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.

 

[dave2008]

Opinion noted.

@Micah Sweet , I believe you are free to call whatever version of D&D whatever you want. However, I thought I would explain how I look at it.

I see the core game like an operating system. 2e was Windows 10, then 3e was like Mac OSX, and 4e as like Linux 10. Completely different structures. You can't mix and match without some type of translator. Softare written for Windows 10 doesn't work out of the box with Mac OSX. Now 4.5e (essentials) is like Linux 10.1. Same structure, just some pieces and parts update or revised. But software written for Linux 10 can still work with Linux 10.1 (and typically vice-versa). They are the same OS (edition). That is how I see 5e tp 1D&D. It is the same OS just with some updates. Software written for 5e (adventures etc.) still work it 1D&D. You don't need a translator. That, from my perspective, based on what we know now is the closet to reality. 1D&D is, IMO, a softer update / patch, not a new OS/edition.

That being said, you do you. It just feels more confusion to me if you call it 6e. It feels disingenuous, like your spreading FUD. That doesn't mean you are, it just feels that way to me. Just thought my perspective might shed some light on why you are getting pushback.

Now how long will it take for someone more versed in software to correct my analogy?

 

[Micah Sweet]

@Micah Sweet , I believe you are free to call whatever version of D&D whatever you want. However, I thought I would explain how I look at it.

I see the core game like an operating system. 2e was Windows 10, then 3e was like Mac OSX, and 4e as like Linux 10. Completely different structures. You can't mix and match without some type of translator. Softare written for Windows 10 doesn't work out of the box with Mac OSX. Now 4.5e (essentials) is like Linux 10.1. Same structure, just some pieces and parts update or revised. But software written for Linux 10 can still work with Linux 10.1 (and typically vice-versa). They are the same OS (edition). That is how I see 5e tp 1D&D. It is the same OS just with some updates. Software written for 5e (adventures etc.) still work it 1D&D. You don't need a translator. That, from my perspective, based on what we know now is the closet to reality. 1D&D is, IMO, a softer update / patch, not a new OS/edition.

That being said, you do you. It just feels more confusion to me if you call it 6e. It feels disingenuous, like your spreading FUD. That doesn't mean you are, it just feels that way to me. Just thought my perspective might shed some light on why you are getting pushback.

Now how long will it take for someone more versed in software to correct my analogy?

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.

 

[dave2008]

I don't see it as the same edition.

We know that. I am not trying to change your mind. I am just asking if you understand my reasoning. For example,...

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.

...I disagree with your reasoning, but I understand it better now.

 

[MichaelSomething]

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.

Small changes can have huge effects. Put a few pineapple chunks on a pizza and suddenly a bunch of people will find it disgusting.

 

[Jaeger]

That is how I see 5e tp 1D&D. It is the same OS just with some updates. Software written for 5e (adventures etc.) still work it 1D&D. You don't need a translator. That, from my perspective, based on what we know now is the closet to reality. 1D&D is, IMO, a softer update / patch, not a new OS/edition.

By that standard Chaosium sure put out a lot of not-editions of Call of Cthulhu in its day.

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.

Exactly.

Is D&Done a shift in gameplay the way 2e to 3e, to 4e, to 5e, was? No.

But the idea that is what has to happen to qualify as a new edition is an artifact of WotC's Post TSR D&D design decisions.

The DnDone not-edition is just WotC falling into line of how almost every other RPG company has done new editions: Updates and Refinements to their core over time, Like the first four "editions" of The Legend of the Five Rings RPG. Not complete system shifts.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

This is a BIG part of WotC's plan to put the D&D IP over as a 'lifestyle brand'. And they have a ton of money invested in this.

How these shows/movies hit or miss will determine how much more $$ will be willing to toss at D&D IMHO.

It will also be interesting to see how D&D as a TT RPG gets treated if the IP gets put over, and the Tv/Movies, and video games start to bring in more that RPG sales...

Just today I've seen D&D mugs, D&D Lamps, D&D Fleece Blankets, D&D Boxer Briefs, D&D coffee/tea maker, D&D Throw Rug, D&D socks, D&D pen set, D&D MtG set, D&D Adorable Creatures, D&D Funko Pops, D&D Hoodie, D&D Water Bottles, etc..., in addition to D&D books and an and for the D&D movie.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

Does anyone have confirmation on if Ray is gone or not.

Something's I liked about Ray was his transparency abd willingness to commicate on Twitter, but there were unfortunate issues during his time, Spelljammer was a beautiful disaster for example, and D&D canon wasn't well handled, although that's been an issue before him too.

D&D's creative teams effiency is also horrible, dump major projects they've invested a lot of effect into way, way too often, so much waste effort.

So while I liked Ray, perhaps new leadership is an opportunity to maybe fix issues at WotC that Ray either didn't know how to fix or didn't have the authority to fix. I look forward to finding out who the next D&D Executive Producer will be.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

@Micah Sweet , I believe you are free to call whatever version of D&D whatever you want. However, I thought I would explain how I look at it.

I see the core game like an operating system. 2e was Windows 10, then 3e was like Mac OSX, and 4e as like Linux 10. Completely different structures. You can't mix and match without some type of translator. Softare written for Windows 10 doesn't work out of the box with Mac OSX. Now 4.5e (essentials) is like Linux 10.1. Same structure, just some pieces and parts update or revised. But software written for Linux 10 can still work with Linux 10.1 (and typically vice-versa). They are the same OS (edition). That is how I see 5e tp 1D&D. It is the same OS just with some updates. Software written for 5e (adventures etc.) still work it 1D&D. You don't need a translator. That, from my perspective, based on what we know now is the closet to reality. 1D&D is, IMO, a softer update / patch, not a new OS/edition.

That being said, you do you. It just feels more confusion to me if you call it 6e. It feels disingenuous, like your spreading FUD. That doesn't mean you are, it just feels that way to me. Just thought my perspective might shed some light on why you are getting pushback.

Now how long will it take for someone more versed in software to correct my analogy?

Do you think perhaps it's a bit too early to decide on the amount of "change" that is going to happen when all you have to go on is two small play test documents (some of which has already been changed/dropped from part 1 to part 2)?

Remember at this point in the development of 5e we were being promised a degree of modularity that turned out to be vaporware. How can you be sure the promise of "not too much change" is going to hold up in an uncertain future?

 

[JEB]

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.

 

[dave2008]

Do you think perhaps it's a bit too early to decide on the amount of "change" that is going to happen when all you have to go on is two small play test documents (some of which has already been changed/dropped from part 1 to part 2)?

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

Remember at this point in the development of 5e we were being promised a degree of modularity that turned out to be vaporware. How can you be sure the promise of "not too much change" is going to hold up in an uncertain future?

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