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

[Bedrockgames]

To an extent you're correct. Here's my thoughts:

1. The vocal fanbase that is upset is not necessarily correlated to a loss of sales. Certainly it's resulted in a sales loss to some repeat customers, but whether or not that's anything more than a drop in the bucket is unknown. I don't like all of the 4e changes, but I didn't like many of the 3e decisions either. I still bought both 4e and Pathfinder and I'm willing to bet I'm more in the center of the demograph of older gamers that WoTC is looking for than the people that are complaining.

If peopld are just complaining but still buying books, then there isn't a priblem. I suspect you are wrong though. Lots of us are not simply complaining but haven't been buying their books as well (and I think this was part of the problem 4E encountered). Clearly WOTC has lost customers that they have gained that many new customers seems alot less clear to me.

 

[Bedrockgames]

1. Staying the course: They've gone with 4e and they need to make sure that they don't go too far back with 5e that they hose themselves going forward. The 4e game mechanics are solid.

.

We just disagree. Yes 4e is a solid game in that it does what it set out to achieve, but it appears to be one of the least popular incarnations of D&D, and it has proven to be very niche.

 

[Kobold Boots]

We just disagree. Yes 4e is a solid game in that it does what it set out to achieve, but it appears to be one of the least popular incarnations of D&D, and it has proven to be very niche.

The beauty of all sorts of discussions is that there's plenty of room to disagree and I appreciate that. Some points that come to mind off of your reply are:

1. D&D is niche to begin with.

2. At some point backwards-compatible becomes synonymous with bloat. That's true for code, games and anything with a rules-set. At some point you need to break with tradition in order to insure long term viability. WoTC had to bite the bullet at some point and they did with 4e.

3. I saw 4e as being good for two reasons. First, it cut a lot of the bloat out of the system and got rid of the old system mastery issues. Second, the rules would allow for ease of migration across platforms; allowing for better cash flow for the brand from other sources than just books.

4. Going too far back with 5e only insures that their game will look too much like Paizo's product (which is horrible from a competition standpoint) and that they'll have a heightened risk of re-living the same mistakes when they're forced to change to meet the needs in point 1. (kind of like dating an ex that you have incredible sex with; but who constantly reminds you why you broke up with her in the first place.)

 

[Kobold Boots]

If peopld are just complaining but still buying books, then there isn't a priblem. I suspect you are wrong though. Lots of us are not simply complaining but haven't been buying their books as well (and I think this was part of the problem 4E encountered). Clearly WOTC has lost customers that they have gained that many new customers seems alot less clear to me.

We lack data. *shrug*

 

[Bedrockgames]

The beauty of all sorts of discussions is that there's plenty of room to disagree and I appreciate that. Some points that come to mind off of your reply are:

Agreed.

1. D&D is niche to begin with.

Yes, but 4e is a niche within the niche. Previous editions catered to multiple styles and preferences (perhaps not perfeclty matching any of them). 4e is very focused, and works very well for a certain subset of gamer, but clearly doesn't appeal to many D&D fans.

2. At some point backwards-compatible becomes synonymous with bloat. That's true for code, games and anything with a rules-set. At some point you need to break with tradition in order to insure long term viability. WoTC had to bite the bullet at some point and they did with 4e.

This wasn't really much of an issue, imo, until the wotc era. With ad&d any bloat was for the most part optional and the system seemed to handle it just fine. I ran 2e for ten years with no bloat issues at all (they may have had some setting bloat and a few misadventures like skills andpowers, but you really never saw the need for a reboot).

3. I saw 4e as being good for two reasons. First, it cut a lot of the bloat out of the system and got rid of the old system mastery issues. Second, the rules would allow for ease of migration across platforms; allowing for better cash flow for the brand from other sources than just books.

Whether system mastery is an issue is a preference but I agree, it wasn't a good thing for my game. However their solution to the problem was to completely reshape the game. That is one way to get rid of bloat and mastery, but destroys brand identity.

Also, system mastery was a problem unique to 3E. Wasn't much of an issue in the 1e and 2e era. This could easily have been fixed without restructruint the game or taking out vancian wizards.

4. Going too far back with 5e only insures that their game will look too much like Paizo's product (which is horrible from a competition standpoint) and that they'll have a heightened risk of re-living the same mistakes when they're forced to change to meet the needs in point 1. (kind of like dating an ex that you have incredible sex with; but who constantly reminds you why you broke up with her in the first place.)

The first part here is a good point and why I said D&D shouls have cut its losses and accepted they lost half the fanbase. It is a bit rude to jettison the 4e crowd so suddenly in order to attract players like me. That said, they have chosen a course that includes getting back pathfinder and AD&D players. T do that, they have to go back to some of the classic stuff. There is just no way around it.

 

[Kobold Boots]

The first part here is a good point and why I said D&D shouls have cut its losses and accepted they lost half the fanbase. It is a bit rude to jettison the 4e crowd so suddenly in order to attract players like me. That said, they have chosen a course that includes getting back pathfinder and AD&D players. T do that, they have to go back to some of the classic stuff. There is just no way around it.

I see a middle ground to the entirety of your post where we can agree on all points. I'm quoting the above because it resonates most with me. I do believe that WoTC should have made the call to cut its losses when they made the move to 4e and especially when they pulled back on the OGL.

However, the lack of real transparency regarding 5e has contributed my group's conversion to Pathfinder. irony that

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

<table id="postnote_table_5901449" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td style="vertical-align: center;">

</td><td style="vertical-align: center;" nowrap="nowrap"> Remus Lupin:
</td><td class="alt" style="width: 100%;"> That wasn't crowd sourcing, that was letting one moron make decisions about something he didn't know.
</td></tr></tbody></table>

I figured folks here would be able to make the leap here. The difference (and what I was getting at) is that instead of asking only one moron, they're asking hundreds or thousands of them. I loved the OGL as much as the next guy, but it enabled the production of a lot of steaming garbage. Everybody can be a wannabe game designer, but that doesn't make them good at it, and for the same reason, doesn't mean real game designers should necessarily listen to them.

I used Homer because he represents the everyman, and the same is true of most gamers. You can ask them what they want, and a lot of the time you will get a bloated mess for an answer.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Also, system mastery was a problem unique to 3E. Wasn't much of an issue in the 1e and 2e era.

I disagree. It was a lesser issue in 2E, but I did have a couple of dissatisfied players in 2E that found some Kits to be traps (Archer) while others granted way too much (Chosen of Mystra?).

Now, it was much easier to say "no kits" and be rid of the problem in 2E. Whereas in 3E I found that stripping out multiclassing and feats (the top two reasons I believe system mastery in 3E was an issue) would have caused a much bigger problem.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I disagree. It was a lesser issue in 2E, but I did have a couple of dissatisfied players in 2E that found some Kits to be traps (Archer) while others granted way too much (Chosen of Mystra?).

Now, it was much easier to say "no kits" and be rid of the problem in 2E. Whereas in 3E I found that stripping out multiclassing and feats (the top two reasons I believe system mastery in 3E was an issue) would have caused a much bigger problem.

But that is the point, kits were entirely optional and most gave you a small conditional modifier to an attack or nwp roll. Once in a while they had one that was overpowerwed and you eliminated it (and a couple of books weren't well vetted). But it wasn't systemic the way it was in 3e and it was very easy to control. I almost never encountered this issue running 2E (and when I didk it was easy to fix) but ran into it constantly with 3E.

 

[renau1g]

Also, system mastery was a problem unique to 3E. Wasn't much of an issue in the 1e and 2e era. This could easily have been fixed without restructruint the game or taking out vancian wizards.

In my group I can say that if 4e hadn't had a fairly large change we wouldn't have switched over. It's why I don't really play Pathfinder. For me, I was tired of the 3e rules, I wanted to try something new and after shelling out more $'s to re-buy the 3.5e stuff, I wasn't going to drop another $100 to buy 3.75 books. I think 4e can be improved of course (especially out of turn actions that are a PITA). Just my 2 cents.

My group also loved that a wizard wasn't stuck firing a crossbow (and missing) most of the adventure for the first few levels. Again, I know some people hated that aspect, but mine loved it.