Review of Monte's 3.5 Review...

[Azlan]

Originally posted by Warlord Ralts
Hasbro/WotC is doing this for the money... Well, duh! That's the reason a company exists. Business 101.

This seems to me a rather inane remark, and one that's rather prevalent here, on these message boards. It makes me think that some of you here really are "fanboys", lacking in mature, objective thinking.

Sure, WotC is a business; a BIG business, at that; and evidently their primary goal is making money. But making money should NOT be both the driving and the determining factors behind the design of a roleplaying game; which, above all, should be a labor of love and a work of art.

I mean, would you spend hours and hours reading an "epic" novel by an author whose primary reason for writing it was to make money? Novels such as that are referred to as "pulp", and their writers, "hacks"; and they are disdained by those who truly have a love and appreciation for literature.

 

[Azlan]

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.

Now, I'm not saying that his review is slanted against 3.5 for that reason, but it's possible that he's at least subconsciously annoyed at the prospect that good sales of 3.5 will negatively impact sales of AU.

If Monte Cook was coming clear out of left field with his comments about WotC's driving and determining factors behind 3.5, then I might be inclined to wonder. But knowing WotC's track record as I do, I tend to think Monte is being truthful and forthright with us. I personally witnessed what WotC did with MtG: one of the greatest games of all time, spoiled by the company's greed and excessiveness. Furthermore, I have read several histories and personal testimonies, written or told by those who have been involved with WotC, at one time or another and at various levels.

 

[danzig138]

But making money should NOT be the driving and determining factors behind the design of a roleplaying game; which, above all else, should be a labor of love and a work of art.

I normally don't respond to those on the list, but I have to answer. . .you speak of inane statements. . . Making money darned well should be the determining factor behind making a RPG, if that's what your business is. If you're some guy sitting at your computer doing it because you love doing it, cool. If you're doing because you love it and you happen to make some money from it, even better. Doesn't change the fact that for an entity whose goal is to make money by designing RPGs, then that should be the primary factor. For that matter, I may have to say that an RPG designed as a labor of love and work of art may be less appealing, since it is more likely to be full of the creator's odd quirks, while a well-designed game made by a money-seeking entity is probably going to more. . .general (not sure if that's the word I mean, but it works for now). Maybe "even" is the word I'm looking for.

I mean, would you spend hours and hours reading a purportedly "epic" and "ardent" trilogy by an author whose primary reason for writing it was to make money... ?!

Sure, if it was good and kept me involved. As long as I enjoy the product, what do I care if some guy wrote it just to make money? What should I do in that case? Say "Well, it's really very good, but I just can't make myself read it because, well, uh, the author did it just to make some money. . ."If it is a good product, then it shouldn't matter if it was lovingly hand-crafted, taking years of the creator's life, or if it was made by Robo#1115884329949-A. Of course, YMMV

 

[Azlan]

As long as I enjoy the product, what do I care if some guy wrote it just to make money? What should I do in that case? Say "Well, it's really very good, but I just can't make myself read it because, well, uh, the author did it just to make some money. . ."

Thing is, if the author's motivation is just to make money, then inevitably it shows in his novel, as it does in any work of art. Anyone with discriminating tastes knows this.

...while a well-designed game made by a money-seeking entity is probably going to more... general (not sure if that's the word I mean, but it works for now). Maybe "even" is the word I'm looking for.

Sounds to me like the word you're looking for is "homogenized".

If it is a good product, then it shouldn't matter if it was lovingly hand-crafted, taking years of the creator's life, or if it was made by Robo#1115884329949-A.

Again, we're talking about works of art here, not products off an assembly line. No robot could ever craft a good roleplaying game. (That is, unless you subscribe to the theory of a billion monkies on a billion typewriters, banging away in a room for a billion years.)

I normally don't respond to those on the list...

???

 

[Morik]

In Europe the 3.5 edition just came out (some days ago I believe).

Well... to be honest... I will not buy the books.
The changes are minor IMO. Yeah it's good on one side but bad on the other, too.

While it is good that it is compatible and you do not have to learn thousand new rules the changes are not enough for me to spend another 90$ for all three books.

So far the changes I found does not push me to buy the new books. I'm happy enough with the old ones. Same changes found my interest and I can easily take them as good advices to implement them in the 3.0 rules.

I know that a company have to make money but that not justify "robbery" of the customer.

I saw that they implemented prestige classes from other 3.0 books in the new DMG (like the RED WIZZARD).

I have the RED WIZZARD class already because I bought the FR Campaign book.

If I would be new to DND I would recommend to buy 3.5 for sure but for someone who have already spent "Much" of his money for the three 3.0 books it's really not nessescary to make the switch.

The only book that took my interest was the MM 3.5 (because of the listing of the base attack and the grapple stats). But to pay 30$ just for that, I dunno...

Maybe if the prices would be a bit lower...
You have to admitt they are really HIGH

I know that is only my point of view and noone will ever force me to buy the products. I'm just dissapointed that they anounced the 3.5 as something worthwile for the DND Customers in whole.

IMO the 3.5 is only really useful for new players who doesn't own the 3.0 books already.

 

[Numion]

I know that a company have to make money but that not justify "robbery" of the customer.

I saw that they implemented prestige classes from other 3.0 books in the new DMG (like the RED WIZZARD).

I have the RED WIZZARD class already because I bought the FR Campaign book.

Here's a newsflash for you: the RED WIZZARD (whatever that is) is not the only thing you already have. You have most of the 3.5e books just by owning 3.0e core books. So no point letting the things from non-core sources dictate whether you buy it or not - consider also the amount of 3.0e Core material that's in the new books.

For me the equation is pretty clear: I'm not paying 112.5 euros (125 dollars!!!) for material I already mostly own. Now, if I lived in the US, and could get them for 60 dollars .. then I indeed would buy the new books.

 

[Mark]

I mean, the guy single handedly fueled the fire of third edition and brought gaming back to life. With both legs tied behind his back. Blindfolded. While holding a kitten and helping an old lady cross the street, thus preventing any cars from getting attacks of opportunity.

I'll need video...

 

[Storm Raven]

Thing is, if the author's motivation is just to make money, then inevitably it shows in his novel, as it does in any work of art. Anyone with discriminating tastes knows this.

This comment just shows how poorly discriminating your taste is. Many of the greatest works of English literature were penned by authors whose motivation was to make money and little else. Large swaths of books now regareded as "classics" were written with profit as the sole motivation behind their creation.

 

[Henry]

Let's please not get into what kind of tastes fellow forum members have - there's already been enough personal insults tied to 3.5 threads as it is.

All of you may just have to disagree on this point, because that way lies harsh feelings and thread closure.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Like Gary often seems to be, will Monte now be on the "sh*t list" of the devotees of whatever the current edition of D&D is? Will he be dismissed now by the fans now? Will be be attacked for making suppliments and cash of a system he has said he doesn't agree with? Monte does passable work and I have to agree with him on this one. Too much too soon. But it's funny watching the uproar over his comments, "here is my review of Monte's review...".