"Tabletop D&D Has Lost Its Way" Says Pathfinder Video Game Exec

Feargus Urquhart, one of the execs from Obsidian Entertainment, which is behind an upcoming Pathfinder-themed video game, told Polygon why the company chose to go with Paizo rather than WotC for tabletop fantasy inspired games. "One of the reasons we actually went with Pathfinder was ... how do you say it? I'll just say it: We were having a hard time figuring out how to move forward with Dungeons and Dragons." The issue, he says, is that "D&D is a part of Wizards of the Coast and WotC is a part of Hasbro" and that he would "love to see D&D be bought by someone and become what it was before... Become TSR again."

Of course, TSR went bankrupt, so I'm not sure wishing that on somebody is a kindness.

Urquhart is a long-time D&D video game exec, having worked on games like Neverwinter Nights 2; he points out that "I'm probably one of the people who has one of the most electronic D&D games that they've worked on". Now, of course, his company has moved on to Paizo's Pathfinder.

The upcoming Obsidian video games will be based on the Pathfinder games - specifically a tablet game based on the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, due in the next few months. The studio is, of course, known to tabletop RPG fans for D&D games like Neverwinter Nights 2. Urquhart did hint at non-card-game based projects, saying that "We're thinking about how can we take traditional RPG stuff and put it on the tablet. No one has solved it really."

You can read the short interview here.

​

 

[Carl H]

I'm not sure what more Mearls & Co could do at this point to garner goodwill. They've been open, approachable and have given away a big chunk of their product for free.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Yeah, I think that D&D would be better served being the flagship product of a gaming company instead of a tiny division of Hasbro.

Yes it would be better for the game overall. There are people working on D&D who do really love the game, but they are entirely expendable working for Hasbro. D&D is just a brand that generates revenue and is treated as such. That can't help but have an effect on the morale of those working on it. To know that the fate of the game you love is in the hands of a company that doesn't really care about it must be depressing.

 

[Mallus]

Actually, they have, or at least they've been trying: note the recent emphasis on "storylines", and especially "Tyranny of Dragons". Sure, you can question the quality, but that's subjective - as I said, they've been trying.

Agreed, WotC is trying. But given the copious amount of Golarion-related material Paizo has been creating, I can see how that would be attractive to a computer game company, outside of any other considerations like licensing costs.

 

[variant]

I really don't think cost is the issue, the rights for Forgotten Realms (at least) are already in use by Cryptic Studios/Perfect World Entertainment.

D&D is divided up into multiple properties. Neverwinter is held by Perfect World Entertainment. The Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale licenses are in the hands of Beamdog.

Wikipedia says 1999? Even if it was 2001 that doesn't affect my point, that Obsidian made their best game with WotC/Hasbro in 2007.

Obsidian probably didn't have any experience with licensing any D&D property. The Neverwinter Nights license was held by Atari at the time. Obsidian was simply contracted with Atari to create the game.

 

[delericho]

I'm not sure what more Mearls & Co could do at this point to garner goodwill. They've been open, approachable and have given away a big chunk of their product for free.

Off the top of my head:

- Announce their product line-up for the rest of the year (and then stick to it)
- Get the fan policy and third-party license out there
- Restart the magazines.

Now, I should note at this point that I understand why there are difficulties in doing any of these, and in any case it is absolutely their prerogative to manage things as they see fit. They're under no obligation to do any of these things, ever.

But your post did beg the question.

 

[Astrosicebear]

I really don't think cost is the issue, the rights for Forgotten Realms (at least) are already in use by Cryptic Studios/Perfect World Entertainment.

4e and 3E had licences, GSL and OGL. 5E does not yet. So if Obsidian was trying to trump a 5e Licence and WOTC said wait for it, Obsidian said screw you we will look into PFRPG, since Numenera already had a game in the works.

 

[Doctor Futurity]

Wikipedia says 1999? Even if it was 2001 that doesn't affect my point, that Obsidian made their best game with WotC/Hasbro in 2007.

Oh it definitely happened in 1999. WotC was acquired by Hasbro about a year before D&D 3.0's release, and I remember a big issue was how soon and when we'd see "Hasbro" on the back of products. I think iirc it was also around that time that WotC dropped the TSR logo once and for all and went with their own logo exclusively.

On the original article....I seem to recall that the only licensing for video games under TSR led to the Gold Box games, which were initially great, but that most of the contemporary titles from Baldur's Gate and onward (people may not remember but Obsidian is the spiritual successor to Black Isle) were WotC-licensed, so I presume that the fellow in the article is complaining more about the Hasbro element than anything else.

 

[Astrosicebear]

With this wacky release schedule and prolonged timetable, 5E seems to be less and less about brand revitalization and more and more about brand sustaining. Meaning, I dont think HASBRO/WOTC wanted to spend alot to bring D&D back, nor do they want to spend alot maintaining it. They simply wanted it resurrected from the 4e Death throws to bring the brand value.

I dont think Hasbro would consider selling the D&D brand until it completely tanks. They would rather mothball it than see it get away from them.

 

[variant]

I am going to guess that it has nothing to do with licensing costs and everything to do with control. Though I am sure the cost to license it was very much a negative for Obsidian who has to Kickstart or get contracted to a publisher to produce a game.

WotC probably wants control of the content within the game so it stays close with their plans for the D&D property. They've already talked about unifying both the art and story. How Cryptic Studios is working with WotC on the story was talked about on one of the panels at a PAX earlier.

My guess is Obsidian Entertainment wants full control with only optional input from the license holder. WotC has no interest in such a deal.

 

[Celebrim]

I don't know about 13 years, but being the top seller on Amazon surely brought WoTC a lot of cash with the core books.

First, we don't know how many sells that actually translates too because Amazon's algorithm is opaque. Being a top seller on Amazon over the course of a few hours doesn't necessarily mean lots of books at the scale that would mean WoTC's D&D brand is flowing with cash considering the multiyear design and development period 5e went through that had to be repaid.

Secondly, almost all of the sells were at 30% or higher discounts, which means that WotC was agreeing with Amazon to take a hit on their profit per item.

Thirdly, I wouldn't be surprised if they lost a huge amount of money on the Tyranny of Dragons/Horde of the Dragon Queen campaign that significantly dented their overall profits on the year.

Fourthly, WotC's D&D department isn't acting like a company that is awash in cash. We have a very limited release cycle and immediate cut backs in staffing.

Ultimately the real problem here is that when WotC abandoned the OGL and tried to take their game back, the goal had to have been that without the D&D brand that no one would play D&D and that a majority of the customer base would eventually abandon the old technology and return to D&D because of the value of the brand. That hasn't happened. The fact that you have a reasonably hefty publisher of intellectual property in a medium you used to dominate picking up a competitive brand over your brand cannot feel good. The fact that Pathfinder is even still going two editions after you abandoned the technology they depend on is itself probably really disconcerting. I think 5e is great. It's far better than I ever hoped it would be. If I wasn't already very happy with my 3e based homebrew and in the midst of a campaign, I'd probably play 5e.

But there it is.

And I can't say that my overall fondness for the 5e design has in any way changed my assessment of what 5e would mean for the brand.