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.