There was an excellent three-part article on the Escapist earlier this week on D&D -- It's Past, Present, and Future.  And, as a response to that Ryan Dancey, who was quoted in the article, wrote his own response (whcih turned into a long forum thread with many more extended offerings) about the business history behind the development of D&D. There's a lot of pulling back the curtain going on.

And, so, naturally enough, this has woken most of the nerdrage over a ton of ancillary topics like the OGL, the WOTC/Paizo split, various edition gripes and complaints. 

The whole discussion has left me with a uncomfortable, unsettled feeling about D&D.  Don't get me wrong -- I love 4e, I'm enjoying playing and intend to keep enjoying the game.  But the truly important realization about the whole story is that the details of a given edition -- the rules, the structure, etc -- those details are about as important as spinning rims are on a cadillac.  They'll attract some customers and drive off others, but in the end they don't make much difference in the business of making and selling cars, and all the cold hard calculus involed in that work.

I begin to suspect that the best thing that could happen for D&D right now would be for Hasbro to sell it off to a smaller company.  It's not profitable enough to meet the standards that Hasbro has for it's product lines, and as the story goes, the window of opportunity for that transition passed at the time 4e was intially released without adequte DDI support (thanks to a muder-suicide tragedy -- it's linked in Dancey's stuff posts). 

There are hints that there will be a big announcement next week -- and we all know that Monte Cook has returned to WOTC R&D, and is theoretically working on something "big" with Mike Mearls.  That's exciting, but at the same time I'm worried that they're in a position where, no matter how cool a system they design, they can't achieve the sort of success Hasbro requires in today's market & econonmy.

5e or no 5e?

I'm just a fat guy sitting at his desk who should be doing real work, so take this with a grain of salt, but I don't think the "right" move for M&M to make with D&D right now is a new edition.  It might be a daring move, but I would expect it to fragment the current 4e customer base without bringing new customers into the fold.

It's been entertaining, reading through this thread and the whole discussion, as I kick around ideas in my head.  There's such a wide gulf between what I think would be cool, or good for the game, and what would clearly be good for the business.  The two ideas aren't all that closely related, obviously.  A cool new setting, a cool revision to the rules, be it big or small -- even if it were the sort of impossible holy grail offering that was so complete and good and amazing that it brought all the people playing previous editions and their offspring back into the fold for this new edition -- even if that sort of miracle happened, it's clear that the success they might be able to achieve would in all likelihood not even come close to satisfying hasbro's definition of a success. 

For THAT sort of success, they need to recruit new players -- probably 5 new players for every one of us currently playing the game.  How the hell do you do that, in the face of the MMO explosion?

Other Stuff that Hasn't worked

They've tried a streamlined version of the game targeting new players(Essentials). They're still pushing their outreach efforts in game shops (Encounters). They've tried board games, and they've tried sub-games (Gamma World). And it's clear now that none of them are turning the corner.

Crazy Idea #1: Do Dragon Age one better

I didn't play dragon age, either the computer game or the RPG. So this is conjecture.  But they had an interesting idea -- release an MMO and an RPG at the same time, same setting, same story.  They got a gamer nerd hero to do a web show as her character.

I don't know if Dragon Age was consider a success or not.  I heard good things from the guys playing it, but they're not playing it anymore (my friends, anyway -- so that's anecdotal and doesn't mean anything). I think it was probably a flawed project only because the brand wasn't as strong as many others.  It was (at the time) hard for a MMO to compete in the fantasy space with World of Warcraft. 

But what if you could take D&D -- a much stronger brand -- and create a hybrid MMO/Tabletop TPG?  One where you could build and play your character on your own, in an MMO world, but you could also play tabletop RPG sessions with the same character.  Imagine being able to go in-world and role play through all your character interaction in town, between sessions.  A few individual side quests.  A few conversations with mentors.  Then print out your character sheet and sit down at the table over the weekend to play with the guys for an evening of old style fun. 

Would people play it?  There would be a minority of the existing audience that would be vocal critics of the plan. No question about it. But more than that, there are plenty of people who wouldn't want to wait for the weekend tabletop game to advance their character -- the power of the MMO is that it's available whenever you are, for as long as you are. 

In the end, I think it would be a flop, but it would be an interesting flop. 

Crazy Idea #2: Sell the Brand

The real problem with D&D right now is not that the brand is a disaster; it's just that it isn't a big enough success for the parent company. A smaller company, maybe one with a better pipeline to the customer (like Paizo's) could make a totally viable run with the brand. After all, there are nearly 70,000 DDI subscribers right now (apparently -- someone else in the big thread came up with that number).  That alone could represent enough revenue to keep a small company going.

But Hasbro isn't going to let the D&D brand go cheap, even if all they plan to do with it is mothball it for ten years or so. And that price tag would be too big for any company small enough to survive on the DDI audience. So, it's some sort of catch-22.  A small company could be successful with the brand, but couldn't buy it.  A big company can buy the brand, but can't make it successful.  

Besides, the big names in the marketplace besides Wizards right now Paizo, Green Ronin, and so on -- I doubt they would be interested buying 4e, given their investment in their own systems right now. 

Crazy Idea 2.5: Spin it Off (Maybe not so crazy?)

They did it once before with Paizo.  It worked for Paizo, but it a bag way it worked for paizo because paizo had WOTC's support while they got themselves going.  It worked once, and it could work again.

There are dangers in that model -- certainly the spun-off company would be paying some licensing fees to Hasbro that they wouldn't have to pay if they'd just created their own game. But the brand brings a huge audience, and a lot of value. There's also the danger that the licensing agreement would end, the way it did for Paizo.  On the one hand, I think that the end of that licensing agreement is inevitable, really, but so are death and taxes.  The really important question is could the new company keep the license long enough to have a successful run?  Say ten years?  Paizo didn't, but they didn't need that long, in the end.

What does it REALLY MATTER, anyway? 

In the end, the whole conversation is mostly silly.  I enjoy playing D&D, but if Hasbro shelves the brand, that's not going to keep me from playing.  I'd hope that they would at least keep the DDI going, but I'd even find a way to survive without that.  

And, eventually, I'd move on to other games.  Dresden Files looks damn cool, for one thing.  And there's always Savage Worlds. 

In the end, what were all wringing our hands over is a BRAND.  Would I stop wearing jeans if I could get Levis? No.  I'd miss diet coke if it went away, but diet Pepsi would be there around the corner.