D&D 5E Is there beef between Mearls and Cook?

[darjr]

Looking back at what Monte Cook has said in the past I think it’s clear that he has no problem being frank about things and his motivations. So no, Monte Cook left for the reasons he stated and none other. If there were any other he would have said so.

 

[Raith5]

In a historical sense, I think 1e mechanical morass, 2e's unhealthy DM culture and fluff bloat, 3e's standardized rules and balance problems, 3.5e's splat-mania, 4e's unhealthy player culture (which has it's origins in 3.5e) and misguided balance obsession all led to what 5e is today. You can see how the culture of D&D has evolved as the different editions came out. When it was released, each edition had the salient features that the community felt were important. Each iteration gets a little better, though each edition (even 5e) has introduced new problems.

I think I agree with this, but one thing I cant escape is how each edition can be seen to overreact to a problem in the previous edition. For example the way that 4e standardised classes to make martial and magic classes on par to avoid the "angel summoner and bmx bandit" problem of 3ed. While I personally could live with this standardization (because I found DMing mid and high level 3ed with a wizard PC horrible), I can see how it annoyed many.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Prior to 3e's release, AD&D had a significant cultural problem that the DM could make arbitrary and even capricious rulings, and the players just had to accept that.

Problem?
That'd DM Empowerment, and it's back!

But, yeah, there's been a pendulum swing between DM-focus and Player-focus. The classic game was very DM-focused, the first two eds of the WotC era very player-focused, and 5e is back to a DM focus.

 

[TwoSix]

I don't agree with this.

However, it's likely do to different localities and player bases, so I cant say that you are wrong.

Those DM that railroaded and scripted their stories didn't last long, so I think it was pretty self correcting on its own, and not a part of 3E development.

While I certainly agree that it varied from locality to locality, I do think the popular games of the time (particularly 2e and the original White Wolf lines) fostered a culture focused on DM creation of a narrative, and pushing the players to follow the narrative. I certainly think there was enough awareness of the problems that culture could cause that 3e was developed in opposition to it.

 

[SkidAce]

Problem?
That'd DM Empowerment, and it's back!

But, yeah, there's been a pendulum swing between DM-focus and Player-focus. The classic game was very DM-focused, the first two eds of the WotC era very player-focused, and 5e is back to a DM focus.

I feel 5e is actually somewhat to the middle.

Rulings not Rules, however...the rules we do have are fairly elegant and usable by the players. JMHO.

 

[Guest 6801328]

If he can hold on for another 10 or 15 years, the come-back cycle should get around to 3e.

You're assuming it's more like a sine wave than it is like a parabola....

 

[Tony Vargas]

You're assuming it's more like a sine wave than it is like a parabola....

Niether, fashion famously comes back on a 20-year delay, for whatever reason, D&D seems to take 30...
::shrug::

 

[Zippee]

Huh? What player-entitlement over DM-empowerment? What edition did that arise in?

One of the major changes from TSR 1ed / 2ed AD&D to WOTC 3ed plus D&D was that the rules moved to the PHB from the DMG.

In AD&D the combat rules, etc are in the DMG, so DM fiat is harder to challenge as the player's don't have the RAW to debate.

That and the meta-game of 'rule mastery' had the [un]intended consequence of handing 'power' to the players and neutering DM's who were used to a lot of freedom and flexibility in what rules to pick and choose from and how to implement them.

 

[Croesus]

I feel 5e is actually somewhat to the middle.

Rulings not Rules, however...the rules we do have are fairly elegant and usable by the players. JMHO.

This is why I don't really see the various editions in GM vs. Player terms, but in terms of how easy or difficult they are to actually play.

3E was supposed to protect players from poor GMs by having a rule for everything - everybody would know what the rules were, so no arbitrary rulings from bad GMs. But because no one could remember all the rules, the system too often ended up limiting what players could do.

IMO, 5E encourages player agency much more effectively by not having a rule for everything, instead focusing on relatively simple, standardized rules for the most common stuff that comes up at the table. It seems to me that players automatically benefit if the system is easy to master and play.

 

[Uller]

I feel 5e is actually somewhat to the middle.

Rulings not Rules, however...the rules we do have are fairly elegant and usable by the players. JMHO.

Unless you look at the stealth rules...Then it's all back to DM-may-I?

<quickly exits the room before the stealth rules war erupts/>


Sent from my SM-G900V using EN World mobile app