How badly has D&D been mismanaged?

[rumble]

Noodling on this a bit more, and thinking about what others have said here...

We cannot establish a failure to monetize (properly manage) DnD unless we have a shared idea of what DnD is.

We've put out that MCU fans are not comics fans. I'm not educated enough to know if that's true, but it kinda feels right. Probably some Venn overlap.

And remember that in my mind, DnD is not a product. It's a toolkit, a programming language. It could be a language in heavy use, like C++. Instead, it's specialized and entrenched, but in general disuse, like COBOL.
Does anyone sell programming languages? Nope. Only RPG players are that kind of sucker for the pretty face (art and production effort) that comes along with it.

So, monetization...
Evangelization: You can put DnD out there and hope people create something cool with it, which inspires others to buy it. (rules)
Productization: You can create cool things with it and try to sell those things. (splatbooks)
Diversification: You can create things that reference your product to engage people with either the primary or diversified interest. (novels, dice, t-shirts, movies)
Partnerships: You can work with other specialists to create joint efforts that raise awareness and sales (think LEGO Batman, 5e for Wendy's and Rick and Morty).

DnD has survived all this time primarily through evangelization. Contrast with LEGO, which survives through productization (themed sets) and partnerships (LEGO movies).

For whatever reason, DnD does poorly at partnerships... doesn't play well with others, beyond casual cameos.

Someone mentioned that DnD was still not a beginner's game. All the app development is supposed to solve that. Just push a button, and see if you hit. You don't have to know the rules. So now you're created a product for all the people who want to tell stories but can't be bothered with the minutiae of rules.

The GMs will be dragged along with the flow of noobs wanting to adopt the platform for the pretty pictures and pushbutton play. Just one thought.

 

[robb]

Someone mentioned that DnD was still not a beginner's game. All the app development is supposed to solve that. Just push a button, and see if you hit. You don't have to know the rules. So now you're created a product for all the people who want to tell stories but can't be bothered with the minutiae of rules

I actually think the app is very powerful for this.
edit: I mean amongst young people (and hence not in scope for pub discussions)

 

[rumble]

I actually think the app is very powerful for this.
edit: I mean amongst young people (and hence not in scope for pub discussions)

Well, there's gonna be a huge exit from DnD when they stop supporting the app. Could be three years, could be 10 years. But it will stop. It's the nature of tech.

 

[sharps54]

Well, there's gonna be a huge exit from DnD when they stop supporting the app. Could be three years, could be 10 years. But it will stop. It's the nature of tech.

I doubt it, these young whippersnappers are used to video games and phone apps sunsetting, as long as there is a replacement app it won't matter.

 

[Endless Flight]

Because comic fans are weird.

 

[Endless Flight]

No media affected comics readership like the 1966 debut of the Batman TV series. Sales of Batman in 1965 averaged 453,000 copies per month. The following year, that nearly doubled to an astounding 898,000 copies.

 

[Savage Schemer]

D&d doesn't have the deep cultural penetration of Marvel.

Marvel didn't even have the deep cultural penetration of Marvel until the Iron Man movie (with the X Men movies paving the way). As card carrying members of geek / nerd culture, it's easy for us to loose sight of that fact. Before then even their attempts to cash in with mainstream audiences were notably and laughably bad.

 

[Parkaboy]

Marvel didn't even have the deep cultural penetration of Marvel until the Iron Man movie (with the X Men movies paving the way). As card carrying members of geek / nerd culture, it's easy for us to loose sight of that fact. Before then even their attempts to cash in with mainstream audiences were notably and laughably bad.

They had the deep cultural penetration but they didn't have talent behind their other media efforts. I think the difference is one IP (Marvel) had the storyline, characters, and reputation around the world to succeed and made crap films. D&D had none of the former and made a good film that didn't succeed.

 

[carpocratian]

You can't really compare the rpg market to the comics one without a whole lot of caveats. There are a lot of things that have affected the comics market that are very specific to it, and the swings in the comics market have come about from forces that aren't similar to those that affect the rpg world. A few of those (not a comprehensive list) include a couple of ill-considered collector/investor booms and the bad practices that emerged from them (cross-title "events," multiple covers, etc.), changes in the affordability of the base product, changes in the way the product is distributed, and more. Though the "comics market" in general is still healthy, the bulk of the sales these days are from juvenile graphic novels put out by Scholastic and similar publishers (ex. "Dogman") and manga, though popularity of manga in the U.S. is not as high as it was a decade ago. In the end, too, you're talking about a medium that is primarily fiction and character based, which is not the basis of D&D and other rpgs. It is like comparing Putt-Putt Golf to Major League Baseball. Both include balls that you hit around and fall under the general heading of "sports activities," but that's about as far as it goes. One is a game you play with friends for a while on the weekends, and one is a primarily passive media-oriented viewing experience.

 

[Kage2020]

And I’ll say again.

This is the evidence of mismanagement.

In fifty years of D&D the best we can come up with for ‘characters’ is Raistlin and Drizzt?

Sorry, I didn't mean to act like the slow poke. I've been frustrated with D&D for years, so consider my just punting a little bit more energy into that echo.

The only reason that I've touched it in 33 years since I first played one variant is that it is the unkillable system for that particular group. Everyone (but me) knows the system, knows it well, and have been using it for years. So when we try and get a game started up, even when the GM is saying that they're wanting to use another system or develop their own system, after a bit of going this way or that, they'll end up using the latest version of D&D.

I think the perception some have of latter D&D being overly complex is an effect of some of us having grown up on 1E AD&D. That was complex. It really makes no sense. %E is a much simpler and more logical system.

Heh. Totally anecdotally, but I would rather use GURPS than use D&D5e any time of the day. Same with the 40k RPGs. All of the complexity is, for me, in the wrong place.

 

[Chris Brady]

No. That’s a false premise. Just because Marvel couldn’t sell a MCU comic to comic fans doesn’t mean anything other than comic fans are weird

It DID sell to comic fans. But not to the new audience Marvel was hoping to bring via the movies. They were hoping for a LARGER audience, but that never happens. That's my point. Marvel Comics and D&D are stuck in their niche because of public perception for the most part.

People love to bring up the Batman '89 movie as a counter point, but it actually didn't bring new Batman readers. You know what did? Batman The Animated Series. The cartoons are always the ones to get the new readers, cuz hook 'em when they're young! And if the stories remain good (A valid discussion point we can have elsewhere) the kids will keep reading long after they mature into adults.

So if D&D wants to break out of it's niche, go back to the 80's. Have a snappy, action/adventure cartoon, have them make modules and character sheets based around it. Trying to get us adults, who tend to get set in our ways (A habit I personally hate and refuse to fall into), is a waste of money and time.

But what do I know? I'm a literal high school dropout!

 

[Parkaboy]

You can't really compare the rpg market to the comics one without a whole lot of caveats. There are a lot of things that have affected the comics market that are very specific to it, and the swings in the comics market have come about from forces that aren't similar to those that affect the rpg world. A few of those (not a comprehensive list) include a couple of ill-considered collector/investor booms and the bad practices that emerged from them (cross-title "events," multiple covers, etc.), changes in the affordability of the base product, changes in the way the product is distributed, and more. Though the "comics market" in general is still healthy, the bulk of the sales these days are from juvenile graphic novels put out by Scholastic and similar publishers (ex. "Dogman") and manga, though popularity of manga in the U.S. is not as high as it was a decade ago. In the end, too, you're talking about a medium that is primarily fiction and character based, which is not the basis of D&D and other rpgs. It is like comparing Putt-Putt Golf to Major League Baseball. Both include balls that you hit around and fall under the general heading of "sports activities," but that's about as far as it goes. One is a game you play with friends for a while on the weekends, and one is a primarily passive media-oriented viewing experience.

I work in both fields and feel I can make a comparison. I'm currently working on an RPG pitch for studios. If it were an existing comic, it'd be a hell of a lot easier.

 

[Edgewise]

But it should be a media behemoth because it’s the content that sells. Not the rules themselves.

I think you missed the point of my post. I'm saying that the thing they should focus on selling is a digital platform. That's neither content nor rules; it's infrastructure.

And let me tell you, infrastructure is where the money is these days. Of these two groups, who makes a ton of money?: (a) DriveThruRPG, (b) the people who sell content on DriveThruRPG. That's right, the answer is (a). Content is a low-margin business in RPGs. Everyone makes content, and distribution is so cheap that companies are competing with droves of hobbyists. You can only sell so much RPG content to the same audience unless they're just buying it to buy stuff. That can work for a while, but then the bubble eventually pops.

Content is NOT King. Infrastructure is.

This seems like a faster horse solution.

While we are locked into the idea that D&D has to be **this way** we aren’t doing any better than the suits who mismanaged it in the first place.

I have to be honest; I have no idea what this means or how it pertains to my comment.

I think D&D might work as a sort of anthologized procedural TV show with a common setting and recurring secondary characters (the NPCs).

A good TV show works as a good TV show. Do you mean as something to promote the game?

When I think of cross-marketing between film/TV and games, my question is which is selling which. If you do both really well, they can both sell each other, but that's IMO very hard to pull off.

But that's inevitable, if they had stripped 5e down to B/X levels of simplicity, like Into the Unknown does , the screams of rage from those who prefer higher crunch, fron 1e through 4e, would have been deafening.

A problem that goes back to 3e is that crunch = content, and having all kinds of silly races and class options gives you more material to sell. To me, it's analogous to clear-cutting a forest, where you get a jolt of cash up-front, but it's non-renewable, and ultimately makes the game less playable in the long run.

 

[Savage Schemer]

That's not a bad idea at all. It's kind of like how the majority of Amazon's profit comes from AWS (its cloud infrastructure).

 

[Parkaboy]

I think you missed the point of my post. I'm saying that the thing they should focus on selling is a digital platform. That's neither content nor rules; it's infrastructure.

And let me tell you, infrastructure is where the money is these days. Of these two groups, who makes a ton of money?: (a) DriveThruRPG, (b) the people who sell content on DriveThruRPG. That's right, the answer is (a). Content is a low-margin business in RPGs. Everyone makes content, and distribution is so cheap that companies are competing with droves of hobbyists. You can only sell so much RPG content to the same audience unless they're just buying it to buy stuff. That can work for a while, but then the bubble eventually pops.

Content is NOT King. Infrastructure is.

I have to be honest; I have no idea what this means or how it pertains to my comment.

A good TV show works as a good TV show. Do you mean as something to promote the game?

When I think of cross-marketing between film/TV and games, my question is which is selling which. If you do both really well, they can both sell each other, but that's IMO very hard to pull off.

A problem that goes back to 3e is that crunch = content, and having all kinds of silly races and class options gives you more material to sell. To me, it's analogous to clear-cutting a forest, where you get a jolt of cash up-front, but it's non-renewable, and ultimately makes the game less playable in the long run.

To be fair, RPG players buy a ton of things they do not use. Our industry depends on it. Also, several streaming services would disagree on infrastructure versus content right about now. I suspect WoTC has refocused on the digital platform now.

 

[EmperorNorton]

I keep wanting to argue with different things in this thread.

But I really think it comes down to one thing. Even as someone who isn't a giant fan of D&D (my preferred "D&D" is PF2e) or what WotC has done with it... everything people are talking about about who are in the "it has been mismanaged" camp just sounds like things that would make me like it even less.

Maybe they could have done big movies or whatever else other IP thing they could do with it... but why should we care? And is it somehow "better" if they did?

 

[Voros]

I have anecdotal tales from comicshop owners of people coming in and wanting to get into comics during the height of the MCU craze, only to find that none of the characters they liked from the films in the comics themselves, and multi-issue Events that required readers to shell out for dozens of comics a month just to follow a storyline.

But that aside, the main issue I have with this argument is that the opposite has happened numerous times throughout history. Batman '89 led to a huge increase in readership of Batman comics. Superman: The Movie led to a demonstrable increase in sales of Superman comics. The relationship of cross marketing CAN exist, so to simply write it off as "people don;t like to read so of course no MCU fans buy comics" doesn't ring true to me. I think Marvel comics had an opportunity and simply were incapable or unwilling to capitalize on it.


Well, discussing the success in the 90s is a difficult topic for comparison because it was a Collector's Boom, meaning the majority of comic buyers were not comic book readers. However, while it was concurrently a time of high fan engagement, that's kind of the issue - what appeals to longtime, older fans isn't what draws in new readers and my perception is that the 90s is both when the average age of comicbook readers increased (to 20s-30s). but also continued a trend that began in the 80s where the generation of new readers drastically shrank.


That seems a bit backwards, since the "doomladen talk" is generally coming from folks specifically against comics being written by and targeted at "emotionally arrested manchildren", instead of, y'know, actual children. (and "womenchildren" obviously, who are somehow even more pathetic. #girlsgetitdone).

And the boom/bust argument would carry more weight if there wasn't the vast discrepancy between the (not) success of current superhero comics and the monstrous success of comicbooks overall worldwide at the moment. Comics are in fact doing great. It's Marvel and DC that are failing, specifically.

Because people don;t like superheroes? We know that's not true. Because manga are so better written/drawn? Fuck no.
So, just basic logic: Marvel and DC's current output doesn't have wide appeal. That's not a doomladen prophecy, it's an inevitable logical conclusion by looking at sales. And I likewise think it's a completely reasonable assertion to suggest the reason that they are failing is tied to the way modern comics are different from superhero comics that were successful.

No, I don;t think every MCU watcher is ever going to read a comic. But I also would say 90% of kids who grew up reading comics in my generation, were introduced to those characters through other media, and there is definitely a reason that isn't happening now.

There's no doubt that they should have produced more newbie and kid friendly comics to coincide and take advantage of the tremendous popularity of the MCU and failed to do. They have pandered to their aging collector fanbase for too long at the cost of recruiting new, young readers.

But I think the state of superhero comics is more complex than the quality of the writing or artwork, which has been uneven at best throughout the history of the medium. Most of the manga that is currently popular is of terrible quality, so I don't think that explains the popularity of one over the other.

 

[TristramEvans]

There's no doubt that they should have produced more newbie and kid friendly comics to coincide and take advantage of the tremendous popularity of the MCU and failed to do. They have pandered to their aging collector fanbase for too long at the cost of recruiting new, young readers.

But I think the state of superhero comics is more complex than the quality of the writing or artwork, which has been uneven at best throughout the history of the medium. Most of the manga that is currently popular is of terrible quality, so I don't think that explains the popularity of one over the other.

sure, everything from the death of print media to the changing tastes of new generations growing up in an oversaturated media landscape is at work. I guess I just focus my attention on an issue that they could practically and meaningfully address.

 

[Edgewise]

To be fair, RPG players buy a ton of things they do not use. Our industry depends on it. Also, several streaming services would disagree on infrastructure versus content right about now. I suspect WoTC has refocused on the digital platform now.

Yeah, there's a ton of unnecessary purchases in the RPG biz; I can't argue with that.

As for streaming services, there are no guarantees in business. The thing with selling infrastructure is that you really hit your stride when you reach a certain scale and can benefit from network effects. D&D, as the 800 lb. RPG gorilla with deep pockets, could get there with a gaming platform. Plus, most streaming services are hosting content of their own creation.

 

[Parkaboy]

Yeah, there's a ton of unnecessary purchases in the RPG biz; I can't argue with that.

As for streaming services, there are no guarantees in business. The thing with selling infrastructure is that you really hit your stride when you reach a certain scale and can benefit from network effects. D&D, as the 800 lb. RPG gorilla with deep pockets, could get there with a gaming platform. Plus, most streaming services are hosting content of their own creation.

Yeah. The streamers just greenlit too much content with too little examination of quality. Amazon and Apple can easily take that hit as they have other, much bigger revenue streams, but a Netflix is rooted in streaming and its content. Though, as you say, the infrastructure they made allows them to make money on old content paid for long ago by someone else. It's a pretty common tech bubble scenario: everyone gets excited and throws money at things because other people are and they seem to be making money, or potentially, and then they realize the money thrown was at phantoms and dodgy ideas. At least streaming produced something. Too bad they're killing their own products for tax breaks. I'll be curious to see where streaming winds up as they start to add commercials and make it like... TV!

 

[Parkaboy]

Yeah, there's a ton of unnecessary purchases in the RPG biz; I can't argue with that.

As for streaming services, there are no guarantees in business. The thing with selling infrastructure is that you really hit your stride when you reach a certain scale and can benefit from network effects. D&D, as the 800 lb. RPG gorilla with deep pockets, could get there with a gaming platform. Plus, most streaming services are hosting content of their own creation.

I agree D&D can get there with a gaming platform. My guess is that is their focus again. The demos of their VTT could change everything if they pan out. I wondered for some while why they didn't have a 3D VTT already.

 

[Agemegos]

I have been thinking about the contrast between D&D and other games that have been successfully turned into cash cows: Association football, cricket, tennis, golf, horse-racing, Rugby, American football, baseball, basketball and so on. One thing that's very clear is that nobody makes a motza by selling copyright rulebooks. Another thing is that, though there have been football movies and racing movies and Rugby movies and so on, those have been at best lucrative for Hollywood etc., rather than the game's proprietors. The people who made Bend It Like Beckham saw no percentage in giving FIFA a slice of the action to be The Official FIFA® Bend It Like Beckham.

There is a worthwhile sideline in getting governments to build and maintain facilities for the game. And ticket sales count for something. But, for games, the real money is in advertising.

 

[Sable Wyvern]

I have anecdotal tales from comicshop owners of people coming in and wanting to get into comics during the height of the MCU craze, only to find that none of the characters they liked from the films in the comics themselves, and multi-issue Events that required readers to shell out for dozens of comics a month just to follow a storyline.

My biggest problem with comics was always that they were so short.

I had a friend who had years and years worth of GI Joes and 2000 ADs, and I'd gladly borrow stacks of 20 or 30 at a time, but the idea of waiting a month each time for something that took me ten or fifteen minutes to read never made any sense.

 

[Voros]

My biggest problem with comics was always that they were so short.

I had a friend who had years and years worth of GI Joes and 2000 ADs, and I'd gladly borrow stacks of 20 or 30 at a time, but the idea of waiting a month each time for something that took me ten or fifteen minutes to read never made any sense.

Monthly floppies have made no sense for a long time but it is hard for the companies to change and that partly comes down to their audience as well.

 

[David Johansen]

The things that hit big for D&D and led to the current boom were Critical Role, Stranger Things, and Big Bang Theory. Perhaps D&D media is less effective than media about D&D.

Marvel and DC have both tried things to make comics more accessible to new readers not the least of which were Crisis on Infinite Earths and Ultimate Comics. There was also a really fun out of continuity Avengers comic for a while. They haven't stuck. They really need to get into the supermarket checkout lane like Archie but Mom's just more likely to buy Archie.

I did a bit of a thing, I dunno, treatment seems too strong, before the D&D movie came out about what my D&D movie would look like. As far as truly iconic D&D characters go I'd take the Paladin from the DC D&D comic and Forgotten Realms over many others, really, most of those characters were pretty good in hindsight. It's been so long that I don't even remember their names other than Timoth Bright Eyes the centaur. While the first story-line wasn't great the comics grew into their own and were quite good once they got established.

 

[Toadmaster]

I think the problem with fantasy films has always been, and the D&D movie sort of confirms this, that the films are expensive to make for the size of the typical audience.

A breakthrough hit is a different story, but it's difficult to guarantee that.

While there have certainly been some high budget fantasy movies, many have had pretty average budgets, examples being Excalibur ($11 mil), Clash of the Titans ($15 mil) and Conan the Barbarian ($20 mil) which were low to average for the early 80s.
The average studio film in the early 80s cost $15-20 million. For some comparison Raiders of the Lost Ark also had a budget of $20 million, and the James Bond film For your eyes only, $28 million. Superman (1978) had a much higher budget of $55 million.

I think D&D might work as a sort of anthologized procedural TV show with a common setting and recurring secondary characters (the NPCs). I’m picturing like an 8 or 10 episode series where each episode starts in the same tavern and introduces a new set of adventurers and follows them on different types of adventures. Some of them don’t survive. Season two would introduce some new characters (maybe played by the same actors as some of those who died in season one) and bring back favorites from season one for further adventures, including maybe a two-parter for a more involved adventure. Then the same for season three and eventually a feature film with whoever becomes the breakout most popular character(s).

The reuse of actors seems particularly appropriate for an RPG based streaming or TV show along with occasional 4th wall breaking and falling out of character. Those are features that can help to reinforce the RPG experience, but do need to be handled carefully to prevent becoming slap stick. Personally I have found some of the very best examples of a genre tend to come from films with a comedic tone.

I really liked how The Gamers Dorkness Rising managed to show both the players and their characters as individuals, but also occasionally confused them. This is easier in a straight comedy like The Gamers, but I think could be utilized in a show with a more serious tone. Distinguishing the players from the characters is something that I think really sets a fantasy film apart from an RPG film.

In the same time frame we got Traveller and Silent Death doing the same kill the setting metaplot thing.

Anyhow, a good rpg is a terrible product. Most people who try D&D will never use the content in the Players Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, and Monster Manual. Most people don't stick with it for the rest of their lives. The problem is that once you've sold most people more than they need, they don't need more. This is where merchandise, novels, comics, T Shirts, mugs, miniatures, and dice come in.

There does seem to be a significant drop off in sales the further from the core rules you get. Completionists are the ideal customer, but we seem to be a small minority of the fan base.

 

[T. Foster]

A feature of an anthology-type series (a la fantasy Twilight Zone) is that different episodes could have different tones, from wholly comedic and fourth-wall breaking to totally straight.

 

[Sharrow]

Yeah, there's a ton of unnecessary purchases in the RPG biz; I can't argue with that.

As for streaming services, there are no guarantees in business. The thing with selling infrastructure is that you really hit your stride when you reach a certain scale and can benefit from network effects. D&D, as the 800 lb. RPG gorilla with deep pockets, could get there with a gaming platform. Plus, most streaming services are hosting content of their own creation.

It helps a heck of a lot to get a monopoly, or near to one. Amazon does, Drivethru nearly does, and so on. That's where the streaming services are running into trouble - seeing Netflix's success, a whole bunch of competitors started up, and now all having infrastructure does is let into the game. To win it you need content, lots and lots of good content, and it's clear that the none of the streaming services know how to reliably make/obtain good content (it's always been and art not a science), how to best deliver it, or even how to best monetise it. The result being that we, the consumers, are getting all the worst bits of a competitive market, and not the best bits.

 

[David Johansen]

Thus far, out of Disney+, Crave, and Netflix, Netflix has by far the best user interface. Admittedly it's a small sample size.

Still, user interface is certainly something that applies to the gaming thing, and probably explains why Space Opera isn't the biggest game on the market.

 

[EmperorNorton]

Thus far, out of Disney+, Crave, and Netflix, Netflix has by far the best user interface. Admittedly it's a small sample size.

I've used Disney+, Netflix, Crunchyroll, Prime Video, and Hulu, and legit, Netflix has the best actual UI and UX of any on demand streaming platform.

 

[lategamer]

(Marvel) had the storyline, characters, and reputation around the world to succeed and made crap films. D&D had none of the former and made a good film that didn't succeed.

I guess we disagree majorly on the terms of reference because while there were several poor MCU movies, on the whole they’ve been very good.

Whereas I couldn’t put a finger on a good D&D movie.

 

[David Johansen]

Whereas I couldn’t put a finger on a good D&D movie.

The Lord of the Rings movies were better D&D movies than they were Lord of the Rings movies.

 

[lategamer]

Content is NOT King. Infrastructure is.

I have to be honest; I have no idea what this means or how it pertains to my comment.

Not everyone has the chocks to start developing smartphones or data centres.

There was a comment about how Amazons profit comes from AWS. Of course it does. They skim the margins on the “shipping atoms” business because their endgame isn’t about sending you a book in a day, it’s still about killing retail. Their AWS, like their robotics business, is a profitable sideline.

A good TV show works as a good TV show. Do you mean as something to promote the game?

I think a meta TV show might work.

Example. Jumanji.

First movie in 1995 cost $65 and made $262
Zathura broke even.
2017 sequel made nearly $1B on a budget of less than $150M
2019 sequel made $800M+ on a budget of $125M.

Remember we make movies to make the money to make more movies. Simple economics. We don’t take our money and just start making data centres.

When I think of cross-marketing between film/TV and games, my question is which is selling which. If you do both really well, they can both sell each other, but that's IMO very hard to pull off.

Top of my head with no forethought.

I’d pitch a Stranger Things vibe. Bunch of loveable characters (think: the Goonies toned down). Start with teenagers meeting up to play the game. Switch POV to the characters in the game. Such drama.

Include aspects such as Jimmy not able to make it because his family is on holiday or them having to do a one off because the DM is sick. Include things like a parent or younger sibling joining the game because Dominic is working on his relationship with his stepson Mike. The DM is Jenny, with the cliche of being pushed to academic excellence while also being a massive geek. Meanwhile the PCs do their best to chew through the classic scenarios that we own the license for. Season two, Jenny brings her boyfriend to the group and Mike brings his too. It doesn’t work out for either of them in the game but the relationship continues with one of those partners being supportive and the other antagonistic. Each 6 episode season could be one module but we ensure that 50% of the on screen is from the POV of the characters.

We take the time to show generation, experience, weapon specialities, feats and character death and potential resurrection. Most importantly we do our best to stick to the RAW, only deviating when we want to illustrate Homebrew. And we do want to. We illustrate how to deal with a murderhobo, how to introduce a player for a one shot (or the visiting cousin with their OC who kinda breaks the rules.) I could go on (as you know).

We have seen this kind of dual narrative before in, for example, The Princess Bride.

We do an episode from the POV of the parents and the school staff. Showing how roleplay improves problem solving. Show how it’s more inclusive than other hobbies because allowing people to shine because of their strengths and in spite of their challenges is built right into the game. We include mental health challenges including swapping out the DM because they’re feeling under the weather.

We do one on a convention (including highlighting danger). We show online play too - but the players state outright that face to face is better. Why? Snacks.

Like Ready Player One we absolutely harvest pop culture.

We don’t need A-listers for this. We will make them A-listers.

I could go on (and yes, you all are aware of this).

The point being to teach the games. Where “Honour Among thieves” fell down for me is that it was a generic fantasy movie.

 

[AsenRG]

That there was no official VtM films I think comes down to the fact, that it is based on a concept (Vampires) that is pretty easy to scratch the serial numbers off and just run with it.

But then it's just as easy to scratch off serial numbers from fantasy. If WW had the money to produce a film like the recent D&D movie, would that have changed things?
I kinda doubt that. There were such movies that could have been V:tM, they were just called "Anne Rice movies". And Blade had both a trenchcoat and a katana, which is incidentally what was happening in most V:tM sessions as well (except the combat system really didn't want you to use it)...

The only problem was establishing the link from the movies back to the RPG, in the minds of the public.
Sometimes I'm wondering why the owners of the RPG IPs don't give to Hollywood the rights for a movie for free. I mean, let them rake in the cash from your fans, as long as they're putting "V:tM" or whatever on the merch as well.
And you focus on making your books accessible to newbies. In fact, focus on making a flag product called something like, I dunno, Beginnger's Blood Box or something?

Worst case scenario, you ain't losing anything.

The producers of the "Underworld" series tried that, got sued, and ended up settling with White Wolf. I'm surprised they didn't do the same thing with "True Blood."

Though there is some precedent for it, the whole idea of clans of vampires fighting tribes of werewolves with a lot of political stuff was mostly a White Wolf thing, and influenced a LOT of books, films, and comics along the way. A lot of vampire and werewolf stories draw primarily from some combination of ideas that came from Sheridan le Fanu, Bram Stoker, Anne Rice, and White Wolf, rather than actual myth and legend.

...I suspect WW simply didn't think they can take on the law team of True Blood in court?

Also, yes, most modern vampire/werewolf media doesn't address the old legends at all. Most of them wouldn't even be recognizable to modern readers, anyway.

What is better?

All the successful game designers I know are making products for the actual RPG community, unlike Hasbro, which is making products to convince non-gamer investors that D&D is an infinite well of money that going to go a-gusher any second now. Just you wait!

Hasbro fails because it has a delusional idea of what D&D is and could be. It's a failure because it's it's set unrealistic goals. It may be making more money than anyone else, but it's promised investors it would make much more money than that, so it's a failure. Hasbro's pitch to investors is really no different than an overpromising kickstarter.

Meanwhile, plenty of small companies and individual designers are succeeding, making RPG products with a specific, existing audience in mind. Their revenue numbers might be a lot smaller, but they didn't promise to make anyone rich. They are using sound business practices rather than just engaging in zeitgeisty spin.

Sounds almost like a description of a pyramid scheme that's refusing to admit it has to fail, doesn't it?

To be fair, RPG players buy a ton of things they do not use.

...you don't say!

There is a worthwhile sideline in getting governments to build and maintain facilities for the game. And ticket sales count for something. But, for games, the real money is in advertising.

So the real question is, how does one sell ads via an RPG...

I mean, Critical Role are doing that, kinda, via youtube selling ads for them. Other streamers do as well. How could publishers sell ads, one wonders?

 

[Toadmaster]

A feature of an anthology-type series (a la fantasy Twilight Zone) is that different episodes could have different tones, from wholly comedic and fourth-wall breaking to totally straight.

Also thinking I've never heard about anybody complaining that Columbo reused quite a few actors over the years. Patrick McGoohan topped the list playing four different murderers, followed by Jack Cassidy and Robert Culp, each playing three.

 

[Agemegos]

I mean, Critical Role are doing that, kinda, via youtube selling ads for them. Other streamers do as well. How could publishers sell ads, one wonders?

The obvious thing is to make gaming groups dependent on some sort of online tools such as a VTT, and then

• run ads on the VTT, online rules references, and online generation and management tools for characters and campaigns
• provide infrastructure for groups to distribute actual plays, put ads in the actual plays, and give a cut of ad revenue to the most popular groups.

 

[TJS]

So the real question is, how does one sell ads via an RPG...

I mean, Critical Role are doing that, kinda, via youtube selling ads for them. Other streamers do as well. How could publishers sell ads, one wonders?

I'll run more modern games if someone will pay me $100 every time I describe the NPCs they're approaching as "sipping on a nice cold refreshing Pepsi".

 

[TJS]

Also thinking I've never heard about anybody complaining that Columbo reused quite a few actors over the years. Patrick McGoohan topped the list playing four different murderers, followed by Jack Cassidy and Robert Culp, each playing three.

I actually think there's a good idea for a TV series there with the frame that every episode is a gaming group playing a different game (perhaps with some spread over multiple episodes). So you have a conceit for basically the same characters, but one week they're delving into medieval court politics, and the next they're aboard a spaceship experiencing system failure.

With the occasional very short flash back to the real world at the beginning and end so that we understand the real world that the characters are working through in the fiction, and there could be some ongoing sense of character growth.

But just D&D would be too narrow for that really.

 

[lategamer]

With the occasional very short flash back to the real world at the beginning and end so that we understand the real world that the characters are working through in the fiction, and there could be some ongoing sense of character growth.

But just D&D would be too narrow for that really.

I think the transposing characters would work - but specifically it would be to other properties. Spin off series for Dark Sun. For Spelljammer.

 

[rumble]

If we're "seriously" pitching DnD film endeavors, I think most of the ideas are missing the mark.

DnD isn't about the characters. It never has been. It's about the players. (Cue wailing and gnashing of teeth and pulling of hair.)

Episodic Twilight Zone won't work. No actor consistency to latch on to in today's market.

Procedural quests with enduring characters won't work. One failed season and it dies.

A meta drama+teaching show? Let's just say I watch a ridiculous amount of television, and I wouldn't be in the viewer demographic. Then again, grain of sand since I couldn't make it through the Hobbit series or Stranger Things. There are plenty of mainstream shows I can't stomach.

I'm guessing we're looking for an American Horror Story experience. The actors stay relatively consistent from season to season. Characters may die off, but the actors all reboot in following seasons. Stories can change drastically because there's no need to maintain a strict continuity. Casting is flexible, but consistency is encouraged because the "players" stay the same while the "characters" and story can shift from season to season to show the flexibility of the game.