Straight forward question. There seems to be a focused animosity towards Monte Cook (and his game company) online, particularly on TBP but I've run across it in a couple of places. What's the cause of the acrimony?
Quote from: Nexus;862736Straight forward question. There seems to be a focused animosity towards Monte Cook (and his game company) online, particularly on TBP but I've run across it in a couple of places. What's the cause of the acrimony?
He's making a living doing what they all
want to be making a living doing, but aren't.
From what I've seen it's been either:
1) 3e hatahs lashing out at the "author of their pain"
2) Acrimony way past its expiration date over his trying some in hindsight ill-advised game design bits that didn't work out great. (e.g., "power in exchange for entry requirements" design rubric of prestige classes.)
Don't forget his high crime of "appropriating" native American culture in one of his games. That went down like a house on fire on TBP. Of course, when he fixed it by hiring a native American to work on the said material they ignored that news because it didn't give them that sweet outrage high.
Personally I though his grasp of balance was shaky, but I got some good use out of several of his products (especially the Eldricht Might and Chaositech stuff)
Quote from: Nexus;862736Straight forward question. There seems to be a focused animosity towards Monte Cook (and his game company) online, particularly on TBP but I've run across it in a couple of places. What's the cause of the acrimony?
Are you seriously asking why people express their displeasure of shit on the internet?
Answer: Because they can!
Next question.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;862750Are you seriously asking why people express their displeasure of shit on the internet?
.
No, I'm asking what they're expressing displeasure about and what started the apparent vendetta a sizable number of people seem to have against Monte Cook. Even Internet Hate trains have some cause or flash point.
Quote from: Nexus;862753No, I'm asking what they're expressing displeasure about and what started the apparent vendetta a sizable number of people seem to have against Monte Cook. Even Internet Hate trains have some cause or flash point.
I saw a discussion about this somewhere and from what I recall he is seen, by some, as purposefully stirring up the flamewar between 3.0 and 3.5 fans... and by extension of that, a progenitor of the split of D&D fans into the Pathfinder and 4e crowds.
Also, something to do with his involvement with Pathfinder Online.
He came off as arrogant to a lot of people.
I've really got no idea or opinion about any of that being accurate... just what I've read some people saying.
They are haters and TBP is especially hateful. Seriously Monte done nothing wrong.
Its largely identity politics, like everything on the fucking net these days. His other half has the nerve to be a sex-positive feminist 'erotic' writer and therefore a witch-skank to the usual suspects.
Quote from: Simlasa;862756I saw a discussion about this somewhere and from what I recall he is seen, by some, as purposefully stirring up the flamewar between 3.0 and 3.5 fans...
I know there was some anger about 3.5 following quickly on the heels of 3.0 but there are actual factions? What's the breakdown and how does Cook figure into it?
Quote from: Arminius;862761I know there was some anger about 3.5 following quickly on the heels of 3.0 but there are actual factions? What's the breakdown and how does Cook figure into it?
From what I read... Mr. Cook did not care for the changes 3.5 introduced and went on a crusade against it... continued to put out 3.0 content... and there was anger against him on the WOTC forums. It sounds like the developers themselves stirred up the rabble over some behind-the-scenes bandersnatchery.
I've liked what little I've read of the guy's output. Most of it much older than whatever this friction is about. Did people gripe at him over his WOD stuff?
I don't like his attitude. He comes off as a holier-than-thou elitist gamer, and those drive me nuts.
He's put out OK stuff, but he's nowhere the legend he is in his own mind.
I'm not hostile to him, myself. Met him at a con once and he seemed to be an OK guy. I just don't like the stuff he produces. So, I don't buy it. I'd like to think that's a better response than being a dick online.
Quote from: Simlasa;862766From what I read... Mr. Cook did not care for the changes 3.5 introduced and went on a crusade against it... continued to put out 3.0 content... and there was anger against him on the WOTC forums. It sounds like the developers themselves stirred up the rabble over some behind-the-scenes bandersnatchery.
Here's his perspective on 3.5:
Looking at D&D v. 3.5 (http://web.archive.org/web/20051218191901/http://www.malhavocpress.com/arch_review26.html)
Quote from: aspiringlich;862771Here's his perspective on 3.5:
Looking at D&D v. 3.5 (http://web.archive.org/web/20051218191901/http://www.malhavocpress.com/arch_review26.html)
I can't disagree with him, tbh. He nailed all the relevant points for why I liked 3.5, and utterly despised it at the same time.
Quote from: aspiringlich;862771Here's his perspective on 3.5:
Looking at D&D v. 3.5 (http://web.archive.org/web/20051218191901/http://www.malhavocpress.com/arch_review26.html)
He sounds fairly reasonable there, to me... but I'm not a rabid D&D fanboy.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;862767I don't like his attitude. He comes off as a holier-than-thou elitist gamer, and those drive me nuts.
He's put out OK stuff, but he's nowhere the legend he is in his own mind.
From my perspective, we on the internet, most of whom barely know anything about an individual, should probably steer clear of proscribing onto that person what they think of themselves.
But it really doesn't matter. The hate isn't about him personally, his positions on anything, or even the quality of his individual work. He is hated because he was manning the design helm at the time when the current D&D-edition-to-hate was being produced. Even though there's no consensus on which editions of A/D&D are any good, if you go on the internet, you are sure to hear plenty of people who seem to have a strangely strong need to tell you just how horrible 3rd edition was. To these people Cooke may as well drop off the face of the earth.
Zeb Cook has this issue in many circles to, as he helmed the "disastrous, awful, unbalanced, etc." second edition. But of course, what it's really about is that Lorraine Williams canned EGG, and Cook stayed with the company (why Mentzer isn't painted with this brush, I'll never know), and that wound will never heal.
So who is Cooke? Is he worthy of lauding or hating? It doesn't matter, because the hate isn't about that.
Correction, I don't hate the man. Nor do I hate the product. I hate his attitude. And I find certain things he does annoying, like having to brand everything he released (until recently, Numenera and The Strange being the ones I remember) with "Monte Cook Presents", as if they actual creators of their stuff wouldn't sell otherwise.
His discomfort to work with Mike Mearls, because he at one time had been Mr. Meals 'boss'. His reasoning for not liking 3.5 (and his complete lack of understanding of how CCGs work.)
These things bother me. As a person, I think he's a cool guy and he's done some decent things for D&D. And the reason I dislike 3.x is due to being burnt out on it, not because of anything any one developer did to the system.
1) Published, successful game professional.
2) Gets to have sex with an actual real pretty human girl.
The two greatest sins in the Drama Club's infernal hierarchy of Problematic.
Quote from: One Horse Town;862759Its largely identity politics, like everything on the fucking net these days. His other half has the nerve to be a sex-positive feminist 'erotic' writer and therefore a witch-skank to the usual suspects.
"Liberals" today slut-shame as much as conservatives ever did, if not more. It's sick and neurotic and weird and makes me almost embarrassed to be in the same camp as them on many social issues.
I think it has more to do with his opinion of 4.0, which TBP loves, and any negative statement about it, even mild, makes you a heretic.
Getting off the couch to do anything is guaranteed to piss off half the Internet these days. Doctor? Shill for Big Pharma. Lawyer? Soulless parasite. Engineer? Will never kiss a girl. Artist? A burden on the rest of society. RPG writer? Worse than Hitler.
Monte's one of the good guys, I reckon. Back in my d20 days, I was a big fan of his old Arcana Unearthed/Evolved (still love the setting). Missed out on Ptolus. Numenera and The Strange both have great "high concepts" but workmanlike execution, requiring a bit of work to truly shine — a bit like Palladium material, in a way.
I chatted with him at a couple of Paizocons a few years back. He and his then-wife seemed like nice, normal people.
Quote from: Lynn;862792I chatted with him at a couple of Paizocons a few years back. He and his then-wife seemed like nice, normal people.
Well, that's a reason to hate them right there. :D
Quote from: One Horse Town;862759His other half has the nerve to be a sex-positive feminist 'erotic' writer and therefore a witch-skank...
In this issue: "I Married a Warhammer Hero!"
(http://i.imgur.com/jRVXN6N.jpg)
Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;862788"Liberals" today slut-shame as much as conservatives ever did, if not more. It's sick and neurotic and weird and makes me almost embarrassed to be in the same camp as them on many social issues.
Well then that's who the 'usual suspects' are. There's plenty enough unhealthy attitudes towards both women and other people's attitudes towards women to go around.
Because he's living the fucking dream, that's why.
Quote from: Lynn;862792I chatted with him at a couple of Paizocons a few years back. He and his then-wife seemed like nice, normal people.
Marriage seems to have mellowed him in person. Not quite as much online. Before that he could and would come across as a little condescending or elitist. Would not surprise me if that old habit creeps through even now on occasion.
Once he gets rolling though hes overall fine. And some of his setting stuff is pretty neet.
As for why he gets flack. Edition fanatics seem to have it in for him. That and he has before caved under SJW pressure which may make him a recurring target. Sooner or later they will go after him again no matter what he does. The whole Strange blowup was pure fabrication on the outrage brigades part.
I met Monty a few times at GenCon. He's a nice guy. A bit reserved, introverted like many of us. Regular gamer.
Never did get a holier than thou gamer attitude vibe from him, and I can tell he really likes playing RPG games. All kinds...
He played D&D alot, and liked it, and rewrote a good chunk of it for 3e.
Then he formed his own game company and made is own RPG with sophisticated mechanics and a very detailed background, Numenera, and he's making a decent living with that now. It's a solid game system. Kudos to him for his hard work.
I've seen him at the end of conventions as well. Monday morning. Takes a lot out of him. He looks wiped out. sometimes tired too. He takes a bit of time off, ...and then comes back renewed with tons of new ideas. And always an interesting new game or supplement, or a new twist on an old one.
I think I'd like playing in one of his games, and I don't mind GMing games he has designed like Numenera, and 3e D&D. They seem like natural extensions, and a solid rpg in each case. My players have fun trying out new ideas in gaming worlds he has designed, using mechanics he designed as well. We have fun, and that's what counts.
Not sure what everyone else on the Internet has their knickers all twisted up about, but twisted they are, and whatever they are doing their balls are being squeezed so hard they are turning blue, and they are crying all over these other forums...
Monte is welcome here, and at my gaming table anytime. He also helped save D&D you know, I won't ever forget that.
Quote from: GameDaddy;862812I can tell he really likes playing RPG games. All kinds...
That was the impression I got too.
Quote from: GameDaddy;862812It's a solid game system. Kudos to him for his hard work.
Yeah, the guy was making stuff I liked years ago and, though I suspect Numenera is not my sort of thing, he's still making stuff that looks new and interesting.
Quote from: aspiringlich;862737He's making a living doing what they all want to be making a living doing, but aren't.
Not quite. It's that he's making a living doing what they all think they
could be doing If Only They Had The Insider Connections or the breaks went a different way. Something of the same syndrome that has half of America convinced to the marrow of their bones that they could coach the local professional sports teams better than the incumbents.
But only in part. As much as any other factor, it's sheer longevity. Cook's not only been an active RPG writer for nearly three decades, he's been pretty high profile for most of it. Of course he'll have attracted a relatively high percentage of ranters, and he would have had no matter what he said, how he said it, what he wrote, or who he banged. We do seem to love "hating" people, on whatever pretexts we devise, at the drop of a d12.
I don't get the hate toward Monte or his company. He is basically a nice guy who has been around longer than most in the industry and made some great stuff in that time. Not everyone is going to like the same thing so I can understand someone not being interested in his work but I don't get how one goes from that to frothing dislike.
Is the hatred against him on rpg.net based on design issues or is it related to the whole Strange thing that happened last year.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;862847...or is it related to the whole Strange thing that happened last year.
What
Strange thing?
I know about the RPG of course. Are we talking about that?, ...or is it some other strange thing that happened?
Quote from: GameDaddy;862848What Strange thing?
I know about the RPG of course. Are we talking about that?, ...or is it some other strange thing that happened?
They had a recursion in the Strange setting that was based on Native American stuff and some folks felt it was mishandled. There was a petition to get it removed and ultimate Shanna Germain did reach out to people for discussion and they ended up revising the content. But some of the pushback against it was particularly sharp.
There was also that thing about the succubus-monster in Numenara or whatever-the-fuck-it's-called which was apparently misogynist, or something. There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth on TBP about it a few years ago.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;862847I don't get the hate toward Monte or his company. He is basically a nice guy who has been around longer than most in the industry and made some great stuff in that time. Not everyone is going to like the same thing so I can understand someone not being interested in his work but I don't get how one goes from that to frothing dislike.
Is the hatred against him on rpg.net based on design issues or is it related to the whole Strange thing that happened last year.
Dan nailed it. Part of the hatred against Monte is similar to part of the hatred against Zak. They're both tapping hot, blonde, unapologetic, sex-positive feminists, and everyone in the relationship is happy.
That's not supposed to happen in awfulpurpleland.
Quote from: GameDaddy;862812I met Monty a few times at GenCon. He's a nice guy. A bit reserved, introverted like many of us. Regular gamer.
Never did get a holier than thou gamer attitude vibe from him, and I can tell he really likes playing RPG games. All kinds...
He played D&D alot, and liked it, and rewrote a good chunk of it for 3e.
Then he formed his own game company and made is own RPG with sophisticated mechanics and a very detailed background, Numenera, and he's making a decent living with that now. It's a solid game system. Kudos to him for his hard work.
I've seen him at the end of conventions as well. Monday morning. Takes a lot out of him. He looks wiped out. sometimes tired too. He takes a bit of time off, ...and then comes back renewed with tons of new ideas. And always an interesting new game or supplement, or a new twist on an old one.
I think I'd like playing in one of his games, and I don't mind GMing games he has designed like Numenera, and 3e D&D. They seem like natural extensions, and a solid rpg in each case. My players have fun trying out new ideas in gaming worlds he has designed, using mechanics he designed as well. We have fun, and that's what counts.
Not sure what everyone else on the Internet has their knickers all twisted up about, but twisted they are, and whatever they are doing their balls are being squeezed so hard they are turning blue, and they are crying all over these other forums...
Monte is welcome here, and at my gaming table anytime. He also helped save D&D you know, I won't ever forget that.
I volunteered at one of them conventions back in the early 00s.
So here I am standing on one side of this curtained off area, an area used by the speakers as the green room. I hear one person doing a lot of ranting about gaming and gamers and the biz and someone agreeing with him. Couple minutes later same guy is introduced and is all happy happy joy joy about gaming, gamers and the biz.
Monte Cook
I overheard him admitting he was a Satanist once. He also kicked a puppy.
Cook comes across as a bit self-important. Unfortunately, that seems to be a common trait among RPG authors.
Quote from: yojimbouk;862871Unfortunately, that seems to be a common trait among RPG fans.
Corrected for emphasis.
I don't HATE Monte Cook. I'm sure he's a nice guy, living the dream and making a decent living at it.
I do think he's overrated as a game designer, being the principle behind "rules mastery" and "false choices." But that's completely a matter of taste and opinion. And its worth what you just paid for it.
Tom
Quote from: Blusponge;862879I don't HATE Monte Cook. I'm sure he's a nice guy, living the dream and making a decent living at it.
I do think he's overrated as a game designer, being the principle behind "rules mastery" and "false choices." But that's completely a matter of taste and opinion. And its worth what you just paid for it.
Tom
That's pretty much the extent of the 'hate' around my local area. He's not Gary Gygax, and he comes off in in his writing as if he is.
I don't think anyone here (in my town and who dislikes him) hates him on a personal level, rather on what he's written about his choices.
Now, here's something I'd like to point out, it IS a bit hypocritical (for me) because they also are the same people who LOVE, LOVE, LOVE D&D 3.x and it's derivatives, namely Pathfinder, which is built along his conceits and concepts. It's been very, very hard for me to bite my tongue to point it out. But I don't simply because they'll either look at me as if I'm stupid and I 'miss the point' or will immediately get defensive.
Once I realized that Mr. Cook was all about 'System Mastery' as opposed to Tactical or just Roleplaying, and his love of Gygaxian Magic, I started seeing why I was getting burnt out on 3.x.
But personally? I hope Mr. Cook has a very long life, makes as many games as he could ever want, enjoys his time with his (apparently, I've never heard of her or seen her until this thread) lovely wife, and gets to avoid the idiocy of getting his products doxed by some screaming idiots on the internet.
He has my sincere sympathies for what happened with the Natives supplement.
Anybody who's really popular is going to be a target of criticism, simply based on preferences. If you don't like something that's popular and are critical of it, that will manifest itself.
One thing though since it's getting confused--Monte was married to Sue Cook (Sue Weinlein) , then they got divorced a few years back. I don't think they're married, but I believe Shanna Germain is his current girlfriend.
I do get a little confused by some nits being picked though--what's wrong with Monte Cook Games or Monte Cook Presents? It certainly doesn't seem like he's trying to hide any of the co-authors, and to be quite frank, Monte Cook was the reason Numenera was so popular in its Kickstarter. There are definitely people following him based on the name alone, so it makes perfect marketing sense. And I never got a sense that he was angry or jealous or dismissive of Mike Mearls?
And he genuinely seems like a nicer guy in print/on-line. Compared to the strong opinions of people in print/on the Internet like Gary Gygax, Sean K Reynolds, John Wick, etc., I'm surprised people are targeting HIM as "self-important" and egotistical. If Monte's considered conceited, how low is the bar for this?
Also I'm really impressed by his professionalism--you've got Kickstarters like Exalted and Far West and others lagging behind, and his stuff is pretty much on time and of high quality and usually aesthetically pleasing. His decades in the business really have contributed to a very good work ethic.
my only real issue with him is that he said that after his take on the World of Darkness (which I liked quite a bit) he said he was retiring from writing RPGs, and was going to focus on fiction.
Frankly I have a much bigger issue with John Wick. (the rpg writer, not the hitman)
Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;8627871) Published, successful game professional.
2) Gets to have sex with an actual real pretty human girl.
The two greatest sins in the Drama Club's infernal hierarchy of Problematic.
This here.
Quote from: remial;862893my only real issue with him is that he said that after his take on the World of Darkness (which I liked quite a bit) he said he was retiring from writing RPGs, and was going to focus on fiction.
Frankly I have a much bigger issue with John Wick. (the rpg writer, not the hitman)
Do you regularly have issues with people who change their minds?
(Sorry, I'm not trying to pick a fight, I just feel like you should put some details in on why a person deciding to make a career change who then decides to make a different choice is problematic. I've done this at least three times in my own career in the last 15 years, for example; it's just how business rolls.)
Quote from: ZWEIHÄNDER;862872Corrected for emphasis.
Thank you.
Quote from: JRT;862892One thing though since it's getting confused--Monte was married to Sue Cook (Sue Weinlein) , then they got divorced a few years back. I don't think they're married, but I believe Shanna Germain is his current girlfriend.
Also I'm really impressed by his professionalism--you've got Kickstarters like Exalted and Far West and others lagging behind, and his stuff is pretty much on time and of high quality and usually aesthetically pleasing. His decades in the business really have contributed to a very good work ethic.
Hrmmm? Sue was always with him when he was at TSR, and in the early days at WOTC. After he left WOTC though, I didn't see her around much. If I had to wager a guess, I would say that she didn't really want Monte making RPG games.
My wife is like that.She's a non-gamer, and has no concept that one could actually make a decent living making games.When I was all busy doing that from 2001-2003 my wife was always putting that down, and discouraging me.
Same with him I would guess. Difference being, is I quit making supplemental game materials and focused on much higher paying cash-in-hand technology, coding, and IT focused services. I made more immediately than he did, but less over the long haul.
He stuck with his vision. Very commendable. I don't think Sue did. He was alone for a bit, and then someone came along that liked him for what he was doing, and supported him 100%. That's pretty big.
Shanna likes playing and making RPGs too, and she writes fiction as well, and is comfortable with a gamers lifestyle, which when conducted full time, is a bit eccentric.
Quote from: GameDaddy;862948Hrmmm? Sue was always with him when he was at TSR, and in the early days at WOTC. After he left WOTC though, I didn't see her around much. If I had to wager a guess, I would say that she didn't really want Monte making RPG games.
I don't think this is the case, since she started at TSR a few years before she married Monte--and according to Wikipedia, she was full-time there two years before he was.
Now, she's been at Northwestern Mutual in Milwaukee since 2011, which was about the time Monte returned to WotC, so differing career paths might have had something to do with it. She's not overtly ashamed of her gaming background, though, and just last month presented at something called the "3rd Annual Enterprise Gamification Forum."
(Disclaimer: As a die-hard fan of the ill-fated Dragonlance: Fifth Age line, I always had a soft spot for Sue Weinlein's work.)
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;862953(Disclaimer: As a die-hard fan of the ill-fated Dragonlance: Fifth Age line...
Neutral question from someone with no familiarity with Fifth Age other than having seen a lot of bile directed at it: What's the appeal?
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;862955Neutral question from someone with no familiarity with Fifth Age other than having seen a lot of bile directed at it: What's the appeal?
Fresh new system that was a lot lighter and more coherent than AD&D at that point, with some nifty options, and a setting that included a bunch of Dragonlance tropes refreshed and made more appealing to me--nastier and less subservient dragons, options for more playable kender and gnomes, more sensible Knights, less heavy-handed philosophy, and 'cleaner'-feeling, less structured and oppressive-feeling magic.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;862955Neutral question from someone with no familiarity with Fifth Age other than having seen a lot of bile directed at it: What's the appeal?
It did things so differently. Was touted as more "story driven" in an allready story driven RPG and it was diceless. It appealed to some board/card gamers and it appealed to some eurogames and anti-dice factions.
It flows along fairly well though if you have a good DM and players into that style. I had it and the Marvel Saga too.
Unfortunately the Marvel one was stolen along with a large chunk of my gaming stuff. And apparently so was the DL box as have not found it since.
Quote from: yojimbouk;862871Cook comes across as a bit self-important.
I note a few people have asserted variations on this theme. Anyone want to elaborate on exactly what that's supposed to mean? That Cook isn't bleating that he's a worthless scumbag, really? That he doesn't claim to owe everything to the saving love of Our Lord Jesus Christ? That he dares to make public pronouncements on the topics which interest him?
Well, hell, so are all of us, by way of making posts here.
Publishing for a living is not what you'd call a 'umble, obsequious profession. It requires drive, ambition, and a certain level of mental toughness. In this GSF-driven subculture, where a lot of people yearn to hammer down those arrogant rat bastards who dare to be taller pegs, that ain't easy.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;862885He's not Gary Gygax, and he comes off in in his writing as if he is.
Could you proffer some quotes?
Quote from: Ravenswing;862979Could you proffer some quotes?
I've been looking. There's been hints of stuff, like the fact that he left WoTC during Mike Mearls' tenure, which was rather abrupt and brought into question. There was his 'Monte Cook Presents' stuff, which a lot of people seemed to think that unless his name was on it, he didn't think it would sell, or something, and it does come across to me as somewhat self-important.
I could be wrong. It's just little things and I don't go in assuming just because someone else said so. Man, if I did that, my life would be so much simpler, I tell ya.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;862988I've been looking. There's been hints of stuff, like the fact that he left WoTC during Mike Mearls' tenure, which was rather abrupt and brought into question. There was his 'Monte Cook Presents' stuff, which a lot of people seemed to think that unless his name was on it, he didn't think it would sell, or something, and it does come across to me as somewhat self-important.
I could be wrong. It's just little things and I don't go in assuming just because someone else said so. Man, if I did that, my life would be so much simpler, I tell ya.
None of that scream 'self important' to me.
The guy shouldn't have to appologize for using his own name to help sell books. It isn't like RPG designers make millions, they have to work hard to make it a full time thing like he's done.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;862990None of that scream 'self important' to me.
The guy shouldn't have to appologize for using his own name to help sell books. It isn't like RPG designers make millions, they have to work hard to make it a full time thing like he's done.
The thing is, of recent memory, only two developers do that. Palladium Books (which they've been doing since day one) and Mr. Cook. In fact, very few other publishers feel the need to directly brand their names on the cover. Most just let the game 'do the talking' as it were.
It FEELS a little pompous, is it? I dunno. My personal dislike is what he turned D&D into in 3.0, with the focus on Magic and his trying to somehow put CCG mechanics into the game, and thinking somehow he succeeded.
For his love of Gygaxian magic, I point to the example play in his D&D Ptolus setting book, about how some NPC shapeshifted in to a Minotaur, and how part of his PCs flipped their nut over it and another part simply shrugged and moved on, and he praised the guys who accepted it and moved as somehow 'getting it'. That magic was so common place that it was mundane, and that everyone should have it.
Given the commercial success of the Numenera and the Strage KS, using his name as he had was rather a sound move from Monte Cook.
I suspect most of the "hate" of Monte Cook comes from jealousy of his accomplishments and the fact he was involved in a D&D edition and has opinions that he shares on the internet.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;862992The thing is, of recent memory, only two developers do that. Palladium Books (which they've been doing since day one) and Mr. Cook. In fact, very few other publishers feel the need to directly brand their names on the cover. Most just let the game 'do the talking' as it were.
It FEELS a little pompous, is it? I dunno. My personal dislike is what he turned D&D into in 3.0, with the focus on Magic and his trying to somehow put CCG mechanics into the game, and thinking somehow he succeeded.
For his love of Gygaxian magic, I point to the example play in his D&D Ptolus setting book, about how some NPC shapeshifted in to a Minotaur, and how part of his PCs flipped their nut over it and another part simply shrugged and moved on, and he praised the guys who accepted it and moved as somehow 'getting it'. That magic was so common place that it was mundane, and that everyone should have it.
Not every game designer has the name recognition of Cook so not everyone is going to be able to do that. But if your name is Monte Cook or Robin Laws, it can't hurt to put your name on the cover of your book. I don't know why anyone would find that pompous.
As for 3E, a lot of people complain now, but it was hugely popular when it came out and arguably that edition saved the entire line. Obviously it started to cater to a particular style of play and not everything that happened during 3E was great, but it isn't like it was 4E. I can certainly understand if 3E wasn't your cup of tea, but turning that into hatred of one of the men behind the edition seems weird to me.
Prior to his decision to go narrative I was a really big fan. I just don't have any interest in narrative games. I was completely unaware that he was a 'contentious' figure in any way.
Quote from: Tetsubo;863022Prior to his decision to go narrative I was a really big fan. I just don't have any interest in narrative games. I was completely unaware that he was a 'contentious' figure in any way.
That is totally fair. Being less interested in someone's work or less of a fan because they go in a direction you don't like is understandable. It is the animosity some people harbor that I just don't get.
Quote from: One Horse Town;862869I overheard him admitting he was a Satanist once. He also kicked a puppy.
It may not be a big deal to you, I have little regard for anyone like that.
While I know nothing about him personally, I was not a fan of Arcana Unearthed and the Book of Vile Darkness, a lot of the material felt power gamery, if you can call that a term. By the time PHBII was released I got the feeling that power creep was more marketing strategy and not poor design.
In short any dislike I may have is really relegated to books published.
Quote from: Sommerjon;862866...Couple minutes later same guy is introduced and is all happy happy joy joy about gaming, gamers and the biz.
Monte Cook
Just because you love something doesn't mean you don't have your pet peeves or issues. This happens frequently in all "walks of life". When you engage your hobby as a profession, some of the ugly spots get uglier. Professionals always vent about troubles to each other.
As a person in the green room, you're supposed to just keep your mouth shut about it. What happens in the green room stays in the green room. If you were a professional, this would have been self-explanatory.
Also, in real life many professionals are required to put on "game faces". It's part of the landscape of social intelligence. Be pleasant in public and people will want to be around you. It's professionalism 101.
You want to attribute a "secret true belief that lies beneath the veneer of lies" from a green room rant? I have ascertained Monty's desires based on his actions. He has been writing and designing RPGs for the bulk of his adult professional life. He attended conventions frequently, interacted with his fans online, blogged, pod-casted and participated in multitudes of interviews. He has been involved up to his eyeballs. That speaks volumes to me about what he loves. You would have to be an obstinate fool to not see his love of this hobby and industry.
You on the other hand had a taste of "the inside" for 5 minutes and could barely contain your puerile excitement to "tell us all the secrets." Worse, you want to use that as anecdotal evidence of Monty's "arrogance".
I dub this Green Room-gate. I FLAME THEE!
Quote from: One Horse Town;862869I overheard him admitting he was a Satanist once. He also kicked a puppy.
See? OHT get's it. :-D
I met Monty Cook on several occasions at conventions like GAMA. He was nice, professional and enthusiastic. I've also had the pleasure of corresponding with him via email. Again, very nice guy.
Of course,my thoughts are also all anecdotal. He could in fact be the Anti-Christ reborn using RPGs as the vector to bring about The End of Days. I guess only Monty knows for sure...
My first reaction to the Monte-hate over the Native-American flap, and the Numenara-problematic-monster-thing was "Oh here we go..."
I don't ascribe hostility towards Monte from these sectors of the gaming-realm as being *anything* having to do with Monte. While there are very few game-designers that I know of that I can't really criticize, Monte, whether you like his games or not, has proven his bonafides over and over. And personally his game-design track record with me, due to my own personal tastes is spotty at best.
I'm a little tired of this assumption of ideological purity on either side of the gaming fence. TBP's Recreational Outragers act like they are half-pissed simply because they presumed that Monte was "one of them" and "should have known better!"
I could be wrong - I don't recall Monte making some proclamation that there is One True Way to do anything. I'd sit and argue all day long about his assertions of 3.x's strengths and weakness, but I wouldn't diss him as a person because of it.
Ranting about gamers isn't damning, IMO. Hell, I've been gaming for over 30 yrs, I love gaming and I occasionally rant about gamers, games, etc. Some of the posts and threads around here amount to gamers ranting about gamers. :D
Quote from: Nexus;863076Ranting about gamers isn't damning, IMO. Hell, I've been gaming for over 30 yrs, I love gaming and I occasionally rant about gamers, games, etc. Some of the posts and threads around here amount to gamers ranting about gamers. :D
An overheard conversation at a convention isn't something I put a lot of stock in, but agree that if it were true as described, nodding to a rant about gamers isn't exactly damning. If anything complaining about gamers is possibly a sign your a true gamer yourself. I've been in the hobby most of my life and half the conversations I've heard involve complaints about other gamers.
Quote from: Certified;863040While I know nothing about him personally, I was not a fan of Arcana Unearthed and the Book of Vile Darkness...
Yes, Book of Vile Darkness is a great example of Monte's "great ideas, slipshod implementation" reputation.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;863085An overheard conversation at a convention isn't something I put a lot of stock in, but agree that if it were true as described, nodding to a rant about gamers isn't exactly damning. If anything complaining about gamers is possibly a sign your a true gamer yourself. I've been in the hobby most of my life and half the conversations I've heard involve complaints about other gamers.
Nodding along and not making eye contact until you can slip away is practically SOP for rants at Cons.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;863101Yes, Book of Vile Darkness is a great example of Monte's "great ideas, slipshod implementation" reputation.
What's wrong with it?
I am not a fan of Monte's work, but I have only heard good things about the dude from people at cons. D20 and Numenera don't work for me, but certainly he's brought great joy and tremendous fun to many gamers. Just not me, but that's no reason for me to pillory him.
Quote from: trechriron;863047Just because you love something doesn't mean you don't have your pet peeves or issues. This happens frequently in all "walks of life". When you engage your hobby as a profession, some of the ugly spots get uglier. Professionals always vent about troubles to each other.
As a person in the green room, you're supposed to just keep your mouth shut about it. What happens in the green room stays in the green room. If you were a professional, this would have been self-explanatory.
Also, in real life many professionals are required to put on "game faces". It's part of the landscape of social intelligence. Be pleasant in public and people will want to be around you. It's professionalism 101.
You want to attribute a "secret true belief that lies beneath the veneer of lies" from a green room rant? I have ascertained Monty's desires based on his actions. He has been writing and designing RPGs for the bulk of his adult professional life. He attended conventions frequently, interacted with his fans online, blogged, pod-casted and participated in multitudes of interviews. He has been involved up to his eyeballs. That speaks volumes to me about what he loves. You would have to be an obstinate fool to not see his love of this hobby and industry.
You on the other hand had a taste of "the inside" for 5 minutes and could barely contain your puerile excitement to "tell us all the secrets." Worse, you want to use that as anecdotal evidence of Monty's "arrogance".
I dub this Green Room-gate. I FLAME THEE!
I was at the glorified info desk the green room was merely on the other side of the curtain. Sorry me no guarding, no lack of professionalism on my part that was fully on Cooke.
Valiant effort on making me the guilty party though, it got a number of other lemmings to fall right in step with ya. Kudos to you.
I believe OHT got it in one, calling any recent fracas an issue of perceived insincere genuflection.
Quote from: Nexus;863109What's wrong with it?
Math that doesn't add up, producing weak or overpowered features.
Overpowered mechanics (like the executioner effect granting an easy instant death effect to everyone).
Missing class features.
And the biggie for me, prestige classes, feats, spells, and items that sound cool but turn out to be redundant with existing mechanics. It was bad enough that you started to feel, "This book would work better as a flavor guide giving you advice on how to make existing game elements sound cooler without actually changing how they work."
Quote from: Sommerjon;863138I was at the glorified info desk the green room was merely on the other side of the curtain. Sorry me no guarding, no lack of professionalism on my part that was fully on Cooke.
Valiant effort on making me the guilty party though, it got a number of other lemmings to fall right in step with ya. Kudos to you.
He had a legitimate point about anyone badmouthing others when they think no one is listening that you could have addressed. Instead, you went with 'Nuh-uh, you're the jerk, and any criticism is negated because that's just lemmings.' Good job.
Quote from: Sommerjon;863138I was at the glorified info desk the green room was merely on the other side of the curtain...
You make my point even further. I'm the lemming? Look, I appreciate your naivete, and how the world should be filled with idealists who never lose their temper or become aggrieved with the people they serve. It's a nice place. I wander there sometimes myself for a respite from the harsh truths of reality.
Read the Wizard of Oz. So you found out the wizard was a human. Boo hoo.
I'm defending Monty Cook because I believe he is a good guy and I think his ranting about fans is an acceptable venting mechanism for professionals. Also, industry folks don't rant about ALL fans/gamers. Just the ones who get so riled up about a game that they are on the threshold of committing violence, or go on crusades to ruin the target of their wrath.
It's OK Honey Boo Boo, Monty wasn't angry with you.
Quote from: trechriron;863197You make my point even further. I'm the lemming? Look, I appreciate your naivete, and how the world should be filled with idealists who never lose their temper or become aggrieved with the people they serve. It's a nice place. I wander there sometimes myself for a respite from the harsh truths of reality.
Read the Wizard of Oz. So you found out the wizard was a human. Boo hoo.
I'm defending Monty Cook because I believe he is a good guy and I think his ranting about fans is an acceptable venting mechanism for professionals. Also, industry folks don't rant about ALL fans/gamers. Just the ones who get so riled up about a game that they are on the threshold of committing violence, or go on crusades to ruin the target of their wrath.
It's OK Honey Boo Boo, Monty wasn't angry with you.
I guess the difference is I expect the true professional to bitch when the kids aren't present.
I never mentioned what he said I said
"ranting about gaming and gamers and the biz" You seem to have forgotten that part in your rush to attack. If the rant was about Stinky Steve and Fawning Phil, who cares I agree with him.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;862990None of that scream 'self important' to me.
The guy shouldn't have to appologize for using his own name to help sell books. It isn't like RPG designers make millions, they have to work hard to make it a full time thing like he's done.
No shit. This, and leaving a job, is what makes someone "self-important" and "arrogant?" Jesus Christ.
Taller peg, that's what it is.
Quote from: Ravenswing;863204No shit. This, and leaving a job, is what makes someone "self-important" and "arrogant?" Jesus Christ.
Taller peg, that's what it is.
There were rumours that he wasn't happy working under a former employee, who didn't care about 'his' vision of D&D. Accurate? True? I dunno. But unlike most people who left WoTC, he didn't get fired, he quit. And then went to Paizo. Why? What was wrong at WoTC that he had to walk out?
Too many questions, not enough answers that put him in a good light. You wanna hero worship him? Fine. My? I wonder why.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;863208There were rumours that he wasn't happy working under a former employee, who didn't care about 'his' vision of D&D. Accurate? True? I dunno. But unlike most people who left WoTC, he didn't get fired, he quit. And then went to Paizo. Why? What was wrong at WoTC that he had to walk out?
Too many questions, not enough answers that put him in a good light. You wanna hero worship him? Fine. My? I wonder why.
No one is saying you have to worship the guy but this is really not much to go on for anything. "There were rumors" and "he didn't get fired" really doesn't tell anyone much of anything. Someone leaving a job, even if it were a product of them leaving because they were unhappy for whatever reason, doesn't explain the hatred that people seem to have for him.
So maybe he's the George Lucas of modern RPG-design? Great on ideas. Spotty to shit-poor on implementation?
But okay guy to hang around! Loves gaming like George loves movies.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;863151Math that doesn't add up, producing weak or overpowered features.
Overpowered mechanics (like the executioner effect granting an easy instant death effect to everyone).
Missing class features.
And the biggie for me, prestige classes, feats, spells, and items that sound cool but turn out to be redundant with existing mechanics. It was bad enough that you started to feel, "This book would work better as a flavor guide giving you advice on how to make existing game elements sound cooler without actually changing how they work."
I can see where all that would be a problem.
Quote from: Nexus;863227I can see where all that would be a problem.
I have his d20 version of the World of Darkness. It's a very nice book and I'm happy to own it, but I once saw it summed up thusly:
"You want to play an Awakened? Sucks to be you."
"You want to play a Demon? Sucks to be you."
"You want to play a Werewolf? Sucks to be you."
"You want to play a Vampire? You should have fun."
"You want to play a Mage? Congratulations, you win the game."
And I'd have to say that assessment is pretty spot-on. I haven't read all of MC's stuff, but balance in that game was pretty much nonexistent. Thankfully his work with the Cypher System seems much better from my (admittedly limited) experience with it.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;863208There were rumours that he wasn't happy working under a former employee, who didn't care about 'his' vision of D&D. Accurate? True? I dunno. But unlike most people who left WoTC, he didn't get fired, he quit. And then went to Paizo. Why? What was wrong at WoTC that he had to walk out?
Too many questions, not enough answers that put him in a good light. You wanna hero worship him? Fine. My? I wonder why.
Hero worship? Errr ... has anything I posted on this forum given anyone the impression I give a tinker's damn for anything d20/D&D in shape? Never bought anything the guy wrote or had a hand in writing. Never met him, know next to nothing about him, wouldn't recognize him if he stumbled across my doorstep five minutes from now.
As far as what was wrong at WotC that he had to walk out ... beats the hell out of me. Have
you ever voluntarily left a job? Would you be enthused at strangers characterizing you as "self-important" and "arrogant" for doing so?
Because even if WotC was such an amazing place to work as all of that -- and who's claiming so? -- there are a whole mess of reasons why someone leaves a cushy job. Better money. Getting away from a personality conflict. More freedom to do your own thing. The spouse wants you to work fewer or different hours. A better commute. A more rural/urban town. Less pressure. The culture at the new place is more to your liking. The direction at your current place isn't. The incident you don't feel like talking about. Relocation. Just needed a change.
Man, in your shoes, I'd worry a lot less about whether other people are "hero-worshipping" this guy and more about why I thought him quitting a job without informing me why was so sinister.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;863208There were rumours that he wasn't happy working under a former employee, who didn't care about 'his' vision of D&D. Accurate? True? I dunno. But unlike most people who left WoTC, he didn't get fired, he quit. And then went to Paizo. Why? What was wrong at WoTC that he had to walk out?
Too many questions, not enough answers that put him in a good light. You wanna hero worship him? Fine. My? I wonder why.
HE QUIT A JOB?! WHAT A HORRIBLE PERSON!
Jesus, Christopher. That has to be one of the dumbest things you've ever said. And the competition there is stiff.
(Also, fact check: Cook's time at Paizo came 5+ years after he left WotC the first time and several years before he rejoined WotC and then left again. What he actually did both times he left WotC was create a new company.)
Quote from: camazotz;862897Do you regularly have issues with people who change their minds?
(Sorry, I'm not trying to pick a fight, I just feel like you should put some details in on why a person deciding to make a career change who then decides to make a different choice is problematic. I've done this at least three times in my own career in the last 15 years, for example; it's just how business rolls.)
not at all, I was just surprised by it was all. and as I said the only thing he has done that would cause me to have an issue with him.
I've liked most of the books that he produced. I do think he focuses a bit much on the d20, there are plenty of other very nice dice out there, and he could write books that use those, but whatever.
hell I didn't even mind too much when he destroyed the town I was living in when the Innconu touched down in McWoD (Mitchell, SD) (frankly it probably made the place better, Mitchell is an armpit of a city)
I still think Ghostwalk is one of the single coolest settings I've ever seen, and when I got annoyed and purged most of my 3rd ed collection it was about the only book I kept.
No, I take that back, I do have one issue and that was that he caved to TBP about the Native American mini-setting in The Strange. the SJW would have us believe that all Native Americans are one big happy family, but historically speaking they killed each other a hell of a lot more then the white man ever did.
Quote from: Brand55;863228I have his d20 version of the World of Darkness. It's a very nice book and I'm happy to own it, but I once saw it summed up thusly:
"You want to play an Awakened? Sucks to be you."
"You want to play a Demon? Sucks to be you."
"You want to play a Werewolf? Sucks to be you."
"You want to play a Vampire? You should have fun."
"You want to play a Mage? Congratulations, you win the game."
And I'd have to say that assessment is pretty spot-on. I haven't read all of MC's stuff, but balance in that game was pretty much nonexistent. Thankfully his work with the Cypher System seems much better from my (admittedly limited) experience with it.
Cook's version of the WoD would be the only way I would actually play the setting. I love that book. Nothing WW has ever put out has even vaguely interested me. I remember reading the original Werewolf with some excitement. I love lycanthropes. After a cover-to-cover read I metaphorically shook the book to see if any rules would fall out. It was nothing but fluff as far as I was concerned. A WW Fan-boi got all upset when I told him I had sold it to a friend. His response, "But Werewolf is the crunchiest book in the setting!" Cook's book at least had rules.
Quote from: remial;863284No, I take that back, I do have one issue and that was that he caved to TBP about the Native American mini-setting in The Strange. the SJW would have us believe that all Native Americans are one big happy family, but historically speaking they killed each other a hell of a lot more then the white man ever did.
Well if you include diseases I'm pretty sure european explorers killed more Native Americans than intra tribe warfare etc. At least if you believe the estimates on Gun Germs And Steel Europeans knocked out 95-98% of the Native Americans just shaking hands.
Quote from: Tetsubo;863290Cook's version of the WoD would be the only way I would actually play the setting. I love that book. Nothing WW has ever put out has even vaguely interested me. I remember reading the original Werewolf with some excitement. I love lycanthropes. After a cover-to-cover read I metaphorically shook the book to see if any rules would fall out. It was nothing but fluff as far as I was concerned. A WW Fan-boi got all upset when I told him I had sold it to a friend. His response, "But Werewolf is the crunchiest book in the setting!" Cook's book at least had rules.
Oh, I agree that, setting-wise, MCWoD beats the pants off any of the WW versions. It's coherent enough that new players can easily digest it and also gives the different character types an actual reason to be hanging out together. If I ever ran it, though, I'd have to introduce some house rules, probably starting with eliminating the Mage ability to replenish components practically at-will through spells.
My favorite example of irrational Monte Cook hate: Shortly after 5e was announced, while he was still onboard the design team, he made some offhand remark in a blog post about "passive perception". I'm not exactly sure what the issue was (I think it's that he didn't properly acknowledge the pioneering role of 4e or something), but people were still losing their shit over it years later!
You can probably still provoke a fist shaking tirade over at TBP by mentioning it.:rolleyes:
Quote from: remial;863284No, I take that back, I do have one issue and that was that he caved to TBP about the Native American mini-setting in The Strange. the SJW would have us believe that all Native Americans are one big happy family, but historically speaking they killed each other a hell of a lot more then the white man ever did.
I disliked the concession more because it seemed compromise what the game was about. The Thunder Plains was not an accurate representation of the regions native American cultures any more than Goodland is an accurate depiction of the 1950s. Recursions are born from fiction, imagination and belief so widely believed and accepted stereotypes are going to shape them as much, if not more than the "truth". The Thunder Plains and its replacement both fit into the structure of The Strange and illustrate that part of it but no, can't have people being exposed to ideas that even hint at being uncomfortable
*looks down* How the Hell did I get on this soapbox. sorry.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;863151Math that doesn't add up, producing weak or overpowered features.
Overpowered mechanics (like the executioner effect granting an easy instant death effect to everyone).
Missing class features.
And the biggie for me, prestige classes, feats, spells, and items that sound cool but turn out to be redundant with existing mechanics. It was bad enough that you started to feel, "This book would work better as a flavor guide giving you advice on how to make existing game elements sound cooler without actually changing how they work."
Sounds like a very loud echo of the basic problems with 3.5.:-)
Quote from: Bunch;863304Well if you include diseases I'm pretty sure european explorers killed more Native Americans than intra tribe warfare etc. At least if you believe the estimates on Gun Germs And Steel Europeans knocked out 95-98% of the Native Americans just shaking hands.
I don't really think we can take credit for our germs.
Quote from: S'mon;863318I don't really think we can take credit for our germs.
Lord Jeffrey Amherst, commander of British forces in North America during the French and Indian War (1756-'63) discussed with a subordinate his plan (//www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1088/did-whites-ever-give-native-americans-blankets-infected-with-smallpox) to send infected blankets to hostile tribes. That he considered doing it appears certain. We don't know if he actually put the plan into effect, or if so with what result. We do know that a supply of smallpox-infected blankets was available, since the disease had broken out at Fort Pitt some weeks previously. We also know that the following spring smallpox was reported to be raging among the Indians in the vicinity.
There seems to be evidence that infected blankets (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffery_Amherst,_1st_Baron_Amherst#Smallpox_blankets) were intentionally given to the Indians. How much effect it had is unclear.
So there are people who maybe get to take "credit."
Quote from: S'mon;863318I don't really think we can take credit for our germs.
The initial epidemics i would say were accidental. Later they became a planned resource in biological warfare.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;862780Correction, I don't hate the man. Nor do I hate the product. I hate his attitude. And I find certain things he does annoying, like having to brand everything he released (until recently, Numenera and The Strange being the ones I remember) with "Monte Cook Presents", as if they actual creators of their stuff wouldn't sell otherwise.
His discomfort to work with Mike Mearls, because he at one time had been Mr. Meals 'boss'. His reasoning for not liking 3.5 (and his complete lack of understanding of how CCGs work.)
These things bother me. As a person, I think he's a cool guy and he's done some decent things for D&D. And the reason I dislike 3.x is due to being burnt out on it, not because of anything any one developer did to the system.
What? Who the fuck cares about CCG's!
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/b5/79/3a/b5793a228a9784a2e33ff1dd349a0138.jpg)
Quote from: Dimitrios;863309My favorite example of irrational Monte Cook hate: Shortly after 5e was announced, while he was still onboard the design team, he made some offhand remark in a blog post about "passive perception". I'm not exactly sure what the issue was (I think it's that he didn't properly acknowledge the pioneering role of 4e or something), but people were still losing their shit over it years later!
This is the article. (http://archive.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20110927) The nerd rage was because he didn't assume that everyone reading the article was familiar with 4E and, therefore, explained the "passive perception" terminology before demonstrating how it would be handled in the hypothetical version of 5E that Mearls had introduced the week before. This "obviously" meant he had never heard of it before and was reinventing the wheel.
It's as if someone at Ford in 1918 started a discussion about their new braking system by mentioning that there were four wheels on a standard automobile and then people lost their mind because Ford was trying to claim that they had invented the wheel.
I read the article Justin linked above and then, though I know not why I did it, I googled to find the outrage and found this (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?594650-4e-Monte-Cook-s-First-Legends-amp-Lore-Article).
I think some folks just like getting angry. I literally cannot comprehend the rage people feel about things like this.
MCWoD is an amazing game, plus the perfect start for any Rifts d20 game.
I haven't got anything against him, contrary to what some have claimed.
Quote from: Frey;863434MCWoD is an amazing game, plus the perfect start for any Rifts d20 game.
I picked up a Rifts D20 game online once. Is it any good? Did they make any sense out of MDC?
Quote from: Christopher Brady;863208There were rumours that he wasn't happy working under a former employee, who didn't care about 'his' vision of D&D. Accurate? True? I dunno. But unlike most people who left WoTC, he didn't get fired, he quit. And then went to Paizo. Why? What was wrong at WoTC that he had to walk out?
Too many questions, not enough answers that put him in a good light. You wanna hero worship him? Fine. My? I wonder why.
I'm not sure how not enjoying working at some place and deciding to work at another place puts anyone "in a bad light". Say he was uncomfortable working under a former employee? Say he didnt feel WoTC cared about "his vision" for D&D? So what? By what standard are those moral failings or what obligation did he have to stick around in a job he wasnt enjoying when there were other options? You're post frankly seems absolutely bizarre to me.
Quote from: Brand55;863228I have his d20 version of the World of Darkness. It's a very nice book and I'm happy to own it, but I once saw it summed up thusly:
"You want to play an Awakened? Sucks to be you."
"You want to play a Demon? Sucks to be you."
"You want to play a Werewolf? Sucks to be you."
"You want to play a Vampire? You should have fun."
"You want to play a Mage? Congratulations, you win the game."
And I'd have to say that assessment is pretty spot-on. I haven't read all of MC's stuff, but balance in that game was pretty much nonexistent. Thankfully his work with the Cypher System seems much better from my (admittedly limited) experience with it.
Did Changelings exist in his WoD?
Quote from: TristramEvans;863542Did Changelings exist in his WoD?
It was not one of the five playable racial classes he created for the game, but someone could create a version of them without contradicting the canon.
Hostility is a strong word, and I don't "hate" Monte Cook, but ever since he wrote this worthless drivel (http://montecook.livejournal.com/253552.html) I've paid him no attention whatsoever.
Dude's got problems.
Quote from: Xavier Onassiss;863708Hostility is a strong word, and I don't "hate" Monte Cook, but ever since he wrote this worthless drivel (http://montecook.livejournal.com/253552.html) I've paid him no attention whatsoever.
Dude's got problems.
Well, that does explain some things about Cypher but overall it didn't strike mas that bad though I don't agree with it.
Quote from: Xavier Onassiss;863708Hostility is a strong word, and I don't "hate" Monte Cook, but ever since he wrote this worthless drivel (http://montecook.livejournal.com/253552.html) I've paid him no attention whatsoever.
WTF?!!! How is that 'drivel'? It's a guy who writes games discussing his own changing tastes and where that has led him to in regards to his own work.
As far as I can tell he's not making pronouncements of what should/shouldn't be... just what he'd like and what he'd like to do.
QuoteDude's got problems.
How does that blog entry lead you to that conclusion?
Quote from: Simlasa;863710WTF?!!! How is that 'drivel'? It's a guy who writes games discussing his own changing tastes and where that has led him to in regards to his own work.
As far as I can tell he's not making pronouncements of what should/shouldn't be... just what he'd like and what he'd like to do.
How does that blog entry lead you to that conclusion?
Clearly the dude has problems.
Quote from: Simlasa;863710WTF?!!! How is that 'drivel'? It's a guy who writes games discussing his own changing tastes and where that has led him to in regards to his own work.
As far as I can tell he's not making pronouncements of what should/shouldn't be... just what he'd like and what he'd like to do.
How does that blog entry lead you to that conclusion?
The dude has problems?
Not the Monty Dude, the Xavier O. dude.
Quote from: Xavier Onassiss;863708Hostility is a strong word, and I don't "hate" Monte Cook, but ever since he wrote this worthless drivel (http://montecook.livejournal.com/253552.html) I've paid him no attention whatsoever.
Dude's got problems.
I'm curious what you mean by problems? In that link he describes some personal tastes regarding character generation and pregens and some plans for how he'd like to design chargen for his games in the future...was this the correct link?
Quote from: Simlasa;863710WTF?!!! How is that 'drivel'? It's a guy who writes games discussing his own changing tastes and where that has led him to in regards to his own work.
As far as I can tell he's not making pronouncements of what should/shouldn't be... just what he'd like and what he'd like to do.
How does that blog entry lead you to that conclusion?
Yeah, I just read it and I'm baffled as well.
To OP: envy
Quote from: Simlasa;863710WTF?!!! How is that 'drivel'? It's a guy who writes games discussing his own changing tastes and where that has led him to in regards to his own work.
As far as I can tell he's not making pronouncements of what should/shouldn't be... just what he'd like and what he'd like to do.
How does that blog entry lead you to that conclusion?
Well in point 2 he mentions a player being bewildered by character options in 3e. He neglects to mention, that as one of the authors of 3e, he was responsible for that large array of options. However, I think that what that post is trying to say is that age and experience has lead him to change his opinions on complex character creation processes.
Quote from: yojimbouk;863752Well in point 2 he mentions a player being bewildered by character options in 3e. He neglects to mention, that as one of the authors of 3e, he was responsible for that large array of options. However, I think that what that post is trying to say is that age and experience has lead him to change his opinions on complex character creation processes.
Designers can change opinions. It happened with Cook, it happened with Mearls, and I'm sure there's plenty of others.
I did find the post a touch ironic, since Monte started his career working on
Rolemaster and
Champions. :)
Quote from: TristramEvans;863731Yeah, I just read it and I'm baffled as well.
For someone that writes for a living, Monte Cook doesn't communicate that well in his blog. I think what he meant was:
"I dislike locking a character into a background that may not match the campaign being played. I also dislike having three reams of paper books full of, too many, choices about the character."
I think what he wrote was:
"Character generation sucks. I want to make stuff up as I play the game."
The latter was written first and more clearly, while the former was not as clearly or prominently addressed.
If you make it to the latter half of the post, what he says isn't silly. He says in his games he'll provide pre-generated characters (which almost everyone does), fast chargen options (which are also very popular), and won't "front-load" everything, so you can still discover something about your character during play.
Hmm. Lot's of games have setups to allow discovering your character's hidden/forgotten past, or overcoming one chargen option like being wanted/hunted, and replacing it with a new problem (non-perfect prosthetic limb?) that could engender future game scenarios. None of which, written more clearly, would cause too much brouhaha.
There are some issues, to me, with his reasoning. Narrative stuff aside, he is also assuming the chargen is totally unlinked to the setting or campaign--and that the campaign is horribly rigid scenario-wise. I don't want to play kill everything all the time scenarios. Nor do I want to play diplomat scenarios all the time. Sometimes I want to play Columbo scenarios and sometimes Stainless Steel Rat scenarios.
I or the players I run would actually have a lot of fun running a diplomat (Cook's example of a possibly inappropriate background) investigating a Cthulhu cult (with no occult knowledge, Cook's example) or being one of the survivors of a crash on an unexplored world having to figure out how to get food (without trapping experience, Cook's example).
But I think that is one of the differences between narrative players and non-narrative. We (non-narrative) like solving problems given a fixed set of tools and resources, as opposed to (narrative) writing ourselves out of the problem by creating on-the-fly tools and resources. [I don't think I did the narrative side justice there, but I tried...] We'd all be working on the books we're writing if we wanted to do the latter.
To us it is fun playing a Traveller PC who could be an aristocrat or a drifter or a hunter and taking them through mysteries or diplomacy or a mob hit or a non-violent rescue mission with the skills they have available.
A lot of people think out loud on their blogs. What I see are folks reading way too deeply into one man's reflection of the day. Maybe he changed his mind, maybe he hates character creation, maybe he has some more nuanced position and didn't convey it well to his audience, whatever the case, I still don't get the hatred it prompts in people. There is a big difference between reading a blog post and disagreeing with it or feeling like it is a bit confused and "dude's got problems".
Also with a guy like Monte, he isn't writing with narrow sections for he internet in mind. I don't think he is the type of person who really pays much attention to the sections of of RPG audience who have emerged in forums and the like over the years, so you don't find him writing defensively against accidentally using a particular word that sets one group or another off. To me that isn't a clarity issues with his writing. He just isn't interested in some of the distinctions people get upset about online.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;863766He just isn't interested in some of the distinctions people get upset about online.
We so need more of this.
Quote from: Tod13;863763For someone that writes for a living, Monte Cook doesn't communicate that well in his blog. I think what he meant was:
"I dislike locking a character into a background that may not match the campaign being played. I also dislike having three reams of paper books full of, too many, choices about the character."
That's what I read him as saying.
QuoteI think what he wrote was:
"Character generation sucks. I want to make stuff up as I play the game."
Nope. I didn't get this interpretation at all.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;863766A lot of people think out loud on their blogs. What I see are folks reading way too deeply into one man's reflection of the day.
I thought thinking out loud, rambling conversations, and nattering to yourself was the point of having a blog. Apparently I've been blogging all wrong. ;)
The obsessive Kremlinology style analysis lavished on every word written by anyone associated (past or present) with WoTC, is so absurd that if someone wants to avoid having sinister intent read into what they write, their only option is to write nothing at all.
Quote from: Tod13;863763For someone that writes for a living, Monte Cook doesn't communicate that well in his blog.
As someone who has been reading for most of his life, it all seemed pretty clear to me.
Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;862788"Liberals" today slut-shame as much as conservatives ever did, if not more. It's sick and neurotic and weird and makes me almost embarrassed to be in the same camp as them on many social issues.
America, you have changed in very short time indeed!
I was there for 3.5 and the web-wars. I followed the Monte Cook shennnigans quite closely at the time.
But this identity politics thing? Wasn't around five years ago in the strength it is now. Very strange.
Constructivism is onto something if you guys now reframe that old debate into the current framework.
Or maybe I missed some context of such posts?
@topic: I dislike Monte Cook because of his blandness. More specifically, I was a fan of Monte until I got my copy of Ptolus. There cannot be a more boring "awesome" place. It is like somebody actively tried to make sth. awesome and ended up with...original but artificial blandness.
The best simile I can find is Supertramp. Yes, Monte Cook is the Supertramp of RPGs. To me.
Quote from: Xavier Onassiss;863708Hostility is a strong word, and I don't "hate" Monte Cook, but ever since he wrote this worthless drivel (http://montecook.livejournal.com/253552.html) I've paid him no attention whatsoever.
I, on the other hand, pretty much agree with it. I went through a phase in the 1980s where I had very detailed character generation systems (although they did not really require system mastery to create a good character the way 3.x does), and after a few years of dealing with them decided they weren't what I (or most of my players) enjoyed at all.
Quote from: Simlasa;863807As someone who has been reading for most of his life, it all seemed pretty clear to me.
It was clear to me also--but I had to work a bit at it. (I need a new glasses prescription so that wall of text effect was tough.) However, I count inflammatory statements (intentional or not) or a wall-of-text-ish lead up to the point as "unclear", since at least some of your readers will quit reading or have trouble processing it. (Even Nature journals have more paragraphs.)
That's what I assume is happening, since some people read that blog entry and went "duh" or "interesting" while others decided it was "drivel".
Quote from: Tod13;863818It was clear to me also--but I had to work a bit at it. (I need a new glasses prescription so that wall of text effect was tough.) However, I count inflammatory statements (intentional or not) or a wall-of-text-ish lead up to the point as "unclear", since at least some of your readers will quit reading or have trouble processing it. (Even Nature journals have more paragraphs.)
That's what I assume is happening, since some people read that blog entry and went "duh" or "interesting" while others decided it was "drivel".
If people don't read the whole thing, I have some trouble taking their complaints seriously. It is not that long. As readers we do have some responsibility to actually read the text.
To me it reads clearly enough and the initial paragraph provoked my interest when I first read it (making a bold statement then clarifying in the course of a post is a fair technique to use). I don't share the preferences Cook describes but the article articulates them well, and nothing about the preferences or the text suggest any reason to dislike the man.
As for clarity, he enumerated what he likes/wants and plans to do with character creation going forward.
Quote from: Settembrini;863811The best simile I can find is Supertramp. Yes, Monte Cook is the Supertramp of RPGs. To me.
Are you saying that they are calling him a "magical criminal"?
I think the very first time I heard people complaining about Monte Cook was back in 2004. His company at the time, Malhavoc Press, had just released "The Year's Best d20."
This was a book that basically reprinted various d20 rules (e.g. feats, spells, prestige classes, etc.) from various small publishers. If I recall correctly, it deliberately listed which companies had produced which rules right there in the text, and I think it had some commentary from Monte in there too (I never actually owned the book, so I could be wrong about any of this).
The hate came from people who seemed to think that his using "best" was an objective pronouncement made from on high. "Who's Monte Cook to decide what's best?" went the messageboard whiners. That these people lacked the ability to comprehend the implicit understanding that this was Monte's opinion was staggering.
Quote from: Alzrius;863919The hate came from people who seemed to think that his using "best" was an objective pronouncement made from on high. "Who's Monte Cook to decide what's best?" went the messageboard whiners. That these people lacked the ability to comprehend the implicit understanding that this was Monte's opinion was staggering.
This is the plague of internet discourse. Unless you preface or postfix absolutely everything you say with "IMHO" or "YMMV" or some other stupid qualifier, you're instantly accused of having the chutzpah to assert your opinion as fact. It happened yet again just a few minutes ago on this very forum.
Quote from: Alzrius;863919I think the very first time I heard people complaining about Monte Cook was back in 2004. His company at the time, Malhavoc Press, had just released "The Year's Best d20."
This was a book that basically reprinted various d20 rules (e.g. feats, spells, prestige classes, etc.) from various small publishers. If I recall correctly, it deliberately listed which companies had produced which rules right there in the text, and I think it had some commentary from Monte in there too (I never actually owned the book, so I could be wrong about any of this).
The hate came from people who seemed to think that his using "best" was an objective pronouncement made from on high. "Who's Monte Cook to decide what's best?" went the messageboard whiners. That these people lacked the ability to comprehend the implicit understanding that this was Monte's opinion was staggering.
Bingo! We have a winner!
Quote from: aspiringlich;863922This is the plague of internet discourse. Unless you preface or postfix absolutely everything you say with "IMHO" or "YMMV" or some other stupid qualifier, you're instantly accused of having the chutzpah to assert your opinion as fact. It happened yet again just a few minutes ago on this very forum.
Oh, this a thousand times over. I encounter this attitude whenever I express an opinion on my YouTube channel. *My* YouTube channel. And I only have 4400+ followers. Imagine how much worse it would be if I had Cook's audience numbers... There have been times I start a video, "The follow is my subjective opinion..." I hate this attitude so much. I had one guy tell me I should not critique a role-playing game unless I had published my own. Utter idiocy. At least Cook doesn't have *that* problem.
Never mind what I expect part of the issue is with some people. You know, how "arrogant," "full of himself" and the like are now defined as meaning "disagrees with me on a single key issue, and dares to do so publicly, using first person imperative and forceful language to do so."
The bastards!
Quote from: Nexus;863313I disliked the concession more because it seemed compromise what the game was about. The Thunder Plains was not an accurate representation of the regions native American cultures any more than Goodland is an accurate depiction of the 1950s. Recursions are born from fiction, imagination and belief so widely believed and accepted stereotypes are going to shape them as much, if not more than the "truth". The Thunder Plains and its replacement both fit into the structure of The Strange and illustrate that part of it but no, can't have people being exposed to ideas that even hint at being uncomfortable
*looks down* How the Hell did I get on this soapbox. sorry.
ahahahah i do that to its ok if you feel strongly about something some times you will end up being a touch soap boxish its pretty normal for people
Quote from: Justin Alexander;863363This is the article. (http://archive.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20110927) The nerd rage was because he didn't assume that everyone reading the article was familiar with 4E and, therefore, explained the "passive perception" terminology before demonstrating how it would be handled in the hypothetical version of 5E that Mearls had introduced the week before. This "obviously" meant he had never heard of it before and was reinventing the wheel.
It's as if someone at Ford in 1918 started a discussion about their new braking system by mentioning that there were four wheels on a standard automobile and then people lost their mind because Ford was trying to claim that they had invented the wheel.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;863766A lot of people think out loud on their blogs. What I see are folks reading way too deeply into one man's reflection of the day. Maybe he changed his mind, maybe he hates character creation, maybe he has some more nuanced position and didn't convey it well to his audience, whatever the case, I still don't get the hatred it prompts in people. There is a big difference between reading a blog post and disagreeing with it or feeling like it is a bit confused and "dude's got problems".
Also with a guy like Monte, he isn't writing with narrow sections for he internet in mind. I don't think he is the type of person who really pays much attention to the sections of of RPG audience who have emerged in forums and the like over the years, so you don't find him writing defensively against accidentally using a particular word that sets one group or another off. To me that isn't a clarity issues with his writing. He just isn't interested in some of the distinctions people get upset about online.
yep pretty much i mean blogs are more or less ramblings to some degree
and if you arnt the type to fallow every special snow flake group and keep track of what sets them off you are going to set them off and probly have no idea what you said
Quote from: Tetsubo;863932Oh, this a thousand times over. I encounter this attitude whenever I express an opinion on my YouTube channel. *My* YouTube channel. And I only have 4400+ followers. Imagine how much worse it would be if I had Cook's audience numbers... There have been times I start a video, "The follow is my subjective opinion..." I hate this attitude so much. I had one guy tell me I should critique a role-playing game unless I had published my own. Utter idiocy. At least Cook doesn't have *that* problem.
and i must be blind because i only just noticed you had a youtube account in your sig cuz you brought it up well you just got another sub me
I don't read allot of blogs and probably only some of the worst examples but for a blog it seemed fairly grounded. He was expressing an opinion and preferences that worked for him and his group not denouncing everything else as the way of the Devil.
.
Quote from: Ravenswing;864064Never mind what I expect part of the issue is with some people. You know, how "arrogant," "full of himself" and the like are now defined as meaning "disagrees with me on a single key issue, and dares to do so publicly, using first person imperative and forceful language to do so."
The bastards!
That made me laugh- well done! :)
Quote from: aspiringlich;863922This is the plague of internet discourse. Unless you preface or postfix absolutely everything you say with "IMHO" or "YMMV" or some other stupid qualifier, you're instantly accused of having the chutzpah to assert your opinion as fact. It happened yet again just a few minutes ago on this very forum.
That's just like
your opinion, man.