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.

 

[Shasarak]

Where D&D languishes a bit is that there's not a good adult-oriented media property for it. Peter Jackson's movies are sophisticated and high-quality entertainment. Game of Thrones is an HBO show involving violence and drama and death and dongs and dragons. D&D has a kid's show from the '80's, a few good video games from the '90's, that awful movie, and some nostalgia for FR books.

The culture's ready. The issue with D&D-branded material is that so much of it is not good, and then what is good tends to be old or only really good if you're 12. The game has come out of the basement, but for those people without 4 hrs/week to spend on the BEST expression of D&D, there's not a lot out there for 'em.

If you think that Peter Jacksons Hobbit is sophisticated and high-quality entertainment then no one does Tolkien rip-off material like DnD.. You have 40 years of material that is equally as sophisticated and high-quality as a Burning eye BBEG whose main power is the ability not to notice a hobbit sneaking into its backyard or an Orc with one-hand cut off.

 

[Jeff Albertson]

You have 40 years of material that is equally as sophisticated and high-quality as a Burning eye BBEG whose main power is the ability not to notice a hobbit sneaking into its backyard or an Orc with one-hand cut off.

The one-handed orc deal (Pale Orc?), was just for the movie, right?

 

[Mark CMG]

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.

This brings up another problem that crops up when discussing Roleplaying Games. SB and RR aren't really styles of play but rather types of games. They both have a Roleplaying Game core or ancestor (depending on how far they have moved from that core). This is similar to how Storytelling Game have Roelplaying Games at their root but Sandbox (here's a world, you got guys, go look around) and later Railroad (here's a trail, this is where it goes, here are your options at each juncture along the way) are earlier than SG. It would seem that some of the more restrictive parts of RRs are what they were trying to loosen up as they developed SGs, though I have no firsthand knowledge of this (just my general impression).

Styles of play in a Roleplaying Game are the ways in which one presents their character, as in through dialog and first person, or in describing what that character is like or does in the third person, etc. I've hesitated to bring this up here in this thread because inevitably someone will get very excited and point to this as evidence of story-first theories because the names of the types of roleplaying echo the names of narrative forms. However, these are more akin to dramatic presentation forms than literary narrative forms (but still separate from the former as well).

So, what you're describing really are different types of games with a Roleplaying Game core, and all are perfectly legitimate ways to enjoy gaming, no one necessarily better than another except in how well those playing enjoy them. I also agree that these types of games are often mixed and can mix quite well in the right hands.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

That sounds reasonable.

But, a DM can always /make/ things turn out the way he 'predicts.' If he really wants the recurring villain to get away, no matter what the PCs do to try to stop him, the recurring villain can get away. So there's also the question of to what extent the DM feels comfortable forcing issues, vs letting players' decisions matter, vs following the dice...

 

[Bedrockgames]

That sounds reasonable.

But, a DM can always /make/ things turn out the way he 'predicts.' If he really wants the recurring villain to get away, no matter what the PCs do to try to stop him, the recurring villain can get away. So there's also the question of to what extent the DM feels comfortable forcing issues, vs letting players' decisions matter, vs following the dice...

This is why for me, personally, rather than thinking in terms of "what is the story" I like to think in terms of setting elements like NPCs, power groups, etc. So rather than create a scenario or concept I want to unfold, I begin with an NPC who wants something to unfold. It is a seemingly minor but important difference. If I am acting on NPC motives, power group motives and interests, I find I can better react to what the players do and adapt how things develop in a way that just feels more plausible (because I am dealing with character and group motives rather than an overarching concept----it is easier for me to get a handle no how those involved react when PCs do something unexpected or make them an offer).

 

[Mark CMG]

This is why for me, personally, rather than thinking in terms of "what is the story" I like to think in terms of setting elements like NPCs, power groups, etc. So rather than create a scenario or concept I want to unfold, I begin with an NPC who wants something to unfold. It is a seemingly minor but important difference. If I am acting on NPC motives, power group motives and interests, I find I can better react to what the players do and adapt how things develop in a way that just feels more plausible (because I am dealing with character and group motives rather than an overarching concept----it is easier for me to get a handle no how those involved react when PCs do something unexpected or make them an offer).

It's similar to how the best actors will tell you great performances arise, by them staying in the moment, listening to their scene partners, and reacting honestly according to their characters. The story that naturally develops from such game play by the players and the GM (in the part of the various NPCs) can be much more satisfying than one scripted by a GM and played out despite what the players do or what they'd expect from NPCs based on the motivations they exhibited. It requires a level of trust that not all gaming groups have with one another but can be built. There's an old improv saying that applies, "Let's go somewhere, anywhere, together."

 

[Remathilis]

This brings up another problem that crops up when discussing Roleplaying Games. SB and RR aren't really styles of play but rather types of games. They both have a Roleplaying Game core or ancestor (depending on how far they have moved from that core). This is similar to how Storytelling Game have Roelplaying Games at their root but Sandbox (here's a world, you got guys, go look around) and later Railroad (here's a trail, this is where it goes, here are your options at each juncture along the way) are earlier than SG. It would seem that some of the more restrictive parts of RRs are what they were trying to loosen up as they developed SGs, though I have no firsthand knowledge of this (just my general impression).

No, they're the same game, played differently. I can buy Princes of the Apocalypse and run an pre-determined AP, or I can buy the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting and let the group wander around Neverwinter, but I'm still using the D&D 5e rules.

Also, I fail to see a difference between Storytelling and Roleplaying Games. In both you have a character that reacts to events around them. You assume a role. In one, the events are predetermined to an extent, while the other is open ended. Its like saying that improv is acting, but following a script is merely reading lines. Complicating conversation with Forge-like jargon only further muddies the point.

Styles of play in a Roleplaying Game are the ways in which one presents their character, as in through dialog and first person, or in describing what that character is like or does in the third person, etc. I've hesitated to bring this up here in this thread because inevitably someone will get very excited and point to this as evidence of story-first theories because the names of the types of roleplaying echo the names of narrative forms. However, these are more akin to dramatic presentation forms than literary narrative forms (but still separate from the former as well).

All dialog, in essence, is storytelling. Ever have a conversation with someone who feels obligated to tell you every menial detail of how their day went? Its painful to listen to. We want them to get to the point! Humans crave story narrative. We want beginnings, middles, and ends. We like logical flow. We logically structure everything into stories (and make up stories when needed) because they are a convenient way of making order of chaos. Naturally, Role-playing (which is nothing more the collaborative campfire storytelling) would use the language of story to do so.

So, what you're describing really are different types of games with a Roleplaying Game core, and all are perfectly legitimate ways to enjoy gaming, no one necessarily better than another except in how well those playing enjoy them. I also agree that these types of games are often mixed and can mix quite well in the right hands.

No, I'm describing a role-playing game, which is what D&D calls itself right on the cover. It can be played a dozen different ways; deep narratives, random dungeons, or anything in between. It can be played with PC "toons" or with complex characters. It can be linear or expansive. It can follow a predefined narrative or have no overarching plot. But its all still role-playing. Trying to shove them into boxes like "storyteller" game creates unneeded artificial divide. Its lingo for lingo's sake, since the functional difference between them is nil.

Different playstyles =/= different games.

 

[Mark CMG]

I'm describing a role-playing game, which is what D&D calls itself right on the cover.

Therein lies part of the problem with these discussion. While many games (including various versions of D&D) might have a roleplaying game at their core (or some games might have roleplaying games facets), and print it right on the cover/box, they can be and often are very different games. This is sometimes true at the point of publication and more regularly true when the rubber meets the road, as previously said above. Someone can use the base rules for a game and run an entirely different game. I recently began working on the idea of using the Legends of the Old West minis skirmish rules from Mongoose publishing for the base rules in an Old West RPG. But it doesn't have to happen as purposefully as this. I've seen/participated in games where people used the WFRPG with no roleplaying whatsoever, perhaps because their background was with Warhammer minis and they got into WFRPG and wound up using it essentially as a more detailed skirmish minis combat system. I don't take what is printed on the cover of a game at face value.

 

[Remathilis]

Therein lies part of the problem with these discussion. While many games (including various versions of D&D) might have a roleplaying game at their core (or some games might have roleplaying games facets), and print it right on the cover/box, they can be and often are very different games. This is sometimes true at the point of publication and more regularly true when the rubber meets the road, as previously said above. Someone can use the base rules for a game and run an entirely different game. I recently began working on the idea of using the Legends of the Old West minis skirmish rules from Mongoose publishing for the base rules in an Old West RPG. But it doesn't have to happen as purposefully as this. I've seen/participated in games where people used the WFRPG with no roleplaying whatsoever, perhaps because their background was with Warhammer minis and they got into WFRPG and wound up using it essentially as a more detailed skirmish minis combat system. I don't take what is printed on the cover of a game at face value.

Its still all Forgespeak to me; which is why I'm so perplexed as to why you want to deny certain games (or certain styles of games) the term "role-playing game" unless its to co-opt the term for an exacting form of gaming you believe in inherently superior (and thus exclude the unwashed masses from). Onetruewayism never serves any purpose.

But hey, follow your arrow man. If it helps you sleep at night to know you play a role-playing game and I play a storyteller game and Bob plays a skirmish game even though we're all playing 5e, then shine on.

 

[Mark CMG]

Its still all Forgespeak to me; which is why I'm so perplexed as to why you want to deny certain games (or certain styles of games) the term "role-playing game" unless its to co-opt the term for an exacting form of gaming you believe in inherently superior (and thus exclude the unwashed masses from). Onetruewayism never serves any purpose.

Naw, I'm no Forge-ist, nor someone who wants to do more than discuss RPGs and their offshoots more precisely to avoid many of the misconceptions and miscommunications that crop up from folks using the same exact words to describe a broad range of games and experiences. In point of fact, I have been saying precisely the opposite of Onetruewayism.

But hey, follow your arrow man. If it helps you sleep at night to know you play a role-playing game and I play a storyteller game and Bob plays a skirmish game even though we're all playing 5e, then shine on.

But I don't just play one game. I was a wargamer before RPGs were even published and my gaming group added D&D to the mix when it came out. I've played hundreds of RPGs and their offshoots, wargames, board games, card games, and dice games over the years and don't judge one type of gaming as better in and of itself.

There's no need to shoot the messenger here. I have no problem with whatever type of game you choose to play or how you play it.