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.

 

[bedir than]

FWIW as far as the (off-topic) edition discussion goes, note that the One D&D FAQ distinguishes between "One D&D" and "fifth edition". Even Wizards doesn't see them as the same thing, even if they're careful to avoid the 'E' word when referencing One D&D.

Why would they refer to a playtest as the current thing?

 

[Parmandur]

I mean, it will matter, I'd personally say, because if they change the game just enough, they'll make it so it's awkward to use 5E-based stuff with it.

If they combined that with basically dropping cooperation with 3PPs, and continuing the walled-garden approach with D&D Beyond, whilst strongly motivating people to use Beyond, I think they might cause some real issues for 3PPs.

Hard disagree.

Do you work in a corporate environment? If so this seems surprisingly... uncynical? Unrealistic? If you don't, then it's more understandable. But I do and yeah no. People at this level get hired for clear reasons. Sometimes, rarely, those reasons are stuff like nepotism, or mates-type nepotism, but much more often, you can see why the person has been hired.

In this case, it's extremely clear from his CV why he's been hired.

Digital transformation - specifically moving people from physical stuff to digital stuff. That is his background. That is why he has been hired. You know a ton more than that, too. Just read his LinkedIn. Literally everything you're repeating the most positive/humanising stuff you can find, which is 100% irrelevant to what he'll actually do in this role. If you actually look though, this is someone who has been hired to take D&D digital. There's no real question about it.

(Also, he was a CO in the Marines, not Enlisted, so let's not get any ideas that he was some kind of "man of the people" or "tough grunt". If you go look on dndnext reddit, there are some ex-Marines with some opinions about COs in the Marines lol. Not the flattering kind.)

I work in a corporate environment, and am galaxy-brain cynical: so cynical that I think things will turn out OK. I forsee the main effect of the ficus on digitization and media being that the game proper becomes hyperconservstive and careful sonthat the boat doesn'tget rocked, which I personally think is more healthy for the hobby in the longterm.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

As someone who was playing WoW while 4E was coming out and being argued about...I didn't see it more than superficially. Classes had explicit roles. The game was, mechanically, incredibly balanced and fine-tuned...especially compared to other editions. And it was more focused on combat than normal, specifically well-balanced skirmishes. It was honestly closer to tabletop wargames, specifically small-unit skirmish games, than an MMO. Something like Necromunda, Kill Team, Gorka Morka, or Mordheim. And 4E works fantastically for that. It's just not what a lot of people wanted.

Always confused me when people said 4e was a war game. I hate those games. I find them painfully dull. But 4e? Fantastic.

 

[JEB]

Why would they refer to a playtest as the current thing?

Nearly eight years of Unearthed Arcana articles were referred to as "playtest material" but not as part of something other than "fifth edition." Only One D&D has been differentiated in that way.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

I agree, it was pure speculation on my part about 5e to '24 5e. We don't know yet.

Actually, we were never "promised" modularity. This topic has been discussed on these quite a bit. There was one post by Monte Cook (IIRC) that mentioned modularity. He left the design team not long after that post too. Even in that post it was never promised, it was just discussed. However, people latched onto it (I was one of them) and started remember it as a promise. It was not.

PS - I tried to find a link for you, but the original article (from June of 2012) is gone and I am no good with the way-back-machine. Here as a link to an article discussing Monte's blog post: D&D Next and Modularity Note: the link to the post in the article no longer works.

EDIT: I did it: Modularity and Combat subsystems You will notice that there are no promises in there! I also looked through a bunch of D&D next blog entries and despite the linked one mention more discussion on modular design, this one was the only one I could find.

Spoiler: text for those who don't like links

Modularity and Combat Subsystems​

Wednesday, June 27, 2012, 9:46 AM
Categories: Dungeons & Dragons
Posted By: WotC_TomLaPille

We’ve talked a lot about the existence of optional rules modules in D&D; Next, although we haven’t given you much information about what they look like. Unsurprisingly, you’ve been asking about it. Today, I’ll show you some of what we’re thinking about.
A rules module is an additional set of rules that can be laid on top of the core rules. Each module attempts to make the game feel different in a way that a subset of the audience would find satisfying. We expect that most players won’t use most rules modules, but groups can find the rules modules that work for them so that they can achieve the feel they want.
Where do we look to find what modules to make? We look at how the game works, see what people are asking for, think about what would make the game more fun for us and for our groups, and write some rules to accomplish what we think will address these elements.
I’m working on D&D; Next, but were I running games in the real world, I would want more complexity in combat than the system currently offers. I’m not a big fan of miniatures, however, and I sometimes found the many powers that 4th Edition offered me to be overwhelming.
I play RPGs other than D&D; that give me narratively driven choices in combat within the base system—called shots, knockdowns, pushes, and so on—and I find that satisfying, because the cool things I usually want to do in combat are also things that make sense to me in the world. The rules for these other RPGs translate my impulses into mechanical terms. I missed that, so I wrote a rules module that gives it to me. Here’s a bit from a very early draft:
____________________

Tactical Narrative Combat Module​

How It Works​

When you make a melee attack, you can declare one of the following actions. If you do, you take the indicated penalty to the attack roll. If you hit with the attack, the extra effect listed takes place in addition to whatever damage your attack would deal.
Increased Damage (–2)
(You deal more damage.)
Effect: You get a +4 bonus to your damage roll.
Knockdown (–5 or –10)
(You bowl your enemy over, knocking him down.)
Effect: The target falls prone.
Penalty: This action has a –5 penalty if the target has two legs, has a –10 penalty if the target has three or four legs, and cannot be attempted if the target has more than four legs. You can attempt this action only against a creature of your size or smaller.
____________________
These actions end up looking a bit similar to the fighter’s combat maneuvers. The fighter’s actual maneuvers don’t require a penalty to the attack, so the fighter still ends up better at doing cool things in combat than other classes. This system just opens up several easy-to-imagine in-combat actions to everyone else.
This sort of thing would give me all the combat complexity I wanted, and I think it would work for my groups that play other RPGs. It might not do anything for you, but that’s all right too—if you don’t like it, just don’t bother with using it.
If you like miniatures, on the other hand, I have heard Mike Mearls talking about a tactical miniatures combat module that might make you happy. I don’t know much about what’s in it yet, but I know you’ll find rules for cover, movement into and out of enemy threat areas, and other things that most miniatures games worry about. There are even rules for facing! Our goal with the subsystem isn’t to make miniatures rules for everyone—it’s to make miniatures rules for the people who really love miniatures.
Does this sound like an approach that would work for you? What modules would you like to see? What do you love about D&D; that the current D&D; Next playtest rules don’t speak to? Sound off in the comments, and we might find even more rules modules to write.

EDIT 2: Here is another post the hints at modularity: Goblins Care only about your Axe

EDIT 3: I found this transcript of a discussion with the designers: D&D XP Seminar: Charting the Course: An Edition for all Editions! This is what most people remember I think

The promises of 5e were delivered in a three part Design Diary series hosted on the WotC website, but since taken down. I have found links to them in the not to distant past but it takes awhile and is difficult to do on my phone. They were not a simple personal blog statement made privately.

So, on the surface, the promise of modularity in Next is very similar in timing and general concept to our current promise of backwards compatibility or not-an-edition-change.

A quick Google turns up this EnWorld thread from 2 playtest packets into the Next era. It's as close to the same point in lifecycle as I can get to this conversations timing today. See what people thought about modularity back then.

Were people's expectations of "Modularity" set a little too high?

We still have the play experience of /all/ editions, and the individual experience in the hands of the players. Modules that are nothing more than pre-made house rules for the DM to aren't exactly in the players' hands, are they? Sure they are. Give a cook a pantry full of ingredients, and...

www.enworld.org

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I don't see it as the same edition. I think they're changing just enough of it to make it uncomfortable for those who preferred the 2014 presentation, and will wreck havoc with third party producers, which I care about far more than I do WotC. It seems to me that, the more you like the changes from the past couple years, the more you don't see this as an edition change.

Being mostly (only mostly) compatible won't save the 3pp who has to make a wave of small adjustments to all their current products so the leading edge people will buy them. If this edition were clearly separated, you could choose to stay with 5e or move on to 6e. But it isn't, and that's going to cause a lot of confusion and strife in the years ahead.

Can you point to what you think 3pp will struggle with in 2024 and beyond? Specifically?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Can you point to what you think 3pp will struggle with in 2024 and beyond? Specifically?

Changing monster statblocking, changing subclasses to match the rewritten classes. That's a lot right there.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

I agree, it was pure speculation on my part about 5e to '24 5e. We don't know yet.

Actually, we were never "promised" modularity. This topic has been discussed on these quite a bit. There was one post by Monte Cook (IIRC) that mentioned modularity. He left the design team not long after that post too. Even in that post it was never promised, it was just discussed. However, people latched onto it (I was one of them) and started remember it as a promise. It was not.

PS - I tried to find a link for you, but the original article (from June of 2012) is gone and I am no good with the way-back-machine. Here as a link to an article discussing Monte's blog post: D&D Next and Modularity Note: the link to the post in the article no longer works.

EDIT: I did it: Modularity and Combat subsystems You will notice that there are no promises in there! I also looked through a bunch of D&D next blog entries and despite the linked one mention more discussion on modular design, this one was the only one I could find.

Spoiler: text for those who don't like links

Modularity and Combat Subsystems​

Wednesday, June 27, 2012, 9:46 AM
Categories: Dungeons & Dragons
Posted By: WotC_TomLaPille

We’ve talked a lot about the existence of optional rules modules in D&D; Next, although we haven’t given you much information about what they look like. Unsurprisingly, you’ve been asking about it. Today, I’ll show you some of what we’re thinking about.
A rules module is an additional set of rules that can be laid on top of the core rules. Each module attempts to make the game feel different in a way that a subset of the audience would find satisfying. We expect that most players won’t use most rules modules, but groups can find the rules modules that work for them so that they can achieve the feel they want.
Where do we look to find what modules to make? We look at how the game works, see what people are asking for, think about what would make the game more fun for us and for our groups, and write some rules to accomplish what we think will address these elements.
I’m working on D&D; Next, but were I running games in the real world, I would want more complexity in combat than the system currently offers. I’m not a big fan of miniatures, however, and I sometimes found the many powers that 4th Edition offered me to be overwhelming.
I play RPGs other than D&D; that give me narratively driven choices in combat within the base system—called shots, knockdowns, pushes, and so on—and I find that satisfying, because the cool things I usually want to do in combat are also things that make sense to me in the world. The rules for these other RPGs translate my impulses into mechanical terms. I missed that, so I wrote a rules module that gives it to me. Here’s a bit from a very early draft:
____________________

Tactical Narrative Combat Module​

How It Works​

When you make a melee attack, you can declare one of the following actions. If you do, you take the indicated penalty to the attack roll. If you hit with the attack, the extra effect listed takes place in addition to whatever damage your attack would deal.
Increased Damage (–2)
(You deal more damage.)
Effect: You get a +4 bonus to your damage roll.
Knockdown (–5 or –10)
(You bowl your enemy over, knocking him down.)
Effect: The target falls prone.
Penalty: This action has a –5 penalty if the target has two legs, has a –10 penalty if the target has three or four legs, and cannot be attempted if the target has more than four legs. You can attempt this action only against a creature of your size or smaller.
____________________
These actions end up looking a bit similar to the fighter’s combat maneuvers. The fighter’s actual maneuvers don’t require a penalty to the attack, so the fighter still ends up better at doing cool things in combat than other classes. This system just opens up several easy-to-imagine in-combat actions to everyone else.
This sort of thing would give me all the combat complexity I wanted, and I think it would work for my groups that play other RPGs. It might not do anything for you, but that’s all right too—if you don’t like it, just don’t bother with using it.
If you like miniatures, on the other hand, I have heard Mike Mearls talking about a tactical miniatures combat module that might make you happy. I don’t know much about what’s in it yet, but I know you’ll find rules for cover, movement into and out of enemy threat areas, and other things that most miniatures games worry about. There are even rules for facing! Our goal with the subsystem isn’t to make miniatures rules for everyone—it’s to make miniatures rules for the people who really love miniatures.
Does this sound like an approach that would work for you? What modules would you like to see? What do you love about D&D; that the current D&D; Next playtest rules don’t speak to? Sound off in the comments, and we might find even more rules modules to write.

EDIT 2: Here is another post the hints at modularity: Goblins Care only about your Axe

EDIT 3: I found this transcript of a discussion with the designers: D&D XP Seminar: Charting the Course: An Edition for all Editions! This is what most people remember I think

So I'm a masochist and spent the time to bring up the Next Design Goals documents. They were in the Legends and Lore area of the WorC site. You can view them all here.

But more specifically the modularity bits are found in Part 4 (Advanced Rules) directly found here.

Its not unreasonable to have assumed that 5e was going to have "advanced" and "modular" rules added to the game based on this roadmap of the project.

 

[JEB]

Can you point to what you think 3pp will struggle with in 2024 and beyond? Specifically?

Much the same sort of problems that popped up for 3pp during the 3.0 to 3.5 transition, I expect. He mentions the primary one, 3pp being pressured to update products to match the 2024 rules, or risk folks leaving them behind. This is more challenging for 3pp if the 2024 rules have significant differences from 2014, and Wizards doesn't release the new rules under the OGL... though some 3pp have experience in workarounds for that problem (early 5E 3p products just hacked the 3.5 SRD to fit, 5E SRD hacks should be easier than that).

Significant changes in 2024 also mean that 2014 compatible products will no longer sell as well, if at all, due to their being seen as outdated. This is a bigger issue for print publishers like Kobold or Goodman, who may be left with harder-to-market unsold product.

If Wizards also intends to pull most D&D players into the D&D Beyond ecosystem and associated VTTs, and succeeds in doing so, that will likely add to 3pp struggles, since I doubt Wizards will be inclined to promote 3pp on their platforms. (3pp might want to consider partnerships with Roll20 and Fantasy Grounds...)

 

[Seramus]

Always confused me when people said 4e was a war game. I hate those games. I find them painfully dull. But 4e? Fantastic.

I think of D&D in general as Half A War Game. It's definitely not a full war game, but war gaming is so baked into the DNA of D&D that it saturates and influences how the game even approaches challenges. Compared to games like Fate, Monsterhearts, World of Darkness, etc, going back to D&D really feels like wading knee deep back into war gaming.