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.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I mean, its also been ten years.

And it's the smallest "edition change" in quite a long time. The changes are relatively minor, compared to the changes from 2e to 3e, 3.X to 4e, and 4e to 5e.

but remember we were told there would not be any... and I note you skipped 3 to 3.5

 

[bedir than]

Deb Thomas, CFO of Hasbro after pointing out the plan to double Wizards from the 1.29 billion of 2021 by 2027. (And yes, that means D&D was 100+million in 2021)

Hasbro Franchise Brands remain our top priority. Beginning in the first quarter 2023, we will report a new group of Franchise Brands which meet our updated priorities for profitable growth. These include MAGIC: THE GATHERING, DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, HASBRO GAMING - which includes MONOPOLY, NERF, PEPPA PIG, PLAY-DOH, and TRANSFORMERS. This group of brands has averaged approximately 55% of our total revenue the past two years and carries a combined mid-20% operating profit margin.

We updated our criteria for defining a Franchise Brand to support the significant investment in these properties over time. A Franchise Brand must have a plan to reach $500 million or greater in revenue by 2027 and a 20% operating profit margin target. As you heard today, our goal is to have three $1 billion brands, and they will come from this category.

It's time to stop pretending D&D is small. It's a major line item for a huge business.

There seems to be hints that Honor Among Thieves will have a release in greater than 4000 theaters too (but I'm too lazy to look up all the partner relationships)

 

[payn]

but remember we were told there would not be any...

Really?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Really?

yeah back when 5e was announced... I mostly am just ribbing teh D&D team that said AGAIN that this is the last edition of the game. I knew back in 2008 4e wasn't the last, in 2014 I knew 5e wasn't really the end.

 

[payn]

yeah back when 5e was announced... I mostly am just ribbing teh D&D team that said AGAIN that this is the last edition of the game. I knew back in 2008 4e wasn't the last, in 2014 I knew 5e wasn't really the end.

Got a quote? I only ask because folks have a habit of saying "promised" about conversations that are not official. For example, "we want this to be the last...." might be something some one says in an interview, but its not an edict that it wont ever happen.

 

[Haplo781]

Deb Thomas, CFO of Hasbro after pointing out the plan to double Wizards from the 1.29 billion of 2021 by 2027. (And yes, that means D&D was 100+million in 2021)





It's time to stop pretending D&D is small. It's a major line item for a huge business.

There seems to be hints that Honor Among Thieves will have a release in greater than 4000 theaters too (but I'm too lazy to look up all the partner relationships)

Nothing in these quotes suggests D&D is currently making $100 million.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Got a quote? I only ask because folks have a habit of saying "promised" about conversations that are not official. For example, "we want this to be the last...." might be something some one says in an interview, but its not an edict that it wont ever happen.

1) I didn't say promised, I said told... it's a minor difference but I find when people try to 'gotcha' it's best to be exact
2) It was during the playtest and the wording was something about it being 'ever green' to at least imply that it was the last
3) even at the time I knew the 'ever green' was not something they COULD say, just that they intend at the one moment in time (just like I keep saying with 1D&D "Even IF they are being honest that they at this MOMENT believe it is the last who knows who will be in charge next time sales will be in a slump and need a boost.
4) I will try to google it for you

first thing that comes up in an enworld thread during the end of the next playtest discussing it, but you have to wade through pages

https://www.enw

orld.org/threads/musing-an-evergreen-static-fifth-edition.463031/
I then found this on RPG.net

Mike Mearls wrote:

We’re actually much better off creating a single, stable edition. It’s easier for fans, it’s better for continuity for writers and designers, and it’s much easier in terms of creating a long-term product strategy. It would be great if the playtest feedback was such that we felt comfortable dropping any reference to editions or numbers in the final game’s title.

I didn't listen to it but here is a pod cast about it
finally almost 30 mins of searching I got this

It's just a new starting point for new players and a reworking of the core classes in the game to make them easier to manage and allows for a more classical structure to class builds. These products will be evergreen, ie. reprinted as needed.

Wizards of the Coast.

but the link is dead and I don't know how to look at old links (maybe someone can help)

 

[GreyLord]

yeah back when 5e was announced... I mostly am just ribbing teh D&D team that said AGAIN that this is the last edition of the game. I knew back in 2008 4e wasn't the last, in 2014 I knew 5e wasn't really the end.

I suppose it depends on your definition of "edition"

Was 3e to 3.5 really an edition change in regards to how the Current WotC/Hasbro consider an edition change?

Was 4e to Essentials an edition change in regards to how the Current WotC/Hasbro consider an edition change?

If they weren't, with how it looks like this is going, it is probable that the new Anniversary edition isn't actually an "edition change" as much as a notch of small little changes that make it different just a wee bit, but not enough to justify calling it a completely different edition like 3e was to 4e or 4e was to 5e.

Of course, if we go by how it was under TSR, 3e to 3.5 probably should have been an edition change as should have 4e to Essentials...but we aren't with TSR anymore.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Was 3e to 3.5 really an edition change in regards to how the Current WotC/Hasbro consider an edition change?

I don't know what they call it but yes it was.

Was 4e to Essentials an edition change in regards to how the Current WotC/Hasbro consider an edition change?

no I don't think that was...

the diffrence is I could show up with a PHB from base 4e and play in an essentials game (even with a fighter one class they added to not changed) In 3.5 if I showed up with a ranger from the 3e book I would be told to update to the new ranger.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Got a quote? I only ask because folks have a habit of saying "promised" about conversations that are not official. For example, "we want this to be the last...." might be something some one says in an interview, but its not an edict that it wont ever happen.

RPG pundet says he heard it but his links are dead too... (warning harsh language)

https://therpgpundit.blogspot.com/2014/05/i-told-all-of-you-so.htmlhttps://therpgpundit.blogspot.com/2014/05/i-told-all-of-you-so.html

From everything I've been told, it will absolutely be perpetual, stable and evergreen;