D&D General Ben Riggs on how to make D&D a $1 billion brand

[Parmandur]

Considering most of their modules are years-long campaigns…

Yes, and that's part of the product development process, a couple hundred groups play through the things and write detailed reports.

 

[Parmandur]

I suspect WotCs problem is that they simply can't put the time into iterative, complete-campaign playtesting. You'd need to run a bunch of groups through the entire campaign (faithfully as written!), then get all the feedback, synthesise it and make changes accordingly, then run through the same process again, multiple times, and then once you've finally got to a point where you're satisfied, publish the result as is without any further edits for space, word count etc. I don't know if this is how it's done. You probably have some groups testing the balance of individual combat encounters with parties of different composition, you might have some groups going all the way through but offering progressive feedback as they go, etc etc. And of course you probably have different authors working on the post-playtesting fixes to different bits of the campaign, and they might not be the same authors who wrote the material in the first place, and this whole process continues all the way up to the day you send the files to the printer. There's lots of places for things o go wrong.

Also to be fair, I suspect that if most 3pp campaigns were played by as many groups as WotC adventures, or were subject to the same level of scrutiny, then the same complaints would be levelled at them a lot more often. Writing campaigns is haaaard.

Actually, they do: not that their system is foolproof or perfect, but they actually do that already.

Riggs might have a better point about a singular author for a campaign bit lack of playtesting isn't something going on.

 

[Sparky McDibben]

Guys, if you read the actual article, he tells you how that advice translates into a $1bn brand.

 

[Parmandur]

Guys, if you read the actual article, he tells you how that advice translates into a $1bn brand.

But...does it, really...?

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

I guess the strategy is D&D as a multimedia franchise, selling different types of products: books, videogames, comics, toys, cinematic productions, t-shirts, posters.

 

[Zardnaar]

Guys, if you read the actual article, he tells you how that advice translates into a $1bn brand.

We did read it it's why it's kinda funny. Big money is in film, movie, game.

1. Movie just flopped.
2. Haven't had a great game since 2E or good game since 3E.
3. TV show hasn't come out yet.

They also lack decent stories with wide cultural appeal. Mist D&D novels suck the well known ones have aged badly (Dragonlance) or open other cans of worms (Drizzt).

And they've neglected the novel lines for years so there's no modern great D&D novel to adapt.

 

[Lojaan]

This is pretty spot on.

Sadly wotc seems to be going the other way. They know that all the money comes from DMs but they are trying to monetize players, instead of trying to encourage players to become DMs.

 

[Blue Orange]

1. I've always wondered how much of a difference there is between the tastes of game reviewers and casual gamers. (Similar to the way a critical success can be a box office flop or vice versa.) I get the feeling there's this huge penumbra of people who play once a week but don't really comment about it on social media or get into arguments about it on the Internet.

2. I'm trying to think of a story that did have wide cultural appeal recently. Last one I can think of is Harry Potter, and even without Rowling's recent actions that was two decades ago. Are people just too fragmented? Part of the problem is I'm old so I'm not into what the kids are watching, though a lot of it seems to be anime from what I can tell, and Hasbro can't make that unless they move from Pawtucket to Tokyo.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I like a lot of his ideas. But I am also probably very out of touch with what would make D&D make billions.

I feel like it has also had a huge surge due to stranger things in the past five years. The biggest challenge I have when I get new D&D players who are non-gamers and are drawn to the game by its depiction in popular media is the game is hard to learn and making characters takes time (and its fairly easy as RPGs go). I've had more luck introducing players with simpler approaches like B/X (and here I think any number of versions work fine but Mentzer, Moldvay and the rules cyclopedia all feel a lot easier to win folks over than stuff like AD&D or 3E through 5E. But the problem is, I think with established fans, they are more deeply invested in the latter versions.

 

[Burnside]

I agree with a lot of what Riggs says there but there are a few points I pretty strongly disagree with.

"Campaigns should have one to three authors. Add more with only great caution…"
God, yes.

"You should pay your game designers like they are working on video games, and you should give writers royalties."
Yes. You're trying to build a billion-dollar business, and fundamentally the work of the designers is at the foundation of it.

"There should be a consistent format for campaigns that carries over from book to book."
Yes, and no. There needs to be room to innovate.

"Time for playtesting should be included in your production cycle. It should be measured in months."
Well, they claim it is? But sometimes it's hard to believe that some encounters and areas were even played once before publishing.

"Return to the boxed set! Create handouts, maps, character portraits, in-game journals, & clues to go with the game. (Also make PDFs of those goodies available.)"
I'd have said this was cost-prohibitive, but Paizo and Dungeon in a Box both pull it off really well, so it must be doable. Personally, though, while I love boxed sets, they are hard to store and are not well-suited to apartment living.

"What else can you do? Can you make a sort of Dungeon Mastering graduate school, with perhaps special products only available for purchase by graduates?"
I keep expecting them to do this, and I'm kinda dreading it. There will be a backlash if they do tbh.

"Can you run DM contests at gaming conventions? Winners get swag, trips to Renton, honor, glory, etc. Can you create some sort of Academy Awards for DMs? There’s an awards ceremony, with celebrity presenters."
They did the "Best DM in the World" contest, and although Andrew Biskyniski (sp?) who won it is great, the way they did it was unwatchable and almost completely wrong, focusing 90% on design, not DMing, and not allowing the audience to see any of the creative work. There is a way to do an entertaining competitive DM show, but it should mostly be about actual play sessions and needs to be shot in-person, not on Zoom or Twitch. In general, this show would need to be outsourced, because WotC's in-house produced streaming content continues to be mostly cringe at the moment.

His overarching point that WotC needs to super-serve DMs is spot on imo.