Drawmack
First Post
This post is in response to the review located at: http://www.montecook.com/review.html
Let me state up front that I am very disappointed with Mr. Cook's review of the new books and feel that it should be taken with a grain of salt and here's why.
1) His source for "the financial need" comment. He is no longer a WotC insider. He states that those who were in charge when he was there are no longer there. He was not privy to more recent discussions about the revision or the decision to release it now. Therefore this statement by him is no more informed then if you or I made it. Now he may have other sources that validate this decision, but then he should tell us what they are and not hide them by claiming he is the source.
2) He feels the need to point out that the business team (Ryan Dancey and Keith Strohm) from 3.0 are gone. Firstly, anyone who cares about this already knows. Secondly what does this have to do with the quality of the revision? If this were a necessity to ensure quality then Gary would still be designing the core system and Mr. Cooks name wouldn't even be on the 3.0 core books. This point has no place in a "review" of the books.
3) He never tells us what he feels should not be touched in a revision. Sure he makes a rather squishy statement about changing someone's current game. The way I see is that anything which can easily be ripped out of the system and replaced without creating balance issues is fair game in a revision. With the flexible nature that 3.0 has this means that races, classes, spells, skills and feats can all be changed in a revision. Because you could play a game that does not use the core races, classes, spells, skills and feats without having to change any of the actual rules of the system. Apparently Monte disagrees with this but how and why is never explained in his "review".
4) In many ways his "review" takes on the air of persuasive writing. Granted a review does expose someone's opinion but this piece goes over the line. I have three major issues with the layout of this review. The first is that he put what he considers the good points up front. People are more likely to remember what they read last so this is the first trick of persuasive writing. Say the points that go against what your attempting to persuade people about first. Secondly he expounds upon what he believes are the bad changes but not what he believes are the good changes. With Mr. Cook's credentials as a writer he must understand enough about psychology to know that this is persuasive writing. He glosses over the points that go against what he is saying and then expounds upon what he wants to persuade us towards. My third problem is sheer numbers. He lists 13 positive changes and 10 negative ones. So you hate the revision and we should to but you point out 13 good changes and 10 bad ones. Oh then he gives us five things that should have changed but didn't and his biggest one on this list is art work, get over it man.
5) He called this a review. I have a major and serious problem with this piece of writing being called a review. This is not a review. It is a expose on why Monte doesn't like the materials being presented. However his reasoning does not appear to be very well founded and he writes what is clearly a persuasive pitch, verging on an anti-sales montra. Mr. Cook shame on you for calling this a review.
That is why I feel that this review should be taken with a grain of salt.
Edit: my ' and " got replaced with ? coming from word to the browser damn it.
Let me state up front that I am very disappointed with Mr. Cook's review of the new books and feel that it should be taken with a grain of salt and here's why.
1) His source for "the financial need" comment. He is no longer a WotC insider. He states that those who were in charge when he was there are no longer there. He was not privy to more recent discussions about the revision or the decision to release it now. Therefore this statement by him is no more informed then if you or I made it. Now he may have other sources that validate this decision, but then he should tell us what they are and not hide them by claiming he is the source.
2) He feels the need to point out that the business team (Ryan Dancey and Keith Strohm) from 3.0 are gone. Firstly, anyone who cares about this already knows. Secondly what does this have to do with the quality of the revision? If this were a necessity to ensure quality then Gary would still be designing the core system and Mr. Cooks name wouldn't even be on the 3.0 core books. This point has no place in a "review" of the books.
3) He never tells us what he feels should not be touched in a revision. Sure he makes a rather squishy statement about changing someone's current game. The way I see is that anything which can easily be ripped out of the system and replaced without creating balance issues is fair game in a revision. With the flexible nature that 3.0 has this means that races, classes, spells, skills and feats can all be changed in a revision. Because you could play a game that does not use the core races, classes, spells, skills and feats without having to change any of the actual rules of the system. Apparently Monte disagrees with this but how and why is never explained in his "review".
4) In many ways his "review" takes on the air of persuasive writing. Granted a review does expose someone's opinion but this piece goes over the line. I have three major issues with the layout of this review. The first is that he put what he considers the good points up front. People are more likely to remember what they read last so this is the first trick of persuasive writing. Say the points that go against what your attempting to persuade people about first. Secondly he expounds upon what he believes are the bad changes but not what he believes are the good changes. With Mr. Cook's credentials as a writer he must understand enough about psychology to know that this is persuasive writing. He glosses over the points that go against what he is saying and then expounds upon what he wants to persuade us towards. My third problem is sheer numbers. He lists 13 positive changes and 10 negative ones. So you hate the revision and we should to but you point out 13 good changes and 10 bad ones. Oh then he gives us five things that should have changed but didn't and his biggest one on this list is art work, get over it man.
5) He called this a review. I have a major and serious problem with this piece of writing being called a review. This is not a review. It is a expose on why Monte doesn't like the materials being presented. However his reasoning does not appear to be very well founded and he writes what is clearly a persuasive pitch, verging on an anti-sales montra. Mr. Cook shame on you for calling this a review.
That is why I feel that this review should be taken with a grain of salt.
Edit: my ' and " got replaced with ? coming from word to the browser damn it.
Last edited:
