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

[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.