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

Bedrockgames · Apr 26, 2012

Stoat said:
Whatever else happens, I guarantee you that on May 25, there will be a thread here saying that 5E looks too much like 4E and a thread here saying that 5E looks too much like 3E.

I think this is a very real possibility and the biggest issue inherent to their design goal. They could end up just making both sides unhappy.

Vyvyan Basterd · Apr 26, 2012

talok55 said:
I doubt that the playtesting is going to be as open and inclusive as we were first led to believe. It seems only a handful of people plus some more that went to cons have got to playtest 5E so far. So unless the next round of playtesting doesn't make the testers sign NDAs, most of us will still be just as in the dark a month from now as we are now.

I'm not sure where your doubts are coming from. The intent was to open up playtesting to all in the Spring. To make such a major announcement only to reveal another limited playtest like D&DXP or Pax would be too dumb of a PR move for even the biggest WotC-hater to believe possible.

Janaxstrus · Apr 26, 2012

Vyvyan Basterd said:
I

I understand your concerns, but at the same time you seem to be assuming that the remaining team members are disingenous about their desire to incorporate fan feedback. You seem to assume that your voice won't be heard. 4E fans were feeling the same way recently and were told that they were unfounded in their concerns. I won't say your concerns are unfounded, but the team does still have people who worked on 3.X and have promised to listen to fans of all editions, so until they break that promise I think they at least deserve cautious benefit-of-doubt. And what do you have to lose if they break their promise anyway? They have everything to lose, you get free playtest materials.

I am assuming they are human, and thus follow the general tenets of human nature. It's always easier to point out the flaws of other people's work than it is to find the flaws of your own. When the whole team is made up of those who had major involvement in 4e, I have less faith that they are capable of being completely objective in it's flaws and divisiveness, compared to someone who wasn't involved in it.

I wouldn't want the team made up of those who designed 3.x only, because the goal is unity, even though that is my favorite edition. As such, I sure as heck have a lot less interest in the team being only those who made 4e, as it is not something I will play.

I can HOPE the current team can be open to the fans voices and not just make 4.5, but I KNOW Monte wouldn't have let it be just 4.5. I prefer knowing to hoping.

theuglyamerican · Apr 26, 2012

Vyvyan Basterd said:
I understand your concerns, but at the same time you seem to be assuming that the remaining team members are disingenous about their desire to incorporate fan feedback. You seem to assume that your voice won't be heard. 4E fans were feeling the same way recently and were told that they were unfounded in their concerns. I won't say your concerns are unfounded, but the team does still have people who worked on 3.X and have promised to listen to fans of all editions, so until they break that promise I think they at least deserve cautious benefit-of-doubt. And what do you have to lose if they break their promise anyway? They have everything to lose, you get free playtest materials.

For me, the issue isn't a belief that my voice won't be heard or that they won't be willing to incorporate feedback. The issue is that, as of now, there's nobody who's coming at this from a full-throated 3.x perspective, but lots of people coming at it from a 4e perspective. What that means is that any feedback will be filtered through the perspective of someone championing 4e design solutions, and not someone championing 3.x solutions. This means that it's more likely that the solutions generated will be ones that 3.x enthusiasts won't like.

From where I sit, it all this "unifying the edition" talk is boilerplate for bringing the 3.x and 4e crowds back together. I'm sure they'd love to bring OE, 1e, basic, and 2e players back too, but really those groups are too small to be the driving forces behind all this. This is about Paizo and Pathfinder, and bringing those people back to the D&D brand. If 5e does that, it will be commercially successful. If it doesn't do that, it will be a commercial failure (from Hasbro's perspective, which is the only one that matters). In order to bring 3.x players back, you need to make sure our views are championed thoroughly at every stage of the development and marketing process. We don't need to get our way on everything, but we do need to get our way enough to make it worth our while to turn our backs on a company most of us like a lot (Paizo) and a product that most of us are quite satisfied with (Pathfinder). That's the stark commercial reality WotC is facing, and Cook's departure makes that a bigger challenged than it already was.

ExploderWizard · Apr 26, 2012

theuglyamerican said:
From where I sit, it all this "unifying the edition" talk is boilerplate for bringing the 3.x and 4e crowds back together. I'm sure they'd love to bring OE, 1e, basic, and 2e players back too, but really those groups are too small to be the driving forces behind all this. This is about Paizo and Pathfinder, and bringing those people back to the D&D brand. If 5e does that, it will be commercially successful. If it doesn't do that, it will be a commercial failure (from Hasbro's perspective, which is the only one that matters). In order to bring 3.x players back, you need to make sure our views are championed thoroughly at every stage of the development and marketing process. We don't need to get our way on everything, but we do need to get our way enough to make it worth our while to turn our backs on a company most of us like a lot (Paizo) and a product that most of us are quite satisfied with (Pathfinder). That's the stark commercial reality WotC is facing, and Cook's departure makes that a bigger challenged than it already was.

The economic reality is that even in the best case for WOTC (everyone leaves PF and embraces 5E) the flagship benchmark of $50M is unlikely to be reached.

In the unlikely event that it does and 5E is a glorious success, how many years running can that mark be met before a slowdown in profits demand a relaunch?

A tabletop rpg is not a sustainable $50M a year product. Trying to turn D&D into one is like putting a round peg into Hasbro's square hole.

Vyvyan Basterd · Apr 26, 2012

ExploderWizard said:
The economic reality is that even in the best case for WOTC (everyone leaves PF and embraces 5E) the flagship benchmark of $50M is unlikely to be reached.

In the unlikely event that it does and 5E is a glorious success, how many years running can that mark be met before a slowdown in profits demand a relaunch?

A tabletop rpg is not a sustainable $50M a year product. Trying to turn D&D into one is like putting a round peg into Hasbro's square hole.

Emphasis mine. While I agree that $50M annually is probably out of reach, this is not a $50M annual goal for the D&D tabletop RPG, it is a goal for the D&D brand. All of this tapping into nostalgia could be a marketing plan to make TV shows, movies, non-RPG games, clothing, etc. more desirable to try to reach their goal. I think they're a little late on the "geek-chic" trend, but the distinction of what is encompassed in the $50M goal is still important.

theuglyamerican · Apr 26, 2012

ExploderWizard said:
The economic reality is that even in the best case for WOTC (everyone leaves PF and embraces 5E) the flagship benchmark of $50M is unlikely to be reached.

In the unlikely event that it does and 5E is a glorious success, how many years running can that mark be met before a slowdown in profits demand a relaunch?

A tabletop rpg is not a sustainable $50M a year product. Trying to turn D&D into one is like putting a round peg into Hasbro's square hole.

Well that's the core of the problem, isn't it? The fact is that 4e has a cadre of enthusiasts so large that ANY publisher of RPGs except Hasbro would love to have them, and the game is good enough to support that enthusiasm for many years to come (the fact that it's not my cup of tea is irrelevant). If it weren't for that damned $50M benchmark, everyone could be happily playing their preferred version instead of arguing about a new edition that will likely be gone in a few years anyway, given the corporate economic realities at work.

ExploderWizard · Apr 26, 2012

Vyvyan Basterd said:
Emphasis mine. While I agree that $50M annually is probably out of reach, this is not a $50M annual goal for the D&D tabletop RPG, it is a goal for the D&D brand. All of this tapping into nostalgia could be a marketing plan to make TV shows, movies, non-RPG games, clothing, etc. more desirable to try to reach their goal. I think they're a little late on the "geek-chic" trend, but the distinction of what is encompassed in the $50M goal is still important.

Sure the total encompasses all things D&D but the rpg is at the heart of brand and central to its identity. If Hasbro tries to maginalize investment into the rpg aspect of the brand then they will find the the entire brand worthless soon after.

Grell · Apr 26, 2012

Janaxstrus said:
Interest in 5e now waning.

To elaborate, I've enjoyed almost everything Cook has done. The others...less so.

I'm with these guys. I liked Monte's stuff, and is evolvement meant I felt I could trust the claims of not repeating 4e choices I didn't like (and turned me from an all-book collector to buying only 1 single 4e book). I have no faith in that now, and not just because he left; he left in a bad way, and that means that there is strife inside and strife never breeds good things.

Maybe Monte can work on Pathfinder Second Ed, haha.