|
Post by kesher on Apr 25, 2012 13:50:02 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Apr 25, 2012 14:26:42 GMT -6
An interesting turn of events. Makes me wonder what's up with the direction of 5E. The problem may be (total speculation here) that 5E wasn't enough like 3E for Monte's liking, since he had so much input on 3E. It's a shame, I think, because Monte always seemed to have such neat ideas...
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Apr 25, 2012 15:11:12 GMT -6
I doubt it matters much, honestly. 5e's mission statement is to be "all things to all D&D gamers" and I don't think anyone could pull that off. To my mind, Cook's departure doesn't make 5e's success any less likely than it already was, though it does suggest that there's dissension in the ranks at WotC regarding the game and its direction. The nature of that dissension is the real story in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by vladtolenkov on Apr 25, 2012 16:07:50 GMT -6
Is it wrong to feel heartened by this?
I know Monte got his start designing with ICE, and so I kept having visions of some massive sloppy beast like Rolemaster 2nd edition with all the supplements. . .
Of course this is just my own weirdness and doesn't have anything to do with what D&D Next actually is or will be.
I just wasn't excited by anything Monte had said about what he wanted in the new game.
|
|
|
Post by vladtolenkov on Apr 25, 2012 16:12:49 GMT -6
They keep saying they want to have this clean and simple core of the game which seems to be the opposite of what Monte was saying.
He seemed to want stuff that would have made things more complicated and which would break more sacred cows--exactly what got them into this mess in the first place.
Of course this is just my BS internet speculation but that's what I got from the stuff I read and listened to.
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Apr 25, 2012 18:09:21 GMT -6
I don't know what this means in terms of 5e, or whether it is even related. I do know, though, that at least two people who have signed NDAs and been involved with 5e have stated that nothing Monte Cook has said in the columns seems to have any resemblance to what they've actually seen. So, the real reason for the split may simply be due to complaints about his column stirring up ill will.
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Apr 25, 2012 18:23:35 GMT -6
I do know, though, that at least two people who have signed NDAs and been involved with 5e have stated that nothing Monte Cook has said in the columns seems to have any resemblance to what they've actually seen. So, the real reason for the split may simply be due to complaints about his column stirring up ill will. That's a very good point. I had noticed that there seemed to be a disconnect between what Cook was saying in his columns and what others were saying about the draft versions of the rules they had seen.
|
|
|
Post by darkling on Apr 25, 2012 18:32:52 GMT -6
I don't really know how to feel about this. I think Cook has a lot of interesting ideas throughout his history, but I have never been enchanted with the way those turn into systems...so maybe it is a good thing he's off the design team.
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Apr 25, 2012 20:13:46 GMT -6
Yes, I agree with the common analysis: Monte wanted to try to dazzle everyone with his originality; WotC wants a familiar, uncontroversial, workaday C&C-style job.
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Apr 25, 2012 20:16:10 GMT -6
WotC wants a familiar, uncontroversial, workaday C&C-style job. We already have C&C. What must they be thinking if they're going to try and reinvent that particular wheel?
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Apr 25, 2012 20:29:33 GMT -6
AD&D without the “embarrassing” baroqueness. Anyway, with the 1e reprints, and now apparently 3.5e reprints, the need for a 5e at all is rapidly vanishing into smoke.
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Apr 25, 2012 20:38:46 GMT -6
Anyway, with the 1e reprints, and now apparently 3.5e reprints, the need for a 5e at all is rapidly vanishing into smoke. It does make one wonder what they're thinking, doesn't it? I presume the v.3.5 reprint will be a one-time special printing, just like the AD&D one. If it's not, then that raises some interesting question, including, as you say, "What purpose does 5e serve?"
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Apr 25, 2012 21:12:00 GMT -6
Anyway, with the 1e reprints, and now apparently 3.5e reprints, the need for a 5e at all is rapidly vanishing into smoke. It does make one wonder what they're thinking, doesn't it? I presume the v.3.5 reprint will be a one-time special printing, just like the AD&D one. If it's not, then that raises some interesting question, including, as you say, "What purpose does 5e serve?" *Are* there going to be reprints? I thought I just saw someone say that the 1e reprints have been suspended or postponed. Perhaps there was never any plan to reprint 1e, and no plan to reprint 3.5e. Maybe this is just a test to see which reprint would generate the largest response... and that's the edition that 5e will resemble the most.
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Apr 25, 2012 21:33:40 GMT -6
The 1e reprints were pushed back to July from this month, owing to some kind of technical issue. They're still on the schedule so far as I know.
|
|
|
Post by darkling on Apr 25, 2012 22:26:50 GMT -6
WotC wants a familiar, uncontroversial, workaday C&C-style job. We already have C&C. What must they be thinking if they're going to try and reinvent that particular wheel? That C&C has made literally no drop on the public consciousness? I am not even saying that I dislike C&C, but it is far from a commercial success or something universally embraced.
|
|
Azafuse
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 245
|
Post by Azafuse on Apr 26, 2012 1:02:08 GMT -6
That's a real blessing IMHO, thanking Odin. Mearls has already replied about it, announcing the Open Playtest will start on May 24th. Anyway, read this (maybe not too much) cryptic post written by Cook on March 7th. Now this could be a hint, but still far from the real truth.
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Apr 26, 2012 7:39:37 GMT -6
That C&C has made literally no drop on the public consciousness? I am not even saying that I dislike C&C, but it is far from a commercial success or something universally embraced. True, though I think there's a reason for that, namely that it's neither fish nor fowl. As the saying goes, "no one likes a moderate" and C&C is a very "moderate" game, taking bits from past and present editions to create a game that didn't appeal to lots of fans of either camp. That's why I'd be amazed if WotC decided to go down a similar path, though anything is possible, I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Apr 26, 2012 7:40:09 GMT -6
Now this could be a hint, but still far from the real truth. That's a very fascinating post by Cook. Thanks for drawing it to our attention.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Apr 26, 2012 9:11:06 GMT -6
I do know, though, that at least two people who have signed NDAs and been involved with 5e have stated that nothing Monte Cook has said in the columns seems to have any resemblance to what they've actually seen. So, the real reason for the split may simply be due to complaints about his column stirring up ill will. That's a very good point. I had noticed that there seemed to be a disconnect between what Cook was saying in his columns and what others were saying about the draft versions of the rules they had seen. I confirm that. Monte's posts seems to have very little to do with the playtest rules we were given. But... we are only two drafts in and focusing on the core rules. So his influence might have been with the additional material we haven't seen yet.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Apr 26, 2012 9:12:41 GMT -6
Thank god for that. Now people will have something real to complain about instead of reading their biases into whatever Wizards writes in the columns.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2012 18:49:05 GMT -6
Now people will something real to pregnant dog about instead of reading their biases into whatever . . . Did you type the words "pregnant dog" or is that our board censoring software at work? Just curious ...
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Apr 26, 2012 20:35:43 GMT -6
Now people will something real to pregnant dog about instead of reading their biases into whatever . . . Did you type the words "pregnant dog" or is that our board censoring software at work? Just curious ... Board censoring. You're welcome. ;D
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Apr 26, 2012 21:59:09 GMT -6
I was thinking that was weird even for me. I know I mangle english due to the difficulties with my hearing loss but now the mystery is cleared up. I modified my post.
|
|
|
Post by jonathan on Apr 26, 2012 22:22:13 GMT -6
Yes, I agree with the common analysis: Monte wanted to try to dazzle everyone with his originality; WotC wants a familiar, uncontroversial, workaday C&C-style job. Without dogging on Monte too much, I'm not sure he's ever been particularly original. All of his work since leaving WotC the first time has been made up of various retreads and add-ons to 3e. Lots of people I know online have been saying the near opposite about his departure from D&DN, namely that Cook wanted another crack at making 3e again while other people wanted an actual new edition. My guess is that him leaving probably has little to do with either explanation and is likely to be him just butting heads with management over something complete behind the scenes and nothing to do with D&D itself.
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Apr 26, 2012 22:58:30 GMT -6
FYI, the 3.5e reprint listings have been yanked from Barnes & Noble.
|
|
Azafuse
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 245
|
Post by Azafuse on Apr 26, 2012 22:59:20 GMT -6
Without dogging on Monte too much, I'm not sure he's ever been particularly original. And I quote. Arcana Unearthed: a peak of originality. ;D Lots of people I know online have been saying the near opposite about his departure from D&DN Count me in: I've always seen Monte Cook as the RPG version of Paris Hilton, a girl with no panties in search of attention. namely that Cook wanted another crack at making 3e again while other people wanted an actual new edition. The biggest reason about it comes from his polls on Legends&Lore: clearly driven by the bounded article to make a Monte-wise choice (at least in different fora he's been mocked for that). My idea is WotC called him for his overrated fame (people believes he's the only big daddy of 3E when he has just co-authored it along with Williams and the more worthy Tweet), he suggested 1 good idea and 9 bad ideas (as I suspect), something smart (Mearls) hasn't pumped Monte's ego too much and Monte played the victim's role. We still have Schwalb, Smith and others at the moment: IMHO that's enough to forget about Monte's departure. FYI, the 3.5e reprint listings have been yanked from Barnes & Noble. They look kinda fishy at the moment: IMHO they have a too low price for a limited stock and a revised product, whereas the average price on Internet of the same is at least x1.5 times that value.
|
|
eris
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 161
|
Post by eris on Apr 27, 2012 14:29:16 GMT -6
We already have C&C. What must they be thinking if they're going to try and reinvent that particular wheel? That C&C has made literally no drop on the public consciousness? I am not even saying that I dislike C&C, but it is far from a commercial success or something universally embraced. Personally, I have always liked the idea of C&C, but not always the implementation of it. Basically, pare d20 down to its bare essentials, tie saves to attributes, and rate monsters off HD is what I liked. The details of the Siege Engine, not so much.
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Apr 27, 2012 17:12:39 GMT -6
That C&C has made literally no drop on the public consciousness? I am not even saying that I dislike C&C, but it is far from a commercial success or something universally embraced. Personally, I have always liked the idea of C&C, but not always the implementation of it. Basically, pare d20 down to its bare essentials, tie saves to attributes, and rate monsters off HD is what I liked. The details of the Siege Engine, not so much. I think a better candidate for a pared-down d20 with saves tied to attributes would be Microlite 20 with the missing ability scores added back in. Personally, I prefer playing OD&D the old-fashioned way, but if I were forced to pick one D&D that would also stand a good chance of appealing to new school people, it would be M20.
|
|
eris
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 161
|
Post by eris on Apr 28, 2012 18:15:30 GMT -6
Personally, I have always liked the idea of C&C, but not always the implementation of it. Basically, pare d20 down to its bare essentials, tie saves to attributes, and rate monsters off HD is what I liked. The details of the Siege Engine, not so much. I think a better candidate for a pared-down d20 with saves tied to attributes would be Microlite 20 with the missing ability scores added back in. Personally, I prefer playing OD&D the old-fashioned way, but if I were forced to pick one D&D that would also stand a good chance of appealing to new school people, it would be M20. Yes, I think M20 is a very good start at a minimalistic d20, too.
|
|
bat
Level 4 Theurgist
Mostly Chaotic
Posts: 144
|
Post by bat on May 1, 2012 11:01:42 GMT -6
I am with Maliszewski on one of his posts further up-they aren't going to make us all happy with D&D Next. Some of those reports were a little weird, to the effect that a DM is thinking 3E while one player is thinking 1E and another 4E. How on earth would that work? Just provide reprints, let us buy what we want, and call it good. I am not for or against Cook, but if he is taking his ball and going home good luck to him and if he is deserting a sinking ship I hope he builds a better one.
|
|