mhacdebhandia
Explorer
Well, that's demonstrably wrong. Are all your opinions so ill-founded?Strithe said:
Lame Prestige Classes
- Thread starter ForceUser
- Start date
mhacdebhandia
Explorer
Just ask Monte Cook why he came up with prestige classes.
mhacdebhandia
Explorer
The statement was "to me the whole Prestige Class mechanic was invented to both satisfy power-gamers and sell more books." The fact is that Monte Cook invented prestige classes as DM tools for fleshing out the world.
(Yes, that ain't what they are now, big deal.)
How is that not proof, or less than compelling?
(Yes, that ain't what they are now, big deal.)
How is that not proof, or less than compelling?
moritheil
First Post
mhacdebhandia said:
You haven't proven it as fact at all. First, you have quoted Monte Cook. Assuming that your quote is correct and captures the spirit of the statement he intended to make, then, logically, there are basically two possibilities: he is lying, or he isn't. Absent a polygraph, truth serum, or other questionable means, we cannot prove that he is telling the truth, so you have not demonstrated this in a compelling fashion. Whether or not you, personally, believe what Monte says doesn't enter into whether or not something is demonstrable.
Second, even assuming that he was not lying when he said that, that has no bearing at all on whether or not WOTC itself had the motivation to sell books. Maybe Monte wanted to do a good deed, but WOTC just wanted to make money. How are you going to prove that they didn't and that their interests were only in making DM tools to flesh out the world?
You speak of "creation" as though something leapt fully-formed from Monte's mind and was transmitted directly into yours. While a nice idea, that is most likely not what happened. Instead, you most likely saw his writing in a book. The other poster is speaking, I gather, of the creation of the product, and that is a process that presumably involved large numbers of executives, bean-counters, and other people okaying things to go ahead, each for his or her own reason. Are you going to come up here and quote each person involved in the creative and publishing process, and state that they were under oath, or under polygraph, when they made their declarations? I find it improbable.
As such, I was astounded that you would make such a claim.
mhacdebhandia
Explorer
That you demand such a high standard of proof yet suggest that a polygraph test would be useful tells me how seriously I need to take you on the subject.
Suffice to say that I believe Monte Cook didn't create prestige classes to sell books by appealing to munchkins . . . and that I consider his statements on the matter on this forum and his own evidence enough of his actual intent.
Suffice to say that I believe Monte Cook didn't create prestige classes to sell books by appealing to munchkins . . . and that I consider his statements on the matter on this forum and his own evidence enough of his actual intent.
moritheil
First Post
mhacdebhandia said:
Look, let's get something straight here - if you say something so strongly and boldly as you did above, I believe you ought to mean it. So if you say "demonstrable," I expect demonstrable. Not "Oh, I totally believe it, though I have no proof that would convince a skeptic." That is not the meaning of demonstrable.
Now, is English not your first language, do you have a disability, or did you mistype?
Mouseferatu
Hero
You know, some of us would still like to actually discuss prestige classes as they are, as opposed to nebulous ideas of why they might have been created, or who is misspeaking.
Can we please cut the sniping before a moderator has to do it by closing the thread?
Can we please cut the sniping before a moderator has to do it by closing the thread?
