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

[Redbadge]

You're trying to say that the 4E fanbase is bigger than the fanbase of Pathfinder, 3.5, 3.0, 1E, 2E, the retroclones etc, combined? If that's true, I guess most of them have been playing 4E without buying any books or subscribing to DDI because even Hasbro might deem the kind of sales numbers such a fanbase would give 4E to be acceptable. Pathfinder's fanbase alone likely dwarfs 4E's (or they just spend a lot more money on RPGs) and seems to be growing while 4E's is constantly shrinking. Face it, the 4E crowd is much smaller than 4E fans would like to believe. I'm sure it's a significant number but not big enough to sustain a brand managed by a subsidiary of Hasbro.

Also <!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention --> @Shemeska <!-- END TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention --> and <!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention --> @jsaving <!-- END TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention -->

I'm certain that WotC (and Hasbro) is disappointed that they've lost market share.
However, I'll link my thoughts on the subject (my EnWorld posts on the success of 4e, oldest to newest; I don't think it'll take too long to read):

http://www.enworld.org/forum/press-...pathfinder-outselling-d-d-21.html#post5614332

http://www.enworld.org/forum/press-...pathfinder-outselling-d-d-21.html#post5614473

http://www.enworld.org/forum/press-...pathfinder-outselling-d-d-22.html#post5614503

http://www.enworld.org/forum/press-...pathfinder-outselling-d-d-31.html#post5622002

http://www.enworld.org/forum/press-...nouncement-prognostication-7.html#post5646684

http://www.enworld.org/forum/press-...nouncement-prognostication-7.html#post5646753

http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-horizons-upcoming-edition-d-d/321801-what-d-d-4.html#post5888673

http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-horizons-upcoming-edition-d-d/321801-what-d-d-4.html#post5888704

http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-horizons-upcoming-edition-d-d/321801-what-d-d-4.html#post5889753

A have a few links to sources spread throughout those posts, as well, if you'll take the time to look at them. Also note, that at the time of one of the posts, DDI membership stood at about 58,000 members. Less than a year later, that number is north of 70,000 and growing. I imagine the cannibalization of DDI is what caused the sale of later 4e splat books to trail off so significantly (and discourage further publication), despite the overwhelming success of the 4e release (their words, not mine).

At any rate, while you may disagree with the conclusions I've come to, I don't think you've anything to refute them. (Note: I'm a fan of 3.x and Pathfinder as well, and I've often rooted for the success of Paizo).

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Also <!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention --> @Shemeska <!-- END TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention --> and <!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention --> @jsaving <!-- END TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention -->

I'm certain that WotC (and Hasbro) is disappointed that they've lost market share.
However, I'll link my thoughts on the subject (my EnWorld posts on the success of 4e, oldest to newest; I don't think it'll take too long to read):

http://www.enworld.org/forum/press-...pathfinder-outselling-d-d-21.html#post5614332

http://www.enworld.org/forum/press-...pathfinder-outselling-d-d-21.html#post5614473

http://www.enworld.org/forum/press-...pathfinder-outselling-d-d-22.html#post5614503

http://www.enworld.org/forum/press-...pathfinder-outselling-d-d-31.html#post5622002

http://www.enworld.org/forum/press-...nouncement-prognostication-7.html#post5646684

http://www.enworld.org/forum/press-...nouncement-prognostication-7.html#post5646753

http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-horizons-upcoming-edition-d-d/321801-what-d-d-4.html#post5888673

http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-horizons-upcoming-edition-d-d/321801-what-d-d-4.html#post5888704

http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-horizons-upcoming-edition-d-d/321801-what-d-d-4.html#post5889753

A have a few links to sources spread throughout those posts, as well, if you'll take the time to look at them. Also note, that at the time of one of the posts, DDI membership stood at about 58,000 members. Less than a year later, that number is north of 70,000 and growing. I imagine the cannibalization of DDI is what caused the sale of later 4e splat books to trail off so significantly (and discourage further publication), despite the overwhelming success of the 4e release (their words, not mine).

At any rate, while you may disagree with the conclusions I've come to, I don't think you've anything to refute them. (Note: I'm a fan of 3.x and Pathfinder as well, and I've often rooted for the success of Paizo).

Again, I have to ask what the point of all of that is? Winning some sort of pissing contest about whose edition is the bestest? Trying to prove that everybody hates 4E and as a result 5E should have as little 4E in it as possible?

 

[Shasarak]

While I am very disappointed to hear that Monte is moving on from DnD Next (and that DnD Next is losing its lead designer), I have to admire the classy way that both sides have handled the split.

For all the flack that Monte has been getting about his "communication style" his final words are totally professional.

 

[13garth13]

The strength and problem with the Anchovies analogy is that the idea of 5th edition being modular is a lot like having a broad selection of toppings to choose from at a pizza joint. You want to retain the most customers, so you offer the most topping options to try and please as many potential customers as possible.

The issue is, bowing too far to the folks calling for the removal or exclusion of 4e elements from the next edition of D&D would be like refusing to even offer anchovies at your pizza parlour because some people don't like them. I think we can all agree that that doesn't make sense; how does offering anchovies as an option hurt the people that don't want to eat them on their 'zza?

Answer: it doesn't.

Oh, I do concur (make no mistake about it, I am all about peace between editions, no matter how much certain elements of 4E drive me up the bloody wall). And in a perfect, rational world, that really would be the end of it, eh?

The problem is that a number (and I'll call it a large number, but I don't know if it's a majority, or just a really big minority) of old fans really felt slapped in the face by the roll-out to 4E, not to mention the huge changes to "crunch" and "fluff" (the latter of which resulted in numerous cases of classic thirty year history being thrown under the edition bus) which resulted in an edition that for the first time in a looooooooooooong time not only didn't feel/play like a game they enjoyed, but sometimes seemed to revel and embrace how truly unlike D&D it was. Now some of the reactions by fans were not only a bit much, there were a few fans who in my eyes were downright, over-the-top, histrionic, pathetically ridiculous in terms of their responses to 4E (no argument from me). But, when WOTC is rolling out this new edition, they've still got to avoid any strong whiff of 4E, modular or not, because otherwise (if say, healing surges are a part of the core game experience and not just a module, just for example) even those who felt mildly jilted/left-in-the-lurch are not going to come back to the game.

Is it rational? Naw, not really IMNSHO, but then again, neither are some of the "deal-breakers" set aside by some 4E proponents either.

Fact is, there's a whole lotta non-rational, purely gut-level emotional reacting going on right now, and I feel bad for WOTC employees who have to navigate this illogical mine-field.

As I said initially, as far as I'm concerned 4E elements can be all over the next edition as long as they are clearly marked as "optional" and can be EFFORTLESSLY stripped away from the game. But lots of other posters feel a lot more strongly, and what with there being plenty of non-WOTC offerings out there for game night, WOTC really can't afford to bollocks up this roll-out.

Cheers,
Colin

P.S. Best of luck to WOTC....between the irrational, fanatic 4E fans (for whom apparently even talking about how cool the 3E fighter was, and for a lot of my players, the 3E fighter ROCKED), and the irrational, fanatic 1/2/3E fans (geez, given how divergent 4E was, take your pick of possible issues to chew on), they've really got their work cut out for them, and to be bluntly honest, I'm not sure they can achieve their goal without alienating one group or the other.

 

[jsaving]

That really isn't the issue. The issue is what 5E is going to need to do to bring the 4E players on board, instead of just continuing to play 4E. Atoning for the sins of 4E isn't really a part of that to those players, as opposed to whether or not the game does a good enough job at what we want from D&D to convince us to switch.

I might actually agree with this.

I take as given that the next edition must more closely resemble 3e/Pathfinder no matter how much we might wish it could be otherwise. As I've hopefully made clear, I say this not because I think 4e is "bad" and 3e "good," but simply because of the empirical evidence from the marketplace as best I am able to observe it.

Given this necessity, the issue then becomes how to simultaneously retain those who are happy with the current edition and nervous that any move toward 3e will automatically lead to something they won't want to play. There are obviously those who see 3e and 4e as polar opposites, which would if true suggest a unifying edition of D&D is an impossibility at this point. But as somebody who plays and enjoys both editions, I have to say that I disagree.

Themes, at-wills, better balance among classes, and greater tactical breadth for non-casters can be combined with Vancian magic, more distinctive classes, flexible multiclassing, and the absence of pre-designated roles to produce something that would in my view combine the best of both editions into a new and better D&D. The situation doesn't have to be an either-or, and I would hope every one of us can admit that our preferred edition isn't the best in every conceivable respect, even if your list for what the new edition should contain is different from the one mentioned here.

 

[Azgulor]

P.S. Best of luck to WOTC....between the irrational, fanatic 4E fans (for whom apparently even talking about how cool the 3E fighter was, and for a lot of my players, the 3E fighter ROCKED), and the irrational, fanatic 1/2/3E fans (geez, given how divergent 4E was, take your pick of possible issues to chew on), they've really got their work cut out for them, and to be bluntly honest, I'm not sure they can achieve their goal without alienating one group or the other.

This was the point I was attempting to make in highlighting the gulf between 3E & 4E players.

As of right now, I think by trying to be all things to all gamers, 5e is likely to:
A. Be a watered down version to many

B. Be as divergent from 4e as 4e was to 3E, resulting in further fracturing of the D&D base

C. Lean closely to either 3E or 4E, therefore failing to satisfy one of the groups

While D - Hits the sweet spot for all is possible, I think the odds of success are long against it.

And all of those choices just represent how players might embrace the mechanics. You still have to factor in things like DDI/subscription models, adventure support & formats, campaign setting support, 3PP support/access, etc.

That's an awful lot of dominoes that have to fall just right to place D&D in a financial position where it hits the business targets. That was really all I was saying.



P.S. to casualoblivion:

The 3E fighter was (IMO) the best incarnation of the fighter in D&D. It was easy to understand yet allowed for a great deal of customization. It was a mainstay class amongst my players and no one complained it was weak. The PF version improved upon it. All the min/max, martial vs. caster disparity, or 3E sucks because of Exhibit A: Fighter threads won't change that reality. For every RPG fan posting on a messageboard, there are many more that are just out there playing the game and having fun.

You're 100% entitled to your opinion that it's a weak element of 3E. However, you're just underscoring my point that the differences in tastes between 3E & 4E fans makes it very, very difficult for WotC to make a "unification" edition.

 

[Shasarak]

Agreed the 3e Fighter rocked!

 

[Azgulor]

As to reclaiming the lost player base, I also think WotC's best bet is to make that divergent break from 4e. However, as the divergence from 3E to 4E has shown, that path is full of potential obstacles. 5e can't just be a revised 3E. That ship has sailed, and in a big way.

Using myself as an example, I'm following the 5e news out of industry curiosity. I'm totally satisfied with Pathfinder and whether the RPG I play is named D&D, Warhammer, Pathfinder, or Rolemaster is largely irrelevant.

For a player like me, 5e doesn't just have to be good, it has to be GREAT in order to make me want to buy it, let alone switch to it.

Right now, I'm subscribing to 5 Pathfinder lines (RPG, Companion, AP, Campaign Setting, & Modules). I also purchase Hero Lab expansions fairly regularly. I supplement with 3PP products. My kids cut their teeth on Pathfinder and have the Beginner's Box for running their own games. My adult players are perfectly happy with Pathfinder and we're having a blast.

My wallet & free time can't support that AND 5e in parallel. So 5e would have to be the best dang fantasy RPG in existence to impact anything said above. And for me personally, building off a framework of 4e ain't gonna get that job done.

The reality is, I'm no longer WotC's customer.

WotC needs to look to the future. Build off 4e successes and try and improve upon the failures. For better or worse for the D&D brand, the genie is out of the bottle and the glory days of 3E aren't likely to come back around just b/c they're releasing a new edition. Going back to an earlier edition, even if it's my favorite D&D edition, isn't going to bring them the success they are striving to achieve.

I think the idea of unifying the fan base is a laudible goal, even if it's correcting a self-inflicted head wound. Increasingly, however, I view it as an unrealistic goal.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I understand. But my point is I am starting to believe they are trying to do the impossible. Clearly you know what you want from D&D and so do I. You and I have had discussions here and on other forums so I think we have a sense of what the other wants in an RPG. My impression is we want things that are largely incompatible. I don't think Mike Mearls could design a game that would make both TheCasualOblivion and BedrockGames happy. He could easily design two seperate games that would make us happy. But one game (even with modular ad ons) is probably not going to work given what both of us have listed as expectations of the core game. Now take that problem and magnify it to a macro level. One grouo says they have to have stuff like surges or encounter powers, the other says those things are dealbreakers. One group once parity between the classes, another says parity (in the 4e sense) is a dealbreaker. One group says the game has to go forward and break new ground the other says it wants a return to real D&D.

I don't think its completely impossible, but it needs to do two difficult things:

1. 5E needs to be a surprise. OSR fans want A, 3E/PF fans want B, and 4E fans want C. 5E needs to do Q instead, to do the unexpected and be none of those things, which is the only chance they have at being all of those things. It needs to make a clean break from all editions, to make a new start from a neutral point and from there reach out to the different communities.

2. 5E needs to divide the partisans of each faction, in relatively equal fashion. 5E isn't going to please everyone, it just isn't possible, but I think there is an excluded middle of the road behind the most vocal and fanatical fans of each edition, and if you can make a game that can appeal to some of the most vocal and fanatical fans of each edition and break their unity, 5E can get the majority that excluded middle. If the vocal minority of fanatics is united against 5E, it will trickle down and influence the less fanatical.

From what I've been reading about 5E, I think #1 is well underway. The key to #2 is my belief that there are two kinds of fanatics, one kind who has to have things exactly how they want them, and another kind who knows exactly what they want, but doesn't care how they get it as long as they do get it. Doing #1 is going to inevitably alienate the first kind of fanatic, but they might be able to win over the second kind by building a game that with some options can produce the game that roughly coincides with what they want, though not necessarily how its been in the past. I think its possible for everybody to get what they want, but not possible for everybody to have things their way.

 

[13garth13]

I was taking issue with the success/failure of 4E having any bearing at all on this discussion. As for my point, I'd add that I don't believe WotC can condescend to the 4E fanbase in the manner you describe(the bolded part) and expect them to be happy campers. It didn't work during the last edition change.

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.

I guess what I'm saying is that if you(the plural you, as I'd include those who've brought up this topic before) aren't going on about the failure of 4E to justify its replacement and/or its removal from 5E, I'm not sure where it fits into this discussion.

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.

Your analogy marginalizes the 4E community, which is a bigger slice of the D&D pie than the percentage of pizza eaters who want anchovies. I'd also say that there are also plenty of 4E fans who feel just as strongly against bringing back certain things from older editions. What you seem to be describing are people who are hostile to 4E being a part of 5E, and want that hostility catered to. I don't believe WotC can cater to that hostility without alienating 4E fans.

Again, to what end? No matter how we feel about it, whats done is done. 4E is over, and 5E is coming. How and why it happened isn't as important as the fact that 4E remains a large and important part of the D&D community. People who bring it up seem to be trying to use it as some sort of justification, justification for 5E itself and justification for 5E turning back the clock at 4E's expense. If that isn't the point, what does it have to do with 5E?

See my comments above; to sum up, modularity should make everything copacetic..........but it probably won't. And yes, WOTC does have to turn back the clock more than just a wee bit, because if they didn't, we wouldn't be having a new edition so bloody soon. 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, period!

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 relative (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 probably 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.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......