• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

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...

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.

wotc-new-logo-3531303324.jpg


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.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

JiffyPopTart

Bree-Yark
5e was explicitly a big departure from 4e. One D&D is not. Which makes using the term 6e an accusation of dishonesty towards the designers.
You aren't showing me the link between "not a big departure" and "accusation of dishonesty". I couldn't tell you 5 words the designers have said about the new project, I just use 6e because.

1. It's easier to type on a phone.
2. It's not confused with the already in use OD&D which is the commonly used abbreviation for the version predating 1st edition.

Neither 1 nor 2 reflect on the design goals or stated intent of any of the designers. And also when I say 6e people know what I'm talking about...and have since the idea of a 2024 anniversary version was floated years ago.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Staffan

Legend
Yes and no. Yes, 1e and 2e were not terribly balanced. But to take that unbalanced edition and hire a giant to stomp on one end of it made it a lot more unbalanced, which is my point. The skills and powers books amplified things to an incredible degree and nobody I knew then allowed any of the stuff to be used.
I used a bunch of stuff from the Player's Options books. It's been a while, but as I recall:
  • Non-weapon proficiencies from Skills & Powers. I liked that these provided a lower base, but one which you could gradually increase with level-based points.
  • Most of the stuff from Combat & Tactics.
  • New spells from Spells & Magic. Also, in theory, the variant specialist wizards and priest variants (e.g. Crusader or Shaman), but no-one ever bothered with them when the much stronger Faiths & Avatars specialty priests were available (many of those would have cost hideous amounts of points to build with the S&M system, but that was mainly because S&M charged a LOT of character points for 1/day spells, and F&A priests had a lot of those).
I also had a plan about using the priest design rules in S&M to build priesthoods for some setting that didn't have much in that way (I can't recall if this was Planescape, Spelljammer, or Savage Coast), but never got around to it.
 

So like all of D&D before them. It's not like multiclassing didn't exist where you got to slap a whole new suite of abilities on your character for at most 1 level difference. The only way 1/2E could be construed balanced is because we had RIFTS making it look better by comparison.
funny thing, I started playing Rifts before D&D
4E was the first and last time D&D was reasonably balanced.
true
 


I prefer asymmetrical balance to symmetrical balance.
there is an argument for both, but I don't feel 5e has either (it's not as bad as 3e/3.5/PF1 before that gets brought up) but it still isn't. Now giving everyone the exact same powers and just refluffing them is the easiest way but I do think it is better to make separate but equal options... I even have been convinced there is a market for NOT balanced on the low side classes sometimes called 'simple' classes and as such I am fine with keeping simple options if you ALSO have a complex balanced option to choose.
 

there is an argument for both, but I don't feel 5e has either (it's not as bad as 3e/3.5/PF1 before that gets brought up) but it still isn't. Now giving everyone the exact same powers and just refluffing them is the easiest way but I do think it is better to make separate but equal options... I even have been convinced there is a market for NOT balanced on the low side classes sometimes called 'simple' classes and as such I am fine with keeping simple options if you ALSO have a complex balanced option to choose.

I can't disagree here.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top