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.

 

[Jaron Mortimer]

A lot of the fan's issues (such as mine) would be solved if they just had a damn OGL for this edition. People keep talking about psionics, and how much they want that, but even Pathfinder didn't do that in house (Thank you, DSP).

Give the third parties a chance to make the stuff you don't want to make while you're making your big, set piece adventures. The third party bloat is NOT what killed 3.0, 3.5, or 4.0...it was the WOTC published bloat that killed them.

 

[SilverfireSage]

As far as I know, Frog God isn't WotC. Its products do not have WotC's seal on it, so it isn't WotC supporting its edition. Out of the 7 products WotC released you have a starter kit that is for noobs. So we are left with the core books, which is the birth of an edition. The very basis. Cool. What else? Psionics? Planes? Campaign settings (old or new), MM2? No.

What else as came out? Well not much. Two lackluster APs (one of which is divided in two books). Not very enticing to buy and nothing but those are coming out. 1 or 2 a year. Want something else? Too bad for you. WotC doesn't want your patronage.

Maybe if WotC actually published ground braking APs that reinvented the product like Paizo did, and still does, the strategy of putting all their eggs in one basket wouldn't be so bad. Right now it is an edition with core rules books and not much else to give it attractiveness.

Not content. Just redundant stuff to drain your money. Like Fantasy Ground's platform is not content, just a platform for the little content we have.

Wow. 4 races. Unearthed stuff is nice, but limited in scope and length. Not playtested either. It is scraps. Not meat.

What I'm hearing is, content that is not what I want isn't content, just redundant stuff to drain your money. I can't argue with this, because it's an opinion that is twisting the word "content" into something contextualized purely for yourself.

A year of stuff out? Read the interview. If another AP comes out this year, we're lucky. D&D with 1 or 2 APs coming out a year is not a lively edition. It is on life support.

Aside from the brand manager saying in the interview found in the OP?

Please provide the quote saying that they will not release any more products for D&D. There were a lot about the brand manager, i.e. someone who doesn't actually write the content for WotC, talking about the brand. I don't see anything about book releases except that they won't release a Player's Handbook 2 any time soon.

Video game gamers consumme a lot more than one a year. The problem is platform for RPGs. AKA the rules. Only WotC can make D&D stuff, unless it releases a OGL. The platform for video games is either a PC or a console. Once you have a PC, you can buy many games. Consoles work with third parties to have content for their platform. WotC isn't doing that. Maybe they will you say? Well, so far all that has been said points to no. Ok, the APs. But those are subpar and niche.

Please provide evidence where the APs are both subpar and niche.

The platform isn't supported. That is why it lost its liveliness. Its momemtum.

Want psionics, planar details, campaign settings, new classes, more magic items, other monster manuals? Too bad for you. You have all that you'll get.

This game has been out for 10 months. Not even Pathfinder had any of that stuff 10 months after release, and they straight up ripped everything from the 3.5 books. Calm down, you're being absurdly fatalistic.

I saw more enthusiasm with 3e and Pathfinder. Well, not at first. When the core books were caming out, there was lots of positive feedback. Once the DMG was out people started looking at what was coming next. The Adventurer's Handbook was cancelled and no product are annouced after PotA. Enthusiasm led way to
disappointement. Maybe frustration. Sure some are happy, but those are people who probably wouldn't have bought other products (based on their comments about dislike of bloat).

Check out this thread and the people voicing disappointement. Or the thread started by the Jon Brazer guy, saying D&D isn't maintaining his interest, to paraphrase.

Fortunately, this single message board does not constitute the entire gaming community (not to mention if you actually do read that Jon Brazer thread, there's an outpouring of support for 5E). Purely by myself, I've seen much more enthusiasm with actual play, with people going into gaming stores to buy the books, with Adventurer's League, with new players first starting than I ever did with Pathfinder or 4E. Maybe I wasn't quite into the scene then as I am now, but I don't remember Pathfinder getting the news articles that 5E is on CNN and Forbes.

The bottom line is this: The game hasn't been out that long. Wizards is hesitant to build up people's expectations, and have been keeping things very close to their chest. PotA was announced, what, a month and half before release? There's plenty of time for more content to be released. Besides, I'm having a hard time believing that you have already exhausted the contents of the three core books already.

 

[Zaran]

Video games = money.

Hasbro probably want to bring dnd over to a more profitable market than tabletop rpgs.

(which pretty much is all other markets)

Good for them. Bad for me. And in my opinion bad for the hobby.

Perhaps they should hire a few more people and do both.

 

[DongMaster]

Amen SilverfireSage, amen!

 

[Mercule]

update it yourself then!!

Having lived/played through the 1E => 2E change, that didn't break much existing stuff. Even if an NPC was statted for 1E, you could use him in a 2E game. I hated the 2E Ranger, so we used the 1E Ranger all the way through. No issues at all. The 1E NPC classes in Dragon worked in a 2E game. You could apply many 2E kits to their 1E class.

3E and 4E broke huge amounts of stuff. That isn't the same thing as saying the rules were bad. They were just substantive shifts and really demanded an update to things. In many cases, there wasn't so much a conversion path as there was a rebuild path.

5E is a weird middle ground of compatibility. It actually seems to mostly work for at least 1E through 3.5E (I don't have any 4E stuff to compare, anymore). It still takes some effort, but it isn't always a complete rebuild.

We're going to have a 6E, whether next year or in 2030. If it comes in the next few years and is a 2E => 3E jump, then I get not publishing any new core setting books. What we've got works well enough to make the opportunity cost inappropriate.

On the other hand, if 5E is really the "evergreen" edition, including the idea that 5E => 6E will look more like the 1E => 2E upgrade, then I'd really like to just have an "evergreen" setting book.

 

[Dire Bare]

What I find interesting about your comments is that they represent exactly one of the things that caused Paizo to spin off on their own in the first place: that 4E couldn't tell the kind of stories they wanted to tell.

Pretty sure that was not the reason Paizo developed the Pathfinder game. It had nothing to do with "stories" and everything to do with the lack of an OGL at the time and Paizo's need to have a product line that was not reliant on WotC.

WotC's method makes for a particular flavour of D&D and varies in its success, and I don't think there's much chance the company is going to change its approach: they stuck to the formula through 4E and it looks like they're sticking to it now.

I may be missing what you are saying, but WotC has a very different approach to 5E than they did for 4E.

I'm inclined to pick up one of Paizo's more recent AP's so as to get a feel for where their experience has taken them. Like it or not, their audience is, I think, different than Wizards' in many ways. They can afford to take a few more risks.

Paizo does tell interesting and awesome stories, and they do push the envelope on the D&D genre of fantasy. WotC does play it more "safe" (which is maybe what you meant above) and does not push far past the boundaries of "standard" D&D. But considering their position in the industry and the resources they have to develop the game and the brand, I'm fine with that. WotC and D&D are the core of the RPG industry, but there is certainly more out there worth checking out. I'm fine with that relationship!

 

[wedgeski]

Pretty sure that was not the reason Paizo developed the Pathfinder game. It had nothing to do with "stories" and everything to do with the lack of an OGL at the time and Paizo's need to have a product line that was not reliant on WotC.

It was most definitely stated as one of the reasons the GSL was inappropriate for them.

Paizo does tell interesting and awesome stories, and they do push the envelope on the D&D genre of fantasy. WotC does play it more "safe" (which is maybe what you meant above) and does not push far past the boundaries of "standard" D&D.

Yes that's pretty much what I meant. It's one of those nebulous things: you can tell a WotC story when you see it.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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 mean, I don't entirely agree, but lets say this: if the "safe harbor" to publish 5e content were available, the people who wanted more product can go throw money at those folks with the time and inclination to put together a decent-looking PDF or even a published product, and the complaints of those who continued to grouse about a "lack of support" because it "wasn't from WotC" would seem...at the very least, *very specific.*

 

[ExploderWizard]

Good for them. Bad for me. And in my opinion bad for the hobby.

Perhaps they should hire a few more people and do both.

No, your opinion is bad for the INDUSTRY. Hobby wise its right where it needs to be.

Hiring more people to work on LESS profitable stuff wouldn't be properly min-maxing brand profits.

I just wish the those in charge of the rpg actually cared about it. I'm sure the people who work on it do, I'm talking about the suits that decide what resources they get.

Things would be better for the GAME if it were in a smaller company's hands.

 

[Umbran]

I just wish the those in charge of the rpg actually cared about it. I'm sure the people who work on it do, I'm talking about the suits that decide what resources they get.

Things would be better for the GAME if it were in a smaller company's hands.

I am not really sure how. At the moment, they have small-company resources working on the game itself. In a small company, they'd have small-company resources. How would that be better?