D&D General If you were made president of D&D, what would you do?

[LuisCarlos17f]

The update of Dark Sun poses serious challenges for game designers. For example the limit or ban of classes and PC species. This is against the strategy of WotC. DS needs the update of psionic powers, and there isn't an ultimate choice about this. How explain if we have to add or quite monks, warlocks, sorceres, lurks, ardents, psi-artificers, shardminds, psiforged, dromites, elans, maenads and xephs. What if I want to add new classes: martial adepts (crusader or warblade), incarnum soulmelders (totemist, incarnate and soulborn), shadowcasters or vestige binders.

WotC could publish a sourcebook more focused into crunch and monsters and a "censored" version of the lore. If it is unlocked in DM Guild they would "wish their hands" ( = they deny all responsability) about the actions of others. The metaplot would be frozen but new novels, comics or cinematographic productions to be released. These titles "for mature audiences" should allow freedom because DS is not a family-friendly franchise.

Other option could be by fault of the "reset" of the D&D multiverse when Vecna caused those troubles in Sigil, the Athasian tablelands are now a demiplane relocated in other place. Maybe the githyanki queen Thrinth explored and conquered the rest of the "Athaspace" and zones of the nearest wildspaces.

The reboot of DS is possible, but this means the old novels aren't canon any more then selling new books may be more difficult.

DS should be perfect for a survival videogame style "Conan Exiles".

 

[Lanefan]

For me, it would be dividing D&D into 2 supported rulesets: 5.x as just "D&D" and B/X as "Classic D&D". For 5.x, keep things going largely as they have because it's working quite well. For Classic D&D, reprint most of the old D&D material while taking the time to clean up the print quality. Maybe make a deal with someone like Goodman Games to handle that since they seem like they'd do it right.

Agreed - two rulesets is all that's needed: "Modern" and "Classic". Modern is for now a 5e variant; Classic is based on BX and 1e plus other ideas.

I'd love to know why WotC hasn't made more of an effort to keep the novel business going. I don't claim to know better than them on what will sell so maybe the market dried up, but if I was in charge I'd definitely want to look into whether this is viable in 2024 or not.

My gut hunch: they want more authorial control over content than authors are willing to accept.

 

[Lanefan]

Uh, the mountain of studies and research about the 90's setting bust. Now your turn, what has changed since then?

The "setting bust" was merely a symptom of the general underlying rot that was 1990s-era TSR.

I'd posit today's market could handle multiple settings far better, and today's WotC - for all their other faults - could handle producing such.

 

[Stormonu]

That is completely wrong, other than the part about pathfinder, which is irrelevant to this discussion. WotC gain ownership of all the settings that TSR owned when they bought the company and everything since.

For example, TSR purchased the forgotten realms from Ed. WotC now owns that setting. Eberron is fully owned by WotC, Keith can’t make supplements or sell stories about it without WotC’s permission. That is why he had to do that through the DM guild.

There may be some obscure setting where the original creator has control; however, all relevant settings are wholly owned by WotC.

Yep, Eberron was done as a contest, but its owned by WotC (as are all the other contestant entries that didn't get published, as I recall). I think the only one still owned by the creator is Mahasrapa or DragonFist (I can't remember which, if not both).

 

[LesserThan]

2) All books are Print on Demand from DM's Guild. Including Braille editions.

I didn't say DrivethruRPG.Com would have to sell them.

Roll20/DTRPG owns DM Guild, and they do ALL the POD for DM Guild. Just because you can type in a different DOTCOM for DM Guild, it is the same company. You literally DID say that.

You want to go "it was sarcasm" or "i didnt say that"?

How about stealing Larian's IP/copyright?

2) Shop BG3 engine to various studios to produce additional games in various settings.

As I said to begin with, you had a bunch of odd things, but I only wanted to adress the Braille issue, since it is one I have heard before, before screen readers, when PDF piracy was the only way to get a book for the blind. But you think ANYONE could steal Larians Destiny game engine?

It is not included in this hypothetical. You get what HASBRO owns. This is why I asked about outstanding licenses. But even without asking, you shoukd know you cant outright steal other companies IP.

 

[LesserThan]

There may be some obscure setting where the original creator has control; however, all relevant settings are wholly owned by WotC.

There was a Lankmarh setting in 1e or 2e, as well as a Conan "setting" that Hasbro does not fully own.

*Which could even propose problems to my ideas of "ALL settings on DM Guild". So I amend to the ones that Ritchie Rich got copyright for.

 

[Steampunkette]

Roll20/DTRPG owns DM Guild, and they do ALL the POD for DM Guild. Just because you can type in a different DOTCOM for DM Guild, it is the same company. You literally DID say that.

Oh. Then that is my mistake. I wasn't aware OneBookShelf also ran the DMs Guild. I thought it was a WotC Property run through their auspices, rather than a separate organization.

You want to go "it was sarcasm" or "i didnt say that"?

Saying I'd be impressed if there were Braille PDFs that worked was clearly sarcasm. You literally cut those two words out of a sentence commenting on how implausible it is in order to write out an incredibly patronizing post about the physical impossibility of a Braille PDF.

So while I'll acknowledge my mistake with OneBookShelf, you can get off your imaginary high horse over the Braille PDF sarcastic remark.

And you know what? OneBookShelf doesn't do it's own printing. They send the manuscript out to a printer that gets it done. So even as President of WotC if there's Printers that do Braille I could work out a deal with them to license all PoD materials for Braille WotC Products and pass the information on to the DMsGuild storefront (And OneBookShelf) to have them send PoD book orders to that Braille Printer.

After all, what does OneBookShelf care who prints the books so long as it doesn't cost -them- money? So long as the manuscript was laid out by WotC and approved by the printer, sending the order to the Braille Printer wouldn't be a significant inconvenience.

 

[LesserThan]

Oh. Then that is my mistake. I wasn't aware OneBookShelf also ran the DMs Guild. I thought it was a WotC Property run through their auspices, rather than a separate organization.

Yes, there was 3 at one time.
DriveThruRPG
RPGNow
DM Guild

That bookshelf company got permission from Hasbro to use official D&D IP with limitations and DM Guild became D&D freelancer central. WotC get like 30% of everything sold there so the author only get 50%, while DTRPG an author get 70% but no access to D&D IP.

DM Guild is literally, serious business. It can earn some authors 6 figures a year.

 

[beta-ray]

Yes. That is why I would be impressed. It was a sarcastic comment.

Yes. That is why I would be impressed. It was a sarcastic comment.

Shall I say it, again?

In the post you literally quoted I stated that under my leadership, Braille copies would be made available. I didn't say they'd be PDFs. I didn't say DrivethruRPG.Com would have to sell them. I said that WotC, under my control, would release Braille copies of the books.

The level of intellectual dishonesty displayed here is -truly- staggering. It's not like the context wasn't -blatantly- there. You took two words out of a -sentence- to try and quote mine it and present me as a fool for some unfathomable reason.

That's truly terrible.

To be honest, I had no idea you were being sarcastic. So you can call me dishonest, but I just did not get that.

 

[Steampunkette]

To be honest, I had no idea you were being sarcastic. So you can call me dishonest, but I just did not get that.

Sarcastic, ironic, sardonic, whatever preferred description of that specific brand of humor there is. It was never meant to be a sincere statement about Braille PDFs existing or being made.

"Mostly I'd be impressed if someone did (essentially impossible thing goes here)" is the gist.