I voted for Pathfinder, but 3.5 would do just about as well for me.

Because the answer's a bit more complex than the options:

Personally, I feel for Kobold [Insert Schedule Here] to be viable and remain so, it needs to target the latest version of the rules, at least in part. Thing is that, unlike previous edition changeovers, this one is neither clearcut nor universally accepted, so there is going to be a split in the consumer base.

That said, tomorrow we'll find out if the GSL would allow Kobold to promote 4e and 3.X in the same magazine. If that is not a possibility, I firmly vote (as I did in the poll) for 3.X/Pathfinder. I think the OGL coupled with the SRD and the 8 years of open content development in our industry offer Kobold a far larger field to play than the new GSL.

For what issue are you looking to have this question answered?

3.5 or Pathfinder.

One of those polls that needs a long answer...
I almost voted Pathfinder... (which I'll be using soon).

But I voted 3.5 thinking that's what most people want and not Pathfinder. I am happy to see Pathfinder winning.

I would like to see both 3.5 and/or Pathfinder (and even Arcana Evolved btw).

Patrick

Assuming the GSL says more or less what we expect it to, I think this more or less comes down to OGL games vs 4e. i.e. KQ can support 4e, or it can support OGL games in general - assuming of course that you get permission to do AE, C&C and Pathfinder tie-ins. Or Iron Heroes. I'm pretty sure you could get permission for that last one. :)

My personal preference is to see KQ support the OGL, but ultimately I think you need to treat this as a business decision. I guess really what you need to consider is whether "not competing with the Dragon e-mag" is a bigger advantage than "not supporting the latest edition".

If your material is compatible with SRD 3.5, then it will be convertible to Pathfinder. While I am 100% in support of Pathfinder, I don't see it becoming the Lingua Franca of game systems right away.

Depending on how the licensing works out I would actually like to see a sort of free form. Just based on whether the article is good as opposed to which system it is aimed at. Many articles will fit into any system anyway.

Stick with general 3.5 material now, but if the page count goes up, features on other 3.5 flavours, like Arcana Evolved, Iron Heroes, Castles & Crusades and Pathfinder would be pretty cool. Sort of like the the Class Acts from ye olde dragonne.

I voted for 4e. I suspect that, over time, most folks will end up with 4e. There will be folks that stay with 3.5e and/or Pathfinder, and the really small niche of folks that prefer earlier versions or variants. However, I suspect the mass of the market will move to 4e over the next year or so, and it'd be a good business move to stay with the largest number of potential customers.

Who are Kobold Quarterly's customers? Gotta go where the dollars will be...

Another question is whether the GSL requirement to have different product lines means that a magazine can only address one of the versions, or whether it would be kosher to include non-crunch that has ideas for translation between Eberron, Golarion, Forgotten Realms or whatever. Based on what I've read, it seems pretty certain that OGL and GSL treatments of the same things will be forbidden.

FWIW, while visiting my FLGS today, I saw three tables playing DnD...two of them playing 4e.

I voted for 3.5 edition so that KQ would be compatible with the widest range of products, but honestly I would be just as happy with the Pathfinder rules.

I also voted 4e.

Regardless of where personal preference is, you absolutely have to go with the flow of the money. Also, I don't think internet polls should be taken worth a grain of salt, and that any business decisions should be based upon said polls.

I like the OGL side of the house better because it's not limited the way the GSL side will be-- no one but KQ will have a say in what KQ can put out there and I think that's important.

I could be wrong, and the GSL might allow KQ to straddle the fence. I doubt it, but until the market demands a shift to 4E, I think there's a solid 3.5/Pathfinder/C&C/IH/OGL crowd that will support KQ appropriately.

-Ben.

I would be more than happy to support an OGL Kobold Quarterly, but I'd cancel my subscription if it went purely Pathfinder.

As a Pathfinder Superscriber, I am already flooded with Pathfinder products. They are great, but they target a specific style of play and I'd like to see KQ support more styles than those that tend to come from Paizo. Four Pathfinder subscriptions are plenty for me.

My vote is for either 4e (what I voted for in the poll) or OGL -- including C&C, True20, Iron Heroes, Ptolus, and the many games in the indy community that have escaped mention...Colonial Gothic anyone?

I voted 4e because, contrary to many of my fellow Paizonians, I don't believe it advances a "particular style of play," and that it can accommodate many different styles of play..

And frankly because they need the outside support. If the participation of Chris Perkins and Kim Mohan (you can't get more grognard than that) doesn't make people think that 4e likes us older gamers, they desperately need the support of one of the writers of Dark*Matter.

Besides, your Patron model would allow those who are critical of 4e help shape its future.

It depends on GSL and on business.

You may want to investigate a Gnome Halfly (GH) for 4E support. This may require hiring or having a freelance editor.

I voted 4E. It is the current version of the game and staying with 3E means that there really is very little growth potential there. In my opinion, at this point the 3E market has peaked. There more than likely will be no significant blood infusion' of additional people into that market. Fourth edition at least has the potential for that though there may be some left behind in other editions.

I just wish for the edition wars to be over. I've been playing D&D since the mid-70s and this new edition seems to have polarized people more than any I've seen . . .

3.5E

I will not, ever, support 4E for reasons that I have elucidated on previously to the point of nausea.

Never. Ever.

When I started writing this I had no particular opinion. By the end, I’m in favour of shifting to 4e. The question is when.

As other people have said, this is ultimately a business decision taken for the good of KQ (and OD; I guess the fates of both may well be intertwined), and I’ll go happily with whatever Wolfgang decides. Relying on an old guard of diehard fans doesn’t sound like a sound long-term business strategy to me, but there are clearly opportunities for small web-based productions that weren’t around a few years ago. I think it is a recipe for “small” however. When the majority of the D&D community moves on to 4e (and it almost certainly will), a 3whatever Kobold will be left with a target audience in the minority, which can only shrink over the years. Hoping that 4e doesn’t get the largest market share of the gaming market is almost certainly a pipedream.

There's certainly going to be support for3e materials after the fourth edition launch, but there’s the possibility that KQ can gain a lot of commercial ground by shining early, as people converting to the new edition look for quality materials beyond D&DInsider. That’s a big opportunity to attract new subscribers and raise its profile and resources. Depends who else is looking to get into this market.

How support from industry and fans changes once 4e is established and we all get a proper look and some playing time under our belts is a matter that probably won't become obvious until at least a year or so after the release - but where Wizards go, the market will almost certainly follow. I also wonder if any 3e support is theoretically at the mercy of WotC generosity with the OGL. I don’t claim to be an expert here but if 3e really does look competitive enough to challenge their 4e license, they might make it increasingly difficult to support/get rid of it altogether (I know it’s not as simple/clear cut as that, but I’m making a general point here). They’ve done this with the GSL already, bear in mind.


I suspect that as time moves on many companies will gravitate towards 4e products over their general D20 lines, but keep the in-house versions of 3e which are different and robust enough to survive as self-contained units (I'm thinking Conan and True 20 here). The 3e market will likely splinter into supporters of various editions, who appreciate the nuances of their chosen system... and that’s no help to KQ unless it makes an effort to cater to all tastes and spreads itself thin (again, not usually a recipe for success). People will also drift towards other game systems that are better at providing the exact gaming flavour they’re after. Of course KQ could just switch at a later date, but by then it will have lost the opportunity for an early lead. I just don’t think that the future looks good for 3e at present.

That’s a pretty cold and capitalist analysis, on reflection. But rpg magazine publishing is a risky proposition and my magazine archive is full of promising publications vanished into the mists of time. Ultimately, I’d rather take a successful Kobold Quarterly of whatever edition is necessary rather than adding it to my collection of excellent folded magazines.

I voted 3.5e. Would be happy with pathfinder too, although OGL should allow a nice mix. If it goes 4e, I will stop the subscription. Just a case of not playing 4e and not planning on playing 4e because 3.5 is still doing everything I want and I have so much fantastic material left for it that I doubt I will ever need to change edition (although I may move to Pathfinder if it retains backwards compatibility).

I voted for Pathfinder, but I'd be equally happy with any of the 3.x variants (or a combination of them).

I'm a casual player & DM in the sense that I don't follow all the latest RPG-related news, so I can't speak to 'overall gaming trends' or the like. I don't know if 4E will capture the vast majority of the market, such that not supporting it is impractical, though I don't doubt it will be relatively popular. It doesn't seem to me like the transition from 3.x to 4E is the same as 2nd - 3E, especially given that there is thriving support for 3.5 derived Pathfinder.

For me and most of my players, the "crunch" is just a ruleset that underlies the story and allows the characters to interact with the world (this may be obvious, but it's important to state). We'll probably use both systems: 4E for RPGA adventures, and 3.5/Pathfinder for home games.

I appreciate that some things may be easier in 4E, but I know I have concerns about the ability to customize characters in 4E (I'm looking at you, skills), and on a larger scale, for the ruleset to support the world we want to play in. Now, this might be overstating the issue, but it speaks to the general uncertainty surrounding 4E for players like me. In a year, I may love it, but in a year, I may also be sick of it and dedicated to Pathfinder.

I feel like there should be a closing paragraph here, but I've run out of time and I need to get to tonight's game (Runelords, as it turns out), so I'll have to leave it at that.

I haven't been able to get to EN World today, but did the GSL actually get released today?

Also, for what it is worth I voted 3.5. I might play in some 4E games, but I'll continue to DM 3.5 for the foreseeable future.

Much like Christanaj said of 4E, I don't believe it forces a particular style of play. Though I'd respectfully disagree that Pathfinder RPG forces a style either. All this talk of "styles" is much like Dumbo believing he must hold a feather in order to fly. That is, "you're giving the rules far too much credit and power."

Hmmm.. one exception. 4E doesn't allow you to emulate the humble beginnings like 3.X, with the starting competancy of 1st level characters. When Wrath OD folks were polled about what sort of 4E questions we'd like to see asked, that was one of them, and it remains one of the few points where one system models something that the other can't. I'm going to have to write the Editor and bug him about the reason for not including that question. Provided he doesn't dismiss my complaint on the grounds it was *my* question. Lol....

My gut is saying 4E, but I'd be happy with Pathfinder/OGL too.

Here's a question for you Wolfgang- what is your definitive opinion of 4E? You've stepped out and spoken up about Keep on the Shadowfell, but what is your take on 4E itself, as a rule set?

My vote is for either Pathfinder or 3.5, with a big NO to 4E.

So much of this discussion is based on predictions of which way the market will go: whether it will all "follow the cash" and fall in step with 4e; or whether it will rally around 3.5/Pathfinder (which is essentially the same thing of course). The points everyone is making one way or the other are obviously biased by people's personal preferences.

I think that we're all missing the point. The point is that 4e support is inevitable. Wizards will eventually get its act together and get behind its own game, the GSL will eventually be settled and a glut of designers will follow the cash. There is little doubt that this will eventually become the market share... eventually (and whether or not that is a good thing is a different question).

But despite that, it seems just as inevitable that a strong cult following will also remain loyal to 3.5. Whether you call it Pathfinder, 3.5 or True20 there is going to be a more significant following of the previous edition than in times of change past.

If Wizards is the market leader where all the cash is, then there will be a much larger field to make a significant splash in. I believe that Open Design and Kobold Quarterly has the enviable position of being able to stand out as a market leader in the smaller market of the previous edition.

I think that OD and KQ has already demonstrated that it has the creativity and innovation to put forth outstanding product - but the larger market will not be crying out for that, because it will already be supported.

The smaller market will no doubt be supported by fansites and amateur offerings but with such 'small-press-giants', to coin a phrase, as Open Design and even Paizo I think the smaller market will have a rallying point around which to gather.

I understand if Wolfgang wishes to keep his options open as a marketing decision or as a creative one (a new system must be a hard temptation to resist tinkering with) but by remaining pure to its roots, I believe Open Design will offer an undiluted rallying point for a small but aggressive and loyal fan base that will be desperate - more so, as time goes by - for professional support.

3.5/Pathfinder/Arcana Evolved/Iron Heroes all the way.

For the win!

Cheers
Llowellen

This exact question is why I have not renewed my subscription. As of RIGHT NOW I have little or no use for 4E. I am one of those people who LIKES fiddling with details (one of the reasons my favorite game is GURPS), so the "complexity" of 3.5/pathfinder/ogl is for me. Was reading the "Dragon" article online of the new "demonomicon", and the useful crunch for me was non existant. I don't need new monsters or NPCs, what I used to extract from those articles was the Prestige Class, which many times filled a void in my psuedo post apocalyptic techno magic home brew. If what I see for crunch in the new dragon is it, then it is NOT for me. Same would hold true of KQ.

I feel the people saying, "I won't support KQ if it goes 4e" are doing it for the wrong reasons. Why wouldn't you stay with KQ to support a great magazine with great writers, especially if they still provide some system-less resources. Hell, even conversion isn't THAT hard between any of the D&D systems.

I'm going 4e, and if they keep up with awesome articles like "Ecology of the Derro", then that's stuff I can use, regardless of edition, and convert as needed. If it turns into talk about Pathfinder Society, "How to Best Use Power Attack" 'n articles like that - then I might cancel.

It doesn't have to be all or nothing.