D&D The Motion Picture.

Quote from: mearlsThings are actually reversed. The original owner of WEG inherited (or was involved with) his family's shoe import business. Using money from that business, he started WEG. IIRC, as long as WEG made a profit or at least didn't lose too much money, he could use the shoe company to keep it afloat. Through a bit of bad luck and a few bad decisions with licenses, WEG started losing money at the same time that the shoe company hit a rough spot.

Ah, thanks for that.

WotC buying, and then killing, a ton of game lines and companies during the magic glut instead of putting their financial muscle behind diversification and cross marketing.

Then Hasbro bought them and D&D came along and that opportunity slammed shut.

LotR for me, not a doubt.  The greatest crossover opportunity ever, the single most iconic fantasy series, three huge movies with global appeal and both popular and critical success, and Decipher totally dropped the ball.

In Italian bookshops you sometimes see rpgs, more precisely, you see three rpgs.  CoCd20, Decipher's LotR and DnD.  These aren't games shops, these are bookshops.

LotR had the potential to be great, instead we got a half baked DnD clone with broken rules for combat and magic.  They essentially did a copy of d20 without the rules elegance of that system but with all the complexity.  Way to go guys.

Like it or not, d20 works.  Decipher's LotR didn't, was full of serious errors and then got fuck all support.

Quote from: Balbinus... Like it or not, d20 works.  Decipher's LotR didn't, was full of serious errors and then got fuck all support.

I don't think that the failure of the LotR RPG was due to the weakness of its game system.  (Which in any case I don't think was that bad, although it definitely could have used more playtesting, additional editing, and better organisation.  Its magic system was certainly the most 'Tolkien-esque' that I've ever seen.)

Its failure was because Decipher failed to promote and support the game adequately (or even inadequately).

Quote from: AkrasiaI don't think that the failure of the LotR RPG was due to the weakness of its game system.  (Which in any case I don't think was that bad, although it definitely could have used more playtesting, additional editing, and better organisation.  Its magic system was certainly the most 'Tolkien-esque' that I've ever seen.)

Its failure was because Decipher failed to promote and support the game adequately (or even inadequately).

Actually, I agree, I think the system was full of really appalling errors and problems but that didn't kill it, the utter lack of support killed it.

The magic system was almost great IMO, tons of good atmospheric stuff, but the lightning spell didn't work as described at all and the whole combat system for the game was about the most broken I've seen in a commercial rpg release.  I think the magic system, with a bit more playtesting and so on, could have absolutely rocked, as it was for me it was a bit like CoC d20, you could see the greatness but it hadn't quite made it onto paper, in the process they'd just got a few too many things wrong and it stopped it being what it could have been.

No idea how they playtested that game though.  I understand they did, but there was damn all sign of it in the book.

Yeah, I can't see how they play-tested it either.  I mean if they had actually run the game with half-way critical players then surely someone would pick up on the fact that under the mook rules a Dwarf with a massive axe can actually be less effective than a hobbit with a pile of rocks.

There was also the famous character creation examples that produced characters that weren't possible using the rules as written.  Meaning you'd read the rules go "Oh right, I understand that" and then read the examples and be completely lost.

It looked beautiful and all that stuff about how the local morality colours the landscape was really excellent but they should so have play-tested and proof-read it further and probably have used a stripped down version of D20 instead of that Coda nonsense.

When Decipher shut down their RPG wing, I wasn't the least bit surprised as it had been literally run into the ground by people who not only had no idea how to exploit an IP, but seemingly had no idea how to run a games company either.

Quote from: GRIMWotC buying, and then killing, a ton of game lines and companies during the magic glut instead of putting their financial muscle behind diversification and cross marketing.

Then Hasbro bought them and D&D came along and that opportunity slammed shut.

You got your history backwards, buddy. Wizards acquired D&D BEFORE the company was sold to Hasbro.

Diversification of games was precisely the opposite of what Wizards wanted to do, given that they came out with D20, and that they saw how TSR's "diversification" efforts had fucked that company up, essentially making them compete against themselves for no good reason.

RPGPundit

Quote from: AkrasiaI don't think that the failure of the LotR RPG was due to the weakness of its game system.  (Which in any case I don't think was that bad, although it definitely could have used more playtesting, additional editing, and better organisation.  Its magic system was certainly the most 'Tolkien-esque' that I've ever seen.)

I think that inasmuch as the system wasn't D20, that was a major failing of the game.
The signficiance of making "Lord of the Rings", with the "compatible with D&D rules" would have been an obvious marketing move to anyone short of a retarded bonobo chimp.  Sadly, decipher seemed to prefer banking on D20-hate rather than coherent business sense.

And, to top it off, they created a house-system that wasn't significantly different from D20 in any way, other than being incompatible with D&D.
Meaning it had nothing that would even appeal to the anti-D&D swine, AND it wouldn't appeal to, say, people who have heard of D&D.

LoTR could have been huge at getting people back into the hobby who hadn't been in it in years; or getting kids who never played RPGs but had heard of D&D and were big LoTR fans into gaming. Instead, they pissed all of that down the toilet because they didn't want to be D20.

RPGPundit

Quote from: BalbinusActually, I agree, I think the system was full of really appalling errors and problems but that didn't kill it, the utter lack of support killed it.

What are some of those appalling errors? I ran a campaign with the game, and after applying the errata that was released (not even that much, really), it was a good, fun game. I'm interested in hearing the experiences of others who ran the game.

By the way, I have a review I wrote of the game after it was first released, with some notes from when I was running it. I'll post it to this site soon.

Quote from: ColonelHardisson... By the way, I have a review I wrote of the game after it was first released, with some notes from when I was running it. I'll post it to this site soon.

I'd like to read it.  Thanks!  

Quote from: YamoWotC's take on D&D.

I felt like it ditched every single thing I (and a lot of others) loved about the game.

I'm not going to argue the quality of old vs. new D&D.  But from a business sense, 3e/D20 is not a failure/bonehead move.  The redesign took a half dead game and totally revitalized it into a market leader. 2e was a muddled mess by then, with various kits, skills & powers books, and half a dozen settings.  I don't think more of the same would have gotten any where near the same level of public notice.

Quote from: AkrasiaI'd like to read it.  Thanks!  

It's up.

Quote from: NicephorusI'm not going to argue the quality of old vs. new D&D.  But from a business sense, 3e/D20 is not a failure/bonehead move.  The redesign took a half dead game and totally revitalized it into a market leader. 2e was a muddled mess by then, with various kits, skills & powers books, and half a dozen settings.  I don't think more of the same would have gotten any where near the same level of public notice.

Yep. I had pretty much given up on gaming until 3e came along. I'd played since 1979, and by the late 90s, I'd completely quit gaming. I'd always been a D&D fan, right from the beginning, and 3e implemented a lot of material that seemed much more intuitive and easy to grasp, and opened up a lot more possibilities using just the core game. Some of the stuff was remarkably similar to stuff we had house ruled as far back as the 80s - no level limits for nonhumans, AC, extras for humans to make them attractive as a PC race. Without 3e, I'd have been a former gamer for the better part of a decade now.

Quote from: RPGPunditI think that inasmuch as the system wasn't D20, that was a major failing of the game.
The signficiance of making "Lord of the Rings", with the "compatible with D&D rules" would have been an obvious marketing move to anyone short of a retarded bonobo chimp.  Sadly, decipher seemed to prefer banking on D20-hate rather than coherent business sense.

And, to top it off, they created a house-system that wasn't significantly different from D20 in any way, other than being incompatible with D&D.
Meaning it had nothing that would even appeal to the anti-D&D swine, AND it wouldn't appeal to, say, people who have heard of D&D.

LoTR could have been huge at getting people back into the hobby who hadn't been in it in years; or getting kids who never played RPGs but had heard of D&D and were big LoTR fans into gaming. Instead, they pissed all of that down the toilet because they didn't want to be D20.

RPGPundit

Well, it surprises me to say it, but I agree 100% with RPGPundit here, except for the use of the swine term which I don't agree with but the underlying logic of the post I think is spot on.