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

AeroDm · Apr 26, 2012

Bedrockgames said:
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

Morrus · Apr 26, 2012

talok55 said:
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.

Scribble · Apr 26, 2012

AeroDm said:
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.

Nemesis Destiny · Apr 26, 2012

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.

Bedrockgames · Apr 26, 2012

Scribble said:
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.

thecasualoblivion · Apr 26, 2012

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.

theuglyamerican · Apr 26, 2012

Bedrockgames said:
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?

jsaving · Apr 26, 2012

thecasualoblivion said:
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.

howandwhy99 · Apr 26, 2012

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.

thecasualoblivion · Apr 27, 2012

jsaving said:
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).