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

thecasualoblivion said:

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.

Click to expand...

emphasis mine...

That was what tipped me over from 3/3.5 to 4e. Nothing else.

Already had "minion" rules, already had only applicable ability monster blocks (since 87) etc.

It was the elegance of the balance...easier to plan encounters for desired difficulty...easier to create a monster and know what level it should be...even easier to calculate an environmental challenge properly.

THAT framework is what I want them to keep.

"I am surprised, and frankly saddened, by Monte’s decision to leave the D&D Next design team. "

This is the only thing that bothers me. I read it to say that Mike did not expect Monte to leave and that means plans they have would include his presence, and now those plans need to change. This unexpected instability would be expected to have some negative impact, although I guess we will never know exactly what that impact is.

I'm left wondering whether the use of the word "saddened" refers to a feeling of loss of capability within the design team or to his opinion of Monte for leaving the team at this time.

((Constructive feedback: guys, break up in paragraphs, massive blocks of text are slower to read ))

thecasualoblivion said:

I really like this quote. One thing I've learned arguing with people over D&D is not to underestimate the size of the pre-3E D&D fanbase, though there is little of it here at ENWorld. While I view the Old School Revolution as a small group of highly vocal and opinionated people, there is a large group of people behind them who are less strident and less visible, but still prefer things how AD&D(or other earlier editions) did things. A significant percentage of the 3E community during its day were using 3E/3.5E rules to play AD&D, ignoring or glossing over the changes 3E made, and these people continue to play the same as they always have. Some still playing 3E, 3.5E or even Pathfinder, some playing earlier editions or retroclones. They aren't defined by the OSR, but the OSR is more visible.

Click to expand...

I play 4E and still play the way I always have. My style has not really changed through changes from B/X to 1E, 2E, 3E, 4E. I am part of the pre-3E fanbase despite the edition I currently choose to play.

I think many people here are being treated unfairly, put into a "camp" based on the edition they currently enjoy. Yes, I currently enjoy 4E, but I look forward to an edition that might emulate my favorite parts of previous editions.

My issues so far from what we've heard and/or things I want them to avoid are:
* I like a well-developed Skill Challenge. The comment about them "dying in a fire" concerned me.
* I almost quit playing D&D because of the System Mastery monster created by 3E's open multiclassing, frontloaded classes, imbalanced prestige classes, imbalanced (overpowered and 'trap') feats, etc. The team's decision to focus on the multiclass rules of one out of 6 editions has me wary. I'm not opposed in general, but they must find a way to balance this for my group's tastes.
* One thing they haven't touched upon, AFAIK, is 2E kits. If they explore those based on fan feedback I hope they keep them balanced.
* To meet my needs they need a better published adventure support system. I still think they should reach out to a respected publisher, like Paizo, to strike a deal that makes sense for both parties. This would require WotC to be generous enough in its offer (using Paizo as an example) to make it worth their while to abandon their own product, so I won't hold my breath. There are obviously other opportunities and options.

Just about anything else I'm willing to compromise on.

Bedrockgames said:

People are going to speculate though.

Click to expand...

So? That doesn't make all forms of speculation good ideas.

If anything, the fact that it'll happen makes it *more* important that I point out that basing speculations upon what was not said is equivalent to putting words in their mouth, and then speculating on those.

"Monte didn't say anything *specifically* about Mearls, therefore he clearly wants Mearls' head on a pike!" is beyond mere speculation, and into the realm of making stuff up and calling it truth.

Umbran said:

So? That doesn't make all forms of speculation good ideas.

If anything, the fact that it'll happen makes it *more* important that I point out that basing speculations upon what was not said is equivalent to putting words in their mouth, and then speculating on those.

"Monte didn't say anything *specifically* about Mearls, therefore he clearly wants Mearls' head on a pike!" is beyond mere speculation, and into the realm of making stuff up and calling it truth.

Click to expand...

Well i am not convinced it is bad that people are speculating. We should certainly do it without some of the hostility people direct at either cook or mearls (on the whole I think folks have been pretty good on this front). This is a forum for discussion, not an academic journal or newspaper. It is fair for us to wonder what it means when Mearls says he is "surprised and saddened". These are public statements so they are just as open to speclation as other public statement members of the design team has made. Cook leaving is clearly a significant develpment. People who are interested in 5e will naturally be curious what it means and look for clues in statements by mearls or cook.

ExploderWizard said:

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.

Click to expand...

Well, Dragonlance novels came first - at least as far as the public is concerned. And they did pretty darn well. And, let's be honest, Drizz't novels are read by FAR more than the RPG gaming community. I think a very large number of Drizz't fans wouldn't know one end of a d20 supplement from another.

jsaving said:

Those who are trying to come up with timelines to "prove" WotC caused 4e's sales decline are missing the boat. WotC was proud of 4e, genuinely believed it would hold the vast bulk of the gaming community together, and planned to give 4e a standard 7-10 year run before introducing a new edition. WotC invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in R&D, advertising, etc for 4e. The fact that they pulled the plug on it years early, nullifying much of the huge investment they made, *is* the smoking gun that lets us know 4e sales were falling through the floor.

Click to expand...

I agree that the 4e design/dev team were proud of what they had build with 4e, but I think there's a nuance here that deserves mention. Did they genuinely believe it would hold the vast bulk of the gaming community together? I'm not so sure. Mearls, I believe, had a blog post out there a while ago talking about the stress he and members of the team felt when 4e was hitting the streets. They knew it was a significant departure and I think that stress came from worries that 4e wouldn't do so well because of that. He also went on to say he didn't feel that stress when 4e's PH2 hit the streets because sales for 4e had actually turned out to be pretty good. But at the time of 4e's release, I think there was a level of doubt.

jsaving said:

Hitting the panic button isn't done lightly at a company like WotC, which almost everyone acknowledges is an incredibly slow-moving entity most of the time. Nor is publicly admitting mistakes WotC's forte. But the one thing WotC does have is the best marketplace data in the industry, and you can bet they act based on that data to maximize $$$ for themselves. There is absolutely no way they would throw away their 4e investment unless their data told them with absolute clarity that they'd do even worse if they kept to the status quo, with a possible future in which D&D actually finds itself displaced as the default option around the gaming table.

The alternative theory that 4e was doing well sales-wise until WotC ham-fistedly sabotaged it just doesn't make sense. It's inconsistent with how WotC has previous operated, but more importantly, it's something that would cost them a lot of money and compel them to admit past mistakes -- things they would never do unless forced. Much as I hate to say these words, WotC isn't the villain here, twirling its moustache after having tied 4e to the train tracks. They're simply hoping to regain D&D's once-dominant position around the gaming table, and that should be a goal with which all of us can sympathize, in my view at least.

Click to expand...

I think you're right here in a number of ways. But I also think there are changes in the environment that may weigh in. We recently learned that 4e most likely lived under a $50 million revenue requirement or run the risk of not being a core line and thus being shelved. I don't think we've gotten any confirmation 5e is being held to those terms. Plus, we have learned that Magic has surged recently. As a result, WotC may have been able to leverage a little more freedom from Hasbro's expectations and metrics on their overall strength. And we also know now that some video-gaming rights to D&D have come back from Atari. That also changes the playing field a little, though if Hasbro continues to hoard the revenues from that sort of licensing without letting it account to WotC's D&D line, that won't be the help it should be.

There are a lot of contexts to this whole topic that we only have partial pictures of, and that WotC has a more detailed perspective on than us. They've made decisions I would consider bad in the past, bad enough to help put them in the position they are in now (assuming our picture of it isn't rosy), but I don't think they would have made a decision as momentous as cutting planned support for 4e short in favor of another big gamble on a new edition, even one intended to be a unifying edition, without some pretty serious thought and analysis of the trends.

Bedrockgames said:

Well i am not convinced it is bad that people are speculating.

Click to expand...

I didn't say speculating in general was bad. I said that some forms of speculating were not good ideas. Not at all the same thing.

These are public statements so they are just as open to speclation as other public statement members of the design team has made.

Click to expand...

Yes. Please note how I'm talking about public NON-statements. Speculating on details of what *wasn't* said.

You want to read into what was said, I'm cool with that. Reading into what wasn't said is on intellectually shaky ground, especially when it gets into the personal relationships between people you don't know - that way lies soap opera.

thecasualoblivion said:

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?

Click to expand...

While I agree that no one should take any "victory laps" here, I do think it's important to understand why we find ourselves in this predicament. If the evidence we have from The Rouse, several sales reports posted on ENWorld, and WotC's own behavior are to be believed, 5e is coming years ahead of schedule solely because 4e wasn't appealing enough to the average gamer to stop the encroachment of alternatives like Pathfinder. If true, then people who are crowing about Monte's departure because they think it will steer 5e closer to 4e are missing the mark. He wasn't a guy who was hired at random and then somehow convinced WotC to sabotage 4e and bring back his beloved 3e. Rather, he was hired precisely because the underlying sales data was so poor that WotC felt its only option was to create a 3e-infused new edition -- a market reality that won't change simply because he has left.

Which brings us back to the main purpose of this thread. It's perfectly OK to cheer or rue Monte's departure based on liking/disliking his past work, but I don't think it makes sense for either side to cheer or rue Monte's departure because it will somehow change the fundamental direction 5e is taking. And 3e-philes who think it heralds disaster are just as mistaken as 4e-philes who think it heralds nirvana, in my view at least.