Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="El Mahdi" data-source="post: 4600308" data-attributes="member: 59506">I read the post that James Jacobs made about the GSL not being a significant factor in their deciding to not go with the GSL and instead going with Pathfinder.&nbsp; I wish I had links to some of the original posts from Paizo when they talked about the GSL and why they went with Pathfinder, but alas I don't.&nbsp;This is entirely from memory, and is only how I recall things.&nbsp; Others may have better search-foo than me and be able to dig the applicable posts up.&nbsp;However, if I recall correctly, Paizo didn't like the GSL from the start, and hadn't been able to see the rules for 4E yet, and were wondering what the hell they were going to do.&nbsp; One of the guys at Paizo, again I can't remember his name, had a set of detailed houserules he'd been using for his own games.&nbsp; It was a fairly extensive set that was mostly already typed up in a document.&nbsp; This guy told them about his houserules and they decided, for lack of another available direction for them to publish something then (rather than waiting), to clean them up, codify and edit them, and release them as there own in-house 3.5 compatible system.&nbsp;So, if I recall correctly, the GSL didn't have everything to do with their decision, but at the time it sounded like a significant factor.&nbsp; &nbsp;Personally, I think Paizo's downplaying of the GSL as a factor in their developing Pathfinder is a bit revisionist.&nbsp; Perhaps someone with better links to some of those past threads could clarify this.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="El Mahdi, post: 4600308, member: 59506"] I read the post that James Jacobs made about the GSL not being a significant factor in their deciding to not go with the GSL and instead going with Pathfinder. I wish I had links to some of the original posts from Paizo when they talked about the GSL and why they went with Pathfinder, but alas I don't. This is entirely from memory, and is only how I recall things. Others may have better search-foo than me and be able to dig the applicable posts up. However, if I recall correctly, Paizo didn't like the GSL from the start, and hadn't been able to see the rules for 4E yet, and were wondering what the hell they were going to do. One of the guys at Paizo, again I can't remember his name, had a set of detailed houserules he'd been using for his own games. It was a fairly extensive set that was mostly already typed up in a document. This guy told them about his houserules and they decided, for lack of another available direction for them to publish something then (rather than waiting), to clean them up, codify and edit them, and release them as there own in-house 3.5 compatible system. So, if I recall correctly, the GSL didn't have everything to do with their decision, but at the time it sounded like a significant factor. Personally, I think Paizo's downplaying of the GSL as a factor in their developing Pathfinder is a bit revisionist. Perhaps someone with better links to some of those past threads could clarify this. [/QUOTE]

Verification