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

[Hussar]

I don't know. I'll be interested in seeing what Paizo keeps coming up with for its core offerings. But I remember what the Star Wars Saga edition was nearing the end of its run, we had some discussions about what WotC could possibly add to what already existed, and the consensus had emerged that they were basically done. Shortly thereafter it seems, Wizards agreed.

Is 4e in a similar boat? Maybe you're right. But I can't help but feel that there's a lot of ground yet to cover. then again, the 4e release schedule was pretty aggressive as I recall, rather than one or two big books a year, they seemed to have been churning them out at a rapid pace, so that might have shortened the timeline before exhaustion considerably.

I'd point out that 4e probably had the slowest release schedule of any version of D&D since 1e. Certainly considerably slower than 3e. And Far slower than 2e.

As I said above: I could live with a lot of 4e mechanics. What I disliked was the reconfiguration of races/classes away from 3e. If WotC wants me back as a customer, they could do a lot worse than mapping some of the more effective aspects of 4e mechanics onto the race/class framework of 3e.

Totally agree with you there.

 

[Balesir]

Another point I have is that I'm a huge 4e fan. But the 4e publication model is almost done. At the start of 2010 there were two things I could see 4e needed to finish off the crunch. Scarier monsters and simple to play classes. And actual illusionists. Since then there have been four monster manuals - the latest two (Monster Vault and Threats to Nentir Vale) having knocked it out of the park - and the MM3 and the Dark Sun Monster Manual both being superb. Essentials provided the Illusionist and the simple to play classes. Except for a simple to play spellcaster - which has been provided in a splatbook.

Which leaves little more that needs adding crunchwise - although someone might be able to surprise me with something like Martial Power 2 (which should have been a tedious splatbook from the name but was in fact excellent, extending the range of what could be played). The game is almost done - further PC side splatbooks are looking round hard for options to add. And with four good monster manuals I don't really need more creatures.

The biggest books I can think of 4e could use are a combined book that contains mundane equipment and something approaching Grimtooth's Traps. (Hopefully the Dungeon Explorer's book will cover a lot of this). And two conversion books - one for 4e Modern (Action Movies) and one for Pulp Space Opera. Possibly also a steampunky book.

After that it's done other than for adventures.

I'll differ on this - while saying that you may very well be right that WotC look at it this way...

After 4e got the game system for combat working so well, I would love to see a similar treatment given to the social interaction and exploration "pillars" that they have (hooray!) identified for 5e. I wouldn't expect this to be quick - from 3e initially putting some properly organised "system" elements in place for a fully coherent combat system until 4e had most of the bugs ironed out (just in the basic system) was over 10 years, and I think social interaction and exploration are starting from an even lower base. But it would be awesome to have.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I'll differ on this - while saying that you may very well be right that WotC look at it this way...

After 4e got the game system for combat working so well, I would love to see a similar treatment given to the social interaction and exploration "pillars" that they have (hooray!) identified for 5e. I wouldn't expect this to be quick - from 3e initially putting some properly organised "system" elements in place for a fully coherent combat system until 4e had most of the bugs ironed out (just in the basic system) was over 10 years, and I think social interaction and exploration are starting from an even lower base. But it would be awesome to have.

I think the trick here is taking the game in new mechanical direction on the front of social interaction and exploration (particularly if they do anything like social combat or insert subsystems ike skill challenges), will further divide th base (at least if it is core). I think you and I have both been on some lengthy threads on this very subject, where it is pretty clear there are some strong divisions among gamers that could be described as "role play heavy" (and pbviously what that means was its own issue). There is definitely a wing of the d&d community that wants more support for non combat stuff. The problem is, some of us may want ways to quantify how good our characters are at smething (without the kinds of mechanics i just described) while others want a robust sub system or minigame for handling non combat challenges. The last thing I want is mechanics that get in the way of me playing my guy (and to me this would be anything where social interactions are dealt with by a minigame such as social HP or anything more complicated than a diplomacy roll (and even then not 100% thrilled about that). As a module this stuff culd work. Putting it into core might just lead to another split.

 

[Roman]

Since we are all speculating, let me join the fray.

Monte has stated that he didn't have issues with the design team... so perhaps it was an OGL or related issue that was led to the differences with the company. Oh well, that's my piece of baseless speculation.

In any case, I am sad to see Monte leave the team, since I really, really like the products that bear his name. Hopefully, his won't effect the direction of 5E design, which seems very promising thus far and that simulationist concerns will now not simply be shoved aside as irrelevant to the game.

To Monte Cook: Good luck on your future endeavors. I hope you do decide to do something RPG-related in the future.

 

[Cybit]

Since we are all speculating, let me join the fray.

Monte has stated that he didn't have issues with the design team... so perhaps it was an OGL or related issue that was led to the differences with the company. Oh well, that's my piece of baseless speculation.

In any case, I am sad to see Monte leave the team, since I really, really the products that bear his name. Hopefully, his won't effect the direction of 5E design, which seems very promising thus far and that simulationist concerns will now not simply be showed aside as irrelevant to the game.

To Monte Cook: Good luck on your future endeavors. I hope you do decide to do something RPG-related in the future.

He's working on Geek Seekers right now. I hope to catch some of the developers at the local bar on Wednesday night; I already was told one "story" of what happened, but I'll wait till I can hear it from some more people. I liked 3E. I think he has some fantastic ideas. I think him and Mearls were an amazing duo (Cook as the idea guy, Mearls as the implementation guy), and I think 5E will be worse off without his contributions.


My quick little comments about all the edition warring going on

1) I hope WotC ignores all of us and makes a good game, because frankly right now the RPG community is a bunch of childish babies who care far more about being right then playing a good game. We're all so hellbent on being right that we're actively going against what makes sense in many games. (See New Coke blind taste tests)

2) 4E made lots of money. 3E made lots of money. 3E was released in one of the greatest boom periods of US Economic History. 4E came out at the beginning of the worst recession in 80 years. Pathfinder seemed to take off this year...you know, about the time the worst of the recession was ending. Just like DDI subs took off. I love how everyone is arguing really small details when forgetting that the last 4 years have been the worst economic situation in the US since pre WWII.

3) WotC is running into the same issue most forms of entertainment are; this serious love of all things nostalgic and retro by our generation. Hell, one could argue Nintendo makes their living off of it (hi next zelda / mario / metroid game I will end up buying). 4E never had a chance between the recession and our generation growing up to match what 3E did in terms of market penetration. Made some good money though.

Having playtested 5th; it's pretty cool. I think people will like it, if they like D&D.

 

[Aehrlon]

Good lord, took a while to read this entire thread. A few thoughts. Hasbro is a business. They want to make $ by selling you their product. This whole play-test coming out later this month is involving what I hope to be a crap-ton of players from all editions who will offer insightful & meaningful input. It is also a lot of free/cheap advertising for Hasbro/WotC... which could lead to tons of "word-of-mouth" PR for their upcoming release.

I cannot help but think that the development of D&DNext will suffer due to Monte's departure (his 2E & 3E work was good stuff). I also believe that Hasbro should have done whatever it took to keep him onboard, I would have. Since that didn't happen & he's already gone, they should try to replace him with someone who has similar credentials. That will be a tall order as Monte's gaming credentials are considerable.

Back to the first paragraph: as Hasbro wants to make $ from you & I they will try to make a great product. They have seen the popularity of OSR & Pathfinder and want to steal those customers (or they may see it as 'getting them back'). It would appear from what has leaked thus far from cons & Alpha testing that this new iteration is attempting to appeal more to fans of earlier editions of D&D rather than fans of the current Edition. OK, they want to appeal to all fans. As great as that would be, you can't please everyone.

Many of us will at least take a look at the new game. But letting go of a game designer of such high pedigree seems like a total bone-headed move to me. I would not be surprised if their stock suffered on that day (would have to look). I sincerely hope that the other designers do a great job and I plan on offering them some great input myself. Guess my point is this, projects usually do better with continuity; clearly, this one has suffered in that regard. I hope they get all of their ducks in a row because this is a much beloved game by millions of us.... they really, REALLY need to get it right this time...

 

[Baronsquee]

Rich Baker and Monte Cook both unemployed at the same time?

I smell the start of an awesome new game company...

 

[Balesir]

I think the trick here is taking the game in new mechanical direction on the front of social interaction and exploration (particularly if they do anything like social combat or insert subsystems ike skill challenges), will further divide th base (at least if it is core). I think you and I have both been on some lengthy threads on this very subject, where it is pretty clear there are some strong divisions among gamers that could be described as "role play heavy" (and pbviously what that means was its own issue).

Yeah, well, as you probably know I think the "split" already exists; trying to pretend there are not radical differences between styles of play will really get us nowhere. I think folk are trying to cram more into "D&D" than any one game can hold; roleplaying is an activity with infinite scope - it's limited only by the imagination, which is not much of a limit at all - so, no game can encompass it all.

The last thing I want is mechanics that get in the way of me playing my guy (and to me this would be anything where social interactions are dealt with by a minigame such as social HP or anything more complicated than a diplomacy roll (and even then not 100% thrilled about that).

Right - this isn't really what I have in mind, any more than the combat rules dictate who your character fights or when they run away. What I have in mind is more along the lines of defining the social "terrain" - concepts like:

- establishing superiority or inferiority in a social milieu (where either can be useful - begging from a superior position seldom works)

- traditions and social rituals (entering the Duke's court can be worse than a beholder's lair; putting a foot wrong can earn you enemies you have never even met)

- plots are ways to multiply your influence or capabilities by clandestinely linking individuals (both PC and NPC) - each of whom is a potantial weak spot or traitor to the cause...

- beliefs and sentiments are palpable entities, sometimes, that can gain "currency" with whole swathes of folk in a social setting, such as a town or a kingdom. The feeling that "the orcs have a right to survive, the same as we do" becoming popular, especially among the leadership in a social group, can have marked consequences on half-orc bounty hunters in several ways...

- social "circles" form in every social setting; some of them rule, some of them plot, some of them seek influence. What are the "rules" for these entities? How does someone come to control one, and, through it, influence or control the wider setting?

There's huge scope here, I think, to develop ways of mapping and thus define the "field" on which social games play out. Exploration might be easier, but it brings its own challenges (mainly making it broad enough to cover a myriad of "inventions" in terms of hazards and challenges).

As a module this stuff culd work. Putting it into core might just lead to another split.

I'm not yet really convinced that "modules" can offer support for really different play styles. I think they'll be more like GURPS, where the genre and setting details can change as much as you like, but the core style of play is still recognisably GURPS (and none the worse for that!).

 

[tuxgeo]

More baseless speculation:

What are the labor laws like in Washington state? Is there a six-month limit on temporary employment, as we have (or at least had) in Oregon? I recall back in March, 1992 I was hired temporarily by a large company, then converted to full-time in September, 1992, because they would have had to lay me off otherwise: Oregon laws state(d) that employers cannot (could not?) keep "temporary" workers in temporary status permanently, because doing so was bypassing the requirements of providing full employment benefits for long-term employees.

If WotC couldn't keep Monte "temporary" longer than six months, and they offered Monte a "permanent" employment package that he didn't like, that development by itself could explain his departure without needing any other (and more-complicated) reasons.

 

[billd91]

If WotC couldn't keep Monte "temporary" longer than six months, and they offered Monte a "permanent" employment package that he didn't like, that development by itself could explain his departure without needing any other (and more-complicated) reasons.

I really doubt it's a question of being a temp. He was a contractor and that's not a "temp", though it too may be temporary. The structure would be different.