Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Monte Leaves, Playtesting Begins


D&D 4th Edition (and Beyond)

101 to 150 of 332 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
Pan wrote:
Memorax I just want to re-iterate what some of us have been saying. 5E is not doomed but with Monte leaving some of us have lost confidence or interest in 5E. Sorry if that seems negative to you but this news just cant be ignored by everyone. On the other hand there has been much jubilation at the fact that Monte is off the team. Is that justified? Is that being positive for the sake of being positive? To me it just sounds like another opinion and I don't see anything wrong with that.
Like Monte is the only man who can "save" D&D. That's just silly. Is D&D "over" if Monte decides to walk away? He wasn't even the only guy working on 3e, and if you recall that edition needed a revamp into 3.5 (not done by Monte) to deal with the issues he (and the others who designed 3.0) missed. I'm sure he's very talented and good at what he does but it seems to me his work on settings and adventures (Ptolus, Planescape) significantly outstrips his mechanical stuff. D&D didn't expire with Gygax so I don't really see why one guy is suddenly such a deal-breaker.

What is silly is not bothering to read peoples posts. I never said anything about him being the only man to save 5E. I never said anything about D&D being over. Look he is the only guy on the team I am familiar with. He was also the lead designer. Monte walking off is not something to ignore. Lets put it this way, if Mearls was the one who said "due to differences i'm out" it would be just as bad if not worse at this point. The whole process is still at the wait and see point. Is it so terrible that I wish Monte was still there to see it through?

Dark Archive

Well Memorax. You are right. They do need a real playtest soon, and it better be pretty awesome to get some buzz going so people will be excited about 5E. Let's hope the playtest isn't just for show, and they actually listen to feedback. It's been confirmed that 4E's playtest was a sham since Mike Mearls admitted that it was mostly ignored. Let's hope they don't repeat this "We are playtesting just to say we playtested." scam again.

Scarab Sages

Cory Stafford 29 wrote:
Well Memorax. You are right. They do need a real playtest soon, and it better be pretty awesome to get some buzz going so people will be excited about 5E. Let's hope the playtest isn't just for show, and they actually listen to feedback. It's been confirmed that 4E's playtest was a sham since Mike Mearls admitted that it was mostly ignored. Let's hope they don't repeat this "We are playtesting just to say we playtested." scam again.

They would really be shooting themselves in the foot if they did that. Not only are they advertising the playtest moreso than they did for 4e, Mearls has gone on record specifically that the playtest is the most important step, and that they are "nowhere near" done the rules.


Memorax: Note that I put "good" and "bad" in quotations in my last post. These are oversimplified generalizations, but in context they save word count. =]

Cory: That's the cornerstone of the problem at present, and my hope is that our fears will be alleviated once the playtest is underway.

The biggest obstacle that I see to transparency right now is the manner in which information is being delivered. Anyone who has followed WotC's website over the last year and a half knows that unless you're really jazzed up about a product announcement or a review of some esoteric aspect of 4E, you can pretty much ignore their web offerings on Wednesday through Sunday - the meat of the news and information about D&D Next is coming out on Monday via L&L, and on Tuesday via Rule of Three. Hitching the playtest info to L&L basically means we're going to get nothing but a drip feed of information over the next month. I think this reflects WotC's lockstep adherence to scheduling informational releases that may be hurting their fans' perception of them more than it's helping - at least for the time being.

That said, it's also possible that we're not seeing much information forthcoming because the staff is actually busy cleaning up the rules for the playtest distribution, which should be the priority... so maybe that's a blessing in disguise.

Dark Archive

The Forgotten wrote:
Just going to point out that this could be completely non-RPG related. Perhaps Monte's contract called for WotC to carry him on their health benefits and the company benefits managers decided that the terms did not apply to his spouse/kids. Not saying that's what happened, but I am pointing out there are a huge number of possible reasons for Monte to leave that have nothing to do with the design of 5e.

FYI, he's divorced and has no kids that I know of. So thats just flat out wrong.

President, Jon Brazer Enterprises

I've been keeping my opinion on this to myself for a number of reasons, but now that I've had a bit of time to digest it, I'm ready to share:

I am still hopeful about this D&DNext. However, I am more cautious in my optimism. Monte obviously left for a good reason. While it may have something to do with the way WotC manamagement was managing the game, it may not. It might be something like he wasn't paid enough. He could have been something like "he was promised X pay increase after working there so long and he just had was denied that increase because of some stupid technicality" or something. We've all had the pointy-haired boss or the evil cat for an HR manager that we felt screwed us over in one way or a another. And despite this is a hobby industry, these kinds of things happen here as well. There are many perfectly valid reasons that Monte might have left that had nothing to do with D&DNext, whatever game license the next iteration may have, or how they plan to use it to take over the world.

While it is possible that it may have had something to do with one of the corporate lawyers digging in his heels about no open license or how some executive feels that gnomes should be screwed over again or whatever directly relating to the game, I doubt it. I think it is more likely that the day to day issues inside the company are more to blame with his departure. He did say he had complete faith in the design team and is sure they will make a fun game. And since we have no evidence otherwise, I can only assume it has nothing to do with the game itself.

Having said all that, I'm more cautious in my optimism. I have been disappointed before and can be disappointed again. But I still remain optimistic, even if it is more guarded than before.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Cory Stafford 29 wrote:
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
Pan wrote:
Memorax I just want to re-iterate what some of us have been saying. 5E is not doomed but with Monte leaving some of us have lost confidence or interest in 5E. Sorry if that seems negative to you but this news just cant be ignored by everyone. On the other hand there has been much jubilation at the fact that Monte is off the team. Is that justified? Is that being positive for the sake of being positive? To me it just sounds like another opinion and I don't see anything wrong with that.
Like Monte is the only man who can "save" D&D. That's just silly. Is D&D "over" if Monte decides to walk away? He wasn't even the only guy working on 3e, and if you recall that edition needed a revamp into 3.5 (not done by Monte) to deal with the issues he (and the others who designed 3.0) missed. I'm sure he's very talented and good at what he does but it seems to me his work on settings and adventures (Ptolus, Planescape) significantly outstrips his mechanical stuff. D&D didn't expire with Gygax so I don't really see why one guy is suddenly such a deal-breaker.
It's not so much as Monte would "save" 5E, but he was the only well known designer on the team that didn't work on a system that completely turned D&D upside down (4E) and caused a huge rift in the community. The concern is that he was the only one looking at things from a 3E perspective and hopefully could keep the team from just trying to pat themselves on the back and release a tweaked 4E as 5E. That may not be fair, but that is a legitimate concern for those not enthused by 4E's mechanics.

The community's supposed unity was always fleeting. I'm not buying this stuff when I remember when there were many more games out there in the 80s, and indeed there are still a few others - the community has always been divided by preference. Nor do I see the lack of unity as a bad thing. Paizo's competitive threat has led WotC to up its game significantly, to the benefit of 4e users and the "community" as a whole. Unity is prized mainly by people like the North Koreans.

The Exchange

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Pan wrote:
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
Pan wrote:
Memorax I just want to re-iterate what some of us have been saying. 5E is not doomed but with Monte leaving some of us have lost confidence or interest in 5E. Sorry if that seems negative to you but this news just cant be ignored by everyone. On the other hand there has been much jubilation at the fact that Monte is off the team. Is that justified? Is that being positive for the sake of being positive? To me it just sounds like another opinion and I don't see anything wrong with that.
Like Monte is the only man who can "save" D&D. That's just silly. Is D&D "over" if Monte decides to walk away? He wasn't even the only guy working on 3e, and if you recall that edition needed a revamp into 3.5 (not done by Monte) to deal with the issues he (and the others who designed 3.0) missed. I'm sure he's very talented and good at what he does but it seems to me his work on settings and adventures (Ptolus, Planescape) significantly outstrips his mechanical stuff. D&D didn't expire with Gygax so I don't really see why one guy is suddenly such a deal-breaker.
What is silly is not bothering to read peoples posts. I never said anything about him being the only man to save 5E. I never said anything about D&D being over. Look he is the only guy on the team I am familiar with. He was also the lead designer. Monte walking off is not something to ignore. Lets put it this way, if Mearls was the one who said "due to differences i'm out" it would be just as bad if not worse at this point. The whole process is still at the wait and see point. Is it so terrible that I wish Monte was still there to see it through?

I read your post - I still maintain getting flustered because Monte has walked is silly, as you know nothing about what he has done for 5e, or the product itself. Monte wasn't even purely responsible for 3e. What I bought that was written by him (purely) was crap, though I'm willing to accept I probably didn't get his best stuff - though it was mechanics, not fluff or settings.

What are the other designers and developers - chopped liver? It's like they don't exist for you. I don't know any of them myself, nor do I really care who they are. I'm interested in the product, and will judge that, not make an a priori judgement based on the somewhat dubious legacy of one individual.


It's been less than a week since Monte's last posting at WotC (he blogged about the Paladin vs. the Cleric on April 19). That and the fact that his departure took Mearls by surprise suggests that it had nothing to do with the design.

He specifically stated he had no problem with his fellow designers. He cited problems with the Company, and never mentioned management specifically (although it's dificult to have a problem with a company without having a problem with its management). Since he'd only been working there a little over seven months, it probably wasn't anything to do with his contract being renegotiated. It's doubtful he had a seven-month contract, and it wouldn't be until around August that a yearly contract would be renegotiated.

I'll reiterate what I said earlier, on this or some other thread (the proliferation of similar threads really needs to settle down around here).

I believe what happened is that whatever mysterious new project Monte alluded to on his livejournal page couldn't happen until he left WotC. His contract might have forbidden him to work on any outside projects while in their employ--a relatively common and un-sinister clause.

It explains Mearls' surprise and the fact that Cook was apparently working on design right up until the end.


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Terquem wrote:
I would totally use a Pop-o-matic that had all seven basic dice in it, and another with five d6. In fact if there was a way to custom order pop-o-matics with dice preferences in them, that company would make a ton, but sadly the pop-o-matic is patended.

OT, but if it were patented when Trouble came out in 1965, said patent would long since be expired.


I think the pop-o-matic can be used, you just can't call it a pop-o-matic. The name's a trademark.


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Cory Stafford 29 wrote:
Well Richard Baker was canned in November and James Wyatt works on board games now. Bruce is probably the only one close to old school that's actually working on the design of 5E.

Miranda Horner is a TSR transplant, and I think Kim Mohan is as well.

That's not "old school" ??


Miranda Horner and Kim Mohan are not designers they are little more than editors. Bruce Cordell is only designer left that goes back to 2e. In 2e, his design work was mostly in adventure creation. In particular, Return to Tomb of Horrors with the excellent forward by Gary Gygax stands out. In 3e, he was the psionics man writing both The Psionics Handbook and The Expanded Psionics Handbook. He co-wrote with another Complete Psionic. He also wrote the flawed Epic Level Handbook. He did write the free 3e Tomb of Horrors in support of co-written Libris Mortis: The Book of the Undead. In 3e era, he wrote several adventures as well.

From the above, I am not brimming with confidence that he is now the senior design lead for D&D Next.

In fact here is entire D&D Next design team: Bruce Cordell, Rob Schwalb, Jeremy Crawford, Rodney Thompson, Miranda Horner, and Tom LaPille as listed by Mike Mearls on his announcement of Monte leaving and public play test date. I don't see a lot of standouts there.

Right now, my feeling and opinion went from guarded optimism to guarded pessimism. I hope that it doesn't become a cut-paste hack job. The questions that keep coming to mind is this. What new can D&D Next really bring and are any of those listed above the ones who can bring it? Is the D&D brand worth yet another game system or is it just nostalgia for IP not included in OGL SRD?


Zarathos wrote:
In fact here is entire D&D Next design team: Bruce Cordell, Rob Schwalb, Jeremy Crawford, Rodney Thompson, Miranda Horner, and Tom LaPille as listed by Mike Mearls on his announcement of Monte leaving and public play test date. I don't see a lot of standouts there.

I don't know anything about the others on the list there, but Rodney Thompson was the guy in charge of the Star Wars Saga Edition line, which was very well received. No idea how much of a contribution he's making to 5e though - I'd been under the impression he was mainly working on board games these days, with Lords of Waterdeep being his main project recently.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Zarathos wrote:
Miranda Horner and Kim Mohan are not designers they are little more than editors.

Their primary jobs may be editors, but first, I'm pretty sure both of them have done a fair amount of design work, and second, the phrase "little more than editors" drastically undervalues the role editors play in this industry (and by extension, their involvement with the product in question).

Liberty's Edge

Brian E. Harris wrote:
Zarathos wrote:
Miranda Horner and Kim Mohan are not designers they are little more than editors.
Their primary jobs may be editors, but first, I'm pretty sure both of them have done a fair amount of design work, and second, the phrase "little more than editors" drastically undervalues the role editors play in this industry (and by extension, their involvement with the product in question).

Totally true. Every time you see a passage that doesn't make as much sense as you'd like or an ability that contradicts another ability without saying which takes precedence, that's the editor you have to blame, there. I only played 4e at the beginning of it's lifecycle, but I never had any real problem understanding how it was supposed to work, I just didn't like how it worked (personal opinion). My opinion of Pathfinder trends toward the opposite viewpoint, actually - I think it could be better edited, but I like its general slant a lot.

Liberty's Edge

At thia point and feel free to ignore is imo to remain hopeful. If 5E is a terrible game it's a terrible game. Yet I rather not jump to conclusions before actually reading the finished. I swore never to play 3.5 and PF yet I am not only running but also playing in a PF because I assumed the worst and was wrong to do so.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
memorax wrote:
At thia point and feel free to ignore is imo to remain hopeful. If 5E is a terrible game it's a terrible game. Yet I rather not jump to conclusions before actually reading the finished. I swore never to play 3.5 and PF yet I am not only running but also playing in a PF because I assumed the worst and was wrong to do so.

But aren't the people who are positive about 5E just as guilty of jumping to conclusions about the game as well? I keep seeing these statements (not necessarily from you memorax) saying basically that the opinions of the naysayers aren't valid because they haven't seen he complete game, yet there are plenty of people singing the praises of the potential of 5E based on the snippets so far.

I was in a short play test of 4E before it came out and thought it wasn't bad but knew that it wasn't going to replace my 3.5 game. Even with Pathfinder there were things that I liked about the alpha that wound up not being in the final that made me leery of the final product. I guess what I'm saying is that the map is not the territory for either the prositive 5E group or the negative 5E group.


I could be wrong but I don't think I've seen anyone on these boards flat out say that 5e will be the best game ever that will replace all other games. Most people staying positive are simply keeping an open mind till they see something more concrete... Or that's how it seems to me anyhow.

Liberty's Edge

ShinHakkaider wrote:


But aren't the people who are positive about 5E just as guilty of jumping to conclusions about the game as well? I keep seeing these statements (not necessarily from you memorax) saying basically that the opinions of the naysayers aren't valid because they haven't seen he complete game, yet there are plenty of people singing the praises of the potential of 5E based on the snippets so far.

I have seen mostly cauctious optmisim so far. A few singing praises yet for the most part most are waiting for the finished product before commenting on it. The difference being is that unlike those being negative about the game I'm not jumping to conclusions and assuming the worst. I'm also admitting it maybe a bad game too. The negative side just knows somehow beyond a shadow of a doubt that 5E will be a bad rpg. Without even knowing what goes into the final product. The postive seem to be more level headed and taking a wait and see approach

ShinHakkaider wrote:


I was in a short play test of 4E before it came out and thought it wasn't bad but knew that it wasn't going to replace my 3.5 game. Even with Pathfinder there were things that I liked about the alpha that wound up not being in the final that made me leery of the final product. I guess what I'm saying is that the map is not the territory for either the prositive 5E group or the negative 5E group.

Nothing wron with saying that a new rpg in development is not going to replace the rpg you like to use. Yet to assume that factual you know it's going to be negative without having seen the final product is being unfair to the mew product. You know how many in the hobby assumed the same thing about Pathfinder. I used to be one of them. So it's not like 5E is the ony rpg to get such a treatment. To many gamers who like PF seem to willing ignore that.

Liberty's Edge

Kip84 wrote:
I could be wrong but I don't think I've seen anyone on these boards flat out say that 5e will be the best game ever that will replace all other games. Most people staying positive are simply keeping an open mind till they see something more concrete... Or that's how it seems to me anyhow.

Agreed and seconded. So far it's more of an interest rather than an outright liking of the game. Who is one supposed to pass judgment let alone like an rpg if it;s only in development. Contrast that with those who already bashing 5E or Wotc without having seen the final product. It's mostly poster who are not even going to play 5E let alone look through it who are being the most negative and loudest about it.


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

You do realize that the majority of people aren't "bashing" anything, they're simply expressing their displeasure at certain events that have occurred, right?

There's a large swath of people out there that, for whatever reason, rational or irrational, didn't like 4E.

A large subset of those folks DID like a previous version of which Monte Cook was involved with, and his involvement with 5E/Next gave them an amount of optimism.

They then hear the news that he's gone, and they're displeased/upset about that.

Unless they're actually trying to start a flame war, chill out and let them have their opinions and discuss things calmly, rather than trying to start a flame war yourself by casting aspersions on them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Brian E. Harris wrote:

A large subset of those folks DID like a previous version of which Monte Cook was involved with, and his involvement with 5E/Next gave them an amount of optimism.

They then hear the news that he's gone, and they're displeased/upset about that.

I highly doubt his leaving was, in any way, connected to the rules of the game. They're close to the Playtest aspect of D&D:Next, which tells me that they're fairly close to finalizing the CORE rules. Rules Monte has been helping develope over the last serveral months. So his leaving will probably have little impact on that part of the next iteration of D&D. Based on that, I think any displeasure due to Montes leaving should be on the people or on the company, but not necessarily the game.

And since we don't know the particulars of why he left, I think it's better to have an objectionable, yet optimistic, position on something we don't know or haven't seen. This is also based on the loads of Legens and Lore articles they've been producing, much of it I wasn't all that impressed with I might add. Yet I still have a hope that this game will be fun. It might not replace my 4E game and it might not scratch the 3E/PF itch I have every once in a while, but it might be a fun game in it's own right.

Liberty's Edge

Brian E. Harris wrote:


You do realize that the majority of people aren't "bashing" anything, they're simply expressing their displeasure at certain events that have occurred, right?

Not in thios thread look at some of the other 5E threads. Acting like bad behavior on these boards does not occur because it does not happen in one thread does not mean it does not exist or happen. I can respect not liking something yet to often not liking someting translates into bashing it. I really dislike the PF gun rules. I'm not using it as an excuse to bash Paizo at every opportunity..

Brian E. Harris wrote:


There's a large swath of people out there that, for whatever reason, rational or irrational, didn't like 4E.

So because bad behavior happens here on other fourms and in rwal life we should just ignore because it happens. sound advice yet not advice I plan to follow. If a post has something wrong about PF/4e/5E well I'm going to post in it. In a civil manner.

Brian E. Harris wrote:


A large subset of those folks DID like a previous version of which Monte Cook was involved with, and his involvement with 5E/Next gave them an amount of optimism.

Optimism is good unrealistic optimisim not so much. I was optmistic that the Bruins were going to win another stanley cup. My life was not shattered or my faith in them any less because they were elimnated from the play-off. Having Monte ion board was good. %e is not doomed because he is no longer there.

Brian E. Harris wrote:


They then hear the news that he's gone, and they're displeased/upset about that.

My response to that is suck it up and move on. Life is filled with more important things then Monte leaving the 5E development team. Unless your a Hasbro shareholder it's not a big thing imo. I'm not saying don;t care yet nethier do we need the whole doom and gloom attitude that some have been promoting.

Brian E. Harris wrote:


Unless they're actually trying to start a flame war, chill out and let them have their opinions and discuss things calmly, rather than trying to start a flame war yourself by casting aspersions on them.

Well some are using as an excuse to stand on a soapbox and preach negatvity about wotc or 5E. This thread so far has been calm. Look at some other 4E and 5E threads then get back to me. The Paizo forums have a reputation in the community as being very anti-4E. As the Wotc boards are very anti-PF. From the actions of avery tiny vocal loud minority. When I start a thread about Wotc or one of their products I have to word it carefully if not it ends up being a bashfeast. So to act like nothing negative happens on these boards is to be enaging in see/hear/speak no evil. Like every board this stuff happens yet to just let it slide all the time no. I'm tired of that.

Sovereign Court

12 people marked this as a favorite.

This thread so far has been calm despite you putting words into people's mouths. Can you take your complaints about the other threads and talk about them in those other threads, or better yet, flag the posts your talking about and move on.

I've so far enjoyed the civil discussion, speculation and people's opinions. The most provocative comments being made in this thread are actually yours memorax, sorry to say. I haven't seen anyone dooming and glooming, but anyone has a right to say their interest is lessened due to Monte suddenly leaving. I have not seen any major 5e bashing in this thread, or 4e. No ones trying to start an edition war or flaming but i'm as entitled to say "I didn't like 4e and i'm not as excited about 5e after hearing Monte is leaving" as you are to tell me your own opinion.

And though I may not agree with it, it will no doubt be interesting to read and I will respect it.


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Alexander Kilcoyne wrote:

This thread so far has been calm despite you putting words into people's mouths. Can you take your complaints about the other threads and talk about them in those other threads, or better yet, flag the posts your talking about and move on.

I've so far enjoyed the civil discussion, speculation and people's opinions. The most provocative comments being made in this thread are actually yours memorax, sorry to say. I haven't seen anyone dooming and glooming, but anyone has a right to say their interest is lessened due to Monte suddenly leaving. I have not seen any major 5e bashing in this thread, or 4e. No ones trying to start an edition war or flaming but i'm as entitled to say "I didn't like 4e and i'm not as excited about 5e after hearing Monte is leaving" as you are to tell me your own opinion.

And though I may not agree with it, it will no doubt be interesting to read and I will respect it.

I can't say it any better than this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

To be honest I rarely paid attention to who writes or develops the rules or adventures starting with 4E, or Pathfinder, and going all the way back to 1E. There is only so many ways to re-package D&D, and all the hard work has been done. If Monte stayed, then those that don't like 4E would most likely find another reason not to like 5E. I always thought it was odd bringing him on, when he appears to be fixated on older editions of the game and never supported 4E. The idea behind D&D Next is to bridge the generations of the game, and truely, that will be very hard to accomplish with everyone drawing lines in the sand and digging trenches.

If you are going to be a lead designer, or any type of developer for 5E, and have a vested interest, then you are going to need a flack jacket and a thick skin just to make it through the play test. With a little bit of faith, an ear to the forums, and a bit of luck, perhaps 5E will meet it's intended purpose.

Liberty's Edge

Uchawi wrote:
If Monte stayed, then those that don't like 4E would most likely find another reason not to like 5E.

What.

No, seriously, what?

I didn't care for 4th Edition. I very well may enjoy 5th Edition. It is definitely not "most likely" that I would have "[found] another reason not to like 5E" had Monte stayed on the project. I won't be going in looking for reasons to dislike it. To anyone who is going in with that intent, I'd strongly suggest not going in at all, because you will surely find what you are looking for...almost all the time, in every scenario, in every walk of life.


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Uchawi wrote:
If Monte stayed, then those that don't like 4E would most likely find another reason not to like 5E.

Even if this asinine statement was in any way true, so what? The fact is (and I say fact, because numerous people across numerous forums have stated it as being true) is that there are people who were disinterested in the current product, but their interest was piqued due to Monte's involvement in the upcoming product.

Anything that can get these lapsed customers re-interested in what you're selling is a good thing.

If they later find they don't like the product, then they don't like it, but you at least got them to look at and consider something that, in this exact case, they weren't inclined to look at and consider in the first place.

You got their attention, and in a positive manner.


Brian E. Harris wrote:
The fact is (and I say fact, because numerous people across numerous forums have stated it as being true) is that there are people who were disinterested in the current product, but their interest was piqued due to Monte's involvement in the upcoming product.

My interest in 5e had a lot to do with Monte Cook's participation. It placed a mind and a face I like and trust behind the whole project.

The mind most likely remains; I'd bet most of his "work" was done.

The face is gone however, and I realize that for rational or irrational reasons, it does influence my perception of the D&D iteration to come. I really wish Monte was still there to "sell" us the new D&D. The fact that he will not does makes DDN less attractive to me.

I know this reaction is irrational, but emotive responses are part of the business marketing.

'findel

Dark Archive

Diffan wrote:


And since we don't know the particulars of why he left, I think it's better to have an objectionable, yet optimistic, position on something we don't know or haven't seen.

Why?

With monte there, it seemed, to many who are not fans of 4e that alot of older ideas would be possibly incorporated. It was, as some have said, an olive branch to the hard feelings left over from the 4e switch. Many many folks liked many of his past projects....so they were willing to give 5th a chance.

With him gone, it stands more that we'll see a 4.5/4.75 then something that might harken back to D&D that we might have known. EVEN with the playtest coming up, no matter what the feedback your not going to see his imput to what comes from said feedback.

Liberty's Edge

I guess I'm tired about hearing negatvity about any edition about D&D. Some are valid reason some are not yet how does this help the hobby in anyway. So I will learn to respect that some people don't like any edition of D&D for rational or irrational reasons. That being said your posting something to be inflammatory or to start an edition war don;t act all suprised when you get called out on it. I still finmd it strange that Monte is a selling point. I bought thePF core for the rules not because Monte wrote a forward to the game.

And I agree with Uchawi that even if Monte was on board those with little or no interest in 5E would find some other reason to dislike 5E. You can say "what?" all you like yet from what I have seen from other 4E threads it's true. On one hand you cannot acknowledge that a poster can be irrational about a topic then act shocked when it gets brought up. I call it as I see it. I'm probalby wrong and want to be wrong yet neither do I act like it neber happens either.

Liberty's Edge

carmachu wrote:

Why?

With monte there, it seemed, to many who are not fans of 4e that alot of older ideas would be possibly incorporated. It was, as some have said, an olive branch to the hard feelings left over from the 4e switch. Many many folks liked many of his past projects....so they were willing to give 5th a chance.

With him gone, it stands more that we'll see a 4.5/4.75 then something that might harken back to D&D that we might have known. EVEN with the playtest coming up, no matter what the feedback your not going to see his imput to what comes from said feedback.

I understand that some posters wanted Monte to remain. Yet I don't get the whole well "Monte gone time to trash 5E". That's like saying "PF is not 4E time to trash the game". It happens yet that makes no sense. It's like trying to find any and every reason to trash an rpg we know very little about. I'm not promoting 5E at all because I know next to nothing about it. Neither am I trashing it either. When some like myself or others try to have a debate that tries to be neither positive or negative we get told that is an impossible. what it's become impoosible to discuss something on the internet and not be objective. either one has to be very negative or very positive. No middle ground.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
carmachu wrote:
With him gone, it stands more that we'll see a 4.5/4.75 then something that might harken back to D&D that we might have known. EVEN with the playtest coming up, no matter what the feedback your not going to see his imput to what comes from said feedback.

I'm curious what the proportionate breakdown of playtesters by preferred edition is going to be anyhow (not that we'll ever know).

My guess would be that a substantial number of those who like 3.5 will be satisfied with pathfinder and not as invested in having a say in how D&D turns out. As such, I would suspect they wouldnt be as represented in the playtest (irrespective of their representation in the broader population).

This has the potential to be a big problem for them, in my view. There's already a suspicion that WoTC arent really going to listen to the open playtest feedback. Personally, I suspect the playtesters are going to be dominated by 4E players. If the designers are looking to recapture the feel of past editions (it seems to me they're more interested in pre 3.5 editions) and the bulk of their playtesters want something like 4E, WoTC could easily find themselves accused of exactly the same as they were when 4E was released.


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

If people *ARE* trashing it, then flag it. But to moan about people trashing it in a thread where, guess what, people *ARE NOT* trashing it?

It really seems that, despite all your platitudes, you're trying to start a fight.

Liberty's Edge

Brian E. Harris wrote:

If people *ARE* trashing it, then flag it. But to moan about people trashing it in a thread where, guess what, people *ARE NOT* trashing it?

It really seems that, despite all your platitudes, you're trying to start a fight.

You are right. Will flag it and move on. Not so much as fight as I want 5E to succeed. Not so much for Wotc sake so much for the hobby in general. Could the hobby survive without D&D. most likely. Yet even with PF it will be a serious blow to D&D imo.

Liberty's Edge

Steve Geddes wrote:


My guess would be that a substantial number of those who like 3.5 will be satisfied with pathfinder and not as invested in having a say in how D&D turns out. As such, I would suspect they wouldnt be as represented in the playtest (irrespective of their representation in the broader population).

This has the potential to be a big problem for them, in my view. There's already a suspicion that WoTC arent really going to listen to the open playtest feedback. Personally, I suspect the playtesters are going to be dominated by 4E players. If the designers are looking to recapture the feel of past editions (it seems to me they're more interested in pre 3.5 editions) and the bulk of their playtesters want something like 4E, WoTC could easily find themselves accused of exactly the same as they were when 4E was released.

Wotc is stuck in a classic Catch-22 situation. change D&D even further and they may acquire or lose more players. Release a 3.5 style of D&D with no changes and risk alienating more players then they acquire. With 3.5 and Pathfinder I can't see how going back to an unchanged or slightly housruled 3.5 will succeed. I has worked for Paizo because they were in the right place in the right time with a very unique set of cirucmstances that imo will not happen again. Either way whatever they do they will lose fans. Paizo was accused of the same thing about their play test. Not changing enough and ignoring player feedback.

Sczarni

It seems to me that this would be a serious PR problem for WotC no matter who the designer happened to be.

To have a lead designer quit at a critical juncture of the product development process, and to have him actually say that it's because of a conflict with the company, is a really bad thing. I don't care what product you're designing or who your designer is. It's a sign that something may be going wrong with the process.

That Monte Cook has a famous name and is considered a champion of the older school certainly colors things, but even if it was just Joe P. Lead-Designer who nobody had ever heard of, it would still be a bad sign.

Liberty's Edge

Then again Monte could have just left and said it was for personal reason that no one needed to know about. For me anyway to post what he did was an attempt on his part imo to sabotage 5E. He knew full well what would happenig saying what he did. You don't write what he did unless you wan the product to fail. Hopefully Paizo never hires him. I probably will never ever buy anything with his name on it ever again.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber
memorax wrote:
Then again Monte could have just left and said it was for personal reason that no one needed to know about. For me anyway to post what he did was an attempt on his part imo to sabotage 5E. He knew full well what would happenig saying what he did. You don't write what he did unless you wan the product to fail. Hopefully Paizo never hires him. I probably will never ever buy anything with his name on it ever again.

If you leave for "personal reasons", people are left wondering if you were harassed at work or if your boss didn't try to hit on your wife.

Now what you are doing is trashing Monte, and that's not really nice.

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Cards, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
memorax wrote:
Then again Monte could have just left and said it was for personal reason that no one needed to know about. For me anyway to post what he did was an attempt on his part imo to sabotage 5E. He knew full well what would happenig saying what he did. You don't write what he did unless you wan the product to fail. Hopefully Paizo never hires him. I probably will never ever buy anything with his name on it ever again.

Shouldn't you want one of the best known rpg designers to succeed, not for him but for the hobby in general? ;-)

Seriously, I guess he could have said he was leaving for personal reasons or keep comletely silent. Knowing the fan-bases tendency for speculation, that could have been much worse. What he did was at least telling that he had no problems with any of the designers, protecting them from the flamewars that sadly would be inevitable (again, knowing fan reactions) due to his leaving.


memorax wrote:
Then again Monte could have just left and said it was for personal reason that no one needed to know about. For me anyway to post what he did was an attempt on his part imo to sabotage 5E. He knew full well what would happenig saying what he did. You don't write what he did unless you wan the product to fail. Hopefully Paizo never hires him. I probably will never ever buy anything with his name on it ever again.

So you are giving up on D&D 5E?

EDIT: Sorry about the snark, but you were writing about peoples negativity and knee-jerk reactions.

Liberty's Edge

I don't hate Monte. Yet neither was I impressed at how he presented his leaving the 5E dssign team. Would there have been speculation if he left without saying why. Yes as nothing would have stopped that. They way he did it he hurt the rpg he was working on. Chncaes are there would have been less doom and gloom towards 5E that we are seeing know. It's not so much not wanting monte to succeed so much as his track record with leaving projects when he gets bored or somehow almost always seems to have issues with the company he was hired on to work on a project. Do you think a company wants to hear someone like that. I know i would not if I had an rpg company. He seems to cause more trouble then want he brings to table. Some may disagree yet I'm being honest. I'm not giving up on 5E at DSX. Yet neither am I assuming the worst either. I want to see the playtest document first before even saying it's going to be a good or bad rpg. I respect Monte yet niether is he a sainted figure as far as I'm concerned.

Sovereign Court

How do you propose he should have crafted his blog post then? I'm not sure theres any right way to do it.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber

Also, since Monte has a stellar history of cooperation with Paizo (from Dragon/Dungeon days to being a consultant on PF RPG, publishing his book via Paizo and writing a Pathfinder module) I am more than inclined to give credibility to his words on any professional matters.

Now, as for Wizards of the Coast...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
memorax wrote:
It's not so much not wanting monte to succeed so much as his track record with leaving projects when he gets bored or somehow almost always seems to have issues with the company he was hired on to work on a project.

Say WHAT?!

What exactly makes Monte's employment history different than half of the RPG industry?

I'd really love to see some examples of this.

101 to 150 of 332 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Gaming / D&D 4th Edition (and Beyond) / Monte Leaves, Playtesting Begins All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.