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!

 

[Dire Bare]

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.

Dragonlance did indeed change the course of D&D publishing. It did more than that, it reinvigorated the "shared world" novel line "genre" in bookstores. It's been a LONG time, but from what I remember, before Dragonlance the "shared world" shelves in bookstores were Star Trek novels and more Star Trek novels. After Dragonlance, every fantasy and sci-fi movie, TV, and game property needed tie-in novels and the "shared world" shelves started getting bigger than the shelves offering standalone novels.

I don't think Dragonlance was "always" an enigma to TSR (and later WotC), they were very successful with it. But Dragonlance suffered from the same problems the larger game did, it was mismanaged (or undermanaged) by TSR, and by the time WotC got it, it was a "damaged" property. And despite being a part of Hasbro, WotC isn't bestowed with huge resources to properly manage a large property. And this is a problem WotC is currently trying to fix so that D&D becomes just as large and important a franchise as Star Wars, Marvel, DC, and others.

 

[Jester David]

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.

But the story is optional. Yeah, it's nice if it's good and a benefit to the game if the story and lore are there. But if the story is "meh" you can still play and it will have zero affect on the quality of the cards and your matches. Remove the story and it's still a card game and play is unchanged.

D&D is different as you have to engage in the story to really be playing the game. And if the story is poor, it's harder to just ignore. Remove the story, and D&D is just dungeon delving or a board game.

In Magic, the story is supplemental to the game. In D&D, the story IS the game.

(It's worth noting though, in your Magic example the game is returning to an existing world in response to fan feedback. Which means Magic has to be changing it's 7 year plan, as Zendikar was not released 7 years ago, and they're not waiting to 2017-18 to go back.)

 

[Umbran]

D&D is different as you have to engage in the story to really be playing the game.

With respect, no, you don't. There's always been a significant amount of "Kick in the door, kill things, and steal their stuff" RPG playing that goes on, focusing on the tactical wargame aspects and puzzle solving and not really caring or interacting with the story. Tomb of Horrors was an oft-played scenario, but story? Not really the focus of the game.

 

[DMZ2112]

I just hope these guys are as excited about what they're doing as their marketing strategy makes them sound. Because the hype engine is absurd, but as long as it reflects what's going on in R&D I can ignore a little absurdity.

 

[Jester David]

With respect, no, you don't. There's always been a significant amount of "Kick in the door, kill things, and steal their stuff" RPG playing that goes on, focusing on the tactical wargame aspects and puzzle solving and not really caring or interacting with the story. Tomb of Horrors was an oft-played scenario, but story? Not really the focus of the game.

Tournament style play exists and happens. As does shared storytelling sessions where the dice never roll. Those are outliers and the percentage of groups that engages solely in that style of play is rare. Generally it'll be somewhere in the middle or varies depending on the session.

But even the Tomb of Horrors had some NPCs and characters. The demilich at the end had a name. And we haven't seen a lot of Tomb of Horrors style adventures since. That bad boy was written in 1975 when D&D was still new and finding itself, and published in '78 before all the core AD&D books were written. It's about as representative of modern D&D as a 1994 Magic the Gathering set is of current decks.

 

[Reynard]

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)

People keep talking about movies that do not exist and likely never will exist. Hasbro is a toy company and there aren't even any freaking D&D toys. Seriously think about that for a moment. There are big, expensive and complicated board games but no $30 D&D casual family board game. There is a middling FTP MMORPG but no MOBA or even decent CRPG. Paizo is even beating them on the comics rack. There is all this talk about what Hasbro is going to do in other media but they have owned D&D for over 15 years and the greatest penetration D&D has is two episodes of Community.

 

[Dire Bare]

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.

I probably overstated when saying I don't want WotC listening to customer feedback on stories . . . but I don't want them to rely on feedback on story telling, as I feel that can overly limit creativity. It's why we got "Dragon Magic" in 3E, and why certain story elements get beaten to death and become tired (not just D&D, but in general).

While WotC has revisited Magic story lines in the past, and is doing so again this fall, they won't necessarily be telling the same story again. Same world, probably some returning characters and villains, but a new story. It's a sequel, and there's nothing inherently wrong with sequels, although they are often screwed up (or prequels, right my Stars Wars brothers?!). We've seen other properties fail by over relying on sequels rather than pushing forward, hopefully this won't happen to Magic. They've got that game down to a science over there at WotC, so I'm not overly worried, but there is always the chance . . .

D&D has been mining the nostalgia vein for quite some time now, and it IS starting to get tired, IMO. I'm not sure it's tapped out yet, but "looking backwards" is a part of D&D's DNA at the moment. I'm excited for Elemental Evil, but I'd rather see something new. If the next few story arcs continue to mine things we've seen before several times each in previous editions, my excitement will likely wane. Although, if they do a bang up job, my interest might be kept despite the over reliance on nostalgia. But this is another area where WotC can do no right. We have some fans bitching about tired rehashes, and others bitching about why THEIR favorite setting/story/characters aren't being released for 5E NOW!

Paizo has truly been very successful, and WotC I'm sure has taken note. But mimicking Paizo's style isn't necessarily the way to go. And I think we're looking at Paizo through rosy colored glasses, and at WotC through dark sunglasses. Paizo may have designed their Kingmaker story in response to a fan desire for more sandbox style play . . . but that isn't STORY, that's GENRE (and not story genre, but gaming genre or style). The Kingmaker story itself wasn't designed on player feedback (to my knowledge).

Note: You're right, Dragonlance came about in part because there was fan noise about not enough dragons in Dungeons and Dragons! And the genesis of Dragonlance was very much a marketing driven thing, Weis & Hickman being ASSIGNED the novels rather than the story springing forth from fertile, creative minds. Dragonlance was very much created by committee. I enjoyed it so much as a kid, I had forgotten that. But still, the directions Weis & Hickman took that story outpaced it origins by committee, IMO.

Note: You are worried about WotC relying too heavily on old stories, so am I. But isn't Paizo doing exactly that RIGHT NOW! They are just launching the next AP "Giantslayer" which is coming across as their own version of "Against the Giants". I find that interesting. Don't really have an issue with it, and I'm sure Paizo will knock it out of the park.

 

[Dire Bare]

People keep talking about movies that do not exist and likely never will exist. Hasbro is a toy company and there aren't even any freaking D&D toys. Seriously think about that for a moment. There are big, expensive and complicated board games but no $30 D&D casual family board game. There is a middling FTP MMORPG but no MOBA or even decent CRPG. Paizo is even beating them on the comics rack. There is all this talk about what Hasbro is going to do in other media but they have owned D&D for over 15 years and the greatest penetration D&D has is two episodes of Community.

So. Off. Base.

Hasbro is spending big bucks on fighting over the movie rights in court, as are two major Hollywood studios. New D&D movies ARE going to happen. Who will make them and will they be any good? That remains to be seen.

Toy lines are made based on popular movie and TV franchises. There actually ARE D&D toys released by Hasbro, the D&D Kreo figures and sets (off brand Legos), although the line doesn't appear to have done very well (I think). There aren't tons of highly visible D&D toys, like there are for DC and Marvel, because D&D does not yet have a successful movie and/or TV show yet. That's got to come first.

And there IS a D&D casual family board game, it is called "Dungeon". And there is a D&D euro-style game out called "Lords of Waterdeep". And the line of D&D "adventure system" games, like the soon-to-be-released "Elemental Evil" are out there too. Could there be more? Sure, but there are plenty out NOW.

There are two SUCCESSFUL D&D MMOs out now, "D&D Online" and "Neverwinter". Not World of Warcraft popular, but still making good money and with lots of happy players. And they just announced a new MMO-ish release "Sword Coast Legends", which is getting excellent press right now. So there is no MOBA . . . so what? So there is no standalone CRPG? So what? Doesn't mean Hasbro is failing in the video game arena for D&D. Do they have to have representation in every genre? Although, a well done D&D MOBA would be very cool . . . .

D&D does have a successful comic line, the current storyline mixes Tyranny of Dragons, Baldur's Gate, and MINSC and BOO!!! It's awesome, I highly recommend it. There's a decent back catalog too of previous IDW hits (Fell's Five, Dark Sun, Legend of Drizzt) and old Forgotten Realms classics from the 80s as well, all available in your local comic shop and online at Comixology and other vendors.

Your assertion that D&D is invisible in regards to movies, toys, board games, video games, and comics is laughably absurd and simply not true. I guess you see what you want to see.

 

[Jester David]

I probably overstated when saying I don't want WotC listening to customer feedback on stories . . . but I don't want them to rely on feedback on storytelling, as I feel that can overly limit creativity. It's why we got "Dragon Magic" in 3E, and why certain story elements get beaten to death and become tired (not just D&D, but in general).

I'd agree on the stories vs storytelling to some degree. WotC should still do their own thing, but it should be informed by the desires of the community.

Well... we got Dragon Magic because books with "Dragon" and "Magic" in the title sold well. It was pure marketing and less listening to customers. I doubt any of the fans were asking for a book remotely like Dragon Magic.

While WotC has revisited Magic story lines in the past, and is doing so again this fall, they won't necessarily be telling the same story again. Same world, probably some returning characters and villains, but a new story. It's a sequel, and there's nothing inherently wrong with sequels, although they are often screwed up (or prequels, right my Stars Wars brothers?!). We've seen other properties fail by over relying on sequels rather than pushing forward, hopefully this won't happen to Magic. They've got that game down to a science over there at WotC, so I'm not overly worried, but there is always the chance . . .

Sequels work and sell for a reason. There's nothing inherently bad about bringing back a favourite, so long as there's life left. I do like my franchises. If the fans want a sequel and you have (good) ideas, then it can work. But sequels for the sake of popularity are not always good.

D&D has been mining the nostalgia vein for quite some time now, and it IS starting to get tired, IMO. I'm not sure it's tapped out yet, but "looking backwards" is a part of D&D's DNA at the moment. I'm excited for Elemental Evil, but I'd rather see something new. If the next few story arcs continue to mine things we've seen before several times each in previous editions, my excitement will likely wane. Although, if they do a bang up job, my interest might be kept despite the over reliance on nostalgia. But this is another area where WotC can do no right. We have some fans bitching about tired rehashes, and others bitching about why THEIR favorite setting/story/characters aren't being released for 5E NOW!

I'm fine with Elemental Evil as well. It's a big threat and the Elemental Princes haven't seen a lot of love in D&D in a while (especially since they became primordials in 4e). It's a good idea for a follow-up.
But three nostalgia adventures in a row would begin to wear on people. And that's the catch, WotC needs to pay attention to what people want from the game. When to go classic and when to try something new. It's all about variety, and it's hard to know how much variety you can have without taking stock of the community.

Paizo has truly been very successful, and WotC I'm sure has taken note. But mimicking Paizo's style isn't necessarily the way to go. And I think we're looking at Paizo through rosy colored glasses, and at WotC through dark sunglasses. Paizo may have designed their Kingmaker story in response to a fan desire for more sandbox style play . . . but that isn't STORY, that's GENRE (and not story genre, but gaming genre or style). The Kingmaker story itself wasn't designed on player feedback (to my knowledge).

I don't want direct community feedback on the story. That'd be impossible to collect. But it's worthwhile paying attention to the mood of the fans and the type of game people want.

There are a couple different ways requests can go: setting and tone.
An example of the former, right now things are set in the Realms. We've seen the Red Wizards and a lot of the Sword Coast and other things. Eventually, there might be a call from Realms fans to return someplace we haven't seen in a while. Like the Sea of Fallen Stars or Sembia. There might be some curiosity of what that place is like post-Sundering and a request for stories there. That should be an easy request, as it still leaves WotC open to tell their own story and do their own thing while responding to feedback.

Note: You are worried about WotC relying too heavily on old stories, so am I. But isn't Paizo doing exactly that RIGHT NOW! They are just launching the next AP "Giantslayer" which is coming across as their own version of "Against the Giants". I find that interesting. Don't really have an issue with it, and I'm sure Paizo will knock it out of the park.

Giantslayer is also partly because fans wanted a really classic fantasy adventure after Reign of Winter, Mummy's Mask, and Iron Gods. It was a direct response to feedback. Ditto the follow-up, Hell's Rebels, which is a return to the nation of Cheliax and response to people really want to do something with that nation that feels connected to that nation.
While classic tales, neither seem to be ideas they would have tabled seven (or even three) years ago, and they're coming at the expense of planned APs they've been sitting on since early in the world, like the Aboleth/Azlanti story.

 

[BryonD]

People keep talking about movies that do not exist and likely never will exist. Hasbro is a toy company and there aren't even any freaking D&D toys. Seriously think about that for a moment. There are big, expensive and complicated board games but no $30 D&D casual family board game. There is a middling FTP MMORPG but no MOBA or even decent CRPG. Paizo is even beating them on the comics rack. There is all this talk about what Hasbro is going to do in other media but they have owned D&D for over 15 years and the greatest penetration D&D has is two episodes of Community.

You may be right.

I'm pretty much focusing on the foundation and impacts on brand value. But certainly I should say "potential" brand value.


There is no reason to think there will not be a movie once the litigation is resolved.
But there is no reason to think it will be any time soon.
There is no reason to presume it will be a "blockbuster".
There is no reason to presume that a "D&D blockbuster" will make more revenue than the next Seventh Son (ish) movie.
There is no reason to presume that a meaningful % of the *increase* over a non-branded movie will go from Producer to Hasbro to WotC to D&D TTRPG.

Where are all the other things in the mean time?

If the brand itself is so awesome, where is this stuff? Good question.
Maybe the "big reveal" will help?