Monte's 3.75? (A sequal is on its way)

[rkwoodard]

4.ed elements

Hi,
So do we know how much if any is going to be declared open? If so, has he just given the OGL a shot of 4th edition elements that will pre-date the release of 4ed?
If so will this open the door for those that want to try and use the OGL instead of going to the GSL?

Just wondering, probably way off base here.

RK

 

[Wisdom Penalty]

Which statement is true:

(A) Monte read the updates and previews of 4E, liked them, and has decided to package them as his own "house-ruled" version of 3E in the hopes of paying the rent while he dips in his toes in the realm of writing fiction.

Or:

(B) The 4E design team perused Monte's boards and spoke to the good man at one time or another and based many of their changes on Monte's original concepts as espoused on those same boards or within certain Malhavok products.

Or:

(C) Doesn't matter if Monte came before Mearls, or Mearls before Monte, the concepts both are mentioning are extremely similar.



If (C) is correct - and I tend to personally think (A) is "more right" - then where's the dang love between self-styled 3E grognards and the progressive 4E group? I fail to see a chasm between the two groups that inspires the negative rhetoric around here (and, more often and less intelligently, on Paizo's boards).

W.P.

 

[DaveMage]

Neat!

Thanks for the scoop, TerraDave!

 

[Daniel D. Fox]

I know it's common parlance amongst the gaming community to give tribute before the altar of Monte Cook. Granted, his Planescape material was pretty revolutionary for its time.

However, I don't really like his SPLAT material. I certainly wouldn't want to explore 3.5 addon material, especially with a new official edition coming out that will bridge the inadequacies of 3.0 and 3.5. It seems like a huge monetary gamble to risk publishing any material for older editions; I simply cannot see the reason why purists wouldn't upconvert to the new edition, especially since all of the material from first and third party publishers will clearly employ the 4E rule model.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Cheap and interesting, seems like a good deal to me. I'm likely to be playing 3E for a few months yet, and I love experimental rules.

I know it's common parlance amongst the gaming community...

You mean common practice.

Parlance is quite different.

1. A particular manner of speaking; idiom: legal parlance.
2. Speech, especially a conversation or parley.

 

[WayneLigon]

No thanks. Monte already broke 3.0 once , so I'll avoid this.

Say what?

 

[Demigonis]

Normally I really like and respect Monte Cook's work, but this honestly just sounds like "Oh, I'll rip off everything I like about 4th Edition and sell it a couple months before 4th Ed comes out!"

 

[Eldragon]

Whoo hoo! Another excuse to ignore 4e and play the D&D the way I like it.

 

[DungeonmasterCal]

It'll be one more set of rules that will probably never see use in my games, but I'll buy it in case there is something I can salvage. My group has voted we stay with 3.5 and not go with 4e, so it might actually see some use.

 

[Ilium]

Normally I really like and respect Monte Cook's work, but this honestly just sounds like "Oh, I'll rip off everything I like about 4th Edition and sell it a couple months before 4th Ed comes out!"

Except that I'm pretty sure I recognize a lot of those ideas as having been posted on Monte's blog months to years ago.

I'll definitely check this out. While I'm not a 4E hater by any means (actually I think it will be great) I can't justify the expense when I've already spent so much on 3.5. If Monte's "house rules" give me some of the good stuff of 4E without shelling out $100 for it, I'll be happy.