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="13garth13" data-source="post: 5893724" data-attributes="member: 16979"><p>Of course it has bearing! It serves as an indicator of how (logically or not...and it's obviously the latter not the former) viscerally off-putting people found the fourth edition of D&D. There were obviously more than enough people who either didn't pick up the torch to begin with, or tried to play and plain old didn't like it, for WOTC to have decided to cash in their chips and try anew. And with that in mind, how do you expect them to cater to your needs/desires (which are equally illogical and visceral rather than cerebral) while embracing the tropes and gaming philosophies which were more predominant in early editions?</p><p></p><p>4E fans for better or worse seem to be in a state of denial about how badly received (relative to expectations and other editions) their edition was (which has all the bearing in the world on what elements should be a part of the next edition).</p><p></p><p>Let me state outright that: 1) 4E is not a bad game.</p><p> : 2) If you enjoy it (or even LOVE it) you are not a bad person with gaming ideals that are contrary to the will of the universe.</p><p> : 3) The tropes and features that you value in 4E are not wrong or invalid.</p><p></p><p>But that doesn't mean that your tastes/preferences lined up with enough other gamers to make 4E and its ELEMENTS (i.e. rule components) valuable enough to place them on par with all the other elements of previous editions. In fact, sales numbers and/or market share indicate quite clearly that appealing to 4E fans to the detriment of fans of the other editions will lead rapidly to a dead game system. I am utterly amazed at how agile a high-wire acrobat WOTC will have to be to appeal to both sides of the gap/chasm in order to be successful.</p><p></p><p>No, 4E is not a bloody cancer to be excised (stop it with the hyperbole, it does you and your arguments no service whatsoever), but at the same time if WOTC is to appeal to all the other gamers who aren't 4E fans, then they really do have to minimize the appearance that the next edition is just a continuation of 4E's philosophies and features, or they will DIE in the market.</p><p></p><p>But what about modularity? Well, hell yes, modularity should solve these issues, but you yourself have gone on record with several "deal breakers", and I think you understand as much as I that if the underlying philosophy of game design is incompatible with out own view on what makes a fun game ("Balance" versus "Fun" for $500 Alex) then people are just going to walk away.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It fit into the discussion solely for the reason that Hussar was claiming (as several other posters had in the previous weeks/months) that 5E was not premature in coming and (and I may be putting words in his mouth here) the appearance of a new edition had NOTHING to do with the popularity or lack thereof of 4E. </p><p></p><p>Does that have anything to do with 5E? Only if you want to say that 4E was a rousing success and everything about it needs to appear in the core of the next edition. If you're fine with everything being modular, and 4E features as being add-ons, then shoot, feel free to ignore my post. We're cool! </p><p></p><p>But if you're one of those in denial fans who just can't believe that the thing they love was really unpopular (heck, I can't believe everyone doesn't like anchovies!! Well, okay....I suppose there are a few things that I suppose I could see someone finding objectionable <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" />) and you can't see how maybe it behooves WOTC to not trumpet its elements inclusion from on high to the detriment of, well, the entire next edition's sales, then yeah, my post did have a point.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>See my comments above; to sum up, modularity should make everything copacetic..........but it probably won't. And yes, WOTC <u><strong>does</strong></u> have to turn back the clock more than just a wee bit, because <u><strong>if they didn't, we wouldn't be having a new edition so bloody soon</strong></u>. The 4E fan base cannot be alienated and have 5E be a success, but neither can elements of 4E be seen to be design priorities or WOTC will lose the game (as it were)...if the 4E fanbase was so bloody large, then we wouldn't be having this discussion about 5E, would we? In fact, we wouldn't be having a discussion about 5E, <u>period</u>!</p><p></p><p>Sorry for ranting a bit dude, but posts like my previous one that you are referring to aren't meant to demean you and your edition (the group "you", not thecasualobivion "you") but to illustrate how badly 4E did <em><u>relative</u></em> (we'll never know how good its absolute numbers were) to what it should have/could have accomplished if its creators had not made the design decisions that they did. Pathfinder came along and (physical book sale wise) ate D&D's lunch....that's pretty unacceptable if you're in charge of D&D as a brand/marketing entity. </p><p></p><p>Does it matter in regards to 5E? Of course it does, because while they certainly cannot tick off their latest fans, nor can they in any way shape or form cast glances back too closely at 4E, at least for the core, or they will remain in the same sorry state of market share that they currently are in (which may still be a position that is the envy of everybody else in gaming).</p><p></p><p>Cheers,</p><p>Colin</p><p></p><p>P.S. You may see this as giving in to illogical, irrational haters....but guess what, you've just summed up a large percentage of the human race (like it or not...and I mostly don't). WOTC lost a MONUMENTAL amount of market share (think about for a moment how much that loss must have been for an upstart like Paizo to supplant the 800 lb gorilla of the RPG book scene in terms of game-store sales....and we can <em>probably</em> ignore electronic sales, because DDI versus Paizo subscriptions is no doubt a complete wash....pure conjecture on my part, I grant you) and in order to get that back they really, REALLY cannot be seen dancing with the red-headed step-child of D&D edition treadmill too often or the buying public will dance with some retro-chick or even that saucy little Pathfinder number in the rather overly elaborate yet nonetheless enticing backless number...apologies for describing things in male terms. I gotta be me <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" />.</p><p></p><p>P.P.S. Lest anyone think that I, personally, subscribe to the notion that nothing of the unclean 4E shall so much as whisper into the ear of my pristine 5E or I shall cast her aside as a harlot, guess again. I'm one of those try-to-see-it-from-the-other-guy's-perspective Canucks, brought up to respect the other guy's viewpoint even if I don't agree with it. I personally don't give a fiddler's flying youknowwhat at a rolling doughnut if healing surges, encounter abilities, et al are modular attachments. I really do hope that this is the edition that can get us all singing dirty Maclean and Maclean songs around the campfire together while we throw back rye and cokes and laugh about what knobs we were during the great 4E edition wars. Really. I just don't think that WOTC can somehow accomodate everyone's preferences when there's so much bad blood...... <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite3" alt=":(" title="Frown :(" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":(" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="13garth13, post: 5893724, member: 16979"] Of course it has bearing! It serves as an indicator of how (logically or not...and it's obviously the latter not the former) viscerally off-putting people found the fourth edition of D&D. There were obviously more than enough people who either didn't pick up the torch to begin with, or tried to play and plain old didn't like it, for WOTC to have decided to cash in their chips and try anew. And with that in mind, how do you expect them to cater to your needs/desires (which are equally illogical and visceral rather than cerebral) while embracing the tropes and gaming philosophies which were more predominant in early editions? 4E fans for better or worse seem to be in a state of denial about how badly received (relative to expectations and other editions) their edition was (which has all the bearing in the world on what elements should be a part of the next edition). Let me state outright that: 1) 4E is not a bad game. : 2) If you enjoy it (or even LOVE it) you are not a bad person with gaming ideals that are contrary to the will of the universe. : 3) The tropes and features that you value in 4E are not wrong or invalid. But that doesn't mean that your tastes/preferences lined up with enough other gamers to make 4E and its ELEMENTS (i.e. rule components) valuable enough to place them on par with all the other elements of previous editions. In fact, sales numbers and/or market share indicate quite clearly that appealing to 4E fans to the detriment of fans of the other editions will lead rapidly to a dead game system. I am utterly amazed at how agile a high-wire acrobat WOTC will have to be to appeal to both sides of the gap/chasm in order to be successful. No, 4E is not a bloody cancer to be excised (stop it with the hyperbole, it does you and your arguments no service whatsoever), but at the same time if WOTC is to appeal to all the other gamers who aren't 4E fans, then they really do have to minimize the appearance that the next edition is just a continuation of 4E's philosophies and features, or they will DIE in the market. But what about modularity? Well, hell yes, modularity should solve these issues, but you yourself have gone on record with several "deal breakers", and I think you understand as much as I that if the underlying philosophy of game design is incompatible with out own view on what makes a fun game ("Balance" versus "Fun" for $500 Alex) then people are just going to walk away. It fit into the discussion solely for the reason that Hussar was claiming (as several other posters had in the previous weeks/months) that 5E was not premature in coming and (and I may be putting words in his mouth here) the appearance of a new edition had NOTHING to do with the popularity or lack thereof of 4E. Does that have anything to do with 5E? Only if you want to say that 4E was a rousing success and everything about it needs to appear in the core of the next edition. If you're fine with everything being modular, and 4E features as being add-ons, then shoot, feel free to ignore my post. We're cool! But if you're one of those in denial fans who just can't believe that the thing they love was really unpopular (heck, I can't believe everyone doesn't like anchovies!! Well, okay....I suppose there are a few things that I suppose I could see someone finding objectionable ;)) and you can't see how maybe it behooves WOTC to not trumpet its elements inclusion from on high to the detriment of, well, the entire next edition's sales, then yeah, my post did have a point. See my comments above; to sum up, modularity should make everything copacetic..........but it probably won't. And yes, WOTC [U][B]does[/B][/U] have to turn back the clock more than just a wee bit, because [U][B]if they didn't, we wouldn't be having a new edition so bloody soon[/B][/U]. The 4E fan base cannot be alienated and have 5E be a success, but neither can elements of 4E be seen to be design priorities or WOTC will lose the game (as it were)...if the 4E fanbase was so bloody large, then we wouldn't be having this discussion about 5E, would we? In fact, we wouldn't be having a discussion about 5E, [U]period[/U]! Sorry for ranting a bit dude, but posts like my previous one that you are referring to aren't meant to demean you and your edition (the group "you", not thecasualobivion "you") but to illustrate how badly 4E did [I][U]relative[/U][/I] (we'll never know how good its absolute numbers were) to what it should have/could have accomplished if its creators had not made the design decisions that they did. Pathfinder came along and (physical book sale wise) ate D&D's lunch....that's pretty unacceptable if you're in charge of D&D as a brand/marketing entity. Does it matter in regards to 5E? Of course it does, because while they certainly cannot tick off their latest fans, nor can they in any way shape or form cast glances back too closely at 4E, at least for the core, or they will remain in the same sorry state of market share that they currently are in (which may still be a position that is the envy of everybody else in gaming). Cheers, Colin P.S. You may see this as giving in to illogical, irrational haters....but guess what, you've just summed up a large percentage of the human race (like it or not...and I mostly don't). WOTC lost a MONUMENTAL amount of market share (think about for a moment how much that loss must have been for an upstart like Paizo to supplant the 800 lb gorilla of the RPG book scene in terms of game-store sales....and we can [I]probably[/I] ignore electronic sales, because DDI versus Paizo subscriptions is no doubt a complete wash....pure conjecture on my part, I grant you) and in order to get that back they really, REALLY cannot be seen dancing with the red-headed step-child of D&D edition treadmill too often or the buying public will dance with some retro-chick or even that saucy little Pathfinder number in the rather overly elaborate yet nonetheless enticing backless number...apologies for describing things in male terms. I gotta be me :p. P.P.S. Lest anyone think that I, personally, subscribe to the notion that nothing of the unclean 4E shall so much as whisper into the ear of my pristine 5E or I shall cast her aside as a harlot, guess again. I'm one of those try-to-see-it-from-the-other-guy's-perspective Canucks, brought up to respect the other guy's viewpoint even if I don't agree with it. I personally don't give a fiddler's flying youknowwhat at a rolling doughnut if healing surges, encounter abilities, et al are modular attachments. I really do hope that this is the edition that can get us all singing dirty Maclean and Maclean songs around the campfire together while we throw back rye and cokes and laugh about what knobs we were during the great 4E edition wars. Really. I just don't think that WOTC can somehow accomodate everyone's preferences when there's so much bad blood...... :( [/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