Yes, that sounds to me as part of the "rehab marketing" WotC is trying to sell nowadays. I'm just curious to see what kind of content Monte's L&L columns will involve, and how that'll shape up the perception of the game.

To answer TDD, I agree: I think it's very unlikely to see that as a sort of return to the roots. Monte's not one to look at the roots and stay there. He knows his stuff, that's for sure, but he's also a tinkerer, a guy who likes to come up with ideas that sound cool to him and explore them. I remember a column of his somewhere, some years ago, where he was genuinely wondering what the appeal of old school gaming really was. It didn't sound snarky or anything. That's a positive thing to just ask the question in the first place. But at the same time, whether he understands the appeal now, or not... I guess we'll find out.

Public post of Monte on G+ :

Quote from: Monte CookSo it's out in the open now. I'm working for WotC again. Exploring some ideas with D&D. Interesting times ahead!

I don't see how this will be much of a positive thing, myself.  At best, I think you'd end up with a muddled mess of the worst aspects of 3e and 4e.  Better to bring in an outsider and start over with a clean slate IMO.

Quote from: jgants;480495I don't see how this will be much of a positive thing, myself.  At best, I think you'd end up with a muddled mess of the worst aspects of 3e and 4e.  Better to bring in an outsider and start over with a clean slate IMO.

Maybe I am being too optimistic. But my guess is they are truly unhappy with where 4E is, and are willing to junk the new concepts and start over. If they don't get rid of 4E's core assumptions and its basic mechanical innovations, I don't see them convincing the people who left it for Pathfinder to come back.

Monte's a really nice guy, and he did do a lot of hard work cleaning up D&D, but I don't really find his actual design-work that inspiring.

Good DM?  Sure.  Good designer?  Eh...

Maybe he's learned a bit since 3e, though.  I know his own views about 3e changed over time.

Quote from: Peregrin;480509Monte's a really nice guy, and he did do a lot of hard work cleaning up D&D, but I don't really find his actual design-work that inspiring.

Good DM?  Sure.  Good designer?  Eh...

Maybe he's learned a bit since 3e, though.  I know his own views about 3e changed over time.

I thought he did a great job with 3E. And most of the books I've read with his name stamped on the cover have had solid writing and mechanics.

I think he did a great job, too, all things considered.

I was trying to imply that it could be much better.

The other issue is that a lot of the hardcore 3e fanbase is toxic, and some of the culture runs counter to how Monte runs his own games.  It's going to be interesting to see how this all plays out.  Not just to see people who like 4e squirm, but to see how Monte's previous dismissals of Ivory Tower design and Rules-as-Physics will affect his work at WotC.

Quote from: Peregrin;480509Good DM?  Sure.  Good designer?  Eh...

I think he's both a great DM and a great game designer.

That doesn't mean what he does will be liked by everyone, nor should it be, really. One can be a great game designer and have a completely different vision for the game than this or that other gamer and/or game designer does. These aren't opposite propositions in my mind.

Quote from: Benoist;480520I think he's both a great DM and a great game designer.

That doesn't mean what he does will be liked by everyone, nor should it be, really. One can be a great game designer and have a completely different vision for the game than this or that other gamer and/or game designer does. These aren't opposite propositions in my mind.

They aren't in my mind either, but that doesn't mean I can't have the opinion that he's not that great.

I don't like 4e, but I consider it good design.

Quote from: Peregrin;480521They aren't in my mind either, but that doesn't mean I can't have the opinion that he's not that great.

I don't like 4e, but I consider it good design.

When did liking Monte Cook's stuff become the opposite of liking 4e? Is that what you're implying? That sounds really weird, to me.

Quote from: Peregrin;480518I think he did a great job, too, all things considered.

I was trying to imply that it could be much better.

The other issue is that a lot of the hardcore 3e fanbase is toxic, and some of the culture runs counter to how Monte runs his own games.  It's going to be interesting to see how this all plays out.  Not just to see people who like 4e squirm, but to see how Monte's previous dismissals of Ivory Tower design and Rules-as-Physics will affect his work at WotC.

I agree that fanboy stuff can get in the way. I liked 3E but thought it could have used some major improvements (just didn't like the kinds of improvements 4E made). I thought his Ivory Tower Game design article had something to it (can't say I remember his rules as physics argument off hand). We'll have to see what he comes up with. It is a lot of pressure though. Don't envy his position.

Quote from: Benoist;480523When did liking Monte Cook's stuff become the opposite of liking 4e? Is that what you're implying? That sounds really weird, to me.

I just think people associate him with 3E. I know I think Monte Cook, and a bunch of 3E and d20 books leap to mind. However I think a lot of the ideas I've seen him express over the years are totally compatible with 4E.

Quote from: Benoist;480523When did liking Monte Cook's stuff become the opposite of liking 4e? Is that what you're implying? That sounds really weird, to me.

I'm saying that it's possible to separate my own vision for what a game should be, and what a game is, and judge the game on its own merits apart from that.

I don't like 4e's overall "thing", but I think the design is solid.

I may like the fluff and "feel" that Monte promises in his work, but I do not like the implementation.

As for the great designer part, well, to me, you just got to list:

D&D 3rd edition
Complete Book of Eldritch Might
Arcana Unearthed
Ptolus
Call of Cthulhu d20

I'm sure anybody can name some stinkers (Book of Vile Darkness for some, though I liked it, Return to ToEE, though I do like it as a campaign seed myself, McWoD, which I like again, ...), some others that are not for everyone maybe (Ghostwalk, Book of Experimental Might, which are both awesome in my book), but right here, you gotta admit, that's one list most designers would - and do - envy right here.

Quote from: Benoist;480520That doesn't mean what he does will be liked by everyone, nor should it be, really.

In fact I suspect the anticipation will work against him. A lot of people like Monte Cook for a range of reasons and probably mistakenly believe his vision of 5E automatically aligns with their own. So I can see how when it comes up there may be a wave of dissapointment from such folk. Personally I am eager to see what role he will play in the R&D team and what he will come up with. At the very least, his name being attached to it means I will check it out.