Fictiotopias, chuanshu, isekai and "the last action hero".

I see the "progression fantasy" is becoming very popular, and the "isekai" and the chuanyue (the Chinese word for "isekai" genre). Within the chuanyue fiction we have "chuanshu" subgenre that is about the main characters are within a fictional world like a videogame, a novel or a cinematographic production. I suppose the best example to explain this is the action-comedy "the last action hero" where the main character is a young boy who enters a movie thanks a magic ticket. Other example could be the TV miniserie "Lost in Austen" where a British girl who lives in London discovers a magic portal toward her favorite novel "Pride and Prejudice". Other example would be the animated show "Jumanji" where the main characters travel toward within a magic boardgame.

Some times I have thought about "fictiotopias". These are demiplanes created to make some fictional universe real. The module "Dungeonland" could be an example of D&D fictiotopia.

Why should WotC add "fictiotopias" for D&D cosmology? This could allow the creation of alternate timelines, or intercompany crossovers, for example Birthright-Games of Thrones or Fortnite-Dragonlance and we shouldn't worry about canon or continuity of the official settings.

And how could we justify the creation of "fictiotopias" within D&D multiverse?

• They are excelent places for base of operations for chronomancer guilds and other time-travelers factions because there they can be protected by time-paradoxes created by enemy groups. 
• The are used to hide cursed artifacts. Who in their right mind would look for treasure in a radioactive waste graveyard (built by a civilitation with advanced magitek what discovered the atomic energy)?
• Some divinities earn more power as "sponsors" of famous heroes, or monsters.
• But one of the most important reasons to create a fictionpia is to help some divine power with mental health problems such as depression, learned helplessness, or post-traumatic stress. The stories of the characters who live within these fictiopias work like a therapy for these divine powers. Some thing like "bibliotherapy" but the divine souls can understand those heroes or characters can survive and earn their happy end without plot armor. 

WotC doesn't need to add if you want to play in such settings, you can just do it.

Quote from Davyd >>

WotC doesn't need to add if you want to play in such settings, you can just do it.

 
Building on this, we’ve already seen the pratfalls that come from official content expanding D&D into popular intellectual properties.  Sometimes the rights run out and are not renewed, which is why Rick & Morty content will forever be unavailable to future users on D&D Beyond, even though it was an official D&D publication.

I would also note, the reason Dungeonland (an early 80s module with Alice in Wonderland vibes, for those unfamiliar) was because it explicitly did not do what you are proposing here.  Dungeonland took the concept of Alice (which itself could be called an isekai, and actually helped shape the genera) but made it something new.  You’re still going down the proverbial rabbit hole to a more whimsical land than Greyhawk (or whatever setting you placed the portal in - it was designed to be flexible in its origin point)… but Dungeonland itself is not Wonderland. It is an homage to Carroll’s masterpiece, but does enough of its own thing in terms of tone and worldbuilding as to obtain its own unique identity.

A better historical D&D example for your thread would be Conan Unchained! - a module that sought to take some elements of the Conan novels and make them into a D&D module.  This was published the year after your Dungeonland example. Conan Unchained! was viewed fairly negatively, as it both did a disservice to D&D by cutting out a bunch of the content that makes the game feel iconic, while also failing to capture the full depth of Howard’s Hyborian Age.

Taken together, these two releases show a trend many DMs learn at some point - homage works well in D&D, but a direct copy tends to fall flat unless you are really going to commit to the setting and have full by in.

The licensing issue is a good one I hadn't thought about, but did make me think of another issue—becoming dated.

We have two cross-over IP products officially for D&D 5e; Rick & Morty, and Stranger Things. Do you think those will still be culturally relevant in 5, 10, or 15 years? Doubtful, but compare that to original settings, or even external settings (such as the MtG books) that still lean into the core fantasy tropes. Settings and content that isn't grounded in an IP because it's the current hot thing age much better because they're not contemporary to whatever is in. 20 years down the line when we're all playing D&D 7th edition or 5.5.102 or whatever, Theros will still be a solid setting to play, whereas the Rick & Morty books will not. I base this on the fact that today I have a harder time selling a R&M or ST based game to someone who is unaware of the IP than I would a Ravnica, Theros, or Strixhaven game.

It does seem like a reoccurring theme of the OPs threads is shoehorning other IPs into D&D, to a puzzling extent, and not even in a "Could you use the SRD to make a TTRPG for [insert IP] but actually meshing that IP with the D&D IP and settings. I would ask why? Why try and put these square pegs into round holes?

My current campaigns are already doing stuff like this without the need for official materials. 

Thank you for your participation.

It's clear that Hasbro has a strong interest in licensing, and I suspect they want something similar with D&D to what they did with Magic: Universe Beyond. Intercompany crossovers are difficult to negotiate, but that's precisely why consumers tend to buy them due to FOMO (Fear of missing out), because practically they are like limited editions. I tend to speculate on the hypothesis WotC could be willing to retcon the D&D cosmology to allow future intercompany crossovers. 

Hasbro would want to use licences to sell products to no-players, for example  "Warcraft" or "Legend of Zelda" for gamers. Other companies want to use D&D to promote their own IPs, for example Blizzard's Overwatch or "Fortnite: Save the World", but also some manga publishers could agree some collab with WotC.  

Technically, it's true that we don't need any official product to make we own collabs but I would like to know your opinion. Would you wellcome a campaign inspired in the subgenre of "isekai TTRPGs"? 

Other reason to play a campaign set in a "fictiotopia" is because if the players know the plot of the books then they wouldn't have to pretend they don't know the future. For example you could play Dragonlance with a new group of heroes in an alternate continuity, but also the players could play like "transmigrated souls" who know the future events of the books and they can enjoy total freedom to alter the plot. Also a "fictiotopia" setting could allow players options (PC species or classes) that could have been banned in the original setting.

I'd always recommend against official crossover products mashing other licenses into D&D. The rules already give us the framework to do quite a lot and fold in quite a variety of genres, styles, setting types, etc.

I've been binge-playing Resident Evil games lately. So that temptation is there, sure. What if D&D... but RE? But do I really need Umbrella and STARS and Jill Valentine in my D&D game? I thought more about the things that make the Resident Evil franchise works, and the themes that stick out are survival horror, tension, resource scarcity, inscrutable puzzles often involving cranks, keys, or crests, and often a large, implacable monster in constant pursuit whose presence is always felt and who becomes more monstrous as things progress. Arguably I have more freedom to explore those tropes within D&D if I'm not married to Raccoon City as the setting. I think being stuck with official materials would tie my hands as DM more than anything. I can slot in an adventure based on that framework within the world I already built for my players or if I want to make it stick out apart from the rest of the story I can have the party get swept up into a domain of dread by the mists of Barovia.

I'm reasonably certain I've said this in another thread, but I think the concept of isekai is redundant when it comes to D&D. We're already delving into a fantasy world to get away from the crushing weight of our day-to-day lives in the real world. I don't think it really needs another layer of abstraction on top of that.

Quote from LuisCarlos17f >>

Thank you for your participation.

It's clear that Hasbro has a strong interest in licensing, and I suspect they want something similar with D&D to what they did with Magic: Universe Beyond. Intercompany crossovers are difficult to negotiate, but that's precisely why consumers tend to buy them due to FOMO (Fear of missing out), because practically they are like limited editions. I tend to speculate on the hypothesis WotC could be willing to retcon the D&D cosmology to allow future intercompany crossovers. 

 That’s a hell of a leap, in the last decade we’ve had exactly three D&D crossovers; Stranger Things (which played a huge part in making D&D better known to the wider market so actually makes a lot of sense) Rick and Morty (which sold really poorly by all accounts) and a five stat block monster pack for Mine Craft, so to say that Hasbro wants more isn’t really based on any sort of evidence in past behaviour. They don’t even cross their own IP over with Dungeons and Dragons and have an entirely separate company doing TTRPGs for the likes of Transformers, GI Joe and My Little Pony using totally different systems. If the much hyped but ultimately tiny Lorwyn Shadowmoor release is anything to go by they’re not even particularly keen on more MTG cross overs. 

Like Davyd I’m wondering why you’re always asking for these types of cross overs and why you’re always so convinced that there’s a huge demand both inside the company and outside? If you’re so desperate for something like this create it yourself or try to find a Kickstarter doing it because I doubt you’ll ever get an official release 

I’ve said this before on other treads, but Magic and D&D are fundamentally different games. 

Magic is a competitive game - even when played casually, there is a winner and loser. Which also means there is an incentive to interact with non-Wizards IP that player might not otherwise care about, as that IP’s product might contain a card that works for your deck. With D&D, players have less of an incentive to interact with IP they do not care about, since there is no need to build the best deck with the right cards in a cooperative game.

Magic is also a game where the player (mostly) controls their deck. If you want UB cards in your deck, the only real limit is the format rules.  With D&D, you cannot unilaterally decide to use UB content - you need an entire group to sign off on that IP. Don’t get that agreement? The game is probably not happening and the product might not be purchased.

Magic also has a different sales model, driven by limited formats.  For limited, mechanics might be enough to sell someone on a draft night - a fairly low commitment for buying products.  Limited also lends itself to multiple releases per year to keep the game nights from feeling stale. D&D looks toward longer form campaigns - it is much harder to sell “want to hang out in this IP for a year” than for a single night.

Finally, UB is very hit or miss in Magic. Spider-Man and TMNT both flopped, and forced Wizards to acknowledge they need to reevaluate their focus on UB in the next development cycle (likely end of 2027 to 2028).  No reason they would not apply the “this is not the goldmine we thought” lesson to D&D and be a bit reluctant to take this step.

Yeah, I think comparing Universes Beyond to D&D is a bit misleading. Ultimately UB is just a skin on top of the mechanics of MtG, a competitive card game. It doesn't matter if your 1R 1/1 with Haste and First Strike is called "Goblin Charger" or "Foot Clan Berserker" or "Rampaging Spider-Bot", it's still a 1/1 with Haste and First Strike for 1R. The "narrative" of the card is skin deep (or not even).

However, with D&D the narrative is the game as much as the mechanics if not more so for many players. You can't swap out the setting and have the same gameplay experience—playing a D&D game set in Eberron will feel fundamentally different to playing one set in Strixhaven or Oearth or Krynn. However playing a deck with pure Doctor Who cards will feel just as much MtG as playing one that contains a mix of Lorwyn, Strixhaven, Warhammer 40k, and Marvel cards.

Also a point the OP seems to make is "Hasbro has a strong interest in licensing" which is both inaccurate (Hasbro has a strong interest in profitable licensing) and also irrelevant because it's WotC who has the inwards licensing control of D&D. What I mean by "inwards licensing" is putting other IPs into D&D, as opposed to outwards licensing—putting D&D into other IPs. For example, we've had My Little Pony D&D toys, but that's putting D&D into the MLP brand, not putting MLP into D&D. Even building a non-D&D IP TTRPG using the SRD is outwards licensing. All the inwards licensing we've seen has generally been driven by a natural relationships between the two IPs

• Rick & Morty was tied to a comic run about Morty playing D&D, which itself is motivated by Harmonquest, Dan Harmons own live play (technically it's modified Pathfinder, but splitting hairs)
• Stranger Things has the very obvious through line of D&D being a parallel theme in the characters lives
• Even the Minecraft and Lego limited tie ins were related to the fact that people have been using Minecraft/Lego to play D&D for a long time (I actually ran some D&D in minecraft as a proto-VTT when I played 4th edition)