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.

 

[Wicht]

Seriously, "Sweet Talker" is an insult now?

Maybe its regional. It doesn't conjure negative connotations for me, though it can be used in a sarcastic manner.

 

[pemerton]

Good call... I had forgotten about those being published as well...

I mentioned them in one of the posts of mine to which you replied.

As I indicated then, I doubt that they generated revenue comparable to DDI. The market for those books is not fully saturated, but I can't imagine there was that much unmet demand.

 

[Hussar]

But Pem you have to remember that for some people, 4e must be a failure in all things. Nothing about 4e can ever be considered successful.

 

[Imaro]

But Pem you have to remember that for some people, 4e must be a failure in all things. Nothing about 4e can ever be considered successful.

Go back and read the posts... again I never called 4e a "failure" but claiming 4e financed the development of 5e is a pretty bold statement that goes beyond 4e wasn't a failure or even that 4e was "successful"... and sorry I'm not going to just accept it unless you actually work at WotC and/or have some data to back it up.

Here we go... poor 4e the victim edition. Maybe it's that some people for whatever reason continue to want to exaggerate the success of 4e without the requisite proof of said claims... or that they can't accept the other side of the coin... *gasp* that 4e could have actually failed financially...since you decided to jump in, just curious do you have any proof that 4e and DDI financed the development of 5e? That the board games, novels, reprint editions, etc. played no part in the budget that was allotted for 5e development? If so I'd love to hear it... if not the above just sounds like deflection for having to provide some actual proof for the statement that was made by @pemerton.

 

[Imaro]

I mentioned them in one of the posts of mine to which you replied.

As I indicated then, I doubt that they generated revenue comparable to DDI. The market for those books is not fully saturated, but I can't imagine there was that much unmet demand.

They didn't have to generate revenue comparable to DDI in order to have contributed to financing the development of 5e.

 

[pemerton]

do you have any proof that 4e and DDI financed the development of 5e? That the board games, novels, reprint editions, etc. played no part in the budget that was allotted for 5e development?

No one has said that. I mentioned the reprints in my original posts. I didn't mention the boardgames and novels but have since invited you (or anyone else) to contribute what they know about their sales (compared especially to DDI).

They didn't have to generate revenue comparable to DDI in order to have contributed to financing the development of 5e.

Sure. My conjecture is that their contribution was modest at best. Do you think I'm wrong?

 

[Imaro]

No one has said that. I mentioned the reprints in my original posts. I didn't mention the boardgames and novels but have since invited you (or anyone else) to contribute what they know about their sales (compared especially to DDI).

I'm sorry wasn't your original statement that 4e & DDI financed the development of 5e?

I know about as much as you know concerning 4e and DDI's actual revenues concerning the actual sales for novels, boardgames, etc. go... but then I'm not making any claims about the financing of 5e...

Sure. My conjecture is that their contribution was modest at best. Do you think I'm wrong?

I think you don't know...

I will note... no new 4e stuff is being made... no new DDI stuff is being produced... but boardgames using the same 4e-esque rules are still being produced

 

[Mercule]

Maybe its regional. It doesn't conjure negative connotations for me, though it can be used in a sarcastic manner.

Agreed. It's one of the things that can be used on either side of the line. It's a bit like "interesting" -- my kids use that word all the time and it drives me nuts.

But Pem you have to remember that for some people, 4e must be a failure in all things. Nothing about 4e can ever be considered successful.

It goes both ways. There are those to whom any criticism of 4E is a grievous insult. Even saying, "It just doesn't feel like like the other editions of D&D, to me," brings out pitchforks.

 

[DEFCON 1]

It goes both ways. There are those to whom any criticism of 4E is a grievous insult. Even saying, "It just doesn't feel like like the other editions of D&D, to me," brings out pitchforks.

Not to put too fine a point on it... but as someone who probably would be considered on the side of the "4E apologists"... I will say that while I'm sure there have been a couple people who might bring out the pitchforks if you made a statement of "It just doesn't feel like like the other editions of D&D, to me."... most of us would accept that statement as-is with no comment. It's just your personal opinion and you stated it as such. But more often than not, it's when a person posts a straight "4E isn't D&D" that the rest of us will then comment. Because that person is trying to imply that their opinion is empirical fact, when in truth, it's merely their opinion.

Should the rest of us just accept that when someone makes a point here on the boards that *of course* it's merely their opinion, even if that part is unsaid in their post? Maybe. But at the same time... if you want to make a point about your personal preferences and not receive much (or any) criticism or comment on it, you probably should include "In my opinion..." or "My personal preference is..." as well. Because these boards are rife with people who post thinking their beliefs are facts, not opinions. And yeah, they're gonna get called out on it. You don't want to get call out... just say straight out what you mean. Nothing wrong with that, and you'll find the rest of us tends to be fine with differing opinions on personal preference.

 

[Dire Bare]

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

No idea how much money comics bring in for Marvel and DC, they may still be profitable on their own for both companies . . . . but print comics are a struggling business, just like tabletop RPGs.

I am fairly confident that the movies and television shows, and even the video games, based on the Marvel and DC characters bring in TONS more money than the actual comics, so why continue with the comics? 1) The comics are still potentially profitable on their own, even if on a way smaller scale, 2) comics are the *core* of the DC and Marvel brands, they drive everything else, and 3) (as mentioned upthread) comics are a more effective medium for generating new characters and new stories, in other words, new IP that future movies and TV shows can build off of.

But if for some crazy reason Marvel and DC were not allowed to license out their characters and stories anymore for movies, tv, and videogames . . . . I think the comics would go the way of the dinosaurs not long after.

Take away the comics and try to continue with the movies, tv, and videogames? It's possible, in theory, but I don't think it would work out very well. Personally, I think print comics are dying . . . or at least changing in format, but comics will survive in some form, perhaps digital. (I LOVE comixology!)

WotC is taking a similar approach with D&D. The game itself makes profit, although not on a large scale. It is the core of the D&D brand and generates the characters, stories, and worlds that can drive future potential movies, tv, and videogames . . . where the real money is. Trying to build the brand without the game wouldn't work out any better than comic book movies without the comics, but it's the larger profit WotC is chasing, as they should!