Legens&Lore: Monte Cook takes over

[Mark CMG]

I think you've missed his point. If, as ShinHakkaider's example shows, the orc goes all ragey on the party, the players know instantly that the orc has X levels of barbarian. Sure, the very first time this happens, it might be a surprise, but, after that, it's not.

Monsters were built however the heck you wanted in 1e and 2e. If I wanted my orcs to have 4 HD and a 19 strength, I could (and did - Blackrock orcs had a large dash of ogre blood in them). I didn't have to explain it, and, looking at various modules, for example, Tomb of Horrors, you have monsters which are completely divorced from the rules - the Four Armed Gargoyle and the Giant Skeleton.

If I wanted my Sage to know some esoteric bit of trivia, he did. I didn't have to make him a 14th level Expert with the combat capabilities of a CR 13 creature to do so.

I think this is more what's being referenced when they talk about PC's and NPC's not following the same rules.

You make a good point but I also think there is the point that in both cases the GM needs to be surprising the players and not just relying on the same old tricks all of the time. New combinations and variations on old themes, new twists on old tricks, as well as completely new tricks, should often be sprinkled in with the tried and true. Too many of them, though, can just make players feel that the deck is always going to be stacked against them.

 

[Maggan]

I've been thinking a bit more about this, but haven't really come to any conclusion regarding the involvement of Monte. I definitely think this is a move towards a change in tone and texture of the current D&D game from WotC, but wether that will take the guise of D&D5 or a continual revision of D&D4 is anyones guess.

I believe we'll see a lot of gradual changes via DDI, and then a newish D&D in a couple of years.

Also, when I think about this, I cannot help reflecting on the fact that over the years, this thread has been the one I have have started that is the most replied to ... and of course I spelled the thread title wrong.

/M

 

[Hussar]

You make a good point but I also think there is the point that in both cases the GM needs to be surprising the players and not just relying on the same old tricks all of the time. New combinations and variations on old themes, new twists on old tricks, as well as completely new tricks, should often be sprinkled in with the tried and true. Too many of them, though, can just make players feel that the deck is always going to be stacked against them.

Oh, fair enough. Too true. If nothing else, coming up with unique critters every single encounter is too much work and probably nowhere near enough pay off.

But, that wasn't really my point though. I was referring to the difference between 3e and earlier editions. Surprising the PC's in any edition isn't all that difficult. But, I do think that in 3e, where NPC's are built just like PC's, it's a little more difficult to build unique creatures without having to bring in lots of other baggage - like having to stat out a 4th level barbarian for an orc opponent.

Yes, you can ignore rules. I get that. But, if you're just going to ignore the rules anyway, why bother having them in the first place? Why make the point that NPC's and PC's are built the same way when no one is actually going to do it? And, I think, by and large, we don't. We don't bother statting up that 4th level barbarians skills, probably don't spend a whole lot of time fiddling about with his wealth, hit points are likely simply given and not rolled, on and on.

Never mind a 15th level cleric. That's a bit more work than anyone really wants to do by and large.

 

[Mark CMG]

But, that wasn't really my point though.

Yup, and you made a good one. Mine was just a corollary point riding the coattails of your point.

 

[IronWolf]

I've been thinking a bit more about this, but haven't really come to any conclusion regarding the involvement of Monte. I definitely think this is a move towards a change in tone and texture of the current D&D game from WotC, but wether that will take the guise of D&D5 or a continual revision of D&D4 is anyones guess.

I believe we'll see a lot of gradual changes via DDI, and then a newish D&D in a couple of years.

I think in the end they will release a new edition. They might evolve it first and then make a big release. But it seems to be 4e is a bit of a love/hate edition and they will try to remedy some of that - hopefully without alienating even more customers.

 

[Vascant]

Many of us still consider 4E to be D&D and quite happily so. I seem to recall a quick post or 2 from Monte when 4E was first coming out, but they were largely discussions about how the GSL was not going to allow him to make the games in a manner that was financially stable for him and he didn't like the mechanics as well as 3.x. I haven't seen anything since. That's 3 years ago. Maybe he tried 4E and found he enjoyed it. Stranger things have happened.

Can't say I ever seen the article that states his disliked the mechanics of 3.x, would be funny if so because he created Dungeon A Day which until recently has been 3.5 based and only made the switch to Pathfinder after someone else took over the main writing duties. He has also served as a consultant for Paizo for part of this time as well.

 

[Hussar]

To be fair, it's a LOT easier writing for 3e/3.5/Pathfinder because of the OGL. If you don't work for WOTC, it's not as easy to write/develop for 4e. Not impossible, of course, but, not as easy.

It's quite possible that Monte simply took the path of least resistance. 3e/PF has a strong following and developing for those games is perfectly viable.

 

[Nikosandros]

Can't say I ever seen the article that states his disliked the mechanics of 3.x, would be funny if so because he created Dungeon A Day which until recently has been 3.5 based and only made the switch to Pathfinder after someone else took over the main writing duties. He has also served as a consultant for Paizo for part of this time as well.

The statement was that Monte didn't like 4e mechanics as well as those of 3.5, not that he didn't like those of 3.5.

 

[ANewPosterAppears]

I've seen several people not only here but on many other forums claim that Monte Cook said "Yuck" or in some other way showed that he disliked the 4e rules.

Maybe this could be the first place to actually link or provide proof to what otherwise seems little more then a nasty rumor?

 

[Vascant]

The statement was that Monte didn't like 4e mechanics as well as those of 3.5, not that he didn't like those of 3.5.

*laughs* reading before coffee has time to take effect is never good. Thanks for cleaning that up