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]

we both remember 2e but it seems like we may remember entire different games

That is one of my favorite things about D&D, two different people can have two very different experiences!

 

[AnotherGuy]

thank you for reminding people powergaming isn't the only reason to custimize

Look we were all much younger then and didn't have the wealth of experience and knowledge we have now that we can share on Enworld. Mistakes were made (I made plenty) especially with books that brought about so much freedom such as S&P.
You and Max would probably be just fine at a table.

 

[Maxperson]

That is one of my favorite things about D&D, two different people can have two very different experiences!

This is true, but to be fair, the 2e Skills and Powers did change 2e into a very different game if you used it.

 

[Staffan]

2e came out in 1989 and stopped being made in 1997, so 1995 when those books came out was near the end and tacked on. There was no balance to them at all and a lot of them were pretty darn broken.

2e stuff kept being made right up until a month or two before the 3e PHB was released in August 2000. I'm not sure when the last printings were, but it's not like Wizards killed 2e right off. They pruned the settings, but kept on with the core material. So 1995 is pretty much square in the middle of 2e.

Skills and powers were a power gamers wet dream, which I was back then. I was totally a power gamer until my late 20's. Why have a 16 strength as a fighter when you could drop stamina down to 10 and have 22 muscle, gaining +4, +10 to hit and damage instead of +0, +1. Why have a 14 dex as a fighter when you could Drop aim to 3 and have a 25 balance, getting +5 to initiative, -6 to ac and just not use missile weapons in combat? Why not have that 12 in con drop to 3 health and 21 fitness for +6 hit points per level. Resurrections in 2e were nearly impossible to get at lower levels anyway? And so on.

Because you couldn't adjust sub-abilities by more than +/-2. Still, the point stands that the sub-abilities were in many cases heavily unbalanced. IIRC, Strength/Stamina covered carrying capacity (before penalties), while Strength/Muscle covered attack bonus, damage bonus, bend bars/lift gates, and max press. This, combined with the fact that most stats had a pretty big dead zone (the difference between Dex 7 and 14 was none other than actual Dex checks) meant that it was pretty easy min/maxing them.

 

[Maxperson]

sigh... right cause when you don't like something it's ONLY powergamers that used it... nothing I have brought up raised fighters above wizards and clerics by any meaningful amount.

That isn't at all what I said or implied.

cause you had to have them within 4 of each other and nothing above 18? Maybe you were just playing with house rules letting you have a 22 and 10 when you at best could by the rules have a 14 and 18 (I don't remember how it interacted with % str)

Okay, so I misremembered the level of abuse you could engage in. But it was still abusable. That 16 still became 14/18 with a percentile roll. that 14 con still became as 12/16 with +2 to hit points where you had 0. You still ended up with exceptional scores with bonuses where you needed them for your class when you otherwise would have gotten bupkis.

 

[Maxperson]

Do you feel that way about it - even as a DM?

Sure. I play with people similar to me. They made nifty character concepts, not broken damage beasts just because.............DAMAGE!!!!1!!!!!1!

 

[Maxperson]

Look we were all much younger then and didn't have the wealth of experience and knowledge we have now that we can share on Enworld. Mistakes were made (I made plenty) especially with books that brought about so much freedom such as S&P.
You and Max would probably be just fine at a table.

For sure. I stopped playing that way back during 2e and continue to play character first through today.

 

[Maxperson]

2e stuff kept being made right up until a month or two before the 3e PHB was released in August 2000. I'm not sure when the last printings were, but it's not like Wizards killed 2e right off. They pruned the settings, but kept on with the core material. So 1995 is pretty much square in the middle of 2e.

Sure, but WotC didn't make any new content, so 1997 is when 2e stopped being made. Continuing to print books already released isn't the same thing.

The edition was over as of 1997, it just didn't know it was dead and stop twitching until 2000 when 3e was released.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Skills and powers were a power gamers wet dream, which I was back then. I was totally a power gamer until my late 20's. Why have a 16 strength as a fighter when you could drop stamina down to 10 and have 22 muscle, gaining +4,

I am 99%* sure you were not allowed to have such wide spread in one ability. I think +2/-2, so a 4 point differemce was the maximum allowed...

but yeah we were all power games at some point in time and we dropped the split very soon after we started using it.

*Edit: looked it up. Yes the subabilities must be within four (4) points.
Right in the first paragraph of the ability score section.

 

[Maxperson]

I am 99%* sure you were not allowed to have such wide spread in one ability. I think +2/-2, so a 4 point differemce was the maximum allowed...

but yeah we were all power games at some point in time and we dropped the split very soon after we started using it.

*Edit: looked it up. Yes the subabilities must be within four (4) points.
Right in the first paragraph of the ability score section.

Yeah. It has been a very long time since I've had it to even look at. Memory was fuzzy. It was still a very strong ability for PCs.