|
I suspect D&DN will make or break the D&D name. Either it'll succeed enough that the D&D line keeps going or will likely die off or be sold off to someone else.
And yes, I agree 4e was way too mat-dependent.
I agree that WotC need to step up and engage their market. Another 4e PR nightmare and it might be time to see if the designers can pull a 'Paizo' and go independent and get the brand rights to D&D. Hasbro are not nice customers when it comes to IP however...
It doesn't matter so much about new or old, but D&DN has to provide a different type of play to PF (Paizo do that so well) and 4e (which lets face it wasn't a block buster).
S.
PF replaced 3.5 for the most part..and I never had the 3.5 books in the first place so...
That explains playing PF. It wasn't a move per se, just picking up the game after a hiatus.
If D&DN replaced PF and was the game in town I guess I would play that...but it's in a market with PF, WoD, Hero, M&M, SR, GURPS etc. Not to mention an endless supply of homebrew OGL 3.x clones that come out on kickstart every other week.You need to give me a reason to buy your book to play your game. So why am I going to buy it? Because it's D&D1-4? It's D&D 2.75?
Are we going to get a D&D SQRT(1+4) / (3.5 + 2e) for the 6th time around?
For me, having pretty much played every version since 1974 (except Basic -- read but not played) it doesn't have to be original. Just good. If it does a good job of keeping the game simpler, but keeps a lot of the elements that make 3.5 / PF good (for me), I'll go for it. Oddly enough it wouldn't stop me from collecting PF either.
4e was at least something new. For me it sucks, but at least it was new and appealed to a certain type of gamer. 5e feels right now like a corporate phone-in for them to cash in on an unoriginal, mediocre product quickly so that their DnD department is still solvent. It's also an attempt to bring back gamers who fled to games like PF. They're trying to please everyone at once and you can't do that. I've always been skeptical of WotC's model, but ever since they broke up the Phb into like 4 +? books I've lost faith in WotC doing anything that cares about quality and is all about increasing quantity to make their profit margins. They're probably already having to try to crank out things rapidly because other product departments (like Magic?) are making WotC more money and Pathfinder is cutting into their business.I've looked at a number of the books from PF and 4e and honestly I have to say that it looks like Paizo's belief in quality control is much higher than that of WotC. I have a feeling the beasts to feed at Wizards are much hungrier than Paizo's.
4E left me cold. It was the first time I didn't even consider moving my game to the new edition. It usually took a while, several years, but I would move on. WotC has done thing that I didn't care for (well, like 4E) but DDN does seem to have some promise and a few ideas I like.
Oh, and they did away with one of the persistent message board issues too. They gave Skeletons and Zombies low intelligence, explaining their alignment and weapon use in one fell swoop :D Now if they would just swat a few more of those pesky things they could eliminate about half the posts on message boards :)
I just signed up for the playtesting of D&D 5th edition, they want to emulate what Paizo did with PF so they can release a version with as few flaws as possible and deliver what the people really want.
I read the material provided, deemed as "confidential" and not for distribution, I don't know if someone else here read the stuff but it seems a lighter version of PF with optional rules and complex negligible mechanics (such as life points recovery) just to give the sensation things have changed.
Any input?
when i read it, its look like a fail collage with some elements from previous editions... sadly, it was a joke to me!!
I dont like an elf doing d12 with a longsword
|
|
I just signed up for the playtesting of D&D 5th edition, they want to emulate what Paizo did with PF so they can release a version with as few flaws as possible and deliver what the people really want.
I read the material provided, deemed as "confidential" and not for distribution, I don't know if someone else here read the stuff but it seems a lighter version of PF with optional rules and complex negligible mechanics (such as life points recovery) just to give the sensation things have changed.
Any input?when i read it, its look like a fail collage with some elements from previous editions... sadly, it was a joke to me!!
I dont like an elf doing d12 with a longsword
The elf sword thing is just a 'new' take on what has been in D&D since 1e.
I dont like an elf doing d12 with a longsword
Is that still in the playtest? I thought it was gone?
If it is it's just a move from an elf getting a bonus to hit to an elf getting a bonus to damage. Consistent with the bounded accuracy plan.
but is not only for the elf race
the dwarf, halfling with a dagger, human does too
Evrything does a d10 damage then!!
It just means some races have a special affinity with certain weapons. Systems should be compared overall, not piece by piece.
|
I suspect D&DN will make or break the D&D name. Either it'll succeed enough that the D&D line keeps going or will likely die off or be sold off to someone else.
Hasbro will never sell off D&D. For one thing, they just don't sell off rights, no matter how ridiculously apparent it is that they will never again amount to anything. Secondly, the money generated by Dungeons & Dragons, the actual tabletop RPG, is probably pretty g%+~+%n insignificant compared to the money generated by Dungeons & Dragons, the brand name. Board games, video games, etc....that's where the REAL money is coming from.
As much as I hate to say it, if Next fails, I suspect the brand name will simply fade because because there really aren't that many current computer games to carry it (I doubt Neverwinter will fail, but I also doubt it can carry the brand by itself), leaving only the FR novels to really sustain the brand, and I don't think even the novels by themselves would be very effective. Without either a wide array of current products or one runaway product, and given Hasbro's refusal to sell IPs for any reason, the brand will likely simply fade away and gather dust until everyone forgets about it if Next fails, because two big stinkers in a row will pretty much kill any remaining potential in the RPG market.
I suspect D&DN will make or break the D&D name. Either it'll succeed enough that the D&D line keeps going or will likely die off or be sold off to someone else.Hasbro will never sell off D&D. For one thing, they just don't sell off rights, no matter how ridiculously apparent it is that they will never again amount to anything. Secondly, the money generated by Dungeons & Dragons, the actual tabletop RPG, is probably pretty g$++&%n insignificant compared to the money generated by Dungeons & Dragons, the brand name. Board games, video games, etc....that's where the REAL money is coming from.
One successful movie could cover many years of RPG sales too. (Granted they seem strangely elusive).
One successful movie could cover many years of RPG sales too. (Granted they seem strangely elusive).
If you're pinning your hopes on that sliver of hope, the future of the brand is already nonexistent. The idea of making a movie sounds good, but it has yet to translate well, and will struggle with any future attempts to do so. Too much of the strength of the game is that it's an active form of storytelling vs the passive form of storytelling that movies are.
Hope has nothing to do with it (I don't actually care about the game as such, I just enjoy playing it). I was responding to kthulhu's point that the sales of the RPG are not terribly important from a commercial perspective. A brand can be leveraged in lots of ways.
But in order to be leveraged effectively, it must have a current flagship product, and without some kind of actively supported rule system, DnD will lack that. For better or worse, WoTC chose to pin their hopes on the rules themselves as the key leverage, and they may find out the hard way the price for doing so. I don't wish to see them fail, but it's hard to see them not do so if Next fails to perform up to their expectations.
|
|
If D&D Next doesn't meet Hasbro's expectations, it's possible that they might shelve the actual RPG. But the board games, video games, etc will continue. Even if the video games aren't overly successful, that's falling on the developer/publisher...Hasbro is still making it's money with exceedingly minimal effort on their part.
If D&D Next doesn't meet Hasbro's expectations, it's possible that they might shelve the actual RPG. But the board games, video games, etc will continue. Even if the video games aren't overly successful, that's falling on the developer/publisher...Hasbro is still making it's money with exceedingly minimal effort on their part.
The novels will likely wither in the intense competition of the fantasy novel market without the active backing of a current system, as will their fledging board games. It's not that these are bad products, but without the unique support that a popular system provides, they don't have much to market to set themselves apart either. The novels would last longer than the board games, but even they would struggle. As for computer games, they might break even, and Hasbro will likely still make some money, but not nearly enough to care about marketing or supporting the games in any active way, and that will limit anything that could be done on that front. As a functional brand, I just don't see how it can survive without the backing of an actively supported rule system, as the whole point of DDI was to make the rules themselves the core product that drove everything. They can try to change strategies with Next, but that's unlikely given their recent history, and even if they did try, the chances of success would still be slim.
But in order to be leveraged effectively, it must have a current flagship product, and without some kind of actively supported rule system, DnD will lack that.
No it won't. The flagship product just won't be an RPG rules system.
If D&D Next doesn't meet Hasbro's expectations, it's possible that they might shelve the actual RPG. But the board games, video games, etc will continue. Even if the video games aren't overly successful, that's falling on the developer/publisher...Hasbro is still making it's money with exceedingly minimal effort on their part.
I don't know how the licensing arrangements for spinoff products are structured, but if Hasbro are as involved as you imply, they're very likely to shelve the brand for ten years and relaunch D&D on its fiftieth birthday (or similar). If the revenue actually goes to WotC I could see them just kind of "limping along" with a tepid product line.
Well, for those of you who don't know, there is a new movie in the works. Sorry about the non-linkified state of it, but here's the url:
http://www.deadline.com/2013/05/dungeons-dragons-movie-warner-bros/
Apparently Warner Brothers is going to give it a go.
*edit* Given the thread below under Movies / Gamer Life I'm assuming most of you know...
Well, for those of you who don't know, there is a new movie in the works. Sorry about the non-linkified state of it, but here's the url:
Apparently Warner Brothers is going to give it a go.
*edit* Given the thread below under Movies / Gamer Life I'm assuming most of you know...
There you go!
Also, WB totally has the rights to make a "Dungeons & Dragons" movie (and they can use 3rd edition rules as a basis), but they have no rights to any non-original worlds. That was one of the problems with the D&D movie(s) - they had to use original creations that D&D fans are unfamiliar with.
That, and, you know, they made cheap movies in order to keep the brand name in their own hands.
Anyway, the movie should be discussed in the movie thread, probably.
More on topic, I'm actually rather impressed with my very light perusal of 5E, because it seems both system-light and intricate (but easy enough to fiddle with). Also the monsters seem to be using the same basic mechanics as the PCs, so that actually speaks volumes for inner consistency, and appeals immensely to me.
EDIT: kmal2t, I have a response to you here. :)
EDIT 2: tweaked my post link
The novels will likely wither in the intense competition of the fantasy novel market without the active backing of a current system,
This is wholly inaccurate.
The D&D gaming rulebooks (I'm assuming this is just the core books, but I've heard people say it's all of the RPG sourcebooks altogether, which is far more damning) have collectively sold 20 million copies since 1974.
R.A. Salvatore's FORGOTTEN REALMS novels have sold well over 30 million copies since 1988. Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman's DRAGONLANCE novels have sold well over 25 million copies since 1984. Many of the other D&D novelists have also sold in the millions. Collective D&D novel sales have been a minimum of three and likey four times greater than sales of the gaming materials. The overwhelming majority of people who've read a D&D novel have never played the roleplaying game at all and its existence has no bearing on them reading the books.
The novels will continue doing just fine without a game to back them up, just as long as they continue to appeal to their audience.
So, hey, fellow playtesters... have you tweaked or house-ruled yet? 'Cause I've already started doing so, and I'm really curious what you think about them.
ABILITY: +1 DEX, INT, WIS, and any one other
Size: medium
Speed: 30
Lowlight Vision
Elf Weapon Training
Keen Senses
Free Spirit
Language: common and elvish plus one
OR: replace X with...
* Replace Elf Weapon Training with Cantrip
* Replace Keen Senses with Fleet of Foot
* Replace Free Spirit with Mask of the Wild
NOTE: you'd probably have to replace all three things with all three things, instead of cherry-picking, but I dunno
That's actually a pretty solid "averaging" of the elven traits (splitting them "in half") as it were, though I remain unconvinced of the "+1 to any other" (I might feel better if it was static), and I'm unsure of the actual balance, though without actually playtesting it looks pretty balanced.
I also tried my hand at updating Shades from FR, though this is much "iffier" than half elves, to me.
Advantage: attacks, opposed perception and stealth checks, charima and constitution contests, and saves.
I'm thinking of giving them constant mage armor in darkness, and I'm curious about how to modify something like control light and shadow travel. I'm not convinced about the charisma and constitution thing (they might get +1 instead, but all the time instead of just in darkness). EDIT: also, there's the question of regeneration or fast healing (the latter of which I don't recall in the Bestiary), but I'm unsure about it.
Anyway, anyone have any suggestions or thoughts?
EDIT: to be clear, I'm planning on running a quick test with imported characters, thus why I'm looking at this stuff.
The novels will likely wither in the intense competition of the fantasy novel market without the active backing of a current system,This is wholly inaccurate.
The D&D gaming rulebooks (I'm assuming this is just the core books, but I've heard people say it's all of the RPG sourcebooks altogether, which is far more damning) have collectively sold 20 million copies since 1974.
R.A. Salvatore's FORGOTTEN REALMS novels have sold well over 30 million copies since 1988. Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman's DRAGONLANCE novels have sold well over 25 million copies since 1984. Many of the other D&D novelists have also sold in the millions. Collective D&D novel sales have been a minimum of three and likey four times greater than sales of the gaming materials. The overwhelming majority of people who've read a D&D novel have never played the roleplaying game at all and its existence has no bearing on them reading the books.
The novels will continue doing just fine without a game to back them up, just as long as they continue to appeal to their audience.
The difficulty is that even if the readers of the novels don't see them directly, the ruleset is still important to their success as it drives their internal consistency. The authors could simply continue using an old system as a basis, but it would be much harder to sustain the same feel without the backing of an active living system. Not impossible, but much harder to keep all of the different authors on the same page.
On the OP, if they pull off putting all of the pieces together, it sounds like they have a chance of pulling it off at least. At least for now, they seem to be avoiding the worst of the mistakes made with 4E.
|
|
Folks seem to be operating under the flawed assumption that the OGL is a significant contributor to Pathfinder's success. It is, if anything, capitalizing on sentiment.
Pathfinder is successful because it is built on the framework of the most successful RPG of all time and because of the reputation Paizo built for itself over years of producing quality product.
That Pathfinder is OGL is of little consequence outside of the fact that the OGL allowed for its existence in the first place.
Paizo is built on that system because of OGL.
Without OGL, freelancers don't write quality products for your brand, new players don't have an affordable entry point, even being the most powerful and famous brand with a ridiculous marketing department can't save you from falling to number two.
Saying it is little consequence shows a lack of understanding of how the current market operates.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The difficulty is that even if the readers of the novels don't see them directly, the ruleset is still important to their success as it drives their internal consistency. The authors could simply continue using an old system as a basis, but it would be much harder to sustain the same feel without the backing of an active living system. Not impossible, but much harder to keep all of the different authors on the same page.
Most decent D&D (and Pathfinder) novels don't chain themselves to the mechanics of the system, and thank god for that.
The difficulty is that even if the readers of the novels don't see them directly, the ruleset is still important to their success as it drives their internal consistency. The authors could simply continue using an old system as a basis, but it would be much harder to sustain the same feel without the backing of an active living system. Not impossible, but much harder to keep all of the different authors on the same page.Most decent D&D (and Pathfinder) novels don't chain themselves to the mechanics of the system, and thank god for that.
It's not even about specific mechanics; it's about consistency in both the world and the way similar scenarios/abilities/etc are presented. If it were just one author who had written all of the novels, I would say that there wasn't anything to be worried about, but with multiple authors, the framework of the system, along with the sustained efforts of the company to support that framework becomes much more important in order to keep things consistent between the different writers. A company like Paizo would simply find another way to provide that framework. WoTC/Hasbro may well be reluctant to put that much effort into a product that really doesn't fit into either of their portfolio's easily; they are both primarily board/card game and toy developers, not book publishers, and that's already painfully obvious in their treatment of the D&D brand throughout their ownership of the IP and the comparative lackluster success of 4E, which has virtually no outside support, when put up against 3.x, which very clearly depended very heavily on 3rd party support to reach the heights it did. Take away the rules system, and suddenly the novels have no clear attachment to anything else in the company's portfolio, leaving WotC the challenge of supporting the novels as a stand alone product. Given their willingness to abandon book publishing for a web based product with the 4E rule books, I don't see the higher ups being overly ecstatic about that prospect.
I'm not sure I see how a rules set is integral to the success of WotC's novel lines. WotC already has a pretty successful Magic: the Gathering line that doesn't use a lot of the card game's rules beyond a name and description. Other companies, most notable the comics industry, have kept continuing lines with multiple authors going for years with a good level of success. And a D&D novel line would be easier to manage than a comics line in terms of consistency since there would be fewer titles and a smaller creative team involved.
If anything, I think constantly having to alter the fundamentals of the novel line to synch up with new editions is a flaw. If 5e accomplishes what it wants to, it should be much easier for authors to do what they want without having to worry about the constraints of the D&D rules and setting.
I'm not sure I see how a rules set is integral to the success of WotC's novel lines. WotC already has a pretty successful Magic: the Gathering line that doesn't use a lot of the card game's rules beyond a name and description. Other companies, most notable the comics industry, have kept continuing lines with multiple authors going for years with a good level of success. And a D&D novel line would be easier to manage than a comics line in terms of consistency since there would be fewer titles and a smaller creative team involved.
If anything, I think constantly having to alter the fundamentals of the novel line to synch up with new editions is a flaw. If 5e accomplishes what it wants to, it should be much easier for authors to do what they want without having to worry about the constraints of the D&D rules and setting.
If 5E is successful, the point is moot; things will continue as they are now. If not, the company is going to have to consider how much an effectively independent novel department is worth to them and that is where the questions will start coming. Neither WoTC nor Hasbro are comic publishers, nor do they produce anything else particularly close to novels aside from the actual rpg. Even if it doesn't cost them a massive amount of money to run, the fact that it doesn't really fit in all that well with the rest of the products means that at some point they will have to make a hard decision to either support it actively as a distinct product line of it's own or scrap it, and I don't see either WoTC or Hasbro taking the effort required to support it as it's own product line. They've already effectively cut out 90% of the publishing aspect from the rpg line by removing printed books from the later part of 4E.
In the end, it isn't just the loss of the rule system, but the entirety of what that loss represents to the big picture and how both WoTC and Hasbro see that whole picture. I just don't see either caring about the novels as a stand-alone product, and I don't see the movies being worked on as likely to be successful enough to work in tandem with the novels for the two products to serve as co-headliners for the brand. For better or worse, they have built the brand around the rules system, and while that could be changed, I don't see WotC or Hasbro having the will power to do so, meaning that if 5E fails to meet their expectations, the brand as a whole will likely be left to languish bringing it what little money it can with absolute minimal effort. The novels would be the last thing to die, and it would take a while for them to do so, but die they would unless new management came in that was willing to be proactive to prevent their demise.
Saying it is little consequence shows a lack of understanding of how the current market operates.
And what does dredging up a months-old post to continue a dead argument show?
Regardless, given your posting history, I doubt a discussion between the two of us will prove productive.
The difficulty is that even if the readers of the novels don't see them directly, the ruleset is still important to their success as it drives their internal consistency. The authors could simply continue using an old system as a basis, but it would be much harder to sustain the same feel without the backing of an active living system. Not impossible, but much harder to keep all of the different authors on the same page.
Multiple shared world setting novel lines exist. WARHAMMER and 40K's immensely massive-selling book lines have nothing to do with the games at all beyond the flavour and lore. The rules have no impact. THIEVES' WORLD and WILD CARDS have sold millions of books with no game or rules to base themselves on at all.
If anything, following the game rules too much has damaged the novels. The AVATAR TRILOGY wasn't particularly loved (though some of the sequels were okay) because it was shoehorned into the novel storylines to explain the differences between 1E and 2E (which were so negligible they might as well have not bothered). And then of course you have the Spellplague, which most FR authors do not seem to have particularly liked since it nuked most of their in-progress storylines and forced them to kill off most of their casts.
I just don't see either caring about the novels as a stand-alone product
Hasbro likes money. They like money a lot. If they can make a lot of money on minimum expenditure, they like that enormously.
With a novel, it doesn't cost much to create, publish, market and sell. A lot of the authors do their own marketing online, and ebook sales mean they don't have to worry about keeping the books in print and on shop shelves. And they know a new R.A. Salvatore novel will sell about 1 million copies in its first year on sale, and they'll get one every year. That's an immense amount of profit for Wizards and Hasbro.
If 5E bombs, I think it's clear that Hasbro will simply dump the whole P&P RPG market and switch to exploiting the D&D-associated brands through other means: video games, films and of course the novels. The novels don't require the P&P RPG to exist to be successful.
Because exploiting the brand through other means has worked so well for them lately. If you're banking on those other means to sustain the brand, you and Hasbro on going to be in for a shock. No one outside the RPG market or the novels gives a dang about the DnD brand on a functional level. All the recent computer games have been relative duds, the movies are a joke, and the novels by themselves still won't generate enough profit to get the attention of the higher suits; WotC might notice them, but Hasbro won't. They won't likely abandon them, but they won't likely support them in any meaningful way either.
The difficulty is that even if the readers of the novels don't see them directly, the ruleset is still important to their success as it drives their internal consistency. The authors could simply continue using an old system as a basis, but it would be much harder to sustain the same feel without the backing of an active living system. Not impossible, but much harder to keep all of the different authors on the same page.Multiple shared world setting novel lines exist. WARHAMMER and 40K's immensely massive-selling book lines have nothing to do with the games at all beyond the flavour and lore. The rules have no impact. THIEVES' WORLD and WILD CARDS have sold millions of books with no game or rules to base themselves on at all.
If anything, following the game rules too much has damaged the novels. The AVATAR TRILOGY wasn't particularly loved (though some of the sequels were okay) because it was shoehorned into the novel storylines to explain the differences between 1E and 2E (which were so negligible they might as well have not bothered). And then of course you have the Spellplague, which most FR authors do not seem to have particularly liked since it nuked most of their in-progress storylines and forced them to kill off most of their casts.
I just don't see either caring about the novels as a stand-alone productHasbro likes money. They like money a lot. If they can make a lot of money on minimum expenditure, they like that enormously.
With a novel, it doesn't cost much to create, publish, market and sell. A lot of the authors do their own marketing online, and ebook sales mean they don't have to worry about keeping the books in print and on shop shelves. And they know a new R.A. Salvatore novel will sell about 1 million copies in its first year on sale, and they'll get one every year. That's an immense amount of profit for Wizards and Hasbro.
If 5E bombs, I think it's clear that Hasbro will simply dump the whole P&P RPG market and switch to exploiting the...
Whilst I pretty much agree with you, I don't think it's right to say its clear what they'll do in any situation. One of WotC's weaknesses, in my opinion is their lack of transparency at a strategic level.
Because exploiting the brand through other means has worked so well for them lately.
The novels continue to sell very well, though not quite as well when they had more decent - or at least popular - writers working for them on a regular basis. They still have Salvatore and Kemp has built up quite a big fanbase independently of what's going on with the game.
On the game front, agreed, they haven't made a decent D&D game since MASK OF THE BETRAYER. However, NEVERWINTER has picked up a lot of good press recently, which is very encouraging.
If you're banking on those other means to sustain the brand, you and Hasbro on going to be in for a shock.
4E has effectively ended, and wasn't selling great before it was parked, so the novels are effectively sustaining the brand right now. They also sustained it in the handover period between 2E and 3E (there was the better part of two years between the last big 2E books coming out and 3E launching). So it's not a problem.
Putting the novels in charge of the brand and having them sustain the brand alone for many, many years is another question, but I see no reason why not. The overwhelming majority of the novel readers have no interest in the P&P RPG, so it won't be an issue for them.
the movies are a joke
True, but Hasbro have not had any control over them. That's why they're suing Courtney Solomon and trying to regain control over the rights, to develop better movies to help promote the brand.
the novels by themselves still won't generate enough profit to get the attention of the higher suits; WotC might notice them, but Hasbro won't. They won't likely abandon them, but they won't likely support them in any meaningful way either.
As a percentage, they are very profitable. The amount they bring in to the company is in the tens of millions of dollars, which is certainly enough to keep Hasbro happy. They're not going to be dancing in the streets over it, and it's peanuts compared to what a successful movie will bring in, but it's a strong return on a minor investment. There's no reason at all for Hasbro or Wizards to abandon them regardless of what's going on with the RPG.
Whilst I pretty much agree with you, I don't think it's right to say its clear what they'll do in any situation. One of WotC's weaknesses, in my opinion is their lack of transparency at a strategic level.
I think it's fairer to say that WotC's strategic direction is hampered by directives from Hasbro, and it appears to me that Hasbro has taken a much more direct hand in directing WotC in the last few years, whilst previously they'd left them to operate more autonomously.
Hasbro is basically all about the dollar, especially since the TRANSFORMERS movie came out in 2007. Since then Hasbro has been looking at exploiting the enormous number of franchises it owns and developing them into movie/toy franchises and other forms they can make money from. They also mainly interested in making 'lots' of money. There was that report from a while back (I even think I heard about it here) where Hasbro were only interested in developing properties that can make them $20 million a year in profit bare minimum, and stuff that falls below that is suspended (this was the reason for 4E being wound up, allegedly) as a 'legacy product' until it can be revived with a big budget, massively-marketed movie.
The problem with D&D (or rather the P&P game by itself; the novels and computer games are still doing okay) is that it definitely falls into that latter category right now, and the combination of 5E and the Hasbro/Universal movie are their shots at making the franchise work again. If 5E fails to be massive from the off and if the Hasbro/Universal movie bombs or is delayed for years by legal action, I can't see Hasbro approving any further development of the P&P roleplaying game. I can see them putting it on ice for years, keep the novels and computer games ticking over to keep brand awareness around (although at a low level) and then try something a few years down the line.
So, I'm guessing no one has any thoughts on my homebrew stuff?
:)
The problem with D&D (or rather the P&P game by itself; the novels and computer games are still doing okay) is that it definitely falls into that latter category right now, and the combination of 5E and the Hasbro/Universal movie are their shots at making the franchise work again. If 5E fails to be massive from the off and if the Hasbro/Universal movie bombs or is delayed for years by legal action, I can't see Hasbro approving any further development of the P&P roleplaying game. I can see them putting it on ice for years, keep the novels and computer games ticking over to keep brand awareness around (although at a low level) and then try something a few years down the line.
I hope you're right, because for all the encouraging signs I'm seeing from Next, there's still plenty of room to fail, and I've become less than encouraged by Hasbro's input into the brand as a whole.
Whilst I pretty much agree with you, I don't think it's right to say its clear what they'll do in any situation. One of WotC's weaknesses, in my opinion is their lack of transparency at a strategic level.I think it's fairer to say that WotC's strategic direction is hampered by directives from Hasbro, and it appears to me that Hasbro has taken a much more direct hand in directing WotC in the last few years, whilst previously they'd left them to operate more autonomously.
You may be right, however I see it going back a long time - no doubt exacerbated by the shifting politics within the company (WotC). I'm thinking things like the virtual tabletop schemozzle (both at launch and then beta), the essentials "reboot", the DDI subscription tinkering. They often make changes without much telegraphing beforehand - the impression I get is one of quite chaotic, reactive indecision.
FWIW, I generally think Hasbro's involvement in the D&D business is severely overestimated by D&D fans. I suspect they value WotC for magic - the rest is just gravy.
The movies and computer game rights are a different thing, of course and i generally agree with what you write below in that regard. I'm just very skeptical that Hasbro need to "approve" any development of the D&D RPG. Providing its not actually losing money and providing magic is still such a strong performer for them - I think the development of D&D will be entirely the call of WotC management. Parent companies don't have much to do in the running of subsidiaries which are doing well (that's why they hire WotC executives, after all).
Hasbro is basically all about the dollar, especially since the TRANSFORMERS movie came out in 2007. Since then Hasbro has been looking at exploiting the enormous number of franchises it owns and developing them into movie/toy franchises and other forms they can make money from. They also mainly interested in making 'lots' of money. There was that report from a while back (I even think I heard about it here) where Hasbro were only interested in developing properties that can make them $20 million a year in profit bare minimum, and stuff that falls below that is suspended (this was the reason for 4E being wound up, allegedly) as a 'legacy product' until it can be revived with a big budget, massively-marketed movie.
The problem with D&D (or rather the P&P game by itself; the novels and computer games are still doing okay) is that it definitely falls into that latter category right now, and the combination of 5E and the Hasbro/Universal movie are their shots at making the franchise work again. If 5E fails to be massive from the off and if the Hasbro/Universal movie bombs or is delayed for years by legal action, I can't see Hasbro approving any further development of the P&P roleplaying game. I can see them putting it on ice for years, keep the novels and computer games ticking over to keep brand awareness around (although at a low level) and then try something a few years down the line.
Hasbro may not have direct control over the brand, but their saying "if a certain brand doesn't make x dollars, we refuse to support it with any kind of marketing" is a major problem when it comes to DnD. Granted, that's in large part because WotC themselves set themselves up for it to be a problem, but the general idea that the brand must meet a certain threshold is problematic when even the brand as it stands right now can't meet that threshold. Take away the role playing game (a very real possibility if Next does not perform as well as WotC hopes), and suddenly the rest is that much harder to justify, especially with a point that someone made in the movies thread. A lot of people don't associate Forgotten Realms with Dungeons and Dragons; this makes it much harder to use the novels to carry the brand.
The biggest challenge that the brand has a whole is that it really hasn't created any kind of content that is both successful and fresh outside of the rpg game itself for some time. The novels are doing well, but at this point are dangerously close to being rehashes of already existing characters, if they aren't already, and they belong more to the authors themselves than they do to the overall brand. Take out Salvatore and Drizzt, and they aren't all that robust, making them a poor contender to support the brand long term. On the movies side, Hasbro is very good at supporting movies made by others; I have serious doubts as to their ability to make one on their own. They could, in theory, partner up with one of the major movie studios to get it done, but I don't see most movie studios caring about the DnD IP; they can do at least 90% of the same stuff already with original or other existing IPs. Relying on movies to carry the brand even remotely simply is asking too much of what is not that strong of an IP in that arena. Computer games, despite all the past success, are little better in recent years. Neverwinter may be tolerably well received, but it's not going to be a breakout hit, and the market is crowded enough it will likely stop getting attention from the wider market as new things come out. 3.5 had multiple games based off it, as did 2nd edition; the fact that it took 4E almost to the end of it's life cycle before we even heard talk of a computer game using it's system is suggestive that the computer game market for this particular IP may not be as strong as it may have once been, and could bring as many difficulties to the table as benefits.
I just don't see the reasons for everyone's optimism of the broader market; even the stuff that seems to be doing well enough is largely on auto pilot and/or entirely out of the hands of the brand managers at WotC. There simply isn't anything there to take the pressure off of Next, either existing or in the immediate pipeline, and the eventual pipeline is little better, containing only vague hopes of a successful movie. I wish WotC the best with Next, but the rose colored glasses got thrown away a long time ago. If Next fails to meet their expectations, it may be best to simply shelf the brand until both companies develop more realistic expectations of it.
Hasbro may not have direct control over the brand, but their saying "if a certain brand doesn't make x dollars, we refuse to support it with any kind of marketing" is a major problem when it comes to DnD.
Why? It's never reached that threshold and never had access to the kind of corporate marketing hasbro can provide. (Personally, that suits me down to the ground. I don't want D&D to be made attractive to the mainstream, which is what I suspect would happen if Hasbro did decide to take a direct interest).
No RPG has ever received that level of marketing support - yet they're doing fine. D&D brings in millions if dollars every year, despite a dearth of new content for the last eighteen months. Properties of other companies are doing fine. Hasbro are making millions from WotC - magic was one of their golden brands during the last few years, allowing them to weather the GFC storm surprisingly well.
We just don't matter in the big picture and never have. That's both a good thing and a bad thing, but a tumultuous time in the D&D world is a nonevent for Hasbro.
It matters not because of what Hasbro will or wont do, but what WotC will or won't do because of Hasbro's indifference. Simply put, Hasbro has no interest in the brand, and WotC's primary interest in the brand is tied directly to the rule set and their ability to sell it and the associated IP for a hefty licensing fee. They aren't selling it based on the novels line, which is largely not associated with the brand to begin with, and they aren't selling it off of purely hypothetical movie sales. They were barely able to sell it even when they actively supported 4E. Without the ability to sell long term licensing deals, a very real possibility if Next doesn't perform as expected, and even, to be honest, if it does, what they are making right now is moot; they won't be able to sustain any kind of numbers in the increasingly crowded market without active and significant support, and since they aren't likely to be rewarded for sustaining it from Hasbro, WotC will very likely choose to let it collect dust and focus on making even more money from Magic; they have already shown that they aren't all that interested in creating content on their own.
The problem with making lots of money with no effort is that someone else will come in, put in the effort, and suddenly, you're not making money anymore. Paizo did precisely that in the brand's primary market, and it's happened in most of the secondary markets already as well. When you're doing well, you're doing well, but as soon as things start to slip, you have no brakes to slow down the decline, and even less ability to reverse it. Novels are a holdout, but are entirely too reliant on a handful of aging authors and increasingly stale characters; Salvatore can't keep writing books forever and eventually even Drizzt will be found to be too stale to generate much interest.
It comes down to who is going to generate actual content. The goal with 4E was that WotC would provide the framework and sell licenses for the actual content, saving them the expense and challenges of the actual generation while securing themselves a stable income. That's a great theory, but they hit several stumbling blocks, mostly in overrating the potential market for a niche IP license. Perhaps with Next, they can revive interest, and I hope for the brand's sake they do, as I don't see them returning to be effective content generators themselves, at least for this brand. Salvatore will continue to write novels for his own sake, but not for the brand's sake, and when he says he's done, the brand will lose it's most effective, and one of it's last, outside spokesman they still have. At that point, what is supposed to keep the brand going? Some stale computer games that struggle to compete against their competitors and the eternal hopes that the next movie attempt will finally be the "the one" that establishes the brand's credibility once and for all?
I understand your position. I disagree but dont really care about arguing the point. However, none of that answers this:
Hasbro may not have direct control over the brand, but their saying "if a certain brand doesn't make x dollars, we refuse to support it with any kind of marketing" is a major problem when it comes to DnD.Why?
They've never met this criteria and never had that kind of marketing support, yet D&D has been doing fine for thirty-plus years. Continuing to fail to meet that isnt 'a major problem', it's business as usual for D&D and it's the exact same situation as every other RPG.
I understand your position. I disagree but dont really care about arguing the point. However, none of that answers this:
They've never met this criteria and never had that kind of marketing support, yet D&D has been doing fine for thirty-plus years. Continuing to fail to meet that isnt 'a major problem', it's business as usual for D&D and it's the exact same situation as every other RPG.Hasbro may not have direct control over the brand, but their saying "if a certain brand doesn't make x dollars, we refuse to support it with any kind of marketing" is a major problem when it comes to DnD.Why?
It's done fine in it's own niche, and could continue to do so just fine if allowed to do so, but my whole point is that some people think that they could shelve the rpg and the brand could sustain itself with other products. That part is what I question; despite limited success early on with computer games, they have yet to parlay any success in the one niche into sustained success outside of that niche.
On the movies side, Hasbro is very good at supporting movies made by others; I have serious doubts as to their ability to make one on their own. They could, in theory, partner up with one of the major movie studios to get it done,
Absolutely. Hasbro didn't go out and hire Spielberg and Bay to make TRANSFORMERS; producer Tom DeSanto just thought that doing a TRANSFORMERS movie would be cool and the rights got sorted out. In D&D's case, Hasbro is partnering with Universal to make their planned movie (as long as they get the rights situation sorted out).
That part is what I question; despite limited success early on with computer games, they have yet to parlay any success in the one niche into sustained success outside of that niche.
Well, they've sold millions of computer games. Not recently, true, but they've had significant success in that area in the past. And they've sold the better part of 100 million novels. That's HUGELY successful.
You may have a point that sustaining the D&D brand outside of the game may be problematic more because the novels do not emphasise the D&D brand name (FORGOTTEN REALMS or whatever is more prominent). However, they can easily solve that by simply making the FORGOTTEN REALMS the defeault D&D campaign world and maybe creating some kind of combined logo for it. It's baffled me why they haven't done that already.