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]

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

Huh? I suggested that it was most likely successful, and funded the development of 5e - which you then queried.

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.

I don't think I used the word "wholly". I have no idea how much money the boardgames made/make - do you?

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.

It's about rate of return, and also development of IP. Presumably there are a finite number of films that can be financed at once; and an optimal rate of release. Comics are cheaper, presumably make some worthwhile returns, and serve as a vehicle to develop characters, plots etc.

The analogue for D&D would be novels and perhaps adventure modules.

 

[Imaro]

Huh? I suggested that it was most likely successful, and funded the development of 5e - which you then queried.

Yes I queried the statement that 4e financed 5e...

This is the statement where 4e as a financial failure is specifically brought up...

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? Particularly when a big part of that previous project was supposed to be a subscription revenue stream (ie DDI)?.

You made the above statement...

I don't think I used the word "wholly". I have no idea how much money the boardgames made/make - do you?

You didn't use the word partially either... do I really need to quote where you stated... that 4e/DDI financed 5e without a qualifier? If not I'll take it that you meant to include said qualifier and move on...

It's about rate of return, and also development of IP. Presumably there are a finite number of films that can be financed at once; and an optimal rate of release. Comics are cheaper, presumably make some worthwhile returns, and serve as a vehicle to develop characters, plots etc.

So even if a previous edition did poorly... there are reasons a company might produce another one...though probably in doing so they would try to minimize risk... sounds familiar.

The analogue for D&D would be novels and perhaps adventure modules.

I don't agree... without the original game you don't have the IP... without the original comics you don't have the IP

 

[Wicht]

You probably should just point to what I have posted rather than paraphrase your misinterpretations of my posts.

Where's the fun in that?

 

[Wicht]

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

Except in Hollywood.

 

[Bedrockgames]

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

The names on the inside of the 4E PHB and the 5E PHB look like a very different development team to me.

 

[Bedrockgames]

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

I don't think this is necessarily the case with game designers though. If the failure was due to the designers being bad at their job, then sure, you wouldn't want to in vest in them again. But if it was due to the design goals not matching what the market wanted, you don't necessarily need to blame the designers involved. In the case of 4E, I think the designers all did their jobs well. They made a game that met their design goals and was a solid system. I just think the problem was it wasn't the kind of game people were looking for in D&D.

 

[jodyjohnson]

I hope in 40 years when I'm playing D&D (whatever version we can agree on) in the retirement home that we're still beating the "4e failed" horse.

Because really that discussion is never going to get old.

 

[Halivar]

I hope in 40 years when I'm playing D&D (whatever version we can agree on) in the retirement home that we're still beating the "4e failed" horse.

Because really that discussion is never going to get old.

And the old codger in the bed next to you, yelling over his applesauce, "By gum, next quarter that new-fangled 5E will fail, you'll see!"

 

[Kramodlog]

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

Not every team has a sweet talking Mike Mearls.

 

[Halivar]

Not every team has a sweet talking Mike Mearls.

And we wonder why no one from WotC comes around to talk anymore. :/