D&D 5th Edition Monte Cook Leaves WotC - No Longer working on D&D Next [updated] - Page 23


What's on your mind?

  1. #221
    Registered User
    Guide (Lvl 11)

    AeroDm's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    951
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews

    Ignore AeroDm
    My communities:

    Quote Originally Posted by Bedrockgames View Post
    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.
    Agreed. The very model of we'll make a single edition that caters to three decades of gamers relies on incredible genius that is incredibly well received. If either part doesn't work, you got a dud.

    “I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everyone.”
    --Bill Cosby

 

  • #222
    The Guvnor
    Orcus on an Off-Day (Lvl 22)

    Morrus's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    27,086
    Reviews
    Read 12 Reviews
    Blog Entries
    4
    13th AgeSupermanCircvs MaximvsENniesPathfinderZEITGEISTDoctor Who

    Ignore Morrus
    My communities:

    Quote Originally Posted by talok55 View Post
    Okay, more than a handfull, but still relatively small. Have they stated for sure if all the playtest material will be available for free online or will it just be at a handful of public events?
    See the 5E info page for a couple of tweets from WotC which explain this.

  • #223
    Registered User
    The Great Druid (Lvl 17)

    Scribble's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Berlin NJ
    Posts
    7,243
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews

    Ignore Scribble
    My communities:

    Quote Originally Posted by AeroDm View Post
    Agreed. The very model of we'll make a single edition that caters to three decades of gamers relies on incredible genius that is incredibly well received. If either part doesn't work, you got a dud.

    I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everyone.
    --Bill Cosby
    I think the biggest issue is that gamers, rather then look to see if a game is fun, look for reasons for it to validate their personal taste over someone else's.

    I think that's the REAL goal of 5e. Not really to make a game that we all sit around singing kumbaya this is the greatest game ever... But to make one where at least people hopefully can't use as proof that one style is more valid then another.

  • #224
    Registered User
    Magsman (Lvl 14)

    Nemesis Destiny's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,526
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews

    Ignore Nemesis Destiny
    This is an interesting development.

    On the one hand, as a 4e supporter, albeit one who has played and enjoyed all editions of D&D, I find this news somewhat positive, as most of the things he'd written in L&L, I didn't care for.

    On the other hand, I've really liked some of his stuff in the past, so the fact that he's leaving is a blow to the creative potential of the project, and a certain PR disaster as it is unfolding now.

    Having said all that, I'd like to formally distance myself from any insinuation of being an "4venger" - which seems to be the label you get if you state any form of dislike toward 3.x design preferences. I don't like 3.x any more; I had my fun with it, but would like to move on, but I don't want to see those who still like it excluded. That was the true promise of 5e, which, unfortunately, just became a little less likely with this news, and largely for silly reasons.

    Good luck, Monte, and good luck 5e team - you'll both need it.

  • #225
    Registered User
    Magsman (Lvl 14)

    Bedrockgames's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    MA
    Posts
    3,564
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews

    Ignore Bedrockgames
    Quote Originally Posted by Scribble View Post
    I think the biggest issue is that gamers, rather then look to see if a game is fun, look for reasons for it to validate their personal taste over someone else's.

    I think that's the REAL goal of 5e. Not really to make a game that we all sit around singing kumbaya this is the greatest game ever... But to make one where at least people hopefully can't use as proof that one style is more valid then another.
    I can't speak for others but I don't need wotc to validate my playtstyle. Throughout wotc's entire run with D&D i have ignored most of their gm advice because it doesn't suit my preferences. But there is nothing wrong with saying what those preferences are and refusing to buy a game that doesn't support them. People aren't being rigid or mean, they just know what they like and don't want to spend time playing an edition that fails to align with that. For me this isn't about being right or having my version of D&D win. It is about wizards doing what they set out to do, which is make an edition everyone can enjoy. If they can't do that I am fine with them catering to the 4E crowd (since they are the current customer base) and continuing to play other rpgs instead. Most people in my group don't play D&D anymore anyways so it actuallybsaves me the challenge of talking them out of stuff like savage worlds to give D&D next a try.
    http://www.rpgnow.com/product/131611/Sertorius

  • #226
    I have to say that I take Monte's departure as good news. As a fan of how 4E does things, Monte never seemed to "get it" in regards to what someone like me wants out of D&D, and when that somebody has "D&DNext lead designer" in their job description it doesn't inspire confidence.

  • #227
    Quote Originally Posted by Bedrockgames View Post
    I can't speak for others but I don't need wotc to validate my playtstyle. Throughout wotc's entire run with D&D i have ignored most of their gm advice because it doesn't suit my preferences. But there is nothing wrong with saying what those preferences are and refusing to buy a game that doesn't support them. People aren't being rigid or mean, they just know what they like and don't want to spend time playing an edition that fails to align with that.
    Precisely, and this is the realistic problem with the whole project. People who like 4e still have 4e to play; why should they switch to another version of the game less to their liking? Likewise, Pathfinder players such as me have Pathfinder, a game that's already pitched to our preferences; why should I or other Pathfinder players switch to another system that incorporates a bunch of things we either don't like or don't care about? The same is true for fans of any other edition.

    There has to be more of a draw to 5e than just the imprimatur of D&D. That's not enough for people who've gone different directions; maybe it was once, but it sure isn't now. We've already taken the emotional step of walking away from the brand to play our preferred flavor of the game. Many of us aren't willing to make significant sacrifices of what we like just to say we play D&D.

    Upon reflection, I'm not even sure what 5e could bring to the table to "unify the community." Because of the modular approach, we'll all still be playing different games anyway; what's going to make us give up what we've got to return to a brand that doesn't represent what we want?

  • #228
    Registered User
    Waghalter (Lvl 7)



    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    169
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews

    Ignore jsaving
    Quote Originally Posted by thecasualoblivion View Post
    I have to say that I take Monte's departure as good news. As a fan of how 4E does things, Monte never seemed to "get it" in regards to what someone like me wants out of D&D, and when that somebody has "D&DNext lead designer" in their job description it doesn't inspire confidence.
    I'm not sure what you mean by "getting it." 5e is coming upon us several years ahead of schedule because 4e didn't sell well enough, losing market share to such a degree that D&D sales now appear to be trailing Pathfinder's by a significant margin. That's an almost unthinkable reversal spurred in large measure by the continuing popularity of 3.5's mechanics. And none of those market realities have changed one iota as a result of Monte's departure, which doesn't appear to have been primarily driven by design differences anyway.

    Like you, I think 4e is a solid system that hasn't gotten a fair shake from some elements of the gaming community. But it is absolutely inevitable that 5e won't fully reflect the preferences of 4e fans. WotC does "get" what 4e fans want; they just aren't large enough in terms of numbers to be able to carry a new edition, no matter how much we might wish it could be otherwise.

    One guy in my gaming group is apoplectic about this, arguing that 3e "Grognards" sabotaged an objectively superior 4e and are now being rewarded for their intransigence with a new edition. I have some sympathy for his point of view, but the fact is that WotC wouldn't be taking this approach -- which amounts to a huge "egg on face" moment for a lot of current and former employees -- if the numerically large 3e/Pathfinder community weren't doing such a number on D&D sales.

    What I think each of us can and should do is let our voices be heard regarding the aspects of 4e that merit retention in any new edition. Just because 4e underperformed from a sales perspective doesn't make it a "bad" ruleset, and if 5e truly is going to unify the fanbase, it needs to draw good ideas from every edition and not automatically reject those that happened to be part of 4e. Themes, at-wills, and greater tactical versatility for non-casters are three that immediately come to my mind as 4e design elements that should be kept; doubtless other people have other favorites. Even if -- especially if -- WotC threw out too much of 3e in crafting 4e, it's important not to make the same mistake now by throwing out too much of what works in 4e.

  • #229
    Registered User
    Magsman (Lvl 14)

    howandwhy99's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    SE WI
    Posts
    4,928
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews
    Blog Entries
    101

    Ignore howandwhy99
    This does not bode well. I was really quite happy that Monte was heading the design team as that meant for me D&DN was going to be designed differently than D&D has been since he left. At least someone was needed to counterbalance the design-think that has led to such mixed results. Good and bad, both philosophies could use the countervailing wind. I'm not going to buy an updated or retrofitted 4e essentials game. I like what they are continuing to say, but I have still not seen any solid material, so it's wait and see.

    I have no idea why Mr. Cook has actually left the project, but I wish him the very best and will be checking out whatever other projects he has in store for us.
    Playing a game is a study. Storytelling is personal composition.

  • #230
    Quote Originally Posted by jsaving View Post
    I'm not sure what you mean by "getting it." 5e is coming upon us several years ahead of schedule because 4e didn't sell well enough, losing market share to such a degree that D&D sales now appear to be trailing Pathfinder's by a significant margin. That's an almost unthinkable reversal spurred in large measure by the continuing popularity of 3.5's mechanics. And none of those market realities have changed one iota as a result of Monte's departure, which doesn't appear to have been primarily driven by design differences anyway.

    Like you, I think 4e is a solid system that hasn't gotten a fair shake from some elements of the gaming community. But it is absolutely inevitable that 5e won't fully reflect the preferences of 4e fans. WotC does "get" what 4e fans want; they just aren't large enough in terms of numbers to be able to carry a new edition, no matter how much we might wish it could be otherwise.

    One guy in my gaming group is apoplectic about this, arguing that 3e "Grognards" sabotaged an objectively superior 4e and are now being rewarded for their intransigence with a new edition. I have some sympathy for his point of view, but the fact is that WotC wouldn't be taking this approach -- which amounts to a huge "egg on face" moment for a lot of current and former employees -- if the numerically large 3e/Pathfinder community weren't doing such a number on D&D sales.

    What I think each of us can and should do is let our voices be heard regarding the aspects of 4e that merit retention in any new edition. Just because 4e underperformed from a sales perspective doesn't make it a "bad" ruleset, and if 5e truly is going to unify the fanbase, it needs to draw good ideas from every edition and not automatically reject those that happened to be part of 4e. Themes, at-wills, and greater tactical versatility for non-casters are three that immediately come to my mind as 4e design elements that should be kept; doubtless other people have other favorites. Even if -- especially if -- WotC threw out too much of 3e in crafting 4e, it's important not to make the same mistake now by throwing out too much of what works in 4e.
    While I disagree with you on the specifics 4E vs Pathfinder(4E events outnumbered PF events at the most recent GenCon 3 to 1, and I would say nothing Pathfinder has done has come anywhere near the sales of the main 4E books like the core 3, Adventurer's Vault and PHB2), that isn't what this thread or my comment was about. You say yourself that it is important to appeal to both 4E and 3E fans, and my comment was about lacking faith in Monte's ability not to screw up the 4E side of that. Regardless of the exact market shares of PF vs 4E, or what percentages of the D&D community at large they are, the 4E community is certainly big enough that if 5E fails them, 5E fails(at least by the goals 5E has set for itself).

  • + Log in or register to post
    Page 23 of 52 FirstFirst ... 131415161718192021222324252627282930313233 ... LastLast

    Similar Threads

    1. Monte Cook working on 5E?
      By Galeros in forum D&D 5th Edition
      Replies: 95
      Last Post: Wednesday, 2nd October, 2013, 10:48 PM
    2. Is Monte Cook working on D&D 5th Edition?
      By Morrus in forum D&D 5th Edition
      Replies: 57
      Last Post: Wednesday, 2nd October, 2013, 05:59 PM
    3. Replies: 510
      Last Post: Thursday, 9th August, 2012, 05:24 PM
    4. Margaret Weis says Monte Cook is working on 5E
      By Alzrius in forum General RPG Discussion
      Replies: 6
      Last Post: Saturday, 15th October, 2011, 02:38 AM
    5. Monte Cook is working on D&D again!
      By Sonny in forum Older D&D Editions and OSR Gaming
      Replies: 0
      Last Post: Tuesday, 20th September, 2011, 06:24 AM

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •