Shemeska
Adventurer
I would play the hell out of a module based on that. Just saying.
D&D 5E D&D Next not planning to compete against Pathfinder, Splatbook Hints
I would play the hell out of a module based on that. Just saying.
Halivar
First Post
That module would be about 20% cooler than anything WotC has published thus far.
More the former, I think. RPGs themselves are small potatoes compared to the things Hasbro usually concerns itself with. I don't think Hasbro cares, so long as the D&D brand doesn't start costing it serious cash.
WotC, of course, has seen what happens when you have a property that makes it onto Hasbro's radar. I don't doubt that they'd like to have that happen again. But, realizing that the RPG itself is a niche thing, they would have to look to other expressions of the IP in order to reach that target.
delericho
Legend
Yep.
There is, however, one big risk in being the little guy in the big company: every so often big companies run into trouble, and very often their response is to "focus on our core competencies". In practice, what that means is that the big brands survive and the small ones are squashed. (And, actually, we've already seen this almost happen to D&D once, just a few years ago.)
Now, for the moment that doesn't seem to be a risk - WotC as a whole has been bundled up as a single 'brand' in Hasbro (where in 2008 Magic and D&D were considered separately), and Magic is in a boom. But that boom will end, and the decision to bundle them could well be reversed.
Bottom line: D&D is pretty safe at the moment, but I don't think it will ever be really safe at Hasbro. (And nor do I think there's any realistic chance of them letting it go. Though they might license out the RPG part of it.)
There is, however, one big risk in being the little guy in the big company: every so often big companies run into trouble, and very often their response is to "focus on our core competencies". In practice, what that means is that the big brands survive and the small ones are squashed. (And, actually, we've already seen this almost happen to D&D once, just a few years ago.)
Now, for the moment that doesn't seem to be a risk - WotC as a whole has been bundled up as a single 'brand' in Hasbro (where in 2008 Magic and D&D were considered separately), and Magic is in a boom. But that boom will end, and the decision to bundle them could well be reversed.
Bottom line: D&D is pretty safe at the moment, but I don't think it will ever be really safe at Hasbro. (And nor do I think there's any realistic chance of them letting it go. Though they might license out the RPG part of it.)
DMZ2112
Chaotic Looseleaf
I hate you all so very much. Not you, Kettite, I realize you didn't fully understand what you were doing.
This is unequivocally the case.
...I don't even know where to start with this, so I'm not going to.
I do know about it, and those people have had a couple of decades of practice. You know what helps with writing game scripts? Writing game scripts.
Successful, yes. But good? That's why they slap the big Forgotten Realms banner on the cover. It's like a magic band-aid for spectacular embarrassment. Again, there is a clear correlation with time spent in field. Dragons of Autumn Twilight is some seriously terrible stuff. I was flabbergasted when I learned it /wasn't/ a transcript of a tabletop game. Dragons of the Twilight Mage? Now there's a fantasy novel.
...Man, I need a break.
Okay, look. I get what you're saying. But Magic: the Gathering and Monopoly are Hasbro's two biggest franchise brands. Do either of them exist /at all/ without the game at their core? Is there any point at all to a Transformers movie if kids can't go to Toys R Us and buy a plastic Optimus Prime?
Is this true? I don't read comics, because they are terrible. Still, that makes sense.
I don't think we're dealing with the same sort of thing here. Marvel is, fundamentally, in the business of selling episodic story and art, quality notwithstanding. Of /course/ they went into movies. They've been doing movies with variable success for half a century. The only difference now is that they've succeeded, and found that in the post-CG-revolution age, movies are a much better way to sell fantastic action and keep more people on the edge of their seats.
D&D, like Monopoly or Magic: the Gathering or Battleship or Transformers or even Hungry Hungry Hipps, is a toy/game product that is about encouraging people to tell their own stories. The movies and video games don't replace the need for the physical object, they are /marketing/ for the physical object.
Trust me, the D&D tabletop game isn't going anywhere. If it goes, it's because Wizards has mothballed the brand lock, stock, and barrel.
DMZ2112
Chaotic Looseleaf
[MENTION=31304]TarionzCousin[/MENTION] , don't you dare.
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
That's baloney DMZ2112, there are current NEW video game writers direct from RPG writing. I just mentioned Chris Pramas only recently returned from that job, and there are several others if producing a list would actually serve to convince you on this point. The two careers of RPG writer and Video Game RPG Writer have a lot in common, and people go back and forth between those two careers often, and they share similar skill sets and talents. If the plan is for WOTC RPG writers to also write the plots for apps and video games and similar stuff, the evidence from those industries supports their belief that such skills and talents translate well between those things.
Good is subjective (and yes I liked a lot of it), but successful is more objective. I don't really care if you thought it wasn't good, we have objective data showing success.
All of this is just your subjective opinion and frankly meaningless for this sort of debate. A lot of people like those things, and just one of them cancel out your opinion on that topic when we're asking "what helps D&D succeed" as opposed to "what helps D&D please DMZ2112".
No but Marvel movies never would have existed without the original comics either. That doesn't make the comics currently the focus of Marvel however. They already established D&D as a brand - people have a high level of recognition already for the brand and that was the important thing. Now, they can expand the brand to all sorts of things, and they don't need to focus as much on the RPG books, just like Marvel no longer needs to focus as much on the Comic books.
Yes. The movie made a metric crapload of money, and it wasn't because kids could currently buy a plastic toy. Indeed, it made a ton of money from people who had no intention of buying a plastic toy. The existence of the plastic toy in the distant past is what helped with that - and we already have the existence of D&D in the distant past for similar purposes.
I don't think we're dealing with the same sort of thing here. Marvel is, fundamentally, in the business of selling episodic story and art, quality notwithstanding.[/quote]
They're really not anymore, though that remains part of what they do. Their business is SO much larger than that now, particularly since joining Disney. Mostly, it's a licensing business. You can get anything with Spiderman, Captain America, Iron Man, Thor, etc.. on it now, and they make money on every single one of those things that sell. The movies are great for them, the TV show is nice, but reams of money come in from simply ordinary household products like socks, and straws, and sippy cups, and whatever you can imagine. I have a friend working over at Disney and just the money that will come in from Marvel characters appearing in educational video games sold to foreign nations would stagger your imagination.
That's not quite how it happened. After the bankruptcy is really when things took off. Before that, the entertainment line was mostly meh. I know, I owned stock way back then and used to research all their stuff (sometime by hand). Their entertainment line was more successful than D&Ds back then, but not by as much as you'd think. Back before the bankruptcy, comic books really did bring in the bulk of the money. They shifted their business focus away from comics and towards the overall brand after the bankruptcy recovery.
And that seems to be where D&D is now - shifting the focus from the books to the brand.
You mistake what I said for claiming the tabletop portion is going away. Much like comic books, it's not going away. It will still be often identified by books. But, the focus of the company seems to be shifting away from the books and towards the brand, similar to the focus of Marvel after the bankruptcy. Their marketing, I think, will be focused more on the brand than on the books. There will be some marketing for the books, just as Marvel still does some marketing for comic books. But, you're going to see a lot more marketing for the brand than before, if they're doing what I think they are doing.
Wicht
Hero
I like the original Dragonlance novels quite a bit and they have their moments. But well written they are not.
Which doesn't prove a lot - badly written novels can obviously make money and be entertaining.
DMZ2112
Chaotic Looseleaf
You know, I actually do not care? Hasbro is not in danger of becoming the next Marvel, but still, tabletop D&D could vanish tomorrow, and as long as it was supplanted by toys and games that were encouraging kids to engage their imaginations I would consider it a fair trade. D&D isn't about expensive books and funny dice.
ExploderWizard
Hero
That isn't ever going to happen thanks to the OGL. They could mothball the D&D name but the game would continue to live on. All the IP holder can do is decide to get some income from it or not.
Similar Threads
D&D General
D&D's Utter Dominance Is Good or Bad Because...
