Monte Cook Back to Work

Swordslinger · Post by **Swordslinger** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 1:03 am

Kaelik wrote:I love how every single time Sword Slinger talks about 3e he further reinforces the fact that he doesn't actually know anything about 3e.

You're telling me 3E isn't ridiculously broken? Seriously dude?

DeadlyReed · Post by **DeadlyReed** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 1:05 am

Lago PARANOIA wrote:No one likes MnM 3E though.

Elaborate.

A Man In Black · Post by **A Man In Black** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 1:05 am

Swordslinger wrote:You're telling me 3E isn't ridiculously broken? Seriously dude?

No, Kaelik's saying that you don't have any useful insights on 3e. Because you don't.

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 1:20 am

A Man In Black wrote:
hogarth wrote:Does anyone have an example of a game where the second edition fixed most of the problems with the first edition (while keeping new problems to a minimum)? I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I'm just wondering if anyone has an actual game to point to.
Street Fighter II Turbo.

Street Fighter II Turbo was actually the *third* Street Fighter 2 game, following Championship Edition and before Super Street Fighter 2: New Challengers. While both Championship Edition and New Challengers saw heavy play around here, not so much with Turbo - so I can't weigh in on it and will resist the temptation to pull citations off the internet arguing how imbalanced it was.

Unless you mean Super Street Fighter II Turbo - which isn't exactly a balanced game seeing as Capcom itself issued a rebalance for the damn thing. Here's the index for what and why the lead dev changed in each and every character in it.

A Man In Black · Post by **A Man In Black** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 1:54 am

Josh_Kablack wrote:Street Fighter II Turbo was actually the *third* Street Fighter 2 game, following Championship Edition and before Super Street Fighter 2: New Challengers.

I don't mean SSF2T, no. Fair point about CE.

OgreBattle · Post by **OgreBattle** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 2:27 am

Josh_Kablack wrote: Unless you mean Super Street Fighter II Turbo - which isn't exactly a balanced game seeing as Capcom itself issued a rebalance for the damn thing. Here's the index for what and why the lead dev changed in each and every character in it.

The guy's just part of Capcom America and he fiddled with the game because he could, and perhaps as an excuse to say that new release is more than just slaughtering the visuals with crappy hi res tracing.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 2:51 am

Ogre, you clearly don't know shit about the game. Besides the fact that those balance changes aren't just fiddling because you can, and actually are intended and succeed at creating a more balanced game, he also forced them to include the old visuals with a switch over, so your visual complaint isn't really applicable either.

Bihlbo · Post by **Bihlbo** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 3:34 am

A Man In Black wrote:
Bihlbo wrote:squishy turds, fat chicks, power tools, etc.
I think you can take your overwrought analogies and shove them up your ass.

I don't know what you're complaining about. Your mom loves it when I overwrought her analogies.

Whipstitch · Post by **Whipstitch** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 4:54 am

I'm not a particularly big fan of Sirlin's rebalancing efforts but I wouldn't call them unfocused fiddling. I love the original SSF2T as much as the next guy but let's face it, a good third of the cast was basically stuck saying "Fucking fireballs, how do they work?" in some matchups.

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 6:16 am

sirlin is a [EDITED] and sperging about street fighter is the lamest thing in the world

[The Great Fence Builder Speaks]
Please do not attempt to dodge the filter.
[/TGFBS]

Juton · Post by **Juton** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 7:54 am

DeadlyReed wrote:
Lago PARANOIA wrote:No one likes MnM 3E though.
Elaborate.

The general feeling I've gotten from my gamer friends is that MnM 3E feels largely unnecessary. For every change that looks like it could actually improve play experience there are a few others tacked on that are either change for the sake of change or nerfing a balanced option.

icyshadowlord · Post by **icyshadowlord** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 7:55 am

Sounds like Pathfinder to me.

Juton · Post by **Juton** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 9:34 am

icyshadowlord wrote:Sounds like Pathfinder to me.

The difference is that MnM 2e doesn't have huge glaring problems the same way as D&D 3e does. So going from MnM 2e to 3e you take a system which basically works and you fiddle with it a little, you still have a system which basically works.

Pathfinder fails not because of the quantity of changes, or necessarily the quality of changes but what they choose to change. For instance shit like the monk, is still, well shit. They didn't put limits on some of the more abusable divination spells. Nobody really complained about the trip mechanic, most people seemed fine with the grapple mechanic, but they changed those, not necessary and a waste of effort considering the things they could have been fixing.

Swordslinger · Post by **Swordslinger** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 8:15 pm

A Man In Black wrote: No, Kaelik's saying that you don't have any useful insights on 3e. Because you don't.

Sure, you guys probably already know the flaws I'm talking about. But it's worth pointing them out anyway to cut through the sickening level of 3E fanboyism that a lot of the denners exhibit.

If 4E came out before 3E, you'd probably all be running a Tome 4E game and talking about how 3E was totally unbalanced and you don't want to redo your house rules. You guys just like 3E better because you already have the house rules written, not that the rules set is actually any better than any other game out there.

So you dudes can zip up your pants, because I'm sick of the 3E jizz. It ain't the be-all, end-all of systems. It's deeply flawed and barely works. Yeah I know the denners probably had their best times ruining a DM's plot with broken spells or making the other PCs feel weak cause they chose fighters. I don't think it's actually possible for Kaelik to have fun unless it's at someone else's expense, which is probably why he likes terrible exploitable systems so much.

hogarth · Post by **hogarth** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 8:23 pm

Swordslinger wrote: If 4E came out before 3E, you'd probably all be running a Tome 4E game and talking about how 3E was totally unbalanced and you don't want to redo your house rules.

Uh, no.

I gladly switched from 2E (plus houserules) to 3E. I thought it was a clear improvement. Likewise for 1E to 2E, although the improvement was less clear in that case.

Not so for 3E to 4E.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 8:34 pm

Swordslinger wrote:
A Man In Black wrote: No, Kaelik's saying that you don't have any useful insights on 3e. Because you don't.
Sure, you guys probably already know the flaws I'm talking about.

The point is that many of the flaws you talk about are known, but you talk about them from the standpoint of someone who has only heard about them third hand. When you talk about the levels that things happen at or the interactions of abilities, it is painfully obvious to everyone even passingly familiar with the material that you don't know what you are talking about.

We know that casters rule and meleers drool. But we also know why, and we've seen it happen. You obviously haven't, because when you try to talk about this you bring up combos that don't work and cite examples of problems that don't exist.

Take for example your list that you just brought up:

Swordslinger wrote:Most of the spell list is garbage with some spells that are just uber broken, Combat is too deadly, resurrection is too common, the spellcaster favoritism is just plain disgusting, fighters are boring to play, NPC creation is way too tedious, the bonus accumulation system created excessive divergence in all aspects of the game, Temporary ability score modification led to a crazy amount of recalculation whenever you involved it, magic items are boring and just based on stacking small bonuses.

Here. I just bolded one of the items in your list for you. Do you know why I bolded it? Because Resurrection in 3e has a huge real cost. You're actually usually "better off" just starting a new character. It's a 7th level fucking spell, and most games end by around 10th. In actual play, you almost never see a resurrection spell. It's basically post-game content, and fairly obscure post-game content at that. Hardly what any sane person would call "too common".

Now it's on your list because you heard people complaining about Resurrection. But you didn't hear people complaining about Resurrection because it is too common, you heard people complaining because it exists at all. A large number of people feel that the existence of Resurrection in the setting completely unhinges death from being a meaningful plot point, so they complain. And you heard them complain, so you put it into your little 3e is broken rant to regurgitate at people.

But you got it wrong. Resurrection is really rare. You could be talking about Prismatic Spray or Demand, because that's seriously the level of rarity we are talking. Resurrection is something that people complain about, but not because it is by any possible measure a common spell.

And that's the problem with your rant. Anyone who is actually familiar with the material can see at least four things on that list that are demonstrably false and equally demonstrably based on third hand complaints from discussions that people with a history of 3e discussion can remember. Just looking at it, everyone with even a passing familiarity with 3e can see that you don't have one. And that you are arguing from the standpoint of being an unknowledgable "hater". It makes it extremely easy to dismiss everything you say.

Certainly everything you say about 3e or about comparing 3e to anything. But by extension it encourages people to ignore everything you say about absolutely everything, because you've already pissed all over your credibility with the 3e thing.

-Username17

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 11:18 pm

the one good thing about 4e thus far is that the essentials monster manual is pretty solid. it has some dumb shit in it (venom-eye basilisks that poison with their gaze being one) but overall, it's well done

Seerow · Post by **Seerow** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 11:19 pm

Psychic Robot wrote:the one good thing about 4e thus far is that the essentials monster manual is pretty solid. it has some dumb shit in it (venom-eye basilisks that poison with their gaze being one) but overall, it's well done

Yeah, it's not like a venom eyed basilisk is any worse than an acid breathing shark.

Count Arioch the 28th · Sat Sep 24, 2011 3:17 am

Acid breathing sharks are freaking awesome. I consider that Rich Burlew's crowning glory!

A Man In Black · Post by **A Man In Black** » Sat Sep 24, 2011 3:24 am

Swordslinger wrote:Sure, you guys probably already know the flaws I'm talking about. But it's worth pointing them out anyway to cut through the sickening level of 3E fanboyism that a lot of the denners exhibit.

If we were fanboys, you'd be wasting your breath. For those who are not, you're still an idiot gasbag repeating things you read on this forum to the people who said them in the first place, in order to start an edition war.

If you've got some ideas on how some aspect(s) of 4e could be used as the basis for a new edition of D&D that sucks less than those previous, then by all means, share. If you're just going to repeat tired-ass talking points you don't understand to correct perceived fanboyism, please just go away.

Seerow · Post by **Seerow** » Sat Sep 24, 2011 3:26 am

Count Arioch the 28th wrote:Acid breathing sharks are freaking awesome. I consider that Rich Burlew's crowning glory!

They're frikkin awesome, but they make about as much sense as the venom eyed basilisk.

Swordslinger · Post by **Swordslinger** » Sat Sep 24, 2011 4:55 pm

FrankTrollman wrote: Here. I just bolded one of the items in your list for you. Do you know why I bolded it? Because Resurrection in 3e has a huge real cost. You're actually usually "better off" just starting a new character. It's a 7th level fucking spell, and most games end by around 10th. In actual play, you almost never see a resurrection spell. It's basically post-game content, and fairly obscure post-game content at that. Hardly what any sane person would call "too common".

I'm talking about mid to high level play obviously, because that's where the problems of 3E actually are. 3E is fine at low levels, as many games are, so I don't focus on that area. Where it's pretty much expected that people die a lot and you resurrect them often (generally true resurrection, since nobody wants to actually lose the level).

As for the gp cost of resurrecting, well, there are ways around that, as you guys all well know, so I didn't feel like I needed to go over them. Weren't you the one who invented the wish economy? But naturally that's the typical denner argument. If I leave stuff out that you already know, you'll claim ignorance and use it against me. If I mention it, you'll chastise me for saying things you already know. So whatever dude, you know that's true and it's just the stupid method of arguing people have here where they get bogged down in minutiae instead of dealing with the big picture.

Certainly everything you say about 3e or about comparing 3e to anything. But by extension it encourages people to ignore everything you say about absolutely everything, because you've already pissed all over your credibility with the 3e thing.

I'd say the same about you and 4E. But people here turn a blind eye to ignorance over 4E because it's not their fanboy edition that they jizz all over.

Also, I'm not not trying to start an edition war. I'm not saying 4E is some fantastic game without flaws, because it's not. I'm saying that all the editions have their share of serious flaws. And more relevant to this thread, I'm saying Monte Cook is a talentless hack, because he is. If people here would take off their 3E beer goggles, they might realize that.

What good ideas has that guy even had? Has he innovated anything at all?

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Sat Sep 24, 2011 5:07 pm

RadiantPhoenix wrote:If there is an Essentials campaign setting, it will be based on the Jungle Book and called, "Bear Necessities"

Monte's involvement with 3.0 means he doesnt have the foggiest idea what "bare necessities" are.

DragonChild · Post by **DragonChild** » Sat Sep 24, 2011 5:18 pm

As for the gp cost of resurrecting, well, there are ways around that, as you guys all well know, so I didn't feel like I needed to go over them. Weren't you the one who invented the wish economy? But naturally that's the typical denner argument. If I leave stuff out that you already know, you'll claim ignorance and use it against me. If I mention it, you'll chastise me for saying things you already know. So whatever dude, you know that's true and it's just the stupid method of arguing people have here where they get bogged down in minutiae instead of dealing with the big picture.

You do realize that for the first resurrection spell available, indeed basically the only one available at levels PCs play at, you lose an entire level and it's not just a GP cost, right?

What good ideas has that guy even had? Has he innovated anything at all?

He was hugely involved in 3.0. From 2e to 3e was a MASSIVE improvement, even with 3e's flaws. Can't you even admit that?

Arcana Unearthed handled casters in a flat out better way than basically every other RPG system, trying to make them interesting, flavorful classes rather than just "I am a wizard who does all magic".

And ridiculously long motorcycles are awesome.

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Sat Sep 24, 2011 5:41 pm

Why are you guys still talking to folks I ignored back in Feb?

The Gaming Den

Monte Cook Back to Work

Re: Monte Cook Back to Work

Re: Monte Cook Back to Work

Re: Monte Cook Back to Work