Even if Jim hadn't managed to bungle his licensing so spectacularly that no other publisher ever came close to emulating his fuck ups, Fast Forward Games was doomed.

Its products were almost universally terrible: when people talk about the d20 glut of shit, they are usually referring to FFG's enormous catalog of crap (and to a lesser degree, Mongoose). Badly made, illustrated, designed, edited. The works.

Quote from: Garnfellow;504061Even if Jim hadn't managed to bungle his licensing so spectacularly that no other publisher ever came close to emulating his fuck ups, Fast Forward Games was doomed.

Its products were almost universally terrible: when people talk about the d20 glut of shit, they are usually referring to FFG's enormous catalog of crap (and to a lesser degree, Mongoose). Badly made, illustrated, designed, edited. The works.

Don't forget Avalanche!

Quote from: Justin Alexander;503903Wait a minute. How the hell did the OGL destroy FFE? FFE was founded as an OGL company.

Back when I was in the military, I went to see one of the counsellors on base for something or another.  During the session, we discussed finances, and (being a poor airman at the time) mentioned that I didn't have insurance on my car at the moment.  Guy goes into a almost teary story about his daughter being seriously injured in an accident by a drunk driver, who also didn't have insurance.  

I felt bad for him and his family, of course, but it's pretty much the same thing.  The accident was because the other guy was drunk, not because he didn't have insurance.

Quote from: Benoist;504052You are aware the D20 STL and the OGL are two completely different licenses, right? The d20 STL is about using the official d20 logo on your product's cover. You can publish using the OGL without using this logo, and thus without having to comply with the d20 STL.

In this particular case, Jim Ward's problem is that he used the d20 STL without bothering to understand the fine print.

That is a wikipedia comment from the D20 BUT please read the next post I made and you will see that JIM ward responded with this comment:

Quote"Now that we have seen the mistake we can easily tell our people to design their own gods. The monsters that we used from MMII was a bonehead mistake I made and I'm still kicking myself. I looked for the OGL statement in the back of the book and didn't read any further in my enthusiasm for the ability to use new monsters. Now, my favorite product: TREASURES & TOMBS goes on the chopping block because of my lack of caution. It is of course my own fault as Wizards did their job in placing proper statements in their legal page. Sigh, no, heavy sigh.

AND

QuoteIn early 2002, WotC began warning the game publishing community that they were expecting more careful compliance with the terms of the OGL. Wizards ran seminars at the 2002 GAMA Trade Show for other manufacturers on the subject, hoping to educate them on the ins and outs of the license.

Therefore, OGL was what confused him.

I even asked Jim Ward for clarification and he said it again that he made a mistake with the OGL.  It was an oversight and he assumed too much and WOTC burnt him which is sad because I really liked the material he put out for that company.

Thanks Ben, but try again...

Jesus. You're quoting Jim Ward who did not understand the difference between OGL and d20 STL in the first place. For fuck's sakes, man. Can't you just admit that no, the d20 STL has nothing to do with the OGL? Because really, it does not.

Quote from: Benoist;504077Jesus. You're quoting Jim Ward who did not understand the difference between OGL and d20 STL in the first place. For fuck's sakes, man. Can't you just admit that no, the d20 STL has nothing to do with the OGL? Because really, it does not.

I do not have to admit to anything.  I made a statement, you tried to counter it, you failed when I corrected you, and then you comment with a snide comment with curse words.  

There is no making peace with you.

Heh, this just goes to show how confused Jim was.  FFE didn't publish anything under the OGL,  IIRC, everything they did was D20.

Quote from: David Johansen;503895Not at all, it takes passion to create anything worthwhile.  You don't get passion without strongly held opinions.  Also, we all think we're funny.

There's a difference between passionate discussions, even flaming, and Trolling.

Trolls are Griefers, they stir up shit for the sheer joy of threadcrapping, flooding, or provoking flames.

You hate X, I love X, a passionate discussion can happen. That's par.

You hate X and I wind you up about it by posting inflammatory statements, just for the joy of making you mad? That's trolling.

There's a difference. A critical one, the difference between honest discussion and griefing.

Quote from: Technomancer;503344...if it had been called something other than Dungeons and Dragons?

Yes.  In my opinion, I think the D&D brand would have been doing quite well had they retooled 3.X (or ignored it completely) and introduced a line of D&D boardgames with the 4e mechanics.

Absolutely, if they'd called 4e, Magic Sword, things would have gone alot better. I still would have bought the books, since they were from WoTC.

Granted, I still would have been annoyed at all the other D&D-words that were tacked on to things that were unlike what they were in D&D (eg, Magic Missile isn't magic, Fireball isn't a ball and doesn't set fire to things, Disintegrate doesn't disintegrate, etc, etc, etc).

When the game first came out, it really struck me that it was a RPG that Hasbro had held in their back vaults for years, not releasing it because they knew it couldn't compete with D&D. Once they had the licence, it appeared they had hired some guys to stick D&D words onto the things in their game, scratch "Magic Sword" off the cover and tape "The Same Dungeons and Dragons As Always" onto the cover, and release. The game as it came out was so far removed from D&D that this really seemed likely. The only thing that didn't jive with this theory was that 4e didn't come with a world that really made sense with respect to the 4e ruleset...instead, they glued some mangled D&D word into it, and I don't think 4e ever did have a world that was just for it.

Granted, 4e is quite playable at low levels, and it REALLY SUCKS that no good computer game came out for it--the game is totally designed from the base up to be easily coded, and once you start always doing double and triple digit math, a computer is the way to go.

But yeah, a different name would have made all the difference, in my opinion.

Quote from: Doom;504284and it REALLY SUCKS that no good computer game came out for it--the game is totally designed from the base up to be easily coded,

I'm still trying to figure out how they screwed the pooch on this one.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;504316I'm still trying to figure out how they screwed the pooch on this one.

Atari had the rights and didn't want to make one.  WotC had to wait for the rights to revert back when the license ran out.

I play 4e all the time, we enjoy it for what it is, a new game, I dumped 3.5 along time before 4e even came out because of the system itself was too bloated and confusing to run and too complex for GM's.  4e was a godsend to me at least, far easier to setup and run a game than 3.x ever was, I just don't understand all the hate for it.

I also play WHFRP3 and it has allot of 4e conventions in it as well, both games are like cousins and I like them both, I think WoTC is dropping the ball too soon on 4e and giving in to the 3.5 crowd who's not going to come back anyhow, they have there PF books and thats were they will stay, they're all just haters anyhow.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;503370Oh and also if we hadn't been subjected to the FUCK YOU OLD GAMERS ad campaign (which was followed by pathetic marketing attempts to try and regain that fanbase).

What campaign was that?

QuoteI play 4e all the time, we enjoy it for what it is, a new game, I dumped 3.5 along time before 4e even came out because of the system itself was too bloated and confusing to run and too complex for GM's. 4e was a godsend to me at least, far easier to setup and run a game than 3.x ever was, I just don't understand all the hate for it.

LOL, this is too funny.  


Too Bloated???    How was it too bloated???   All you needed was the three core rulebooks and that is it.  How are three core rulebooks too bloated???

Confusing to run???   Too complexed for GM's???   Sounds to me that your GM's need to play Chutes & Ladders and Candyland and just give up playing an rpg.  So, if they found it to be difficult, why did they not play an earlier edition of D&D such as 1st edition/2nd edition or simply use a plagerized clone like OSCRAP and S&W???