Does D&D Next need to be a success for D&D to be a success?

[TwoSix]

I certainly agree a "younger market" product has considerable merit. That's not what I'm positing, however. I'm positing a mass marketing push with the "new edition" 100% focused on the 9 - 12 demographic (or say 11 - 15 - but very much a 'youth' demographic) leaving us old fogeys to play our old editions.

My counter-posit would be a simultaneous release of a youth focused core with one or two module books focused on the tastes of the older audience. Or, instead of a PHB, DMG, MM, three books focused on different playstyles but with compatible core rules, but different classes and different monsters in each.

 

[billd91]

Also, Ator the Fighting Eagle obscure? I could see some people saying that... but a Dungeons and Dragons player who claims to have lived through the time period?!?

I do wonder what you were paying attention to in the 80's...

Now, Ator the Invincible II (aka Blademaster, aka The Cave Dwellers), I could understand not seeing (though MST3K should have remedied that) but I would think watching the 1st Ator was as much a part of the D&D experience in the 80's as knowing all the lines to The Holy Grail.

I've been playing since 1981, never heard of Ator, the Fighting Eagle. So, yes, I'd say it's still pretty obscure. But then, maybe I was too busy watching Hawk, The Slayer to pay Ator any notice.

 

[billd91]

If you have never seen John Boorman's Excalibur you really should - it is a masterpiece of Arthurian romance which (in my view) reframes the archaism in a way suitable for a modern audience, and also has an excellent Wagnerian soudtrack. At least for me, it is the definitive presentation of the knightly ethos in a way that makes it accessible for playing paladins and the like in D&D.

No you shouldn't see Excalibur. The movie was terrible. It starts with a decent build up, but once Arthur has everyone's allegiance, the movie swiftly plummets.

 

[TwoSix]

No you shouldn't see Excalibur. The movie was terrible. It starts with a decent build up, but once Arthur has everyone's allegiance, the movie swiftly plummets.

I would love to put together some data about people's preference for movies and how well it correlates with their edition and playstyle preferences.

 

[Salamandyr]

I figure Hasbro will continue to producesomething called Dungeons & Dragons whether or not it makes money for the same reason Marvel & DC continue to print comic books even though those lose money. They are good license curators for things that make money in other mediums.

But now I'm going to walk it back...maybe not. Spider-Man is Spider-Man, and if you want to use him, or a similarly spider themed superhero in your movie, you have to pay Marvel some money to do so. But by contrast, all the really cool things about D&D? Dragons, sword fights, magic spells, dungeons, battles, fantasy creatures...D&D doesn't own those things. I can make a movie where two plucky heroes team up with an elf and a dwarf that they meet in a tavern, trek through the haunted woods, and delve in to the Dungeon of Despair to fight a Necromancer and a dragon, and not pay Hasbro/WOTC one thin dime.

That's the problem they have now. There is a market for fantasy, but nobody really cares whether it's branded "D&D fantasy". Not even tabletop roleplayers, looking at the number of people happy to play a version of D&D called "Pathfinder".

 

[FickleGM]

I walked into a crowded room and said, "I play Pathfinder." I spent the next few minutes describing what it is that I play, including the use of the phrase - it's like Dungeons & Dragons.

Now replace the word Pathfinder with GURPS, Savage Worlds, Vampire: The Masquerade, Fate, Hackmaster, etc. and the rest remains the same.

I walked into a crowded room and said, "I play Dungeons & Dragons." I had to explain nothing.

Dungeons & Dragons is a success, regardless of 5e's response or of whether or not it was more popular in the last 15 years or the prior 15 years.

 

[billd91]

It occurred to me that D&D Next might not need to be a huge success in the minds of Hasbro for D&D to be a success. With the IP supporting other products besides the RPG could it be that Next, even if it's not a success, could be part of D&D's success?

WotC has shown that they can be very successful with D&D board games* and their new interest in having more control over the movie rights might lead to a great movie as well and sales of novels and the retro products and pdfs**. Would that be enough for fans of D&D? Are the other products based on D&D enough of a success or possible success for D&D as a whole to be a success even if Next isn't?

The brand has been successful and will be regarded as successful for some time. All you have to do is see how it sometimes gets referred to in mainstream television and movies to reach that conclusion. But will parts of the D&D brand fail if D&D Next tanks? I think any video games that might be spawned off the D&D system will probably keep enough independence that they'll be successful (or not) on their own. That's probably where D&D will see its next area of seriously profitable success (if any is coming). Movies? I think that well has already been poisoned and will remain so for a few more years.

The important question for me will be in table-top RPGs. If D&D Next tanks or even significantly under-performs and develops a sales trajectory that looks bad, I think that may be it for D&D as a table-top RPG for the foreseeable future. Fortunately, the OGL ultimately makes it impossible for a very D&D-like game to be kept off the market so D&D fans will always have something close to play even if it can't actually bear the D&D trademark. However, as a result of not bearing the trademark, I don't think any RPG will really ever achieve the same degree of cultural presence as D&D achieved.

 

[Wicht]

How much Keefe is in this movie?

Miles O'Keefe

 

[Nagol]

I walked into a crowded room and said, "I play Pathfinder." I spent the next few minutes describing what it is that I play, including the use of the phrase - it's like Dungeons & Dragons.

Now replace the word Pathfinder with GURPS, Savage Worlds, Vampire: The Masquerade, Fate, Hackmaster, etc. and the rest remains the same.

I walked into a crowded room and said, "I play Dungeons & Dragons." I had to explain nothing.

Dungeons & Dragons is a success, regardless of 5e's response or of whether or not it was more popular in the last 15 years or the prior 15 years.

Heck, I told some non-gamers I play D&D and then spent 20 minutes explaining we didn't dress in period costume -- that's SCA or LARP, we didn't engage in real world rituals that's myth, we did have significant others, held jobs, and even managed to bathe occasionally.

Explaining I was running a game of Mutants and Masterminds was much simpler -- I had no preconceived notions to brush away.

 

[Mistwell]

What is "D&D's success" if you're not talking about its latest edition?

What is Marvel, if you're not talking about the latest comics?

The intellectual property has far wider profit potential than simply the game. Much like the Marvel characters have far wider profit potential (and reality now) than simply the comics.

The comics, in the grand scheme of things, became almost an after-thought. Incubators for wider intellectual property empire they've built. They have not seen sales anything close to the peak from the 1980s, and that's fine.