Mat Smith's Writing is Unpleasant [RANT]
- Thread starter TrizzlWizzl
- Start date
Mean Eyed Cat
Explorer
Hey Morrus, a little of this thread's "unpleasantness" is showing through...
Last edited:
mmadsen said:
Are you sure? I went to read some of these columns, and the feeling I got almost immediately was............Jackie Harvey
Shard O'Glase
First Post
TrizzlWizzl said:
I wasn't a fan of your writing style in this thread until you used this word. Flim Flam makes up for everything else. Though flim flamen who ha is even better.
As for the topic, not a fan of that bit of his "work" but I don't find it to be terrible. I just accpet that I'm not the audience targeted. I think they generally see my audience as the people old enough to have a real job and will likely buy it anyway category so don't bother wasting adds toward them.
derverdammte
Explorer
He's the Rikki Rachman (or however that guy spelled his name) of gaming. Remember "Headbanger's Ball" on MTV? The whole "I'm kewl because I rub elbows with all these kewl people" attitude that permeates the "in the works" column really reminds me of ol' Rikki. The mindless trend-following, too.alsih2o said:
Psion
Adventurer
This may totally be a side rant, but what kills me is down that in the Fiend Folio section, he gives these accolades:
"Okay, math whizzes out there will quickly divine that somewhere around forty of the monsters aren't "all-new." That's because, in addition to the handful of favorites from the original Fiend Folio (like the blood hawk, dark skulker, and yellow musk creeper), you'll also find the most formidable foes from sources such as Dungeon Magazine, Dragon Magazine, Living Greyhawk Journal, D&D adventures (like Heart of Nightfang Spire), and this fine website. And, lest anyone freak out over "recycled" monsters, keep in mind that those critters are (1) really cool monsters (2) easily accessible and (3) now 100% official."
Okay, the way I see it, #2 is the only point worth even bragging about. As for #1, they are cool monsters (or not... but let's presume for a second he's right) when they appeared in the Dragon, what makes them any more special now that they are in a different books. And #3, since when does "official" mean that much to DMs wanting nasties to spring on his players? "Official" is an empty accolade AFAIAC.
"Okay, math whizzes out there will quickly divine that somewhere around forty of the monsters aren't "all-new." That's because, in addition to the handful of favorites from the original Fiend Folio (like the blood hawk, dark skulker, and yellow musk creeper), you'll also find the most formidable foes from sources such as Dungeon Magazine, Dragon Magazine, Living Greyhawk Journal, D&D adventures (like Heart of Nightfang Spire), and this fine website. And, lest anyone freak out over "recycled" monsters, keep in mind that those critters are (1) really cool monsters (2) easily accessible and (3) now 100% official."
Okay, the way I see it, #2 is the only point worth even bragging about. As for #1, they are cool monsters (or not... but let's presume for a second he's right) when they appeared in the Dragon, what makes them any more special now that they are in a different books. And #3, since when does "official" mean that much to DMs wanting nasties to spring on his players? "Official" is an empty accolade AFAIAC.
ColonelHardisson
What? Me Worry?
derverdammte said:
I miss Headbanger's Ball. I really do.
Regdar
First Post
derverdammte said:
Bah Regdar misses Headbangers Ball. Ricky also ran one of the hottest clubs in LA, that a lot of talent was comming from at the time as well.
Regdar has to say that Smith leaves a lot to be desired in Regdar's eyes, basically hyping their products in a worthless review, with very little info. For example the Fiend Folio, why doesn't he say there is only 5 to 7 actual monsters from the Fiend Folio in the book?
