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.

 

[pemerton]

The previous Tabletop rpg's performance may be exactly why this time around WotC has chosen to focus on the numerous other incarnations of "D&D" (boardgames, videogames, novels, movies, etc.).

On another note I find it extremely interesting that DDI... ofttimes characterized by 4e fans as turning an enormous profit, even to the point of being compared to "free money" for WotC... is being ended (no new material, no updates, etc.) as opposed to being built upon and capitalized upon for 5e... but then all we have is speculation

It's possible that those boardgame sales financed it, yes - my intuition, though, is that you wouldn't let a RPG group spend two years designing a new RPG if their last RPG had been a commercial failure. You'd turn them into a boardgame (or novels, or whatever) group.

On DDI - it is still there, hence I assume there are still subscribers. It is almost free money (there are the costs of handling subscriptions and technical maintenance). If DDI was losing money, they wouldn't keep it on. Creating new updates and so on would cost money, so I don't see why you think someone who wants free money would spend time doing that.

As to why it is not being used for 5e - because WotC seems to have decided that licensing this stuff out is more effective. Given the general criticisms of DDI from the technical point of view, that might be a wise judgment.

 

[Imaro]

It's possible that those boardgame sales financed it, yes - my intuition, though, is that you wouldn't let a RPG group spend two years designing a new RPG if their last RPG had been a commercial failure. You'd turn them into a boardgame (or novels, or whatever) group.

By this logic Disney/Marvel should stop making actual comic books and only make movies... why haven't they?

On DDI - it is still there, hence I assume there are still subscribers. It is almost free money (there are the costs of handling subscriptions and technical maintenance). If DDI was losing money, they wouldn't keep it on. Creating new updates and so on would cost money, so I don't see why you think someone who wants free money would spend time doing that.

I never said it was losing money... of course it did tend to cannibalize sales from many of the actual 4e books so it still may have contributed to 4e being less profitable overall than expected or desired... who knows.

As to why it is not being used for 5e - because WotC seems to have decided that licensing this stuff out is more effective. Given the general criticisms of DDI from the technical point of view, that might be a wise judgment.

Possibly... that didn't really work out for them this time... or the time they tried it in 3e (wasn't it Code Monkey back then?). In fact it seems like the only times we've gotten electronic tools is when the actual makers of D&D created them... Core Rules for AD&D 2e (I could be wrong here but I don't think this was licensed out) and DDI for 4e... but yeah I guess they could have thought this time it would be different.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't think any of us can really know what the cash flow situation is at WoTC. It certainly is likely the revenue from 4e books and DDI went toward 5E but honestly who knows.

That's not usually how it goes for a small unit of a large company. Usually revenue gets rolled up, and you get a budget, whether you're doing well or poorly ATM. Of course, each quarter you get reviewed and that budget could change disastrously. It's not like a small, closely-held company where cash flow in right now can be instantly translated to investment in what you're working on, right now. Of course, Hasbro could be different, or could be treating WotC as a black box, and it's WotC making the budget, not Hasbro. :shrug:

 

[pemerton]

By this logic Disney/Marvel should stop making actual comic books and only make movies... why haven't they?

What logic? Are Marvel Comics a financial failure?

I'm not able to follow your argument here.

 

[Kramodlog]

As [MENTION=16169]DongMaster[/MENTION] posted, Paizo is not a charity either. They published books that they believed would make them a profit - they didn't "support" their game out of a sense of duty!

Good thing I never said they did. That is called a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man.

If WotC take a different view about what is the best commercial strategy for D&D, that's their prerogative.

As a potential costumer, I still can voice my thoughts on the matter. One of them being that this is a bad business move, like 4e was.

Is you whole argument about saying I can't voice my opinion?

Even if the focus is on the hobby rather than commerce, I don't know of any evidence that Paizo's rate of publication makes PF the better game,

Heh, another strawman.

or the more popular game, or the more played game, than D&D 5e.

ICv2 is a metric we can use for popularity. Roll20 is another. Organize play is another. I'm sure there are plenty I can't think of. Amazon ranking ain't one cause WotC doesn't have a online store while Paizo does. Right now 5e is fresh out of the box after two years of no publication and an edition that bad and divisive. I a year or two, it will be interesting to check those metrics once 5e has lost freshness and the lack of support as kicked in.

 

[Kramodlog]

I don't know, in the sense that I haven't seen their accounts.

But would WotC allow a unit to spend two years developing a product if their previous project was such a failure that it doesn't provide enough revenue to support the development?

Yes. A lot of compagnies take risk with investment in research and developement. A lot of money can get sinked in projects that do not see the light of day. Read the Jeremy Crawford interview. I clearly says that executives at WotC had to be convinced of taking risks and gambles, they had to do a lot of reports on their work without knowing it would be worth it.

 

[pemerton]

Yes. A lot of compagnies take risk with investment in research and developement. A lot of money can get sinked in projects that do not see the light of day. Read the Jeremy Crawford interview. I clearly says that executives at WotC had to be convinced of taking risks and gambles, they had to do a lot of reports on their work without knowing it would be worth it.

Of course businesses take risks. But they often don't let development groups which have failed have another go!

 

[pemerton]

As a potential costumer, I still can voice my thoughts on the matter.

<snip>

Is you whole argument about saying I can't voice my opinion?

You're free to voice whatever you're like (within board rules). Just as I'm free to reply.

Obviously you think you know better than WotC how to make money with the D&D IP. I haven't seen any evidence of that, though. All you keep saying is that they should be more like Paizo. Yet as far as I can tell (eg Amazon rankings, testimony from game store owners, etc) 5e is selling better than PF. Just as 4e sold better than PF for a good part of its publication period (at least the first half, I think).

ICv2 is a metric we can use for popularity.

And D&D is on top. But in fact ICv2 measures sales. It doesn't measure popularity, because people can - and do - play RPGs without buying product.

AD&D, for instance, has remained popular for 30+ years, with barely any sales at all for the past 15 of those.

That's part of the commercial challenge of being a RPG publisher - that you have to persuade the people who play your game to buy stuff that they don't need to play your game! WotC seems to have decided that it's going to be easier and more commercially effective to persuade people to buy non-RPG stuff that they don't need to play the game.

 

[Imaro]

What logic? Are Marvel Comics a financial failure?

I'm not able to follow your argument here.

You made the statement about 4e being a financial failure... not me.

I on the other hand have commented about whether 4e financed 5e... which was what you originally stated... and the fact that the board games, novels, etc. make more revenue than the 4e rpg and DDI... thus it was more likely 5e was financed by these endeavors than being wholly financed by 4e and DDI. Now if we stick to my actual assertion then yes the movies (just like the boadgames, novels, etc.) make much more money than the actual comic books... so by your logic why haven't they stopped publishing comic books and become just a movie studio for their IP? In other words logically your assertion that if the boardgames of WotC make more money than the rpg... they would only produce board games doesn't make sense.

 

[Imaro]

My reasoning relies on two premises:

(1) I don't think the D&D group was kept on as a charity case;

(2) Because that's what they were selling in those two years (plus the re-releases of the AD&D and 3E rulebooks).

I guess it's possible they made the bulk of their income from those re-releases rather than DDI income, but that seems unlikely to me.

Ok, I don't think everyone from the D&D group that created 4e was kept on for 5e. And again... number 2 totally ignores everything else, outside of 4e that they sold during that period...