Obective look at WotC's history with D&D

[Quickleaf]

It can be difficult to be objective on this matter for a very simple reason - our information on management decisions is fragmentary, at best. We don't see the decisions, we see the results of the decisions, and then infer the decisions from them. Needless to say, that's an error prone process, and tends to play up the role of "big ticket" results, and downplay the far more numerous workaday decisions that get things out the door.

Yeah, I noticed a lot of discussion became focused on the business side of things, which I agree us laymen don't have much info on. Posts like the one from [MENTION=8461]Alzrius[/MENTION] about Rick Patell's blog are informative, so are Ryan Dancey's; they provide us with insight, even though we'll ultimately never know the big picture.

My OP wasn't about whether D&D has been a financial success, rather it was about decisions that were perceived negatively. Maybe not cold hard facts, maybe, but *mostly* facts.

For example, if I say:

The GSL was not well received by third party publishers, in part because of what was dubbed the poison pill clause, which prevented publishers from releasing products under both OGL and GSL. Later, after third party publishers objected, the poison pill clause was removed from the GSL.

That's a fact that most of us can agree on, even though we have no way of numerically appraising it.

 

[Lanefan]

2) Even if nobody wants to do a Dragonlance movie ever again, that is not the only setting in D&D's stable. Planescape, Eberron & DarkSun are all quite compelling and unique settings, for instance, and could be quite compelling on-screen.

True; but Dragonlance is the only one many non-gamers might have heard of, and thus by far the most likely to attract any amount of mainstream audience.

Lanefan

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I didn't know there was a Dragonlance animated movie until late last year, and I'm clearly a gamer. OTOH, 11 different D&D campaign worlds have had novels set in them.

So it's hard to say which ones have non-gamer recognition, or whether that matters. D&D by itself probably has more non-gamer recognition- I'm not sure that "Dragonlance" brings all that much more to the party.

And given the quality of the previous films, it might even be better to use the settings without mentioning an obvious connection to D&D at all, kind of like how Mutant X was an X-Men tv show that had Marvel's connection buried in the tiny print of the credits at the end of the show. Even the characters most similar to the actual X-Men had name changes.

 

[Drowbane]

There was a Dragonlance movie? :runs off to IMDB:

 

[Alzrius]

OTOH, 11 different D&D campaign worlds have had novels set in them.

Hmm, okay, let's see if we can name them all...

There have been Greyhawk novels. Forgotten Realms novels. Dragonlance novels. Dark Sun novels. Ravenloft novels. That's five so far. Spelljammer novels. Birthright novels. Planescape novels. Up to eight. Mystara novels. Eberron novels. Ten!

And, um...

Hmm...

Is the eleventh those generic D&D novels, like Tale of the Comet or The Rod of Seven Parts, etc.?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I've not read a single one, but here's a source:

Wikipedia
The following Dungeons & Dragons campaign settings have had one or more published novels based in the same fantasy world:

Birthright
Dark Sun
Dragonlance
Eberron
Forgotten Realms
Greyhawk
Kara-Tur
Mystara
Planescape
Ravenloft
Spelljammer

 

[Alzrius]

Hm, I wasn't aware of any Kara-Tur-specific novels. Interesting...

EDIT: And looking at the Wikipedia entry, I can see why. There were only three, and they were all choose-your-own-adventure books.

 

[Quickleaf]

Planescape novels.

*wince* Let's just forget those were ever released.