Monte Cook leaving 5E

John Magnum · Post by **John Magnum** » Sat Apr 28, 2012 6:43 pm

Sorry. I wanted to quickly point out a really blatant factual inaccuracy, and got carried away. My bad.

Taishan · Post by **Taishan** » Sat Apr 28, 2012 6:58 pm

John Magnum wrote:Sorry. I wanted to quickly point out a really blatant factual inaccuracy, and got carried away. My bad.

I was right there with you and then decided that even participating in rebutting Shadzar runs the risk of getting his stupid all over me. Best to keep eye contact and back away slowly.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Sat Apr 28, 2012 7:15 pm

Koumei wrote:The MtG guys being told "Look, you know what you're doing unlike those other fucks, you know how to make stuff that sells, make a new RPG based on MtG" could be interesting. As long as they understand an RPG can't work exactly like a CCG. It does kind of push towards a 4E-style "Exception-based design" wankfest as well as "Your power only does exactly what it states on the card, exactly that, fire spells don't light straw on fire or make light" stuff, but it needn't necessarily do it.

If I had my druthers -- that is, if I was a Hasbro exec -- I'd find like 2 or 3 good 'ideas guys' for D&D. They needn't have worked on any previous edition of D&D or even TTRPGs; if I could get them working regular hours I'd trust Brian Clevinger or Rich Burlew over most of the WotC/TSR chucklefucks. Much more. Then I would offer paid overtime to proven middle-tier MtG staffers to help them with the D&D project when they're not working on my moneymaker.

Not that I know a damn thing about MtG. I've played, like, a couple of games like a decade and a half ago. I've mostly been playing the (inferior in my opinion) YGO over the years because their games are a lot more accessible to handhelds and consoles. But the fact that MtG:

[*] Is still going strong after all of these years, unlike practically every other CCG except Pokemon and YGO.
[*] Is able to maintain that profitability and strength despite not getting a regular shot in the arm like Pokemon or YGO indicates to me that they at least have some grasp of basic mechanics, ability interactions, and plain old arithmetic and probability.

Tells me that they at least have some staffers on the ball. If Hasbro announced that Mearls has failed them for the last time and that D&D would be permanently merged the MtG and D&D division (with a massive round of D&D layoffs that made it clear that D&D was the permanent bitch of MtG) I would be thrilled as hell. If they did it before 5E got released it'd be even more awesome.

Korwin · Post by **Korwin** » Sat Apr 28, 2012 7:54 pm

John Magnum wrote:and talking about the things you DO know?

That was a good one!

Previn · Post by **Previn** » Sat Apr 28, 2012 7:59 pm

Avoraciopoctules wrote:With regards to the thread title:

image snipped

1,600+ posts of people raving like lunatics without understanding that a) Cook wasn't the only D&D designer, and b) didn't work on the 3.5 revision, both of which mean that everything they are hating him for, could have been fixed by other people.... twice and those people didn't do it.

hogarth · Post by **hogarth** » Sat Apr 28, 2012 9:30 pm

Lago PARANOIA wrote: If I had my druthers -- that is, if I was a Hasbro exec -- I'd find like 2 or 3 good 'ideas guys' for D&D. They needn't have worked on any previous edition of D&D or even TTRPGs; if I could get them working regular hours I'd trust Brian Clevinger or Rich Burlew over most of the WotC/TSR chucklefucks. Much more. Then I would offer paid overtime to proven middle-tier MtG staffers to help them with the D&D project when they're not working on my moneymaker.

Not that I know a damn thing about MtG. I've played, like, a couple of games like a decade and a half ago. I've mostly been playing the (inferior in my opinion) YGO over the years because their games are a lot more accessible to handhelds and consoles. But the fact that MtG:

[*] Is still going strong after all of these years, unlike practically every other CCG except Pokemon and YGO.
[*] Is able to maintain that profitability and strength despite not getting a regular shot in the arm like Pokemon or YGO indicates to me that they at least have some grasp of basic mechanics, ability interactions, and plain old arithmetic and probability.

Tells me that they at least have some staffers on the ball.

It tells me that, for most customers, killing orcs and dragons and fairies and shit in a video game scratches the same itch as playing D&D whereas collecting cards in a video game doesn't scratch the same itch as collecting actual cards in Magic: The Gathering.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Sat Apr 28, 2012 9:45 pm

It's really hard to design a game that's still going to be loved a few years out. It's even harder to design such games when they're made with the intent purpose of being skill or math-hammered continually by the playerbase. The fact that Magic: The Gathering can still keep going strong as it does after all of these years without having a dedicated or incidental advertising engine just may hint that the design team knows how to design a game in which players are encouraged to mathhammer the hell out of it without feeling that the endeavor is pointless, deterministic, or unfair.

The applicability of such a skillset to a game like D&D should be obvious.

If nothing else, people who make CCGs are much more on the hook for making sure that the base game of the math works and that new additions to the game still makes it work. I mean, people (rightfully, in my opinion) bitch and moan about how lopsided the game balance in Smash Bros. or Marvel vs. X are, but no one actually expects Capcom or Nintendo to be able to implement relevant fixes. And unlike TTRPGs, people actually expect CCG-makers to actually fix things and will rip the balls off of a designer who fucks with the game too hard. You'd have to figure that a design team, or at least its culture, that lasts this long without the playerbase going 'fuck it' might know a thing or to about content creation.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Sat Apr 28, 2012 9:56 pm

John Magnum wrote:And if you're so ignorant, why the fuck would you post about it instead of just shutting up and talking about the things you DO know?

Because if shadzar only spoke of things he understood... we'd have some peace and quiet.

Dominicius · Post by **Dominicius** » Sat Apr 28, 2012 10:24 pm

Avoraciopoctules wrote:With regards to the thread title:

That thread is a clusterfuck of 4rries and 2etards.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Sat Apr 28, 2012 10:44 pm

To be absolutely fair, Toughness was one of the biggest fucking fail feats of 3.0E D&D. I mean, there were worse feats to be had even in the basic book (like Spell Focus: Divination or Craft Rod), but the lameness/obviousness ratio for that one was pretty damn high.

That said, Monte Cook did directly give us, among other things, Prestige Classes. The only innovation that 4E D&D came up with that A. The basic idea worked well within the game and B. It's something I'd use for other games are Theme and they still didn't work right until Schwalb got ahold of them.

wotmaniac · Post by **wotmaniac** » Sat Apr 28, 2012 11:06 pm

Lago PARANOIA wrote:It's really hard to design a game that's still going to be loved a few years out. It's even harder to design such games when they're made with the intent purpose of being skill or math-hammered continually by the playerbase. The fact that Magic: The Gathering can still keep going strong as it does after all of these years without having a dedicated or incidental advertising engine just may hint that the design team knows how to design a game in which players are encouraged to mathhammer the hell out of it without feeling that the endeavor is pointless, deterministic, or unfair.

Not sure how relevant this is to your point, but to be fair .... as I understand things (disclaimer: my experience with M:tG is about on par with yours), these guys are continuously adding to the list of cards that are "banned" from tournament play. Cards that the makers had to go back and say "oops -- we didn't realize the way those cards interacted with other cards in the game". That is hard-earned cash you spend on the game that WotC then turns around and tells you is literal trash.
just sayin'

CapnTthePirateG · Post by **CapnTthePirateG** » Sat Apr 28, 2012 11:10 pm

Pretty much. Although it's not really that large of a percentage of cards.

The REAL kicker is format rotation, i.e all your old cards can't be played in standard, go buy new ones. And people do. I don't get it.

ishy · Post by **ishy** » Sat Apr 28, 2012 11:14 pm

How many people actually play with those rules?

And what is the player rotation?

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Sat Apr 28, 2012 11:16 pm

wotmaniac wrote:Not sure how relevant this is to your point, but to be fair .... as I understand things (disclaimer: my experience with M:tG is about on par with yours), these guys are continuously adding to the list of cards that are "banned" from tournament play.

If it's anything like the YGO list, though, the ratio of 'banned' or 'restricted' cards to 'legal' cards is very low. Like 1:200. That's really, really good. Especially for a game so thoroughly boiled down to a mathhammer and meant to be played as competitively as possible.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Sat Apr 28, 2012 11:27 pm

Yes, I'm aware that my facile analysis misses a lot of the aspects of the CCG, like the ratio of underpowered/useless cards to cards that are even marginally worth something in the current metagame is like 30:1, which is unacceptable for a TTRPG. Big deal.

My point is that if Hasbro or anyone for that matter are going to start a TTRPG design team whose job it is to make a balanced and tactically interesting game, the people who've ran MtG over the years should be at the top of the list. I'd trust them more than the game designers for pretty much any video or traditional game.

Red_Rob · Post by **Red_Rob** » Sat Apr 28, 2012 11:41 pm

I'm sure it helps that Richard Garfield has a PhD in Combinatorial Mathematics. But regardless of that, the amount of analysis and testing that the Magic guys do on their game is pretty amazing. If you read Mark Rosewater's regular column on the website he often talks about how they generate psychographic profiles of players, procedurally plan out their sets using a proven skeleton, and how the way they design and build sets has evolved over the years.

MtG is leagues ahead of D&D when it comes to analysing how their game works for one reason: tournaments. Whilst coming up with a broken Feat combo in D&D may earn you bragging rights or a thread on your favourite message board, coming up with something gamebreaking in MtG gets you real Ca$h Money. So there's a real incentive for people to abuse the system for fun and profit, and boy do they go for it.

Now, Wizards is so good at hammering out the math because they long ago started hiring the people who were best at breaking the game from off the Pro Tour to work in R&D. Seriously, the Development Team staff list reads like a Magic Hall of Fame, and these are all people that are used to testing the game to destruction.

Would this work for D&D? Without the product bringing in the big bucks and the accompanying tournament structure I'm dubious, however it's possible it could ride on Magic's coat tails and employ some of the same staff.

CapnTthePirateG · Post by **CapnTthePirateG** » Sun Apr 29, 2012 12:00 am

....Fuck. And the design process for D&D is "throw out some shit that looks cool."

God I hate the D&D department right now.

Antariuk · Post by **Antariuk** » Sun Apr 29, 2012 12:23 am

Red_Rob wrote:Now, Wizards is so good at hammering out the math because they long ago started hiring the people who were best at breaking the game from off the Pro Tour to work in R&D. Seriously, the Development Team staff list reads like a Magic Hall of Fame, and these are all people that are used to testing the game to destruction.

Would this work for D&D? Without the product bringing in the big bucks and the accompanying tournament structure I'm dubious, however it's possible it could ride on Magic's coat tails and employ some of the same staff.

I half expected this to happen to D&D when 4E was new, but... yeah. I didn't really follow 4E after like PHB2 was released, so I have no idea what the final game looks like in terms of power and mechanics, but it certainly would have been possible to go the Tournament route.

MfA · Post by **MfA** » Sun Apr 29, 2012 1:02 am

Red_Rob wrote:MtG is leagues ahead of D&D when it comes to analysing how their game works for one reason: tournaments.

Living XXX and Pathfinder society can substitute for this to an extent, showing up what becomes problematic in play ... the only problem is that D&D can't so smoothly be retroactively patched, 4e tried it and alienated a lot of players in the process.

How about if 5e had two sets of rules? The Living Rules, heavily patched and played in Living Faerun, and the core rules with errata only. Maybe condense the living rules occasionally and publish the changes at the time relative to core in an Unearthed Arcana book.

K · Post by K » Sun Apr 29, 2012 2:29 am

MfA wrote: How about if 5e had two sets of rules? The Living Rules, heavily patched and played in Living Faerun, and the core rules with errata only. Maybe condense the living rules occasionally and publish the changes at the time relative to core in an Unearthed Arcana book.

That's what 3e did. The Living stuff was patched to fuck to negate infinite money combos and any PrC that could threaten balance. There was approved feat and PrC lists and FAQs on certain rules and entire classes of spells were struck off the playable lists.

I mean, the term "Greyhawking" comes from the Living campaign where people would steal furniture to sell so they could break the WBL. The final patches eventually locked down everything from using the Perform skill for extra money to adding rules like getting raises without a party because the party were being stingy fucks.

Whatever · Post by **Whatever** » Sun Apr 29, 2012 2:58 am

My favorite hack for the living campaigns was going with weird multiclass builds for massive XP penalties. That way, you could accumulate crazy loot as you went, instead of quickly hitting the level cap, because you'd run 2-3x as many adventures per character level.

But I think they managed to ban that somehow.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Sun Apr 29, 2012 3:16 am

K wrote:to adding rules like getting raises without a party because the party were being stingy fucks.

Huh? I... am not even sure how to parse that. Could you explain it? Note: whatever it is, I'll fucking believe it, because it's the Living shit and they banned everything up to and including "working for a living".

Also banned: actually crafting "too many" items to "get around" having to retire your character at level X. Yes. You retire at level X, and you are free to take the stupid item creation feats, but if you do, you shouldn't use them too much, otherwise that's cheating.

Oh, and intentionally dying/getting level drained repeatedly so as to dodge retirement. When you have to ban "getting killed", something is fucking wrong.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Sun Apr 29, 2012 3:39 am

Because it's never a problem with the rules, it's the problem with how people play it!

Seriously, what kind of interactive entertainment genre does that, aside from TTRPGs?

Parthenon · Post by **Parthenon** » Sun Apr 29, 2012 4:15 am

PhoneLobster wrote:.

So... you're arguing that making the multiplayer online RTS game Starcraft into a multiplayer online TBS game would make it more engaging because single player TBS games are more engaging and sit down games like board games are engaging.

Oh, and that the often occurring problem referred to on this board as the Smash Bros. problem (or however its phrased) isn't a problem because you haven't experienced it and a real DM wouldn't allow it.

Oh, and all my arguments are invalid because I hate TBS games, even though I love TBS and prefer them to RTS games.

Yeah, you really have some good points there.

This conversation is retarded. I'm done.

Avoraciopoctules · Post by **Avoraciopoctules** » Sun Apr 29, 2012 4:52 am

Koumei wrote:
K wrote:to adding rules like getting raises without a party because the party were being stingy fucks.
Huh? I... am not even sure how to parse that. Could you explain it? Note: whatever it is, I'll fucking believe it, because it's the Living shit and they banned everything up to and including "working for a living".

"Raise Dead" spells, probably. It has a costly component, so a PC cleric might not want to waste precious gemeralds on bringing back other party members.