Legens&Lore: Monte Cook takes over

[Maggan]

So Monte is taking over after Mike Mearls, writing the Legends&Lore column.

Very interesting, and it will be fun seeing what this brings to D&D4.

What are your reactions?

Oh, link:

http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20110920#76573

/M

 

[Thunderfoot]

I've spent the past several months talking about D&D's past and how that relates to its future. It's now time to focus much more on the future of the game. Monte has an unmatched design pedigree in the RPG field, and for that reason we've brought him on board to work with R&D in making D&D the greatest RPG the world has seen.

(emphasis mine)
Well, either the 4e rules are getting an overhaul or the 5e is very close to dropping would be my guess.

 

[Jack99]

I doubt they would be bringing in Monte Cook if 5e was anywhere near completion.

 

[Gundark]

Veeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrryyyyyyyyyyyyyy Interesting...... in hindsight it seems obvious, but in hindsight most things seem obvious

 

[JamesonCourage]

We'll see how Monte Cook does with the column. I generally like the feel of his work, but I really disliked the skill system presented. My expectations are lowered than normal for him, but my hopes for the column are higher. I hope he gets getting Mearl's input on stuff. It's been interesting these past few months, even if I had mixed reactions.

 

[TheClone]

I think this offers two possibilities:
1. WotC wants to have their marketing wagon dragged by Monte. Get some popularity, especially in the areas disappointed by 4e. Those people most certainly do value Monte highly, since he is a d20 system guy.
2. 4e is really getting a 3e/PF touch. They got Monte to get some ideas and creativity from the 3e area. He was one of those behind 3e and certainly is a very good choice get those ideas back into the next D&D.

Which one is true? WotC won't tell us until it becomes obvious.

 

[Mark CMG]

Encounter, adventure, etc. What's missing? A DM designs a setting. (Even if he buys the framework for one and makes it his own.) They're done looking at old D&D and looking toward the future but they need to take one last look and think about the bigger picture of what a DM brings to the table in terms of setting. It might be that it is tough to do when so much of the business model relies on book after book of rules upon rules and newer and newer system unbalancing character options and additional classes. I'd love to see the future of D&D be simpler core rules with tons of adventure and setting support, year one, then year two, do the same thing for a modern verion. Year three? Do a future version. Continue to support the fantasy version and the modern version even as you come out the the future material. Then year four, go back around to the fantasy version but come out with a whole new setting to support the newer, upgraded fantasy version. And no throwing the baby out with the bathwater each edition. Keep it backwards compatible, for realsies. I don't think people would mind a new edition every three years if it was a simple reasonably-priced core set and lots of support that would still be 95% usable with the next edition (so all you need to replace is the core, and the new setting just gets a treatment that entices rather than forces you to continue buying more books). Anyway, that's my solution. Let's see what they come up with next.

 

[wedgeski]

Monte is a bit of a chameleon these days isn't he? I thought he was working with Paizo?

 

[Maggan]

Monte is a bit of a chameleon these days isn't he? I thought he was working with Paizo?

That is interesting. There have been people working at or for WotC going to work at or for Paizo, but I haven't seen they other way around until now.

/M

 

[delericho]

Firstly: back when Mearls joined WotC, someone called that as the moment they started seriously working on 4e. Two years later, 4e hit. To me, this looks like a really strong indication that they're about to start serious work on 5e.

Now, about the column itself: Actually, I disagree that the rules can't help a DM spice up his NPCs. 4e monster design has shown that you can differentiate the flavour of monsters through rules elements - see things like the kobold 'shifty' ability for an example. To do the same for NPCs you'd need a large number of 'traits' each with a game-mechanical effect, but that's no bad thing.

Actually, there's probably a space for an entire not-quite-monster book there, giving the 'chassis' for a bunch of NPC archetypes at various levels (the knight, the wizard, the bandit...), and then a whole bunch of traits for those characters. To create a quick NPC, pick the chassis that seems most appropriate at the level that is appropriate, and then customise with two or three traits...

But then, I also disagree with his list of what makes a good DM (and, indeed, last week's list of what makes a good player). While all of the things he lists are true, there's more to it than that. You can be a good DM while missing one or more of these elements, and hitting all of those bullet points is no guarantee of being a good DM. It just seems... soulless, trying to pin down something that can't be readily defined (but that we all know when we see it).

So... I dunno. I'm more confident of the future of D&D than I have been for some time. I genuinely get the feeling that Mearls really does 'get it', even if I don't necessarily agree with his presentation, and the appointment of Monte is definitely a good step. And certainly, the goal of making the best RPG possible is definitely laudible. I guess we'll see.