Monte's L&L columns

[Olive]

So I was reading the thread about Monte leaving and a number of people wondered if the fan reaction to Monte's Legends & Lore columns might have had something to do with his departure. I have to admit, I haven't been following 53 development that closely but I read a few and don't rememebr thinking abything particularly bad about the columns so ca someone summarise the reaction to me? What did people object to? Was it a specific part of the fan community (die hard 4e fans or whatever)? When did Mearls take over again?

 

[Libramarian]

I thought Monte's columns were great.

AIR he made some minor flub where he appeared to be unaware of the 4e passive perception rules and 4e fans tore him a new one for not having read and played the latest edition. I thought it was very possible that he was just writing in "designer mode" where he had a bunch of different ideas percolating in his head and simply didn't think to explicitly attribute passive perception to 4e.

 

[Olive]

I had sort of assumed it was vocal 4e fans who feel they are being abandoned who made the comments. I'm not a 4e player so I've got nothing to lose here. Either 5e is awesome and I play that, or it's not and I play what I currently play (CoC, homebrewed systems, ocassional 1e games, board games etc). That's I gues what stops me getting too worked up.

 

[Feeroper]

Quick disclaimer: I really liked Monte and was sad to hear that he has left. However, unlike a large part of these forums, i dont see it as a death knell or bad omen for the edition as I think the current team is solid with or without him, it just would have been nice to have him there.

As to his L&L columns, I felt that the polls at the end were often times heavily slanted at getting a particular answer. It seemed like for whatever question/situation that was presented for the poll, there was a kind of pre-selected favourite choice in the way the options were worded. I know alot of people were pretty vocal about that.

The passive perception thing was mentioned above, but I also think that was made worse by that being his first L&L column. Also, someone else mentioned that he suggested different ability scores based on gender that incited a big enough reaction that it was retracted? I didnt see that one myself, but thats what I read elsewhere on this forum.

I personally liked his L&L columns overall. Although he had a big hand in 3e (I know alot of people critisize/praise him for his preference of that edition), I felt like he was moving beyond the scope of 3e, and I still think thats how it is being handled, even without him. I also think that the rest of the team has also been very good about moving it forward beyond 3e, and 4e. They are really taking a hard look at the older editions like BECMI, 1e and 2e as well, which I think is a factor that often gets overlooked by most caught up in the 3.X vs 4e mentality.

Again, its unfortunate that they lost a great writer like Monte, but lets not write off Mike Mearls and the rest of the guys working on DDN. Im a little saddened to see a large amount of ENworld people so eager put the rest of the DDN team down like that because Monte left. Its just as bad as those who are making rude comments about Monte's departure. I know Mike Mearls has always been a big fan of 3.X as well as the older editions, and he has been very vocal about the vision for 5e, so lets not jump to conclusions. This is what the playtest is going to be for, Once you've seen the hard rules and can make sound judgement, that is the time to let WotC know how you feel.

Sorry for the rant, but after reading so many doom/gloom posts from people who are just having a knee jerk reaction, I just had to vent a little bit myself.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Also, someone else mentioned that he suggested different ability scores based on gender that incited a big enough reaction that it was retracted? I didnt see that one myself, but thats what I read elsewhere on this forum.

He mentioned it as an example that some things from older editions are definitely not going to be in D&D Next, even as modules. They put it in the poll at the end of that article as a joke option, and the backlash was so strong that Mearls had to explain and re-start the poll without it as an option.

http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120213
http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120213/2

 

[Feeroper]

He mentioned it as an example that some things from older editions are definitely not going to be in D&D Next, even as modules. People misinterpreted, and later he had to clarify what he meant.

Ah, I see. I thought that sounded unnusual when I read it. thanks for clarifying!

 

[GX.Sigma]

Ah, I see. I thought that sounded unnusual when I read it. thanks for clarifying!

[just crawled through the archives, post edited]

 

[Olive]

I've got nothing for Monte or against him especially. I liked what he said in L&L but a lot of the Malhavoc stuff was way to complex/high magic for my tastes. But I found the idea that this all came because the fans hated him interesting so wanted to get to the bottom of it.

 

[Raith5]

I was sad to see Monte go - because he was so experienced and had the trust of so many gamers. He was important both in terms of design and PR for selling 5th ed to many gamers. But I always had the feeling he was like a Windows XP technician telling me how to get my Windows 7 computer to work - there was just this disconnect for me that was a bit jarring.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Regarding the 4e passive perception rules error:

Lack of knowledge of the rules among game designers is, I think, much greater than rpg fans expect. A fair percentage of rpgers are major rules geeks. They have a very lawyerly, nerdy mindset, and they believe that everyone else thinks like they do.

Game designers aren't like that, in terms of personality or skills imo. They tend to be more creative thinkers, and are far more geared towards the big picture with far less of a focus on minutiae.

It's much like the gulf between comics writers and comics fans, which could be summarised as 'artists producing content for computer programmers'.