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.

 

[Beleriphon]

Look at it this way.

Name me some iconic D&D characters that are on the same level as Darts Bader, or the Avengers?

D&D is just not as iconic in the way those are. People who read Iron Man continue to buy them to this day. The thing is, Iron Man comic books hasn't slowed down one bit. They have sense enough to keep the lines separate.

None, because there has never been a signifcant level of effort to get those characters into main stream conciousness. Just like prior to the first movie Iron Man wasn't exactly a well known Marvel character. If you ask people to name some superheroes you're probably going to end up with Superman, Batman and Spider-Man for the most part. Prior to the geek renessiance that the Marvel movies to large degree have bank rolled (directly or indirectly) most people didn't know one lick about Iron Man or Captain America, or any of a characters in Marvel's stable of characters. Lets look at Doctor Strange, my wife knows who he is because I know who he is, but I haven't read a Doctor Strange comic in 15 years at best, if you ask the average person on the street they probably don't know the character all. That is going to change once the movie comes out.

That's branding right there, by moving the concept into a new medium to sell the brand and the idea of the brand in a new way. As another example, Coca-Cola sells soft drinks, but the Coke brand is so much more than a can of brown carbonated sugar water. I can buy damn near anything with a Coke logo on it if I want to, some people have massive collections of Coke related items. There's nothing wrong with trying to get to that level of cultural traction, I don't think D&D can actually do that for a few reasons but there's nothing wrong with wanting to do so.

 

[jodyjohnson]

Outside of Montréal.

Well at least I hope the link works for someone else who is looking to find an AL game.

Back to the thread topic, where did all the people who said Wizards was lying when they said they were going to reduce splat go?

Mike Mearls (summer 2014): We're going to slow down the release schedule.
The Internet (2014): Yeah right, expect a flood splat books in 2015. The only support model Wizards knows is the all splat, all the time model.
The Internet (2015): Where's all our splats?????

 

[billd91]

This megacorp has (READ THIS CAREFULLY = IMO!) created six books and a starter Set, all top notch, which got our gaming society intrested in rpgs again.

Oh, I'm enjoying 5e as well, but this megacorp has also made some major missteps in licensing in the wake of the OGL, seems to have cut the D&D team to the point it can't keep certain projects moving forward because of a jury duty call, lays off experienced talent with disturbing regularity, turned a closely allied company into a significant competitor, and, though the D&D brand was derived from the game, now seems to have the tail wag the dog.

And that's without thinking about the diverse catalog of games Avalon Hill used to have compared to the Baskin-Robbins of Axis and Allies catalog it currently sports.

Did 5e turn out as good as it is because of Hasbro, or in spite of Hasbro? Will it thrive (or fail) because of Hasbro, or in spite of Hasbro? I'd like to think Hasbro did the hobby a good turn by allowing the D&D R&D team the time to develop a game with broad appeal that could revitalize its market. But there are hints our there that they're not fully in the game's corner - such as the (delayed again) license - compared to the brand's potential in non-TTRPG options.

If the brand expansion works well, fine. Will it benefit the game? Hard to say. If it were hobby enthusiasts running the show, I might predict they'd use the success of the brand in movies and computer games to expand the support of the RPG because, as enthusiasts, they want games out there they enjoy playing themselves. But with Hasbro in charge, I might expect them to plow the benefits of the brand into the most profitable end for a better ROI for their shareholders and just let the RPG muddle through in relative stasis - mostly because allowing it to simply die might be too damaging to the brand.

 

[DongMaster]

Did 5e turn out as good as it is because of Hasbro, or in spite of Hasbro? Will it thrive (or fail) because of Hasbro, or in spite of Hasbro?

Irrelevant to me when the end product is so fantastic.

No animals or children (though reading through this forum that may not be the case) were hurt making it.

 

[Trickster Spirit]

I thought the point of D&D was to make money.

How are they making money on 2 AP'S a year and telling us to go and use all our old stuff?

I have a theory about how they're planning to approach D&D this edition cycle. I can't claim it's 100% correct, but it tracks with everything they've been saying, and more importantly, with what they've been doing up to this point.

The most profitable part of selling D&D is always the initial core book sales, correct? Any other products will only ever sell a fraction as well. So even though they have to spend the same amount of money on writers, artists, editors and printing and distribution costs as they would for a core book print run, they'll only make a fraction of the profits on anything that's not a core book.

The last two editions bear this out. Both saw revisions halfway through their lifetime in an attempt to kickstarts sales again. Even though both games could have conceivably been supported for years to come, both were aborted in favor of launching a new edition entirely. This time around, I think they've decided there's a better way.

This time, I think they're in the business of selling the core books, and just the core books.

Think about it. They've already paid to have the core books made up and earned more than that back in profits, so any future profits they make off of them is basically free money. Now in the 3E and 4E days, they made their money off of ongoing core book sales and supplement sales, but probably not as much as they'd like, since the margin they'd make off of supplements was so much smaller than the core books'. So they're making less money without the supplements, but they're also spending less money producing the supplements. I expect they'll more than make up the difference in licensing agreements off of things like Sword Coast Legends or a D&D movie. Even if a D&D movie flops, they'll likely make more from Universal paying them once for the rights to make it than they would off of several years' worth of supplement sales.

I suspect the reason they're focusing so heavy on APs isn't because they think the APs are what the majority of existing gamers will buy, but because they're focusing on bringing in new gamers. Every D&D tie-in that connects with an audience exposes more people to the tabletop game, but most brand new groups won't know the first thing to do with their brand new set of core books. Buy "Princes of the Apocalypse" along with your DMG though and The APs serve to provide a canned, pre-written campaign to new DMs - they're only interested in AP sales inasmuch as the APs provide brand-new players with an on-ramp to the hobby.

If you're interested in a particular AP, Wizards will happily take your money, but we're not their target demographic, new players are. If you've already purchased the core books, the transaction is completed in their view. Milton Bradley doesn't make money off of Connect4 by selling perpetual rules expansions for the game to previous customers - they do it by selling an evergreen product and making modest but ongoing sales to new customers.

Things like the Player's Companion as a free PDF is really them just throwing their existing customers a bone. The focus is on acquiring new players, since everyone they can get to play the game and walk away having had a positive experience is far likelier to buy a ticket to the next D&D movie or video game. Which is where they'll really make their money.

 

[halfling rogue]

Oh, I'm enjoying 5e as well, but this megacorp has also made some major missteps in licensing in the wake of the OGL, seems to have cut the D&D team to the point it can't keep certain projects moving forward because of a jury duty call, lays off experienced talent with disturbing regularity, turned a closely allied company into a significant competitor, and, though the D&D brand was derived from the game, now seems to have the tail wag the dog.

And that's without thinking about the diverse catalog of games Avalon Hill used to have compared to the Baskin-Robbins of Axis and Allies catalog it currently sports.

Did 5e turn out as good as it is because of Hasbro, or in spite of Hasbro? Will it thrive (or fail) because of Hasbro, or in spite of Hasbro? I'd like to think Hasbro did the hobby a good turn by allowing the D&D R&D team the time to develop a game with broad appeal that could revitalize its market. But there are hints our there that they're not fully in the game's corner - such as the (delayed again) license - compared to the brand's potential in non-TTRPG options.

If the brand expansion works well, fine. Will it benefit the game? Hard to say. If it were hobby enthusiasts running the show, I might predict they'd use the success of the brand in movies and computer games to expand the support of the RPG because, as enthusiasts, they want games out there they enjoy playing themselves. But with Hasbro in charge, I might expect them to plow the benefits of the brand into the most profitable end for a better ROI for their shareholders and just let the RPG muddle through in relative stasis - mostly because allowing it to simply die might be too damaging to the brand.

I think you make a good point. Just because a megacorp invests in/has a hand in something awesome doesn't mean they can't or won't have the ability to screw it up. FOX had the foresight to greenlight "Firefly" and managed to thoroughly drop kick it off a mountain. Hasbro may have let WotC create the best version of D&D ever, but it may wind up tying their hands after the fact. I think the Brand push is obviously a money making strategy, but time will tell if this will benefit D&D the tabletop game, or wind up becoming its demise (as a continuing 'thing'). FOX screwed up Firefly and now we don't get anymore Firefly. But I still have the DVDs and can watch them anytime I want and enjoy them to the fullest potential that I can. The best thing about a potential screw up with Hasbro is that D&D 5e is already in the wild. If WotC goes belly up or if Hasbro kills it, I can still play D&D and enjoy it to the fullest potential that I can.

That said, since D&D is really a game, and because the D&D 'brand' grew out of the game, I would love to see D&D desire to grow the GAME more than the brand. In my mind, movies, video games and everything else should serve the game in some way or another. And if the game grows, the brand grows. Right now, I hop on the website and the GAME is tucked away. I think they missed something here, which hopefully won't come back to bite them.

 

[Trickster Spirit]

You know what Trickster .... I think this is an awesome idea!! I could be patient for this. It just bothers me that they just refuse to let us know what in the world is going on. I have to say this. My honest opinion ...... it's not MY fault that sales started dropping off at the tail-end of 3.5 (some of those books felt like they weren't even playtested.) It's not my fault that 4th Edition didn't make Hasbro the kind of money Hasbro was hoping to see. It's not my fault that Pathfinder was such a success. Some of the things that WoTC is doing, it feels like I'm the one being punished for not supporting 4th like I did the previous editions to it.

I pray someone from WoTC/Hasbro sees your post!! Having to wait for something like this would suck, but it would be worth it in the end!! I would so back something like that 100%. Just knowing we'd be getting the multi-verse update, would cool my jets big time!

You know, I understand exactly where you're coming from, but I really don't think they're doing things this way to "punish" people for not supporting 4E, or for making Pathfinder so successful.

Despite Pathfinder's success, I think there are bigger threats to D&D these days. Honestly, I think Wizards just sees which way the wind is moving, and is trying to chart a new course. If you haven't checked it out already, I'd highly recommend reading through this link which I shared earlier in this thread - it's Morrus' news article about a PAX East panel about the state of the tabletop game industry, and Mike Mearls addresses in details what they see as D&D's chief competition.

It's clear that 5E was designed in response to the points he brings up in that panel. I think their new business model takes it into consideration as well. They're focusing heavily on pre-canned campaigns with the APs, and providing an easy entry point for gamers without stable groups through Adventurer's League organized play.

In a lot of ways I think 5E has done a better job of assimilating lessons from modern video games than 4E did. Video games aren't more successful than tabletop RPGs because of game mechanics or balance concerns - they're more successful because they're faster. There's a business term that applies here, "friction". Video games have low friction - you need to purchase the disk, put it in your device and maybe install it first, then you're playing the game. Maybe you need to go through a character selection screen first, if it's an RPG, it doesn't really matter though. You're past that screen in sixty seconds or less. For a tabletop game, you have to buy the book, read it, internalize the rules, create a campaign and put together your encounter notes, recruit a group of friends to play, have them all create characters, then meet up at a unanimously agreed upon time and place before you can play. Loads more friction there.

Tabletop games won't be able to beat video games at all of those points and remain recognizable. That's why they'll never eclipse video games as an industry or as a part of popular culture. But if you can minimize the drawbacks as best you can, there are also strengths that tabletop games have over video games, and those strengths can draw in new players. The 5E ruleset, and the canned APs / Adventurer League seasons all try to mitigate that as best they can.

Paizo also has APs and organized play, but they're definitely catering more to the existing player base. They've put out most of the non-AP products that they can put out, and the full Pathfinder ruleset is definitely a lot more intimidating to new players than 5E is. The Beginner Box is one of the best - no, I'll say it, it is the best onboarding product in the industry right now - but I'm not sure Paizo is moving to position themselves to appeal to new and casual gamers, which I am convinced is the overwhelming majority of the player base. Wizards seems to be targeting those demographics very squarely with their new direction for 5E.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Actually, they haven't. Maybe I just missed it, though. If so, please help:

- Are they going to do anything besides adventures, for the foreseeable future? (I think they've answered this one.)

Yup. More or less.


- Are the Realms currently exclusive, or just primary, in terms of resource/effort?

They've said that for the foreseeable future, product will be set in the FR. The article in Forbes even says it.


- For Realms-based adventures, will they be easily portable to other settings? Will they continue to have conversion guides?

They have not said one way or another whether it's "easy to port" adventures to other settings, because why would they? Porting adventures is the same exact process it's been for 40 years.


- Are there deliberate plans to support another setting, or are they waiting to let the Realms run its course (which probably means some version of sales dropping)?

Again, they've said (and it was reiterated in Forbes) that their books for the foreseeable future are for the Realms. Any other "support" for other settings will come here and there, but nothing big.


- If there are deliberate plans to support another setting, do they know which one? (I expect they don't know which, and am conditionally okay with that.)

They have not made any announcement about this. They've said Realms for the foreseeable future.


- If there are plans to support another setting, is there a rough time frame -- there is a huge difference between "either early or late 2016" and "either 2018 or 2019"?

They have not made any announcement about this. They've said Realms for the foreseeable future.


- How does the D&D "brand" differ from the Forgotten Realms "brand", outside the TTRPG?

They have not made any comments about the branding as you seem to be inquiring.


- When are rules for psionics going to show up?

They have made no announcements about a timetable for psionics.


Like I've said, they've been rather clear. They've said a few things about the future that they know about, or that they would like to eventually see depending on how things currently go. But that's it. They've said nothing else, and have told us that they will say nothing else until such time as they have something to say.

Nothing has changed from last summer when they told us all this to begin with. They will announce things when they have something to announce.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'd like to think Hasbro did the hobby a good turn by allowing the D&D R&D team the time to develop a game with broad appeal that could revitalize its market.

That's not what they did. They cut investment in D&D to virtually nothing, so it took the remaining skeleton crew 2 years to pull together a 'new' edition of the game, primarily from elements of the older editions. It's not designed for broad appeal, it's designed to be familiar to long-time and returning fans. That's a relatively narrow appeal. It's so far been very successful at appealing to existing and returning fans, though. Can't fault Mearls & his team (nor Hasbro) for that.

If the brand expansion works well, fine. Will it benefit the game? Hard to say. If it were hobby enthusiasts running the show, I might predict they'd use the success of the brand in movies and computer games to expand the support of the RPG because, as enthusiasts, they want games out there they enjoy playing themselves.

More mainstream exposure via a movie or the like would benefit the game if it were accessible and appealing enough to retain enough of the new players who tried it because they liked said movie. Unfortunately, what's familiar to longtime & returning fans who loved AD&D or BECMI or even 3e, is not necessarily that accessible or appealing to players trying the game for the first time. So you have to figure the point of expanding the D&D IP to other media/markets is the other media/markets, not growing D&D as a TTRPG.

But with Hasbro in charge, I might expect them to plow the benefits of the brand into the most profitable end for a better ROI for their shareholders and just let the RPG muddle through in relative stasis - mostly because allowing it to simply die might be too damaging to the brand.

That would be rational, yes. RPGs in general, and D&D in particular, have failed to break out into larger markets for the last 40 years, even as seemingly related hobbies, games, and franchises - LOTR, Harry Potter, Vampire fiction, Marvel Comics, MMOs, CRPGs, CCGs, Board Games and 'nerd culture' in general - have done so.

 

[billd91]

Irrelevant to me when the end product is so fantastic.

Not irrelevant to me. When I get a good RPG, I want more good materials and play experiences for that RPG and that means decent management of the line and the community buying into it. If they do well with other media, like movies, but end up totally effing up the game, that will be a big disappointment since the game is what brought me (and still brings me) to the brand.