D&D 5E So what exactly is Wizards working on?

[pemerton]

That's pretty drastic. If that was true, then why would they bother spending a couple of years designing a new edition before nailing down a movie deal?

But if the success of the RPG makes no difference to these other things, then why do 5E?

[MENTION=22424]delericho[/MENTION] has reiterated a reason already stated upthread and in other threads: making money from the sale of a new round of core books - especially in an environment where there was known demand, due to the dissatisfaction with 4e among some likely D&D customers.
[MENTION=6701829]Trickster Spirit[/MENTION] has given another reason that seems reasonable: "Having the game remain in print is first of all a signal to potential partners that this D&D thing actually does still have people out there willing to spend a lot of money on it."

I think a third reason, which [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] has mentioned more than once in this or another one of these threads, is re-unification. A few years ago, practically any internet item about D&D had edition wars - ie, attacks on the D&D products that WotC was publishing - breaking out in its comments section. I think getting rid of that hostility is part of a brand strategy.

Given that people know that D&D is a game, it also makes sense to have a game in print that they can go and get involved in if they feel inspired to do so by their D&D lunchbox. 4e, for reasons involving the wall of books, the failed Essentials 'on-ramp', the hostility it generated in some quarters, was not that game.

a successful D&D movie is unlikely to bring a significant amount of people to tabletop D&D anyway.

there wasn't a surge in comicbook sales after all these movies came out. I really hope they aren't expecting to people to go out and start buying the game if they watch a D&D movie.

The point of a D&D movie isn't to create new D&D players. It's to make money in quantities that can't be made by selling D&D rulebooks!

There are Marvel comics fans who complain about their favourite character's storylines and publishing schedules being subordinated to the demands of movie-making. If a D&D movie occurs and is even a little bit successful, we can expect the same sorts of complaints from D&D players!

Sure, it'll help the brand name (assuming the movie is good, which may or may not be the case) but it might hurt it too if it sucks.

A bad movie might put a dint in their plans, yes, although my (admittedly amateur) view is that the movie-going public is pretty tolerant of even very mediocre films.

I honestly believe people are putting too much faith in these possible future D&D movies. We don't know what it would do for the brand. Seems to me like they are hoping for another Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, or Transformers and I don't think it's going to happen.

No one but comic nerds knew or cared who Iron Man was before RDJ got attached to the part. Through a combination of not only his charisma and acting ability but also that the role served as sort of a triumphant return for RDJ, plus a production that treated the property with respect without taking itself unduly seriously, the built something amazing that turned out to be the foundation for an industry changing line of films. Is a D&D movie likely to reproduce that success completely? No, but there is nothing inherent in the D&D property that says it couldn't.

Frankly, if a D&D film attracts a performer of the calibre of RDJ, and has the success of Iron Man, I think Mearls will be pinching himself to see if he is dreaming.

Battleship (34% Rotten Tomatoes) made money - from Wikipedia, it seems to have cost somewhere in the neighbourhood of $200 million to make, and had box office returns of $300 millioin.

Dragonheart is a pretty awful film from 1996 (with Dennis Quaid and Pete Postlethwaite - bizarrely it gets 50% on Rotte). IMDB tells me that it cost neary $60 million to make, and made returns of nearly twice that.

For the plan to work, the film doesn't have to be wonderful. It does have to be better than the original D&D film (IMDB lists $45 million budget, $33 million box office, 10% Rotten Tomatoes) but that is setting a fairly low bar.

 

[BryonD]

[MENTION=22424]delericho[/MENTION] has reiterated a reason already stated upthread and in other threads: making money from the sale of a new round of core books - especially in an environment where there was known demand, due to the dissatisfaction with 4e among some likely D&D customers.

[MENTION=6701829]Trickster Spirit[/MENTION] has given another reason that seems reasonable: "Having the game remain in print is first of all a signal to potential partners that this D&D thing actually does still have people out there willing to spend a lot of money on it."

I think a third reason, which [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] has mentioned more than once in this or another one of these threads, is re-unification. A few years ago, practically any internet item about D&D had edition wars - ie, attacks on the D&D products that WotC was publishing - breaking out in its comments section. I think getting rid of that hostility is part of a brand strategy.

I agree with all of these. But the conversation is going in a circle.

The point I was responding to was the idea that the success of D&D (as an RPG) is not important.
If we assume there are people spending "a lot of money on it" then we are no longer assuming its success is not present. And if you are assuring potential partners of this, you are assuring them of "success".

So this option does not meet the criteria of the question.

If we assume it is simply because core books are where the profit lives, then cool. But this makes no sense with the whole "two APs and nothing else for as far as the eye can see" approach.

So that option does not meet the criteria of the question.

Reunification works. But I don't see how fleeting reunification really helps if they don't fight to maintain the fan base once it is reunified.

So, I agree with all three of these points. But the strategy being advertised does not advance the agendas.

 

[Umbran]

Better yet, sell it off. Let somebody who actually loved D&D buy it.

Have you ever met Mearls, or played an RPG with him? He loves the game. I think it is safe to say that the folks working on the game do love it.

We don't know what requirements Hasbro has made. If the past is an indication, they haven't made many demands. Hasbro not loving the game and causing problems seems a bit of a boogeyman - lots are scared of it, but few have verifiable sightings of it.

 

[Reynard]

Have you ever met Mearls, or played an RPG with him? He loves the game. I think it is safe to say that the folks working on the game do love it.

We don't know what requirements Hasbro has made. If the past is an indication, they haven't made many demands. Hasbro not loving the game and causing problems seems a bit of a boogeyman - lots are scared of it, but few have verifiable sightings of it.

I was referring to Hasbro, not the development team. I have no doubt those guys love D&D -- it is evidenced in the kick ass version of the game they made. I also have no doubt that if they were given a mandate to produce a Pathfinder level of support, they would do so with enthusiasm and skill.

 

[Queer Venger]

I'm guessing they are working on this year's Gen Con release. Something like the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting or Monster Manual 2.

This would be awesome

 

[billd91]

A bad movie might put a dint in their plans, yes, although my (admittedly amateur) view is that the movie-going public is pretty tolerant of even very mediocre films.

The public can be tolerant, but it isn't exactly a guarantee. The public has to find the movie engaging enough to check it out. That may be via blockbuster effects and marketing rather than decent story and acting, but even intended blockbusters don't always work out. Jupiter Ascending, for example, has been struggling and it has some pretty big talent associated with it. And to make matters a bit worse for the movie industry (though it really doesn't get any sympathy from me), DVD sales aren't making up the slack on box office as much as they used to.

In any event, they'll have a hell of a challenge attracting the viewers. The track record is poor and there's a lot of competition.

 

[graves3141]

Mearls mentioned at a "future of D&D" conference in 2012 that after making the core rules, they would then be able to focus on adventures, campaigns and rules modules. So far, all we're seeing are the adventures with no sign of a future campaign setting or a book of modular rules.

I think what bothers me the most is that they've been so tight lipped about future releases and what they're working on like it's top secret government information that can't be shared. Is it too much to ask for them to at least share the ideas that they are considering? I don't see how sharing a little info can hurt anybody or their business.

 

[Fildrigar]

Mearls mentioned at a "future of D&D" conference in 2012 that after making the core rules, they would then be able to focus on adventures, campaigns and rules modules. So far, all we're seeing are the adventures with no sign of a future campaign setting or a book of modular rules.

I think what bothers me the most is that they've been so tight lipped about future releases and what they're working on like it's top secret government information that can't be shared. Is it too much to ask for them to at least share the ideas that they are considering? I don't see how sharing a little info can hurt anybody or their business.

Look at all the heat they're getting for "cancelling" a book. ( The never officially announced Adventurer's Handbook. ) Now, ask yourself why they would be closed mouthed about their release cycle. We know they farmed out the Tiamat series, and the Elemental Evil series. It follows that the next thing being worked on has been farmed out, too. When you are relying on another company to produce books for you, you have less control over how quickly they get done.

I'd also like to point out that the GAMA trade show is next week. As game store centric as Wizards is, that would be the perfect time and place for announcements, right?

 

[BryonD]

Have you ever met Mearls, or played an RPG with him? He loves the game. I think it is safe to say that the folks working on the game do love it.

Without the slightest intent of speaking for Mearls (I've never met nor spoken with him), I'd go out on a limb and guess if it was entirely up to him, there would be more funding and more things happening.

I'm not saying that open the floodgates would be the response or desire (or a good thing). But I think it would be somewhere north of what we are currently seeing.

I guess the main point is that neither you nor I should be speaking on his behalf.

We don't know what requirements Hasbro has made. If the past is an indication, they haven't made many demands. Hasbro not loving the game and causing problems seems a bit of a boogeyman - lots are scared of it, but few have verifiable sightings of it.

"loving" is a loaded term. Setting that aside, if the past is any indication they are not doing the D&D fanbase any favors and there a few verifiable sightings of them being a help.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if Hasbro pays ZERO attention to D&D except when WotC calls it out within their own statements. I'd bet WotC has goals and certain guidelines, but then it is up to them to perform as they see fit.

But not being able to cast blame on Hasbro doesn't mean that it is not fair to complain about the way things are going on their watch.

 

[BryonD]

Look at all the heat they're getting for "cancelling" a book. ( The never officially announced Adventurer's Handbook. ) Now, ask yourself why they would be closed mouthed about their release cycle. We know they farmed out the Tiamat series, and the Elemental Evil series. It follows that the next thing being worked on has been farmed out, too. When you are relying on another company to produce books for you, you have less control over how quickly they get done.

I'd also like to point out that the GAMA trade show is next week. As game store centric as Wizards is, that would be the perfect time and place for announcements, right?

Just because one thing is bad, doesn't mean another thing isn't bad.

Having the one and only "rules module" out in the public ("announced" or not) and then pulling it is a bad thing. Keeping other things unannounced avoids that bad thing, but only by being a bad thing in itself.

(And because it is unfortunately required, I have to clarify that "bad" means PR and relations with customers within the tiny and ultimately irrelevant to life as we know it RPG fanbase. It is not remotely criminal, nefarious or vile.)

They can avoid both "bad" thing with good planning. Have a schedule that is feasible. Announce products in a window that allows WotC to be comfortable it is coming together, but still have enough lead time that when one product is hitting shelves there is already some hype about another. In a perfect world the announcement of product B come in the lull between announcement of product A and the release of product A. So you maintain energy between releases and teases for over the horizon. Clearly it isn't a perfect world. But that is a viable plan to shoot for. You do reasonably well at this for a few cycles and your customers become more accepting when something does not work out. Just as customers can be less accepting when the one hiccup was the only thing on the horizon for a certain class of book.

It is also possible that they just don't plan on ANY rules modules. It isn't at all clear, but this seems to be a reasonable interpretation. That is going to make some people unhappy and there is no way around that.

It is also possible that they simply screwed up, but they are getting their act together now. It is certainly impossible for anyone to say that they are not working on a good rolling release schedule. But because of the hiccups so far they are playing catchup. If that is the case I would fully agree that it is better to let the fans gripe a bit now then rush too much and hiccup again. (Which is no excuse, it is fair for fans to gripe now. But you can't undo the past so the best plan forward "is what it is").