But why be limited to one campaign world, anyway?
If 4E is markedly different in power level and tone, and/or PC abilities are difficult to compare or convert, then why not have a separate product line, set in a world that is built from the ground up to allow for and accomodate those type of PCs and that tone of game?
This is what I propose as well. Golarion is a 3.5 world and should stay that way.
If its possible to make Golarion (Pathfinder, Pathfinder Chronicles and GameMastery) 3.5 product and also create new "4th Edition Campaign World X" product that would be awesome.
Of course the manpower to continue making Pathfinder stuff and create a brand new 4th edition campaign setting and make product for it along-side that they are producing now is probably easier said than done to put it mildly.
If its possible to make Golarion (Pathfinder, Pathfinder Chronicles and GameMastery) 3.5 product and also create new "4th Edition Campaign World X" product that would be awesome.
The Red/Green Planets of Golarion seem ideal for this.
Of course the manpower to continue making Pathfinder stuff and create a brand new 4th edition campaign setting and make product for it along-side that they are producing now is probably easier said than done to put it mildly.
Too true. They were burning the midnight oil last night.
If its possible to make Golarion (Pathfinder, Pathfinder Chronicles and GameMastery) 3.5 product and also create new "4th Edition Campaign World X" product that would be awesome.
Ideally, a substantial share of World X's population will be lawyers versed in licensing arcana.
|
I loathe that argument. "X is the same as Y, this happens all the time."
Gee it's only a little rain it rains all the time.
Then a hurricane hits you with your pants down.So I thought I was following the thread pretty well as the posts went along, not great but enough to keep up. Now I'm really confused though.
Why wouldn't you be wearing pants in a hurricane?
Because! You'd be wearing bermuda shorts and you'd be in Florida.
|
|
But why be limited to one campaign world, anyway?
If 4E is markedly different in power level and tone, and/or PC abilities are difficult to compare or convert, then why not have a separate product line, set in a world that is built from the ground up to allow for and accomodate those type of PCs and that tone of game?
Um because then you'd be playing Exalted? ;) I'm only half kidding.
|
I certainly wouldn't mind if Paizo had a 4th edition line and a 3.5 edition line. I don't see it happening. While there is a lot of positives I'm seeing from Paizo as an outside observer, one of their biggest business assets is that they *are* a small company. Adding more employees adds more overhead and reduces efficiency - for example, if you have enough employees you almost have to have a dedicated Human Resources person. The HR person doesn't contribute to product, thus everyone else in the 'production' department has to work harder.
I think that hiring more people to make multiple lines work like that isn't something that will happen. Of course, perhaps with the nature of the work being freelance that is a smaller problem than I would anticipate.
The worst fear, of course, is cannabilizing their customer base. If they release one product a lot of customers will buy that product. They'll go where Paizo goes. But if Paizo produces both, they'll only buy one and not the other. That simply means more work for less revenue and that would be a very bad thing.
So, I'm not going to hold out hope for that possibility, but hey, stranger things have happened.
As for comparing the release of 3.5 to 4.0, I don't think you can make the comparison. First of all, production values were much higher. Just compare Tome & Blood with Complete Arcane. The products are essentially compatible as well. Other than a couple of skill differences, most NPCs can convert 'on the fly'. I know I can run a 3.0 adventure as written without any more work. To move to 3.5 one didn't even need to buy books because of the conversion guide.
For 4th edition to be viable, it has to convince a largely skeptical market of its clear superiority. It isn't going to do it with the DDI. Maybe they'll do a real index for all their books. That would be an improvement that shows they're interested in quality. But I consider that even less likely than WotC getting rules out to 3rd party publishers. And like that, I'll believe it when I see it...
Wouldn't it be disadvantageous for WotC to put such language in the GSL?
Well... One thing to keep in mind is - you can't use your own personal logic to predict/justify what a US corporation will do.
While you do have a good point, it could also be said that taking the details out of the SRD is disadvantageous. And, as well, it could be said that releasing 4th Edition in 2008 was disadvantageous. (I personally believe if they had waited one more year - announce 2008, release 2009 - it would have been better for WotC. But I don't know nuthin' 'bout runnin' no business. ;-) )
Well... One thing to keep in mind is - you can't use your own personal logic to predict/justify what a US corporation will do.
Why the distinction? Why is it so important to point out that it is a US corporation? Don't other corporations in other countries do things that some find strange?
Well... One thing to keep in mind is - you can't use your own personal logic to predict/justify what a US corporation will do.Why the distinction? Why is it so important to point out that it is a US corporation? Don't other corporations in other countries do things that some find strange?
They may very well. I don't have a clue. ;-)
So, to keep from possibly offending non-Americans with an untrue statement, I made the distinction.
If the GSL contains a provision that actually forbids licensees from issuing any products under the OGL, then I feel comfortable in saying that Paizo should tell WotC where to stick their GSL.
I could understand including a provision that the 4e GSL can only be used in conjunction with the 4e SRD (within the same product). But using the GSL as a tool to bully companies into killing 3.5 is just plain unethical.
The tone of the GSL so far seems to be "sign on the dotted line for the opportunity to gnaw on whatever table scraps we choose to throw you, for as long as we choose to allow you to do so."
If the GSL contains a provision that actually forbids licensees from issuing any products under the OGL, then I feel comfortable in saying that Paizo should tell WotC where to stick their GSL.
I could understand including a provision that the 4e GSL can only be used in conjunction with the 4e SRD (within the same product). But using the GSL as a tool to bully companies into killing 3.5 is just plain unethical.
The tone of the GSL so far seems to be "sign on the dotted line for the opportunity to gnaw on whatever table scraps we choose to throw you, for as long as we choose to allow you to do so."
I have a lingering fear that making GSL publishing preclude continued OGL publishing is an idea WOTC may have gotten from the OGL community. Hence their roll-out is being delayed while the revise the GSL. :(
If they do go that route, they'll be encouraging the feared "player-base fork" and turning partners into competitors. It would be a classic example of a corporate decision made to maximize short-term profits at any expense.
Hopefully we're just being paranoid.
The tone of the GSL so far seems to be "sign on the dotted line for the opportunity to gnaw on whatever table scraps we choose to throw you, for as long as we choose to allow you to do so."
EXACTLY! You hit the nail on the head with that analogy. I've been saying this for a while and I'm hoping that, if this is the case, 3rd party publishers like Paizo and Necromancer band together to put out awesome 3.5 products that threaten WotC's dominance.
I certainly wouldn't mind if Paizo had a 4th edition line and a 3.5 edition line. I don't see it happening. While there is a lot of positives I'm seeing from Paizo as an outside observer, one of their biggest business assets is that they *are* a small company. Adding more employees adds more overhead and reduces efficiency - for example, if you have enough employees you almost have to have a dedicated Human Resources person. The HR person doesn't contribute to product, thus everyone else in the 'production' department has to work harder.
I agree. I hope Paizo continues with 3.5 products. We aren't going to 4.0
Why does it have to be all or nothing at WOC? Can't they still publish a few 3.5 books each year? Or at least do an annual Dragon Compendium? Could Monte Cook release more Best of d20 volumes? There will be a market for these products IMO.
I certainly wouldn't mind if Paizo had a 4th edition line and a 3.5 edition line. I don't see it happening. While there is a lot of positives I'm seeing from Paizo as an outside observer, one of their biggest business assets is that they *are* a small company. Adding more employees adds more overhead and reduces efficiency - for example, if you have enough employees you almost have to have a dedicated Human Resources person. The HR person doesn't contribute to product, thus everyone else in the 'production' department has to work harder.
I think that hiring more people to make multiple lines work like that isn't something that will happen. Of course, perhaps with the nature of the work being freelance that is a smaller problem than I would anticipate.
I would expect that most of the work would go to freelancers. There are a lot of very good freelancers in the gaming industry, and I'm sure they'd be delighted to have another product line to work on.
At most, Paizo might have to hire on an additional editor.
I would expect that most of the work would go to freelancers. There are a lot of very good freelancers in the gaming industry, and I'm sure they'd be delighted to have another product line to work on.
At most, Paizo might have to hire on an additional editor.
Just an editor? What about layout? Art? How about shipping and fulfillment?
Just an editor? What about layout? Art? How about shipping and fulfillment?
Art, like design, would be mostly freelance. They might have to add an assistant editor to do layout if it's that much of a workload expansion. And if they have to add extra people to shipping and fulfillment, it'll be because they're rolling in orders and should have more than enough new revenue to cover it.
Like any company, I'd assume Paizo would like to expand, provided their income warrants it. If adding an extra line wouldn't justify the expenses involved, then they shouldn't do it.
But new jobs in the gaming industry = a good thing.
Art, like design, would be mostly freelance. They might have to add an assistant editor to do layout if it's that much of a workload expansion. And if they have to add extra people to shipping and fulfillment, it'll be because they're rolling in orders and should have more than enough new revenue to cover it.
Like any company, I'd assume Paizo would like to expand, provided their income warrants it. If adding an extra line wouldn't justify the expenses involved, then they shouldn't do it.
But new jobs in the gaming industry = a good thing.
It might be just my opinion, but an editor's job != layout. Every company wants to expand, but it's more than just "Hey, let's do X!" and get it done. While I'd like to see multiple lines from Paizo, I think there is more to it than just add a person and all will be well. I don't think they'd outsource design either (again, my opinion) - Paizo holds itself to very high standards, and putting in the hands of somebody else is something that I don't see happening.
It might be just my opinion, but an editor's job != layout. Every company wants to expand, but it's more than just "Hey, let's do X!" and get it done. While I'd like to see multiple lines from Paizo, I think there is more to it than just add a person and all will be well. I don't think they'd outsource design either (again, my opinion) - Paizo holds itself to very high standards, and putting in the hands of somebody else is something that I don't see happening.
I was referring to game design, BTW, not product design.
I was referring to game design, BTW, not product design.
Ah. Sorry for the misunderstanding - my brain thinks "graphic design" before any other kind of design. :)
|
|
I work for a company that is growing rapidly in an industry that isn't. That means we're in a take away business, and while we're doing well, there are problems with growth as well.
The nice thing about my industry (auto insurance) is that people actually need it. Even if they didn't, they'd be pretty foolish not to have it. In any case, the gaming industry is not like the auto insurance industry. There are certainly cycles - periods of growing sales and decreasing sales.
If you hire a lot of people, and you're trying to be a responsible business owner, you're not going to want to fire them when things get tough. Especially if they're doing a really good job. More than one business has gone bust by keeping on more staff than they could afford in lean times. And I'd hate to see anything like that happen at Paizo. So, when times are good, while I might want to bring more people into the 'good thing' they have going, I'd also want to be careful that I could use them in the long term (even things turn around later).
|
Back to the original issue, and updated due to the "Gut Check" thread:
Based on the lack of communication from WOTC, and from the number of people who seem to be taking a "wait and see" approach, my feeling is that Paizo would be wise to put off the conversion decision a while longer.
Before everyone jumps on me for that statement, let me explain.
IMO, there are only 3 things which require a quick decision on Paizo's part: the Second Darkness AP, the Golarion Campaign Guide, and the GSL signing.
If Paizo were to announce that Second Darkness was 3.5, it gives them 6 more months to decide which way they want to go for the 4th AP. It keeps the 3.x people happy for now, doesn't rule out the 4th ed fans, and gives the fence-sitters a chance to try out the new system first.
As the Campaign Guide is theoretically mostly system-neutral, it could also be 3.x, with the possiblity of a conversion guide/4th ed supplement to follow.
If Paizo delays, they have more time to go through the ramifications of the new license and rules. If they want to be sure to get fast product out under the new edition, they can put it out as GameMastery Modules. I believe that a rushed product in that line would have less impact than, for example, a rushed AP.
In the long run, I believe that Paizo will inevitably need to switch editions. As loyal as their customer base is, there is little potential for growth without the core rule books being available in FLGS's. Many of the people who now say they are not switching will, and many others will eventually decide they need no more product.
If Paizo were to announce now that they were going to stay with 3.x until they have a better feel for the rules, it would give the 3.x people more material that they want, without alienating the people who wish to change editions. It also avoids making any future switch look like they had made an error in the first place.
If 4th ed is a bust (remote chance IMO), they can stay the course.
DISCLAIMERS: I have been running D&D since '80, out of the blue box Basic Set. I have enjoyed every edition since, but have limited interest in this one.
|
I certainly wouldn't mind if Paizo had a 4th edition line and a 3.5 edition line. I don't see it happening. Adding more employees adds more overhead and reduces efficiency. I think that hiring more people to make multiple lines work like that isn't something that will happen. Of course, perhaps with the nature of the work being freelance that is a smaller problem than I would anticipate.
Just checking for replies to my recent posts...I'm not singling you out, it's just that your post was easiest to snip.
Having had a couple of days to chew it over, I realised it has been done before. KenzerCo produce Kingdoms of Kalamar for 3.0/3.5, and Hackmaster (a variant of AD&D 1st Edition).
Paizo could therefore continue with Golarion for 3.5, and start up a 'Masters of the Gooniverse' line for the all-new 'Dungeons and Dragonball (Z)'.
|
I believe that if Paizo decided to print anything 4.0, it would be "feeler products" that would suit the system. The idea of releasing nothing 4.0 is ludicrous. So, I think we will see a heavy handed 3.5 hand backed by a smidgen of 4.0. I think Paizo has the sense to hedge their bets. I do ponder often that a reiteration of a new edition that is closed from OGL (within the WotC monster) is a real possibility. And because of that, 3.5 is the last stand for OGL and perhaps the diversity of the hobby in general. I appreciate Erik Mona's cander in his broad view of what is possible down the long road. If a 3.75 was created, I would be thrilled to hop into bed with Paizo exclusively. However, running with the big boys and supporting 4.0 would just erode 3.5 or any 3.75 effort. If Paizo does hedge their bets and goes with some 4.0 products, there will obviously be more people that will make the switch (People who buy Paizo products).
I guess the real question here is,"Just how much money do you spend in backing an Old Horse versus backing a Bad Horse.
I remember a post long ago from some rambling madman (that worked inside Wizards) that said, "WotC wants to create a D&D game that sells more miniatures/toys that increase revenue." He was let go and pretty much everything he said was denied. I wonder if that is what this amounts to. Did an executive create a crisis after looking at the figures and planted the seeds for a drift in a general direction? Plenty of creative people work under that kind of framework. "You guys are doing a great job, but imagine a way to get everyone buying more plastic figures and playing them in a game that makes them come exclusively to us. Just chew on that for a few years, and try to get rid of all these bizarre complicated rules while you are at it."
Cheers,
Zux
channels my thoughts exactly
We still haven't been given the GSL or the rules to look at. And yet, if we wanted to be on schedule for Second Darkness... we should have had the first author start working on the first adventure on the first of January.
I really can't understand how it is that Bill Slavicsek is telling us that they're looking at finished galleys of the core books over at WotC, but the GSL and rules still haven't been distributed to the early adopters among the other publishers?
|
|
I've seen the argument a couple of times now that says, "If Paizo stays 3.5, they limit their potential growth because the 3.5 core is no longer being published." Given the difference in scale between Paizo and WOTC, I'm not sure that's true though.
If Paizo's current customer base is only a small fraction of the overall D&D crowd, and a sizeable portion of that crowd does not want to buy everything all over again, it seems to me that the opportunity in front of a 3.5 Paizo would be to further penetrate the existing 3.5 market. If the number of companies trying to do that is about to shrink significantly (as everyone else flocks to 4.0), it seems Paizo could be left serving a group that is still larger than their current base of subscribers.
I mean, aren't there millions of copies of the 3.5 core in circulation at this point? Sure the core won't be available at Borders anymore, or be supported by WOTC, but why should Paizo worry about being part of the 4e D&D Dance Revolution? The 3.5 core will no longer be available because it's not selling well anymore. The D&D crowd has as many copies of those books as it's going to purchase. Maybe that's bad for WOTC's sales, but it doesn't necessarily mean it's bad for publishers of support material. Those books are still out there being used. They simply have a new competitor in the form of a new edition.
Surely out of those millions there's going to be alot of people left holding there 3.5 stuff and wondering where all the support went. I know the change in edition has raised my own interest in finding available 3.5 products to "stock up". If I've been playing Ptolus or Eberron for the last year, maybe the edition change is the kick I need to get me to give Pathfinder a try.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 8
|
I mean, aren't there millions of copies of the 3.5 core in circulation at this point? Sure the core won't be available at Borders anymore, or be supported by WOTC, but why should Paizo worry about being part of the 4e D&D Dance Revolution? The 3.5 core will no longer be available because it's not selling well anymore. The D&D crowd has as many copies of those books as it's going to purchase. Maybe that's bad for WOTC's sales, but it doesn't necessarily mean it's bad for publishers of support material. Those books are still out there being used. They simply have a new competitor in the form of a new edition.
Don't forget that Mongoose was able to reprint almost the entire PHB and DMG from the SRD as paperback copies in a trade format. I believe these items sold quite well, and were completely permissible under the OGL, so if this were a likely route, once the standard PHB and core books were no longer available from WOTC they could still be printed/published by someone else while giving WOTC proper credit and perhaps some in royalties.
I've seen the argument a couple of times now that says, "If Paizo stays 3.5, they limit their potential growth because the 3.5 core is no longer being published." Given the difference in scale between Paizo and WOTC, I'm not sure that's true though.
If Paizo's current customer base is only a small fraction of the overall D&D crowd, and a sizeable portion of that crowd does not want to buy everything all over again, it seems to me that the opportunity in front of a 3.5 Paizo would be to further penetrate the existing 3.5 market. If the number of companies trying to do that is about to shrink significantly (as everyone else flocks to 4.0), it seems Paizo could be left serving a group that is still larger than their current base of subscribers...
If you want to assume that the forums here are representative of the base population of players as a whole (which I can almost guarantee you that it is not) you're still looking at close to a 50/50 split. Add in that the core books will no longer be getting printed (and that for many people, their gaming store is the local Barnes and Nobles/Borders, which isn't going to carry much, if any, 3rd party material) and you're looking at a very small market. Over time it'll be getting smaller, as the remaining 3E people either A) convert to 4E or a different system or B) decide they own enough books and just stick with what they have (the people who love to constantly buy new books will likely be hard pressed to not switch, since, again, very little 3E will be produced).
It sucks for people who want to stick with 3E, but I just don't see anyway to remain a viable company and soley support it. Of course, if the GSL allows dual support (and at this point, we don't know one way or another) it would maybe be viable to have a 3E line in the shortrun, in the longrun 3E is going to be left behind.
|
|
It looks as though it is not a 50/50 split.
A plurality seem to favor 3.x, but either side may have a majority when counting the 'I go where Paizo goes.
Based on the last count it seems the boards are 45/30/25 (3.x/paizo/4th)
While hardly conclusive it appears that Paizo may lose a chunk of market either way, but either way they will keep a majority. The question is which majority?
Based on the last count it seems the boards are 45/30/25 (3.x/paizo/4th)
I don't know exactly what it says, but its quite impressive that more people will do whatever paizo does over what WotC does. How much are they spending on advertising, development, etc and they failed to convince 75% of this crowd to go where they go because that's what they're doing. That's pretty sad.
Based on the last count it seems the boards are 45/30/25 (3.x/paizo/4th)I don't know exactly what it says, but its quite impressive that more people will do whatever paizo does over what WotC does. How much are they spending on advertising, development, etc and they failed to convince 75% of this crowd to go where they go because that's what they're doing. That's pretty sad.
Seeing as we're on Paizo's boards, I don't find myself suprised by that at all! (And afterall, I think everyone here will agree that Paizo puts out some pretty top-notch stuff ... I'm excited about getting to play in AoW pretty soon!)
Paizo is probably going to lose a chunk of customers in the edition transition, so the questions really should be:
1. How big of a chunk (and are the views on this board really reflective of the overall customer base)?
2. Which option has the opportunity for more long-term growth.
2. Which option has the opportunity for more long-term growth.
This is why I think Paizo should go 3.5 until (at least) the end of the year.
If 4e is well-received in the market, then go 4e next year. If not, then stay with 3.5 (or create a "new" game based on 3.5 - call it "Open Gaming Fantasy Role-Playing System") and then stay with it. If you make the new game, then you can have something that will stay in print that you and others can use to make games forever.
Now a lot of people say they won't change but in the end all people play the new edition.
No, they don't.
#2 - There were plenty of people who said they wouldnt convert from 2nd to 3rd edition and they did anyway.Its not those who said they'd never convert from 2E to 3E that makes me doubt people who claim they'll never play 4E. Its those who said they'd never convert from 3.0 to 3.5. Time was, you couldn't go onto a DnD message board without the wailing and gnashing of teeth at 3.5 being loud enough to convince you that 3.5 would be a dismal failure that no one would ever play. And yet, it came out and pretty much everyone plays it.
I suspect it'll be the same for 4E, but only time will tell.
I agree. I remember the anger that 3.5 generated because I was one of the people that was pissed. Now, just as then, I think most people will switch, just as many people bought 3.5 books when it was really only errata.
But, still, I have no problem believing that a significant portion WON'T switch, ever. Hell, I never bought 3.5 at all and it never bothered me. I just stopped playing 3E at all and went back to 2E and Rolemaster/MERP with the addition of d20 Modern, which I like a lot. No big thing.
Luckily, now that we're getting an actual edition change and not a minor update (factoring in the fact that my players are dying to play 4E and are the ones who told me about it in the first place) I'm willing to buy new books and can't wait. I'm not losing too much as, even though I own every 3.0 book that came out, I don't own a single 3.5 book other than Paizo's work, which is useful regardless of edition. If there is a 4.5 in the future I won't buy that either unless it is a drastically different enough system to warrant my making the investment.
So, much respect to those who don't make the change. I suspect that many still will, as we've seen in the past, but the number of those who don't will be significant and shouldn't be marginalized. I wish them a lot of fun but I'm not too worried for them as there's a wealth of material out there.
Ok 70 to 90 percent will convert.
So not all but most of them.
I guess only time will tell that, won't it?
Speaking for myself, I can say that I happily converted from 1e>2e, and from 2e>3e. I converted from 3.0>3.5 a few months late, due to not putting a big financial priority on buying new versions of rulebooks I'd just bought a couple years earlier.
But, come 2009 or 2010, I will be more likely to be in orbit around Arcturus than playing 4e. If you were a betting man, I'd say you could put plenty of good money on that.
SIDEBAR:
(See, for a while I thought there was still a chance. If it was just a matter of not liking individual rules, I could just change them or Rule Zero them out of existence. But it's become obvious that it's the basic *philosophy* behind 4e design that I object to. I haven't liked *any* of the 4e changes I've seen yet, and I haven't liked the reasoning process behind them. 4e is just not a game I want to play. And while I've been a D&D gamer for 30 years, it's just not in the cards that I'm eventually going to start plopping down $40 a month for gamebooks to a system I Do Not Like, like some kind of robot sheep. I'll continue playing 3.5, and if that becomes untenable for any reason, I'll find something else to do with my time.
I don't want to see 4e fail, even though I don't like it, because I know that in the corporate Hasbro world, a failure of 4e will not result in an improved 4.5 or 5e...it will result in Product Line Cancellation. And as disgruntled as I am, I know that many people will in fact enjoy 4e, and I don't have some malicious desire to see those people deprived of their game, or the WotC designers put out of their jobs.)
I suspect it's more like:
70% will buy the rules within the first two months.
Another 20% will buy them eventually, unless the game is absolutely horrible.About 1/3 of the first group will convert almost immediately.
IFF the game is any good, about half of the rest of that group AND half of the second group will convert over the next 6-12 months.
Half of whatever is left will "play occasionally" - say at tournaments, pick-up days and "D&D Days" only.
I think your numbers are a little low. At best, you only have about 56% of people converting over. I'd say maybe 75% is more accurate, although I suppose my information comes from the same place yours does (my gut!)
If you are right, of course, that would be the worse possible result for pretty much everyone involved on both sides of the split, so I hope you're as wrong as can be! :)
|
|
Ok 70 to 90 percent will convert.
So not all but most of them.I guess only time will tell that, won't it?
Speaking for myself, I can say that I happily converted from 1e>2e, and from 2e>3e. I converted from 3.0>3.5 a few months late, due to not putting a big financial priority on buying new versions of rulebooks I'd just bought a couple years earlier.
But, come 2009 or 2010, I will be more likely to be in orbit around Arcturus than playing 4e. If you were a betting man, I'd say you could put plenty of good money on that.
I'm in much the same boat. However, this 4th edition thing has soured me to the whole of D&D. It'll probably be a few years before I want to play or DM D&D again. When I do, I seriously doubt that it will be 4th edition.
Meh.
|
I will continue to buy Pathfinder. With it being 3.5E or 4E because the back ground is so well done. There adventures can be used with any system with a little work on the part of the GM. My group dose not play any edition of D&D any more. Personly I convert every thing to Palladium Fantasy any how. I just feal its a better game system. With much more in the way of character creation. Yall D&D nuts can freek out now.
I play in and run 1st AD&D, I have and will continue to use Paizo products regardless of the Edition they use. Your products have been superior to WOTC since day one.
1st ED DM since 1984.
The later Paizo converts (if they do), the later I buy 4E core.
Just thought I'd mention:
Wizards still hasn't given us either the license or the rules.
You know, in case you were wondering.
Why do you think that is? I mean, I plan on moving to 4E, and I know Goodman Games is going to produce 4E Dungeon Crawl Classics, which I will be subscribing to, but I'm really interested in GMM's in 4E from you guys....