Monte Cook - Pros

[Cybit]

Years of DM'ing have taught me that ultimately, people have no idea what they really want, and left to themselves, it ends up leading to a whole bunch of heartbreak.

 

[Ranganathan]

Which is why a gamer isn't going to be able to provide good feedback on the core design of a game. If they are, then they're basically no different than the designers.

By that logic writers don't need beta readers or editors. But whatever.

 

[Sunseeker]

By that logic writers don't need beta readers or editors. But whatever.

Editors fix errors in books. Readers don't. Wizards has editors and beta testers. What do you think all these organized play events are about?

 

[Ranganathan]

Editors fix errors in books. Readers don't. Wizards has editors and beta testers. What do you think all these organized play events are about?

And gamers play games and find where the designers' ideas fail in actual play. And judging from all the eratta, bugs, power gaming loopholes, errors, etc they need new beta testers and editors. Maybe people who are more experienced playing games who can catch the silliness all these so-called pros missed. Hmm, hauntingly familiar. Kinda like WotC and Paizo having great big open playtests. Glad the so-called pros can see this need, even if you can't.

 

[Sunseeker]

And gamers play games and find where the designers' ideas fail in actual play. And judging from all the eratta, bugs, power gaming loopholes, errors, etc they need new beta testers and editors. Maybe people who are more experienced playing games who can catch the silliness all these so-called pros missed. Hmm, hauntingly familiar. Kinda like WotC and Paizo having great big open playtests. Glad the so-called pros can see this need, even if you can't.

Who said I didn't see the need? Is Wizards not the main designer of the game? So they've picked up playtesters, that doesn't mean Wizards "pros" still aren't the ones designing the game.

 

[Consonant Dude]

Editors fix errors in books. Readers don't.

Surprisingly enough, in the roleplaying field, readers do.

More and more RPG companies are taking advantage of the new technologies. They communicate with their fans, release pdf in advance and get enough feedback to fix an impressive number of mistakes in the print version.

And no offense to WotC's "pros", but there are plenty of amateur RPG designers who would never come up with something as craptacular as the skill challenges in 4e. The fact the largest gaming company could fail at basic math like that through all the steps of production and actually release this embarrassment is telling.

Really, the line between a pro and a fan is very blurry in this hobby. There's a bunch of guys who have released amateur RPGs for fun I'd rather see working on 5e rather than Mearls and Cook but hey, I don't make the decisions

 

[Tony Vargas]

This poll was just whacked.

If you agree with it (5), you're saying "Go ahead Monte, do whatever you think is best, we have faith in you."

If you disagree (1), you're saying "No need to worry about doing what's best, put out crap and we'll fix it ourselves."

You'd have to posit some sort of (i) response to convey "Just make a game that doesn't suck for a change, or we're not buying it again!"

 

[Tymophil]

I think that professionnal writers don't, unfortunately, do a better job at designing rpg rules than amateur ones. When it comes to that topic, what is important is feedback, pros may have access to a broader audience for this. But, unfortunately, fanboys seem to occupy all the space in those playtests, and we are flooded with awesome comments... So the quality is not what is expected.

It is also my opinion that there is an area where amateur outshine the professionnals by several level of magnitude : scenario writing. Pros concern themselves with constrains that make their adventure duller than dull : number of words, respect a certain layout, sending the text on time, etc. Average adventures such as Red Hand of Doom or Paizo adventure paths seem good only because the rest of the production is mostly mediocre (to say the least), and the rpgers got used to this level of mediocrity from TSR days.

The only way, in my opinion, to get better adventures, is to publish amateur work : the way Dungeon magazine did in the past.

The only place where pros are really important, and cannot be ridiculed by amateurs work is illustration. Amateurs simply cannot compete there.

But on design and adventure writing, pros are no better, and can even be a liability to the hobby (the terrible quality of adventures for D&D4 is the main reason for the edition war in my opinion).

 

[pemerton]

I voted 4. I think having the designers give us what they think are the best rules are important, but not the most vital thing. For example, good advice to players and especially GMs on how to use the mechanics is also important.

the terrible quality of adventures for D&D4 is the main reason for the edition war in my opinion

I don't know if I agree that it is the main reason, but I think you're right that it's a factor. (You're certainly right that the 4e adventures are, on the whole, not very good - although I think some of WotC's 3E ones were pretty weak also.)

But being able to pitch and explain your game - how to use the mechanics, how to design scenarios, offering scenarios that are worth running - these are all pretty vital too!

Am I the only one who thought this was a Pros/Cons of having Monte Cook on the design team, which I imagined would be followed up by an unqualified scale from 1-5? That would have been funny.

I have mixed views about Monte Cook. Some of his Rolemaster work was good, but not all of it was. 3E has some clever stuff in it, but some clunky stuff as well. I think AU/AE shows some pretty interesting ideas and design - I'd like to see the 4e version! But I get a bit of a vibe from L&L that Monte is not much into 4e.