Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
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!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Review of Monte's 3.5 Review...
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="The Sigil" data-source="post: 999661" data-attributes="member: 2013"><p><strong>Re: Re: Review of Monte's 3.5 Review...</strong></p><p></p><p></p><p>It may have been the right "call" but it was the wrong forum.</p><p></p><p>The portion referenced is a critique of WotC's business practices that is titled "a review of 3.5e."</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> I'm neutral - don't care one way or the other.</p><p></p><p>--The Sigil</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="The Sigil, post: 999661, member: 2013"] [b]Re: Re: Review of Monte's 3.5 Review...[/b] 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 [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Review of Monte's 3.5 Review...
Top
