"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.

​

 

[DEFCON 1]

I think a very important piece of his interview was this:

"Take Activision, they make games like Call of Duty and Destiny," he said. "They have these big tentpole things, it is very hard to then have another thing that is one one-hundredth of the magnitude of those."

And that is what he says Hasbro struggles with.

I think he's saying Hasbro is in the same position as Activision, and as well I'd say major movie studios are in. They don't do "small releases" anymore, everything is just blockbuster releases (because that's where the largest influx of cash comes in.)

Obsidian is making a tablet game based upon the Pathfinder Trading Card Game. As a release, it's probably going to be rather small-- nowhere near Magic: The Gathering Online or Hearthstone status. So while maybe it could be the licensing fees that stopped it from being a D&D game... it's also quite possible that Wizards/Hasbro just didn't want to give a license to a "small release" game. For their video game licenses, perhaps they're just thinking "go big or go home"?

Which reflects Urquhart's final statement on why he wishes D&D was owned by a smaller company that has D&D as their focus. Because a smaller company would be more likely to grant licenses to a great many products from a great many companies of a great many sizes, just to get the D&D brand out there. Back in the day, TSR would be wiling to grant a license to a (at the time) no-name developer studio like Bioware and publisher Black Isle Studios for some game called Baldur's Gate that who knows would have worked or how well.

But that's not the case anymore. Wizards/Hasbro doesn't seem like they're going to offer the brand out to just anybody for just anything anymore.

 

[JohnnyZemo]

"I'm probably one of the people who has one of the most electronic D&D games that they've worked on".

Is this a typo, or am I just not understanding his point? What is "one of the most electronic" games supposed to mean?

 

[Gecko85]

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.

But it hasn't been "over the course of a few hours". The core books have been in the top 100 of all books sold (ALL books, of any type) consistently for months. It's been sustained.

 

[wedgeski]

I agree with the premise of the article: when it comes to video games, tabletop RPG's have lost their way. I could do without the digs at WotC but he's almost certainly got a point and is, with absolutely certainty, better placed to judge Hasbro's attitude to licensing than most people here. So, it's hard to dismiss his comments.

Having said that, it's not like Pathfinder's video game offerings are setting the world on fire. They've got their MMO coming, sure, but from what I can glean it's going to be light on content and heavy on sand-boxy, player-driven goals. Not to sound partisan myself, but I have a lot of history with dozens of MMO's, and I certainly know what that sounds like to me. And what else? A tablet card game, still in development?

 

[variant]

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.

This is nonsense. You get almost every new release from Amazon at 40% discount. Amazon's discounts are solely done by an algorithm that is determined by the number of sales. The more sales, the higher the discount.

 

[DEFCON 1]

"I'm probably one of the people who has one of the most electronic D&D games that they've worked on".

Is this a typo, or am I just not understanding his point? What is "one of the most electronic" games supposed to mean?

I'm assuming editing error. He's probably saying that he's worked on more electronic D&D games than most anyone else... which could be true based upon Black Isle being the publisher of Baldur's Gate 1 & 2, and developer of Planescape: Torment and Icewind Dale 1 & 2... and Obsidian being the developer of Neverwinter Nights 2 (plus all expansions of said games.)

 

[Eejit]

Having said that, it's not like Pathfinder's video game offerings are setting the world on fire. They've got their MMO coming, sure, but from what I can glean it's going to be light on content and heavy on sand-boxy, player-driven goals. Not to sound partisan myself, but I have a lot of history with dozens of MMO's, and I certainly know what that sounds like to me. And what else? A tablet card game, still in development?

Yeah, if your name isn't "EVE Online" player-driven sandbox doesn't work out so well...

 

[Alzrius]

Wikipedia says 1999?

Hm, and it has the sources to back it up.

My mistake.

 

[variant]

Yeah, if your name isn't "EVE Online" player-driven sandbox doesn't work out so well...

There hasn't been a whole lot of player-driven sandbox games to begin with. Ultima Online, Star Wars Galaxies, and EVE have all done well. Very few MMORPGs has done exceptionally well, whether it's sandbox or themepark.

That said, Pathfinder Online is a rip-off. You had to not only spend a ton of money on Kickstarter to get into the alpha, but pay a monthly fee to test their game as well. It is going to be eclipsed by the various sandbox games in works such as The Repopulation, Everquest Next, and the recently announced Crowfall.

 

[Neonchameleon]

As a general rule anyone who wants TSR back can be safely ignored. As can anyone working for/with someone's competition. That's two strikes.

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.

At this point I think most of Mearls goodwill comes from a group that hasn't bought D&D other than core rules since TSR were a thing. He was identified with 4e, pissing off most of the Pathfinder fans. And he also made jokes about shouting hands back on and other anti-4e edition war nonsense in the runup to 5e.

Also:

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.