D&D 5E Monte Cook Leaves WotC - No Longer working on D&D Next [updated]

CasvalRemDeikun · Apr 26, 2012

OpsKT said:
My guess, much like the AD&D reprints, this is just a reprint of the v3.5 books with the errata that was out integrated into the text. Which, if they are not going to 'go back' and support that edition with new stuff, would kind of make it the 'definitive edition' for the v3.5 players that didn't make the switch to Pathfinder either.

As someone who didn't buy PF, I certainly will be getting these. 3.5E wasn't perfect, but it is still worth having on my shelf. But they need to release 2E reprints too.

Azgulor · Apr 26, 2012

Nyronus said:
I wonder if all of the Pro-Monte people here have enough of a sense of irony to look at the thread and notice for all of the evil and hateful "4venger" posts they have complained about, there are a lot of posts assuming instantly that WotC was somehow the villain in the scenario. I'm also a little curious where all this "4venger crowing" is. I've seen... six, maybe, posts in this thread expressing positive feelings that Monte has left. The worst in tone was simply "good riddance."

Oh no, how terrible. He expressed the feeling that it was better that Monte not work on the project and nothing else. The horror :/

I'm in the camp that thinks that lacking any details, there's little point in assigning blame to any party. It just didn't work out.

Addressing your specific post, however, I somehow doubt that you would have no reaction to someone saying "good riddance" upon hearing that you were leaving a job or if you threatened to never post at ENWorld or some other forum again. Even if you had a skin of iron, would it make the person who made the comment appear any classier?

Monte didn't slam 5e. In fact, he went out of his way to say they'll make a good game and had no ill will towards his fellow designers. THAT warrants a "simple" "good riddance"?

Lord, please spare me the "civility" of the Internet. At times, the "horror" of its hypocrisy is staggering.

Olaf the Stout · Apr 26, 2012

Amurayi said:
1. He said good-bye to Cordell and Schwalb and wishes them all the best.

He didn't mention Mearls at all.

Now guess who he has "differences of opinion with"...

This. The first thing I noticed in Monte's statement was the non-mention of Mike Mearls.

Monte Cook said:
However, I want to take this time to stress that my differences were not with my fellow designers, Rob Schwalb and Bruce Cordell. I enjoyed every moment of working with them over the past year. I have faith that they'll create a fun game. I'm rooting for them.

He goes out of his way to name both Rob Schwalb and Bruce Cordell and say how much fun he had working with them. However, there is no mention of Mike, despite the fact that he worked with him extensively in the past, and would have worked with him closely for 5E.

I doubt the reasons behind it all will come out though. I can't see Monte spilling the beans (it would be a very dumb move on his behalf) and WotC or Mike Mearls won't talk about it either.

Olaf the Stout

Lord Rasputin · Apr 26, 2012

Olaf the Stout said:
He goes out of his way to name both Rob Schwalb and Bruce Cordell and say how much fun he had working with them. However, there is no mention of Mike, despite the fact that he worked with him extensively in the past, and would have worked with him closely for 5E.

Is Mearls a designer on this project, or more of an administrative team lead, more like Dancey's old role?

Umbran · Apr 26, 2012

Olaf the Stout said:
This. The first thing I noticed in Monte's statement was the non-mention of Mike Mearls.

Yeah, but it's pretty darned speculative, nonetheless, trying to read between the lines.

I say the Golden Rule applies. How much would you like people to read into the details of what *you* don't say? How much of your real intent do you figure they'd get?

Nyronus · Apr 26, 2012

Olaf the Stout said:
This. The first thing I noticed in Monte's statement was the non-mention of Mike Mearls.

He goes out of his way to name both Rob Schwalb and Bruce Cordell and say how much fun he had working with them. However, there is no mention of Mike, despite the fact that he worked with him extensively in the past, and would have worked with him closely for 5E.

I doubt the reasons behind it all will come out though. I can't see Monte spilling the beans (it would be a very dumb move on his behalf) and WotC or Mike Mearls won't talk about it either.

Olaf the Stout

Except that in that sentence he was talking about Designers, which Mike Mearls is not from what I recall. Mike works in Design, but as a head of the department, not as part of the team, which I believe is what Monte is specifically talking about here. Honestly its best just to give Monte and Mike the benefit of the doubt on this one.

Libramarian · Apr 26, 2012

Oh no!

Monte Cook's Legends & Lore article on making magical items magical again was one of the things that really piqued my interest in D&D Next.

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Magic and Mystery)

"Working harder really will get the PCs ahead. Those that succeed at greater challenges will be more powerful than those that don't. That seems to be a bit of the heart and soul of D&D that has somehow become lost."

Loved this. Sad to see him leave the team

OptionalRule · Apr 26, 2012

My WAG is that management is rolling forward with the same flawed practices that have been driving the IP into the ground and Monte just couldn't be part of it. So it's probably him feeling like they don't have a real growth strategy or that they're already talking about 5.5 edition or something.

Mark CMG · Apr 26, 2012

Azgulor said:
I'm in the camp that thinks that lacking any details, there's little point in assigning blame to any party. It just didn't work out.

Yup. My OGL speculation has nothing to do with blame, just differing directions, one of which I support and one of which I find troublesome. Trying to make it into a blame game just allows folks to vilify one side or the other rather than to objectively look at how this can either help or harm the project. I'll leave the blame game (both sides including those who want to point toward it and stir the pot) for those who do not have something constructive to contribute even if it is but potential outcomes and speculative.

Monte is a good guy and WotC isn't evil. There's no blame game discussion as far as I am concerned.

I'm A Banana · Apr 26, 2012

Nyronus said:
I wonder if all of the Pro-Monte people here have enough of a sense of irony to look at the thread and notice for all of the evil and hateful "4venger" posts they have complained about, there are a lot of posts assuming instantly that WotC was somehow the villain in the scenario.

Two big points.

#1: Monte's statement said he left due to differences with the company. If you believe him leaving is a bad thing, then the blame lays with the company (or with Monte himself).

#2: Personally, I just think it's a pretty jerk move to be happy when someone else has problems, period. Being happy that Monte is leaving seems like someone is valuing their own personal grudge about something as silly as the design of a game about pretending to be magical elves, and considering that to be more important than another human being's happiness. "My vision for D&D > Monte Cook's Job."

That seems like some seriously distorted priorities to me.