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

[BryonD]

Because they believe that (i) they can make money by authoring and releasing a new set of core books, and (ii) that this 'restoration' of D&D will underpin a broader D&D-brand strategy.

Achieving (i) does not require publishing a large number of supplements. Obviously WotC thinks the same about (ii); [MENTION=957]BryonD[/MENTION], I think in one of the other threads on this issue, has expressed doubts about this.

I don't necessarily doubt that WotC believes that. And I don't necessarily doubt that the general strategy can be a good one. I do doubt that the current implementation *as we currently are aware of it* will work at enhancing the brand for more than very short term.

It does seem clear that leveraging the TTRPG into revenue in a range of other areas is a key part of their overall strategy and that seems a very sound objective.

I was thinking of D&D licensing. Does MtG have the brand recognition to support a licensing strategy like D&D? I assume not, but I may not be in touch with the relevant demograph

They need a good devil-worship campaign against M:tG first.

 

[Umbran]

Sure, but then why bother with D&D at all then?

One word: Movies.

Do people keep forgetting there's a court case about movies out there? Do folks not realize what the existence of even a mediocre D&D movie could mean for overall brand sales?

And that's just one word. There are others: Novels. Board games. Mobile games. Action figures. Merchandising. The possibilities may not be endless, but they are quite broad. But all really call for the brand to have a core presence.

 

[Sailor Moon]

One word: Movies.

Do people keep forgetting there's a court case about movies out there? Do folks not realize what the existence of even a mediocre D&D movie could mean for overall brand sales?

And that's just one word. There are others: Novels. Board games. Mobile games. Action figures. Merchandising. The possibilities may not be endless, but they are quite broad. But all really call for the brand to have a core presence.

But they could be fighting over nothing.

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.

D&D has no defining characters that people can become familiar and I think that's where it will fail.

 

[Reynard]

D&D has no defining characters that people can become familiar and I think that's where it will fail.

Two things:

1) there is always Drizzt.

2) it doesn't matter. 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.

 

[Sailor Moon]

Two things:

1) there is always Drizzt.

2) it doesn't matter. 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.

You know what attracted people to Iron Man? The fact that we have the technology now to bring the suit to life on the big screen. It's like having a Transformer with someone inside it. Ever wonder why they chose to use Iron Man? Also, a lot of people did hear about Iron Man who aren't comic nerds so i don't believe that. My parents had heard of Iron Man and I can tell you they know nothing about comics.

Drizzt is not a character that would game fame among the masses.

 

[BryonD]

One word: Movies.

Do people keep forgetting there's a court case about movies out there? Do folks not realize what the existence of even a mediocre D&D movie could mean for overall brand sales?

And that's just one word. There are others: Novels. Board games. Mobile games. Action figures. Merchandising. The possibilities may not be endless, but they are quite broad. But all really call for the brand to have a core presence.

But if the success of the RPG makes no difference to these other things, then why do 5E?
If the success of the RPG does make a difference, then shouldn't doing 5E in a strong, long term manner be important?

Why not put 5E in a box and wait until the court issues are done? Roll 5E out 6 months before the movie hits.

All the non-RPG brand value issue is very valid. But the issues with managing the RPG still stand regardless of whether it is seen as important to "the brand" or irrelevant to "the brand".

 

[Sacrosanct]

You know what attracted people to Iron Man? The fact that we have the technology now to bring the suit to life on the big screen. It's like having a Transformer with someone inside it. .

What rock have you been under? What attracted people to Iron Man was because it was Robert Freaking Downy Jr, who oozed sex appeal, charisma, and is an excellent actor. It was the first "nerd" movie that attracted non-nerd women in droves to go watch it. Men went to see him blow crap up, and women went to see him. They even had news interviews with theater goers because attendance was higher than expected. I remember that very distinctly. It's also the reason why RDJ made 10x what all the other avenger actors made. Most definitely not because "we have the technology now to bring the suit to life on the big screen."

Have someone like Tom Hiddleston play Drizzt, and I'm sure it would bring a fair amount of people in.

 

[Trickster Spirit]

Sure, but then why bother with D&D at all then?

But if the success of the RPG makes no difference to these other things, then why do 5E?
If the success of the RPG does make a difference, then shouldn't doing 5E in a strong, long term manner be important?

Why not put 5E in a box and wait until the court issues are done? Roll 5E out 6 months before the movie hits.

All the non-RPG brand value issue is very valid. But the issues with managing the RPG still stand regardless of whether it is seen as important to "the brand" or irrelevant to "the brand".

Here's what I think, and has the benefit of matching up with what Wizards is actually doing:

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. They can tell Universal or a video game studio or a lunch box maker that x many people bought the latest core books in 2014, and that those books were $50 a piece they can rest assured that D&D fans aren't stingy with their cash. Basically tge kind of sales figures that, if you were a lunch box maker that would have you saying, sure, send me some artwork and we'll put something together.

Beyond that, they don't actually need active players of 5E, just having enjoyed playing D&D sometime in the past 40 years means you're more likely than Mrs. Jones off the street to go take your friends or family to see the movie or buy D&D toys for your kids, even if you're a lapsed gamer or have since moved on to non-D&D systems.

So how to increase the number of people who play D&D today, with the understanding that they just have to enjoy the game while they play it, not necessarily convert them into a lifelong player? You wouldn't bother putting out a ton of rules content - new players won't even be familiar with the core content when they start and books and books full of options has the potential to scare them off. Remember, it doesn't matter if they leave due to lack of content down the line because even then they're asking for more D&D and so are still the target demographic for non-tabletop D&D products. Folks aren't not going to go see a D&D movie because they got tired of playing the core classes and joined a friend's Pathfinder campaign to play a gunslinger or summoner.

Right, so you've got a new D&D ruleset that's not too fiddly for new players (Pathfinder character creation was a nightmare for my group of all new players) and you've decided not to put out a whole lot of supplementary product in the first year or two that won't serve your purposes of getting new players to play D&D. So how do you round up these new players?

The Adventurer's League. Sure, it's a great way to bring together players from who want to play but don't have a home group, but it's also at the hobby stores where board gamers come in to buy Cataan and Magic players come in to play card tournaments. Have a new gamer sit down, make their character with them and have an enjoyable campaign season with them. Doesn't matter whether they graduate onto the hobby fully, as long as they leave the table with a positive impression of D&D they're in orbit of the brand and'll maybe pick up a D&D video game or buy a ticket to see the movie. Maybe they take their friends who liked the movie to the next AL campaign season, or start a group at home. When the sequel comes out, those friends take their friends or families to the theater with them.

The D&D team is small. They could easily be the Adventurers League team now, in terms of content they're working on. Which means if you're not interested in AP books or the AL, there could be very little coming out that you're interested in.

 

[delericho]

But they could be fighting over nothing.

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.

You might be right. But the people fighting the suit don't think so - and are willing to expend huge sums of money on that belief. Given their access to data, and especially given their willingness to put their money where their mouth is, I'm inclined to think there's something there.

 

[Jester David]

I wouldn't be at all shocked that if at the time of 4E's release... he and the others might've genuinely thought it was fastest due simply to knowledge they already had of how the game plays, and how explicit each facet of combat was (without the need for DM adjudication or looking stuff up/making rulings, which often leads to arguments/discussions at the table of how things should play out.)

If they were all masters of the game, I could certainly see the table during combat where each of them had all their powers printed out and configured for easy reference, during the game already figured out their turns beforehand on other player's turns, made their mini move/attack on their turn quickly, and then moved onto the next person. With only the first set of books available to them (and thus much less complicated additional rules that came in with other classes and such), he could genuinely think he was telling the truth.

Of course... then the reality set in of all the players who WEREN'T that organized / up on the rules / not willing to puzzle out the "optimum" strategy for themselves each and every turn, and DMs who were the same way. The game then did slooooooooow down for many tables, rendering Mike's beliefs ultimately incorrect. So I wouldn't say he was deliberately lying to anyone... he might've just been blinded to the faults due to his own experiences.

*EDITED TO ADD*

Let's also not forget that he might've been thinking of 4E's initial speed when compared to 3.5... but not initial core book 3.5, but the Frankenstein's Monster of 3.5 once all the extra additional material and splat stuff got incorporated that he had built into his game. That's probably the last part of 3.5 he remembered, and yeah, I could see basic 4E running faster than that stuff. I think ANY edition's initial gameplay with just the three core books runs easier and faster than any version that has several years of splats merged into it.

I can also see them believing it was faster from limited playtests. I don't think they tested 4e particularly robustly. Especially not with its robust release schedule of all the core books at once.