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.

 

[Mark CMG]

Well, we've got two pretty linear AP's and one sandbox AP. I'm not sure how many conclusions I'd want to draw from that.

I'm only lining up what they are saying with what they are doing. Can you delineate what you are calling a "linear AP" and what you are calling a "sandbox?" Not just by name but in the details you feel are active in each example?

 

[Hussar]

Y'know what? No, I can't. This is pointless. Pedantic hair splitting is far too tiresome. By this time, after this many conversations, if you're still hung up on words like "linear", then there really isn't much point to this.

 

[DongMaster]

Steven Lynch got enough material from this thread to make a new album...

 

[carmachu]

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.

Unfortunately, as much as I like 5th edition, this method is starting to get to be a problem. As someone once said, its great you want to tell your story on your (forgotten realms) world, but so far its not giving me much to tell MY stories on MY world. Not saying to go back to the splat treadmill(pathfinder we're looking at you currently) but as much as I like some of the 5th edition stuff is not giving me what I want.

 

[Wicht]

Apropos of not much, but as my eyes are somewhat afflicted with spring crud today (and I stayed up too late last night), when I read the title of this thread this morning, my brain supplies the info "Martha Stewart: Story, Story, Setting a D&D Tabletop game."

 

[Remathilis]

It may be he is describing his experience imprecisely. It may be what he calls story is actually story elements, which include setting, NPCs, etc., and that he is describing that as a story when it might be more precisely described as a potential-story-in-the-making. If what he actually is meaning is that he has a plotted story through which he guides player (and their character) scene by scene, then what he is describing is a very restrictive type of roleplaying game wherein the players have very little agency. Even so, despite how much of the story in such games is predetermined, if the game includes random aspects like dice, then the story can still only be told after the game has been played. If the players have control beyond their character over the non-PC story elements, then he is describing either a Storytelling Game or, at the least, an RPG with storytelling game elements. I'll leave it to him to clarify his own position.

Is there enough of a difference however to differentiate between POTENTIAL story (hooks, background, motivation, and setting history) and ACTUAL story (the actions the PCs take) when more often than not, the two work in harmony with one another?

 

[Mark CMG]

Is there enough of a difference however to differentiate between POTENTIAL story (hooks, background, motivation, and setting history) and ACTUAL story (the actions the PCs take) when more often than not, the two work in harmony with one another?

You've added other things in beside "Setting" and muddied the waters but, yes, there is still always a difference between something that happens based on the players' decisions and something that is going to happen based on what the GM plans. The first is a Roleplaying Game where the players' actions create a story only in retrospect while the other (to varying degrees) is a story the GM is presenting for the players and allowing them to act out some of the parts that will lead to the ending the GM has planned in advance. Some of the latter story is still up in the air until after the game is over but a great deal of it can be telegraphed and no longer merely "potential" story, more of a foregone conclusion.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Is there enough of a difference however to differentiate between POTENTIAL story (hooks, background, motivation, and setting history) and ACTUAL story (the actions the PCs take) when more often than not, the two work in harmony with one another?

If the GM is planning them then it can be huge.

 

[Remathilis]

You've added other things in beside "Setting" and muddied the waters but, yes, there is still always a difference between something that happens based on the players' decisions and something that is going to happen based on what the GM plans. The first is a Roleplaying Game where the players' actions create a story only in retrospect while the other (to varying degrees) is a story the GM is presenting for the players and allowing them to act out some of the parts that will lead to the ending the GM has planned in advance. Some of the latter story is still up in the air until after the game is over but a great deal of it can be telegraphed and no longer merely "potential" story, more of a foregone conclusion.

If the GM is planning them then it can be huge.

I think what Mark is describing the classic Railroad/Sandbox scenario; who's the ultimate director of the narrative? In RRs, the story is built and the PCs interact with it. In SB, there is no set story and the narrative is only ever what the PCs do. I don't think either isn't role-playing, either isn't a game, and that one is inherently superior to one another (worst case scenarios for RR is the lack of meaningful choice, for SB its the lack of a focus which leads to choice paralysis). In fact, I tend to think both styles tend to mix far more than theorycrafters give them credit for.

My point was to say that when the rubber meets the road; both styles tend to meet in the middle, which blurs the artificial line between the two. I can post my campaign journal which records the events of every session, choices the PCs make, and reads like a story, hence it is Mark's definition of the Story. I could also post my DM notes, which shows the complex web of actions and reactions, planned encounters, "big bads", and seeds for future events, which if I organized, formatted, and laid out systematically would look an awful lot like an AP.

Really, without creating a truly artificial world where everything (from dungeon layout to encounters to treasure) is randomly generated, I can't imagine you separate the two. Hence potential (DM info that the PCs have yet to learn/experience) and actual (what they experienced) being little more than emphasis and verb tense.

 

[Iosue]

Basically, my question when it comes to story is, to what degree do I, as DM, know what will happen in a particular session, and indeed in future sessions?

The more I know and can accurately predict, the more that session of play is intertwined with a story as a through-line.

The less I know and can predict, the more that story is a by-product of that session of play.

In terms of 5W1H, in the first case I typically know Who the characters will interact with, Where they will interact with them, and have a good idea of When and Why. The game, then, is made up of filling out What the characters do, Why they do it, and How they do it.

In the second case, Who, What, What, Why, and How are very much up in the air. I may have an idea of Who and Where if I have a dungeon ready to go, but even that might go someplace unexpected.