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

[carmachu]

First, Player's Handbook 2 sold nearly as many copies as the core, something splat books never do (we can argue I guess whether or not PHB2 counts as a splat book, but it pretty clearly does). So while some people bought the core and then abandoned the system immediately, we're not really talking about a significant number here.

Comparing players 2 to say complete divine or complete arcane is dishonest. 4e's business plan was different from 3.5- that edition had splate books, while the 3 main were core. 4e's plan was everything was core, so they spread the core choices out. No suprise folks bought it.

So no, its not a splat book.

Second, liked we've discussed, this perception of failure only exists on sites like EnWorld. And if you've seen this negative perception elsewhere, as we've established, this is because no matter where you go, you're bringing these perceptions with you, so there they are. I guarantee this perception of failure just doesn't extend to mainstream consumers. The only people that are aware of the so-called "edition wars" are its participants.

Well here, other forums and apparantly Hasbro board rooms. You're ignoring the fact that 4e only lasted barely 3 years, then essentials came out, and now is abandoned for 5th.

I'd bet it expands farther then you give it credit.

Now obviously, WotC doesn't want to alienate its most devoted customers (those so few devoted that visit sites like EnWorld) like it has in the past.

Unsupported. Wotc has in the past and it may do so in the future. You can argue the open playtest shows it "supports" us, but on the other hand, WOTC's track record doesnt show that at all as of yet.

 

[Mark CMG]

And my point, which I should have added earlier, was that this isn't the opinion of the entire market, nor, arguably even a majority of it. It is a self-reinforcing belief perpetuated by those who want it to be true.

Yes, products CAN fail because customers do not want to buy them. That is not the case here. Product is being replaced because goals were set at unrealistically high levels. Evidence has been provided that indicates a very successful run in terms of printed product, on par or perhaps greater than prior editions. That the product has apparently "failed" despite selling well is a direct result of setting unrealistic expectations.

This doesn't track with what WotC wants though. Moving to 4E, WotC goals were to have everyone move from 3.XE with minimal lapsed players and to draw in new players to replace the lapsed players as well as to draw in additional new players. Not an unrealistic goal for the top RPG in the market that likely had a 50+% market share during 3.XE times. This didn't seem to happen and considering how PF has fared it is likely that WotC potentially lost more than half their market share based on PF bascially doing as well (maybe better) than 4E and numerous players sticking with 3.XE or moving off to other games including older still editions of D&D.

Now moving toward fifth edition, WotC would like to draw back those lost to PF and those left behind with 3.XE as well as older editions, and even players who moved away from D&D completely as well as draw in totally new players. But even without knowing the actual numbers it stands to reason that if PF is doing as well as 4E then neither one can hold even 50% of the RPG market share since there are players playing 3.XE and older editions as well as numerous other RPGs. So, even if we are generous and suggest that PF and 4E combined hold 80% of the total RPG market, then D&D has dropped from 50+% of the market share down to a 40% approx market share.

I suppose one could argue that D&D didn't have more than a 50% market share during 3.XE times. I suppose one might even argue that much (or at least a significant portion) of the market share that PF has gained came from non-3.XE players or even non-D&D players. But these both seem like unlikely scenarios to me.

Is there another way to look at this that doesn't have WotC losing a significant percentage of the market share in the last five years?

(And, please remember, none of this is in regard to the quality of any of the games mentioned, in whole or in part.)

 

[Kobold Boots]

Another day, another 7 pages

1. EnWorld doesn't even come close to representing the entire number of people who play D&D or who have played D&D. Same can be said for the Internet gaming community (no offense meant to Morrus and crew, I think they'd agree.)

2. What the Internet gaming forum posting community is, is vocal and obvious. I'm sure that there are other terms to use, but we'll leave those alone.

3. The game industry does not have total statistics to prove total sales data. Is Pathfinder popular? Yes it is. Is 4e popular? Yes it is. Did WoTC completely screw the proverbial pooch by moving their content online to a subscription model that was easily API'd and downloaded.. yes they did. IP companies shouldn't do that unless there's a strong anti-copy system in place and it's obvious they didn't do their homework. The problem wasn't the D20 license, it was the business model chosen. Leave that D20 license intact.

4. Paizo is the better run company - mostly because it's a rpg company that does rpgs.. Hasbro is a game company that does rpgs.. there's a big focus difference and it shows. The best analogies can be found with book companies that are run by larger conglomerates, they tend to suck compared to book companies, run by companies that understand books. (Time Warner was a great example).

5. The D&D property would be better run by Paizo. Hasbro needs to drop the D&D expectation to 25 million to get a 10 year window for an edition. The 50 million mark will result in 3-4 year print runs regardless of player interest because core book sales run rate at 4 years before hitting maintenance. Beyond that it's supplement sales and we all realize that's Paizo's strength, not Hasbro's.

6. D&D success = Paizo involvement. Period.

7. Last, Any catering or pandering to the Internet community by gaming companies is done because they don't have any real data to base their decisions on other than what they read and feel on the forums and through reviews. (see lack of sales data). I also can't remember ever seeing a WoTC sales rep on the floor of a major bookseller.. ever.

Personal feeling about editions is I love all of them and there's space for Pathfinder, 4e and the next edition of D&D as well as all the retros. I'm annoyed by the "edition wars" but I'll be honest and say I don't think the forum communities can continue to exist without them.. It's all anyone really gets on about anymore.

 

[GM Dave]

This perception exists much more often amongst those who didn't like it and/or didn't adopt it. This "widespread perception" is a self-reinforcing belief.

Nobody expects Pathfinder to make 50 million in sales every year. A lot of folks were surprised it even thrived at all. It's all about relative position. It's the proverbial David to D&D/WotC's Goliath.

I know the number 50 mil seems like an astronomic amount of sales but it really isn't.

As of 2006, Dungeons & Dragons remained the best-known<sup id="cite_ref-7" class="reference">[8]</sup> and best-selling<sup id="cite_ref-8" class="reference">[9]</sup> role-playing game, with an estimated 20 million people having played the game and more than US$1 billion in book and equipment sales.

In 2006 you have roughly 20 million people that have played the game.

Consider many of those people are not active in the hobby or buy regular product.

Let's just say you have 1/20 that volume or 1 mil people that regularly buy your product.

You now just need to get $50 from 1 million people to make your target goal and you have 12 months to do it.

That is around $4 per month or $12 per quarter of the year (you actually need a few pennies more but close enough).

Sell 1 copy of your box game like Ravenloft to everyone and you've almost made your target.

Sell 2 splat books or the RPG to everyone and you've made your target.

Sell 5 to 6 novels (using a price of around $8 to $10 per book) to everyone and you've made your target.

Sell a $5 subscription per month to everyone and you've made your target.

If you have less than a million, say 500,000 people and then you just have to sell twice as much to the same group.

Out of a million people though you will likely find some people that conform to one of those 4 main options. Some may happily belong to several of the options and count as double or triple meaning you need even less people to reach your $50 million in sales.

DnD is a big enough brand that I don't think they have much trouble making the goal as there is some way they can brand and sell (without even going into the cheesy stuff of Mugs, Coasters, T-shirts, and Gamer Bibs ;> ).

 

[pemerton]

Let's just say you have 1/20 that volume or 1 mil people that regularly buy your product.

That may be optimistic for an RPG (in which regular sales aren't a necessary condition of using the product - especially for occasional/casual users).

You now just need to get $50 from 1 million people to make your target goal and you have 12 months to do it.

That is around $4 per month or $12 per quarter of the year (you actually need a few pennies more but close enough).

Sell 1 copy of your box game like Ravenloft to everyone and you've almost made your target.

Sell 2 splat books or the RPG to everyone and you've made your target.

Sell 5 to 6 novels (using a price of around $8 to $10 per book) to everyone and you've made your target.

Sell a $5 subscription per month to everyone and you've made your target.

<snip>

without even going into the cheesy stuff of Mugs, Coasters, T-shirts, and Gamer Bibs

Is the goal one for turnover, or profit?

Even if it's for turnover, what is WotC's receipts on the sale of a $30 book? Presumably the retailer takes more tha $10, and presumably the distributor takes a reasonable cut of the wholesale price.

 

[Kobold Boots]

That may be optimistic for an RPG (in which regular sales aren't a necessary condition of using the product - especially for occasional/casual users).

Is the goal one for turnover, or profit?

Even if it's for turnover, what is WotC's receipts on the sale of a $30 book? Presumably the retailer takes more tha $10, and presumably the distributor takes a reasonable cut of the wholesale price.

This is a wise approach.

I can speak to experience when I advise that a company selling books making 1.1 billion dollars in sales took home 84 million in profit in fiscal year 2010.

If the 50 million mark is profit and not gross sales then you're looking at an adjusted 600 million or so in sales in books.

If the 50 million mark is sales only (one would hope) and you're looking at 3-4 million in profit which in my humble opinion is worthy of a small niche publisher but may not entice something as big as Hasbro.

Bottom line regardless is if you water down your sales with subscriptions and you don't stagger the subscription content to lag behind your hardcover sales by a significant time period such that it doesn't affect your hardcover sales; you're hosed.

Not to be a Paizo fanboy but I was impressed with the hardcover subscription model and slightly staggered pdf only offerings.

 

[Neonchameleon]

One thing to remember is that there are two big RPG sites that aren't publisher owned. Enworld and rpg.net. (TheRPGSite is in third and is much, much smaller). And rpg.net loves 4e.

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.

Bringing 4e to a close might have been done simply because they've taken it as far as they can go.

 

[Remus Lupin]

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.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

Nobody is having this debate about Pathfinder.

There's a pretty good reason for that. Pathfinder fans, obviously, won't consider Pathfinder to be a failure. 4e fans don't care about Pathfinder because Pathfinder developments are not, in any way, related to the game they want to play.

The only people who keep banging the "4e is failing" drum are those who feel they got "fired" as a customer.

 

[Remus Lupin]

Hussar, that's not the impression I get from these discussions. Looking through this thread there seem to be a number of 4e supporters who nonetheless see that the brand has been in difficulties for a while.

But to get back to the original point of the thread: I suppose that with Monte gone this all only matters insofar as it helps give us a sense of what 5e will look like. The question going forward will be: Does it take 4e forward or attempt to go back to something akin to 3e. It could be that Monte left precisely because he was trying to go back to 3e and the company was pushing to go forward with 4e. It all remains to be seen, but it provides fodder for our speculation.

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.

 

[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.