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]

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.

Sooo . . . . Paizo has story arcs planned out in advance, yet they remain adaptive and nimble enough to modify those plans as needed? And WotC's doing the same is a concern?

 

[Reynard]

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.

If I ask my sister in law what D&D stuff is out there or on the horizon, what do you think her answer would be? Because that is what everyone is talking about here, major penetration into the popular culture a la Marvel. That happened with D&D once already, during the early to mid 80s "fad" period. It is very unlikely to happen again.

Not impossible, of course. Anything can happen. But it certainly hasn't happened in the last 15 years of Hasbro stewarding the IP. My contention is that it is a fool's errand that disrupts and devalues the one good thing D&D does really well: let people to hang out with their friends (and occassionally strangers) pretending to be elves and wizards delving dungeons and killing dragons. When your licensing staff is equal in (small) size to your development staff, you are failing to put the resources where the need to be to make the game great for those that actually want to play it. Hollywood is littered with the corpses of failed licensed properties. D&D is already one of them. Do you really believe that after one theatrical stinker and two cable/DtV crapfests someone holding the massive purse strings necessary to finance a fantasy epic are going to release that money to a proven failure of a property versus some other license? It's a stretch at best.

On the subject of the D&D comic, it debuted with about 10K issues sold in October 2014, issue 2 dropped to 7600, issue 3 5500, and #4 with 4600. Compare that to the #100 ranked book by sales, Punisher #14 with 21K sales -- which is a pretty good comparison since Punisher is a known property that has made a couple of attempts to leap into mainstream success (and is even tied to the larger Marvel Universe) and failed. I don't imagine anyone is looking to cut a check for a new Punisher movie either. Information from here, btw.

My point is that hedging all this hope on making D&D the next Marvel Cinematic Universe or whatever seems like a terrible way to manage the brand and the game. If D&D were in the hands of a smaller company with no designs other than to be the best selling, most played, most beloved RPG on the market, everyone would be better off: the company, the fans and the game itself. And ironically, if that were the case it would be more likely that some media empire would try and make a buck off D&D and license it for a summer tentpole or whatever.

 

[Jester David]

Sooo . . . . Paizo has story arcs planned out in advance, yet they remain adaptive and nimble enough to modify those plans as needed? And WotC's doing the same is a concern?

Because Paizo has proven themselves willing to delay their stories because of the needs of the game of desires of the fanbase. WotC has not. When WotC earns my trust and proves they can do so I'll be more tolerant.

 

[Jester David]

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.

The D&D movie rights were sold off well before WotC bought TSR. So Hasbro has had little say.
But, the moment they could argue the rights were not fully exploited, they started work on a new movie and launched a lawsuit to regain their rights. They've seen how profitable MLP and Transformers can be. I imagine they want an "adult" franchise like D&D.

 

[Dire Bare]

If I ask my sister in law what D&D stuff is out there or on the horizon, what do you think her answer would be? Because that is what everyone is talking about here, major penetration into the popular culture a la Marvel. That happened with D&D once already, during the early to mid 80s "fad" period. It is very unlikely to happen again.

Not impossible, of course. Anything can happen. But it certainly hasn't happened in the last 15 years of Hasbro stewarding the IP. My contention is that it is a fool's errand that disrupts and devalues the one good thing D&D does really well: let people to hang out with their friends (and occassionally strangers) pretending to be elves and wizards delving dungeons and killing dragons. When your licensing staff is equal in (small) size to your development staff, you are failing to put the resources where the need to be to make the game great for those that actually want to play it. Hollywood is littered with the corpses of failed licensed properties. D&D is already one of them. Do you really believe that after one theatrical stinker and two cable/DtV crapfests someone holding the massive purse strings necessary to finance a fantasy epic are going to release that money to a proven failure of a property versus some other license? It's a stretch at best.

On the subject of the D&D comic, it debuted with about 10K issues sold in October 2014, issue 2 dropped to 7600, issue 3 5500, and #4 with 4600. Compare that to the #100 ranked book by sales, Punisher #14 with 21K sales -- which is a pretty good comparison since Punisher is a known property that has made a couple of attempts to leap into mainstream success (and is even tied to the larger Marvel Universe) and failed. I don't imagine anyone is looking to cut a check for a new Punisher movie either. Information from here, btw.

My point is that hedging all this hope on making D&D the next Marvel Cinematic Universe or whatever seems like a terrible way to manage the brand and the game. If D&D were in the hands of a smaller company with no designs other than to be the best selling, most played, most beloved RPG on the market, everyone would be better off: the company, the fans and the game itself. And ironically, if that were the case it would be more likely that some media empire would try and make a buck off D&D and license it for a summer tentpole or whatever.

Ah, the 80s. Yup, the height of D&D's penetration into pop culture. Or the foundation of the deep penetration it enjoys today.

The "D&D Universe" is most certainly not as successful as the "Marvel Universe" or even the "DC Universe", and many other beloved fantasy, scifi, and supers properties out there right now. And D&D has a long history of being either mismanaged or undermanaged by WotC/Hasbro and TSR before them. But despite this mismanagement, D&D has a very deep penetration into mainstream or pop culture and has survived 40 years as a game and a franchise.

D&D is successful TODAY. The core game is successful TODAY, and the larger franchise is successful TODAY with well received and profitable comics, board games, video games, and other licensed products. Not so successful in movies or toys, at least not yet, but Hasbro is working on that. You don't have to be top dog to be successful.

For Hasbro to want to push D&D into the top tier of money-making franchises is reasonable and very doable. Is it a guaruntee they will pull it off? Of course not, but for them to try is not only reasonable, but responsible and very possible.

And regardless of Hasbro's larger plans for the D&D franchise with movies, video games, party favors and cake toppers. The game itself was on a cycle of diminishing returns, with each edition coming faster and faster . . . with the likelihood of a crash very possible in the not-so-distant future. 5E is an attempt to break the edition treadmill and create a sustainable edition that might forgo some short term profits in favor of more stable long term profits. Will it last? We'll see. I'm both hopeful and positive and very on-board with WotC's decisions behind the new game.

 

[Reynard]

For Hasbro to want to push D&D into the top tier of money-making franchises is reasonable and very doable.

This is where I think we fundamentally disagree. I don't think it is reasonable because I don't think it is doable. And I would not care one whit except I love D&D the game and it appears that all this interest in turning D&D into a property for making other stuff means that resources are not being deployed to support the game. It is certainly possible that I am being pessimistic and D&D has the potential for a massive stature in the pop culture world, but I don't think so. I think D&D is a known quantity, certainly, but it isn't a valuable one (not on the scale of Hollywood, anyway). D&D has proven to be perfect for some kinds of licensing in the past -- some of the greatest CRPGs of all time are licensed D&D games. And, obviously, the novels have a much greater penetration than the game. That said, though, with 40 years of history, that D&D has not made that transition is telling. It is inherently, intentionally niche and is best served, IMO, by a company that doesn't just recognize that but embraces it.

 

[Dire Bare]

This is where I think we fundamentally disagree. I don't think it is reasonable because I don't think it is doable. And I would not care one whit except I love D&D the game and it appears that all this interest in turning D&D into a property for making other stuff means that resources are not being deployed to support the game. It is certainly possible that I am being pessimistic and D&D has the potential for a massive stature in the pop culture world, but I don't think so. I think D&D is a known quantity, certainly, but it isn't a valuable one (not on the scale of Hollywood, anyway). D&D has proven to be perfect for some kinds of licensing in the past -- some of the greatest CRPGs of all time are licensed D&D games. And, obviously, the novels have a much greater penetration than the game. That said, though, with 40 years of history, that D&D has not made that transition is telling. It is inherently, intentionally niche and is best served, IMO, by a company that doesn't just recognize that but embraces it.

I think we also disagree on the impact of Hasbro's desire to push D&D into Marvel level territory. I don't think Hasbro needs D&D to be AS successful as the MCU, although I do think that is what they hope to achieve. Success at a lower level can still be worthwhile and profitable.

I do feel that if Hasbro dropped all of their concerns about D&D movies, TV shows, and video games, we would NOT see those resources of time, money and personnel redirected towards the RPG. We would see the cancellation of the RPG. And even if Hasbro allowed WotC to continue with D&D (which they would, because they are D&D nerds), I think we'd still end up with the 5E we have today. The game alone was in an interesting place with escalating profits but a downward spiral in regards to the edition cycle. Profitable but not sustainable. To attempt to make D&D sustainable over the long term is worthwhile regardless of movie and video game licensing.

 

[Jester David]

This is where I think we fundamentally disagree. I don't think it is reasonable because I don't think it is doable. And I would not care one whit except I love D&D the game and it appears that all this interest in turning D&D into a property for making other stuff means that resources are not being deployed to support the game. It is certainly possible that I am being pessimistic and D&D has the potential for a massive stature in the pop culture world, but I don't think so. I think D&D is a known quantity, certainly, but it isn't a valuable one (not on the scale of Hollywood, anyway). D&D has proven to be perfect for some kinds of licensing in the past -- some of the greatest CRPGs of all time are licensed D&D games. And, obviously, the novels have a much greater penetration than the game. That said, though, with 40 years of history, that D&D has not made that transition is telling. It is inherently, intentionally niche and is best served, IMO, by a company that doesn't just recognize that but embraces it.

Prior to 2007, would you have predicted Transformers would be a billion dollar name?
Prior to 2010, would you have predicted My Little Pony as a cultural phenomenon?

Both were brands that peaks in the mid-80s and had some mild resurgences in the '90s and '00s but nothing huge.

 

[Reynard]

Prior to 2007, would you have predicted Transformers would be a billion dollar name?
Prior to 2010, would you have predicted My Little Pony as a cultural phenomenon?

Both were brands that peaks in the mid-80s and had some mild resurgences in the '90s and '00s but nothing huge.

I would have guessed than an animated Dragonlance film starring Lucy Lawless and Keifer Sutherland would have been a huge success and catapulted DL back into the mainstream, maybe even paving the way for a live action trilogy. We know how that turned out, right?

 

[BryonD]

Prior to 2007, would you have predicted Transformers would be a billion dollar name?
Prior to 2010, would you have predicted My Little Pony as a cultural phenomenon?

Both were brands that peaks in the mid-80s and had some mild resurgences in the '90s and '00s but nothing huge.

And they made a Oujia movie last year.
How is the Battleship game doing a couple years after that movie?

These things can happen.
These things can also NOT happen.
Just because they have happened does not mean they will happen reliably.

Doing things to create opportunity for them to happen is a VERY good plan.

Undermining things that are working well in order to advance things that *might* happen is not a good plan.
If it comes down to that, they can do both.

Again, WotC assumed just a few years ago that they could afford to lose a large portion of their existing fanbase because their new game was going to replace them many time over from the MMO market. Only one part of that equation actually happened. Assuming they can lose fans again because *this time* the movie will make up for it, is far more likely to be the same mistake over again.
The pot odds may be worth it.
But cherry picking examples doesn't lead to good planning.