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="The Sigil" data-source="post: 1006979" data-attributes="member: 2013">Please note that I only disagreed with the qualitative portions of Monte's review on one point (square "space"/facings).Who am I?  A D&D player who happens to do a little publishing on the side.  But ultimately I am no more and no less than anyone else on these boards.  However, I am someone who read Monte's initial review - BEFORE the revision - and while I agreed with nearly all the points he made, I was appalled that it seemed so one-sided.  I understood that Monte found both good and bad in the new edition - but my "gut feeling" when reading his article was that it was focused heavily on the "bad" and didn't bother to explain the "good" - meaning that even though he was giving 3.5 "3 stars," the review read like he was giving it "1 star."Ordinarily, I would have passed on without caring... until I saw the number of threads springing up at ENWorld to the effect of "Monte hates 3.5e!  No way am I buying it!"  I figured rather than jump into the 3.5e sucks/3.5e rules argument, I would take a different tack - some of the 3.5e sucks crowd were saying 3.5e sucks because Monte said so and that simply wasn't true.  I wanted to point out that trying to use Monte's review to bolster the "3.5e sucks" argument was a waste of time - because Monte didn't think 3.5e sucks... but his review, with its focus on "money" and "on the bad" simply made it seem that way.  Because of the disclaimer he put at the beginning, I knew that was not his intent.  Therefore, my critique of the review was mostly for those who were appealing to Monte... and there was a hope that Monte would make the needed "corrections" to bring the tone of the review in line with his actual opinions.  (He did, though I won't claim that this thread "made" him do so or anything).Read my review again.  Of COURSE it's all about the money.  I can even see why he included at the beginning that "3.5e is too soon because it's all about the money" - because part of his review is that 3.5e is too much, too soon.  However, because he continually references the money thing throughout the review, I thought it was too much.  Matter of personal opinion.Again, note that I didn't disagree with him on that point... I merely said that he doesn't need to keep hitting on it over and over throughout the review, and once he's made the point, it's time to move on - this is ostensibly a 3.5e review, not a WotC business practice review and once you've made your point tying business practices to the quality of 3.5e, it's time to move on.  Remember, one of the things they teach you in writing class is to "Stay Focused" on the subject matter.  Don't let yourself get hung up on one point and let that point become/derail your argument.I wouldn't disagree with you at all.  I, like most other people, am going to be waiting to skim through the finished products before I make my final judgement.  I expect my final judgement to be mixed... "this can stay, this is gone."Ultimately, my criticism of Monte's review was not to denigrate him nor to deride his merits, bona fides, or credentials.  My criticism was, "Monte, you did not communicate your point of view effectively (in the initial review; the revised review has largely solved that problem)."  Given that Monte actually gave something to that effect as an explanation as to why he revised his review, apparently he agreed with me on that point.  This was not an attack on Monte as a d20 publisher, this was pointing out that in this particular instance, he was not a terrific communicator in that his intent did not come across properly given his word choice... and that anyone using Monte to back up a general "3.5e sucks" (as opposed to "this particular rule change in 3.5e sucks") argument was doing so out of a misunderstanding of Monte's intent.--The Sigil</blockquote>

Verification