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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jester David" data-source="post: 6627054" data-attributes="member: 37579">Well, they pretty much did keep going with 3e. They just reprinted the books with a coat of paint so newcomers could buy the rules being used. So anyone who wanted to a join a group wouldn't have to trawl eBay or used bookstores for a copy of the rules.Waiting for 4e simply wasn't an option. Not unless they wanted to stop making content and lay people off. Ditto making their own game; Paizo was in hard financial shape at that point and likely couldn't afford to sideline half their staff to make a brand new game.They didn't really see the rules until everyone else. June of 2008. And we didn't end up seeing the GSL until July of that year. They were likely already planning their next AP and working on the first book. The seven months between the release of the OGL and the release of Legacy of Fire wouldn't have been much time to learn the nuances of an entire new edition.Which would mean having a full year of 3e content before they could switch to 4e.  Plus, there was a strong push from the fans not to update. So switching from 3e to 4e would have cost them subscribers. And that would have hurt.Um... no. WotC was actually super classy about taking the licence away and let Paizo finish their APs. But it still hurt the company. Not sharing the rules was a little uncool though, as was not releasing the GSL early as promised. Has Paizo been given access to the rules they would have likely taken the safe route and gone with 4e. But I imagine that was beyond the control the D&D team.That's subjective. Paizo made a lot of improvements. And, arguably, 4e didn't really change much in the game beyond the classes. The base rules were pretty darn identical. The 4e team didn't so much make their own ruleset as change how the classes in the game worked and the player math. Ditto 5e really. It's not like they really designed a brand new game with a unique core mechanic from scratch. But this doesn't diminish the accomplishment or skill required. And yet there were edition wars between 1e and 2e, and between 2e and 3e. And the edition war was pretty damn bad in 2008 before Pathfinder had really been released. The real fuel for the edition war fire was how different 4e was and the changes to the rules and lore. Pathfinder didn't help, but if 4e had been less controversial Pathfinder would have been ignored.But how common knowledge is that? It's not like the beginning of every issue started with a list of the designers' past credits. This is something we know now, that it was the same magazine department with a different name. Back then it was just a new company getting the licence.But not as bad as during the last few years. 3.5, 4e, the DDI failures, the community problems, the C+Ds, and more have really damaged the company's reputation. Back when Paizo was the underdog, yes. When Pathfinder became the more popular system people started to get more critical. And Paizo is getting a lot more heat these days. It's hard for Paizo. They were such a small indie company that really focused on connecting to the fans and fostering a community, and now they're this big company with lots of strange faces in the office and too many disparate fans to really connect with.Still, it's all about presentation and reputation. Apple and Microsoft are both faceless, heartless corporations dedicated to the bottom line. One has a rabid fanbase and the other is despised. Who put out what is being hailed as one of the best versions of D&D ever? I love the D&D team at WotC. It's a great team and great bunch of folk. WotC in generally though makes me wary. Two very different things.</blockquote>

Verification