Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Monte Cook Leaves WotC - No Longer working on D&D Next [updated]
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="jsaving" data-source="post: 5893523" data-attributes="member: 16726"><p>I can't imagine it would be even remotely "safe" to go back to 1e/2e. WotC is talking a good game at the moment about an edition everyone can feel a part of, but the market realities underlying their actions stem from one specific edition -- 3e/Pathfinder -- being so much bigger than all other fanbases combined that it is supplanting D&D as the default option around the gaming table. I grew up on Chainmail and very much enjoy 1e/2e/BECMI/Bluebox/Redbox, but let's not kid ourselves here and say that any of those fanbases are even 1/10 the size of 3e/Pathfinder.</p><p></p><p>WotC's main concern here is to recapture the single largest RPG fanbase at the moment, that being the 3e/Pathfinder crowd. Their next priority is to retain enough fundamental 4e features that the somewhat smaller but still numerically important 4e fanbase will feel sufficiently respected to stick with the new edition rather than abandoning D&D entirely. I'm sure they wouldn't mind reeling in some of the people still playing 1e, 2e, etc, but WotC would never risk driving away both 3e *and* 4e players to attract the numerically small groups of D&D players who don't like either one.</p><p></p><p>It's never easy to accept that one's favored edition isn't seen by a majority of the gaming community as being better than what came before. I see this around my 4e gaming table, whose members run the gamut of the "stages of grief" -- from disbelief ("4e must be selling better than they say!") to anger ("those 3e grognards sabotaged 4e!") to depression ("no edition could ever be as good as 4e"). So I can understand people not wanting to believe that The Rouse, the various market surveys published at ENWorld and elsewhere, and WotC's own actions indicate a sales problem so severe that D&D simply could not continue in its present 4e form. What I can't understand is the impulse to label WotC as the bad guy and Monte as the embodiment of everything that's wrong with WotC. If 4e were selling well, WotC's usual bureaucratic inertia coupled with their huge investment in 4e would guarantee it a substantially longer production run. The fact that this didn't happen doesn't make WotC "bad" -- it just means WotC is responding to a desperate situation as best it can.</p><p></p><p>I can understand why some 4e fans feel like the current environment isn't providing much in the way of validation, but it's important not to take these things personally. High-selling products aren't always "good," nor are low-selling products always "bad". The many sound innovations 4e contributed to D&D as a whole don't become unsound simply because the ruleset turned in a subpar performance in the marketplace. At the same time, though, we can't put ourselves in a situation where we feel compelled to insist 4e is selling well -- or at least would be if the dastardly WotC hadn't pulled the plug on it -- in order to self-validate our feelings about 4e. The best thing we can do is accept that 4e wasn't as popular as we'd hoped, recognize that this market judgment in no way invalidates our personal beliefs regarding 4e, and then do what we can to ensure its strongest features are represented in a new edition that will hopefully have something for everyone.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="jsaving, post: 5893523, member: 16726"] I can't imagine it would be even remotely "safe" to go back to 1e/2e. WotC is talking a good game at the moment about an edition everyone can feel a part of, but the market realities underlying their actions stem from one specific edition -- 3e/Pathfinder -- being so much bigger than all other fanbases combined that it is supplanting D&D as the default option around the gaming table. I grew up on Chainmail and very much enjoy 1e/2e/BECMI/Bluebox/Redbox, but let's not kid ourselves here and say that any of those fanbases are even 1/10 the size of 3e/Pathfinder. WotC's main concern here is to recapture the single largest RPG fanbase at the moment, that being the 3e/Pathfinder crowd. Their next priority is to retain enough fundamental 4e features that the somewhat smaller but still numerically important 4e fanbase will feel sufficiently respected to stick with the new edition rather than abandoning D&D entirely. I'm sure they wouldn't mind reeling in some of the people still playing 1e, 2e, etc, but WotC would never risk driving away both 3e *and* 4e players to attract the numerically small groups of D&D players who don't like either one. It's never easy to accept that one's favored edition isn't seen by a majority of the gaming community as being better than what came before. I see this around my 4e gaming table, whose members run the gamut of the "stages of grief" -- from disbelief ("4e must be selling better than they say!") to anger ("those 3e grognards sabotaged 4e!") to depression ("no edition could ever be as good as 4e"). So I can understand people not wanting to believe that The Rouse, the various market surveys published at ENWorld and elsewhere, and WotC's own actions indicate a sales problem so severe that D&D simply could not continue in its present 4e form. What I can't understand is the impulse to label WotC as the bad guy and Monte as the embodiment of everything that's wrong with WotC. If 4e were selling well, WotC's usual bureaucratic inertia coupled with their huge investment in 4e would guarantee it a substantially longer production run. The fact that this didn't happen doesn't make WotC "bad" -- it just means WotC is responding to a desperate situation as best it can. I can understand why some 4e fans feel like the current environment isn't providing much in the way of validation, but it's important not to take these things personally. High-selling products aren't always "good," nor are low-selling products always "bad". The many sound innovations 4e contributed to D&D as a whole don't become unsound simply because the ruleset turned in a subpar performance in the marketplace. At the same time, though, we can't put ourselves in a situation where we feel compelled to insist 4e is selling well -- or at least would be if the dastardly WotC hadn't pulled the plug on it -- in order to self-validate our feelings about 4e. The best thing we can do is accept that 4e wasn't as popular as we'd hoped, recognize that this market judgment in no way invalidates our personal beliefs regarding 4e, and then do what we can to ensure its strongest features are represented in a new edition that will hopefully have something for everyone. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Monte Cook Leaves WotC - No Longer working on D&D Next [updated]
Top