D&D 4E Monte Cook on 4E

[Doug McCrae]

Too much emphasis is placed on the minutiae, I think. If there's a really cool new monster in a book, but it's Spot score is +2 when it should be +3, who really cares? That error isn't going to affect my game in the slightest. RPG design just isn't so precise an endeavor that small things like that actually affect gameplay. When I buy an rpg book, I look for what it can add to my game. I don't check it over like a teacher grading papers.

Lol. Pwned, nerdzoids.

 

[dmccoy1693]

1) It sounds as if you are lumping MGP in with the likes of FFE.

I did phrase that poorly. I wanted to say that Mongoose hasn't put out a general d20 (and yes I did forget about Conan/B5) in the past 6 months to year.

 

[Mercule]

Monte Cook says he's going back to 3e (with a little stuff from 3.5e)
Jon Tweet stopped using 3e some time ago, and can't wait until 4e.

Interesting. I generally consider Cook to be a better developer, from a mechanics angle. But Tweet (who is no slouch) seems to have a style/taste more akin to mine. I wonder what that means for my like of 4E.

 

[Dave Turner]

When 3.0 came out and it was such a drasticaly new game MANY people said the same thing about not going and hope it fails and people wouldnt support it.

None of it came true.

I'm really getting tired of this observation. 'Many' is meaningless in this context. It means only, 'More than one.', and hense it is meaningless.

. . .

But if we were to quantify the situation when 3E came out and compare it to some quantification of the situation now, I think it would be obvious how different the two were. I don't have numbers, but my rememberance of the time just prior to D20 was that D&D was a has been game with a steadily declining market share.

. . .

If I had numbers, I'm sure that they would back those claims up.

Is it really fair or helpful to describe the contributions of others as "meaningless" when you're unsuccessfully wrapping yourself in the mantle of quantified knowledge? Seems to me like GameOgre isn't the only one offering subjective experience as fact.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

In terms of the market being different the only thing I can say with certainty is how I felt.

Back in 1999 I was playing in a 2e game. I had been frustrated about the lack of new material and had come to believe that D&D as a sales product was dead and the game would only live on with the people who played it and made their own materials.

When I heard that 3e was coming out, I was nothing but excited. I had no fears about the game being anything but better. I was eager to try it out.

This time when I heard about 4e, I had some reservations. I have enjoyed 3e, had little opportunity to use my 3.5 materials, and had no issue with a lack of support as there seemed to be plenty of new material available (plus tons of older materials I didn't have). I understood that there were things that could be improved upon, and I understood WotC's desire to take the game a different way. Most of my friends from my 2e game, who were mostly as excited about 3e as I was, have no interest at all in 4e. I'm sure I will buy the core books, but I'm not sure if I will decide to use them or subscribe to the D&DI.

If after reading it I think 4e is much better for my future games, I will have to work very hard to convince my friends to give it a try, and I'm not sure if I can succeed unless 4e is better than 3e in many very significant ways.

 

[HeinorNY]

I'm really getting tired of this observation. 'Many' is meaningless in this context. It means only, 'More than one.', and hense it is meaningless.

Monte is right. The situation now is different than it was then. Noting that some people didn't like 3E and some people didn't like 4E doesn't prove that the situation is the same. Not remotely.

Note that says nothing about the quality of 4E or its liklihood of success, much less its success relative to 3E.

But if we were to quantify the situation when 3E came out and compare it to some quantification of the situation now, I think it would be obvious how different the two were. I don't have numbers, but my rememberance of the time just prior to D20 was that D&D was a has been game with a steadily declining market share. White Wolf was making almost all the top hot games and TSR probably wasn't claiming more than a 1/3rd of the RPG groups. Everyone was playing something other than D&D.

D20 was a juggernaut. It was a steamroller. It claimed a greater share of the shelfspace for D&D than any time since the early '80s. It utterly transformed the market. Even if you weren't playing D&D, chances are you were playing something inspired by its mechanics. Go look at the shelfs now and compare them in your mind to what they looked like prior to 3E.

If I had numbers, I'm sure that they would back those claims up. I don't know what things are like now. Maybe sales are falling. Maybe they aren't. I don't know what's going on now. But I can tell you what happened then, because what happened then was so the opposite of subtle that you couldn't miss it.

The idea that people are as unhappy with 3.X now as they were with 2E is IMO ridiculous. Monte of course sees it as it is. Yes, some people complained about 3E then. Yes, some people complain about 4E now. Yes, some people were disenchanted with 2E then, and some people are disenchanted with 3E now. But those statements are so superficial as to be more meaningless than meaningful. They obscure the truth more than they reveal it. Things are not the same now as they were then.

Gameogre at least has an valid point, but what is the point of your post?

You "don't know what's going on" and "don't have any numbers", so what are you really talking about? What is your conclusion?

I don't need numbers, D&D was always the most played game ever, it's not even in the same chart of the other RPGs, and those are Monte's words.

"The idea that people are as unhappy with 3.X now as they were with 2E is IMO ridiculous."
I am, and I know people that are, so your statement is false.
I also know people that loved 2E and said the same things about 3E back them as what other people are saying now about 4E (all ppl I know and talked outside the internet).

If back then there was less internet access and discussion about D&D:
-considering that today is much easier for everyone to give his rant about the game
-considering the amount of complain we had in Enworld then about 3E and the amount of complain about 4E we have now
-considering the increase in the number of D&D players
I have the feeling that things are pretty much the same. There is no "special" situation now, no hidden "truth".

I also have the feeling that people is trying to disconnect both situtations, the 2E-3E Era fromm now, the 3E-4E Era, as a way to validate their complains about the new edition, like: "No, it's not like 8 years ago, it's different, this new edition now truly sucks!"

 

[Dave Turner]

Way to read the whole thread before posting, ainatan!

 

[Logan_Bonner]

The most interesting part to me was this quote:

"Wizards' design philosophy and mine also started to head in different directions around that time. I value a single, uncompromised vision, and they value teamwork. (That's me trying to be fair to their point of view.)"

Perhaps this is only interesting to me since I work here, but it does point to a major shift WotC has gone through in making D&D. The creation of the development team was a huge change, and recently the mechanical design team was separated out, making the process even more group-focused.

Personally, I'm all for this approach. I think we turn out better design when we have more people bringing ideas to the table. In a game like D&D, where there are so many different approaches to playing, we need people with different perspectives and play styles to guarantee that everybody who picks up that book finds something they can get excited about.

That's not to say the "single, uncompromised vision" approach isn't also valid. Would a product like Ptolus be the same if it had been designed by a group? No. Would it have been good? Maybe. I'm guessing it would be tough for a team of, say, six people to really care about such a big book. One person who's invested in the setting is well-suited to that project.

Now, a team working on a set of core books is a different story. When the pieces are broken up into manageable units, you really do care. I care about the rogue and the warlock because I had a hand in making them (and I'm playing them to make sure nobody screws them up ). Rob Heinsoo and Mike Mearls really care about the fighter because they had a major role in deciding how it worked. Everybody working on the book is passionate about something, whether it's the halfling, or the cleric, or feats, or the Athletics skill, or magic items, or DM advice. (You wouldn't believe the debate we had about whether attacking around a corner should take a cover penalty!) The team approach to these books makes sure every nook and cranny of the rules gets the scrutiny it should.

So when Monte says he's trying to be fair to our point of view, I think he's being perfectly fair. I also think teamwork is the right tool for this job, and for most other products we do.

 

[Shortman McLeod]

I may be scooped -- I am not sure how old this is, but there was an interview over on Net Book o' Feats with Monte Cook and he makes the following statement regarding 4E:



The entire interview is here.

Discuss.

Did Monty Cook actually write "there's" instead of "theirs"???

 

[DaveMage]

Did Monty Cook actually write "there's" instead of "theirs"???

Why do you think he has Sue as his editor?

And seriously, Sue Cook should get multiple awards for Ptolus. I've read about 400 pages of it at this point and I have found a grand total of TWO typos/word errors. Awesome stuff.