Community

@MechaPilot
 
Here's my take

1.  Monte practically divorced his wife to work on D&D 5e (I'm sure it's more than that but the geography strain is part of it I think).  It's not about money.  
2.  Monte is a class act and he won't badmouth his former employer.  My gosh the guy wouldn't even badmouth 4e other than to say it just wasn't his style of game.  He really is a mild mannered nice guy.  Which is why it really torks me when people here claim he is this power mad egomaniac.  
3.  My theory is they hit one of Monte's deal breakers.  I don't know what that is but they crossed that line.  That is my theory.  It is a theory.  I don't absolutely agree with Monte on everything so obviously it might not be a dealbreaker for me but I wouldn't want to bet on that. 



 

Apr 25, 2012 -- 7:03PM, MechaPilot wrote:

Ok.  I get that.  Just a small question though.

This is what Monte actually said:
Last week I decided that I would leave my contract position with Wizards of the Coast. I am no longer working on Dungeons & Dragons, although I may provide occasional consultation in the future. My decision is one based on differences of opinion with the company. However, I want to take this time to stress that my differences were not with my fellow designers, Rob Schwalb and Bruce Cordell. I enjoyed every moment of working with them over the past year. I have faith that they'll create a fun game. I'm rooting for them.

Would it have been "badmouthing a former employer" if he had said this instead:
Last week I decided that I would leave my contract position with Wizards of the Coast. I am no longer working on Dungeons & Dragons, although I may provide occasional consultation in the future. My decision is one based on creative differences. However, I want to take this time to stress that my differences were not with my fellow designers, Rob Schwalb and Bruce Cordell. I enjoyed every moment of working with them over the past year. I have faith that they'll create a fun game. I'm rooting for them.

No.  But the first paragraph could mean exactly the same thing.  It would have been more harmful to WOTC if he had put out the second paragraph.  He would have rallied the anti-4e crew against D&D5e (more so than we already are).  He's just not a spiteful evil guy.  That doesn't mean he didn't have creative differences.   I can't imagine anything but those kinds of differences getting him to leave.  I can't imagine it being pay, vacation, even release schedule or OGL.  Honestly none of those are essential to the game.  He could still be part of producing a great game regardless of those other things.  He might have an opinion but I don't see him giving up on D&D for those things.  

Also he didn't mention everyone.  And the people he didn't mention are in my opinion those most likely defending 4e.  I also think Mearls response is somewhat indicative.  Monte can't always have his way.  I agree but Monte isn't going to put his name on something he thinks is bad so they parted.  Good luck with that.   They hit one of his dealbreakers.

Apr 25, 2012 -- 7:32PM, MechaPilot wrote:

Apr 25, 2012 -- 7:17PM, Emerikol wrote:

Also he didn't mention everyone.  And the people he didn't mention are in my opinion those most likely defending 4e.  I also think Mearls response is somewhat indicative.  Monte can't always have his way.  I agree but Monte isn't going to put his name on something he thinks is bad so they parted.  Good luck with that.   They hit one of his dealbreakers.

He also didn't say that he left so he could live a robust life before Dec 21, 2012 hit and the world exploded.  I know a certain amount of reading-between-the-lines is required in this world, but jumping to a worst-case scenario based on the ommission of Mearls' name from his comment seems a little like overdoing it to me.  There are certainly other reasons why he might have ommitted him.  Maybe Monte just doesn't like Mearls (in the sense of personality conflict).  If he is the kind of guy you say he is, then he may well ascribe to the old addage of "if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all."

Ultimately, it still comes down to a "wait-and-see" for the quality of the final product.

To put it in D&D terms.   Monte gave 5e a charisma based circumstantial bonus of +4.  Him leaving after having came, moves it to a -2 penalty.  But even given all that they still get to roll their d20.

I've just decided I'm not buying a slightly refactored version of 4e.  I'm sure some here would love that.  And they should buy it if that is what they like.   I don't see though many people who left D&D coming back to a game that is only slightly different than the one they left.

My problem is that I don't really love Pathfinder either.  I wish I did I'd just go there and not look back.  Maybe Pathfinder 2e will be what I am looking for.

 

Obviously it's all pure speculation why Monte left. I doubt it was because of some particular aspect of the playtest version of the game, though. (It's not like he said "You're including healing surges? I quit!!") And it doesn't sound like Monte is burning his bridges, he even specifically said he might do some consulting with WotC on the game down the line.

I did notice that Mike Mearls responded to both Monte leaving and the May 24th playtest in the same article, so it's not a stretch to imagine that corporate told Monte they need the playtest moved up to May 24th, Monte said that's not enough time or that it's too soon, they argued and he quit. Or maybe they are just pushing the development schedule way up overall and he didn't support it. Or it could the playtest date announcement and Monte leaving might be pure coincidence, who knows?

Ah well, I'm sure Monte will be fine either way. I'll certainly be curious to read what happened six months or a year from now he ever reveals more information about why he left.