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.

 

[billd91]

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?

I think much of this - the cross-pollination between comics and the shows - depends on the closeness of the relationship between the publisher and the show producers/writers. Arrow is pretty closely related to DC with one of the principal show writers also writing comics. Contrast that with the Sony- or Fox-produced movies made for Marvel and how they're not having much of an impact back on the comics. Rumor has it Marvel will not be introducing new Xmen characters in the comics so they aren't fuel for the movies.

If Hasbro can assume control the movie rights to D&D, that will give them a lot more incentive to cross-pollinate between the game and the other media.

 

[Kramodlog]

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 know that is contradicted by Jeremy Crawford's inteview, right? http://www.escapistmagazine.com/art...emy-Crawford-Co-Designer-and-Editor-of-Dung.3

"Mike [Mearls] argued very eloquently to the executives for the time to make the best version of D&D and the best books possible. We gave very frequent reports. The whole company took a gamble on whether the idealistic version of D&D could succeed. It was a risk, and it's possible that it wouldn't pan out, but we are very happy that it actually worked.

Risk, gamble, frequent reports, not pan out, could succeed.

Yeah, doesn't sound like 4e was a success and that 5e was such an obvious choice to make. It is pretty clear. Mearls more than 4e's revenues convinced exects.

"The whole company took a gamble". Best guess as to what that mean is that WotC financed a lot of the research and developement of 5e from non-D&D sources. For two years 15 people (or more?) worked on something that didn't bring in direct revenues. Magic comes to mind as the cash cow. Not that it is that extraordinary that compagny invest in R&D that might not end up making money.

But of course, feel free to ignore it. It is much more pleasant to imagine 4e as a financial success.

 

[DongMaster]

This thread is best enjoyed with lukewarm popcorn and Limahl's Never Ending Story on repeat...

 

[Eric V]

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.

Well, right now in comics, Daredevil's identity is publicly known, he is not going around in costume, and is in San Fransisco; Captain America is the Falcon (or the other way around); Iron Man is still evil from the events of 'Axis'; and Thor is a woman. That's just off the top of my head. Those changes really aren't in keeping with the characters as portrayed in the movies (who are, IMO, much truer to the characters).

-E

 

[Shasarak]

I didn't call 4e a failure (find a post in this entire thread where I did).

In reality it is much more fun to just assume that you did and argue against the point that you want to argue against.

No need to worry about facts!

 

[pemerton]

You do know that is contradicted by Jeremy Crawford's inteview, right?

<snip>

Risk, gamble, frequent reports, not pan out, could succeed.

Yeah, doesn't sound like 4e was a success

I don't see the inference.

Not producing much product while you build a new version of the game seems obviously to be a gamble, whether or not income is coming in from old products. The gamble is on whether your product you're designing will bring in enough money to justify the outlay on designing it.

That tells us nothing about where the money came from to finance the development.

 

[Dire Bare]

Well, right now in comics, Daredevil's identity is publicly known, he is not going around in costume, and is in San Francisco; Captain America is the Falcon (or the other way around); Iron Man is still evil from the events of 'Axis'; and Thor is a woman. That's just off the top of my head. Those changes really aren't in keeping with the characters as portrayed in the movies (who are, IMO, much truer to the characters).

Those are some significant changes! Still, I don't think most folks who pick up the comics because they liked the films are going to be super confused over any of it. Heck, I've never collected or read Marvel comics on any sort of regular basis, and you've got me super curious about "Evil Iron Man" (does he have a goatee?)!

Also, I highly doubt these changes are permanent. Just like electric Superman Red and Superman Blue from years past, "evil" Tony Stark will return to hero mode and his classic costume at some point, Daredevil will return to NYC, Steve Rogers will once again become Captain America, and Thor will be Thor again (wow, that name vs title thing is a bit awkward, although necessary I suppose).

The movies are "truer" to the classic comics than the current comics are themselves because the movies, all of them, are relatively young. Iron Man has had five movie adventures so far? A bit too soon for him to be going through major character changes on the silver screen. But in comics, he's been dressing in his robot suit for decades!

 

[Kramodlog]

I don't see the inference.

So, the question is: don't want to or just can't?

 

[pemerton]

So, the question is: don't want to or just can't?

OK, if you want me to be more blunt: I deny the inference.

Spending 2 years on designing a product is a risk. Full stop. Because that design costs money (mostly salaries and overheads, in this case) and during the design phase is generating no returns.

That tells us nothing about whether or not the previous product generated returns, and whether or not those returns helped finance the 2 year design phase.

 

[Kramodlog]

OK, if you want me to be more blunt: I deny the inference.

Spending 2 years on designing a product is a risk. Full stop. Because that design costs money (mostly salaries and overheads, in this case) and during the design phase is generating no returns.

So why not do it like previous editions and still print 4e books? I mean according to you 4e was profitable if not highly profitable. Why not make and sell books like they did before to finance R&D? Could it be that 4e was not profitable?

That tells us nothing about whether or not the previous product generated returns, and whether or not those returns helped finance the 2 year design phase.

It tells us a lot. That working on and printing those books would have been a greater loss than not making them.