5E Monte Cook Leaves WotC - No Longer working on D&D Next [updated] - Page 27
  1. #261
    Quote Originally Posted by 13garth13 View Post
    Actually, it doesn't miss the point at all, in fact I didn't even address the point you happen to be going on about (and you're right of course, WOTC cannot afford to completely alienate the 4E fanbase, no matter how much it behooves them to at least publicly downplay certain 4E elements for strategic/market reasons), because that wasn't the idea I was taking issue with.
    I was taking issue with the success/failure of 4E having any bearing at all on this discussion. As for my point, I'd add that I don't believe WotC can condescend to the 4E fanbase in the manner you describe(the bolded part) and expect them to be happy campers. It didn't work during the last edition change.

    I guess what I'm saying is that if you(the plural you, as I'd include those who've brought up this topic before) aren't going on about the failure of 4E to justify its replacement and/or its removal from 5E, I'm not sure where it fits into this discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by 13garth13 View Post
    But while we're on the topic, let's not lie to ourselves; an edition which has created such strong feelings in the fan-base shouldn't necessarily be considered the go-to edition for mining for game-play elements.

    Look, I love (LOVE!) anchovies, but I'm not daft enough to think that everyone else should therefore want some of those salty little treats on their 'za just because I think they're the cat's meow. 4E for better or worse is like anchovies; there's really nothing wrong with them at all, and for people like me, they are particularly yummy, but if I'm making a pizza to appeal to the greatest number of people, I'd really want to think hard about how many slices they appear on, yeah? Clearly anchovies are popular enough that pizza joints offer them as a traditional add-on, but that doesn't mean that a substantial proportion of the population doesn't want them any where NEAR their pie. Now, frankly, I think that's a bit much, but personal tastes are personal tastes, and if enough people feel so strongly about those little fishies, then their inclusion in a pizza for everyone should be done tactfully and in a fashion that doesn't scream, "Remember those toppings that you absolutely loathed that drove you to eat calzones rather than pizza? Well, they're back and a BIG part of what we have in mind for supper tonight".
    Your analogy marginalizes the 4E community, which is a bigger slice of the D&D pie than the percentage of pizza eaters who want anchovies. I'd also say that there are also plenty of 4E fans who feel just as strongly against bringing back certain things from older editions. What you seem to be describing are people who are hostile to 4E being a part of 5E, and want that hostility catered to. I don't believe WotC can cater to that hostility without alienating 4E fans.

    Quote Originally Posted by 13garth13 View Post
    My prior post was addressed towards posters such as Hussar above (sorry dude, I'm really not picking on ya, yours is just the most recent post of its kind that I've seen over the last few months) who somehow want to act as if the early roll-out of 5E is not a big deal in regards to what it says about 4E's success in the market. Heck, some don't even want to say that it is an early roll-out.....

    So, to sum up, yes 4E fans need to be sought as a part of 5E's target audience, but in terms of the (in many ways completely separate issue) notion as to whether or not 4E was a success in the marketplace and whether we can even glean some indication of this from the early release of the latest edition...well, I think that that issue should be considered done and done.

    Again, to what end? No matter how we feel about it, whats done is done. 4E is over, and 5E is coming. How and why it happened isn't as important as the fact that 4E remains a large and important part of the D&D community. People who bring it up seem to be trying to use it as some sort of justification, justification for 5E itself and justification for 5E turning back the clock at 4E's expense. If that isn't the point, what does it have to do with 5E?

  2. #262
    Community Supporter COPPER SUBSCRIBER
    The Great Druid (Lvl 17)

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Nagoya, Japan
    Read 0 Reviews

    ° Block Iosue

    ° Friend+
    Quote Originally Posted by theuglyamerican View Post
    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?
    The goal, which Mearls has said repeatedly, is to have a game you can play exactly as you like -- you're own personal edition of D&D. I love 4e. Why would I switch to 5e? Because 5e may offer me the opportunity to include everything I love about 4e, minus the things I don't like about 4e, plus the things I like about earlier editions.

    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?
    Look, no one's saying anyone has to play a game they don't want to play. Jesus, that's the whole point of D&DN and its modularity. The goal, in the end, is to provide a system that can give a widest possible swath of fans what they want, and increase revenue for WotC. What is possibly wrong with that?

    Quote Originally Posted by thecasualoblivion View Post
    Well we seem to all agree that 5E needs both the 3.5E and 4E communities, but nobody wants to admit that 5E needs to do what it needs to do to make each side happy, because people seem to think that 4e fans getting what they want means the 3.5E fans get screwed and vice versa.
    I, for one, am getting quite tired of conversations being framed so that if 5e doesn't do something the 4e way, it perforce is going to do it the 3e way, and badly broken 3e at that. There are other editions aside from 3e, many of which avoided 3e excesses, and there are other, as yet untried solutions to certain issues beyond what 4e did.

    One could interpret my words in that fashion, but I don't see it that way. My issue with the 5E design team as a whole and Monte in particular was that from everything they've said about 5E until recently, they have no clue what a 4E fan wants. I fully believe they want to please 4E fans, but in their apparent ignorance they'll screw it up by focusing on things they think we want(like tactical combat) and fail to deliver what we really want(balanced rules that work, a focus on cinematic action). I don't believe they are intentionally screwing me over, I think they're misguided on what makes 4E special to the people who enjoy it and will ruin it by bringing back old stuff out of ignorance as opposed to malice.
    Please don't speak for all 4e fans. We don't all like the same things about 4e, and nor all at the same degree. And I say this as someone who's never even played 3e, and cou

    In addition, I see a lot of people with a genuine hatred of 4E, and want to see all traces of it removed or at least as little of it as possible in 5E. As a 4E fan, I can accept that there will need to be some compromises made, but I don't see how you can please people who want 4E surgically removed from D&D and make a game the 4E community can accept.
    If someone honestly wants 4e surgically removed from 5e, then 5e is not for them. The modularity and proposed wide appeal of 5e is not targeted at the hard-core extreme Edition Warriors. It's goal is not to make a single game, and playstyle that will magically unite all of the D&D fanbase. It's goal is to be pliable so that each table can play the kind of D&D they want. If someone won't play it because it's not an exact replica of 4e, it's not for them. If someone won't play because it has elements of 4e in it, it's not for them. It's for the rest of us, the silent masses that like bits of all D&D, and play our chosen editions not because they perfectly represent our ideal D&D, but because they are the closest of all the choices.

    Quote Originally Posted by thecasualoblivion View Post
    During the course of #s 1-6 saw a lot of people freaking out in response to what they were previewing, including a large number of 4E fans, and following that they seem to have backed off their original tone. A great example for this was the outcry following the announcement that Vancian magic would be core to 5E, which after an outcry they started saying there would be alternatives to Vancian magic in 5e.
    This is not even true. In the very first seminar when they announced that Vancian magic was back, they immediately followed that up with saying at-will magic would be available, and that alternative magic modules would be available.

  3. #263
    Scout (Lvl 6)

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Hammond, LA, 70404
    Read 0 Reviews

    ° Block Nyronus

    ° Friend+
    Quote Originally Posted by frankthedm View Post
    <!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention --> @Nyronus <!-- END TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention --> Would you be willing to provide a link to the occasion?
    Its been an while, and you're actually lucky I managed to find it. The article is not as terrible as I remember, but it still has serious issues.

    It uses a very narrow and arbitrary issue (Should we give character mechanical incentive to play stereotypical characters?) as staging ground to suddenly discuss a very broad issue (What is the relationship between flavor and mechanics?). Up until the last few sentences its all about whether or not dwarves should get a +2 to hit with Axes because the fluff says their awesome with axes, where then it suddenly jumps to "Should the rules represent the flavor of the story?" which is a very complicated issue with a lot of nuance to it. It then boils down said really complex issue to a single Yes/No question phrased in such a way that most people who actually care about game design will pick the Yes answer. Which most did. Of course the rules should represent the story. Why else would we use rules to tell them if not for that purpose? The reason it offended me so much is that the nature of the connection between mechanics and narrative is a big edition war point between 4E and the people who hate it, with a lot of people strawmaning the concept of "re-fluffing" to mean that the rules shouldn't mean anything at all, as opposed to the actual idea in which the rules are recognized to be abstract enough that they could represent different events within the narrative without any difference in rules interaction, and then taking advantage of that by changing the fluff to be more fitting to your tastes without breaking the suspension of disbelief. So asking the question on whether or not mechanics should be connected to flavor, in such a loaded way, struck me as a deliberate attempt to wring polling numbers against 4E. Hence why I felt it was dishonest. Looking back on it now I'm not sure if it was an deliberate act of dishonestly so much as one of stupidity and really poor writing. But here's the article for you to judge.

    Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible

  4. #264
    Magsman (Lvl 14)

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Read 0 Reviews

    ° Block jbear

    ° Friend+
    Here's a question:

    I'm not very knowledgeable when it comes to who wrote or did what. Are there other designers involved in 3.5 that have a good reputation? Perhaps they could take up the empty chair and offer insight or a 3.5 fans perspective on the game?

    I have no personal interest in 5e resembling 3.5. But, as others have pointed out, as long as I can play the game my way, I have no problem that someone else can play the same game their way.

    I just want everyone to be happy!!!

    (If only everyone felt that way 5e might actually work)

  5. #265
    After working through the whole of this thread and trying not to get too emotional, just a two questions:

    Why do we assume the designers to be soldiers or generals in the Edition War?

    Why do we fear that everything Monte Cook contributed to D&DN will be eradicated from 5e?

    There are a lot more thoughts crossing my mind in the last few days, not all of them fit for publication under the Grandma-rule...

  6. #266
    Greater Elemental (Lvl 23)

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Read 0 Reviews

    ° Block ExploderWizard

    ° Friend+
    Quote Originally Posted by Hussar View Post
    I would point out that R. A. Salvatore has probably brought in more money to D&D than all the tabletop books combined. Certainly if you combined Salvatory, Weiss and Hickman and possibly a couple of others, you would find that the tabletop RPG end of things has never been the big breadwinner.
    Sure the novels do well, that isn't in dispute. How popular would they be if they were not based in rpg campaign worlds? If these novels had no connection to the game or its fans I don't think they would be quite as successful.

  7. #267
    Quote Originally Posted by Umbran View Post
    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?
    People are going to speculate though. Which is why he even issued a statement in the first place I imagine. Personally i dont think monte said much anyone can han their coat on. Mike mearls "surprised and saddened" isstriking though.

  8. #268
    Quote Originally Posted by Hussar View Post
    I would point out that R. A. Salvatore has probably brought in more money to D&D than all the tabletop books combined. Certainly if you combined Salvatory, Weiss and Hickman and possibly a couple of others, you would find that the tabletop RPG end of things has never been the big breadwinner.
    A bit off topic, but I wonder how badly the Spellplauge hurt FR novel sales. I know I pretty much stopped reading them after this horrendous travesty. Maybe that is part of the reason for a new edition. Maybe 4E and it's baggage (Spellplauge, retconning the multiverse, etc.) hurt the entire D&D brand as much as the RPG.

  9. #269
    A note on the Pathfinder/Hasbro sales argument:

    1. Paizo strongly protects its book sales and makes a concerted effort to sell books. You can see this in their subscription structure. You can get a subscription to everything that comes out with a PDF; but you can not subscribe PDF only. Additionally, their watermarking does dissuade casual uploading to download sites

    2. WoTC completely hosed their book sales by offering a subscription to their D&D tools with full compendium access. This may be only my observation but I'm surrounded by more players who use compendium than buy the books. Additionally, their lack of support for PDF only creates a larger illegal copy issue because anyone who does scan the books has a copy they can distribute without tagging.

    In my opinion, forcing people to scan their own PDFs increases the chance something will be pirated and at the very least reduces possible income to Hasbro.

    So when you start comparing sales - and you're just using book data - Yes Pathfinder is going to outsell 4e. I believe that it is regardless of number games, but I don't think the delta in unit sales was as bad as people were reporting due to the differences in how the games were sold and the lack of data coming out of certain sales channels.

    Ultimately, it's obvious that part of the 5e plan was due to 4e sales. It just seems equally obvious to me that the business plan surrounding how to actually sell D&D was done far better by Paizo than Hasbro and that's the real difference between games.

  10. #270
    Duplicate post
    Last edited by Kobold Boots; Friday, 27th April, 2012 at 01:16 PM. Reason: Duplicate post

+ Log in or register to post
Page 27 of 52 FirstFirst ... 171819202122232425262728293031323334353637 ... LastLast

Quick Reply Quick Reply

Similar Threads

  1. Monte Cook working on 5E?
    By Galeros in forum D&D 5th Edition News, Rules, Homebrews, and House Rules
    Replies: 95
    Last Post: Wednesday, 2nd October, 2013, 09:48 PM
  2. Is Monte Cook working on D&D 5th Edition?
    By Morrus in forum D&D 5th Edition News, Rules, Homebrews, and House Rules
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: Wednesday, 2nd October, 2013, 04:59 PM
  3. Margaret Weis says Monte Cook is working on 5E
    By Alzrius in forum Roleplaying Games General Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: Saturday, 15th October, 2011, 01:38 AM
  4. Monte Cook is working on D&D again!
    By Sonny in forum Older D&D Editions (4E, 3.x, 2E, 1E, OD&D), D&D Variants, and OSR Gaming
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Tuesday, 20th September, 2011, 05:24 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