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.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

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.

There's also the fact that on the Internet, one angry person with a pitchfork can seem like a whole mob. You don't get nonverbal cues from everyone else saying "I'm not with that guy" like you would in real life, there's just silence.

 

[DEFCON 1]

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!)

I would actually disagree with you here, Brian. Reason being... in the timeline of comic book history, it was the mid 1980s that saw the largest "explosion" of comic sales. More kids began reading more books, collecting comics books became a "money-making" hobby of collecting and saving for eventual resale (which explains why so many major lines had new #1s with like five or six different cover), and it coincided with the rise of the nerd and geek set.

What we are seeing currently is *that* group of kids (of which I would include myself) now in the "Adults" age bracket of being flush with cash from careers, having families etc. etc. etc. So I think even if comic books themselves were to die right now... the movies will continue to be profitable so long as they continue to use the popularity and tropes of the '80s comic boom that we were all reading, and us '80s and early '90s kids are still the target audience willing to spend the money to go see the films. These Marvel and DC movies could continue to be profitable through the 2020s I'd be willing to bet, because all of us Gen Xers would still get the thrill of seeing our comic heroes on the screen.

However... once the comics boom died in the 90s (I think right around the time it got replaced by the Magic The Gathering boom)... the number of people who were comics readers dropped by fairly large numbers, and thus once THAT group becomes the dominant nostalgia consumer market and us Gen Xers become "Middle Aged"... that's when the comic book movies might begin to drop off in popularity.

And if the comic books were cancelled right now? I don't think we'd see a REAL shift until those who are teenager readers right now and who would no longer read comics, become the dominant nostalgia consumer market in twenty years when they turn into their 30s and 40s.

 

[Hussar]

Go back and read the posts... again I never called 4e a "failure"

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...-D-amp-D-a-Tabletop-Game/page38#ixzz3YB0yH1bY

Really? In all your posts, you've never called 4e a failure? Ever? Never ever? Somehow I find that hard to believe, but, it's true, stranger things have happened.

But, yes, of course 5e was funded by the rerelease of pdf's, because, obviously, nothing 4e could possibly make money in order to fund anything.

I mean, good grief. We have a pretty good idea that DDi had somewhere in the neighbourhood of 50k-100k subscribers during the 5e development. That number was tested and retested a number of times and shown to go up or down when you subscribed and went on the WOTC forums. So, it's a fairly solid number.

Do you honestly believe that D&D reprints are making several million dollars per year? Really? Never mind that it was what, late 2012, early 2013 before Drive Thru RPG started selling the reprints again. The first playtest packet came out in late 2012, IIRC. How were the pdf's funding development? What, they decided to close their doors, and just hope that the reprints would pay the bills? In a publicly owned company? Do you honestly believe that's how things work?

This isn't about "poor 4e victims" here. This is about the wilful rewriting AGAIN of history. As I said, it's pretty bloody obvious that the only reason that the DDi couldn't have funded 5e, is because people are invested in the idea that 4e must be a failure in all things. Because if it wasn't a failure in all things, that calls into question what things it might have been successful at. And we obviously can't have that. All things 4e must be excised from D&D.

 

[Eric V]

comics are the *core* of the DC and Marvel brands, they drive everything else/QUOTE]

I wonder how much longer that will be true...certainly any moviegoer who decides to pick up a comic based on liking the movie (or Netflix series) is going to be somewhat confused by what they read...in Iron Man, Superman, Avengers, Daredevil, Spider-Man, and more.

After Marvel's Phase 3? I bet they could stop printing comics and that fact would have no effect on the movie business. Heck, it might not affect it now.

 

[Imaro]

Really? In all your posts, you've never called 4e a failure? Ever? Never ever? Somehow I find that hard to believe, but, it's true, stranger things have happened.

But, yes, of course 5e was funded by the rerelease of pdf's, because, obviously, nothing 4e could possibly make money in order to fund anything.

I mean, good grief. We have a pretty good idea that DDi had somewhere in the neighbourhood of 50k-100k subscribers during the 5e development. That number was tested and retested a number of times and shown to go up or down when you subscribed and went on the WOTC forums. So, it's a fairly solid number.

Do you honestly believe that D&D reprints are making several million dollars per year? Really? Never mind that it was what, late 2012, early 2013 before Drive Thru RPG started selling the reprints again. The first playtest packet came out in late 2012, IIRC. How were the pdf's funding development? What, they decided to close their doors, and just hope that the reprints would pay the bills? In a publicly owned company? Do you honestly believe that's how things work?

This isn't about "poor 4e victims" here. This is about the wilful rewriting AGAIN of history. As I said, it's pretty bloody obvious that the only reason that the DDi couldn't have funded 5e, is because people are invested in the idea that 4e must be a failure in all things. Because if it wasn't a failure in all things, that calls into question what things it might have been successful at. And we obviously can't have that. All things 4e must be excised from D&D.

You really... REALLY aren't following this discussion at all are you? When you want to address what I actually posted (as opposed to what you're trying to subvert my position to be) I'll happily carry on a discussion with you...

HINT: No one is talking about the PDF's funding 5e except you...

EDIT: I'm also still waiting for a shred of proof that 5e was funded by 4e and DDI...

 

[Iosue]

WotC and Hasbro are multi-divisional corporations. The divisions don't directly fund themselves, so in that sense, one can't really say that DDi or PDFs or whatever funded the 5e development and playtest. That was funded by whatever the budget was that WotC or Hasbro assigned to the division.

That said, D&D couldn't have said, "Hey, we're going to go dark for a while, while we dream it all up again," and expected WotC to keep paying their salaries. For something like that, they would have had to make a pitch, and such a pitch would have included projected sources of revenues. So, DDi, reprints, edition neutral books, fiction, PDFs, and the like. And it wouldn't have necessarily required a huge number. Just enough of a steady revenue projection that the higher-ups could say, "Okay, go for it."

So, going into speculation about how much of that pre-5e-release revenue came from DDi versus other sources? I think DDi has to be a pretty strong percentage, if only because it's steady, every month. The reprints were limited collector's editions, so probably not quite so much. A fair chunk of the AD&D 1e reprint revenue in particular went to the fund to build a Gygax statue in Lake Geneva. 4e probably began dropping steadily. Looking at ICv2, D&D drops to 2nd place in 2nd quarter 2011, when a whole raft of Essentials products were canceled/put on hold, but maintains that position until 4th quarter 2012. There's brief jump back up to 2nd in 2nd quarter 2013, probably due to the AD&D, Unearthed Arcana, and 3.5 reprints all being available, but afterwards D&D continues to dive down to third, fourth, and eventually off the list until its triumphant return.

Does that mean 4e funded 5e? Well, it was certainly a contributor to the D&D division's revenues during that period. I doubt the people involved saw it that way, though. A while back, in a tweet, Mearls said, while discussing the benefits of big companies vs. small companies:

[Y]ou don't do the open fifth ed test without a lot of support from the rest of the company

 

[Imaro]

WotC and Hasbro are multi-divisional corporations. The divisions don't directly fund themselves, so in that sense, one can't really say that DDi or PDFs or whatever funded the 5e development and playtest. That was funded by whatever the budget was that WotC or Hasbro assigned to the division.

That said, D&D couldn't have said, "Hey, we're going to go dark for a while, while we dream it all up again," and expected WotC to keep paying their salaries. For something like that, they would have had to make a pitch, and such a pitch would have included projected sources of revenues. So, DDi, reprints, edition neutral books, fiction, PDFs, and the like. And it wouldn't have necessarily required a huge number. Just enough of a steady revenue projection that the higher-ups could say, "Okay, go for it."

So, going into speculation about how much of that pre-5e-release revenue came from DDi versus other sources? I think DDi has to be a pretty strong percentage, if only because it's steady, every month. The reprints were limited collector's editions, so probably not quite so much. A fair chunk of the AD&D 1e reprint revenue in particular went to the fund to build a Gygax statue in Lake Geneva. 4e probably began dropping steadily. Looking at ICv2, D&D drops to 2nd place in 2nd quarter 2011, when a whole raft of Essentials products were canceled/put on hold, but maintains that position until 4th quarter 2012. There's brief jump back up to 2nd in 2nd quarter 2013, probably due to the AD&D, Unearthed Arcana, and 3.5 reprints all being available, but afterwards D&D continues to dive down to third, fourth, and eventually off the list until its triumphant return.

Does that mean 4e funded 5e? Well, it was certainly a contributor to the D&D division's revenues during that period. I doubt the people involved saw it that way, though. A while back, in a tweet, Mearls said, while discussing the benefits of big companies vs. small companies:

This pretty much sums up my point... stating 4e financed or funded 5e without considering or mentioning everything else they produced during the time of 5e's development... is at best an erroneous statement and at worst purposefully misleading. Not even sure why 2+ pages of discussion resulted from that observation being made...

 

[Dire Bare]

I wonder how much longer that will be true...certainly any moviegoer who decides to pick up a comic based on liking the movie (or Netflix series) is going to be somewhat confused by what they read...in Iron Man, Superman, Avengers, Daredevil, Spider-Man, and more.

I don't think so, I give movie goers a little more credit. Movies adapted from other sources, whether they be comics, novels, earlier movies, games, or whatever ALWAYS change the details of the source material to one degree or another. And folks know that. Did Peter Jackson's LotR or Hobbit films tell the EXACT same story as the books? Did the Harry Potter films?

Especially when there have been multiple movie versions of characters, like Batman. Tim Burton's Batman was VERY different from Christopher Nolan's, and I think audiences handled that just fine.

So, if after watching the Netflix Daredevil series I decide to pick up the latest Daredevil comic books . . . will I be confused and turned off that they are different? I'll probably be OK, as would most folks, IMO.

EDIT: Although I will add that both comic houses, Marvel and DC, have made changes to their comic book stories to make them closer to the movies or tv shows. For example, characters created for TV or movies have found their way to comics, like Harley Quinn and John Diggle (Arrow's sidekick). Characters in comics start sporting costumes that look a lot like the ones they wore in the movies, and I'm sure more changes as well. Is this done to lessen difference and confusion? Or just simply because they are cool story elements?

 

[Dire Bare]

This pretty much sums up my point... stating 4e financed or funded 5e without considering or mentioning everything else they produced during the time of 5e's development... is at best an erroneous statement and at worst purposefully misleading. Not even sure why 2+ pages of discussion resulted from that observation being made...

Oh good lord.

NONE of us know exactly how and where the dollars flow from and to at WotC. And, frankly, WHO CARES!?!?! The SIMPLE point (IMO) Iosue is trying to make is that 4E was successful, brought in a lot of money, and persuaded the folks at WotC/Hasbro to give the game another edition rather than mothball it.

The idea that 4E was a "failure", financially or otherwise, is tired fanbashing with no basis in reality. Obviously, 4E began to tail off in profitability towards the end of its cycle, and for various good reasons WotC felt that a different approach was needed to make D&D sustainable over the long term. But to say 4E was a failure because it is no longer being published would also be to say that 3E was a failure, and all prior editions before. Which is not the case.

But the 4E core books outsold all prior editions, brought in new fans, and added to the "legacy" of D&D both in rules and setting. It made WotC a ton of money (although, not Magic money, of course), it was successful enough that the folks in charge didn't need to think, "Should we really continue to be printing D&D products?" Instead they thought, "We want to make as much money as 4E brought in again, but we don't want a 6th edition restart in four years! We want a sustainable profit that will last decades!"

So far, seems to be working. 5E core books has outsold the 4E core already, which is itself a trend (each edition has outsold the one prior, if you don't count "half editions" like player's option or essentials).

 

[Imaro]

Oh good lord.

NONE of us know exactly how and where the dollars flow from and to at WotC. And, frankly, WHO CARES!?!?! The SIMPLE point (IMO) Iosue is trying to make is that 4E was successful, brought in a lot of money, and persuaded the folks at WotC/Hasbro to give the game another edition rather than mothball it.

You do realize I'm agreeing with @Iosue... right? Here's a question... If we don't know where the dollars flow from and to within WotC... why make the statement that 5e was financed by 4e? That was the original statement I disagreed with since again... novels, boardgames, reprints, etc. all could have contributed to the financing and even the decision to produce a new edition... is this right or wrong? The fact of the matter is that in stating that we don't know you are in fact agreeing with what I originally said to @pemerton earlier in the thread... so what exactly is your point in quoting me here?

The idea that 4E was a "failure", financially or otherwise, is tired fanbashing with no basis in reality. Obviously, 4E began to tail off in profitability towards the end of its cycle, and for various good reasons WotC felt that a different approach was needed to make D&D sustainable over the long term. But to say 4E was a failure because it is no longer being published would also be to say that 3E was a failure, and all prior editions before. Which is not the case.

I didn't call 4e a failure (find a post in this entire thread where I did)... of course I am also not certain it was as financially successful as you (and some 4e fans) seem to be claiming, since biases work both ways. Which is why I chose not to make a definitive statement either way about it's objective financial success or failure... something 4e fans seem incapable of doing, even though they have no real evidence to support their own claims. Also did I ever state it was a failure because "it is no longer being published"? You and @Hussar seem to be creating arguments to counter and then attributing them to me... when I never stated them.

But the 4E core books outsold all prior editions, brought in new fans, and added to the "legacy" of D&D both in rules and setting. It made WotC a ton of money (although, not Magic money, of course), it was successful enough that the folks in charge didn't need to think, "Should we really continue to be printing D&D products?" Instead they thought, "We want to make as much money as 4E brought in again, but we don't want a 6th edition restart in four years! We want a sustainable profit that will last decades!"

Great selling corebooks are a given I'm not sure (unless that's the entirety of the edition) how that proves anything about an editions overall success, failure, profitability, etc... Also if they want 4e pofits again and DDI is such a gigantic part of 4e profits... why wasn't it moved over to 5e?

I'll make the same point here that I made to @pemerton since you also seem to be attruibuting a decision that may or may not have been based soelely on the success of the rpg to 4e... Outside of 4e, D&D is novels in various worlds, older edition reprints, PDF's of older books, boardgames, neverwinter the MMOrpg, DDO the MMOrpg, Baldur's Gate the videogame, WizKid's minis, etc. and WotC makes money off all these things... driven initially by the rpg but some, such as the novels, have grown to surpass the rpg in profitability... but you seem sure that the decision to continue with 5e and it's financing was based solely on 4e...right?

It's in no way calling 4e a failure to acknowledge that it is not the sole driver in decisions around D&D or the sole source of financing for 5e... in fact it seems as I stated earlier either misinformed or purposefully misleading to ignore the other sources of income and drivers around the D&D brand.