Psychoanalysis of Monte Cook and WotC.

[nikolai]

I though we could do with a thread discussing the hidden motivations and bias that lead Monte Cook to write what he did in his review of 3.5e (http://www.montecook.com/review.html). He wrote part of 3.0e and Arcana Unearthed is coming out soon, there's obviously a lot of stuff going on in his head, and it's important we get to the bottom of it all.

It's also important that we try and figure out what's going on over at Wizards. It's been pointed out that they're capitalists, but I think we can go deeper than this. They want to make money but the manner in which decide to do this, and how this results in changes to the core books is less then clear. I'm also sure some of the designers also have issues that manifested themselves in the new rules; in particular I think we should pay attention to the interpersonal dynamics at Andy Collin's gaming table. This is behind a lot of 3.5e, he's talked a lot about rules playtested in his group I'm interested in what effect this has had.

To avoid things getting out of hand: can we leave the discussion of the content of the review, and which parts of the new rules work, which don't and what opportunities were lost with the revision to be dealt with elsewhere.

thanks,

nikolai.

 

[Skaros]

I though we could do with a thread discussing the hidden motivations and bias that lead Monte Cook to write what he did in his review of 3.5e (http://www.montecook.com/review.html). He wrote part of 3.0e and Arcana Unearthed is coming out soon, there's obviously a lot of stuff going on in his head, and it's important we get to the bottom of it all.

It's also important that we try and figure out what's going on over at Wizards. It's been pointed out that they're capitalists, but I think we can go deeper than this. They want to make money but the manner in which decide to do this, and how this results in changes to the core books is less then clear. I'm also sure some of the designers also have issues that manifested themselves in the new rules; in particular I think we should pay attention to the interpersonal dynamics at Andy Collin's gaming table. This is behind a lot of 3.5e, he's talked a lot about rules playtested in his group I'm interested in what effect this has had.

To avoid things getting out of hand: can we leave the discussion of the content of the review, and which parts of the new rules work, which don't and what opportunities were lost with the revision to be dealt with elsewhere.

thanks,

nikolai.

Aside from the futility of trying "psychoanalysis" of people we don't know, save over the internet, can't this just get subsumed into the 6 page thread on Monte Cook's review that already exists?

Everyone please post here

 

[Bloodstone Mage]

I don't blame Monte Cook for what he said. He makes valid comments. Sure, he has a lot of reasons to be against it, but, at the end, he does say that people should buy 3.5 in order to keep up with future D&D products. Monte has a right to say what he does, along with everyone else.
One problem with RPGs is that they're designed by people. With people designing a game, human emotions and feelings get in the way. Motivations like greed and love affect a RPG seriously. Hopefully, when there is a perfect world in the future, RPGs will be designed by robots.
On the topic of a psychoanalysis (and by the way, we'd have to know who Monte really is to give a definitive psychoanalysis, because he really couldn't care less about 3.5 or he could be constantly ranting around his house about how much is wrong with it), I think Monte could be subconsciously offended by the changes in 3.5. Maybe 3.5 could represent some kind of rejection. Maybe its caused some deep emotional distress since its conception with 3.0, much like the inner conflict that can plague people who were raised by abusive or alcoholic parents.
But that's just my opinion.

Cheers!

 

[Tom Cashel]

This thread belongs in the Story Hour forum, with the rest of the fiction.

 

[Tsyr]

Nothing is more patantely rediculous than internet shrinks...

 

[alsih2o]

tsyr- your avatar is HILARIOUS!!!

 

[Ralts Bloodthorne]

You know, this whole thing with Monte Cooke, 3.5, the arguements and reviews of reviews of reviews of reviews, the arguments, and everything else over a set of books that most of us DON'T HAVE YET, brings a really funny image to my mind, and this one just solidifyied it...

Little electronic men running around in circles, waving thier hands in the air, screaming: "3.5 is coming! Hide the dice! 3.5 is coming! Our characters are doomed!"
And this one solidified a "Point to Point"-like show, with four guys arguing over something, throwing out wilder and wilder theories, and guessing on the motivations and mentality of the subjects.
"Tom, what's you're opinion of Monte Cooke's words?"
"Well, Jim, I believe he was high on crack cocaine."
"Fair enough, Arnorld?"
"I believe that he overdosed on Tragic: the Splattering cards. See my movie T-5, Rise of the Dice Program!"

Come on guys, it's a damn review, not Moses coming down the mountian with 4 extra commandments...

 

[myrdden]

I though we could do with a thread discussing the hidden motivations and bias that lead Monte Cook to write what he did in his review of 3.5e

Why?

The [3.5] threads are getting out of hand...


Myrdden

 

[Piratecat]

There are too many threads on this subject, so i'm closing the more recent ones. Please go here for one of the places to discuss this further:

http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=56434