Regarding 3.5: Monte Weighs in...

[TheEmerged]

...and he's not pulling punches.

/Keanuvoice on
Whoa (http://www.montecook.com/review.html)
/Keanuvoice off


A few weeks ago, in an interview at gamingreport.com I said that 3.5 was motivated by financial need rather than by design need -- in short, to make money rather than because the game really needed an update. I said that I had this information from a reliable source.


That source was me. I was there.


See, I'm going to let you in on a little secret, which might make you mad: 3.5 was planned from the beginning.

Even before 3.0 went to the printer, the business team overseeing D&D was talking about 3.5. Not surprisingly, most of the designers -- particularly the actual 3.0 team (Jonathan Tweet, Skip Williams, and I) thought this was a poor idea. Also not surprisingly, our concerns were not enough to affect the plan. The idea, they assured us, was to make a revised edition that was nothing but a cleanup of any errata that might have been found after the book's release, a clarification of issues that seemed to confuse large numbers of players, and, most likely, all new art. It was slated to come out in 2004 or 2005, to give a boost to sales at a point where -- judging historically from the sales trends of previous editions -- they probably would be slumping a bit. It wasn't to replace everyone's books, and it wouldn't raise any compatibility or conversion issues.


Here I sit, in 2003, with my reviewer's copies of the 3.5 books next to my computer, and that's not what I see.

[Agent X]

Wow! That is definite plain speaking right there. Doesn't affect me much but I am sure it's going to tick off a lot of people, especially those business gurus he is talking about.

[Le Schtroumpf]

I tells ya. Kids today. I ran games for 15 years on the first ed. books.
Uphill.
Both ways.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Le Schtroumpf
I tells ya. Kids today. I ran games for 15 years on the first ed. books.
Uphill.
Both ways. Hey, I've been running 2nd Edition since it came out. Heck, now I've concocted a 2nd Edition Options game with a huge list of extra Options and some retro nods to 1st Edition. I even stole some feats that could be easily translated from 3rd Edition into Options. The game is almost like Champs with more specific support material.

That's another things these Kids today don't seem to do as much - extensive house rules.

[RadeFox]

I wonder if this is being posted in the WoC forums....I can almost smell the fumes arising from all the Balor summonings being sent into the main offices of WoC.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by RadeFox
I wonder if this is being posted in the WoC forums....I can almost smell the fumes arising from all the Balor summonings being sent into the main offices of WoC. Heh :)

[Killer Shrike]

Hehe...you gotta like Monte. He really comes off as first and foremost a gamer, and a designer second.

[Bazza]

Originally posted by TheEmerged
...and he's not pulling punches.

/Keanuvoice on
Whoa (http://www.montecook.com/review.html)
/Keanuvoice off I also like this from Monte:


Sour Grapes: While it's true that I worked on 3.0 and am very proud of it, there's a much larger, more realistic bias going on that you might not have considered. I am very much attached to D&D, in whatever form it takes -- not only as a gamer, but as a publisher. If I'm going to make a living producing books that support D&D, I need for D&D to be good. In fact, a part of me is saying, "Shut up and pretend it's all golden so people will buy it and keep playing." That would be a deep dishonesty, however. I do hope that people keep playing the game, and, in fact, I hope 3.5 does well, for Wizards of the Coast's well being (both for my friends there and for D&D's sake).

[tiger]

My friends and I always refered to 3E as the Greed edition, so I guess 3.5E is the more greed addition.

[Talon]

3E was a real revision, especially since 2E was such a mess.

3.5E is definitely a greed edition, especially from what Monte says. However, as a DM running an active campaign, I'm pretty sure I'll be switching over at least in part. Hmph. Hopefully those will be the last d20 books for me.

[Bartman]

Yeah, I think 3E was an honest attempt to make the best D&D ever. I don't agree with many of the changes. And D&D never has been my favorite system by a long shot. But it cleaned up a number of bad and or cumbersome rules, added much more variety and flavor to the class system and yet still manatained the flavor and some of the basic mechanics of D&D.

But 3.5 tells me Hasborg is in charge and milking the fans for all their worth. Well with any luck, the players will start to look for alternatives and find Hero. :)

[Doug McCrae]

I like DnD, always have. IMO 3rd ed is better than 2nd and 2nd is better than 1st. Also I thought 3rd ed was a much bigger change than 2nd. 3rd was a a change to the underlying system. 2nd, though not a minor change by any means, didn't do that. It reorganised the character class hierarchy, changed some of the numbers and added skills but the system was the same.

[Killer Shrike]

Personally, I consider 3e to be a new game, systemically distinct from previous editions. Much like car manufacturers recycle the same car frames for a number of years, just changing the body paneling, lights, and minor interior tweaks on new models to make them cosmetically different, AD&D 1e and 2e were only cosmetically different. 2e had some additional features and some fixes, but also some flaws all its own (how many here continued to use the 1e DMG because the 2e DMG was just a glorified Magic Item list and leftovers from the PHB?).

3e is an all new frame, all new engine, with only some retro styling in the cosmetics to evoke the look and feel of past editions.

Personally, I like 3e in principle. If you have to do a class & level structure, the 3e method is the way to do it IMO. I personally think the core books are pretty strong with some notable exceptions (some of the classes are clearly not balanced with even a cursory appraisal) and inconsistencies.

I think the game can be really fun if you dont take it to seriously and realize that its really a big power-up tactical skirmish system dressed as an RPG. The game is not only designed to expect power scaling, it encourages it, with specific guidelines on how much gp in magic items a character should have by a certain level to be competitive. Further, many class abilities are flat and arbitrary, and the way Saves scale leads to some tragically fragile characters at higher levels.

From my experience with the system, the game seems playable and solid from around 4th to 12th level, and starts to fall apart thereafter. By 15th its just silly, and by 20th its completely out of control.

For me, I can mark the exact moment the charm of 3e wore off and I wrote it off; the day I got the Epic Level Handbook and glanced thru it. The underlying power gaming mentality behind the system was starkly revealed as a non-scalable model to my eyes, and I lost all interest in the game thereafter. It was back to HEROs post haste for me.

Still, 3e had a positive effect. I was in a gaming slump and had taken a year long hiatus from gaming, with no real interest to start back up again, when the 3e PHB came out. A friend used the PHB to revitalize my interest in role playing, and I started playing 3e within a week of the PHB coming out and was involved with it thru the release of the Epic Level Handbook, so a good stretch. If not for that, I probably wouldnt be playing now. My wife might be happier for that, but I wouldnt be ;)

[MarkusDark]

for what it is worth, one of my players has decided to give up on D&D because of the 3.5 release and, instead, is converting his games to the Hero system.

No loss here. ;)

[TechnoViking]

All I have to say is "Make My Hero" :).

Mike

[TheEmerged]

Originally posted by RadeFox
I wonder if this is being posted in the WoC forums....I can almost smell the fumes arising from all the Balor summonings being sent into the main offices of WoC.

Actually, I found this view a link in the WoC forums. While I like Monte well enough and have bought several of his PDF's, our opinions do tend to go in different directions. As I've said before though, Monte has a way of expressing his points interestingly even when he's laughably wrong.

------------------------------

Personally I like 3.0 better than any previous editions -- but find after some work with it that I prefer Alternity better. And both are parsecs behind HERO. I mostly follow D&D because it's about the only chance I have to be a player.

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by TheEmerged
Actually, I found this view a link in the WoC forums. While I like Monte well enough and have bought several of his PDF's, our opinions do tend to go in different directions. As I've said before though, Monte has a way of expressing his points interestingly even when he's laughably wrong.

What are some of your key disagreements with Monte, JOOC?

[SuperPheemy]

I'd been arguing for months that 3.5 wasn't primarily about money. At least not any more about money than any product designed to turn a company a profit. Now, I learn that 3.5 is primarily about money. My naivite' and optimism have suffered a hard blow today.

For the record, I think Monte is right that the Dungeons and Dragons product should be owned and operated by a smaller company, and definitely not one connected to a huge corporation like Hasbro.

*Sigh* maybe I should just concentrate on becoming a writer for HERO...

[TheEmerged]

Originally posted by Killer Shrike
What are some of your key disagreements with Monte, JOOC?

JOOC? That's a new one for me...

Anyway, follow this link (http://www.montecook.com/arch_lineos46.html) and read it. I disagree with almost every opinion stated in this article. The "Hit Points" section is the source of my strongest disagreement; 4 years of EverQuest eliminated any faith I had in level-based killability.

Also, I disagree with him about the demon/devil/angel issue. Monte is from the school of thought that the game should have them, since removing them was only a gesture to appease a group that will never be appeased. I disagree primarily because I believe WotC never went far enough in the first place; they shouldn't have stopped with renaming them, they should have eliminated them outright!

Then, there's that whole "Book of Vile Darkness" fiasco. I will *never* understand how this is supposed to be a good idea.

I do agree with him on some rule stuff though (I like a LOT of what he says in the article linked in the original post -- while disagreeing about the need*). I'm especially intrigued by his argument that he doesn't like the direction Prestige Classes have gone -- couldn't find the link for this one, though.

*There are some clear, obvious imbalances in the class/race area that playtesting should have caught -- and I'm not talking about the half-orc +2/-4 thing, as I actually AGREE with that one.

[Killer Shrike]

JOOC = Just out of curiosity.

Ill glance over the linked doc. I havent checked out Monte's site since I stopped playing 3e over a year ago, so I imagine Ill have some catching up to do......

[Killer Shrike]

Read the linked page.

Well, actually, he's probably right. D&D is the RPG for the masses, and all of the points he makes are elements of the game that cater to those who dont want to make a major investment of time or resources.

D&D, the McDonalds of the RPG world. ;)


I personally look at the things he's saying and can agree that all of that is true if you are looking for a lowest common denominator type of game. Which can be fun.

The problem I have with D&D is that, like any other mass market product, it's dumbed down sufficiently that I find it restrictive, boring, and ultimately unfulfilling over the long term. But that doesnt mean I wont sample it every now and then.

Frex, I normally dont eat fast food if I can possibly avoid it. But there are occasions when its Carls Jr. or Taco Bell, or nothing. Availability, timing, and convenience are all factors that apply to playing in a D&D game or eating at Wendy's for me ;)

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Geoff Speare
3E was a real revision, especially since 2E was such a mess.

3.5E is definitely a greed edition, especially from what Monte says. However, as a DM running an active campaign, I'm pretty sure I'll be switching over at least in part. Hmph. Hopefully those will be the last d20 books for me. 3E isn't a revision. It's a different game system.

[allen]

I really despise this argument...


from Monte Cook's site

The game can handle all sorts of situations, encounters, plotlines, or what have you. Witness such varied settings for the game as Spelljammer, Dark Sun, and Planescape.


just because you can, doesn't mean you should. You could run with the rules for Yahtzee if you wanted to. doesn't mean it would be any good. doesn't mean that by the time you got done adding rule for every little thing, and more importanly made sure that rule was balanced, you might as well as played some other system.

i do agree that the concept of levels is D&D's main strength as an RPG. i have been in too many groups where there's one guy, who doesn't say anything, who doesn't do anything, whom you can't even figure out why he bothers to show up, because he sure doesn't act like he likes anyone... but he gets excited about getting to next level. *shrug* whether this dumbing down or not, i don't know... but once i figured out the appeal of levels (as stated in the article: "carrot on a stick") i was much more content with the popularity of D&D (of course, this was AD&D, but whatever...)

i also think classes make D&D an excellent "gateway RPG" for beginning players -- i.e., 'ok, kid, you're fighter. you fight. that's the point of your character.' or 'ok, kid, you're magic user. you use magic. that's the point of your character.' (on the other hand, i feel that prestige classes run roughshod over the simple elegance of the class system.)

[i]edit: added line at beginning.

[Killer Shrike]

The downside to lowest common denominator businesses in a capatilistic society of course is that they tend to fare better financially and eventually choke out better quality products. Wider market, wider appeal = wider demand. D&D is like kudzu in some respects.

On the otherhand, the d20 glut certainly revitalized a number of gaming stores around here. For a while all they were pushing was CCGs, Warhammer stuff, and maybe some WW.

[allen]

Originally posted by Killer Shrike
[B]D&D is like kudzu in some respects.


lol... there's a horror story by Karl Edward Wagner about kudzu... it lends quite the "horrifying" dimension to this statement...

[Doug McCrae]

Originally posted by allen
i do agree that the concept of levels is D&D's main strength as an RPG.[/i] For me, the classes are the main strength. What do you get from levels you don't get from XP advances?

[Agent X]

The scary thing is if 3.5 isn't well received and their is a domino effect in other areas of the gaming industry. I couldn't care less about the success of 3.5 but for the effect it may have on other games.

[allen]

Originally posted by Doug McCrae
For me, the classes are the main strength. What do you get from levels you don't get from XP advances?

ok, this is admittedly a pet theory, but anyway...

it's the difference between one big lump sum payment and payment in installments.

say, for instance, you're due 12,000 dollars... if you get $1,000 a month, it may not seem like that much. But if you get $12,000 all at one time it seems like a whole lot of money (at least to me). Of course, if you're anything like me, the prudent course is one grand in installments -- $12,000 all at once means I'll spend money unwisely...

anyway, XP = character points that can be spent after each session may lead to a more gratifying result; but the thrill of the big lump sum represented by going up a level (thus gaining a bunch of bonuses/abilities all at one time) has its attraction for many gamers, however crude.

[Al_Beddow]

Originally posted by tiger
My friends and I always refered to 3E as the Greed edition, so I guess 3.5E is the more greed addition.

Call it the "Greed Enhanced" edition...

"50 percent more greed for your buck!" :mad:

[Lord Mhoram]

Originally posted by Al_Beddow
Call it the "Greed Enhanced" edition...

"50 percent more greed for your buck!" :mad:

Shouldn't that be something like

Enhanced Greed - General
Prerequisites: Being owned by or being a very large game company.
Description: Companies that take this feat can produce uneeded product at a faster rate than other companies that do not have this feat.
Special: It is usually a good idea for companies that take this feat to also have high ranks in the Apppease The Masses skill, but it is not required.

[Polaris]

Wait a minute... WAIT A MINUTE!!!

Are you saying that WoTC only makes D&D to make MONEY?????

Polaris

[Le Schtroumpf]

Love of money is the root of all evil. I love dice.

[Worldmaker]

Well... I've been stewing over whether or not to switch my D&D game over to Fantasy Hero. Now I have the perfect enducement: not giving WoC any more of my money, ever, for as long as I live.

[Le Schtroumpf]

Little harsh there comrade. I fugure that if they put out something that interests me when I have sufficient disposable income I'll buy it. The fact that they haven't accomplished this in at least 6 years has little bearing on the matter.
Seriously, why should I care overmuch about the management of a product line I don't follow? FREd jr. might irk me, but that doesn't seem to be on the DOJ radar.

[misterdeath]

Originally posted by Polaris
Wait a minute... WAIT A MINUTE!!!

Are you saying that WoTC only makes D&D to make MONEY?????

Polaris

Yep. And, late unlamented TSR and the she-beast Lorraine Williams did the exact same thing.

Put out a cool setting. Support it for a year, get the people interested. Drop it like a bad habit. Lather. Rince. Repeat.

Let Ed Greenwood put down whatever blather and timeline crap for FR that he could come up with. Let him fill pages of fluff, and not have much if any crunchy bits.

The concern for milking their customer base of every last dime caused that customer base to drain away. That's why TSR went bankrupt, and WotC bought the property.

So, now we have WotC, looking like it's on the brink of repeating history, starting to try to milk the fanbase.

"Look Everyone, a bunch of Clarifications, revisions to classes that everybody knew were broken on the first day of printing of the previous edition, changing spells and feats based on one person's experience, just to change things, and look now with 10% new art. Now how much are you willing to pay?"

If you answered, "More than the Introductory Rate of the previous edition" you're right.

In order to keep the customer base, you have to keep them happy.

This doesn't make me happy. It makes me spend money, but it really makes the concept of switching everything over to another system much more feasible. After all, if I've got to vet 3.5 and 3.0 to make them work like I want, I might as well right my own, right?

D

[tesuji]

Originally posted by misterdeath

This doesn't make me happy. It makes me spend money, but it really makes the concept of switching everything over to another system much more feasible. After all, if I've got to vet 3.5 and 3.0 to make them work like I want, I might as well right my own, right?
D

Actually, i would hesitate before connecting those two.

I am not buying into 3.5, or buying it. IMo about 1/3 of the changes i know of are good, 1/3 are IMo bad and the latter third neither good nor bad but then unnecessary. Its not going to be low impact to convert and existing campaign from 30 to 35 and I am simply not going to.

So far in looking for alternative settings, thinking of different tacks i wish to take since my current game is winding down after three years, i have found one and one potential.

Midnight is a "rare magic" d20/dnd fantasy setting and system, featuring a different spell system that effectively drops "slots" for most PCs. The setting it is wrapped around is a very dark, not your happy dnd towns setting. They kept only the rogue, barbarian and fighter core classes and everything else is their own, though they do bring in a significantly altered wizard PRC and do have clerics for the bad guys. I was working on some "rare magic" rules but frankly they did a much better and smoother job than what i was working on. Midnight will likely be the setting for my next fantasy game.

The "potential" is Monte Cook's new Arcana Unearthed, which is also a new setting new PHB with all new classes and a different magic system which seems to breath a little more customization and potential into it. It sounds great so far but i will see it in print before going too much agog over it.

So, instead of 35ing it, Midnight and AU are getting my money and my interest. With the transition from 30 to 35 I will honestly be looking for much fewer core wotc stuff now, letting my dragon sub lapse and so forth. They lost a customer, but fortunately, with the OGL and the amazing amount of third party stuff... most of which is crap but some is quality, there is plenty out there in addition to just continuing with 30 with the various house rules they have.

[misterdeath]

Originally posted by tesuji
Actually, i would hesitate before connecting those two.

I am not buying into 3.5, or buying it. IMo about 1/3 of the changes i know of are good, 1/3 are IMo bad and the latter third neither good nor bad but then unnecessary. Its not going to be low impact to convert and existing campaign from 30 to 35 and I am simply not going to.

Yeah. I concur. But, I really like some of the changes, and so want to graft them on to the game we're running. So, that's going to be a ton of work.

If it didn't seem like Andy and Co changed things just for the sake of changing things, I might feel a little better about going through the effort.


Midnight is a "rare magic" d20/dnd fantasy setting and system, featuring a different spell system that effectively drops "slots" for most PCs. The setting it is wrapped around is a very dark, not your happy dnd towns setting. They kept only the rogue, barbarian and fighter core classes and everything else is their own, though they do bring in a significantly altered wizard PRC and do have clerics for the bad guys. I was working on some "rare magic" rules but frankly they did a much better and smoother job than what i was working on. Midnight will likely be the setting for my next fantasy game.

A little too dark for my tastes, but then I like high fantasy when I game.


The "potential" is Monte Cook's new Arcana Unearthed, which is also a new setting new PHB with all new classes and a different magic system which seems to breath a little more customization and potential into it. It sounds great so far but i will see it in print before going too much agog over it.

It's on my purchase list. We'll see if it's worth it. Very well could be.


So, instead of 35ing it, Midnight and AU are getting my money and my interest. With the transition from 30 to 35 I will honestly be looking for much fewer core wotc stuff now, letting my dragon sub lapse and so forth. They lost a customer, but fortunately, with the OGL and the amazing amount of third party stuff... most of which is crap but some is quality, there is plenty out there in addition to just continuing with 30 with the various house rules they have.

Plus, most of the stuff will be SRDable, so you could add, say, new Ranger without too much trouble.

And, yeah, I think they're losing customers over this.

They had to change stuff or they'd be accused of ripping us off, and then they changed so much that it's not just a revision, creating backwards compatability issues, and thereby invalidating all the stuff they already sold us, and so ripping us off.

Vicious cycle.

D

[Worldmaker]

Originally posted by Le Schtroumpf
Little harsh there comrade. I fugure that if they put out something that interests me when I have sufficient disposable income I'll buy it. The fact that they haven't accomplished this in at least 6 years has little bearing on the matter.
Seriously, why should I care overmuch about the management of a product line I don't follow? FREd jr. might irk me, but that doesn't seem to be on the DOJ radar.


I don't begrudge WotC making money, but don't see a need to support their attitude with my own dollars.

[tesuji]

[/B][/QUOTE]


Originally posted by misterdeath

If it didn't seem like Andy and Co changed things just for the sake of changing things, I might feel a little better about going through the effort.

I concur most strongly.

Originally posted by misterdeath

Plus, most of the stuff will be SRDable, so you could add, say, new Ranger without too much trouble.

Yup...

Originally posted by misterdeath

They had to change stuff or they'd be accused of ripping us off, and then they changed so much that it's not just a revision, creating backwards compatability issues, and thereby invalidating all the stuff they already sold us, and so ripping us off.


While i wont go so far as to say ripping us off, they definitely went well beyond revision and in many cases needlessly so IMO.

i mean removing the "a cone is as wide as it is long" and making all cones fit a few distinct templates presented in the DMG is not IMo a needed change. Shortening all the stat buff spells *specifically for the purpose of making magic items the only way to get long term stat increases* is not a needed change nor a good one IMO.

Those are just a few.

[projecktzero]

I'm irked about 3.5. It does seem like a $$$ grab. They could have made the 3.5 core books, but also have either a compendium book for sale for those who already have 3.0 core books or offer a download for those who have 3.0 books.

They pulled this on the Star Wars core rulebook too. They put out a revised core rulebook, but didn't offer anything to those who already had the core rulebook.

I was pleasantly surprised by Steve Jackson Games offering a errata book for one of the GURPS editions. Geez, even the 3rd edition revised GURPS BASIC book has all the extras at the end because they didn't want to mess up all the other books that refer to specific page numbers in the BASIC book.

[tesuji]

well, in all fairness, they are posting a revised srd, so those who want to can just use that.

[Al_Beddow]

Originally posted by projecktzero
I'm irked about 3.5. It does seem like a $$$ grab. They could have made the 3.5 core books, but also have either a compendium book for sale for those who already have 3.0 core books or offer a download for those who have 3.0 books.

They are putting out a free compatability guide, just like they put out a conversion guide to get you from 2nd ed to 3.0

[Vondy]

Originally posted by Al_Beddow
They are putting out a free compatability guide, just like they put out a conversion guide to get you from 2nd ed to 3.0

speaking of which: does anyone have the 2.0 to 3.0 upgrade?

[Le Schtroumpf]

Sorry man. Used it to wallpaper my mushroom.

[Vondy]

Originally posted by Le Schtroumpf
Sorry man. Used it to wallpaper my mushroom.

S'alright.

When I learned my first edition bard that was grandfathered into second edition wouldn't make it into third edition I pretty much gave up on Dungeons & Dragons and did a Sillouhette customization for fantasy (then they turned around and came up with Tribe 8, which I don't play, but handles the magic okay).

[Al_Beddow]

Originally posted by D-Man
speaking of which: does anyone have the 2.0 to 3.0 upgrade?


*laughs*

Yeah, I do! (I think)

[Vondy]

I just found a website with everything I need to reconstruct AD&D First Edition.

I might run it for nostaligia factor.

[Bazza]

Originally posted by D-Man
I just found a website with everything I need to reconstruct AD&D First Edition.

I might run it for nostaligia factor. Hey, whu are you not telling us where it is. Do provide a link.

[Vondy]

Originally posted by Bazza
Hey, whu are you not telling us where it is. Do provide a link.

He appaerently has some fundamentalist christian materials on his site as well, but those are parsed out separately so we non-fundamentalist types (Jews, Catholics, Hindus, Muslims, Non-Believers, Pagans, Zoastrians) can safely navigate the D&D section in peace and harmony.

http://www.mjyoung.net/

Just click on D&D in the horizontal navigation.

[TheEmerged]

RE: 3rd Edition Bards. Actually, D-Man, it's probably good that you skipped a generation. The 3D&D Bard was one of the "below the curve" classes -- not enough skill points, skill mechanics not well defined, power redundency (one of the dumbest things about 3rd Edition that should never have made it passed a real playtest), and that whole "a little of everything, but not enough to actually do anything" schtick.

[Dr.Unpossible]

Originally posted by tesuji
So far in looking for alternative settings, thinking of different tacks i wish to take since my current game is winding down after three years, i have found one and one potential.

Midnight is a "rare magic" d20/dnd fantasy setting and system, featuring a different spell system that effectively drops "slots" for most PCs. The setting it is wrapped around is a very dark, not your happy dnd towns setting.

Thanks for mentioning this setting. I am really impressed with the idea. Just popped over to the Fantasy Flight site, and I think i smell 3 new purchases comming up.

[tesuji]

you are very welcome.

every chapter brings me multiple new campaign ideas.