I almost hate to knock Name This Blog, Win A Prize off the top of the page, but I will. Keep in mind you’ve got a couple of weeks to continue to submit names for this blog still.
At any rate, this discussion is better late than never.
The news you’ve probably heard already is that Monte Cook, one of the 3 lead designers of Dungeons and Dragons 3.5, has joined the Pathfinder RPG team.
I’ve got my opinion on what this means. I’m curious, though, to know what you think first? Let me know in the comments, and I’ll join the fracas after a bit.
{ 13 comments… read them below or add one }
In general, I think it is a positive thing that Monte Cook has a more active voice in Pathfinder RPG’s shaping than some random forum-goers. Cook obviously misses developing for RPGs on some level, and I can’t blame him.
I have my worries about it, but they are minimal since he is only a consultant and not a developer. Cook’s work seems to be more complicated that others. I enjoy complexity in games, but Pathfinder RPG has made changes that are a lot more congruent with 3.X when you look at the changes in the Book of Experimental Might (2). It would be a mistake for Pathfinder to go in the direction Cook would steer it if he had more control, but it is a boon for the Pathfinder team to have Cook on-board for guidance.
Monte Cook is a talented and thoughtful developer; any d20 project would benefit from his wisdom and experience. Pathfinder RPG would have been successful without him, though.
Good for Pathfinder, even just as a publicity move. However, I feel like it won’t make a big difference in the final product. I’m also unsure that it expands the base for the product very much. I think it might add an air of legitimacy to those who liked the idea of Pathfinder, but I also feel as though many of those people will just stick with 3.5 (or Arcana Evolved.)
Dave T. Games last blog post..So what IS D&D anyway?
I think it is a good thing, Monte has always been good with systems and variants of systems. If nothing else he will help them see how things can be tweaked to better balance things out.
Even if he has limited input the flavor of the system should continue to be solid or improve as they work with him.
During an interview with Erik Mona by Fear the Boot he mentions that there are a few WotC heavyweight freelancers that are working on stuff for them. Monte joining up just adds more good things to the mix.
Apis
As Dave says above, it’s generated a significant amount of publicity, and all publicity is good publicity. On a more crunch level, I can’t really say as I don’t know how much weight a “rules consultant” carries in RPG design, but I can’t see it being a bad thing.
Philip Kendalls last blog post..D&D 4e treasure
See, this is why I like having Dave The Game visit my blog…
He pretty much said what I was thinking.
I’ll add this to the mix: how many D&D players, truly, are “fans” of Monte Cook (or any other game developer?) There are some, to be sure. But if you press me, I’m going to tell you that I like Jim Wyatt and Mike Mearls at least as much as I like Monte, or probably more in the case of Jim.
Pathfinder is interesting to me. It’s coming out as a way for 3E folks to keep from becoming OD&D players without having to go to 4E.
The DMs last blog post..Dungeons and Dragons Sunday Link Smashup for May 17, 2008
With names like Ed Greenwood, R.A. Salvatore, Keith Baker, and Greg Vaughn also working on different aspects of the project I find it hard to believe its going to be less than gold.
It will be interesting to see how it all comes out in the wash.
Apis
Looks like Elaine Cunningham will be writing a 6 part series based in the Pathfinder setting.
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1031752
And Shemmy of Planescape fame also on board =)
The list keeps getting bigger.
Apis
I’m an unashamed fan of Monte’s work (and he’s a nice guy, which helps). He has an unrivalled grasp of how the mechanics of the game actually work, and the things that should happen in a game world because of that. His teleport tracing spells, from the Eldritch Might books, are a prime example of this.
I don’t think he’ll be essential to Paizo’s efforts, but he certainly will be a lot of help. And his involvement has changed my level of interest from “enh, whatever” to “I’ll probably buy some of that”.
Drew Shiels last blog post..Thoughts On Crafting In WoW and WAR
Add one more for the Monte Cook fanboys. I think his name on Pathfinder adds even more credibility and with the addition of Greenwood and Cunningham doing free lance work it seems that PFRPG and setting is going to be well supported.
I imagine his role as “rules consultant” will go a long way ,but doubt it will make a lot of changes to the core PFRPG( as per Patrick’s comment) ,but I will politely disagree in regards to Book of Exp Might I and II…I think they are awesome and there mechanical changes would add a lot to the core book of Pathfinder.
Of course, just read the first line of my post to see why I think this.
Oh yeah, and DM:
Cooks pwns both Wyatt and Mearls
For the record, boys, I don’t dislike Monte Cook’s work. I’m a big advocate of 3E, and he was instrumental in the old version of D&D. I also enjoy most of Monte’s modules.
I do think that Cook’s solo stuff has lacked the kind of give-and-take that is integral to balanced game design. Don’t believe me? One word: Magister.
Hell, Gygax’s solo work (including OD&D) lacked that same balance, so Monte’s in good company.
As to the other contributors being involved in Pathfinder: that’s awesome. Keep in mind that those folks aren’t leaving WotC, and that those great minds are also at work in D&D. Ed, Bob, Keith and Elaine all have hands in upcoming WotC products. If their involvement means gold… 4E will be gold, too.
Now, specifically as to Ed’s involvement… Anyone who’s spent any time with him knows that he doesn’t give a damn about rules. He’s there for the flavor.
Pathfinder is a great alternative for folks who don’t like 4E. I’m disheartened by folks that want Pathfinder to put D&D out of business without even having seen the damned product. I think that’s just plain silly.
The better Pathfinder (or Vampire or GURPS or whatever) becomes, the better D&D will become in the long run – competition in the marketplace makes for better products all around.
The DMs last blog post..The Night Before DnD-Mas
Now it isn’ fair to be judging Monte’s mechanics ability on the Magister seeing as how we have never played one in the setting it was intended.
Putting a Magister into a standard 3.5 game with Wiz/Sorc IS unbalanced, the Magister is a better caster hands down. Not having played the Arcana Evolved setting, we can not judge how the Magister is balanced against the characters he was meant to be played with.
Monte as a consultant is good for Pathfinder, even though his role is limited. I wouldn’t necessarily consider myself a fanboy, but his work definitely strikes a chord with me. Especially the magister.
/off topic
I have always disagreed that the magister is not balanced. The only way it becomes unbalanced is if one is allowed to use feats/prcs from outside Arcana Evolved. In general the magister does LESS damage than a wizard at most levels. Also it does LESS healing than a cleric at nearly all levels except 17+.
What the magister has in spades is versatility, which I admit could be argued as the one thing that makes it unbalanced. However, I argue that the magister is what the wizard should have been. And that the wizard is poorly designed, having legacy bits that 3rd ed playtesters/designers could not let go of.
Those who know me will likely roll thier eyes knowing I think wizards should rule all, but that’s ok with me.