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

Well, as a 3e-phile myself, and one who greatly admires Monte's work, it's neither disaster nor nirvana. I might have given 5e a look based solely on Monte's contribution. But I'm going to be far less likely to do so now. Fortunately, because of the OGL and Pathfinder, my fate as a gamer is not tied to the success of the new edition.

Yes. I am very thankful to Ryan Dancey for that.

This all reminds me of when some big name in comics quits/dies/retires. Somehow Superman lasted nearly 900 issues and is still going after the reboot. It's been good, bad, dark, light, gritty, heroic. It's been popular, unpopular. One way or another, I suspect D&D will continue, a bad edition will not be the end of it forever. Not that I'm saying 5e will be bad, only that D&D is bigger than a single person, a single edition.

I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned this or not so I apologize for anything that has been repeated.

I have noticed that there are posters who say "Well I didn't like the what I've been hearing about 5th edition but I'm sorry to see Monte go." Well that's fine and all but Monte hasn't been alone in the development so far. You can't blame Monte on the parts of Next that you think are bad just because he may be your least favorite designer out of the bunch. Your favorite designer might have come up with that one idea that you don't like.

Someone way back commented about Monte starting up the edition war. Good God what a joke!

People are coming up with the craziest crap in order to make the man look bad. Most of these guys that are still floating around have all had their fingers in the previous edition soup so if you are going to hate then you need to spread the wealth.

In my honest opinion I don't think him leaving was over a small issue. Your lead designer doesn't just leave during a new product unless he has some good reason. In my opinion, I believe it may have something to do with the direction corporate wants Next to go and Monte didn't agree. It could be that others wanted to go as well but Monte was the only one in the position with the ability to leave. Needing a job does keep you where you are even when you don't agree with the direction of something.

Maybe we will be able to see why Monte left if and when D&D Next comes out.

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. 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.

Click to expand...

If it doesn't apply to you it doesn't apply to you- I'm not naming names.

I'm talking about the edition wars in general. WoTC makes an edition, and then despite saying things like "play what you like" people argue and fight about what style is "true" D&D, or whether the changes make it no longer D&D, and ALL of it is basically predicated on the idea that one opinion is somehow more valid then another- And the official version of D&D seems to be what is used as the ammo.

Oh this is what's in the core books so it MUST be what's best right?
Or
Oh this isn't in the core books so this can no longer be D&D!

It's all about validating an opinion.

My HOPE is that gamers really DO just want to play what they like, and 5e gives them enough options to put together a game the way they want to.

My FEAR is that gamers don't just want to be able to play the way they want to and instead hate the idea of other playing DIFFERENTLY, and won't be happy unless the game validates their opinion (IE only has rules supporting their style of play).

Scribble said:

If it doesn't apply to you it doesn't apply to you- I'm not naming names.

I'm talking about the edition wars in general. WoTC makes an edition, and then despite saying things like "play what you like" people argue and fight about what style is "true" D&D, or whether the changes make it no longer D&D, and ALL of it is basically predicated on the idea that one opinion is somehow more valid then another- And the official version of D&D seems to be what is used as the ammo.

Oh this is what's in the core books so it MUST be what's best right?
Or
Oh this isn't in the core books so this can no longer be D&D!

It's all about validating an opinion.

My HOPE is that gamers really DO just want to play what they like, and 5e gives them enough options to put together a game the way they want to.

My FEAR is that gamers don't just want to be able to play the way they want to and instead hate the idea of other playing DIFFERENTLY, and won't be happy unless the game validates their opinion (IE only has rules supporting their style of play).

Click to expand...

I think this isn't what is going on. People (for the most part) don't care how other people play the game. Anger is provoked when the core rules suggest a narrow playstyle over others or when the recipe changes enough that it no longer feels like D&D to some. This isn't just mindless griping, it is simpky about customers having preferences and not feeling like they have to buy stuff from WOTC when their products don't meet those preferences. I think the edition wars result when different camps of customers collide over these things online (you see some of this offline too but not nearly as much). Basically, fo4 me, 4e took the game in a direction I wasn't interested in. If that is the direction they want to go fine, it really is not a problem for me. The only time I get irked is when people insist 1) i am wrong and I really like 4e because I don't understand it or my own preferences or 2) that I should buy or play the current edition anyways even if it doesn't appeal to me.

Bedrockgames said:

I think this isn't what is going on. People (for the most part) don't care how other people play the game. Anger is provoked when the core rules suggest a narrow playstyle over others or when the recipe changes enough that it no longer feels like D&D to some. This isn't just mindless griping, it is simpky about customers having preferences and not feeling like they have to buy stuff from WOTC when their products don't meet those preferences. I think the edition wars result when different camps of customers collide over these things online (you see some of this offline too but not nearly as much). Basically, fo4 me, 4e took the game in a direction I wasn't interested in. If that is the direction they want to go fine, it really is not a problem for me. The only time I get irked is when people insist 1) i am wrong and I really like 4e because I don't understand it or my own preferences or 2) that I should buy or play the current edition anyways even if it doesn't appeal to me.

Click to expand...

Again if you think it doesn't apply to you, that's cool. I'm not saying anyone in particular. It's just my opinion. I'd be happy if I'm wrong. I'm afraid I'm not.

ForeverSlayer said:

Well that's fine and all but Monte hasn't been alone in the development so far. You can't blame Monte on the parts of Next that you think are bad just because he may be your least favorite designer out of the bunch. Your favorite designer might have come up with that one idea that you don't like.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. My issues with 5E are much larger than Monte Cook. Even Robert Schwalb, one of my favorite designers ever, has posted a blog entry that left me shaking my head in disappointment.

Bedrockgames said:

I think this isn't what is going on. People (for the most part) don't care how other people play the game. Anger is provoked when the core rules suggest a narrow playstyle over others or when the recipe changes enough that it no longer feels like D&D to some. This isn't just mindless griping, it is simpky about customers having preferences and not feeling like they have to buy stuff from WOTC when their products don't meet those preferences. I think the edition wars result when different camps of customers collide over these things online (you see some of this offline too but not nearly as much). Basically, fo4 me, 4e took the game in a direction I wasn't interested in. If that is the direction they want to go fine, it really is not a problem for me. The only time I get irked is when people insist 1) i am wrong and I really like 4e because I don't understand it or my own preferences or 2) that I should buy or play the current edition anyways even if it doesn't appeal to me.

Click to expand...

The main problem that I see is that some 4th edition fans have, themselves, deemed 4th edition as the new standard and if something has to come after it it better be modeled on that design but taken to the next step. 4th edition didn't raise the bar in game design, it brought us something different and some of them just can't accept the fact that many of us didn't like it. The game can be 100% but still miss what that certain individual is looking for in a game.

The part I have in bold is something I really hate hearing from that crowd.

Nemesis Destiny said:

The strength and problem with the Anchovies analogy is that the idea of 5th edition being modular is a lot like having a broad selection of toppings to choose from at a pizza joint. You want to retain the most customers, so you offer the most topping options to try and please as many potential customers as possible.

The issue is, bowing too far to the folks calling for the removal or exclusion of 4e elements from the next edition of D&D would be like refusing to even offer anchovies at your pizza parlour because some people don't like them. I think we can all agree that that doesn't make sense; how does offering anchovies as an option hurt the people that don't want to eat them on their 'zza?

Answer: it doesn't.

Click to expand...

The problem is, if anchovies are core, we'll get them on our pizza anyway, and our only option is to pick them off ourselves.