Review of Monte's 3.5 Review...
- Thread starter The Sigil
- Start date
on feet, inches, and squares
Just a note on the Sigil's remark about Monte's statement that references to grid squares were a move in the direction of "inches".
I took Monte's statement to mean that, instead of saying 5 feet, the rules would often say one square, or other such conversions from 5-foot increments to squares. There is a real difference here; measurements in feet are meant to convey a comparison to reality, such as a human will move 30 feet in 6 seconds and still get to act, whereas a dwarf will only move 20 feet. Your willingness to buy the speeds of creatures is determined by your acceptance that a certain amount of feet can be covered in a certain amount of seconds, even by a fantastic creature, something you could understand without having a battle map in front of you. References to grid squares, on the other hand, are specifically addressing a battle map type of surface.
So, what about the inches, and why are inches more like squares than they are like feet? Previous editions of D&D used inches as a unit of distance because they were derived from the historical miniatures gaming world, where movement values represent the distance across the table you can move your unit of French dragoons or whatnot. (I'm less certain of this, but I imagine that the awkward time system of previous editions, where a round was a minute and a turn 10 minutes, is probably another artifact of this history.)
Thus, inches, like squares, refer to the tabletop, whereas feet are meant to be comparable to what real creatures do. The fact that the Sigil instantly equates 12" with 120' (which was really 360' outdoors in 1e) reflects his familiarity with the previous historical-miniatures-based system for movement.
Whether any of you think moving further towards the miniatures-only world is good or bad is another story. One additional observation I will make is that grid squares is a change of a different trajectory than tabletop inches: squares are digital, whereas inches are analog. You can easily translate your 12" movement into a move of 10 5/16", if you so choose, but the increments of your moves in 3e are basically another 5' or no more. For better or worse, with 3.0 the game has been made more like a computer game.
--Axe
Just a note on the Sigil's remark about Monte's statement that references to grid squares were a move in the direction of "inches".
I took Monte's statement to mean that, instead of saying 5 feet, the rules would often say one square, or other such conversions from 5-foot increments to squares. There is a real difference here; measurements in feet are meant to convey a comparison to reality, such as a human will move 30 feet in 6 seconds and still get to act, whereas a dwarf will only move 20 feet. Your willingness to buy the speeds of creatures is determined by your acceptance that a certain amount of feet can be covered in a certain amount of seconds, even by a fantastic creature, something you could understand without having a battle map in front of you. References to grid squares, on the other hand, are specifically addressing a battle map type of surface.
So, what about the inches, and why are inches more like squares than they are like feet? Previous editions of D&D used inches as a unit of distance because they were derived from the historical miniatures gaming world, where movement values represent the distance across the table you can move your unit of French dragoons or whatnot. (I'm less certain of this, but I imagine that the awkward time system of previous editions, where a round was a minute and a turn 10 minutes, is probably another artifact of this history.)
Thus, inches, like squares, refer to the tabletop, whereas feet are meant to be comparable to what real creatures do. The fact that the Sigil instantly equates 12" with 120' (which was really 360' outdoors in 1e) reflects his familiarity with the previous historical-miniatures-based system for movement.
Whether any of you think moving further towards the miniatures-only world is good or bad is another story. One additional observation I will make is that grid squares is a change of a different trajectory than tabletop inches: squares are digital, whereas inches are analog. You can easily translate your 12" movement into a move of 10 5/16", if you so choose, but the increments of your moves in 3e are basically another 5' or no more. For better or worse, with 3.0 the game has been made more like a computer game.
--Axe
Not to hijack the hijack or anything... 
The real criticism that Monte's review brings up is of the business practices of Hasbro. There are a couple of changes in 3.5 that I do not like at all, almost all of the rest I like or am pleasantly indifferent towards. I don't think the criticism is the design per se of 3.5. The problem is that Habro allowed the changes in the book to be so significant that you must switch to 3.5, and you will probably want to buy the books to do so. Hasbro has used its monopoly to try to force sales in a way that shows bad taste and a desire to manipulate. Personally I would have had no problem with a truly revised edition with incorporated errata, clarifications, and a couple of major problems corrected (i.e. harm, haste, etc.). all packaged with new artwork. I wouldn't need to buy such an edition, but new players and new-book hounds could have brought in some money to Hasbro and gotten a hopefully improved product. Then, in 2008 they release D&D 4.0 to much fanfare. No problem.
Monte's review was appropriate. The design of 3.5 has a lot of good, some bad, but management's underlying philosophy demonstrates short-sightedness and a lack of respect for the consumer base. And I don't care if D&D isn't as profitable as Hasbro wants it to be. Most of the time it isn't even a question of profitability, it's a question of continual profit growth, like from 12% to 13% to 14% every year. It's hard to see how a game system like D&D is going to be able to deliver "continual profit growth" since you only need one copy of it. The only way to do so is it treat it like IT intellectual properties, such as the Microsoft software and operating systems, and force the user to continually upgrade. I think 3.5 is aptly named and is the future of D&D while it remains in the hands of the current corporate culture.
The real criticism that Monte's review brings up is of the business practices of Hasbro. There are a couple of changes in 3.5 that I do not like at all, almost all of the rest I like or am pleasantly indifferent towards. I don't think the criticism is the design per se of 3.5. The problem is that Habro allowed the changes in the book to be so significant that you must switch to 3.5, and you will probably want to buy the books to do so. Hasbro has used its monopoly to try to force sales in a way that shows bad taste and a desire to manipulate. Personally I would have had no problem with a truly revised edition with incorporated errata, clarifications, and a couple of major problems corrected (i.e. harm, haste, etc.). all packaged with new artwork. I wouldn't need to buy such an edition, but new players and new-book hounds could have brought in some money to Hasbro and gotten a hopefully improved product. Then, in 2008 they release D&D 4.0 to much fanfare. No problem.
Monte's review was appropriate. The design of 3.5 has a lot of good, some bad, but management's underlying philosophy demonstrates short-sightedness and a lack of respect for the consumer base. And I don't care if D&D isn't as profitable as Hasbro wants it to be. Most of the time it isn't even a question of profitability, it's a question of continual profit growth, like from 12% to 13% to 14% every year. It's hard to see how a game system like D&D is going to be able to deliver "continual profit growth" since you only need one copy of it. The only way to do so is it treat it like IT intellectual properties, such as the Microsoft software and operating systems, and force the user to continually upgrade. I think 3.5 is aptly named and is the future of D&D while it remains in the hands of the current corporate culture.
Last edited:
Azlan said:
I agree that that is normally true. But the question lies with why would you ever rely on someone's motivation to determine the quality of a product when you had the product right before you?
Look at the product. If it is good, it is good. No matter what the motivation was. If it is bad, it is bad. Again, irregardless of the motivation.
It is sometimes interesting to know what someone's primary motivation was. Then you can speculate with thoughts like: "I wonder how much better it would have been if their financial situation didn't force them to do it" or "No wonder why the product wasn't that great, they obviously put no thought into it". The problem is when you use a guess and base your opinions off of those speculations that you run into trouble.
We have heard enough about the money idea. I love 3.5 edition, but since this thread is about Monte's review and not just what we like about 3.5 edition, I would have to agree that Monte way overemphasized the money issue. It made me wonder how he was actually saying to buy it at the end when all throughout the article he was saying that it was not at all worth the money. The other thing is that it was always repeated as $90.00. Really, if you spend $90.00 on the three books, you are not that smart, or you like throwing money away. Everyone I know spent just over $50.00 If you think there is no difference between the two prices, then please share some of your money with me because obviously you are making much more than I am.
![Joker[ZW]](/data/avatars/m/9/9151.jpg?1565264842){kind=avatar}
Joker[ZW]
First Post
As we're already talking about Monte...Azlan said:
Monte's Rave about Fanboys
(note that he doesn't differentiate between Fans and fanboys, anyone care to review this?
)
Last edited:
Similar Threads
