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

[Redbadge]

But this is the equivalent of saying "the perception of failure exists only among those who know the most about the game and care the most about its future. I'm not sure that's any better news!

And I'm not sure it's true. As others have noted, if these conversations are also taking place at FLGS's and around the table, then it's wider spread than you seem to be crediting.

I know all about the game and I really care about it's future. From my perspective, 4e wasn't a failure, far from it. The thing is, even amongst the most devoted, 4e may be controversial and divisive, but that is because there are so many "true" fans that are passionate about the topic on both sides.

And see, anecdotes are tough. I'd expect people that post prolifically on sites like EnWorld to have interest in which direction the game takes, and a lot of influence at their local game store. At the stores I visit in my area (3), I'm pretty much the most influential. I liked and moved to 4e, so everyone did (even some that you might've considered the "elder statemen" most connected to the roots of the hobby). And although I liked Pathfinder, when another vocal person at the store built up the perception that that system was just somebody's extensive houserules for 3e, well, nobody bought it (although I now wonder how David, one of the store owners I know the best, feels about this).

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Something that keeps popping up is the excuse about Wizards making their profit goals unreasonable so that is why 4th edition failed. It's almost like 4fans are hanging on to this for dear life because to them, it wasn't their edition that failed bu the company.

I don't buy this. D&D has never ever been a mega bucks product. Why would they suddenly expect 4th edition to break that notion and bring in those mega bucks?

The fact of the matter is, the edition was cut early, Monte Cook was brought in to lead the new one, the announcement of the new edition was early(which I believe was to make those leaving the game stop and wait just a little longer to see what 5th edition was all about), people like Bill S were let go, and they started working on the next edition after only 2 years.

There is something fundamental out there and it's the fact that if the game was doing so well then we wouldn't be where we are now. Blaming it on Wizards is just too easy.

I'll say it again: so what? 4E has been discontinued and 5E is in the works. Nobody denies that, but so what? What does that mean in terms of 5E? Some people would seem to like it if that meant that 4E failed, so its time to turn back the clock to fix things. The fact is, that whatever happened with 4E it still has a large community of D&D fans attached to it. We can argue about the exact size of that community, but I don't think anybody can deny that it isn't significant. 5E's stated goal precludes ignoring a significant portion of the D&D community, so at the very least they're going to make a legitimate attempt to get the 4E community on board with 5E, and to do that they're going to have to include things that 4E fans like and produce a game that can provide the 4E playstyle.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Something that keeps popping up is the excuse about Wizards making their profit goals unreasonable so that is why 4th edition failed. It's almost like 4fans are hanging on to this for dear life because to them, it wasn't their edition that failed bu the company.

I don't buy this. D&D has never ever been a mega bucks product. Why would they suddenly expect 4th edition to break that notion and bring in those mega bucks?

Whether you "buy it" or not isn't the issue. Those are facts quoted by industry insiders. Goals were set that could not be met. End of story.

The fact of the matter is, the edition was cut early, Monte Cook was brought in to lead the new one, the announcement of the new edition was early(which I believe was to make those leaving the game stop and wait just a little longer to see what 5th edition was all about), people like Bill S were let go, and they started working on the next edition after only 2 years.

So, early 2007 to early 2011 is 2 years by your math? Interesting. By that logic, 3.0 only lasted 2 years as well. Gotcha. It wasn't the intended 8-10 year cycle that was expected, but 4 years =/= 2 years.

There is something fundamental out there and it's the fact that if the game was doing so well then we wouldn't be where we are now. Blaming it on Wizards is just too easy.

Nobody on this side of the debate is blaming WotC, we're blaming Hasbro. Huge difference. And it's not "too easy" - it's fact. One of many facts that contributes to the big picture, that being that D&D as a brand now has serious competition for the first time since the 90s (WoD), peddling entertainment products in a recession is hard business, and good old fashioned screw ups (because, yes, that is part of it too).

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Wait, I think I missed a step here -- It's Wizards' product. If it is indeed a failure, then who else's fault would it be?

Wizard's doesn't buy their own product. Products can fail because customers don't want to buy them. Companies can present their products only so much but the rest is up to the actual customer and if they don't like it then they don't buy it.

Some people were saying the reason for the failure was because Wizard's had their profit projections too high so it was Wizard's fault that 4th edition failed, not because the customers didn't buy it.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Which is essentially my point.

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.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Wizard's doesn't buy their own product. Products can fail because customers don't want to buy them. Companies can present their products only so much but the rest is up to the actual customer and if they don't like it then they don't buy it.

Some people were saying the reason for the failure was because Wizard's had their profit projections too high so it was Wizard's fault that 4th edition failed, not because the customers didn't buy it.

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.

 

[Redbadge]

Just in case anyone doubts my anecdote, here is the product page for David's store:

Products | Gamemasters Guild

Of our three stores, only TBS comics actually stocks Pathfinder stuff anymore. At Barnes & Nobles and Books-A-Million, I wouldn't be surprised if I'm the *only* person that ever bought Pathfinder products. The 4e Dark Sun guide however, sold out in every store the week it came out.

This is all in the Destin, Fl/ Ft. Walton Beach area. You may also be familiar with Eglin AFB, which is also nearby.

At the time I got my MBA from the University of West Florida in Pensacola (May 2009), the only college groups that played D&D I'm aware of played 4e, plus one very sporadic 3.5 group.

Hopefully not TMI, lol.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I'll ask again, why does any of this matter? To people need establish 4E's failure to validate themselves or to "win" some sort of edition war?

What does the saga and travails of 4E mean in regards to the development of 5E?

 

[Bedrockgames]

I'll ask again, why does any of this matter? To people need establish 4E's failure to validate themselves or to "win" some sort of edition war?

What does the saga and travails of 4E mean in regards to the development of 5E?

I think the success of or failure of 4e is relevant in that it sheds light on the potential popularity or lack of popularity for mechanics making their way into 5e. So if 4e was less popular than 3e for example we would want to ask "why? what changes did 4e introduce that caused people to not make the expected transition from the previous to the new edition?" one can argue about the merits of healing surges all day (and they do have merits) but ultimately what matters when you are talking about the possibility of healing surges being in core 5e is how people will react (not how they ought to react according to points laid out in an argument about the merits of healing surges). If they were unpopular enough to share some blame for 4e splitting the base, then we can safely assume they will be unpopular again. And this all arises out of the perception that 4e didn't do as well as 3e. If the goal is to bring back those lapsed players but also retain as many of their current players then the successes and failures of different books over the years is an important consideration.

The thing is they have to be careful not to misread the data. Just look at 4e. That arose as a reaction to third edition (largely a reaction against the problems of balance in that edition). Clearly fixing the problems of the past can itself create new problems. They could over-read 4e's failure and make game that gets some of the old 3e players back but creates new divisions (or restores old divisions).

The more I think about it (and i realize this undermines some of my above arguments) and i think it is clear I am no 4e fan, the more I wonder if they shouldn't just cut their losses and serve their current 4e player base. After all, these are their current customers. As much as I want a new edition of D&D built for me, it really does seem like a bad way to pay back the folk who stuck with wizards through 4e. It also suggests they really have no loyalty to their own visions, that they are all about selling books even if it means creating total chaos for the brand identity. Perhaps I am reading into things to much. But I am trying to imagine is is any other type of company and how customers might feel about the 180 degree turn.

 

[Bedrockgames]

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.

I really doubt this is it. If 4e sold so well, it would be insanely risky to do what they are doing with 5e (which is visibly upseting many of their 4e customers). Not only that but they are going back on much of 4e design in a bid to win back lost customers. I just dont think paizo's growth makes a whole lot of sense without wizards losing customers them. It is also not what I am seeing at the ground level here either.

Do check out my above post though, because as I have thought about it more, i really have come to the conclusion that 5E is a mistake and they should stick with 4E or put out a 4.5.