Jim Ward's latest 900 Words: More Bombast

[Felon]

Holy Shiznit, this guy's full of himself:

http://www.fastforwardgames.com/900/900_31.htm

A whole article of horn-tooting. Remember when Michael Jackson held a tribute show for himself on TV last year? Kind of like a low-budget version of that. Wonder if Jim paid Marlin Brando for an endorsement?

Seriously, anyone care to enlighten me on what Jim's recent big accomplishments are, what award-winning products he's cranked-out in the last five years or so? Is he just riding his laurels from being in on the ground floor of the RPG industry, like a post-Elba Napoleon, or is there some minor basis for his rhodomontade?

 

[Eternalknight]

THE STORY. . . I've played in lots of Frank Mentzer's games. He's an amazing DM and I truly miss the good times I had in his AD&D game. For some strange reason, I'm still unable to remember why; I was talked into playing a paladin character. Paladins for those of you who don't know (and I bet there aren't many in this readership) are lawful good in alignment, which forces their hand, and actions in some ways. Normally, I play chaotic good magic users because I enjoy an element of chaos in my life, (surprise, surprise). Well that night in my efforts to correctly play the part of the paladin I was the lead person dealing with some nasty human characters who hadn't revealed themselves to be as truly evil as we players in the party suspected they were. During the course of the negotiations Frank and I had a little DM to player discussions where he told me that I wasn't quite being lawful good and I told him that being a paladin did not mean that I was also "lawful stupid." That got a big laugh out of the rest of the group and we were allowed to be unusually cautious. I remember vividly at the end of that playing session that I had a nasty headache from trying to constantly act in the proper lawful good manner, which was not my own basic nature. My point to this story is that being a trained gaming professional doesn't not mean I have to grin and take the tomatoes thrown at my product. I don't intend to and if I want to defend myself on my forum I will no matter how many others cry behind their fake net names and cry, "Tsk, tsk."

Emphasis mine.

So, he is a trained gaming professional. Yet, why didn't he use detect evil on the opponents? Ok, he is a trained gaming professional who doesn't know the rules.

And he had trouble playing a lawful good character when his own basic nature is chaotic good. Well, it is a role-playing game, you aren't supposed to play yourself. So he is a trainedgaming professional who doesn't know the rules and is not a very good role-player?

 

[Darrin Drader]

Lets see, I don't agree with his statement about game designers and astronauts. The only reason there haven't been so many successful game designers in the RPG industry in the past is because one company was keeping all the success to itself, but it ultimately shared in the failure.

Other than that, I respect his right to say what he wants about reviewers. Do I agree with every reviewer? No. Do I agree that his products are perfect? No. The truth must be somewhere in between their two points. The one thing I will agree with is that by blasting reviewers, he is less likely to receive favorable reviews in the future.

But then I don't see how that matters a whole lot in the grand scheme of things. Realistically, how many gamers really visit these boards as much as the rest of us do? What percentage? Maybe 2%? Maybe less? I don't know, but I highly suspect that online behavior or reviews will break the success of a product. On the other hand, I think the Internet could potentially turn a modest performer into something a little more successful if everyone online that reads about something is impressed enough to go out and buy it.

So as far as Jim Ward goes, I think based on his previous successes, he has about as much right to comment on things as Monte does, but at the same time, I reserve the right to disagree with him just the same as I can disagree with Monte.

 

[NoOneofConsequence]

To paraphrase an old, old joke:

"That's God; he likes to think he's Jim Ward."

It astonishes me that a "trained gaming professional" is so thin skinned that he can't cope with negative reviews. (who trained him btw? The use of the word trained implies that some training was done somewhere by someone - I had no idea that the industry was so mature that training was being offered)

The point of Jim's editorial appears to be that, because of his personal success as a "tgp" people who disagree with him must be stupid.

Frankly, his boasts seem very hollow - so what if he's got so many gaming credits to his name? Even Gygax and Arneson (the absolute granddaddys of "tgp"s) know that they're big fish in a really small pond. Comparing himself with astronauts (and implying that there are more astronauts than "tgp"s because "tgp"s are really, really special) is laughable.

Anyhow, I suspect I've taken this piece of verbiage far more seriously than it deserves.

Of course, if I ever have any gaming material published I must remember to add "trained gaming professional" right next to my PhD - after all, there's probably over a million people in the world with one of those!

 

[baseballfury]

Well, clearly FFE believes that any publicity is good publicity. Jim Ward wants you to talk about him and his products. If you think he's an out of touch blowhard whose company produces some of the worst d20 products on the market, don't rise to his bait anymore. The deafening silence will speak volumes as to FFE's place on the d20 food chain.

 

[Felon]

The part of Jim's attitude that I find to be so completely puerile is that he honestly believes that his laurels alone makes him unassailable from criticism, neutralizing any criticism directed at him by "less-trained" individuals. Essentially, his reasoning is "well, I've been in the industry X number of years and have won X awards, so I automatically come into any discussion about the gaming-industry with an opinion that is inherently more 'right' than people who are less accomplished. If my kudos-count trumps yours, I win!"

Of course, that's bunk. Citing laurels does not win an arguement. Imagine two people are debating marital monogymy. One man uses well-reasoned arguements to advocate that husbands & wives should maintain a relationship based on mutual respect and fidelity. The other man is a mouth-breathing blowhard who blusters that it is the male's perogative to have extra-marital affairs while it is the woman's duty to remain faithful at home, barefoot and pregnant, offering no more support for his statements than "that's just how it is!"

Who here has the better arguement? Does it matter at all if I tell you that one of them is a priest that's never been close to a woman, while the other has been married for 20+ years?

Don't get me wrong: practical experience is certainly the most valuable asset you can have in a debate. But only insofar as it provides you with a resource from which you can draw a wealth of rock-solid support for your position. You can cite empirical evidence. You can make points that the less-experienced individual never even considered. But just throwing around your clout does not give you any kind of free pass from having to back up your opinion with sound reasoning.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

So, he is a trained gaming professional. Yet, why didn't he use detect evil on the opponents? Ok, he is a trained gaming professional who doesn't know the rules.

Probably a tale of a 2E adventure, when actual Evil intent was required rather than just being Evil.

 

[Eternalknight]

Probably a tale of a 2E adventure, when actual Evil intent was required rather than just being Evil.

Ok, I'll conceed that point

 

[wighair]

where has all this 900 words agro come from? I've been away for a week or so, so I missed the start of it. Was it the mocking of the FFE offer of a life-time subscription or was it something else?

 

[Eternalknight]

where has all this 900 words agro come from? I've been away for a week or so, so I missed the start of it. Was it the mocking of the FFE offer of a life-time subscription or was it something else?

No, it was over the fact that he ragged on the reviews his products have gotten, and thus, the reviewers.