It Would be Great to Hear from Someone Other than Monte Cook

No, not because he's "the devil" or "the worst person ever" or what have you.


We need to hear from someone with a different focus, and a different background, who can "talk up" different aspects of the game.

Right now, a lot of what we're hearing about 5e sounds like "3.5, but...", and I think the biggest cause of that is just that, well, we're only really "hearing from" Monte Cook, and 3e is what he knows.  And a lot of how we've seen Wizards and magic discussed has, likewise, been colored by Cook's own love for that class.

And, to be frank, I don't blame him.  If I was in the same situation, I would be doing the same thing - talking about the new stuff in terms of the things I'm most familiar with, and things I most enjoy.


But it would be really, really nice to hear more from people with different backgrounds, different views, different preferences, and different likes.  I want to hear someone who loves Fighters the way Cook loves Wizards explain to me how awesome they're going to be.  I want to see someone whose background is in 4e talk about how aspects of the game are "4e, but...".  Hell, I would love to hear from Rodney Thompson (he's still at WotC, right?) if lessons have been learned from SW:SagaEdition, and how 5e might be like "Saga, but...".



My point is: If this is supposed to be a game to please everyone, it would be nice to hear how it's going from a perspective other than "I know 3e, and I like Wizards."  
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
Hear, hear!  Lets hear it here! Laughing
(couldn't resist)

In all seriousness, I am in total agreement.
Agreed. Why not have a different member of the design and development team write L&L each week?

"My flying carpet is full of elves."

I can get behind that. The few blog posts from the other designers are a little wanting. The only reason I could think that WOTC is leaving L&L to the design lead is because they want to present a united front and not have any disagreements the design team may be having leak into the public.
(not that I'm in agreement with this but it is possible)
What I'd like to see is a bit more feedback relating to what's being discussed in the forums; the last L&L article was the first one (that I recall) that had a statement along the lines of 'you've told us you think this'. I could be wrong, of course, but the L&L articles seem to have been mostly one-way; I don't feel the polls are particularly useful unless the results of those polls get discussed. Bumping up the frequency of Rule of Three during the run-up to DnDnext would help, too.
Seconded. A different voice would be nice. But, I should note, the reason Monte is speaking is to get back previous customers. Making someone else speak a different voice might not be that good for business.
Are you interested in an online 4E game on Sunday? Contact me with a PM!
Show
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept. Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new. Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept. Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept.
Ideas for 5E
Frankly, I associate M. Cook with 2e Planescape more than 3e. I associate rogues with S. Williams, and Epic Play with B. Cordell. I think we need a Champion of Psionics, but no name comes to mind. The way psionics were treated (ignored) in the 3e Epic Book tells me those authors need to stay far, far away from Psionics. Perhaps if E. Greenwood came in, was told to write rules for Spellfire, or for Elminster, then use those for psionics, it wouldn't suck. Seriously though, Psionics is probably best left in the hands of people like R. Baker, M. Forbeck, S. Winter, and T. Beach.

You could try to do the same thing with Fighters - have Greenwood write up some rules just for Drizzt the ranger, change out the name, background, and references to Drow, and then you would have a pretty buff Fighter. Maybe call up J. Grubb about the Paladin or Kensai. Who wrote that monstrosity in 3.5e the Warriors book? A. Collins, D. Noonan, and E. Stark?  Those guys would be great for the Warrior stuff.
Options are Liberating
Frankly, I associate M. Cook with 2e Planescape more than 3e. I associate rogues with S. Williams, and Epic Play with B. Cordell. I think we need a Champion of Psionics, but no name comes to mind. The way psionics were treated (ignored) in the 3e Epic Book tells me those authors need to stay far, far away from Psionics..



LOL, Bruce was the major developer of psionics in 3e.

This is an excellent idea for a variety of reasons. Make it so.
 
Yes, this would be very nice. Although I'm a fan of 3e (and of Monte himself), I do recognize the importance of other edition's designers voices in the discussion. 
Well Rodney Thompson did the latest Rule of 3 that talks about DnD Next.

Does that count?

Member of the Axis of Awesome

Show
Homogenising: Making vanilla in 31 different colours

Seconded. A different voice would be nice. But, I should note, the reason Monte is speaking is to get back previous customers. Making someone else speak a different voice might not be that good for business.


The problem with this reasoning is that it's once again presenting the image (real or not) that WotC is taking the 4E customer base for granted.  WIll they really be able to lure enough Pathfinder defectors back over to make up for alienating the fans of the current system?
Well Rodney Thompson did the latest Rule of 3 that talks about DnD Next.

Does that count?


I noticed that.  I like Rodney, and would like to see him speak to the community more, hopefully outside of Rule of Three, whether that be in L&L or another blog.
Seriously, though, you should check out the PbP Haven. You might also like Real Adventures, IF you're cool.
Knights of W.T.F.- Silver Spur Winner
4enclave, a place where 4e fans can talk 4e in peace.
Frankly, I associate M. Cook with 2e Planescape more than 3e. I associate rogues with S. Williams, and Epic Play with B. Cordell. I think we need a Champion of Psionics, but no name comes to mind. The way psionics were treated (ignored) in the 3e Epic Book tells me those authors need to stay far, far away from Psionics..



LOL, Bruce was the major developer of psionics in 3e.





how well did people respond to those rules? Just because I liked persistent powers, inertial armor, and the Genesis power doesn't mean other people did. I can't even count the number of problems we found with the system.
Options are Liberating
Robert Schwalb and Bruce Cordell do weekly blog posts, Rodney Thompson writes the weekly Rule of Three column, and Jon Schindehette is now writing a weekly column on art in D&D Next.  Also, several WotC staffers like Trevor Kidd and Greg Bilsland regularly throw out questions on Twitter.
Tim Eagon My DDI Articles Follow me on Twitter @Tim_Eagon
Yes, this would be very nice. Although I'm a fan of 3e (and of Monte himself), I do recognize the importance of other edition's designers voices in the discussion. 



Agreed. I think there's wisdom in getting some other speakers to be the voice for other editions.
I can get behind this idea as well. Maybe get one of the producers of 4e, who is working on D&D Next explain the new system from a 4e perspective. That way people from all editions know that they are being heard.
My primary view, as posted in other forums threads, is that they need to stop trying to do it in one single "cover all" format and return to a "Basic/Advanced" format.

This worked for 1st and Second edition, was whipped away in 3rd edition that within 8 years needed to be dropped for 4th ed?  Yet if you look at 4e and it's approach, it is doing what Basic was originally designed to do.

Since most of the writers for the early editions are no longer involved, being written between 1974 -1995 while it was still TSR, I think we are going to see much more of the younger groups input.  Most of the baseline changed after Wizards took over, and most of the older crowd has moved on, retired or passed on.   I think this is why you are more likely to hear more from 3.x and 4e companies.

I think this new edition, which will probably be 5th since it is not just correcting problems with 4e, but working for a new base, is still in a concept phase that they are not wanting to air too soon based on the market.  If they are doing this right, they will work to make the most solid and long lasting edition yet to date.

I just thing we need to keep slopping up ideas and votes and hope they know how to work those into the best version to date.

Seconded. A different voice would be nice. But, I should note, the reason Monte is speaking is to get back previous customers. Making someone else speak a different voice might not be that good for business.


The problem with this reasoning is that it's once again presenting the image (real or not) that WotC is taking the 4E customer base for granted.  WIll they really be able to lure enough Pathfinder defectors back over to make up for alienating the fans of the current system?



The 4e fanbase does have fewer options although it's legitimate to say they have 4e.  I think WOTC wants 75% of the 4e/Pathfinder marketshare.  They have high money targets yes but I believe they'll consider that a success on their first stab at it.

So if true it will be...
100% 4e and 50% Pathfinder  OR
50% 4e and 100% Pathfinder OR
75% 4e and 75% Pathfinder

I think a really improved game that appeals to Pathfiner people could get them.  A lot of people didn't like a lot of things about 3e but 4e was so different that it didn't fit their playstyles.   I consider myself in that camp.  I finally gave up 4e but I'm not real happy if 3e/Pathfinder is my only choice.  I'm hoping 5e improves 3e a lot and also provides at least some of the balance that 4e players prize.

I don't think 5e can attract many Pathfinder players if it keeps the AEDU structure for all classes.  
 

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.

Frankly, I associate M. Cook with 2e Planescape more than 3e. I associate rogues with S. Williams, and Epic Play with B. Cordell. I think we need a Champion of Psionics, but no name comes to mind. The way psionics were treated (ignored) in the 3e Epic Book tells me those authors need to stay far, far away from Psionics..



LOL, Bruce was the major developer of psionics in 3e.





how well did people respond to those rules? Just because I liked persistent powers, inertial armor, and the Genesis power doesn't mean other people did. I can't even count the number of problems we found with the system.




Intial book not so much so when 3.5 came about he released a revised system which was great, and very well recieved.  One of the things I like about Bruce was he was willing to admit he made a mistake in the first book and rectified it with the second one.
Agreed. Why not have a different member of the design and development team write L&L each week?



Why is it that every time I read one of your posts, you're saying something brilliant?

Gold is for the mistress, silver for the maid

Copper for the craftsman, cunning at his trade.

"Good!" said the Baron, sitting in his hall,

"But Iron -- Cold Iron -- is master of them all." -Kipling

 

Miss d20 Modern? Take a look at Dias Ex Machina Game's UltraModern 4e!

 

57019168 wrote:
I am a hero, not a chump.
Sign In to post comments