/QUOTE]

Verification