WotC Hasbro Bets Big on D&D

During today's 'Hasbro Fireside Chat', Hasbro's Chris Cocks, chief executive officer, and Cynthia Williams, president of Wizards of the Coast and Digital Gaming mentioned D&D, and about betting big on its name. This was in addition to the Magic: The Gathering discussion they held on the same call.

The following are rough notes on what they said.

D&D Beyond

• Leaning heavily on D&D Beyond
• 13 million registered users
• Give them more ways to express their fandom
• Hired 350 people last year
• Low attrition

What’s next for D&D

• Never been more popular
• Brand under-monetized
• Excited about D&D Beyond possibilities
• Empower accessibility and development of the user base.
• Data driven insight
• Window into how players are playing
• Companion app on their phone
• Start future monetization starting with D&D Beyond
• DMs are 20% of the audience but lions share of purchases
• Digital game recurrent spending for post sale revenue.
• Speed of digital can expand, yearly book model to include current digital style models.
• Reach highly engaged multigenerational fans.
• Dungeons and Dragons has recognition, 10 out of 10
• Cultural phenomenon right now.
• DND strategy is a broad four quadrant strategy
• Like Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings or Marvel
• New books and accessories, licensed game stuff, and D&D Beyond
• Huge hopes for D&D

What is success for the D&D Movie

• First big light up oppourtunity for 4th quadrant
• Significant marketing
• They think it’ll have significant box office
• It has second most viewed trailer at Paramount, only eclipsed by Transformers
• Will be licensed video games, some on movies
• Then follow up other media, TV, other movies, etc.
• Bullish on D&D.

 

[Oofta]

Or have the basic ability to have campaign info other than a single "DM's note section".

D&D Beyond is good as a character manager but utter garbage for running a game.

It's ... okay for running a single encounter. I think one of my biggest issues is how overly verbose actions are. I always cut them down to the minimum, abbreviated version. I create cards laminate for each monster so I can use later.

As an example, picking a random one from my upcoming game, if I use the standard stat block I have to read

Fire Breath (Recharge 5–6). The dragon exhales fire in a 60-foot cone. Each creature in that area must make a DC 21 Dexterity saving throw, taking 63 (18d6) fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.​

Instead of my version

Fire Breath (Recharge 5–6). 60-foot cone; 63 (18d6) fire damage; DC 21 Dex for 1/2 (31).​

​

or

Bite. Melee Weapon Attack: +14 to hit, reach 10 ft., one target. Hit: 19 (2d10 + 8) piercing damage plus 7 (2d6) fire damage.​

vs

Bite. +14/19 (2d10 + 8) piercing + 7 (2d6) fire; reach 10 ft​

​

I don't need to know that it's a melee weapon attack, that it's one target. I only include anything outside of the ordinary, like the 10 foot reach for the bite. Probably not a huge difference, and I'm sure there are descriptions that have a lot more text that adds no additional information I really need to run the monster but for me my abbreviated version is easier at a glance.

But running an entire campaign? Yeesh. Nope, I didn't even put encounter descriptions in there when I was trying to use it for monsters. About the only advantage was that I could have my players put in their info as well and then I could glance at their character sheets easily.

 

[Incenjucar]

Some 4E-style abbreviations can be quite handy.

 

[Von Ether]

To do what? Sell me a piece of a book that I wouldn't otherwise buy and might otherwise pirate?

Good! Please do encourage ways for me to legally purchase pieces of content that I would never otherwise buy in complete form.

This also benefits Dragonlance fans, because I -- a not-Dragonlance-fan -- am making a Dragonlance product more profitable, thus encouraging WotC to make more of them.

This is an everyone wins situation.

LOL! I had this issues years ago with Castles and Crusades. When they were finally working on their Castle Keepers Guide, they said it was slow going and asked if people would interested in buying it in pieces. the rules part was gong to be separate from the essay/advice part.

I voted for buying it in parts but it came out as one product anyway. Looking over the whole book, I was disappointed. It wasn't because the essays and advice were bad (It's obvious that someone was putting their History degree to use) but they were not my thing and I would have rather just paid for the rules part at a cheaper price.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

It's ... okay for running a single encounter. I think one of my biggest issues is how overly verbose actions are. I always cut them down to the minimum, abbreviated version. I create cards laminate for each monster so I can use later.

As an example, picking a random one from my upcoming game, if I use the standard stat block I have to read

Fire Breath (Recharge 5–6). The dragon exhales fire in a 60-foot cone. Each creature in that area must make a DC 21 Dexterity saving throw, taking 63 (18d6) fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.​

Instead of my version

Fire Breath (Recharge 5–6). 60-foot cone; 63 (18d6) fire damage; DC 21 Dex for 1/2 (31).​

​

or

Bite. Melee Weapon Attack: +14 to hit, reach 10 ft., one target. Hit: 19 (2d10 + 8) piercing damage plus 7 (2d6) fire damage.​

vs

Bite. +14/19 (2d10 + 8) piercing + 7 (2d6) fire; reach 10 ft​

​

I don't need to know that it's a melee weapon attack, that it's one target. I only include anything outside of the ordinary, like the 10 foot reach for the bite. Probably not a huge difference, and I'm sure there are descriptions that have a lot more text that adds no additional information I really need to run the monster but for me my abbreviated version is easier at a glance.

But running an entire campaign? Yeesh. Nope, I didn't even put encounter descriptions in there when I was trying to use it for monsters. About the only advantage was that I could have my players put in their info as well and then I could glance at their character sheets easily.

Agreed. My statblocks are always super bare bones too, because they're mostly just to prompt me, and I (theoretically) know what I meant.

I was mostly just stunned I couldn't have an individual tab for NPC's, stores, locations in towns or even maps to help my players, particularly between sessions. An ability to upload handouts, or what have you. Nope, just one big ol notepad file. I tried to manage with spoiler tags, but the whole thing feels like an afterthought from late 90's web design. And it's been that way for like a year!

 

[Alzrius]

No, it wasn't. His tone is pretty clear in that video. He obviously is certain that Tactical and Virtual D&D is inferior in practically every way to Theatre of the Mind and In-Person D&D.

No, I disagree with your interpretation of his tone. He has an opinion, certainly, but any implications that it's somehow one-true-way-ism strikes me as exaggerated (at best).

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

No, I disagree with your interpretation of his tone. He has an opinion, certainly, but any implications that it's somehow one-true-way-ism strikes me as exaggerated (at best).

I'm not watching that video for a third time. I remember clearly. He is at best very condescending when it comes to playstyles he doesn't like, and the whole premise of the video is that a playstlye is inferior and should not be catered to (digital and tactical styles of play).

 

[Alzrius]

I'm not watching that video for a third time. I remember clearly. He is at best very condescending when it comes to playstyles he doesn't like, and the whole premise of the video is that a playstlye is inferior and should not be catered to (digital and tactical styles of play).

I've watched it more than twice, and I also remember clearly. His tone is matter-of-fact, but in no way condescending, and your interpretation of his premise is flawed. Any idea that he's saying a different playstyle is "inferior" or "should not be catered to" is something you're bringing to the proverbial table.

 

[Oofta]

With MtG they have a format now that is only playable online - with its own cards that you can't really do in paper.

I assume the discussion of what they can do on VTT that is (close enough to) impossible to do in paper has or will come up - even if they opt against it.

I wouldn't be surprised when they do a VTT if there aren't special add-ons that make cosmetic changes, much like the special dice you can buy on DDB. But I see no reason to believe that entire campaign books or character options will go online only, at least not for the foreseeable future.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I've watched it more than twice, and I also remember clearly. His tone is matter-of-fact, but in no way condescending, and your interpretation of his premise is flawed. Any idea that he's saying a different playstyle is "inferior" or "should not be catered to" is something you're bringing to the proverbial table.

He says that WotC transitioning more towards digital play will make the game worse. The implication being that digital play is inferior.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

LOL! I had this issues years ago with Castles and Crusades. When they were finally working on their Castle Keepers Guide, they said it was slow going and asked if people would interested in buying it in pieces. the rules part was gong to be separate from the essay/advice part.

I voted for buying it in parts but it came out as one product anyway. Looking over the whole book, I was disappointed. It wasn't because the essays and advice were bad (It's obvious that someone was putting their History degree to use) but they were not my thing and I would have rather just paid for the rules part at a cheaper price.

I would have been very happy to have not paid for the chapter of the CKG where it said that all rivers flow toward the equator, which makes my brain hurt just thinking about.