Monte Cook back at wizards

[GreyLord]

I personally didn't like Cook's take on RPGs. I actually DID like rolemaster, but I like my Rolemaster and D&D separate. Ever after Cook got into D&D, it went downhill...in a MAJOR way. He introduced it into a skill packet idea instead of it's roots...he's the one that rewrote the game.

If you don't like 4e...thank Monte...as he started the entire trend of...let's rewrite the game into something completely different with 3e (actually it had it's roots with some of the stuff he worked on prior to 3e in D&D and proceeded from there). 4e actually wasn't as drastic a rewrite as 3.X was (though many may try to claim otherwise).

His stuff after 3e's release hasn't really been all that inspired either, in my opinion.

So why would Monte be hired?

First, because there are many who think he is a good guy and can give great direction to the RPG side of the business (WotC is far more then D&D these days).

Second, those same people will vouch for him.

Third, because he has something many others don't...name recognition. For some reason there are many out there that love the combination of him and the idea of D&D. That's a power in marketing that is rare...and hard to match. In fact, to get that can be a vital portion of marketing. You can't just pass up a chance at using something like that.

In the competition WotC has with other RPG makers...his name is more likely to draw people to WotC's RPGs than just about any other name out there currently. Getting him is like winning the sweeps in the ratings...he's probably even more valuable to the brand name of WotC's D&D than even Monte realizes.

Aka...he could save or destroy the game...or both at the same time.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Hmmh, I just spoke about the difference between 3.0 and 3.5... 4e is an entirely different thing...

I falsely assumed, it was clear, that I was responding to a post... the problem: someone sneaked in, and since I did not quote, it was not clear.

IMHO 3.0 > 3.5 in many regards, as 3.5 slaughtered a lot of sacred cows... the only problem: 3.5 > 3.0 in other regards... so we slowly switched (or better slided) to 3.5...

but 4e is currently the best edition we have. Great principles, especially those things you mentioned:
The NPC - PC split and toning down of casters.

On the other hand, my favourite edition would make the split less severe (more or less equal number of hp and especially damage numbers, less strict afvancement rules which allows for even more freedsom), it would underline rituals more and brings back real spell books, and it would do away with feats and brings proficiencies back (which includes proper scaling of skill bonuses)

5e will even be better... (i hope so at least)

 

[Roland55]

I'm not all that knowledgeable of Monte Cook's works, so until I see 4e products with his name on it, I'm going to wait and see what this means. In the meantime, I like that he's taking over the Legends and Lore column, as his ideas have already surfaced there, and I'd like to see how he presents them.

As for 5e ... I don't doubt it's coming, but I don't think it's gone much beyond the doodling on a paper napkin phase. There's still a lot of life left in 4e.

Actually, 4E will in some sense live forever. It's fairly complete, lots of useful product exists, and it has a strong player base.

Heck, Umbran is playing Deadlands with his group these days. How long since that was being actively developed?

No one here need fear anything. 4E already exists in a complete and eminently playable form -- WOTC will not show up and take it away from you.

Thus -- 4E will "live forever."

 

[Roland55]

Hahahaahahahahaahahahahahahaa.

The gaming community has been like this ever since I can remember. Hell, you should see some of the old Greyhawk mailing list and newsgroup conversations. Talk about vitriol! The only thing that is different is that there are more ways in which we can come together and argue with each other

Kzach's post rings true.

We are indeed an argumentative, feisty, negative bunch.

Maybe, just this once, we could take a positive stance ... wait patiently (if vocally) ... and expect something great. Suspend disbelief. Offer positive moral support.

You know, for a change. Just to keep "them" off their guard.

 

[_NewbieDM_]

Interesting hypothetical situation:

A Monte Cook-aided 5th Ed. releases at the same time as a Pathfinder 2, inspired by a Monte Cook designed 3rd ed.

partial Cook game vs. partial Cook game...

Grab the popcorn....

 

[Viking Bastard]

Monte Cook is the closest thing D&D has to a living rockstar. WotC needs good PR. They're obviously retooling things; having that be Monte Cook-stamped would seem like a good move.

 

[delericho]

Hell, one of the biggest boosts Pathfinder got was Monte Cook's support.

Nah. Monte did a quick review of the rules, and wrote a foreword. That's all - and that's really not much. Pathfinder was sold largely on the reputation for quality that Paizo had built up for their adventures.

Even losing only 25 percent of Paizo's audience to 5e would be serious.

Serious, yes, but survivable. Whereas the alternative is dropping Pathfinder and tying the survival of the company into a license that they don't control. And, having dropped Pathfinder they wouldn't be able to restart it if WotC pulled the rug out from under them.

I just can't see them taking that step.

 

[was]

sounds cool..looking forward to his work

 

[darkwing]

I really like the 4e philosophy on game play (i.e. the game should be fun for everyone regardless of class or level) more than any previous edition and I hope Mike Mearls and Monte Cook don't screw it up.

 

[Dice4Hire]

I would like to see some things new at WOTC, particularly a look back at wht already exists, with an eye for tweaking it.

Maybe WOTC will do it, but I am not sure.