Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Monte Cook Games Announced Numenera 2: Discovery & Destiny!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 7722354" data-attributes="member: 2525"><p>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"</p><p></p><p>So, he objected to a revision in 2004 or 2005. That's the same time frame we're talking about with Numenera.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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."</p><p></p><p>Sorry, I think it's fair to have some doubts. His objections were<strong> very strong</strong> at the time, and it included<strong> the time frame</strong> 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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Mistwell, post: 7722354, member: 2525"] 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'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? 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[B] very strong[/B] at the time, and it included[B] the time frame[/B] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Monte Cook Games Announced Numenera 2: Discovery & Destiny!
Top