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.

 

[GM Dave]

Monte Cook does an interview on the Jennisodes Podcast.

Looking towards the Future // Podcasts | Jennisodes Podcast

I have not heard the full thing yet. I'm just listening now.

He talks on Playtesting which follows his recent blog topic and the show notes list things like some sort of kickstarter project.

 

[Bedrockgames]

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.

I understand this point of view. But I am not sure changing the nature of a product to satisfy those customers who don't really like it is the best approach. Not saying your preferences aren't valid. But when you reboot a product in that way you are essentially giving your satisfied customers the boot (or taking a huge chance they won't come back). It is sort of like changing coke for people who say it isn't sweet enough. Sure you might win over the folks who were bored with cokes old flavor or never liked it in the first place, but you are also taking away the thing that drew most repeat customers back to the beverage.

I think this is true of 4E. In my opinion they should cut their losses and make a new edition the 4E people will love. Because that is their current audience. Why strip out the things that your present customers love about your game?

Product idenity is very important. D&D is in the midst of an identity crisis.

Pleasing your customers is important. WOTC has a pattern of angering one group of customers in order to please another group.

The fact is anyone who is not happy with the current version of D&D has options.

 

[renau1g]

I understand this point of view. But I am not sure changing the nature of a product to satisfy those customers who don't really like it is the best approach. Not saying your preferences aren't valid. But when you reboot a product in that way you are essentially giving your satisfied customers the boot (or taking a huge chance they won't come back).

I definitely agree with you, 4e was a huge departure from 3e and certainly from prior editions. Sometimes you gotta swing for the fences though. Some reboots fall flat on their faces (like New Coke) while some "reboots" hit home runs (Nolan Batman reboot). Also, I think with the OGL and the glut of d20 stuff out there, the market was probably pretty saturated (plus their own boat-load of supplements). By going in another direction, they probably hoped to grab some "white space" while (hopefully) keeping most of the previous players. This obviously didn't happen to the extent they'd have liked.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I definitely agree with you, 4e was a huge departure from 3e and certainly from prior editions. Sometimes you gotta swing for the fences though. Some reboots fall flat on their faces (like New Coke) while some "reboots" hit home runs (Nolan Batman reboot). Also, I think with the OGL and the glut of d20 stuff out there, the market was probably pretty saturated (plus their own boat-load of supplements). By going in another direction, they probably hoped to grab some "white space" while (hopefully) keeping most of the previous players. This obviously didn't happen to the extent they'd have liked.

But successful reboots happen when something is dying or dead. d20 was still popular. They certainly saturated the game with product and rules by the end. But the solution wasn't to scrap the game and start over (since everywhere I turned people were playing D&D). The market was saturated for a reason: people were buying the stuff---it was successful.

Also with D&D you have a game that is a system. This is different from accepting a newer, grittier batman. It requires players to actually adopt a new way of playing the game when you reboot. Clearly in this instance a reboot had the effect of losing something like half the customer base (mostly because lots of fans took one look and said "this isn't D&D").

 

[billd91]

I definitely agree with you, 4e was a huge departure from 3e and certainly from prior editions. Sometimes you gotta swing for the fences though. Some reboots fall flat on their faces (like New Coke) while some "reboots" hit home runs (Nolan Batman reboot). Also, I think with the OGL and the glut of d20 stuff out there, the market was probably pretty saturated (plus their own boat-load of supplements). By going in another direction, they probably hoped to grab some "white space" while (hopefully) keeping most of the previous players. This obviously didn't happen to the extent they'd have liked.

This is why I think they should have considered a D&D family of RPG-style games again rather than a single product line and used 4e to be the flagship of the allied, combat-heavy, D&D-interfacing skirmish line. And maybe the modularity of 5e will succeed somewhat in doing this. If it's not already too late...

 

[renau1g]

The market was saturated for a reason: people were buying the stuff---it was successful.

My thoughts about saturation are that the entrance barriers were very low (you got a computer, check, you have a text editor, check, you too can be a RPG designer). That's neither here nor there though, and I hypothesize that some higher ups saw significant sales to 3PP's and thought "hey, that spending should be coming to us, it's our system" and (stupidly) restricted things with 4e's license and created significant competitors.

I'm guessing that it was not successful enough, I would expect to see more marginal returns from late-run books, like Monster Manual V or Complete Champion. Again, the higher ups, probably put the pressure on the D&D team to increase revenues. With only 3 years between 3e and 3.5e, I'm guessing that the design thought they may have to go in another direction or risk everyone just ignoring their new offering.

Again, D&D may have been thriving, but if Hasbro wasn't seeing the returns, obviously things had to change. For me, I liked the changes, for others, not so much.

I do say that I hope 5e isn't some water-down frankenstein version of 3e and 4e cobbled together that neither group likes.


Edit: Regarding Bill's post, I agree with this. I loved Final Fantasy Tactics and Square still made some good traditional RPG FF's as well.

 

[Hussar]

I have to admit that I find it endlessly amusing to see people equate "I don't like this product" with "Many people don't like this product". There's virtually no evidence showing how well or poorly 4e has done economically. The idea that 4e is doing poorly as the drive for a new edition doesn't wash if you look at the development of 3e to 3.5. Granted, it is entirely possible that 4e is shedding customers right, left and center, but, it would be nice if people could actually recognize that their personal takes on the sparse, anecdotal and frequently contradictory information that we have as little more than gut feelings rather than anything remotely approaching a fact.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Edit: Regarding Bill's post, I agree with this. I loved Final Fantasy Tactics and Square still made some good traditional RPG FF's as well.

Yes, but Tactics also had a great (if badly 'transrated") story, and this is the same old assumption I see being made in regards to 4e that simply isn't true - that because it is tactically strong, that it doesn't serve storytelling or roleplaying well. That's simply false.

 

[renau1g]

Yes, but Tactics also had a great (if badly 'transrated") story, and this is the same old assumption I see being made in regards to 4e that simply isn't true - that because it is tactically strong, that it doesn't serve storytelling or roleplaying well. That's simply false.

Oh I agree with this (I didn't mean to imply that 4e was just a tactics game, I could've said Mario Kart and continued to have the Mario solo action games). I felt 4e had an excellent combat system and a fairly crappy (IMO) Skill Challenge system (although I like the attempt to try to offer a more explicit for things more difficult than just a simple die roll).

The other stuff, I didn't rules for. I had no issue creating games/campaigns for 4e than I did for older systems. The dracolich planning to raise an army of skeletal dragons to attack the nearby human kingdom, or the giants ransacking dwarf caravans, or the corrupt nobleman bending the council to his needs (ala Palpatine), all worked the same under each system. I ran the same adventure once in both 3e and 4e and it played out fine each time.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Oh I agree with this (I didn't mean to imply that 4e was just a tactics game, I could've said Mario Kart and continued to have the Mario solo action games). I felt 4e had an excellent combat system and a fairly crappy (IMO) Skill Challenge system (although I like the attempt to try to offer a more explicit for things more difficult than just a simple die roll).

Yeah, I wasn't crapping on you for that, nor did I get that out of your post. No worries

It was actually more what bill said that made me think of that. Again, not saying that was what he intended to imply, but I have seen that insinuation made by others. It's all in how you approach it, I suppose.