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

[GM Dave]

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

All we need to do is wait till GenCon when the Designers and Developers go to the bar for drinking and sharing old 'campaign' stories.

I'm sure a few people will get the 'truth' of the rumours.

 

[carmachu]

Also i think lots of people bought the first three core 4e books(i know i did). But a large chunk ended up not liking it and playing just a few sessions. So it wouldn't surprise me if they did pretty okay out of the gate only to hit a steep decline soon after.

*nods* I bought then and at least half our 8 man group did. One ended up actually trying and not liking it. Everyone else sold off or traded away the books we bought. SO it wouldnt suprise me if that is the case.

But again, it doesnt make it successful, despite the larger print run. (It doesnt make it a "failure" either, so thats not where I'm taking this).

 

[Hussar]

Also i think lots of people bought the first three core 4e books(i know i did). But a large chunk ended up not liking it and playing just a few sessions. So it wouldn't surprise me if they did pretty okay out of the gate only to hit a steep decline soon after.

But, again, if this is true, then how do you explain a 100%/year increase in DDI subscriptions?

You'd think if a large chunk didn't like the game after buying the core three, that you'd have a similar pattern with the subscription service - lots of early subs and then a slow (or maybe not so slow) decline as people let their subs run out.

So, how do you explain the strength of the DDI if the gaming public is rejecting 4e?

 

[GM Dave]

But, again, if this is true, then how do you explain a 100%/year increase in DDI subscriptions?

You'd think if a large chunk didn't like the game after buying the core three, that you'd have a similar pattern with the subscription service - lots of early subs and then a slow (or maybe not so slow) decline as people let their subs run out.

So, how do you explain the strength of the DDI if the gaming public is rejecting 4e?

And yet, I know many people that have WoW accounts. It doesn't mean they are actively using them daily.

I, officially, have a DDI account. I got it as freebie when I did some early Encounter play stuff.

I don't use it for my regular gaming as my local area will often say they want to do DnD but a strong qualifier of 'no 4e'.

It is a shame as I've had fun with both systems. I've also had fun with PF.

Then again, I usually find something decent or new to learn from most systems.

 

[Bedrockgames]

But, again, if this is true, then how do you explain a 100%/year increase in DDI subscriptions?

You'd think if a large chunk didn't like the game after buying the core three, that you'd have a similar pattern with the subscription service - lots of early subs and then a slow (or maybe not so slow) decline as people let their subs run out.

So, how do you explain the strength of the DDI if the gaming public is rejecting 4e?

I don't think that really presents an issue. I am sure many people who liked the game didn't subscribe to DDI right away and a lot of that was just the core 4E audience adopting DDI. Just because DDI was increasing that doesn't mean they weren't losing customers to pathfinder.

I mean a lot of this is a subjective judgment call. But I feel pretty confident based on what I have seen and my experience as a gamer. A couple of years ago people were denying that pathfinder sales were catching up to 4E, but we eventually saw that was true. Then people were denying that 5E was even coming out (in fact I won an online bet on the subject). Then it became clear that was happening. This just seems like the last point in an ongoing series of debates where it is pretty obvious to most people that 4E underperformed (to the point that there are articles in major magazines discussion the split of the player base around the edition). This isn't to attack the quality of 4E. I just am not very persuaded by the DDI argument at this stage. I can't say how much money it is generating, but I don't find those DDI numbers very impressive at all. I would honestly have expected them to be much, much higher if it was such a succesful edition.

 

[Remus Lupin]

I think there's an underlying problem that 4e can't escape: Even if it's not true that 4e is a "failure" the fact that there is a widespread perception that it failed is going to taint its reputation going forward even if it's true that there is an equal or near equal proportion of gamers that like it compared to 3.x/Pathfinder.

This isn't 4e's fault, and it's not the fault of the players who love the game. Ultimately it's WotC's fault for failing to manage perceptions in the run-up to the launch, and failing to maintain dominance in the industry in the wake of the release of Pathfinder.

So we spend a lot of time arguing about what's selling more and how many people are playing, usually inferring from some subset of data that we happen to have access to. But the fact that the entire conversation revolves around the question of whether 4e was or was not a failure means that, as far as it's perception in the public realm goes, it's going to be seen as a failure.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Also i think lots of people bought the first three core 4e books(i know i did). But a large chunk ended up not liking it and playing just a few sessions. So it wouldn't surprise me if they did pretty okay out of the gate only to hit a steep decline soon after.

Later 4E books also made mainstream bestseller lists:

Adventurer's Vault

USA TODAY's Books list search results - USATODAY.com

Forgotten Realms Player's Guide

USA TODAY's Books list search results - USATODAY.com

Monster Manual 2

USA TODAY's Books list search results - USATODAY.com

Player's Handbook 2(#28 no less)

USA TODAY's Books list search results - USATODAY.com

Player's Handbook 3

http://books.usatoday.com/list/search-results?t=title&k=player's+handbook+2

4E was able to place a book #28 on that bestseller list a year after its launch, so I don't think people buying the original book and then discarding the game is entirely accurate.

No Pathfinder RPG book ever made that list.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I think there's an underlying problem that 4e can't escape: Even if it's not true that 4e is a "failure" the fact that there is a widespread perception that it failed is going to taint its reputation going forward even if it's true that there is an equal or near equal proportion of gamers that like it compared to 3.x/Pathfinder.

This isn't 4e's fault, and it's not the fault of the players who love the game. Ultimately it's WotC's fault for failing to manage perceptions in the run-up to the launch, and failing to maintain dominance in the industry in the wake of the release of Pathfinder.

So we spend a lot of time arguing about what's selling more and how many people are playing, usually inferring from some subset of data that we happen to have access to. But the fact that the entire conversation revolves around the question of whether 4e was or was not a failure means that, as far as it's perception in the public realm goes, it's going to be seen as a failure.

I completely agree that arguing over sales is fairly pointless. I'm mostly arguing with people using 4E's alleged failure to conclude or imply that 5E shouldn't (also) cater to 4E players, and instead turn back the clock.

 

[Remus Lupin]

Oh I'm inclined to agree. But I think that it might be possible to split the baby with regard to 5e.

The things that bothered me about 4e were't healing surges and powers, it was the reconfiguration of classes and races. Alignment bothered me a little, but not much.

A 5e that would get me to give it a look could have a lot of 4e elements in it, but it should also have elves, not eldarin, it should have gnomes, and it should have an array of classes, races, and other features that were not held over from 3e. If you gave me a game with all 3e races and classes available, that played around with powers and healing surges and the like, I might find it appealing in many ways, just as I did Star Wars Saga edition, which I initially was skeptical of, but which won me over very quickly despite the changes.

 

[Hal G]

Later 4E books also made mainstream bestseller lists:

Adventurer's Vault

USA TODAY's Books list search results - USATODAY.com

Forgotten Realms Player's Guide

USA TODAY's Books list search results - USATODAY.com

Monster Manual 2

USA TODAY's Books list search results - USATODAY.com

Player's Handbook 2(#28 no less)

USA TODAY's Books list search results - USATODAY.com

4E was able to place a book #28 on that bestseller list a year after its launch, so I don't think people buying the original book and then discarding the game is entirely accurate.

No Pathfinder RPG book ever made that list.

Been watching this thread but being quiet. but I have a few issues with this:

1) WotC is a staple and some people may by the books to complete the library ( I have done that, simply because it is WotC), and WotC spends more therefore needs to sell more to make it profitable.

2) Just because it was huge on release does not mean it sustained, like movies just because for 1 week you hit #1 at the box office does not mean you made more money or are on more screens then some of the slow n steady movies over a longer period of time.