Legends & Lore: Live together, die alone!

[ForeverSlayer]

I think some of you are really discrediting Monte without knowing the whole story. Now I personally believe that Wizards would not hire Monte without him knowing anything about 4th edition. I seriously doubt they would hire the man without him knowing anything about the current edition.

Now another way to look at it is if they did hire him and he doesn't have knowledge of 4th edition then I could see them as hiring Monte to do 5th edition.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I would like to see more done with Aid Another such as group tactics. Let's say your defender wants to aid the wizard because he is being pounded on, well the defender could aid the wizard by using his shield or whatever to provide some extra AC or provide the wizard with the option of using some kind of listed controller ability that is only usable with the Aid Another action.

Or maybe two defenders going for a Phalanx style of defense against a group of enemies when they aid each other.

 

[KidSnide]

The biggest problem I have with the article is that I get the distinct feeling that Monte Cook is unfamiliar with 4e and that a lot of what he talks about IS ALREADY HERE.

The article doesn't read like it was written by someone unfamiliar with 4e. It reads like Monte is spending a lot of time thinking about 4e and it's major advantages, presumably so they are incorporated into something that plays like a modern game, but feels (or can feel) more old school.

I read this article as a discussion of the tension between, "it's more fun if I can attack and heal" and "maybe sometimes I just want to forgo my attack and do something super leader-y." For example, you might think that "Daily Attack Powers" should be replaced by "Daily Awesome Powers, some of which are attacks."

I could imagine a future article that talks about the benefits of a consistent way of presenting class abilities (i.e. "powers") versus more ad hoc spell descriptions (which had a consistent header, but the important parts were just written in English). I wouldn't think the author was unfamiliar with how powers are written.

-KS

 

[Neverfate]

It's funny how Mearls said the point of the L&L articles was to open up a dialogue and regain trust. I don't know how polarizing poll questions really do that. I've stopped voting in the polls altogether because I guess I'm just a more middle-of-the-road type of player which is 4E's strength. The Rogue is a shining example of a class that can balance being a loner and team player in 4th Edition.

I honestly don't think 5th edition is in the works, but I'm really not sure how I'm supposed to see Cook's L&L articles in relation to 4th Edition. I'm not the swiftest light in the tool shed, but can we at least directly talk about how to make 4th Edition better in these articles?

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

I'm starting to lose confidence in him. He's really giving the "throwing the baby out with the bathwater vibe" with these articles. And, as I and others have said before, the binary thinking in his polls is a terrible way to go.

On the bright side, if 5e ends up being a step in the wrong direction because of some of his questionable choices, 4e will still be around for a long time.

 

[Imaro]

It's funny how Mearls said the point of the L&L articles was to open up a dialogue and regain trust. I don't know how polarizing poll questions really do that. I've stopped voting in the polls altogether because I guess I'm just a more middle-of-the-road type of player which is 4E's strength. The Rogue is a shining example of a class that can balance being a loner and team player in 4th Edition.

I'm curious about your statement above... I've found that the Rogue isn't really all that great at being a loner because he is too fragile, in fact the only roles that seem equipped to be both loners and team players in 4e are the Defenders and Leaders... so I'm interested in your perspective on this.

 

[MatthewJHanson]

I think Monte Cook is probably familiar with 4e, but I think he's really familiar with 3rd edition and its assorted offspring. If you take a look at his bio he has a ton of those credits, but I don't see any for 4e. I think wither conscious or not, his history as a designer colors what he writes about.

I too do not like the binary poles. I've started casting protest votes for the answerer that is the opposite of the article's view. (My real view is usually more nuanced and somewhere in the middle.)

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I'm starting to lose confidence in him. He's really giving the "throwing the baby out with the bathwater vibe" with these articles. And, as I and others have said before, the binary thinking in his polls is a terrible way to go.

On the bright side, if 5e ends up being a step in the wrong direction because of some of his questionable choices, 4e will still be around for a long time.

I'm curious as to this remark. I have seen it before but I would like for you to go into detail about "wrong direction". What are you basing wrong direction off of? Is it using material from previous editions? What would you be able to compare this to in order to come up with whether it's the wrong direction or not?

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I think Monte Cook is probably familiar with 4e, but I think he's really familiar with 3rd edition and its assorted offspring. If you take a look at his bio he has a ton of those credits, but I don't see any for 4e. I think wither conscious or not, his history as a designer colors what he writes about.

I too do not like the binary poles. I've started casting protest votes for the answerer that is the opposite of the article's view. (My real view is usually more nuanced and somewhere in the middle.)

I wouldn't call Wizards of the Coast an idiot so there is a reason they hired Monte Cook. I think Monte knows what worked in 3rd edition and what didn't work, so he would be able to take what did actually work and combine that with Mearls' understanding of 4th edition and combine those two elements into 5th edition.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

I'm curious as to this remark. I have seen it before but I would like for you to go into detail about "wrong direction". What are you basing wrong direction off of? Is it using material from previous editions? What would you be able to compare this to in order to come up with whether it's the wrong direction or not?

When I say, "wrong direction," it does not necessarily mean that I feel it is bad to go to previous editions for inspiration. I have very much liked some of the 4e "retro" stuff. I am a huge fan of Essentials, for example.

"Wrong direction" to me, means going back to some of the design tropes of previous editions that clearly were bad design. That can mean a lot of things to different people. I play 4e for a reason, and that reason is the same one that keeps a lot of other folks playing 3.x, PF, and earlier editions, i.e. they actually like the elements of design that I feel 4e fixed.

That said, those people who liked that style of game already have everything they need, and are very unlikely to "buy back into" a new edition simply because it is new. I feel that the pursuit of their money will be a waste of time and will only cost WotC the business of the people who liked the 4e direction.

In summary, taking inspiration and flavour from the past, acknowledging it, that's great. Don't alienate the current audience by making an about-face on 4e's strengths.

Now I don't particularly care about offending your sensibilities ForeverSlayer, but I will qualify this by saying that I don't have any particular grudge against your hero Monte Cook. In fact I quite liked his post WotC work in the context of late 3.x design. But quite frankly, every time he publishes one of these columns, he erodes my confidence in his ability to design a new edition of D&D. I really hope these fears are unfounded, but while Mike Mearls I found pushed "all the right buttons" in his articles and with his designs, I can't say the same for Mr. Cook.

Take from that what you will. I explained this to you as a courtesy; I don't owe you anything.