D&D 5E I think WotC has it backwards (re: story arcs)

[Nellisir]

<sigh>

 

[Shasarak]

Depends; a D&D movie can make more money than the entire RPG industry does in a decade. Increasing sheer market share of play means more groups to buy an AP, or t-shirts, etc.

Did the last 3 DnD movies make more money then the entire RPG industry?

I forget.

 

[Trickster Spirit]

Heh. First you say it isn't about selling books put playing the game. Now it is about movies cause movies will help sell books? Yeah, you're not making sense.

And besides, Marvel's superhero movies didn't put that Marvel RPG on top of ICv2's charts. It isn't even on the charts. The idea that a D&D movie will mean the RPG will result in an automatic boom in revenues remains to be seen.

As Parmandur has pointed out, whether or not a movie puts an RPG at the top of the charts is irrelevant - they'll be too busy swimming in movie money Scrooge McDuck style to notice a paltry increase in tabletop profits.

But more importantly, their whole strategy is aimed at increasing the number of people who have ever played D&D, not towards eventually selling more copies of tabletop books. They're focusing heavily on bringing in new players through the Adventurer's League, and are producing APs to make jumping into a campaign as easy as possible for the single largest portion of the player base - casual groups. The more people they get to have fun playing D&D, the more people they can convince to buy a movie ticket or video game like Sword Coast Legends - and the lowest hanging fruit is the vast amount of people who are willing to play D&D casually. Even if they only temporarily play in a campaign and then leave the hobby forever, as long as they had fun and aren't averse to stories about elves and orcs, they'll probably be willing to dish out $12 to go see a movie when it comes out. Even more importantly, they'll bring their friends and family to see it with them.

People who are adamant about needing lots of expansions to remain interested in the game are not Wizard's target demographic anymore - casual players who will just buy the next AP after they're done with the one they're currently playing are. They'll take your money if you're in the first group and buy an AP anyway, but they're not interested in putting out the amount of content the hardcore fanbase is asking for because their target demographic - casual players - isn't really interested in buying any of it.

Wizards isn't that worried about a slow release schedule causing some hardcore fans to lose interest in the game over the years, because those players will be replaced by new ones. And even if someone does switch to Pathfinder or another game because they found the 5E release schedule lacking doesn't mean they won't go see a D&D movie or buy Sword Coast Legends when it comes out, so they're still potentially buying the products that Wizards actually wants people to buy.

Think of the APs as a loss leader to build a large audience of casual players willing to dish out some cash on the more profitable parts of the D&D brand, instead of Wizard's bread and butter.

 

[Bayonet]

I'm a long time Sci-fi/fantasy nerd who always wanted to get into D&D but didn't for various reasons. I have a feeling there are a ton of people out there like me.

I got into 5E because it was relatively cheap and simple to do so. 20 bucks for a Starter Set got me everything I needed to jump in, and I LOVED it. Now I'm a dedicated fanboy for life, no doubt about it. I bought the core books as soon as I could get them, played through HotDQ/RoT as soon as I could find a group, and I'm seriously looking at buying Princes of the Apocalypse soon (along with a lot of the 3rd party stuff out there.) I'd gladly spend money buying any sort of adventure path, splat book or whatever-the- happens to get released for the system.

But I would NEVER have gotten involved/bought this stuff without that Starter Set. I'd still be on the outside, looking askance at this seemingly impenetrable sub-culture and it's strangely complicated rulebooks.


SO, while splat books and adventure modules would be great for the current fans, Wizards has to remember that these products are largely preaching to the choir. I honestly think that a series of products mimicking the Starter Set would be a great investment to grow the community and sell more products. I'd buy another LMoP-esque boxed set, should it feature a new adventure.

A short, tightly written module, a copy of the basic rules, some pre-gen's and a handful of dice and BAM! You have a handful of D&D converts that will go on to buy as much stuff as possible.

Are you listening, WoTC?

 

[Trickster Spirit]

Did the last 3 DnD movies make more money then the entire RPG industry?

I forget.

You joke, but the first D&D movie did make more twice as much money at the box office as the entire RPG industry does in a year - unfortunately, it just cost more than that to make.

If Universal can make a D&D movie that's not a flop, they could easily turn a profit 10 times the size of the RPG industry. Now obviously Hasbro will only see a piece of that, but that's pure profit with no investment on their part whatsoever. Why spend millions every-year to make ever-diminishing returns on an edition of the tabletop game, when you can sit back and let Universal hand you more money, and reap increased interest (i.e. profits) from the tabletop game because of folks introduced to it by a movie?

 

[Nellisir]

stuff

Good post. I don't have time right now to reply to it, but (perhaps surprisingly to some people) I agree with most of it.

 

[Jester David]

The problem now is that you have two options: either run the story arcs, one after the other, or do your own thing. There's no middle ground.

This ignores the option of converting past adventures to 5e (which is super easy for 1e/2e), or using the playtest adventures, or buying the prepublished storylines books as inspiration for your games, or buying Pathfinder or 3rd Party adventures and converting those.

Plus, this argument makes the pretty large assumption that people can play through an entire storyline in the six months before the next is released. Very likely, even a group playing somewhat regularly, will take longer than six months. Even a speedy group that manages to do a storyline in 9 months will have their choice after the second storyline: the one they missed or the one being released shortly.

This also assumes everyone is playing everything right now. There are people who play seasonally (when school is out or only when at campus) or who take summers/winters off. (My game pretty much ends between December 10th and January 15th.) Or are between groups. Or at just getting into this D&D thing. People who start playing in three months will have three different adventure storylines to choose from and a wealth of adventures to attempt.

Even if they are serving new DMs by providing them with clear story arcs, or DMs that like to run only pre-published material, not only are they ignoring the many DMs who want material to use in their campaigns, but eventually some of those "story arc DMs" are going to tire of doing story arcs and want to do something else, whether it is running a more episodic campaign with pre-published modules, or a more guided approach to creating their own stories.

The DMG is really the book for creating your own stories. Not much more is needed beyond that book.

Then there's the potential problem of having a bad apple in the bunch - one bad story arc and that's a whole year between good stories. Imaginee the ruckus, the chaos, the armageddon!

Well, six months. Since the adventures come out that often and you'll likely have just finished playing one. In that unlikely case (someone is playing everything at the rate it is released) they can go homebrew or take a d20 break and try a different game system or update an older storyline. Or try and get ahold of some Adventurer's League content. Yes, it's theoretically only available in stores but that won't stop a dedicated person.

This happens. Paizo has released some stinkers. They've had dead months before. But since people play the adventures slower than they're released it hasn't caused much of an issue.

 

[Jester David]

You joke, but the first D&D movie did make more twice as much money at the box office as the entire RPG industry does in a year - unfortunately, it just cost more than that to make.

If Universal can make a D&D movie that's not a flop, they could easily turn a profit 10 times the size of the RPG industry. Now obviously Hasbro will only see a piece of that, but that's pure profit with no investment on their part whatsoever. Why spend millions every-year to make ever-diminishing returns on an edition of the tabletop game, when you can sit back and let Universal hand you more money, and reap increased interest (i.e. profits) from the tabletop game because of folks introduced to it by a movie?

It lost close to 11 million dollars.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=dungeonsanddragons.htm
So while the $33.8 million dollars it pulled in would be amazing by RPG standards it was poor by movie standards.

 

[Mercurius]

[MENTION=37579]Jester Canuck[/MENTION], you're committing what could be called "Car Mechanic Fallacy" - an expert in a field (erroneously) believing that other people understand the field like they do. While I agree that converting old adventures is relatively easy, it is a bit daunting for all but experienced DMs. Not to mention those relatively experienced DMs, such as myself, that simply want new, pre-written material to choose from.

What I don't understand is why WotC won't try to emulate a publication schedule somewhat similar to, even if reduced from, what Paizo is offering. Paizo is doing quite well, publishes two adventure paths a year, I believe, in monthly installments, several campaign supplements and a bunch of one-off adventures a year, plus a few other odds and ends - including 2-3 hardcovers. It works. It doesn't have to be 2E-3E-4E style glut.

 

[dmccoy1693]

What I don't understand is why WotC won't try to emulate a publication schedule somewhat similar to, even if reduced from, what Paizo is offering. Paizo is doing quite well, publishes two adventure paths a year, I believe, in monthly installments, several campaign supplements and a bunch of one-off adventures a year, plus a few other odds and ends - including 2-3 hardcovers. It works. It doesn't have to be 2E-3E-4E style glut.

I'd assume they'd have to add staff to do that. I mean I want more, but I am realistic that they don't have the staff for Paizo-level output.

Having said that, I want more.