Monte Cook back at wizards

[ForeverSlayer]

I for one I very happy that Monte Cook is back in the saddle over at Wizards. I have always enjoyed Monte's work and I feel like he will bring so much more back to Wizards.

I very much believe that 5th edition is in the works because like any business, you always have that next idea waiting just in case the current one takes a fall.

I don't quite understand the whole taking a step backwards approach that some people are talking about in this thread. Negative opinions of a previous edition are not very good grounds for saying the next edition is taking a step backwards if it uses something that a previous edition used. If you want to say that then every edition is a step backwards because they all use some kind of element from previous editions.

The end result is where you lay the final judgement. Let's say Wizards of the Coast made more money with 3rd edition than with 4th edition. You could say that 4th edition was a step backwards because at the end of the day it is about sales and about what the majority of people want. If a company puts out product A then a few years later put out product B with less people buying it then they have taken a step backwards. You really can't say that one edition plays better than the other. Sure it may play better to you as an individual but that's all just opinion.

I just want to say Congratulation to Monte Cook and I hope he steers Wizards of the Coast back to where it should be.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Sorry, Slayer, but this is the 4e section of the forum. You have to expect that a significant portion of the users here will feel that going back to the trappings of previous editions will be viewed as a step backward. And yes, with a discernable, if slight negative connotation.

I can't speak for everyone, but I know I'm not alone when I say that I play 4e now precisely because I didn't like a lot of the direction that 3.x was going. If I wanted to play a previous edition, I would. If I wanted to play PF, I would. If 4e hadn't come out, I'm sure I would still be gaming, but it probably wouldn't be a previous edition (much as I loved some of them when they were current).

I'm not knocking those who like(d) prior editions; I firmly believe that you should play what makes you happy. That said, frankly as a customer, I couldn't care less about sales numbers. I don't think that sales tells the whole story. So what if 3.x sold better than 4th. Doesn't make it a better game.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Sorry, Slayer, but this is the 4e section of the forum. You have to expect that a significant portion of the users here will feel that going back to the trappings of previous editions will be viewed as a step backward. And yes, with a discernable, if slight negative connotation.

I can't speak for everyone, but I know I'm not alone when I say that I play 4e now precisely because I didn't like a lot of the direction that 3.x was going. If I wanted to play a previous edition, I would. If I wanted to play PF, I would. If 4e hadn't come out, I'm sure I would still be gaming, but it probably wouldn't be a previous edition (much as I loved some of them when they were current).

I'm not knocking those who like(d) prior editions; I firmly believe that you should play what makes you happy. That said, frankly as a customer, I couldn't care less about sales numbers. I don't think that sales tells the whole story. So what if 3.x sold better than 4th. Doesn't make it a better game.

In business you want to continue to grow with each product that you come out with. You want this years BMW to outsell last years model and the same goes for D&D. The goal is for the next edition to outsell the previous and if that happens then it is a success. The ultimate goal is to give the majority what it wants and if the majority wants a different system and is willing to fork over the quid to get it then Wizards will typically go that route.

 

[Nichwee]

In business you want to continue to grow with each product that you come out with. You want this years BMW to outsell last years model and the same goes for D&D. The goal is for the next edition to outsell the previous and if that happens then it is a success. The ultimate goal is to give the majority what it wants and if the majority wants a different system and is willing to fork over the quid to get it then Wizards will typically go that route.

Actually in business the plan is for each YEAR to match, or if possible outsell, the previous one. So if you made £X last year you want to make at least £X this year. It doesn't matter if you do so by selling more stuff from the current edition or by putting out a new one to encourage people to buy more base books.
Whether 4e has outsold 3.5 is irrelevent. Whether it outsold what they could have sold for 3.5 stuff this year, and whether it outsells what they feel they could make from a 5e at the moment, is all that matters.

 

[Mistwell]

From Monte Cook's FB page:

Monte Cook:
Since a lot of people seem to be enjoying speculating on my current job, I'll throw this out there. I was very comfortable before the WotC offer came along (you'll see the fruits of some of those labors soon enough). WotC's very attractive, generous, and downright fun offer was enough to get my attention, but if someone there wanted me to do something I didn't want to do, or that I feel is wrong for the game (or for gamers), I walk away. It's that easy.

Obviously, I don't think that's going to happen, or I wouldn't have bothered in the first place. I'm working with good people who love the game.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

...
I can't speak for everyone, but I know I'm not alone when I say that I play 4e now precisely because I didn't like a lot of the direction that 3.x was going. If I wanted to play a previous edition, I would. If I wanted to play PF, I would. If 4e hadn't come out, I'm sure I would still be gaming, but it probably wouldn't be a previous edition (much as I loved some of them when they were current).
...

You know, what is really funny:

i also didn´t like where 3e was going... and especially where it ended with pathfinder...
the beginning of 3e however was a very good system with some flaws (especially the forgotten restrcitions to balance spellcasting, and multiclassing between magic using classes)

On the other hand, the rules assumed a lot of things that were lost in 3.e´s lifespan (prestige classes moved from DM contend to player contend eg.)
Why? Because they were cool and sold well... and were used to fix some innate peoblems of the system (multiclassing). But it also exposeda much more iportant problem:
You suddenly had to plan out your character from the beginning to fullfill all requirements...

so at the end of 3.5, we had a system patched together with "hot fixes" that rather made the flaws more obviuos than providing real solutions...
...4e tried to adress some innate problems...but threw some babies out with the bathwater...

Hiring one of the pwople who created the initial 3.0 to help researching, to explain, what was the intention of a certain rule, maybe already knowing what allowed this rule to not play out as intended should be great for the future of D&D.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

You know, what is really funny:

i also didn´t like where 3e was going... and especially where it ended with pathfinder...
the beginning of 3e however was a very good system with some flaws (especially the forgotten restrcitions to balance spellcasting, and multiclassing between magic using classes)

I read the 3e PHB & DMG and my reaction was basically "this game is horribly flawed unto total brokenness", which appears to have been basically born out. Sorry, nothing about 3e impresses me except that the people who designed had nary a clue about how to create good workable mechanics. Not so much in the small sense, but in the large. The way things fit together was just borked. The less that team has to do with 4e (or 5e) mechanics the happier I'll be.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

however when you remember where they started (from 0! than I believe it was an impressive work.
The skill system worked very well, the d20 system in general worked great. The only problematic things were stat boosting items and the item dependency which was carried over from ADnD. And saving trows, but that was another matter... it really has its reasons why d20 became so popular...
I just believe, some rules were not used as expected: (take 20, take 10, the skills system in general...)
It was the whole idea and possibility of optimizing a character that broke the system. With an average group using the rules to make a fun character, most parts really worked well together (and I played up to level 13 or so... and many groups in the level 5-9 range)
Actually the same level range I always played in ADnD... play experience were great...

I believe 2 things broke the system:

1. Monster killing gives enough xp to easily climb up higher than the sweet spot
2. Players were used to optimize characters in a computer rpg and expected the DM to allow buying items...

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

however when you remember where they started (from 0! than I believe it was an impressive work.
The skill system worked very well, the d20 system in general worked great. The only problematic things were stat boosting items and the item dependency which was carried over from ADnD. And saving trows, but that was another matter... it really has its reasons why d20 became so popular...
I just believe, some rules were not used as expected: (take 20, take 10, the skills system in general...)
It was the whole idea and possibility of optimizing a character that broke the system. With an average group using the rules to make a fun character, most parts really worked well together (and I played up to level 13 or so... and many groups in the level 5-9 range)
Actually the same level range I always played in ADnD... play experience were great...

I believe 2 things broke the system:

1. Monster killing gives enough xp to easily climb up higher than the sweet spot
2. Players were used to optimize characters in a computer rpg and expected the DM to allow buying items...

There were a lot of other flaws in 3e unfortunately. It seems to me it took some of the weakest elements of 2e and just made them central parts of the system, and then on top of that removed any number of limiting factors on casters.

The skill system was really no more than a tweak of the 2e NWP system and contained all of the already well-known flaws of that system, and made them worse by moving many more key adventuring abilities under this already heavily flawed system.

Numerous classes of spells, buffs and meta-magic were drastically overpowered, to the point where a bunch of them were actually nerfed in 3.5, even though ironically they made other changes that actually made things worse.

Druids were just outright borked OP. You didn't even need to play the class to figure that out. It was plain to see on day one. Clerics were perhaps slightly less obvious but it was pretty plain there were problems there too.

The MCing system was again clearly borked from day one. It was totally vulnerable to cherry-picking and never worked in a way that really added to the game. Instead it just rewarded whomever could number-crunch through the thing and come up with the most exploitative class/level combinations.

All IMHO, but 3e had really serious flaws that should never ever have seen print at all. Yes, if you manhandled the thing sufficiently you could get it to hold together for a few levels, but the rules system absolutely worked against you and effectively it only ever really worked if you had players that were willing to play in certain non-optimal ways and/or a DM that beat them with a stick on a regular basis.

There were some nice features of 3e, the reworking of saves and just generally moving mechanics to a standardized d20 mechanic, but that was vastly overshadowed by the problems. And I'd note that 4e kept these advances and improved on them, reimagined the skill system in a workable fashion, and generally created a much more workable way to combine features from different classes that avoids most of the 3.x MCing issues. There are aspects of 4e design that are certainly a matter of taste and play style, but in game systems terms 4e succeeded where 3e failed. I don't think WotC owes it to anyone to go backwards, 3e has very little to say to 4e at this point.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Abdul, I agree with you on many of the details, but I think UngeheuerLich is not off base.

The way I see it, in game design (or any design) there comes a point where the designers leave the realm of pure design, theory, early prototyping (glossing over flaws with experience)--and get down to the nitty gritty of making it work--execution, implementation, development, testing. This inevitably involves compromises--i.e. compromising the design.

In fact, this is part of all the wild and sometimes mutually incompatible friction labeled at these recent articles. We are seeing design before compromises have been made, and some people don't like it. They want to make compromises now, and move the game in some direction they think they'll prefer. Or rather, they want to put a stake down to fight over the boundaries of the compromises that will inevitably ensue. Sometimes, I wonder why designers even bother to let us see inside.

But it is also fairly clear to me that the 3E design had some of this same kind of friction internally, during development. Whether it was between the designers, or the designers and the developers, or inherent in the clash of trying to do something new with some fidelity to tradition, or insufficient ability to articulate/defend/manage the design and compromises during development and playtesting--I don't know.

I'm not saying that the 3E design was really good, and then it got all messed up later. I am saying that however good the 3E design was initially, it was seriously messed up during development/testing by some bad compromises.

You can see this in some of the things that got said about what feats and prestige classes (to pick two easy examples) were meant to do, versus their expanded and largely incoherent roles.