WotC's Nathan Stewart: "Story, Story, Story"; and IS D&D a Tabletop Game?

Forbes spoke to WotC's Brand Director & Executive Producer for Dungeons & Dragons, who talked about the 5th Edition launch and his vision for D&D's future. The interview is fairly interesting - it confirms or repeats some information we already know, and also delves a little into the topic of D&D as a wider brand, rather than as a tabletop roleplaying game.

In the interview, he reiterates previous statements that this is the biggest D&D launch ever, in terms of both money and units sold.

[lq]We are story, story, story. The story drives everything.[/lq]

He repeats WoTC's emphasis on storylines, confirming the 1-2 stories per year philosphy. "We are story, story, story. The story drives everything. The need for new rules, the new races, new classes is just based on what’s going to really make this adventure, this story, this kind kind of theme happen." He goes on to say that "We’re not interested in putting out more books for books’ sake... there’s zero plans for a Player’s Handbook 2 any time on the horizon."

As for settings, he confirms that "we’re going to stay in the Forgotten Realms for the foreseeable future." That'll disappoint some folks, I'm sure, but it is their biggest setting, commercially.

Stewart is not "a hundred percent comfortable" with the status of digital tools because he felt like "we took a great step backwards."

[lq]Dungeons and Dragons stopped being a tabletop game years or decades ago. [/lq]

His thoughts on D&D's identity are interesting, too. He mentions that "Dungeons and Dragons stopped being a tabletop game years or decades ago". I'm not sure what that means. His view for the future of the brand includes video games, movies, action figures, and more: "This is no secret for anyone here, but the big thing I want to see is just a triple-A RPG video game. I want to see Baldur’s Gate 3, I want to see a huge open-world RPG. I would love movies about Dungeons and Dragons, or better yet, serialized entertainment where we’re doing seasons of D&D stories and things like Forgotten Realms action figures… of course I’d love that, I’m the biggest geek there is. But at the end of the day, the game’s what we’re missing in the portfolio."

You can read the full interview here.

 

[werecorpse]

There are monsters and spells and bits and pieces scatter throughout the adventure releases - as happened in the TSR modules of the early 80's. Still I think the 1e Fiend Folio and Monster Manual 2 were very welcome tools. I have seen what is available but I still want a couple of monster books, a DM's book with treasure and traps a players options book with domains, path options etc. the 3-4 books will give me almost all that I want. If WOTC make them I will buy them, I can get by without them but I want them

It's interesting that in the 3e era WOTC wasn't that interested in producing adventures as they considered they only sell one of them per 5 players ( to the GM) so instead produced splat books with player options. Now they seem to be all about adventures and no player options

 

[Raith5]

It seems that much like magic items in 5e, if you want setting or niche support you need to gather up a party of adventurers and brave chilly depth of a second hand bookshops, goodwill stores or drivethru RPG to find the setting support and niche support created by the glorious empires and kingdoms of yesterday. Equal parts cool and sad.

 

[Halivar]

Underdark, Shining South, Unapproachable East, Cormyr, Serpent Kingdoms, Lost Empires of Faerun, various Bix sets and adventures such as Myth Drannor, Zhentil Keep, etc....
...
I'm guessing you are new to the game and didn't pay much attention to previous editions because they are full of story elements.

I'm guessing you didn't pay attention to my post where I said, "with the exception of campaign settings." But please, continue listing the things I said did have story.

EDIT: Also, I said "crunch" books, and you list a bunch of fluff books. Next time you want to casually insult someone, at least be right.

 

[Lord Rasputin]

How many 5e players actually run the published adventures? I'm curious. Has Wizards taken a survey, or just done a comparison of sales?

I'd rather have products that help me make my own adventures (NOT stories ... pre-plotting is bad). Not splat books, but rather game elements for adventures. Think Book of Lairs, Ready Ref Sheets, Monster and Treasure Assortment.

 

[JeffB]

Throw that Branding Iron around some more WOTC.

For me, This interview is not surprising in the least.Much of this business model was talked about during the playtest. D&D is now a geek lifestyle brand. Yawn.

This just confirms for me to stop hoping for previous levels of support from old business models, and to continue to spend my money elsewhere with gamers making the kinds of product I want to buy.

Thank You Ryan Dancey for the OGL.

 

[I'm A Banana]

For me, Nathan's words just emphasize the need for a good licensing agreement that will allow people like me (I don't care about FR in the slightest, and I would love to see a new setting) to get 5e content from other publishers.

If WotC wants to focus on FR, that's fine (maybe it's even a good idea if they can license their other settings to other publishers for a small fee). None of the FR products will attract my limited recreational budget, but as long as I have someone else I can turn to who can and will provide the 5e material I would like then I'll be happy to give them my cash instead of WotC.

OGL OGL OGL OGL OGL OGL OGL

Maybe if I say it backwards while looking in a mirror.

LGO LGO LGO LGO LGO LGO LGO

 

[delericho]

How many 5e players actually run the published adventures? I'm curious. Has Wizards taken a survey, or just done a comparison of sales?

I'm pretty sure the answer to your first question is "very few", but I suspect sales aren't the point.

One of D&D's problems is that, despite having 40 years of history behind it, it has actually generated very few recognisable characters that can be licensed, and many of the ones it does have are problematic: Dragonlance is tainted by that crappy animated film, Strahd is a knock-off of the public-domain Dracula, and Drizzt's skin tone makes a film awkward.

The other problem they have is that you can't plan for something to gain traction with the audience - some things work, many fail. Marvel has hundreds of characters, but how many people could name more than a dozen?

So part of the reason for the emphasis on story is to generate IP and characters that might gain traction, and that could then be licensed out. It seems ToD hasn't done that, and it doesn't look like PotA will either, but maybe that "Alice in Wonderland" story? Or the pirate-themed one? Or something. But in a few years, they may find we're all talking about something they've put out, and then that's the one they'll look to build on. (And as with venture capital, or indeed the Marvel universe, one big success pays for an awful lot of relative failures.)

 

[tyrlaan]

OGL OGL OGL OGL OGL OGL OGL

Maybe if I say it backwards while looking in a mirror.

LGO LGO LGO LGO LGO LGO LGO

This, 100 times this. If they release a good OGL, I'm completely fine with WotC doing whatever else they want. If they don't, well, it almost seems like they're just thumbing their nose at us.

I don't need story from them. I don't even really need crunch from them. I just need someone to be able to provide the crunch and be able to legally publish it. I'm never shy about drafting up my own rules, but I think it will be irritating to the gaming community as a whole if there are 345,023 different iterations of psions out there, for example.

I'm all behind minimizing splatbooks and bloat, but currently the PHB feels kind of like the 4e Essentials books did to me... "oh you want to play a cleric? Here's material for only 2 of the domains. Mage? We'll cover 3 of the spell schools."

 

[Mercule]

I agree. I hate Forgotten Realms. If that's their only setting I'll continue to give Paizo hundreds a year and WOTC $0.

To be 100% honest, I'm not sure I'd be as annoyed if it wasn't the Realms getting the attention. Talk about a dead horse. It's the most thoroughly developed setting for D&D, probably any game system. I'm not sure Tolkien did as much work on Middle Earth as we have available for the Realms. The fact that I've always found the setting... less than interesting probably doesn't help my position.

If the goal is to avoid retreading, it would be more honest to do a "one and done" AP for each existing setting. Better yet, come up with APs that call for worlds built around them. Don't do a full-on campaign setting book, but make the AP slightly thicker and have it stand on its own entirely. For bonus points, when you have something like Eberron that offers special classes/races/feats (thinking Dragonmarks), include that in the book, too. Or... that might be a player's guide that would sell itself.

Really, PoA almost has enough information to be stand-alone, rather than Realms-based. It's not the whole world, but doesn't have to be. If the next adventure path was pirate-themed, you have a coastal region. Those may or may not exist in the same "implied setting". Something like the "Age of Worms" AP adds even more info.

 

[Queer Venger]

Well, excepting Underdark (which was originally a part of the World of Greyhawk) all of this is FR stuff, isn't it?
D&D isn't (or apparently _wasn't_) FR.

Imho, FR sucks. FR is everything that I ever disliked about (generic) fantasy settings. It's the worst setting every published for an RPG. Yeah, I guess I'm in the minority about this, but at least your browser seems to agree with me

Thats an opinion, but for those like you there are thousands of grognards like me who love the FR, (check out Candlekeep forum). FR is why Ive stayed with D&D and its almost become synonymous with the brand. Like the article mentions, it lets the design team do just about anything in terms of creating stories.