D&D 5E D&D Next: Let's discuss it's mass multimedia goal.

[I'm A Banana]

I would like to chime in a moment.

Businesses do not try and try again to obtain certain goals. I am a business owner and I can tell you that you want to minimize your mistakes, especially ones that you might have learned before. An author trying his hand at being a writer is not the same as a major corporation continuing to take that same risk over and over. The problem with a product like D&D being in the hands of a corporate giant is they would drop the brand in a heartbeat if it continues to fail and reach that expected, and sometimes unrealistic goal. Saying a company should keep trying until they go out of business is absurd.

D&D's not in much danger of going out of business from trying this stuff. In fact, it's possible that D&D's brand is of more value than D&D's TTRPG specifically (given the big "diaspora" that doesn't actively play but fondly regards Gygax's creation), and if so, it makes sense to try to diversify the brand -- if you've maxed out one revenue stream, it's time to explore others. Get the former players to buy a movie ticket or a novel.

Also, past failures are necessary for future success. Iteration -- improving on past processes to avoid previous mistakes -- is the way quality work is produced. It's only a problem if you repeat the same mistakes -- in D&D's case, the mistakes have pretty typically been mismanagement from the outset leading to low-quality product.

If they can stop that, they can get better.

 

[Mistwell]

My problem with using the DnD brand name in other media is that many times it's just the name. Making a Facebook Pinball game with Dungeons and Dragons attached isn't doing anything to promote the RPG. The brand needs to promote creating characters and stories in medieval fantasy world.

The brand isn't intended to serve the RPG directly. It's intended to make money, and making money serves the RPG.

I want my beholder socks. I don't care that my beholder socks will not second as a beholder miniature. I just think the socks would be cool.

 

[The Black Ranger]

D&D's not in much danger of going out of business from trying this stuff. In fact, it's possible that D&D's brand is of more value than D&D's TTRPG specifically (given the big "diaspora" that doesn't actively play but fondly regards Gygax's creation), and if so, it makes sense to try to diversify the brand -- if you've maxed out one revenue stream, it's time to explore others. Get the former players to buy a movie ticket or a novel.

Also, past failures are necessary for future success. Iteration -- improving on past processes to avoid previous mistakes -- is the way quality work is produced. It's only a problem if you repeat the same mistakes -- in D&D's case, the mistakes have pretty typically been mismanagement from the outset leading to low-quality product.

If they can stop that, they can get better.

"Hasbro" is in no trouble of going out of business, but that doesn't mean the D&D brand wouldn't disappear if it failed.

 

[Mistwell]

Yeah, I had a similar thought. All the entities in [MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION] 's list are people. People fail and get back on their feet. Companies fail and disintegrate.

That's bunk. My company has had dozens of failures, but we're overall quite successful. So has Marvel (I mentioned how they went bankrupt). So has Apple (would you like a list of spectacular failures they had?), so has Virgin (I listed those). I didn't just name individuals, it was their companies doing most of those things, and those companies all succeeded despite some huge failures. Hasbro itself has had lots of failures but overall they are a big success. Companies usually do not disintegrate because they have a failure - the good ones get stronger for it.

And we're not talking risking everything here - the risk for WOTC is that it's just one small part of their division in D&D, and MTG will still do great. The risk for Hasbro is WOTC is just one small part of their company and the rest will still do great. There is zero risk of Hasbro disintegrating from this. At worst the risk is to the D&D brand, and I think that risk is low as it's an easy brand to try again with. Indeed, even failure would gain good exposure for the brand to try it again.

 

[Mistwell]

"Hasbro" is in no trouble of going out of business, but that doesn't mean the D&D brand wouldn't disappear if it failed.

Why would it? Let's say they try to sell a bunch of D&D stuff and the sales are not as strong as they want. Why would they scrap everything instead of just cutting back on the parts that are not working? Hasbro has a lot of experience doing just that. They don't tend to kill their brands just because something they try with a brand doesn't work out. They just cut it back, and try again later in a new way. Particularly since the failure itself gets exposure that helps the remaining products in that line do well.

 

[Derren]

4e was the most video game friendly ruleset D&D has ever seen and they never made a 4e video game.

That is not correct. There were two 4E video games (on PC). First the Neverwinter MMO made by Cryptic which, while actually quite high value for a Cryptic game, was never poised to be anything more than a mediocre cash grab as thats how Cryptic operates. The second was a horribly buggy and simply bad action RPG which name escapes me at the moment and didn't do D&D any favor.

The problem is, no big studio has any interest in D&D. It doesn't add all that much value compared to the freedom they have with their own worlds.

About the topic in general, I do not think WotC/Hasbro will succeed. For that they approach this unknown territory for them too much like an accountant, picking the cheapest option without regard to quality.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

I'd love to see this "brand strategy" work as intended, but I don't expect it will. I love the 5E ruleset, and I fear for its longtime health if the team really depends on their power to make a multimedia experience out of the basic D&D experience. I believe that because the D&D brand is neither needed or wanted, in my opinion.

Why you don't need it? Because, as someone pointed earlier, if I release a fantasy movie with a nice cast, a good story and some stunning visuals, the public will want to see it. In the same vein, if I release a good fantasy video-game, people will play it if it's good enough, no need to place D&D on the box.

The fact is: you don't need the D&D brand to replicate the D&D "feel". World of Warcraft, Skyrim and even Magic: The Gathering have all used things that could be called part of the "D&D identity" to achieve great profit without paying anything for that. If I have a great idea that also happens to be very D&Dish, chances are that I can develop it, sell and profit without any help from the WotC guys.

That being the case, why would I want the D&D brand? It means sharing whatever I earn with Hasbro, when I have all the conditions necessary for my own exclusive profit!

So, who wants to use the D&D brand? To me, it's probably someone who doesn't have a good product from the start. "Look, I have this crap fantasy movie/video-game here, how about calling it a D&D movie/video-game and trying to profit from the brand?" It's part of the D&D experience, after all.

So, either WotC/Hasbro is creating the multimedia experience themselves and making sure that is a high-quality thing, or we'll probably see a new wave of bad D&D-related stuff. Accounting for the fact that they would need a lot of people and resources to oversee the multimedia D&D experience, I'm expecting the latter.

A new version of the cartoon, though, followed by a good movie and other multimedia stuff, could change my view on that. By using the natural appeal of those characters, you're avoiding the problem described above and making the brand itself very interesting again. While one can surely profit from generic warrior against generic dragon without giving Hasbro a share of the pie, there's even more money to be earned in Hank and Diana against Venger, and there you have something that you cannot use without bringing WotC along.

Cheers!

 

[I'm A Banana]

"Hasbro" is in no trouble of going out of business, but that doesn't mean the D&D brand wouldn't disappear if it failed.

D&D is not in danger of failing to that degree.

Look, right now, D&D is pursuing a strategy of releasing almost no new products, and mainly selling old stuff on the internet (selling old 4e via DDI or selling old other e's via dndclassics.com). That's how confident they are in the brand: that it will sell their old stuff, and that they'll make enough from selling old stuff that they don't need to sell much new stuff.

No other TTRPG could take that strategy. That's the value of a brand, right there: it can sell enough product from 1981 that Mike's got no worries of being able to pay his rent for June.

They've got room to breathe, to experiment. Which is good -- if you're desperate for sales, you don't have a lot of room to try new stuff, your margin for failure is low. But that limits your growth. D&D has a high margin for failure. It can try stuff. That can increase its growth.

 

[DMZ2112]

That's bunk. My company has had dozens of failures, but we're overall quite successful.

Is your company privately owned? Because as usual, that makes a big difference.

So has Marvel (I mentioned how they went bankrupt).

Marvel Entertainment Group went bankrupt and dissolved. They merged with Toy Biz and became Marvel Enterprises -- a new corporation.

So has Apple (would you like a list of spectacular failures they had?),

Apple is an interesting exception to the rule. They survived some tough times and fired quite a few CEOs in rapid succession. I would like to know more about why the company was never just sold off by the board.

so has Virgin (I listed those).

The Virgin Group is, somewhat unbelievably and in a complicated fashion, still privately owned by Sir Richard Branson.

Companies usually do not disintegrate because they have a failure - the good ones get stronger for it.

I just don't think that's really true for publicly traded firms. Most of them never get the chance.

And we're not talking risking everything here - the risk for WOTC is that it's just one small part of their division in D&D, and MTG will still do great. The risk for Hasbro is WOTC is just one small part of their company and the rest will still do great. There is zero risk of Hasbro disintegrating from this. At worst the risk is to the D&D brand, and I think that risk is low as it's an easy brand to try again with. Indeed, even failure would gain good exposure for the brand to try it again.

Hasbro will be fine, yes, but it would be absolutely reasonable for them to mothball the D&D business after a single (second?) failure. D&D has never been fiscally successful, and Hasbro can theoretically better use the money they would spend on keeping it afloat.

The Apple Lisa failed, yes. Apple is not still trying to sell Lisas.

 

[Umbran]

... I fear for its longtime health if the team really depends on their power to make a multimedia experience out of the basic D&D experience.

I don't think that's actually what they're aiming for. I don't expect they are going to actually try to package the tabletop game *(experience* in different forms. That doesnt' work. But they can take the themes, art, and tropes, and reuse them.

A D&D computer game isn't like the tabletop experience. But Baldur's Gate was a good game for its time! What the heck is wrong with that?

Consider it this way - is it so bad if the RPG becomes a loss leader? A thing to help maintain a core of folks who will help propel others to consume non-tabletop entertainments?