Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Psion" data-source="post: 3307862" data-attributes="member: 172">No. Beings that I'm the one who made the interpretation, allow me to tell you where it came from: Looking at the rules and seeing that it wasn't the greatest implementation, with things like redundant classes, some clearly superior to others, and missing annotations and rules. (Edit: If you need further evidence that I'm not justifying this retroactively, I can point you to my non-thrilled review in the review database.)From what I understand, the game didn't go forward because of licensing difficulties (or so we are told.) I was not aware that the initial product &quot;bombed&quot;, but given the state of the first book and failure of follow on products, I'm not surprised it never evolved a following.Are you aware of any licensing deals that fell through because of d20? Sounds like you are the one making things up to support demonizing d20.That is the topic of the thread: a setting with an existing RPG fanbase, and I didn't say anything otherwise. Your emphasis isn't saying anything that I hadn't made perfectly clear in my prior post.No. Well, that would explain why it failed to pull in more d20 audience (but I think what Dancey said years ago about people wanting things adaptable to their game is key here; this was really before the d20 bubble burst.) What did happen is the installed fanbase liked things the way that they were, unsurprisingly.LOL. If certain successful publishers are any indication, &quot;coherent open content&quot; does not seem to be a priority.That said, it's not as difficult as you are making it out. At all. Even back when some of the very first third party d20 products were going out, publishers made a fairly simple distinction of keeping fluff and proper names closed, and opening crunch. It worked then, I'm baffled why you think it wouldn't work now.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Psion, post: 3307862, member: 172"] No. Beings that I'm the one who made the interpretation, allow [I]me [/I]to tell you where it came from: Looking at the rules and seeing that it wasn't the greatest implementation, with things like redundant classes, some clearly superior to others, and missing annotations and rules. (Edit: If you need further evidence that I'm not justifying this retroactively, I can point you to my non-thrilled review in the review database.) From what I understand, the game didn't go forward because of licensing difficulties (or so we are told.) I was not aware that the initial product "bombed", but given the state of the first book and failure of follow on products, I'm not surprised it never evolved a following. Are you aware of any licensing deals that fell through [i]because[/i] of d20? Sounds like you are the one making things up to support demonizing d20. That is the topic of the thread: a setting with an existing RPG fanbase, and I didn't say anything otherwise. Your emphasis isn't saying anything that I hadn't made perfectly clear in my prior post. No. Well, that would explain why it failed to pull in more d20 audience (but I think what Dancey said years ago about people wanting things adaptable to their game is key here; this was really before the d20 bubble burst.) What did happen is the installed fanbase liked things the way that they were, unsurprisingly. LOL. If certain successful publishers are any indication, "coherent open content" does not seem to be a priority. That said, it's not as difficult as you are making it out. At all. Even back when some of the very first third party d20 products were going out, publishers made a fairly simple distinction of keeping fluff and proper names closed, and opening crunch. It worked then, I'm baffled why you think it wouldn't work now. [/QUOTE]

Verification