|
When Pathfinder Beta came out I noticed that it was the first Paizo product in the Pathfinder product line (including everything, adventure paths, Gamemastery modules, and the Chronicles instalments) which lacked that nice orange box on text on the rear - a logo which read "3.5 compatible".
I thought, back then, hey, this is significant. It's the FIRST time this logo has come off, surely there must be a reason. Being a rather simple minded guy, I thought the reason Paizo pulled off the logo was because they saw the logo transport the wrong message. The right message, on this supposition, would have been:
"NOT compatible with 3.5"
Since that logo, I surmised, would have sent the wrong signals to the targeted audience, Paizo rather went for no logo in that vein at all.
Can I tell you how much flak I caught for voicing this supposition?
I can't, because the discussion is deleted.* It was basically boo-booed down as a conspiracy, with Paizo's designers plotting the betrayal of the loyal 3.5 community in smoke filled rooms. Hyperbole and all.
And then Paizo officials responded, in particular Vic Wertz and Sean K Reynolds. And they had this to say:
"The point of that logo on our other products is to tell you what rule system to use with the product. In this case, the Pathfinder RPG *is* the rule system, so it's not needed."
(Source retrieved from other forum. It's a quote, I can personally attest that it's accurate, if sadly incomplete - Vic's statement was much longer!)
When I received my hardcover copy of the final rulebook 10 days ago, I saw the logo back on.
I'm sorry to say, but I feel totally cheated on this. Plainly the logo doesn't mean for Paizo what Vic claimed it said. Because if it did, you wouldn't put it there on the final rulebook. But you did.
Which means that the logo always carried the literal meaning ("compatible with the 3.5 rules set") for you as well, instead of that "intended for the use with the 3.5 rules set", and that you were extremely evasive a year ago.
You didn't put it on the Beta because you didn't think it was adequately backwards compatible to merit the logo. And I concur. I still think the new bard is even further removed from 3.5, and much more stuff pretty removed from 3.5, but so be it. I still think the logo shouldn't be there, given the need for a convertion document and for a convertion chapter in the upcoming GM Guide. But that's your choice.
I'm just here to document a - thankfully isolated - instance of personal disappointment with Paizo's PR. You guys never had to pull the tons of bulls##t that WotC has, the amount of being evasive or just downright misleading towards questions brought up by their customers. In this instance, I feel you went down that way, and it certainly tinges how I perceive your company from now on.
*Here's the old URL:
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/general/missing35OGLCompatibleLogoConspiracy
Usually putting in a "archives" fixes the URL, but not this time. [Edit: nor does fiddling with http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/olderProducts/pathfinderRPGBeta/general/missing35OGLCompatibleLogoConspiracy ] Apparently it's deleted for good. Wayback Machine turned up empty handed too. Too bad. I love historical accuracy, and prefer it over personal recall. Apologies for any distortion as a result of this in the above post.
I'm sorry to say, but I feel totally cheated on this.
whats the difference? I just don't understand why this is a conspiracy or an issue at all. The game is the game. It can have a 3.5 logo. It can have a picture of the Care Bears disemboweling Hello Kitty on it.... it can have the Microsoft logo on it for all I care. What's the difference? Why does it matter so much?
Chief Technical Officer
|
The thread isn't missing... just moved, as were all of the beta discussion threads.
And there's no evasion here, just evolution. That was, after all, almost a year ago, and things change. In fact, we told you in that very thread that there *would* be additional discussion—James Jacobs mentioned the possibility that we might even create a whole new "Pathfinder RPG/3.5-compatible" logo. After debating our options, we decided to go with our existing orange 3.5 logo.
Ultimately, though, its presence or absence doesn't change anything. The Pathfinder RPG is built on the foundation of the 3.5 rule set, and one of our primary design goals for it was to provide backwards compatibility so that folks can easily use stuff designed for 3.5 with it. We did that to our satisfaction. It's entirely possibly that we may not have done that to your satisfaction, but that has nothing to do with the presence or absence of a logo.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
You didn't put it on the Beta because you didn't think it was adequately backwards compatible to merit the logo.
This is absolutely untrue. Further, I seriously doubt that anyone here thought that, even for a second. While you may disagree, to us, the Pathfinder RPG is and always was compatible with 3.5, from first concept to present.
|
|
You didn't put it on the Beta because you didn't think it was adequately backwards compatible to merit the logo.This is absolutely untrue.
Point taken. Obviously only you yourself are privy to your thoughts at the time. Hence my apologies for not sneaking in "So I'm led to conclude that..." when formulating the sentence you quote here.
And thanks for chasing up the URL. I would've never found it myself.