AMA with Monte Cook (Numenera, D&D, Monte Cook Games, Malhavoc Press)

Can't think of a question atm but I do want to thank you for everything you have contributed to the gaming community for all these years.
Been trying for several years to convince my friends to let me run a campaign using Monte Cook's World of Darkness -_-* They prefer vanilla.

Monte At Home said:

Well, the roots of D&D are far less in heroics than they are in more mercenary-like behavior, and I know some people play evil campaigns (I've certainly done it), but most people find that non-evil campaigns are probably more easily sustained long-term. You've got to get everyone on board and in the spirit of things, and some players aren't going to want to do that and should never be forced to. I suppose you can say that you dodge a lot of potential issues and problems by assuming the PCs are--more or less--the good guys.

Click to expand...

Thank you for responding.

My question was going to be two parts, but of course I wanted to get your general feeling of evil adventures before I asked the second part. It wasn't meant to be a gotcha sorta thing either, so I apologize ahead of time if you feel it is.

After playing as I mentioned the Way of the Wicked series which actually strongly suggests a DM/GM ban all Chaotic Alignments and Good Alignments from character creation and stick with LE/LN/N/NE alignments, is it really that players prefer good modules over evil or is it that players don't fully understand the 3.5 Alignment system and thus play character poorly resulting in failed campaigns? If so, what is a Dungeon Master/Game Master to do when they genuinely have a promising evil AP to bring to the table? Do you have suggestions for a better alignment system in 3.5 or ideas that you had during your 3.5 days that at one time might have been promising?

Willie the Duck said:

Hi Monte, big fan. Loving my current Numenera campaign.

I don't know if this is an appropriate question, and I'll let you frame it any way you want. On the subject of D&D 3rd edition--is there anything you wish you had done differently for that edition?

Click to expand...

Oh I suppose there's a long list. Some things needed better explanations. There are things discussed in the DMG, for example, that were meant to be guidelines, not rules. (Things like magic item pricing, XP awards, wealth per level, etc.) These were supposed to be tools to help DMs, not a way to regulate things that probably should vary from table to table.

Some of 3E--particularly NPC and creature creation--is too complex. They make DM prep a real chore.

There's a few hinky rules or spell descriptions or whatnot here or there.

But for the most part, I'm really, really proud of that work.

DragonMasterDean said:

Hi Monte!

Long time fan of your D&D work and have looked at some of the new stuff. I think the Book of Vile Darkness was inspired and did you have a lot of input on the Fiendish Codex? And Ghostwalk is one of my favorite settings. On Retro stuff, trying to do Paladin in Hell in 3.5. Any suggestions?

Click to expand...

Thank you. Other than some of my material that was picked up or used as a genesis, I had no input on Fiendish Codex.

Paladin in Hell is absolutely a favorite of mine. I don't know if there's suggestions that I have beyond anything for high-level 3E: be prepared for big numbers and the PCs having a really, really wide variety of options for overcoming a lot of challenges. Maybe considerably more than 2E, which Paladin in Hell was written for.

Hi Monte!

I was a eager follower of your work back in the d20 era and really liked your design philosophy.

Now, on to the questions:

1) Game mechanics/design-wise, what were the issues that contributed to your retiring from the DnD 5e project, if any? (I'm not interested in internal politics or personal aspects, just game design ones).

2) What is your opinion on the finished DnD 5e ruleset?

Why don't we see more universal non- genre specific systems? Is it too difficult or do you find it easier to design a game when emulating a genre?

A follow on to some of the earlier questions about the limited license -- would you consider lowering the cost of the limited license for items that only use the Cypher System Rulebook (when that license goes live)? The $100 fee for Numenera or The Strange makes a lot of sense because it has the value add of allowing setting elements from one of the two MCG IPs to be used. But it does seem a little steep if we're providing our own IP. I'm not saying it needs to be free, but just even bringing it back to the older $50 fee would seem more reasonable and still keep a "gated community" feel.

Dear Monte,

As a Colombian (south america) rpg developer who first came into gaming with trpgs via Planescape I must say, it is a wondrous honour and pleasure to have a close approximation to you and your work. I just want to say your life's work is awesome and inspiring and an inspiration. You and your team have always been part of great memories we cherish here in the mountains.

Best wishes,

Daniel Torres

kahnjl said:

I'm not trying to get you in trouble, but since this is an amA...

Can you expand on this a little bit? What made it so rueful?

Click to expand...

I don't know how it could get me into trouble, so no worries.

Basically, I left WotC in 2001 for many reasons, but mainly because it had become very corporate and political. No big grudges or anything--it just wasn't for me. When WotC approached me to come back for 5e in 2011 (as a contractor), I was told everything was different. I was told that the environment was totally free of any of the corporate bs of the past and a great place for creativity. I was told we'd be revitalizing the whole game, and that this included amazingly cool things like bringing back Dragon magazine to print, reestablishing ties with the old guard (Zeb Cook, Tracy Hickman, Jeff Grubb, etc. maybe as consultants), beefing up the in-house staff (primarily with hiring back people with a lot of solid experience), and creating an aggressive initial release schedule with high-quality adventures and other products created by an in-house staff. In short, focusing specifically on the tabletop D&D experience, and not on licensing to video games, movies, and other things.

It was within a year there that I discovered that none of this was actually going to happen. Now, to be clear, I'm not saying I was lied to. I'm a realist and I know plans change. But a complete reversal of that initial plan--that is to say, a focus entirely on licensing the brand and turning D&D from a game and into a property--that wasn't something I wanted to be a part of, particularly in what turned out to be a disappointingly difficult (extraordinarily political) work environment.

Again, no big grudges at the time (other than, as a lifelong fan of the D&D game, I'm deeply saddened by the change of focus... but in retrospect they might have been inevitable). It just wasn't for me.

Larcher said:

Nice talking to you at Gencon, and here in Brazil. Really some good mechanics in the Cypher rulebook.

MMG is doing a lot of rulebooks, a great deal of settings. Any plans on big adventures?

And is there a plan for more settings for Cypher, like Medieval Fantasy or Horror game?

Click to expand...

Thank you.

1. We've done two campaign-style adventures, one for Numenera (The Devil's Spine) and one for The Strange (The Dark Spiral). It's possible we'll do more, but no immediate plans.

2. Yes, we'll be putting together some kind of support for the CSR and it will be some kind of cool sourcebook that shows off the system's strengths, but we haven't nailed it all down yet. (One of the great things about being a small company is that we can be very agile, and react to the audiences' needs quite quickly.)