| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Therise |
Posted - 21 Sep 2011 : 18:04:45
Thought this was interesting news: Monte Cook is back, working for WotC. He is taking over Mearls' column, and will be involved with their R&D.
http://wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20110920
Makes me wonder how this will affect 4E, and if it might have some subsequent effects on the Realms.
I'm kinda excited and happy about it, I've always liked Monte's work.
EDIT: oops, I meant to put this under the D&D general heading. 
Mod edit: relocated.  |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Markustay |
Posted - 08 Nov 2011 : 04:27:59
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
Hey they promised no new Editions, the only thing to look forward to is D&D (4th Edition) revisions. Set aside that minor detail that 3.0 was a final Edition and 3.5 was just a revision and all is well with the D&D World. Yes I am a little cynical about anything right now.
There clearly can be a better gaming product t be produced, it becomes a wait and see.
I do not recall them saying there would not be new editions. I think this would be a foolish claim for any company to make, too.
Please don't ask me for proof - all my saved threads are long gone (and many of those links no longer worked anyway).
Buuuuuuuut... I recall VIVIDLY a thread (it was not here or at wotC, but someone provided a link to it over at WotC) on some site - possibly EnWorld - wherein right after 4e's release, someone at a Euro-Gencon asked an official WotC employee who was attending if there was any plans for a 5e, and the answer was 'yes, of course. Nothing concrete, but it has been discussed'
It would be insane NOT to think that the day after they were finished designing ANY edition, that they were second-thinking themselves and considering what they would do different "the next time". Why wouldn't they? its completely normal. No-one (with any brains) finishes a job, and doesn't start thinking about the next.
From what I understand (after consulting the Aztec-RPG calender), the final edition will be 666e.  |
| Diffan |
Posted - 06 Nov 2011 : 03:48:09
I remember talk about them not "revising" 4E like they did with 3E, thus no need to re-print all the old PHB, MM, and DMGs with the new or changed rules and they've pretty much stuck by that. Any revisions they've made have been done for free via Errata-PDF page and the some other articles that's easily found using their search function and you don't need to be a DDI subscriber for any of this stuff. The biggest changes I've seen is minor things such as class powers, a few keywords which make features function a bit differently, and some feats.
There are some that say "Essentials" products are 4E's version of a revision though I've come to realize that they are largely ignorant of the actual system of the game and really don't understand what revision means in terms of what we saw from 3.0 to 3.5.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Then instead of a '5e', which most here obviously find distasteful (as would anyone who has invested heavily in 4e), we have a FRe, as in "D&D: Forgotten Realms edition", a system based entirely around the game world. (and a possible reboot)
Actually I'd embrace a 5E even with how heavily invested I am with 4th as long as it has elements that I consider fun and exciting to tell good stories. Mechanics do sway my opinion as I'd rather play/run 3E/PF/4E over AD&D/2E any day of the week so if it resembles a lot of that stuff then I doubt I'd buy any of it. The way I see it is that there is a division within his small group of people and it's not entirely good. WotC needs to make a system that caters to A LOT of people while keeping things in relative balance AND paying homage to iconic elements (auto-hitting Magic Missile, 6 stats of Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, & Cha; d20 for most rolls, and the four classes of Wizard, Figher, Cleric, and Rogue) to get people on board.
They need to take out a few of the "gamist" elements such as terms and phrases (defender, striker, and power's names), putting things back to feet instead of squares (even though I personally HATE converting the mechanics from feet to squares), and possibly, possibly more homage to Vancian spellcasting  because apparently it's not D&D without it *pfft*. I think with these starting* elements, you can lure people back from Pathfinder with a new edition while creating some really awesome mechanics that appeals to both lore and rules heavy gamers.
As for a specific Realms-based mechanics, I'd like to hear more and see what difference they have with common D&D and the like. |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 06 Nov 2011 : 02:58:33
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
Hey they promised no new Editions, the only thing to look forward to is D&D (4th Edition) revisions. Set aside that minor detail that 3.0 was a final Edition and 3.5 was just a revision and all is well with the D&D World. Yes I am a little cynical about anything right now.
There clearly can be a better gaming product t be produced, it becomes a wait and see.
I do not recall them saying there would not be new editions. I think this would be a foolish claim for any company to make, too.
Oh well, I could try to search for the article or post, it might still exist. It was posted on the "forums not to be mentioned" or released in an online article that was discussed in the former. Basic statement was BD&D and AD&D was combined and it was not fair to call 4th, 4th, that it should be just D&D. Someone with WotC did post there would not be an Edition change. I could search out the thread and if finding give names, however considering how 4th came out it likely matters little. People at GenCom that spoke about the question of 4th, truthfully replied they knew of no such project. Those that knew did not speak of the issue, because of NDA.
I could search for the names, a few come to mind, but would need to be sure, and further clearly it matters on what they were told as opposed to what was planned. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 06 Nov 2011 : 02:26:51
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
Hey they promised no new Editions, the only thing to look forward to is D&D (4th Edition) revisions. Set aside that minor detail that 3.0 was a final Edition and 3.5 was just a revision and all is well with the D&D World. Yes I am a little cynical about anything right now.
There clearly can be a better gaming product t be produced, it becomes a wait and see.
I do not recall them saying there would not be new editions. I think this would be a foolish claim for any company to make, too. |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 06 Nov 2011 : 02:16:06
Hey they promised no new Editions, the only thing to look forward to is D&D (4th Edition) revisions. Set aside that minor detail that 3.0 was a final Edition and 3.5 was just a revision and all is well with the D&D World. Yes I am a little cynical about anything right now.
There clearly can be a better gaming product t be produced, it becomes a wait and see. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 05 Nov 2011 : 23:25:12
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I have an idea -
4e = "For Eberron" (get it? )
Then instead of a '5e', which most here obviously find distasteful (as would anyone who has invested heavily in 4e), we have a FRe, as in "D&D: Forgotten Realms edition", a system based entirely around the game world. (and a possible reboot)
Would that make everyone happy?
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Considering the secrecy about the runup to 4E, I think that if they were hiring Mr. Cook back to work on 5E, they'd be very quiet about it. The fact that it's so readily known makes me think that whatever he's working on, it's not a new edition.
In light of the other thread, do you still feel this way?
My way of thinking is this - they are trying everything possible to close the floodgates, and letting us know that "Monte is here to fix things" seems like the appropriate approach (considering just how badly things went wrong with the other approach - secrecy).
I've already stated that I do believe he's working on 5E.
I wouldn't say that the secrecy approach for 4E went wrong -- they left a few clues, but most of us were surprised when we found out about it. My only complaint about the secrecy was when the development of 4E was denied mere months before they announced it and said they'd been playtesting for 18 months. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 05 Nov 2011 : 21:04:17
I have an idea -
4e = "For Eberron" (get it? )
Then instead of a '5e', which most here obviously find distasteful (as would anyone who has invested heavily in 4e), we have a FRe, as in "D&D: Forgotten Realms edition", a system based entirely around the game world. (and a possible reboot)
Would that make everyone happy?
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Considering the secrecy about the runup to 4E, I think that if they were hiring Mr. Cook back to work on 5E, they'd be very quiet about it. The fact that it's so readily known makes me think that whatever he's working on, it's not a new edition.
In light of the other thread, do you still feel this way?
My way of thinking is this - they are trying everything possible to close the floodgates, and letting us know that "Monte is here to fix things" seems like the appropriate approach (considering just how badly things went wrong with the other approach - secrecy). |
| Nilus Reynard |
Posted - 06 Oct 2011 : 05:36:38
quote:
He wrote a Realms novel, The Glass Prison.
And its a really good one at that. I think I have read three or more times already. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 27 Sep 2011 : 02:53:55
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Love the concepts for Jevvica Noor and the Iron Mage.
Oh, yeah, the Iron Mage. That's still a concept I'm trying to find a place for in my Realms.
|
| Diffan |
Posted - 26 Sep 2011 : 21:13:49
Hmm...I'll have to look into what he's done for 3E (I probably have seen it and just not known it was him!). As for Ptolus, something to look into as well.
Also found this and thought it relevent:
Besides writing the L&L column, what endeavors will Monte Cook be involved in? Is he full time staff or a consultant?
Monte occupies a role very similar to Rob Schwalb, in that he is a staff designer who works remotely. The commute from Milwaukee to Seattle is a bit tough to handle on a daily basis. We’re conferencing with him several times a week via phone and Google Plus, and he’s visiting the Wizards offices frequently. I’m afraid I can’t go into much detail about the specific projects Monte is working on for us, simply because the products are still a ways out. That said: Monte is working on D&D, he’s doing design work as well as consulting, and we’re delighted to have him on board.
With Monte Cook back is there any chance we could see a Dungeon adventure or Dragon article set in Sigil?
Monte isn’t working on Dragon or Dungeon online Planescape content at the moment. We don’t have any immediate plans for any articles focused on Sigil. However, there’s no reason we wouldn’t entertain a Sigil adventure or backdrop that came to us through our submission process. We’re Planescape fans too!
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 26 Sep 2011 : 18:22:45
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
This reply was taken from Monte's blog stating:
"Back to the Laboratory
A short while ago, I started working for Wizards of the Coast again, on D&D. I am currently working with talented members of the R&D staff, exploring various options and experimenting with the game. Which is to say, doing what I really love. At this point, you can think of me as a mad scientist in a rpg design laboratory, concocting crazy creations to see if any of them have any value.
I'm really not at all concerned with edition wars or arguments of that nature. Please don't try to drag me into those discussions. D&D is bigger than any of that, and my job is a lot more open ended and broad minded than such things. While I'm at it, let me also add, please don't make assumptions about what I'm doing based on things I've done in the past. The future is not yet written.
Speaking of writing (and the future), I'll be writing the Legends & Lore column at the Wizards' web site starting this week and going forward. I'll be using that as a venue to give you updates on my thoughts on these topics, new (and old) ideas, and experiments."
This makes me feel he'll be working on D&D stuff for 4E at the moment and for a while longer. Possibly designing stuff for future supplements (might or might not include another edition). I'm really excited to see what he rolls out with the 4E ruleset and I'm just excited for 4E stuff in general.
He did a lot of good supplemental stuff for 3E, so that's what I expect from him for 4E.
His Ptolus material is also quite good, though I have a hard time wrapping my mind around adventurers gaining levels and doing much questing, without ever going beyond the city walls (instead going down under the city or up into the Spire). Love the concepts for Jevvica Noor and the Iron Mage. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 26 Sep 2011 : 18:08:02
This reply was taken from Monte's blog stating:
"Back to the Laboratory
A short while ago, I started working for Wizards of the Coast again, on D&D. I am currently working with talented members of the R&D staff, exploring various options and experimenting with the game. Which is to say, doing what I really love. At this point, you can think of me as a mad scientist in a rpg design laboratory, concocting crazy creations to see if any of them have any value.
I'm really not at all concerned with edition wars or arguments of that nature. Please don't try to drag me into those discussions. D&D is bigger than any of that, and my job is a lot more open ended and broad minded than such things. While I'm at it, let me also add, please don't make assumptions about what I'm doing based on things I've done in the past. The future is not yet written.
Speaking of writing (and the future), I'll be writing the Legends & Lore column at the Wizards' web site starting this week and going forward. I'll be using that as a venue to give you updates on my thoughts on these topics, new (and old) ideas, and experiments."
This makes me feel he'll be working on D&D stuff for 4E at the moment and for a while longer. Possibly designing stuff for future supplements (might or might not include another edition). I'm really excited to see what he rolls out with the 4E ruleset and I'm just excited for 4E stuff in general.
|
| Hawkins |
Posted - 26 Sep 2011 : 17:30:39
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
The vibe I'm getting is that he's working on something other than 4E. At the same time, I couldn't imagine a 5E (or something similar) coming out before 2013.
I couldn't imagine 4e before 2010 either. However, I got a rude awakening in mid-to-late 2007 telling me that it wasn't to be so. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 26 Sep 2011 : 17:24:05
quote:
Me too. It would also allow for more epic villain interactions at "low level" when played without the exponential power increase. And it wouldn't seem so strange to have non-epic interactions when you're very experienced, like a sneak thief who stumbles on a robbery and accidentally kills a high mage.
It would be much more narrative, and you'd totally avoid power bloat. Makes me wonder if it would shift "power" toward the accumulation of magic items, though.
It would depend on how they do magical items for it. As of now, 4E does the usual +1, +2, +3, etc.. magical item enhancement bonus. Then they put in an optional "inherent bonus" that is attached to weapons you wield. Not totally sure how it works but from what I hear it's based more on your flavor and style rather than changing that up for a better weapon. A fighter who loves fighing with heavy blades and has a +2 radiant greatsword then finds a +4 flaming battle-axe would be "mechanically speaking" better off using the battle-axe but loses out on character feel and look. Instead, it's just a radiant greatsword or a flaming battle-axe and the magical benefits to attack/damage are wiped away. I like that.
But PCs are going to accumilate all sorts of magical items, regardless of edition or style so I guess the question is a bit moot since it'll happen regardless if the designers want it or not. |
| Therise |
Posted - 26 Sep 2011 : 04:28:24
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
Modular... hmm. That word makes me think they're playing around with getting rid of levels. Possibly more of an E6 type of thing, where you continually play in the "sweet spot" but gain new abilities with experience in a "sideways" fashion rather than an "increasing" fashion.
That is something I can get behind. More emphasis on the faucets of a character and not just how "powerful" one can get through the rules.
Me too. It would also allow for more epic villain interactions at "low level" when played without the exponential power increase. And it wouldn't seem so strange to have non-epic interactions when you're very experienced, like a sneak thief who stumbles on a robbery and accidentally kills a high mage.
It would be much more narrative, and you'd totally avoid power bloat. Makes me wonder if it would shift "power" toward the accumulation of magic items, though.
|
| Diffan |
Posted - 25 Sep 2011 : 20:39:29
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
Modular... hmm. That word makes me think they're playing around with getting rid of levels. Possibly more of an E6 type of thing, where you continually play in the "sweet spot" but gain new abilities with experience in a "sideways" fashion rather than an "increasing" fashion.
That is something I can get behind. More emphasis on the faucets of a character and not just how "powerful" one can get through the rules. |
| Therise |
Posted - 25 Sep 2011 : 18:50:57
The vibe I'm getting is that he's working on something other than 4E. At the same time, I couldn't imagine a 5E (or something similar) coming out before 2013. Also, around 2013 is when the 5th new Elminster book will probably come out, if not later. Just in time for Mystra to die again or be reborn. 
Something's changing in the wind, as they say. At this point, I think it's way too early to tell. Monte could be working on something other than D&D, for all we know. But it is fun to speculate.
Modular... hmm. That word makes me think they're playing around with getting rid of levels. Possibly more of an E6 type of thing, where you continually play in the "sweet spot" but gain new abilities with experience in a "sideways" fashion rather than an "increasing" fashion.
|
| Diffan |
Posted - 25 Sep 2011 : 05:41:28
quote:
Originally posted by Hawkins
I have to agree with Shemmy. I am pretty attached to the Pathfinder Rules Set right now, and can't really imagine switching from a company I love and asks me what I want back to a company that I used to love until they started telling me what I want. However, if, somehow someway, the next edition of D&D was to work on being more compatible with 3.5 and Pathfinder, I could see maybe buying supplements from them again.
This is probably unlikely. From Mike Mearl's articles (which is now Monte's articles) titled Legends and Lore, he speaks of a very heavy modular system. Where characters shift, change, and I guess elements can be added at the whim of the DM or group to their liking. Apparently this will be more modular than 4th and much more so than 3rd edition.
Now, I'm not really understanding the idea of modular but I wasn't impressed all that much. To me, it sounded like a LOT of work on the DM's part to get it right. Sounds like a lot of guessing and Hit or Miss with the Party's level and what you want from Monsters. I just don't know if I'm ready to shell out more $$ for a new edition when I'm having loads of fun with v3.5, Pathfinder, and 4E. Hopefully it'll be 2 to 3 years off before we hear anything concrete. |
| Hawkins |
Posted - 25 Sep 2011 : 02:34:34
I have to agree with Shemmy. I am pretty attached to the Pathfinder Rules Set right now, and can't really imagine switching from a company I love and asks me what I want back to a company that I used to love until they started telling me what I want. However, if, somehow someway, the next edition of D&D was to work on being more compatible with 3.5 and Pathfinder, I could see maybe buying supplements from them again. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 24 Sep 2011 : 05:59:49
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I doubt that many people would find their interest renewed in any existing game system just because a specific designer gets onboard.
Actually, I disagree. Certainly, I care little for the actual names on the D&D product, or a book, or film, or music video, or whatever. It's mildly interesting to see familiar names maintaining quality again and again, it's even good to see new names ... but really, about the only time I pay any attention to the creators' names at all is when they've managed to disappoint my expectations to such a degree that I refuse to give any of my attention (or business) ever again.
Still, the world at large celebrates celebrities. Monte Cook is, in grognard circles, something of a celebrity ... many people who might automatically dismiss, say, a 4E sourcebook might give it a much closer look if they see his trusted name on the cover. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 23 Sep 2011 : 23:35:14
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I doubt that many people would find their interest renewed in any existing game system just because a specific designer gets onboard. I've certainly checked out some supplements because they came from specific designers, but I've never been interested in a ruleset just because of a designer.
Agreed.
Though, I've certainly purchased supplements written by a favourite designer for a rules-set that I might not otherwise be all that interested in.
I like to do this, simply because I'd expect the supplement to maintain the personal quirks of the favoured designer -- and, perhaps, even potentially bring in qualities from the overall rules-set that I might find some use for. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 23 Sep 2011 : 17:00:12
I doubt that many people would find their interest renewed in any existing game system just because a specific designer gets onboard. I've certainly checked out some supplements because they came from specific designers, but I've never been interested in a ruleset just because of a designer. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 23 Sep 2011 : 15:13:28
quote:
Originally posted by Brimstone
WotC is trying to use Monte to draw 3E/Pathfinder players back to the "mothership"...
IMNSHO
Yea, that's probably not going to happen. Many people have swarn off WotC no matter what they do from this moment onward. But who knows? Maybe people can put their dislikes of one edition if the next appeals to them more?
For my own hopes and desires, if they are planning a new Edition then I just hope it's fun and balanced. Maybe not so balanced to the extent of 4E but enought so that both casters, limited-casters, and non-casters can contribute to the game at all levels of play.
But, again, I feel if there is going to be a change in D&D (which everyone knows will happen at some point) then I hope it doesn't come around for a few more years at least.
Sorry Sage for keeping the edition-questions running, but I don't think the conversation has been that bad or at least there isn't any "warring" going on now! |
| Brimstone |
Posted - 22 Sep 2011 : 23:28:16
WotC is trying to use Monte to draw 3E/Pathfinder players back to the "mothership"...
IMNSHO |
| Therise |
Posted - 22 Sep 2011 : 21:14:22
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Considering the secrecy about the runup to 4E, I think that if they were hiring Mr. Cook back to work on 5E, they'd be very quiet about it. The fact that it's so readily known makes me think that whatever he's working on, it's not a new edition.
Ah, but knowing that we'd know they'd know that we'd know, the red herring is actually blue!
You know?
|
| Artemas Entreri |
Posted - 22 Sep 2011 : 16:23:05
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
Monte Cook is always an excellent playstyle. As are Monty Hall, Monty Haul, Monty Python, Monte Carlo, Monte Cristo, and Montezuma. Just can't go wrong with Monty/Monte.
Montezuma's Revenge? |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 22 Sep 2011 : 15:53:11
Considering the secrecy about the runup to 4E, I think that if they were hiring Mr. Cook back to work on 5E, they'd be very quiet about it. The fact that it's so readily known makes me think that whatever he's working on, it's not a new edition. |
| Brimstone |
Posted - 22 Sep 2011 : 15:00:53
I really didn't mean for that post to bash or hate on WotC, hence the !
If I wanted to hate I would just quote someone from the 4E Gereral thread: "Get ready for trap feats and useless system mastery..."
Bravo for Monte going back to WotC.
 |
| The Sage |
Posted - 22 Sep 2011 : 06:11:54
You forgot Monty Burns.  |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 22 Sep 2011 : 05:43:43
Monte Cook is always an excellent playstyle. As are Monty Hall, Monty Haul, Monty Python, Monte Carlo, Monte Cristo, and Montezuma. Just can't go wrong with Monty/Monte. |
|
|
