D&D 4E Hasbro, Greyhawk, and 4E speculation

[Maggan]

An organization that has relatively little experience in the book trade is a natural fit? Giving the single largest RPG over to game designers who have next to no experience with real dynamic plot, drama, character development, or social interaction makes sense?

That's selling computer game designers short. There are lots of them that are good designers, and many who are pnp roleplayers.

Also, I think you are underestimating the skill set required to make a computer game such as NWN, or Warcraft, or any of the major titles.

/M

 

[Steel_Wind]

An organization that has relatively little experience in the book trade is a natural fit? Giving the single largest RPG over to game designers who have next to no experience with real dynamic plot, drama, character development, or social interaction makes sense?

Sorry, I just have to disagree there. Rank beginners might be a better fit than folks already in a particular mindset and with a vested interest in focusing more on the video-game property than on the RPG.

The natural fit flows from brand impact and creative control.

But bluntly: if you are a licensee of anybody else's IP - you are not having an happy experience making the game you want to make.

Owning the IP makes that experience a far, far happier process.

 

[Mark Plemmons]

The worst impact a sale of D&D could he upon Kalamar would be the loss of the license to call the product a "setting for Dungeons & Dragons". As this point, I don't think that nearly as big a deal as it was back when the current incarnation of Kalamar first hit the market. The line between D20 and D&D (and OGL to a lesser extant) has been so blurred in peoples minds that no longer being able to use the D&D name would not hurt them overly much - particularly given how well established the line is now.

JD

Good response, John Desmarais - that's fairly accurate. While I can't speak to contractual issues, we might (but might not) be able to set up with another D&D owner in the same manner if we wanted to keep the official D&D brand logo.

However, it's not necessary. We have produced a handful of Kingdoms of Kalamar products and HackMaster products that didn't require or need the D&D brand or Wizards' approval, and would continue to do so no matter what happened to D&D.

For example, the Kingdoms of Kalamar City Map Folio, and the upcoming HackMaster Adventurer's Guide to Pixie Fairies, neither of which are directly based off current or past editions of the D&D rules set.

 

[WayneLigon]

... and having a passionate group of [Bioware] writers and game designers who eat and sleep RPGs because it is what they love to do ...

You mean a company that has yet to make an RPG at all, since no one has yet managed to create an actual RPG on a computer yet? They've made a fancy videogame that apes some of the surface aspects of RPG's and uses a lot of the terminology but it resembles no RPG I've ever played.

 

[Infernal Teddy]

This is a very insightful analysis...and scary too. And yes, who would buy it? Who has the spunk, imagination, and the great foresight to take D&D, places where few has gone?

Who?

*1940's series climatic drama music, plays in the background*

...Kevin Siembieda!

 

[haakon1]

Who do you want to buy D&D??

Goodman Games, Kenzer & Co., Troll Lords (the Return of the King!), or whoever makes Atlas could all do a good job.

Or back to the WOTC folks, or White Wolf.

 

[Visceris]

I would like to see ENWorld buy DnD. If not them then Malhavoc.

 

[CharlesRyan]

Hasbro/Wizards has no concrete plans on releasing 4th Ed, BUT I don't think thats the good news that many suppose.

Wizards has been acting funny. Re-acquiring licenses/settings, even ones that they have no intention of supporting or using. [. . .]

The recent deal with Atari/Infogrames deal with Hasbro is also interesting. [D&D is licensed to Atari under different terms than all other Hasbro properties.]

So here's the bottom line: Wizards is preparing to sell off D&D. [. . .] Which could be because Hasbro thinks D&D is crap, and by extension 4E D&D is crap, and not worth producing.

Why does the roleplaying hobby (or at least the online community of RPGers) have such a low opinion of itself?

I see threads here and elsewhere on the net speculating about D&D and 4E and Hasbro all the time. One assumption that seems to underlie all of them is that D&D is a penny-ante little brand, and RPGs a penny-ante little category. Hasbro is going to do this, that, or the other thing because D&D isn't worth keeping, or is so small that it doesn't warrant good management, or it's simply forgotten and lost in a corporate attic somewhere.

(Except, of course, when people speculate that the "suits" at Hasbro have made/are making/will make WotC do this, that, or the other thing to ratchet up revenue; when it comes to who gets to make the decision on a revision or new edition, suddenly everybody thinks we're the central focus of the entire Hasbro Board of Directors!)

I got news for you guys: By any standard, including the standards of a large corporation like Hasbro, D&D is a valuable and sizeable brand, and the RPG category is a valuable and sizeable business.

There's another possible explanation for why the D&D license to Atari might be handled differently than other Hasbro properties. Hypothetically, of course, it just might be possible that D&D got a different deal not because it was the least valuable brand for electronic gaming in the Hasbro lineup, but because it was the most valuable. Just speaking hypothetically.

As for "reacquiring" licenses, well, let's just keep in mind that there are two parties in any licensing deal. Why assume that the decision to end a license was made by one particular party?

As for those who think that a mysterious body of Hasbro "suits" runs the D&D show: Yeah, I have a boss. And my boss has a boss. And my boss's boss has a boss. I bet it's the same for you at your job. But the D&D business is run by the D&D business team, and as long as we do our jobs well, nobody on the Hasbro Board of Directors is interested in micromanaging D&D RPG releases, big or small.

I hope that clears up a few things. If we're going to use up all this bandwidth speculating about the future of D&D, we might as well work from a few valid assumptions.

[Oh, and one last thing for the guy who said that D&D has been for sale for the past several years: Huh?]

 

[Belen]

Thanks for the sanity check, Charles.

 

[buzzard]

I don't know if this is particularly valid, but has anyone considered RPGA and Living Greyhawk as a reason for WotC treating Greyhawk a bit differently? Living Greyhawk is not a trivial deal in terms of number of gamers, and I've found it to be the only diriving force which gets me to buy 3.5 books. My home campaign is still 3.0, but I have an extensive collection of 3.5 which I use for the LG that I play.

LG, as those who play it understand, and the RPGA as marketing arms of WotC. They also seem to be pretty effective. Why would WotC mess up a deal that is working pretty well by issuing a supplement of dubious appeal? The LG world is created by the players at present. An overarching campaign supplement would likely screw that up. I think that's a perfectly valid reason as to why WotC isn't touching Greyhawk.

buzzard