D&D 5E Is there beef between Mearls and Cook?

[Croesus]

Interesting given how a big emphasis in Monte Cook and Shanna Germain's Cypher System has been GM Empowerment.

A good example of why we shouldn't pigeonhole game designers (and folks in general).

 

[Mercule]

Cook was a major contributor to 3e, so a 5e with him as lead designer may have been even more 3.x/PF-like. Though, presumably, without the option bloat and player-'Entitlement'-over-DM-Empowerment.

This was always my assumption about the "creative differences" -- well, that and the whole "no side work" thing which has caused me to turn down jobs. I don't know if it was Mearls, personally, though. I always assumed Cook just wasn't part of whatever larger consensus may have set the 5E re-alignment. I've really never cared enough to ponder it long, though.

Both Cook and Mearls are great with rules. I learned to dislike d20 after a while, but it did the two things it set out to do very well -- protect players from bad/inexperienced/jerk DMs and refine/standardize the core mechanics. I happen to disagree with the first goal (because it also impedes good DMs) and think 3E was a necessary stepping stone for the latter. Mearls' Iron Heroes was a fantastic low-magic-without-making-fighters-wuxia-for-balance set of rules and really showed his chops, IMO.

I could see, though, where the two of them working on a core system at the same time could cause a bit of conflict. As a senior-level developer, I've worked with other senior-level developers where we got along great when we were running our own teams, advocated for the same frameworks, patterns, and API standards, and our apps always played nice together -- but, when we had to work on the same system, the minor details in how we made decisions, prioritized, and structured things led to conflict. No one was viewed as "wrong" and going out for beers was always fun. Just too much "alpha geek" testosterone for one project.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Huh? What player-entitlement over DM-empowerment? What edition did that arise in?

Initially, I suppose, 2e, with the bizzare-sounding-at-the-time "Player's Option" series. ("What!?! Players don't have Options! DMs have Options! what cheek! what unabashed insolence!")... but, really, with 3e and the tremendous increase in such options, and the generally more consistent (there was a lot of room to be more consistent!) design and more open presentation of the rules. AD&D had had a polite 'DM's eyes only' fiction going with much of the rules, 1e even had different rules in the DMG than in the PH, so the players were litterally learning and making decisions based on the wrong rules. 3e put almost all the character building rules ('cept magic items & wealth/level) and combat rules right in the PH. 4e finished the job.

5e has returned to DM Empowerment, but, catering as it does to a very experienced fan base, makes no pretense of keeping the rules secret, instead the rules, at their most basic core, rely on continuous DM rulings.

I learned to dislike d20 after a while, but it did the two things it set out to do very well -- protect players from bad/inexperienced/jerk DMs

Can't say I ever noticed that. Yes, 3e was very player-focused in terms of the sheer resources marketed to them (it had worked for 2e for a while, and Battletech and WoD had been very successful with publishing vast quantities of 'splatbooks'), and there was the RAW-uber-alles zietgiest that built up around that. Players were able to uncover lavish rewards for system mastery and were unwilling to lose them to an off-hand DM ruling.
But that only made running 3.x that much more of a challenge, and a good (indeed excellent) DM that much more needful. I suppose that 'protected' you from an inexperienced DM, as they'd either give up in short order, and painfully gain the needed experience...

In a way, though, 3.x was good for the style of adversarial DMing (not that that's necessarily 'bad' or 'jerk,' if everyone on board with it). The DM also had a lot of build tools to use with his monsters - and could use all the players' toys with his NPCs - so the DM sets some parameters for character creation and pegs monster CR and NPC levels to that, and you have a nominally 'fair' contest. By the same token it was ideal for PvP.

and refine/standardize the core mechanics.

Certainly.

 

[billd91]

Can't say I ever noticed that. Yes, 3e was very player-focused in terms of the sheer resources marketed to them (it had worked for 2e for a while, and Battletech and WoD had been very successful with publishing vast quantities of 'splatbooks'), and there was the RAW-uber-alles zietgiest that built up around that. Players were able to uncover lavish rewards for system mastery and were unwilling to lose them to an off-hand DM ruling.
But that only made running 3.x that much more of a challenge, and a good (indeed excellent) DM that much more needful. I suppose that 'protected' you from an inexperienced DM, as they'd either give up in short order, and painfully gain the needed experience...

My understanding from some published interviews with Skip Williams, one of the other lead designers of 3e, is that defining the rules and leaving less to a GM's off-the-cuff rulings would be good for players because they'd have more information on what to expect from their decisions from an independent source - the rules. There'd be less asking the DM "can I do this", "is this in range", "can I get both of the orcs in my burning hands" and more looking at the situation, applying the rules, and knowing whether or not they could do so or at least have a very good idea what their chances were if it depended on a die roll. They'd be able to make more meaningful decisions on their own part rather than leaving it entirely up to the DM to ascribe meaning to their choices via the black box workings of their brains.

And I think it performed that job quite well. While there were inevitable debates over the meaning of certain rules that would make even a lawyer back away in horror, 3e offered a much tighter and better defined set of rules than previous editions.

 

[Mistwell]

That's your evidence of a "beef"?

I think you meant to say...

[video=youtube;VnCajZth-24]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnCajZth-24[/video]

 

[BookBarbarian]

Given their relative positions in the world I think it could be likely that a line intersecting their respective positions could traverse through a bovine or food product made from a bovine.

 

[TwoSix]

Interesting given how a big emphasis in Monte Cook and Shanna Germain's Cypher System has been GM Empowerment.

Needing some protection from DM's focused on telling their story was a bigger issue in 2000 than it was a decade later.

 

[billd91]

Needing some protection from DM's focused on telling their story was a bigger issue in 2000 than it was a decade later.

Maybe. But thanks to the journey through 3e and 4e, I think 5e does have some better defined elements than 1e/2e did. For example, exactly how far can you move and still get multiple attacks in 1e or 2e? It's not that easy a question to answer. But it is in 5e and I'm sure it's partly because 3e took the effort to define it far more carefully than previous editions did.

 

[TwoSix]

Maybe. But thanks to the journey through 3e and 4e, I think 5e does have some better defined elements than 1e/2e did. For example, exactly how far can you move and still get multiple attacks in 1e or 2e? It's not that easy a question to answer. But it is in 5e and I'm sure it's partly because 3e took the effort to define it far more carefully than previous editions did.

Sure. I wasn't knocking 3e there, railroading games into the DM's scripted storyline was a much bigger thing in the '90s. 3e's stronger player empowerment was a necessary corrective.

 

[Jester David]

Jonathan Tweet left WotC because of side projects he didn't want to sign over to WotC.
He was pretty open about that.

Uncertain about Monte Cook. It sounds like he just didn't mesh with the people running D&D at WotC or the people in charge of WotC as a whole.

Monte was a big name in 3e but 5e owes as much to older editions and simpler play as it does to 3e.
It's very likely he just wanted to take 5e in a less nostalgic direction and do something new or revisionary: new mechanics and fewer sacred cows. Or he wanted a crunchier more complex game and less simplicity. Different people with different visions.

Or he just missed being his own boss and chaffed under taking orders after being in charge of his own destiny for a decade...