Why the thought of D&D 5e makes me sad...

[Walking Dad]

Sorry, rantish

The 3.5 fans were lucky. Because of the OGL, their game can live on. The GSL forbids a 'Pathfinder' for the 4e.

And getting back Monte Cook will not help much...

IMHO, the 3.x edition changed gaming because of the OGL. Not because the rules were better designed (by MC and others) than 4e or the d20 variants that came later.

Monte Cook is one of the guys who thought building in intentional traps into a RPG would increase the fun. He designed Book of Vile Deeds.

All his in-house-products were magic centric and left non-spellcasters behind. The two best books of his label (IMHO) were Book of Iron Might abd Iron Heroes, both designed by Michael Mearls, not him.

So I predict a backwards step in gaming design and no other company will be able to pick up the great 4e rules.

Please, WotC, once you abandon 4e, make it's rules OGL. Not instantly, to provide a quick competition like Pathfinder, but eventually, for us fans.

 

[Nagol]

Yeah, the GSL can be cancelled at a whim from WotC.

Which means if the game is popular enough, a clone will be made without it. It's not like using the GSL gave you any right to use terms like Feywild or Gloomwrought anyway.

Cloning 4e looks harder to clone than 1e or 3e due to its exception-based design (there's a lot of powers to rebuild and rename -- at least there's little need to refluff!), but it looks entirely doable.

Someone putting in the effort will depend on whether they feel it's worth the time investment.

 

[Vascant]

I have to say when I made my decision to not move forward to 4e, I was me telling myself I lost all hope of WotC doing the right thing based on the game. While hiring Mr Cook will at least get me to pause and list, that will be about it.


Monte has always been about design and magic but he has done some non spell caster based stuff in the past but we all have our opinions. I do think he is working on 5e as well.


Yes you care correct, if you like 3.5 then you are lucky enough to have a game no one can put back in a box.

 

[Hand of Evil]

WotC's Business model - new edition and re-publish your books, nothing new. what I find hard to take is the shear number of gamers that will not jump ship and try another game, it is WotC or not (note this is not as bad as it use to be).

 

[Ron]

I have followed Monte Cook work since Rolemaster and I am definitely not a fan. Still, he is a smart guy and I think he might do some good under Mearls's guidance. For what I can see, I like Mearls' design goals for fifth edition whereas some of the design goals for third edition (including the ones listed by the original poster) were pretty much detrimental to the game.

 

[Imaro]

I think the most interesting thing that will arise out of this edition change will be to see what happens with the DDI.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Monte Cook is one of the guys who thought building in intentional traps into a RPG would increase the fun.

No, he's not. He believed in some things being better than other things in certain conditions. His example was Toughness:

Toughness, for example, has its uses, but in most cases it's not the best choice of feat.

[SNIP]

To continue to use the simplistic example above, the Toughness feat could have been written to make it clear that it was for 1st-level elf wizards (where it is likely to give them a 100 percent increase in hit points). It's also handy when you know you're playing a one-shot session with 1st-level characters, like at a convention (you sure don't want to take item creation feats in such an instance, for example).

If certain feats or powers are better than comparable feats or powers in 4e (Twin Strike, from what I hear), they did the same thing Monte wanted: rewarding mastery of the game. His regret was that there wasn't enough guidance in helping people determine what things were meant for (as expressed in the second portion of the quote).

Monte Cook didn't think it would be fun to screw people, he thought certain choices should be better than others (seemingly conditionally, from the examples given). This is true of nearly any game that allows choice, and I believe this remains true in 4e. He didn't want to "build intentional traps" in the game at all, and saying so is missing the context of the quote. He wanted to have some options be better than others, but not in all circumstances. Toughness is worse than other feats, unless used in a certain way. Longswords are better than many other one-handed martial weapons, but not better than most, and not better than all one-handed weapons all of the time.

His quote has been taken out of context for years. If you dislike 3.X, it makes sense if you don't want him working on 5e. That's cool, and it's totally a matter of preference. However, he didn't purposefully "build in intentional traps into a RPG to increase the fun." It's totally fine if you don't like his work, or his way of doing things, but let's not claim he's done something that isn't the case. As always, play what you like

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Monte Cook is one of the guys who thought building in intentional traps into a RPG would increase the fun. He designed Book of Vile Deeds.

All his in-house-products were magic centric and left non-spellcasters behind. The two best books of his label (IMHO) were Book of Iron Might abd Iron Heroes, both designed by Michael Mearls, not him.

So I predict a backwards step in gaming design and no other company will be able to pick up the great 4e rules.

Ye of little faith (If that's what you remember Monte for then that's unfortunate). I reckon Monte and Mearls will come up with something fantastic. Of course if you stick with 4e, I hope you don't suffer the sneers and derision of the future 5e crowd; we simply don't need another edition war. [And perhaps my greatest hope is that the designers of the game will seek to unite the players with their design rather than designing something that fractures the community even more so - and from what I've read Monte and Mearls are on the right path].

Please, WotC, once you abandon 4e, make it's rules OGL. Not instantly, to provide a quick competition like Pathfinder, but eventually, for us fans.

Hopefully they won't shut down the compendium and everything with the arrival of 5e; then we'll just have our outdated books left. In fact I don't know what we'd do without D&DI support? They'd have to keep this alive wouldn't they.

Perhaps the best thing is to just try and like 5e?

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[ExploderWizard]

Perhaps the best thing is to just try and like 5e?

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

The game isn't even out yet and you are making it sound like a helping of brussel sprouts that everyone has to eat.

 

[Vascant]

WotC's Business model - new edition and re-publish your books, nothing new. what I find hard to take is the shear number of gamers that will not jump ship and try another game, it is WotC or not (note this is not as bad as it use to be).

Coming from a person who followed blindly from 1975 until 4e was released, breaking that habit of buying everything that comes out for D&D was not an easy nut to crack. I have to say, I am very pleased with how it all turned out. Don't get me wrong I still miss my Dragon and Dungeon Magazine subscriptions and other monthly purchases to steal ideas from but over all this has turned into a good gaming era for my group.