Monte has left the building:How do you feel about the direction of the game?

[Mercule]

My feelings about 5e? Either way works for me. Monte seems like a decent guy and had some good ideas, so it does make me a bit uncomfortable that he'd leave. On the other hand, I didn't find his work any more inspired than Mike Mearls' (I actually prefer Mike's work).

My feeling about all the gloom and doom surrounding the announcement? A bit more irked and saddened. I'm starting to think this, but with no incrimination toward Monte: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xxgRUyzgs0&ob=av3e]Living Colour - Cult Of Personality - YouTube[/ame]

 

[gweinel]

Wrong Cook.

No... he is the right one. I know Zeb Cook co-created Planescape (and only for that i consider him as my favorite designer).
Monte Cook contributed to some excelent Planescape books like Dead Gods and Inner Planes.

 

[Scribble]

I understand they are a team effort but Monte was the old/new kid on the block. Sometimes it's that one guy that bring that extra something to the game.

You can't ignore that even though people work as a team they are not always equal in their ability. You can look at any sports team for the proof.

I tend to dislike sports that rely on one guy to do everything. If that's the case here, I probably wouldn't have liked the game too much.

In any case the more important part is I doubt he was fighting some kind of crazy battle against everyone else in the group.

I'm pretty sure they're just wanting to design a game people will want, not pushing some kind of weird agenda.

If he was pushing an agenda of "bring back 3E, because 3E is D&D" instead of "make a good game without worrying what it is or isn't", then he could very well have been that one guy fighting to make something the 3E faction of edition warriors want vs all the other guys wanting the opposite.

I don't think the designers are thinking in terms of edition wars. That's childish internet crap.

As above, I'm reasonably sure they just want to make a fun game- and YOU get the chance to help.

 

[Hal G]

You can always follow Monte if you want.
I ll do it. He is responsible for some great works outhere (like planescape).

And a bit of gossip which this might mean something or it is just pure coincidence: According to Monte's tweet, yesterday had a dinner with Eric Mona (Pathfinder).

Do not get to excited about this those guys have known each other for years and enjoy each others company. Monte went to a movie with Stan! all that meant was he went to a movie.

Not saying' that he wont work on some PF, just sayin' try not to get to excited till you hear his announcement.

 

[GX.Sigma]

The core design goals (reunification through common understanding, diversity, accessibility) were set in stone by Mike Mearls long before Monte was re-hired. It's ridiculous to consider that those goals may be abandoned now, especially since Mearls is still the team leader.

In other words, Monte's involvement has nothing to do with the game's direction.

 

[gweinel]

Do not get to excited about this those guys have known each other for years and enjoy each others company. Monte went to a movie with Stan! all that meant was he went to a movie.

Not saying' that he wont work on some PF, just sayin' try not to get to excited till you hear his announcement.

Oh, I am not excited. I don't even play PF at the moment (I never have played PF actually).
I just found it very interesting that a couple of days after his departure from wizards to have a dinner with the head of the major competitor company.

I am betting also that Eric proposed Monte a work oportunity. Even as a joke. Of course this is my speculation.

 

[Nork]

You are entitled to your opinion, and you are encouraged to discuss it at ENworld. However, you are not entitled to engage in namecalling and rude language. Please feel free to restate it in a more mature fashion. -Eridanis

 

[Argyle King]

I wonder if a Pathfinder Ptolus would be a possibility now.

 

[BobTheNob]

How do I feel about MC leaving? Unchanged really. Why? Cause I have never looked at the authors. Never cared really.

Every single piece of RPG material I have read I have judged purely on the merit of whats inside it, not the names on the cover. I couldn't care if it was Monte, Ronald McDonald or Kang who wrote whats inside it.

Simply put, If 5e is good, I will use, if not I wont. Doesnt matter what author is on the cover.

 

[Libramarian]

Not enough information to feel too strongly one way or the other, but what's bothering me is I have the feeling that Monte Cook was the guy who's a bit rough around the edges, more of a gamer than a businessman, more high concept than numbers -- and that's exactly what the DDN team needed.

I've been looking at the 3e Book of Vile Darkness (written by Monte Cook) and the 4e Book of Vile Darkness (written by Robert J. Schwalb), and the comparison has not been favorable to the latter.

The 3e version discusses objective and relative definitions of evil, psycopathy, drugs, torture devices, sadism, masochism, rape, necrophilia. The 4e version is a good example of 4e's general anti-simulationist, anti-historical attitude. Evil is a big, abstract cosmic force infecting people with "shadow energy", blah blah blah. There's no real-world evil in the book. I'm sure the crunch is more well-balanced, but that's not really the point of the BOVD.

In a nutshell that's what concerns me about Monte Cook's departure.