Monte Cook on Revised books

[Darrin Drader]

Actually, that seems to be one of the main points of Monte's comment, that game designers are still people in the end.

Well, the nerve! I'm not! *huff*

 

[Breakdaddy]

*YAWN*

havent we rehashed the whole economic debate into the 666th layer of the abyss?

 

[Kai Lord]

Monte Cook:
I personally think it's too soon to revise the books and have it on good authority it's got more to do with economics than what's best for the game.

The new rules are for the most part the rules most people wanted and will be available for free. This complaint is very, very tired.

 

[DeadlyUematsu]

Just want to say that the person who posted on RPG.net and emphasized that quote was Jody_Butt...

 

[Ranger REG]

Lots of people complain that 3 years is too soon, but I definitely think 10-12 years is way too long.

I'm glad WotC is making money on this, and I'm glad they're revising the books. Refinement is always good.

Actually, they should have waited until Year 5 (i.e., 2005) to make a revision, then Year 10 (i.e., 2010) to make a whole new edition.

To make this revision too soon is adopting a videogame publishing mentality, where a new version of a software is being replaced in a short time. D&D Core Rulebook Pen-and-Paper RPG is NOT a software. It's as they recently dubbed it a "lifestyle game," akin to old classics like Monopoly.

I have to admit, it has more to do with economics than advancing the game, even though they both go hand-in-hand. After all, why should I drop $90 for a whole new rules revision if the design staff does not take step to listen to our feedbacks and comments and incorporate them into the revised product?

Then again, why should I get the new books when Wizards has promised a Backward Compatibility Guide AND a Revised System Reference Document?

Not that I'm complaining about Wizard's business decisions as of late. I just wished they make better business decisions regarding the direction for Dungeons & Dragons product line. Otherwise, the exec/management "suits" may decide to drop the line in favor of concentrating what Wizards of the Coast does best: Trading Card Games.

Having said that, I still welcome it. But unlike the release of 3e, I'm not in any hurry to buy the First Printing of 3.5e. I'll just wait for the Corrected Second or Third Printing.

Anyhoo, it may be too late for me (I may be on the waning years of this RPG hobby), but if you have any opinion or feedback regarding the current product or 3.5e, I suggest you send them to Wizards so that your voice will at least be heard (especially if some of you are complaining about the "vocal minority" that may or may not have prompted the revision).

 

[Monte At Home]

Re: Re: Monte Cook on Revised books

The new rules are for the most part the rules most people wanted and will be available for free. This complaint is very, very tired.

I wasn't aware I was complaining. Perhaps you should read the entire passage rather than the single sentence.

 

[Valiantheart]

Who in the hell cares what Monte's opinion on the subject is anyway?

 

[John Crichton]

Who in the hell cares what Monte's opinion on the subject is anyway?

I like to at least consider what anyone in the industry has to say about changes being made. I dig Monte's work so therefore I guess I am one person who does want to hear his opinion.

 

[El_Gringo]

Who in the hell cares what Monte's opinion on the subject is anyway?

Maybe because he was one of the designers of the original 3rd edition rules?

 

[Kai Lord]

Re: Re: Re: Monte Cook on Revised books

I wasn't aware I was complaining. Perhaps you should read the entire passage rather than the single sentence.

Okay, that "criticism" is very, very tired. Also keep in mind that as an ex-member of the D&D inner circle, it can be easy to have objective criticisms misconstrued as sour grapes.