Monte Cook reviews 3.5

[Emiricol]

Lol! Yes, the moment was much like that for me too - DING. You know, back in the days of 1E or OD&D I never used minis, either, unless one of the players happened to have a bunch. I didn't get my first Battle Mat until about '97, and that was for BattleTech

Yes! That's what's been nagging at the back of my mind for a while now, but I couldn't quite figure out what was bugging me. Graph paper! Good lord, I used it for more than a decade when playing 1e, to keep track of where everyone was at in combat. I didn't need miniatures at all, and almost never used 'em until recently. Back then, a sheet or two of graph paper and a pencil was all I needed. Small and convenient, perfect for games in small environments, where minis aren't a good option. Heck, laminate a few sheets of graph paper, and get some dry-erase markers, and you're set. Sure, the small size of most squares in normal graph paper could make it a bit tough, but one could always create their own graph paper of various scales, or use a small battlemat. For a game in a cramped room, I'd probably stick to regular graph paper, marking in pencil where everyone and everything was at, using initials or symbols to differentiate them. OK, so either the players or DM may be incovenienced, but it'll help solve the problem of "having" to use minis and battlemats.

I know I'm stating the obvious here, but remembering how I used graph paper years ago just gave me a firk-ding-blasted epiphany!

 

[John Crichton]

I'm staying out of this discussion. Grrrrrr.... Staying out of this discussion.

[Meta]Plugs ears[/Meta]. Nah! Nah! Nah! Nah!

Aw, c'mon Darrin. I, for one, would love to hear your thoughts on this topic.

* poke poke *

* prod prod *

:: edited typo ::

 

[Dr_Rictus]

Are you saying I have things that are not available to other people? If *I* have, other people can also have it.

Of course that's what I'm saying. You also have needs and values that other people do not have. Other people are not like you, and never will be. Not like me either. Lots of 'em.

I can only assume you really believe what you're saying, but I'm afraid that merely proves my point. If you don't understand that, I suspect you never will.

 

[bolen]

anyone have any idea how much profit D&D makes for Hasbro? Is it profitable?

 

[BryonD]

I can only assume you really believe that, but I'm afraid that merely proves my point. If you don't understand that, I suspect you never will.

OK fine. This of course is a simple evasion for the fact that you can not provide a single example to support your claim.

But, that is the best you have, because that is the best there is for you TO have.

(Come on, just one example of something I have that others can't. It is so easy and I'll look so wrong. If you right I'm just wide open here. Problem: You are not right.)

 

[Dr_Rictus]

Which naturally ties into your second point, on calling knowledge into question. That point didn't fly for me when Monte made it either. I guess I have a different perspective on the game.

To me that is the point I see in Monte's "mastery" construction. It's not about the logistical problem of adapting to a new skill set, it's about the emotional problem of the impact of change on play value.

Whether that's a problem that 3.5e is apt to suffer, I don't feel qualified to say. My point is simply that it isn't about whether people will adapt, but about how they will feel about having to, and what game designers can do to make that feeling better or worse. As long as we agree on what the potential problem at hand is, I have no problem with different speculations and conclusions about whether 3.5e suffers that problem.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

anyone have any idea how much profit D&D makes for Hasbro? Is it profitable?

Yeah, it's profitable. I'm sure others will arrive with figures, but the general conclusion is that D&D isn't profitable to the magnitude that Hasbro expected. Hasbro bought WotC primarily for Pokemon, which dwarfed D&D in sales - at least, until interest in Pokemon fell off the table.

 

[BryonD]

Of course that's what I'm saying. You also have needs and values that other people do not have. Other people are not like you, and never will be. Not like me either. Lots of 'em.

OK. Here is your edit.

Please connect this to a person's ability or lack thereof to use 3.5 materials to support a 3E game....

 

[Dr_Rictus]

OK fine. This of course is a simple evasion for the fact that you can not provide a single example to support your claim.

But, that is the best you have, because that is the best there is for you TO have.

(Come on, just one example of something I have that others can't. It is so easy and I'll look so wrong. If you right I'm just wide open here. Problem: You are not right.)

No, actually, it's a statement of resignation that I will never convince you of the seemingly self-evident fact that people suffer from and enjoy different circumstances, as well as different values and needs, in their lives.

And I would think it would also be obvious that I can't compare you to other people in any specific way since I don't have any specific knowledge about you. But I don't need it to know that there are people who are different than you, because all around me I see people who are different from each other, and you can't be the same as all of them.

I have no desire to make you look "so wrong." I have nothing against you at all. The things you say, on the other hand, are not true, and I'm compelled to point that out.

 

[2d6]

wow, what was the topic?


2d6

/ibtl