It's not quite identical in time difference. There was a 3-year difference between 3.0 and 3.5, and Numenera has been out for four years, with only the Kickstarter coming in the next month, as opposed to the actual product(s).
No I am referring to what he says in the article. "Even before 3.0 went to the printer, the business team overseeing D&D was talking about 3.5. Not surprisingly, most of the designers -- particularly the actual 3.0 team (Jonathan Tweet, Skip Williams, and I) thought this was a poor idea...It was slated to come out in 2004 or 2005"
So, he objected to a revision in 2004 or 2005. That's the same time frame we're talking about with Numenera.
I think a big step in reconciling the two positions is in how he said in his article how 3.5 was always pre-planned from the beginning of 3.0 as a cash grab, whereas, in contrast, neither the Cypher System Rulebook nor Numenera 2 were planned as such.
I'm not sure that's accurate. It might be. But, it might be this was planned long ago. How are we to know? The 3.5 revision was planned before 3.0 went to print, but as Monte Cook says in that article, "See, I'm going to let you in on a little secret, which might make you mad: 3.5 was planned from the beginning." So it was HIM revealing the "secret" the first time with 3.0/3.5. Why are we to assume there is not the same secret involved here, but nobody to actually reveal it because the only one privy to it is the very guy doing it?
CSR came about as it became increasingly clear with the IPs, such as Numenera and The Strange, that a more solid (generic) backbone rules set was needed, if not advocated for by the fanbase. And I get the feeling that there have definitely been "lessons learned" from producing Numenera, The Strange, CSR, Gods of the Fall, Predation, and now Invisible Sun. I will be curious to hear more of their thoughts regarding what prompted this decision.
Those are all similar to the party line stuff from WOTC on why they needed 3.5 for D&D. It took Monte Cook from the outside saying different, "A few weeks ago, in an interview at gamingreport.com I said that 3.5 was motivated by financial need rather than by design need -- in short, to make money rather than because the game really needed an update. I said that I had this information from a reliable source. That source was me. I was there."
Sorry, I think it's fair to have some doubts. His objections were
very strong at the time, and it included
the time frame repeatedly. I fail to see how those arguments don't apply to this? I mean, we could make excuses for niggling differences (it can't be identical), but the bottom line so far appears to be his thesis back then for objection to 3.5 could be just as easily applied to Numenera 1.5.
Maybe not. I am waiting to hear more. But I really do think it's fair to have some doubts on this one concerning the consistency of his positions on half-editions within this time frame of this type.
