Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf 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 Nest
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*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!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
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="ArchfiendBobbie" data-source="post: 7722491" data-attributes="member: 6867728"><p>I find it ironic that you are criticizing me on objectivity while lacking it yourself. And that you criticize me for lack of history knowledge when perusing this very thread would reveal the comments Cook made that fueled those fights. Mayhap you should take your own advice on researching the history of the hobby.</p><p></p><p>Let's take a look at the long-run results of that combination: Cook ended up bashing Hasbro massively, making comments that helped massively fuel the ongoing edition wars of that era between the two versions of 3E, and helped set the foundation for the rules revision, and resulting near-death of DnD, that was 4E. And in the end, Cook managed to regain a lot of the respect he lost during that era by publishing a ruleset that is pretty much nothing like the ruleset he fought for.</p><p></p><p>Skip Williams... Notice how he quickly faded from the limelight once his time at Wizards was done? Can you name the last thing you've seen him working on regularly in this industry? And there are people still arguing about some of the things he said in his Sage Advice columns, which was another source of nasty fights and only helped solidify the base of the RAW crowd.</p><p></p><p>Pathfinder is only a good argument for damning Cook. Cook opposed the 3.5 ruleset, which Pathfinder is a revision of. PF's success ultimately stands as a shining example of how wrong he was.</p><p></p><p>And, yes, I called them flawed people and suggested their working together was a mistake. Given the edition wars of the 3E era between the 3.0 and 3.5 factions, and the still-lingering wounds from that period plus the epic failure of the follow-up edition that tried to solve the problems... Yeah, it was a mistake. Not a mistake I'd change, but also not one they should repeat.</p><p></p><p>Objectivity doesn't mean seeing only the good in something. It means accepting the bad as well, and accepting that, sometimes, your heroes were terrible people or even outright monsters. It means looking at three people who did good things and recognizing that they also did quite a bit that wasn't good.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ArchfiendBobbie, post: 7722491, member: 6867728"] I find it ironic that you are criticizing me on objectivity while lacking it yourself. And that you criticize me for lack of history knowledge when perusing this very thread would reveal the comments Cook made that fueled those fights. Mayhap you should take your own advice on researching the history of the hobby. Let's take a look at the long-run results of that combination: Cook ended up bashing Hasbro massively, making comments that helped massively fuel the ongoing edition wars of that era between the two versions of 3E, and helped set the foundation for the rules revision, and resulting near-death of DnD, that was 4E. And in the end, Cook managed to regain a lot of the respect he lost during that era by publishing a ruleset that is pretty much nothing like the ruleset he fought for. Skip Williams... Notice how he quickly faded from the limelight once his time at Wizards was done? Can you name the last thing you've seen him working on regularly in this industry? And there are people still arguing about some of the things he said in his Sage Advice columns, which was another source of nasty fights and only helped solidify the base of the RAW crowd. Pathfinder is only a good argument for damning Cook. Cook opposed the 3.5 ruleset, which Pathfinder is a revision of. PF's success ultimately stands as a shining example of how wrong he was. And, yes, I called them flawed people and suggested their working together was a mistake. Given the edition wars of the 3E era between the 3.0 and 3.5 factions, and the still-lingering wounds from that period plus the epic failure of the follow-up edition that tried to solve the problems... Yeah, it was a mistake. Not a mistake I'd change, but also not one they should repeat. Objectivity doesn't mean seeing only the good in something. It means accepting the bad as well, and accepting that, sometimes, your heroes were terrible people or even outright monsters. It means looking at three people who did good things and recognizing that they also did quite a bit that wasn't good. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Monte Cook Games Announced Numenera 2: Discovery & Destiny!
Top