Monte's new association with WotC


4th Edition

351 to 400 of 616 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Matthew Winn wrote:

Devils Advocate:

Most of the pirated copies floating around were leaked from the inside. Someone passed me a copy of the file they sent to the printers almost a month before release. I didn't keep it, I'm just pointing out that the pirates were able to leak and pass around the copies *before* WotC released them. I would hazard that neither having them up for sale or taking them down really made am impact on the amount of piracy. Pirates will pirate.

However, this doesn't rule out the possibility that putting them up for sale made it easier to track the pirating, thus giving WotC a more accurate assessment of the problem.

Right, as I've said, I don't think a full pull was the smart idea. But it happened immediately after PHB2 was released, and within hours a copy with RPGNow's watermarking (and whoever purchased its email) was floating around the torrents. It was a knee jerk reaction that clearly came from corporate middle management.

But it seems like most of the people who bring it up try to make it seem like they were trying to "screw" older edition holdouts. If that were the case, they would have pulled the older PDFs upon 4E's release. Not over a year later.


deinol wrote:

Right, as I've said, I don't think a full pull was the smart idea. But it happened immediately after PHB2 was released, and within hours a copy with RPGNow's watermarking (and whoever purchased its email) was floating around the torrents. It was a knee jerk reaction that clearly came from corporate middle management.

But it seems like most of the people who bring it up try to make it seem like they were trying to "screw" older edition holdouts. If that were the case, they would have pulled the older PDFs upon 4E's release. Not over a year later.

I think it was more like being the final nail in the coffin. No one thing WotC did was a severe problem in and of itself. The pulling of the pdfs, like everything else before it, had good intentions, but poor execution. It was just the potential of a whole series of both real and perceived miscues and poor implementation of good ideas by WotC to blow up in their face that was underestimated.


sunshadow21 wrote:
Diffan, not pissing the older players off is not the same thing as appeasing them. Simply letting it go after the preview books, and truly focusing on 4E, instead of constantly bringing up the past iterations, after that would have shown the older players that WotC had moved on, and was no longer going to actively support 3.5, but would let those who were reluctant to switch over immediately to keep playing the game they wanted to play until they could see the new game in action.

I'm not sure they were "constantly bringing up the past iterations" to quite the extent you are suggesting. References were made, yes, when explaining changes and why many of those changes happened. We also saw a pretty broad array of content that stood on its own. Do you have any specific examples of what you are referring to?

sunshadow21 wrote:
Continuing to actively support it is something that few people would have reasonably expected, but allowing a system that had served them well for the last decade to gracefully die in its own time, rather than trying to forcefully kill it immediately would have retained a lot of good will that could have been tapped in the future, even if it didn't result in immediate sales. Even Microsoft hasn't made the mistake of trying to instantly kill old operating systems; they continue to provide critical security updates for a time to give people time to transition.

There was a full year between when 4E was announced and when it was released. Once it came out, yes, they stopped supporting the previous edition. I'm not sure that this really compares to Microsoft in terms of either scale or context - Microsoft might continue to provide critical security updates that are requisite to keep the system operational. WotC would have simply been producing more supplements or similar material - nothing necessary to the game continuing.

I'm not quite sure how, "Giving notice a year in advance that a new edition is being launched, and then supporting that edition and not the prior one," is equivalent to "trying to forcefully kill" off all the existing games of 3.5. What sort of products do you feel they should have continued rolling out in order to allow 3.5 to "gracefully die in its own time"?


Most of the references to the past were indirect, and could be interpreted in a variety of ways, but so was most of the information regarding 4E itself. We saw a lot of the pieces near the end, but were given little to no actual information about how the pieces fit together. To me, the commercials and videos were great for getting people's attention, but horrible at conveying any kind of information beyond the fact that a new edition was being released, and random bits like gnomes being swapped out for dragonborn that didn't actually describe the game itself. The preview columns were better, but as I stated earlier, left me trying to figure out how everything was going to look when it was all put together. That was their biggest failure; they explained the mechanics quite well, but failed to convey much, if any, of the actual feel of the game that they were shooting for. By itself, this wouldn't have been insurmountable, but with all the toxic discontent floating around, created in large part by their own dubious choice of words and portrayal of past systems (note, dubious is not the same as outright bad, but the effect can be the same in the right environment), along with many other individually minor missteps, it was like throwing water on an oil fire. The perception that they were actively killing 3.5 hurt them a lot even if it wasn't entirely true.


sunshadow21 wrote:
Most of the references to the past were indirect, and could be interpreted in a variety of ways, but so was most of the information regarding 4E itself. We saw a lot of the pieces near the end, but were given little to no actual information about how the pieces fit together. To me, the commercials and videos were great for getting people's attention, but horrible at conveying any kind of information beyond the fact that a new edition was being released, and random bits like gnomes being swapped out for dragonborn that didn't actually describe the game itself. The preview columns were better, but as I stated earlier, left me trying to figure out how everything was going to look when it was all put together. That was their biggest failure; they explained the mechanics quite well, but failed to convey much, if any, of the actual feel of the game that they were shooting for. By itself, this wouldn't have been insurmountable, but with all the toxic discontent floating around, created in large part by their own dubious choice of words and portrayal of past systems (note, dubious is not the same as outright bad, but the effect can be the same in the right environment), along with many other individually minor missteps, it was like throwing water on an oil fire. The perception that they were actively killing 3.5 hurt them a lot even if it wasn't entirely true.

They'd never really pull off the 'feel' of the game even if they wanted to. SO they can't really tell us what it'll be like - they can tell us what they think it'll be like but that won't turn out to be strictly true. There can be some very broad strokes on how a system will 'feel' from design but something as complex as D&D can't be really pinned down that early.

In fact I'd say its only been relatively recently that most of the designers and free lancers have gotten a really good grasp of what the system can do and I felt this was true in 3rd as well where it was three or so years in that you really began to notice the polish on the adventures in Dungeon. They where good early on but they where actually great as the editors and free lancers really came to grips with the system.

I'm actually fairly certain that what the designers thought they where making 4E really good at and what they have actually created are not the same thing at all.

As Ghettowedge has noted earlier on in this thread 4E is not really a very good system for 'throw away' combats. Generally speaking with 4E you want to have a laser focus on each of your combats but then go nuts on them. Fewer but bigger and more complex works extremely well and if your going to be doing 'narrative' sequences to get to the real heart of the conflict...so be it.

I seriously doubt that was their original intention. Their adventures, especially the early ones, don't support this style.

The system is rife with DM side tools and building blocks as well and I'm sure that's part of the design philosophy meant to make the DMs life easier but it has a slew of other implications as well, for example the DM essentially controls the entire look and feel of the campaign and in so doing defines what being a 'hero' in this campaign entails, that I doubt very much they fully grasped when they built this thing.

I've made a game myself before and I mean ones where there was a year and a half worth of blind play testing done by other people (a Wargame simulating a hypothetical invasion of North America by Germany in WWII in my case) and the product I finally had had some strong elements of my design philosophy in it but it was not exactly what I initially thought I had set out to design. Complex games grow and evolve and its impossible to really see how the ramifications of all the different elements you put into them will turn out.


Diffan wrote:

So you really think it's a good buisness idea to tell your existing fans "Hey, this game might not be what you like. So, in all honesty, tough! We're moving the game in a better and more linear direction because we feel On-Line tools are the wave of the future. On-line content can be accessed from ANY computer, so no more toting around 15 books and 11 magazines for your characters. No more hand-cramps with doing your character's stats, and no more requring of 30+ books to be used for your games. We're making the game better for EVERYONE who likes to play, not just for those who like low-level fighters, high-level planeswalker mages, and those forced into the Cleric role. So if this style isn't for you, go look somewhere else cuz we'll probably find a game to fill your shoes."

Yea, that'd go over much much better than attempting to appeal to everyone.

I honestly think the damage would have been less for them if they DID do this (Which I know is sarcasm). They messed up marketing so bad they might as well have said that.

Here is the empirical part: They did not make the game better for everyone. They might have at best made the game better for half. Certainly there is nothing in 4e I can find that made D&D better. I am aware other find it better. Online tools are not inherent to the system, it is in fact independent of the system. I think this is an improvement, unfortunately it only applies to a game I find substandard to the previous editions.


deinol wrote:

They pulled the PDFs because pirates were copying the new (4E) books within hours of release. Anyone trying to claim it was primarily to prevent people from having access to older books is really twisting the facts. I'm fairly certain that for every 10 people who complain about the pulling of PDFs, only one of them had actually purchased any to that point.

The older books (including material from Basic, AD&D, and 2E) were available for over a year after 4E's release. By the time that happened, most people had already decided they didn't like 4E. Part of the reason it was easy for them to pull the plug on that is because hardly anyone was purchasing them. Wizards revenue stream from PDFs was so small, they hardly noticed the change.

I do think that they could have taken other measures. Like FFG who delays the release of PDFs for a few months after the print release. By that time pirates will have already pirated things.

You know I have to say piracy particularly bugged me. When I ran mutants and masterminds, one of my players downloaded the entire game off a piracy site. Therefore all of my other players copied it because one had a color printer at work.

I voiced my opinion to them it bothered me, but they told me get over it and I did. I tried to approach it as "I prep adventures AND by all the game material."

I just thought it crappy.


sunshadow21 wrote:
Most of the references to the past were indirect, and could be interpreted in a variety of ways, but so was most of the information regarding 4E itself. We saw a lot of the pieces near the end, but were given little to no actual information about how the pieces fit together. To me, the commercials and videos were great for getting people's attention, but horrible at conveying any kind of information beyond the fact that a new edition was being released, and random bits like gnomes being swapped out for dragonborn that didn't actually describe the game itself. The preview columns were better, but as I stated earlier, left me trying to figure out how everything was going to look when it was all put together. That was their biggest failure; they explained the mechanics quite well, but failed to convey much, if any, of the actual feel of the game that they were shooting for. By itself, this wouldn't have been insurmountable, but with all the toxic discontent floating around, created in large part by their own dubious choice of words and portrayal of past systems (note, dubious is not the same as outright bad, but the effect can be the same in the right environment), along with many other individually minor missteps, it was like throwing water on an oil fire. The perception that they were actively killing 3.5 hurt them a lot even if it wasn't entirely true.

MANY MANY people feel this is what WOTC did. Anytime it is referenced people demand quotes as if to prove WOTC never did anything that would insinuate 3.5 was now the 'wrong' way to play. It happened, and it had a real effect. People that think WOTC did nothing wrong that is very nice, but the fact of the matter is they insinuated 3rd edition was the wrong edition to play often and frequently.

At the time they were doing it, I was enthusiastic about 4e yet still I remember it quite clear. Some of it may have been done in jest, but when you do that in jest, and then show people a product they do not like, they are going to respond negatively.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber

One of the reasons I maintain my subscriptions with Paizo is the free PDF I get with each product. I always tend to buy 3PP that have print/PDF bundles.

But any business has to be aware of piracy, and that any book of note will be pirated. The strange thing about Wizards reaction is that nothing had really changed, and books are still pirated within days of release.

Although I would expect they will eventually find a way to give access via DDI subscriptions. They've hinted about it before.

Dark Archive

deinol wrote:

One of the reasons I maintain my subscriptions with Paizo is the free PDF I get with each product. I always tend to buy 3PP that have print/PDF bundles.

But any business has to be aware of piracy, and that any book of note will be pirated. The strange thing about Wizards reaction is that nothing had really changed, and books are still pirated within days of release.

+1

+1


deinol wrote:
But any business has to be aware of piracy, and that any book of note will be pirated. The strange thing about Wizards reaction is that nothing had really changed, and books are still pirated within days of release.

Well, not quite. From what I understand, prior to the removal of PDFs, pirated copies emerged effectively instantaneously.

While I believe the first product after the change, on the other hand, took several weeks for the pirates to physically scan and release. That process sped up as they got used to it, but I would imagine it still takes several days.

That delay can be an important one - many fans will be eager for the content as soon as possible, and may opt to buy it even if they would normally turn to a pirated copy.

My theory has always been that WotC should capitalize on this. Go back to releasing PDFs - but release them 2 weeks after the book comes out. Are pirates really going to make the effort to spend a week scanning the book to post it, when they can just wait another week and have a digital copy that they can post without any work required?

I'm guessing that is how things will play out, which will mean piracy will still happen (as it does now), but WotC has more control over the time-table. And that two week period is going to be when the core of the sales are made.

At least, that's my theory.

deinol wrote:
Although I would expect they will eventually find a way to give access via DDI subscriptions. They've hinted about it before.

I think that has definitely been discussed as a direct goal. But like with a lot of other plans with digital access and DDI, they've also later realized they don't have a robust enough content release system to properly handle that.

Really, in my mind, the biggest failure of DDI isn't in any of the programs themselves, it is the fact that they don't have anything remotely resembling a proper digital store. They've got one deal - the subscription packages - outsourced to another company.

Now, I like my subscription. But the fact that they can't sell back issues of the online magazines - can only release them all as part of the subscription - probably isn't doing them any favors. A proper robust store would help quite a bit, I think, and let them try and tackle some of these issues (no pun intended), while also giving them a place to try and again release digital PDFs of the books or other material.


KaeYoss wrote:
FallofCamelot wrote:

Good.

I don't want to see 4th Ed fail, that would be bad for the industry as a whole.

I agree and that is why I will try to save it. I founded a company of game designers with that in mind but we will need some help. I think 4e is the best they have ever created. Not perfect but a better concept and rules than in previous releases. Check our website www.Calvannagames.com and let us know what you think.

The problem with 4e is limited modules to play. Only 14 non GSL and the GSL' are not set up in campaigns. We've solved that.

I have played sinve v1.0 original module B! Keep on the boderlands in the original box set. So having 30+ years experience leet me say that if there is a 5.0 it will spell the death of D&D as a whole. All versions. It will show that after 6 versions (3.0 and 3.5) they cant get it right.

Nothing wrong with 3.5 if you like that sort of playing. Its not a matter of better or worse it is a gaming preference. 3.5 lots of hack and slash and level up with no need for storyline or storyline rewards. Combat is longer and more complicated and with prestige calss even your rogue can cast spells and become an all-in-one do everything character. I think Wizards may have looked at playability amoung the next gen of players. Who has 12-15 hrs a day to sit and play anymore?

In 4.0 there is a more chess-like feel to combat. Every move or counter move is crucial to the outcome of the fight. The powers are actually a good idea but similar to 3.5 when you break them down. They are just worded differently and categorized in a different play manner.

So look at it this way why need a v5? What is there to try or fix? The versions of D&D are NOT the problem its the writing. With Gygax and D. Arnson gone who will write the next epic adventures? There are plenty of good story nuggets in all the Lore of the v4.0 books and nobody writng the modules so that players can be part of the legend and even create the next legends.

Dont forget why we play RPG's and D&D its the participation in the story. The interaction and the feeling of changing the outcome. If not then playing against a computer is much more efficient and less time consuming. Its the story that drives a good adventure.

The combat system is a preference thing but without a good story and quest no matteer the version 3.5, 4.0, or 5.0 it will NOT work.


I don't believe 4e will fail. If it was going to, it already would have. But Essentials came out very quickly, to manage apparent flaws the design team found in the system, creating what some people call 4.5.

And now, Monte Cook is on the team to develop 5e. It's possible that Monte was just hired to work within the established framework, to remake 4e. But I don't think so.

It's my opinion that 5e will be a revision to more directly compete with OGL-based games, and that means 3.5 and Pathfinder-esque 3.75.

I believe it will be a retrograde revision. Monte's opinions of the way 3.5 should have been designed are well-known, and well-attested in his own designs (that came out between 3.0 and 3.5). And I think that's why Monte was hired.

Of course, only time will tell.


Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

It's my opinion that 5e will be a revision to more directly compete with OGL-based games, and that means 3.5 and Pathfinder-esque 3.75.

I believe it will be a retrograde revision. Monte's opinions of the way 3.5 should have been designed are well-known, and well-attested in his own designs (that came out between 3.0 and 3.5). And I think that's why Monte was hired.

Of course, only time will tell.

If it is, I think WotC would be shooting themselves in the foot. They would upset all the 4E fans and be right back where they started competing with their own OGL, all for the sake of trying to appease older players, of which a handful may be convinced. I don't see WotC winning that war, not with the system right after 4E's launch. I could see them trying to figure out what elements from earlier editions they could work into the overall 4E framework when they saw elements that would fit without completely changing the basic framework, but deliberately going out of their way to compete with the OGL again would be taking a step backward, and one that would not be likely to work. They might get a few older players back, but the lack of consistent direction between editions would hurt them amongst both the older and newer players.


It's not a matter of winning a war. It's a matter of market share. And, like it or not, 4e does lose out on market share with Pathfinder and other OGL products out there.

Yes, people do buy both 4e and Pathfinder, but not as many as WotC would like, I'm sure. They're definitely making changes to the game. If they weren't, they wouldn't be doing 5e. I just think those changes will be aimed at getting back what market share they lost.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
They're definitely making changes to the game. If they weren't, they wouldn't be doing 5e. I just think those changes will be aimed at getting back what market share they lost.

We don't have any actual confirmation to the rumors of 5E. For all we know, Monte could be working on 4E's Unearthed Arcana. A set of alternate or experimental rules for those who want to bend 4E a little more in different directions. Until they announce something, everything is just speculation.


I doubt seriously that Monte was brought in to work on 4e all by itself. He is an innovator. WotC bringing him in at this time suggests to me that 5e is on the horizon, and a lot closer than people might think.

As for a 4e Unearthed Arcana....

That in itself could be the precursor to a major change in 4e.

But, deinol, as you say, right now, everything is all speculation.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
I doubt seriously that Monte was brought in to work on 4e all by itself. He is an innovator.

Is he? I'm a big fan, but what I know him best for is adventures and settings.

If I were the manager at Wizards, and I wanted to produce some Planescape setting books, I would hire Monte just for that.

I really like Arcana Evolved, but while the rules are somewhat tweaked, the tweaks to setting are what makes it really interesting.


deinol wrote:
Is he? I'm a big fan, but what I know him best for is adventures and settings.

How is he not an innovator? He was one of the designers of D&D 3.0 whether you like or don't like that version is irrelevant, it was innovative.


The tweaks he made seem to be attempts to fix things he was unsatisfied with. Maybe I see him as an innovator because I tweak my game in much the same way. ;)

But he has a different view of D&D than the standard WotC line, at least from the 3.0 days. It was even more different than 3.5, and very different from 4e (if that isn't comparing apples to oranges).

I just think Mike Mearls knows how he thinks, and bringing him in would definitely bring a new vision to WotC's R&D.

Maybe I have a colored view of Monte, but I think he'll make a real difference.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Dennis Harry wrote:
deinol wrote:
Is he? I'm a big fan, but what I know him best for is adventures and settings.
How is he not an innovator? He was one of the designers of D&D 3.0 whether you like or don't like that version is irrelevant, it was innovative.

Mostly because that is just one of the many projects he has worked on. Also because a lot of the "innovations" of 3E were only innovative compared to 2E. For those of us who were playing other games in the 90s, 3E felt like D&D catching up to the rest of the industry.

Particularly if you take a look at Wizard's 1993 Talislanta 3rd Edition by Jonathan Tweet. 3E's skill system, and the universal d20 mechanic, comes almost directly from there.

So I appreciate Monte's contributions to 3E. But I am a fan of his work on Planescape, his other adventures for 2E, Ptolus, Arcana Evolved, Eldritch Might, DungeonADay, etc. He's great at tweaking existing systems, and adding new subsystems. He's excellent at adventure writing.

My main point is that there are many reasons he might start freelancing at Wizards. While he is a big name in RPG circles, he's still just an RPG freelancer. That doesn't pay nearly as well as Stephen King or Tom Clancy. I mean no insult to him, but an "RPG Rockstar" probably only gets paid 5-10% more than any other freelancer.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

I just think Mike Mearls knows how he thinks, and bringing him in would definitely bring a new vision to WotC's R&D.

Maybe I have a colored view of Monte, but I think he'll make a real difference.

Having read Iron Heroes, written by Mike Mearls and published by Monte Cook, I agree. The two work well together. I look forward to whatever project he is working on.

I just think that assuming he's there to write a brand new edition might be jumping to conclusions. It is just as likely he's there to innovate a new (or new to 4E) setting like Planescape or something entirely new. It is just as likely he's there to expand or tweak the 4E rules (Unearthed Arcana).

I suspect a 4.5 is more likely than a full on 5E though, if he is there to tweak base rules.


Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

It's not a matter of winning a war. It's a matter of market share. And, like it or not, 4e does lose out on market share with Pathfinder and other OGL products out there.

Yes, people do buy both 4e and Pathfinder, but not as many as WotC would like, I'm sure. They're definitely making changes to the game. If they weren't, they wouldn't be doing 5e. I just think those changes will be aimed at getting back what market share they lost.

The thing is WotC isn't going to get more market share by competing directly with the OGL and Pathfinder. They are going to get it by putting out a quality unique product that people want to buy "in addition to" the OGL and Pathfinder products; if they go for "instead of", they will lose, as many gamers are already distrustful of them, and a move like that would solidify that distrust. I can see them working 3.5/PF elements into the 4E base, but anything other than the 4E base is going to cause them to not succeed on the scale they need.


Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

I doubt seriously that Monte was brought in to work on 4e all by itself. He is an innovator. WotC bringing him in at this time suggests to me that 5e is on the horizon, and a lot closer than people might think.

As for a 4e Unearthed Arcana....

That in itself could be the precursor to a major change in 4e.

But, deinol, as you say, right now, everything is all speculation.

While its possible he is laying groundwork for 5E or something else it almost can't be in anything more then a speculative stage. He is not in Seattle - he's half a continent away and presumably teleconferencing or some such a couple of times a week at best at the moment. Until he moves to Seattle it just does not seem possible he is all that much more then an adviser or freelancer.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If there is a 5e on the horizon, I would like to be the first to say that... it's just not for me. It focuses too much on combat and plays like a video game. I don't like the way they revamped the skill system. It's roll playing, not role playing. I don't what 5e is... er... will be, but it's not D&D. They can't make me buy it, and how dare they make me throw out all my 4e books.

Sorry, I probably missed a few chestnuts.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The idea that WotC is or should be trying to cater to 3e fans that didn't switch to 4e is pretty bizarro. Even more bizarro is the idea that they should compete for Pathfinder fans who have largely sworn off WotC entirely. If there is one surefire way to have a game project fail, it's listening to people who are not going to buy your game in the first place.


ProfessorCirno wrote:
The idea that WotC is or should be trying to cater to 3e fans that didn't switch to 4e is pretty bizarro. Even more bizarro is the idea that they should compete for Pathfinder fans who have largely sworn off WotC entirely. If there is one surefire way to have a game project fail, it's listening to people who are not going to buy your game in the first place.

+1

Those who've sworn off WotC "For all time" have drawn the line in the sand and I doubt any pandering to them will result in something other than failure. What they should do is create something all new.


Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
While its possible he is laying groundwork for 5E or something else it almost can't be in anything more then a speculative stage. He is not in Seattle - he's half a continent away and presumably teleconferencing or some such a couple of times a week at best at the moment. Until he moves to Seattle it just does not seem possible he is all that much more then an adviser or freelancer.

+1 Soooo, who wants to track down Monte and 'chip him so we can follow his movements via GPS?


Diffan wrote:
ProfessorCirno wrote:
The idea that WotC is or should be trying to cater to 3e fans that didn't switch to 4e is pretty bizarro. Even more bizarro is the idea that they should compete for Pathfinder fans who have largely sworn off WotC entirely. If there is one surefire way to have a game project fail, it's listening to people who are not going to buy your game in the first place.

+1

Those who've sworn off WotC "For all time" have drawn the line in the sand and I doubt any pandering to them will result in something other than failure. What they should do is create something all new.

Agreed. As one of those people myself (well not really since I did pick up both the Castle Ravenloft and Wrath of Ashardalon boardgames...) WOTC would have to release something really special to get me back as a customer. I've picked up every set of core rules since Red Box up to and including 4E. Word of mouth on 5E will have to be spectacular coming from both fair and like minded Pathfinder people AND the fair and like minded 4E fans as well for me to even consider picking it up.


Diffan wrote:


Those who've sworn off WotC "For all time" have drawn the line in the sand and I doubt any pandering to them will result in something other than failure. What they should do is create something all new.

I completely agree. WOTC should in no way cater to the older fans as the 4e fans have stuck with them so to speak.

My only question is why should they make something new? If 4e works it works. Why would one want a new system where you have to learn all new paradigms, all the tricks, and all the loops to run an adequate game when the current system already works?

People that play 4e seem happy with it.

I have not sworn off WOTC for all time, I will still buy dungeon tiles and new Miniatures. If they made a game I liked I would buy it, maybe perhaps the new Drizzt game.


Mournblade94 wrote:
Diffan wrote:


Those who've sworn off WotC "For all time" have drawn the line in the sand and I doubt any pandering to them will result in something other than failure. What they should do is create something all new.

I completely agree. WOTC should in no way cater to the older fans as the 4e fans have stuck with them so to speak.

My only question is why should they make something new?

Because that's how this industry works. If you come up with a better business model, you let us know.

The Exchange

Mournblade94 wrote:

My only question is why should they make something new? If 4e works it works. Why would one want a new system where you have to learn all new paradigms, all the tricks, and all the loops to run an adequate game when the current system already works?

People that play 4e seem happy with it.

But times move on as well. I don't think anyone (well, OK maybe a few) would really call the original version on D&D up to snuff now, what with everything that has happened in other RPG systems, the rise and influence of video games, different media and the rise of the internet, and so on. So setting a game in aspic is probably a great way to go out of business - 2e got run into the ground, and the new edition led to a renaissance in D&D. I was happy playing 3e, but I'm probably, on balance, happier playing 4e. I might be even happier still playing 5e - who knows? Most of us don't have the time, inclination and experience to design RPGs completely the way we might like them, or to even be aware of everything out there that could improve the gaming experience. The professionals do, so why not let them innovate? And simply pulling up the drawbridge and pretending that nothing is going on in the world that could possibly influence gaming seems close-minded.


I'm not saying they should "cater to 3e fans". I'm saying they probably want to reclaim the D&D mantle. Like it or not, it's pretty divided right now. There's quite a schism in what used to be a fairly unified fanbase.

If they can please both sets of fans, they stand to make a lot more money. And money's the bottom line when it comes to selling products.


deinol wrote:
We don't have any actual confirmation to the rumors of 5E. For all we know, Monte could be working on 4E's Unearthed Arcana. A set of alternate or experimental rules for those who want to bend 4E a little more in different directions. Until they announce something, everything is just speculation.

According to Margaret Weis on the Dragonlance boards, Monte has confirmed that he is working on 5E. How much credence you lend Margaret is up to you, but at this point 5E talk is more than "just speculation."


Scott Betts wrote:
Because that's how this industry works. If you come up with a better business model, you let us know.

Cheap shot, Scott. :(

The Exchange

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

I'm not saying they should "cater to 3e fans". I'm saying they probably want to reclaim the D&D mantle. Like it or not, it's pretty divided right now. There's quite a schism in what used to be a fairly unified fanbase.

If they can please both sets of fans, they stand to make a lot more money. And money's the bottom line when it comes to selling products.

Actually, no, things are not very divided now. In the 80s heyday of roleplaying there were loads of systems out there, and now there is basically a couple, one of which is an older the version of the current version of D&D. I didn't even play 2e in the 80s - I played RuneQuest, because I thought 2e was a fairly poor system in comparison. And honestly, D&D is still called "D&D" - it has the mantle.

Moreover, I don't think a hegemonic WotC is good in the long run anyway. Most companies respond to competition by upping their game. You could argue that WotC maybe took its fanbase for granted in the swap-over to 4e, due to its dominant position. A more humble, wiser WotC that has to compete harder for the business will probably be good for gamers.


You're talking about a company that laid off its best and brightest, who marketed its newest version of the game in an ill-advised way, and who introduced draconian measures to control 3rd party content in its initial liscensing for that version. I think they might be pretty good game designers, but their business tactics leave a little to be desired.

EDIT: I really should have said "business sense" instead of "business tactics". I'm not trying to accuse anyone at WotC of malfeasance, just of poor judgement in certain areas.

Grand Lodge

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
You're talking about a company that laid off its best and brightest, who marketed its newest version of the game in an ill-advised way, and who introduced draconian measures to control 3rd party content in its initial liscensing for that version.

And, just as the Wizard's of the Coast of 2000 was different than the WotC of 2008, the WotC of 2011 is yet again a different animal than it was just 3 short years ago (at least as far as how things seem to be run)...

Just some perspective to think about...


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
bugleyman wrote:
deinol wrote:
We don't have any actual confirmation to the rumors of 5E. For all we know, Monte could be working on 4E's Unearthed Arcana. A set of alternate or experimental rules for those who want to bend 4E a little more in different directions. Until they announce something, everything is just speculation.
According to Margaret Weis on the Dragonlance boards, Monte has confirmed that he is working on 5E. How much credence you lend Margaret is up to you, but at this point 5E talk is more than "just speculation."

I've seem that. A friend of a friend is still just a rumor. If she said she'd talked to Monte directly, that would be a lot more solid.


deinol wrote:
I've seem that. A friend of a friend is still just a rumor. If she said she'd talked to Monte directly, that would be a lot more solid.

...in your opinion. Personally, I take a statement made by Margaret Weis as more than just pure speculation -- and I doubt I'm the only one. Hence your attempt to shut down the conversation on that basis will likely be unsuccessful. :)

Scarab Sages

Gorbacz wrote:
Given that Monte is taking over the "design musings" column from Mearls, I somewhat doubt he's working on anything [setting]-related.
Mairkurion {tm} wrote:
Friends don't let friends say, "fluff."

"Fluffer on set; he's losing wood!"


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
bugleyman wrote:
deinol wrote:
I've seem that. A friend of a friend is still just a rumor. If she said she'd talked to Monte directly, that would be a lot more solid.
...in your opinion. Personally, I take a statement made by Margaret Weis as more than just pure speculation -- and I doubt I'm the only one. Hence your attempt to shut down the conversation on that basis will likely be unsuccessful. :)

I don't doubt Margaret Weis's integrity. But I have no idea how reliable her source is.

I'm not trying to shutdown conversation, I'm trying to expand it. It could be that he is working on 5E, but it won't be another 3 years out. As someone else pointed out, it isn't likely that he's doing that much work on a new edition via telecommuting.

If I were Wizards, even if I planned on using Monte to create a new edition, I would still utilize him in the meantime for other projects. Heck, I would expect to have him play 4E for a few months just to make certain he knows where the game is currently at. So far all of his columns have felt like he is just learning 4E. There's a long way to go before he's an expert in the system. Even if he's just going to tear it down and start over again, he has to know how things work now to manage existing player expectations.


deinol wrote:

I don't doubt Margaret Weis's integrity. But I have no idea how reliable her source is.

I'm not trying to shutdown conversation, I'm trying to expand it.

My apologies, then. I just think there are more possibilities than "pure speculation" and "Wotc announcement." ;)


Scott Betts wrote:
Mournblade94 wrote:
Diffan wrote:


Those who've sworn off WotC "For all time" have drawn the line in the sand and I doubt any pandering to them will result in something other than failure. What they should do is create something all new.

I completely agree. WOTC should in no way cater to the older fans as the 4e fans have stuck with them so to speak.

My only question is why should they make something new?

Because that's how this industry works. If you come up with a better business model, you let us know.

Oh OK I will be sure to do that. Once again you provide fantastic insight.

That is fine from a business perspective I get that. That is why I say 4e and 5e if it comes is simply a money grab.

But if you are a player comfortable with 4e why would you want the new shiny? That is really the heart of the question. I know that is how the industry works.

Perhaps though with Paizo finding success with their adventures we can be spared edition money grabs.


Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
Mournblade94 wrote:

My only question is why should they make something new? If 4e works it works. Why would one want a new system where you have to learn all new paradigms, all the tricks, and all the loops to run an adequate game when the current system already works?

People that play 4e seem happy with it.

But times move on as well. I don't think anyone (well, OK maybe a few) would really call the original version on D&D up to snuff now, what with everything that has happened in other RPG systems, the rise and influence of video games, different media and the rise of the internet, and so on. So setting a game in aspic is probably a great way to go out of business - 2e got run into the ground, and the new edition led to a renaissance in D&D. I was happy playing 3e, but I'm probably, on balance, happier playing 4e. I might be even happier still playing 5e - who knows? Most of us don't have the time, inclination and experience to design RPGs completely the way we might like them, or to even be aware of everything out there that could improve the gaming experience. The professionals do, so why not let them innovate? And simply pulling up the drawbridge and pretending that nothing is going on in the world that could possibly influence gaming seems close-minded.

I might give you that AD&D is not modern, but we are not talking improved graphics here. Everythign in RPG's is an abstraction, and 4e is just as abstract as AD&D. I like 3rd edition most out of the older editions of D&D. Still, it is not like jumping from an Atari 2600 to an XBOX.

1st edition codified the archeology that was OD&D. 2nd edition was a reboot so TSR would not have to pay Gygax. 3rd edition was made by WOTC to save the industry. At first I was not onboard but it became my favourite edition.

4e well some claim it fixed problems, but I still think it was an excuse for a moneygrab.

Marketing has convinced we gamers we need new editions. That is the reason we hope for them.


Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
...and who introduced draconian measures to control 3rd party content in its initial liscensing for that version

Man, what.

Draconian? Really?

Your post had a lot wrong, but I can't even grasp you finding them "draconian."

WotC still has one of the most lenient licenses in the business. If you think they're draconian, try working for Palladium or White Wolf or, hell, just about anyone else.


Mournblade94 wrote:

4e well some claim it fixed problems, but I still think it was an excuse for a moneygrab.

Marketing has convinced we gamers we need new editions. That is the reason we hope for them.

I'm of the view that one shouldnt ascribe motive to others without knowing them extremely well. It's very difficult to discern motive from an action. As such whether new editions are 'money grabs' (which seems to me to be inherently about motive) is not something I have any clue about.

With regard to your second point though, it may be true for some, it's not true for me. I love buying new RPGs - I have stacks of them, many unplayed. Most of them I went scouring for - I wasnt persuaded by marketing. Furthermore, the desire for new fantasy worlds/conceptions of gaming/etcetera is just part of who I am - I'm fairly difficult to reach as a market and was even less so when my preferences were being formed.

I just enjoy seeing how someone else does it - reading rules systems gives me pleasure, even though when we game we usually ignore most of the rules anyhow. You and the people you know may have no inherent desire for new editions/games but some of us do (and I see a new edition as just another form of 'brand new RPG' - when they dont change substantially, I'm less interested).


Mournblade94 wrote:


4e well some claim it fixed problems, but I still think it was an excuse for a moneygrab.

Marketing has convinced we gamers we need new editions. That is the reason we hope for them.

4E did fix a lot of problems, at least problems I found inherant in previous systems (Grapple.......c'mon man!). But Steve did a great job hitting the nail directly on the head. If the RPG industry doesn't progress (even laterally), it'll sputter out and die in the waves of technology. New systems means new ideas and new innovations for the games we love. I can take a dozen mechanical aspects of 3E, apply them to 4E or vise versa to make my games better. The fact is that there will never be One RPG to rule them all. People vary too much in taste for that to ever occur. Instead, I look at it like Pop (i'm from Pittsburgh, we don't use Soda). I like the taste of Cola and I usually prefer CoCa-Cola to Pepsi. But when Pepsi comes out with something new, I'm gonna buy it and try it. I may switch to that brand for a few weeks or months and then it's back to Coca-Cola (which is about the time they come out with their marketing stratgey). It's has absolutley nothing to do with Brand Loyalty (something I feel is idiotic) and everything to do with my tastes and likes.

New editions are fun, they're exciting, and I'm curious to see how they do certain things. Hells, If they put out a brand new E6 game, complete with "Official" Capstone feats, Prestige Feats, monsters, and rules that are tailored directly for that style, I'd buy it in a heart beat because it's fresh and a new spin on something I've already mastered as a game. I've not mastered 4E and I doubt I will anytime soon with them still releasing a lot of content.

So if/when 5E does come out I'll be content with 4E until enough stuff is put out there to make it more "Complete" for me.

The Exchange

Digitalelf wrote:
Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
You're talking about a company that laid off its best and brightest, who marketed its newest version of the game in an ill-advised way, and who introduced draconian measures to control 3rd party content in its initial liscensing for that version.

And, just as the Wizard's of the Coast of 2000 was different than the WotC of 2008, the WotC of 2011 is yet again a different animal than it was just 3 short years ago (at least as far as how things seem to be run)...

Just some perspective to think about...

Quite - which is what I was alluding to. They had no real competition, and they screwed up. Now, the landscape is different, and WotC seems to have raised its game.

The Exchange

Mournblade94 wrote:

I might give you that AD&D is not modern, but we are not talking improved graphics here. Everythign in RPG's is an abstraction, and 4e is just as abstract as AD&D. I like 3rd edition most out of the older editions of D&D. Still, it is not like jumping from an Atari 2600 to an XBOX.

1st edition codified the archeology that was OD&D. 2nd edition was a reboot so TSR would not have to pay Gygax. 3rd edition was made by WOTC to save the industry. At first I was not onboard but it became my favourite edition.

4e well some claim it fixed problems, but I still think it was an excuse for a moneygrab.

Marketing has convinced we gamers we need new editions. That is the reason we hope for them.

I didn't prefer RQ because of the marketing, I preferred it because it was better. I liked 3e because it actually learned some stuff from skills-based games like RQ and incorporated it into D&D. So you can see evidence of progress and cross-fertilisation - that's not marketing.

351 to 400 of 616 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / Monte's new association with WotC All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.