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
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Monte's L&L columns
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="Feeroper" data-source="post: 5892655" data-attributes="member: 83317"><p>Quick disclaimer: I really liked Monte and was sad to hear that he has left. However, unlike a large part of these forums, i dont see it as a death knell or bad omen for the edition as I think the current team is solid with or without him, it just would have been nice to have him there. </p><p> </p><p>As to his L&L columns, I felt that the polls at the end were often times heavily slanted at getting a particular answer. It seemed like for whatever question/situation that was presented for the poll, there was a kind of pre-selected favourite choice in the way the options were worded. I know alot of people were pretty vocal about that.</p><p> </p><p>The passive perception thing was mentioned above, but I also think that was made worse by that being his first L&L column. Also, someone else mentioned that he suggested different ability scores based on gender that incited a big enough reaction that it was retracted? I didnt see that one myself, but thats what I read elsewhere on this forum.</p><p> </p><p>I personally liked his L&L columns overall. Although he had a big hand in 3e (I know alot of people critisize/praise him for his preference of that edition), I felt like he was moving beyond the scope of 3e, and I still think thats how it is being handled, even without him. I also think that the rest of the team has also been very good about moving it forward beyond 3e, and 4e. They are really taking a hard look at the older editions like BECMI, 1e and 2e as well, which I think is a factor that often gets overlooked by most caught up in the 3.X vs 4e mentality. </p><p> </p><p>Again, its unfortunate that they lost a great writer like Monte, but lets not write off Mike Mearls and the rest of the guys working on DDN. Im a little saddened to see a large amount of ENworld people so eager put the rest of the DDN team down like that because Monte left. Its just as bad as those who are making rude comments about Monte's departure. I know Mike Mearls has always been a big fan of 3.X as well as the older editions, and he has been very vocal about the vision for 5e, so lets not jump to conclusions. This is what the playtest is going to be for, Once you've seen the hard rules and can make sound judgement, that is the time to let WotC know how you feel. </p><p> </p><p>Sorry for the rant, but after reading so many doom/gloom posts from people who are just having a knee jerk reaction, I just had to vent a little bit myself.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Feeroper, post: 5892655, member: 83317"] Quick disclaimer: I really liked Monte and was sad to hear that he has left. However, unlike a large part of these forums, i dont see it as a death knell or bad omen for the edition as I think the current team is solid with or without him, it just would have been nice to have him there. As to his L&L columns, I felt that the polls at the end were often times heavily slanted at getting a particular answer. It seemed like for whatever question/situation that was presented for the poll, there was a kind of pre-selected favourite choice in the way the options were worded. I know alot of people were pretty vocal about that. The passive perception thing was mentioned above, but I also think that was made worse by that being his first L&L column. Also, someone else mentioned that he suggested different ability scores based on gender that incited a big enough reaction that it was retracted? I didnt see that one myself, but thats what I read elsewhere on this forum. I personally liked his L&L columns overall. Although he had a big hand in 3e (I know alot of people critisize/praise him for his preference of that edition), I felt like he was moving beyond the scope of 3e, and I still think thats how it is being handled, even without him. I also think that the rest of the team has also been very good about moving it forward beyond 3e, and 4e. They are really taking a hard look at the older editions like BECMI, 1e and 2e as well, which I think is a factor that often gets overlooked by most caught up in the 3.X vs 4e mentality. Again, its unfortunate that they lost a great writer like Monte, but lets not write off Mike Mearls and the rest of the guys working on DDN. Im a little saddened to see a large amount of ENworld people so eager put the rest of the DDN team down like that because Monte left. Its just as bad as those who are making rude comments about Monte's departure. I know Mike Mearls has always been a big fan of 3.X as well as the older editions, and he has been very vocal about the vision for 5e, so lets not jump to conclusions. This is what the playtest is going to be for, Once you've seen the hard rules and can make sound judgement, that is the time to let WotC know how you feel. Sorry for the rant, but after reading so many doom/gloom posts from people who are just having a knee jerk reaction, I just had to vent a little bit myself. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Monte's L&L columns
Top