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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="rjdafoe" data-source="post: 5025336" data-attributes="member: 54591">I don't think that is correct either.  I may be wrong, but I remember reading that right after 4E announcement, when (whatever his name is) started thinking/writing what has become Pathfinder.  If you really think that Paizo did not take advantage of a situation where they saw a portion of people not going with the new edition, and being able to capitolize on that, then I don't know what to say. (and that is not bad, it is good business to break away like that) I am not sure why people thought that the next edition of D&D was going to be open like 3.x was.  WotC is a company.  Like all companies with IP, they saw (right or wrong) other people using and profiting off of their work and ultimately decided that wasn't good for the company. They likely knew back then, that if they ever did a new edition and it was substantially different in any regard, they would have this splitting of the game.  I knew it back then when I read it. While 3.x is open and always will be, and while it was good for gaming and D&D at the time, it is ultimately bad for WotC (the company) and their version of D&D, in the end - no matter what the decisions.  No one was ever going to be happy with anything less than the same OGL as 3.x. I have said it before, and I will say it again - Paizo could have and can provide Adventure Paths for D&D 4, they chose and continue to choose not to.  It is their right, and ultimately what is right for their current business of supporting their own ruleset.</blockquote>

Verification