D&D General Dan Rawson Named New Head Of D&D

Hasbro has announced a former Microsoft digital commerce is the new senior vice president in charge of Dungeons & Dragons. Dan Rawson was the COO of Microsoft Dynamics 365.

Hasbro also hired Cynthia Williams earlier this year; she too, came from Microsoft. Of Rawson, she said "We couldn’t be bringing on Dan at a better time. With the acquisition of D&D Beyond earlier this year, the digital capabilities and opportunities for Dungeons & Dragons are accelerating faster than ever. I am excited to partner with Dan to explore the global potential of the brand while maintaining Hasbro’s core value as a player-first company.”

Rawson himself says that "Leading D&D is the realization of a childhood dream. I’m excited to work with Cynthia once again, and I’m thrilled to work with a talented team to expand the global reach of D&D, a game I grew up with and now play with my own kids.”

Interestingly, Ray Wininger -- who has been running D&D for the last couple of years -- has removed mention of WotC and Hasbro from his Twitter bio.

 

[darjr]

6e? When does this one come out?
Never heard of that.

It’s not. I wish they’d stop saying that, it seems deliberately antagonistic.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Aside from people who only play digital, which i suppose is what the world is evolving into, I don't see how they could hope to monetize a game that can be played with 3 books, a set of dice and some pencils and paper.

It took me a long time to learn that you don't need to buy every book. Especially adventure books. And it will be a long time until I buy into D&D Beyond, but I also have tried and do not like playing online and much prefer in person.

I wonder what the ratios are on "Only plays in person", "Only plays online", and "Plays both in person and online."

The trick is convincing new young gamers that they  do need to buy every book, and every mini, digital widget, etc.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

6e? When does this one come out?
Never heard of that.

It is not, unless you regard the UA/One D&D as 6e. Micah, will use 6e to refer to the new edition.

 

[Micah Sweet]

6e? When does this one come out?
Never heard of that.

You may know it as 1DD.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

It’s not. I wish they’d stop saying that, it seems deliberately antagonistic.

Yes it is.
It is also very untrue.
What we see is the core of 5e left alone.
I was not there when 1e transitioned to 2e, but I was there when 3.0 transitioned to 3.5.
Right now it seems that we get about those amount of changes. In some way more, in some way less. Difference: 10 years vs 3 years. Although I could understand the desire to have a rules upgrade of the 3.0 core rules. Too bad in hindsight I have to say, that I liked 3.0 somewhat more than 3.5. Right now for 1D&D it seems that they are mostly on the right track.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

You may know it as 1DD.

No. Does not ring a bell. Seems as if we are speaking about different games. Funny that both are called nearly the same...

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes it is.
It is also very untrue.
What we see is the core of 5e left alone.
I was not there when 1e transitioned to 2e, but I was there when 3.0 transitioned to 3.5.
Right now it seems that we get about those amount of changes. In some way more, in some way less. Difference: 10 years vs 3 years. Although I could understand the desire to have a rules upgrade of the 3.0 core rules. Too bad in hindsight I have to say, that I liked 3.0 somewhat more than 3.5. Right now for 1D&D it seems that they are mostly on the right track.

There is more to an edition than the core math.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No. Does not ring a bell. Seems as if we are speaking about different games. Funny that both are called nearly the same...

This is fun. To me, the names they're using are marketing choices, to keep from scaring away their new fans.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Yes it is.
It is also very untrue.
What we see is the core of 5e left alone.
I was not there when 1e transitioned to 2e, but I was there when 3.0 transitioned to 3.5.
Right now it seems that we get about those amount of changes. In some way more, in some way less. Difference: 10 years vs 3 years. Although I could understand the desire to have a rules upgrade of the 3.0 core rules. Too bad in hindsight I have to say, that I liked 3.0 somewhat more than 3.5. Right now for 1D&D it seems that they are mostly on the right track.

3 to 3.5 was not bat initially it was one of the early splat books that broke compatibility. Can't really remember which one but there was a fair bit of power creep.

 

[dave2008]

You're the one asserting an affirmative, burden of proof is on you.

The most recent thing I have (other than this most recent stuff) is from Hasbro's Q4 report.

In the report 74% of their 1.3 billion in revenue ($962 million) was from tabletop games. What we don't know is what % is D&D vs MtG. To be clear, this does not include digital sales.

We also know it had 6 years of growth prior to 2020 and grew 33% in 2020. D&D biggest year ever.

From yesterday's report we know the plans is for Hasbro Pulse and D&D Beyond to provide $1billion by doubling their current 20 million accounts. And we know Beyond has 10 million accounts. That implies just D&D beyond is making around $250 mil now.

NoW, I have no smoking gun. But it seems to me there is more evidence for a figure closer to $250 million than the $50 mill you pulled from...?