Review of Monte's 3.5 Review...

[EricNoah]

Well, overall I think much too big a deal is being made out of Monte's thoughts on 3.5. Anyone who makes up their minds about this based on the review alone, either direction, gets what they deserve.

As to your review, I haven't actually read *his* review so I can't really comment on your take with any insight. I merely posed the question.

 

[The Sigil]

Well, overall I think much too big a deal is being made out of Monte's thoughts on 3.5. Anyone who makes up their minds about this based on the review alone, either direction, gets what they deserve.

Ain't that the truth! The only time I allow a really good or really bad review to influence my decision as to whether to purchase a product is in a PDF product. If it's a print product, I always leaf through it at my FLGS first unless it's from a company/name I have grown to trust implicitly (Bad Axe Games is one of these for me).

As to your review, I haven't actually read *his* review so I can't really comment on your take with any insight. I merely posed the question.

*shrugs* Fair enough.

Reviews are all about opinions. The question is simply, "are you being fair" or are you deliberately stressing one side of the equation too much (most people would agree that "fanboy" reviews are as bad as "hater" reviews). Again, I agreed with MOST (not all) of Monte's points (at least insofar as I understand the changes without a copy of 3.5 in front of me) - I simply disagreed with the method of delivery as it seemed to me - through my own biases - to be a bit one-sided and focused on the negative (as I said, the fact that he listed quickly the "good" and expounded on the "bad" was problematic for me). I feel a good/fair reviewer will expound on the good and expound on the bad in about the same proportion as he finds good and bad in the product. EVERY product has some good and some bad.

As I said, since we all have biases, I'm sure there is bias in my review. I guess the question is whether or not there is "enough bias" to make it problematic. That's probably best left as an exercise for the reader... with his own biases.

--The Sigil

EDIT: Fixed broken "quote" tag

 

[Jody Butt]

And that's disappointing in something that's supposed to be a review of 3.5, not a review of WotC business practices. Monte may well be right, but when reviewing a gaming product, I think that's neither here nor there.


--The Sigil

For me, it's everything.

Intent is more important than the execution.

Kudos to Monte for calling a spade a spade.

 

[Jody Butt]

And that's disappointing in something that's supposed to be a review of 3.5, not a review of WotC business practices. Monte may well be right, but when reviewing a gaming product, I think that's neither here nor there.


--The Sigil

For me, it's everything.

Intent is more important than execution.

Kudos to Monte for calling a spade a spade.

 

[The Sigil]

Re: Re: Review of Monte's 3.5 Review...

For me, it's everything.

Intent is more important than execution.

Kudos to Monte for calling a spade a spade.

It may have been the right "call" but it was the wrong forum.

The portion referenced is a critique of WotC's business practices that is titled "a review of 3.5e."

If Monte wants to critique WotC's business practices, fine. But when he says he's trying to judge 3.5e on its own merits, he should focus on its merits... and when his list of "what's good" is larger in number than his list of "what's bad" and 90% of the review is spent talking about "what's bad," that's not a fair review... that's focusing overmuch on the negative.

And to say intent is more important in reviewing the "merits" of a product, are you trying to tell me that if someone wrote a product with "no merits" whatsoever, but had the intent of writing "the greatest RPG product ever," then it is the greatest product ever because of intent? Come on.

Am I happy that 3.5e is coming out? I'm indifferent, to be honest. I'll download the 3.5 SRD for free. At some point in the future, I may scoop up the books. I don't think 3.5 is the panacea, nor is it doomsday. It's just another iteration of the d20 engine. I don't think of my products as "3.0" or "3.5" products. I think of them as "d20 products." And THAT skeleton system, as near as I can figure, is untouched by the revision.

Had Monte touched more on the "good points" and why they were good, I wouldn't have thought the review was biased. That he glossed over the good and emphasized only the bad (including "money issues") shows bias. And that, too, is calling a spade a spade.

Remember, I agreed with most of the points he raised when he raised them (not all, but some) - you seem to be mistaking me for a 3.5e apologist. I'm neutral - don't care one way or the other.

--The Sigil

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

Re: Re: Review of Monte's 3.5 Review...

Intent is more important than execution.

By that logic, if I intend to teach someone an important lesson, but take a gun and shoot them in the foot to do so, there's nothing wrong with that at all. In fact, I could go as far as maiming the person and it would still be fine, because my INTENT was good.

EXECUTION is more important than intent.

IMHO of course.

 

[Piratecat]

Please note that I am closing several of the other "Monte" threads, and pointing them here. Any further threads will either be merged into this one or closed and redirected.

Thanks!

 

[Numion]

I hate to say it, but it could be that because the 3.5 rulebooks are coming out in July, and AU is coming out in July, that people who spend their money on 3.5 are people who are not spending their money on AU. It's a theory. As a publisher, Monte would be fully aware of the implications of trying to release a product at the same time the new core rulebooks are coming out. Bad timing, I suppose.

BTW, you intrested in buying some tinfoil hats?

 

[Emiricol]

As if Jody knows their intent any more than I do

 

[Stalker0]

I agree with most who have replied, that the "review" definately seemed like more of a rant. Also, I'll have to check, but I believe he may actually have posted wrong information.

I remember reading somewhere that while a 5x10 creature takes up 10 x 10 a board, it can move down 5 foot corridors WITHOUT squeezing? If what I remember is correct, he made a slight error there.

Also, he pointed out that the lack of mastery means people have to relearn the game. Honestly, that's one of the most exciting things about the game for me. I play with very veteran 3.0 players, and frankly, sometimes the game gets a little mechanical. Everyone knows exactly how a rust monster works, or a giant, knows the combat rules in a out, knows exactly what a 10th level monk will probably have, etc. Now, they're newbs again. And newbs are often times a lot of fun to play with.