7 Years of D&D Stories? And a "Big Reveal" Coming?

When asked what he was working on, WotC's Chris Perkins revealed a couple of juicy tidbits. They're not much, but they're certainly tantalizing. Initially, he said that "Our marketing team has a big reveal in the works", and followed that up separately with "Right now I'm working on the next seven years of D&D stories". What all that might mean is anybody's guess, but it sounds like there are plans for D&D stretching into the foreseeable future! Thanks to Barantor for the scoop!

 

[Jester David]

Actually, they're generally planning about 7 years ahead on Magic, and that's been working out well for them.

It's a damn shame they can't clone Mark Rosewater and put him in charge of D&D as well.

Magic is a little easier. They don't have to worry about edition changes or rules bloat, since the content is on a cycle. They don't have to worry as much about people engaging with the story, since it's secondary and only lasts a few months. They don't have as much to worry about in terms of continuity.

 

[Morrus]

And that's why D&D is a poor fit for brand-type thinking. After all, who are the heroes of D&D? Your characters.

D&D is much more than just your campaign, though. It's hundreds of novels, some movies, dozens of computer games, an old cartoon series, even comics, to varying degrees. Drizzt is as much part of D&D as your character at home is.

 

[Reynard]

And that's why D&D is a poor fit for brand-type thinking. After all, who are the heroes of D&D? Your characters.

Exactly. I'd bet hard money that if you had a booth at GenCon that sold 2 t-shirts and one of them said, "I kicked Vecna's Ass" and the other said "Drizzt kicked Vecna's ass" you would sell ten times the number of the former. D&D is about you and your character, not some wannabe-Moorcock's Mary Sue draw.

 

[Dire Bare]

They've been doing the storylines since 2011 or 2012. But now they're planning twice that length of time in the future.
7 years ago 4th edition was just getting started. Had they planned storylines then like they're planning now we wouldn't have had the iconic war vs evil dragons to launch 5e.

While I expect that they can adjust and shift storylines somewhat, my main concern is that they're planning so far ahead without seeking feedback from the community or looking to the fans to see what type of APs are desired. It's slightly arrogant for two or three people to be planning the future of the game that far in advance. And annoying that it's pushing the fans out of the loop. Our opinion's don't matter because the decisions have all been made and no feedback was sought.

Arrogant? Okay.

While I don't think its the case, why couldn't WotC have planned out Tyranny of Dragons years ago? And maybe reworked it from a story arc designed for 4E to the new 5E? More likely, what if they had planned out storylines waaaaay in advance back in the 4E days? Why would that *prevent* them from creating a new story arc for the new edition? You talk as if the act of planning locks out being nimble and responsive, which it doesn't in the slightest.

And I don't WANT them to seek community feedback on storylines. Game design? Yes, and they have been doing an AMAZING job of that. But for stories, I want them to tell me a story that I didn't know I wanted to hear! When I read the Dragonlance Chronicles as a kid, it wasn't because I had been demanding a story about war and dragons, but once I started reading it, I sure as hell did want it!

If in four years (2019) a new King Arthur movie comes out and everyone is abuzz with thoughts of knights on horseback, crusades, Excalibur, and the like and WotC doesn't have a chivalric adventure in their planned list, then shuffling the order does nothing.
If, after five years of Realmshaking crossovers and heavily plotted storylines the fans really want a sandbox exploration adventure ala Isle of Dread, and one wasn't planned, then shuffling the order does nothing.

If Hollywood releases an awesome King Arthur movie, the last thing I want WotC to do is feel compelled to jump on the bandwagon and join the trend. Hollywood itself does this all the time and we usually get the one good movie up front and tons of tired imitations. I don't want that for my game.

But, if WotC had an Arthurian style story arc on the back burner, and decided to move it forward to capitalize on this movie's success, what's preventing them from doing this? Or if they got nothing Arthurian in the can, but decide the want to do it anyway . . . again, what exactly is preventing them from doing this?

"Hey, that new King Arthur movie is kicking it in the box office, do we have anything like that we can release to capitalize on this?"

"No, boss, sorry. We don't have any Arthurian stories to tell currently."

"Well, bump that swords-and-sandals thing back and make me an Arthurian D&D story stat!"

"Sorry boss, can't do it. We've already planned out our stories 7 years in advance, and this prevents us from creating new stories and changing our schedule. It's planned, can't be changed. Nothing to do about it. Sorry."

"Darn! Guess we are going to lose out on all that FREE MONEY!"

 

[Rygar]

Do you have a source for the complaining bit? Zendikar was received overwhelmingly positively. I'm sure someone somewhere probably complained about it, but their "Hidden Treasures" promotion was incredibly popular across the board.

I'll dig it up, it was on mtgsalvation (Though by no means limited to there), it ran the gamut of complaints about frequency of spiked cards, "Retailers are the ones that profit from this since they open all the packs!", to a few people unbelievably complaining about "Useless old $10 cards in the packs". It may take me a bit to dig up due to their forum move.

 

[Dire Bare]

Magic is a little easier. They don't have to worry about edition changes or rules bloat, since the content is on a cycle. They don't have to worry as much about people engaging with the story, since it's secondary and only lasts a few months. They don't have as much to worry about in terms of continuity.

Actually, Magic relies heavily on story, and always has. Sure, the card game is a different beast from the D&D rpg and requires different management, but they aren't all that different. And rules errata and bloat IS a problem with the game, although one I think they manage well. Each card has an "oracle" entry listing errata and/or updates to the rulings on the card, and if you are a tournament player, you need to be familiar with this with the cards you're using.

Magic has always relied on story, but the emphasis on story has increased over the years. More than once, a new Magic set has gone back and revisited older story arcs because they were so popular with the fans. In fact, it's happening again this fall as Magic returns to Zendikar (a plane with cthuloid monsters threatening it). This summer's release is ALL about telling backstories for some of Magic's most popular iconic characters, the planeswalkers.

Last year's "Theros" block had me buying more Magic cards than I have in years. Not because of the mechanics, although there were some cool new tricks to play, but because of the story. The story arc and world was heavily influenced by Greek myth and I, and many other fans, ATE IT UP! It was one of their better selling releases and got them to focus EVEN MORE on story after that.

There are Magic fans who play and love the game and don't care about story at all. It's all about new cards and new mechanics for them. But they are not the majority of fans purchasing the game, story is very important to the sustainability of Magic being around for almost 25 years now.

 

[Rygar]

And that's why D&D is a poor fit for brand-type thinking. After all, who are the heroes of D&D? Your characters.

Dragonlance. One of the most successful novel lines in Fantasy, spanning more than 100 novels and nearly 30 years, it's original modules dramatically affected the course of D&D, and it was all about pre-defined characters. Dragonlance quite literally sold to people who never played and never would play D&D, which is why it's always been an enigma to WOTC, because they never understood how to market a D&D product whose sales were driven by non-gaming factors, or to put it another way, by brand-type.

 

[Dire Bare]

I'll dig it up, it was on mtgsalvation (Though by no means limited to there), it ran the gamut of complaints about frequency of spiked cards, "Retailers are the ones that profit from this since they open all the packs!", to a few people unbelievably complaining about "Useless old $10 cards in the packs". It may take me a bit to dig up due to their forum move.

Do we really need you to work so hard to "prove" there were complaints about Zendikar's promotion? There is ALWAYS some negative chuckleheads complaining about Magic, D&D, or whatever game is under discussion. Which, was your point I think. No matter what WotC does, no matter how successful they are, no matter how cool their product releases are, there will ALWAYS be a group of fans complaining, with vitriol and hurt feelers to boot.

 

[Jester David]

Arrogant? Okay.

While I don't think its the case, why couldn't WotC have planned out Tyranny of Dragons years ago? And maybe reworked it from a story arc designed for 4E to the new 5E? More likely, what if they had planned out storylines waaaaay in advance back in the 4E days? Why would that *prevent* them from creating a new story arc for the new edition? You talk as if the act of planning locks out being nimble and responsive, which it doesn't in the slightest.

And I don't WANT them to seek community feedback on storylines. Game design? Yes, and they have been doing an AMAZING job of that. But for stories, I want them to tell me a story that I didn't know I wanted to hear! When I read the Dragonlance Chronicles as a kid, it wasn't because I had been demanding a story about war and dragons, but once I started reading it, I sure as hell did want it!

Funny thing, Dragonlance came about because there was some fan requests for adventures with more dragons. Dragons had been downplayed for much of the game. So they set out to make a series of modules that focused on dragons.

If Hollywood releases an awesome King Arthur movie, the last thing I want WotC to do is feel compelled to jump on the bandwagon and join the trend. Hollywood itself does this all the time and we usually get the one good movie up front and tons of tired imitations. I don't want that for my game.

But, if WotC had an Arthurian style story arc on the back burner, and decided to move it forward to capitalize on this movie's success, what's preventing them from doing this? Or if they got nothing Arthurian in the can, but decide the want to do it anyway . . . again, what exactly is preventing them from doing this?

"Hey, that new King Arthur movie is kicking it in the box office, do we have anything like that we can release to capitalize on this?"

"No, boss, sorry. We don't have any Arthurian stories to tell currently."

"Well, bump that swords-and-sandals thing back and make me an Arthurian D&D story stat!"

"Sorry boss, can't do it. We've already planned out our stories 7 years in advance, and this prevents us from creating new stories and changing our schedule. It's planned, can't be changed. Nothing to do about it. Sorry."

"Darn! Guess we are going to lose out on all that FREE MONEY!"

It's just an example. We don't know what's going to be in the cultural zeitgeist, in vogue, out of vogue, overplayed, underused, etc.

When planning storylines, you really need to look to Paizo to see what they're doing. They pioneered the AP format (excluding Dragonlance) and have not been static in advancing and refining the process. They have two people designing the APs, so it's purposely not a singular voice (plus, managing the workload). They listen to their fans as well, doing the Kingmaker AP when people asked for something more sandboxy, and doing pirates because the fans wanted that. Those ended up being two of their most successful APs. (The Paizo motto is "If you give the fans what they want, they will give you money for it.")

Now, I'm not saying that WotC shouldn't do their own stories or write what they want. But they do *need* to listen to their audience, and see what the audience wants to buy and play. That's key. A couple years to get a feel for writing storylines and establishing the process is fine, along with letting people get a feel for the game. But, after that, they really need to take stock of what there's a demand for at that moment, what can wait, and what people don't really like.

As an example, I'm hearing a lot of blowback against classic style adventures. Elemental Evil being the Return to the Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil, right after Tyranny being Scales of War II (to say nothing of Dragonlance Chronicles 2 and Red Hand of Doom 3). So if the summer AP is Revenge of the Giants Again and the 2016 AP is Tomb of Horrors 4 then people might get tired and stop buying.

 

[BryonD]

Exactly. I'd bet hard money that if you had a booth at GenCon that sold 2 t-shirts and one of them said, "I kicked Vecna's Ass" and the other said "Drizzt kicked Vecna's ass" you would sell ten times the number of the former. D&D is about you and your character, not some wannabe-Moorcock's Mary Sue draw.

Yeah, But the people that make the difference between a direct to video D&D movie and a "blockbuster" D&D movie are not at GenCon.

I still think that in the long run, you are right because as D&D slides, the brand value follows. So it is the D&D players that are the foundation of the value.

But don't forget that the big play audience is not people who will ever hear of GenCon.

(Also don't forget that WotC took their eye off their existing fan base on the assumption that new fans were a better option. That did not work out)