Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Azlan" data-source="post: 1006215" data-attributes="member: 2340">I don't know much about Monte Cook as a person, and I am neither a fan nor a detractor of his. (Myself, I am simply uninterested in his Arcana Unearthed.) But what I do know and respect about the man is that he was one of the lead designers of 3rd Edition D&D; and that he not only worked for WotC, but that he was integral within the company (for a while, at least).So, if Monte Cook's review of the 3.5 core rulebooks says that more changes than necessary were made to the rules, and that the primary reason for these excessive changes was to make 3.0 obsolete and thus sell more rulebooks, then I think this is something that deserves consideration, coming from Monte Cook.But who are you, Sigil, and why should I take into consideration your review of Monte's review, particularly the "it's all about the money" parts of Monte's review that you take issue with? Sure, I gather you're a publisher of D&D compatable materials. But so what? Were you a lead designer of 3E D&D itself and an integral employee of WotC as well?Heck, if Eric Noah himself tried to discredit Monte's "it's all about the money" comments, I'd find myself wondering: Hmm... Eric may know an awful lot about 3E D&D, but what does he really know about the goings on inside WotC?Of course, I'm not going to judge this matter solely on Monte Cook's comments, even if he was once a lead developer of 3E D&D and a former integral employee of WotC. But in my mind, his comments sure bear a lot more weight and credibility in this than does Sigil's or anyone else's here.</blockquote>

Verification