Dungeons & Dragons Shifts to Franchise Model, Dan Ayoub Named as Head

Wizards of the Coast has shifted Dungeons & Dragons to a "franchise model," with former Senior VP of Digital Games Dan Ayoub named as the new VP of Franchise for the game. Ayoub made the announcement on LinkedIn late yesterday, announcing the shift in franchise. In Ayoub's words, the new model means that everything related to Dungeons & Dragons - books, video games, film, and TV - will now live under one roof. Ayoub stated that this model will allow for a "strong, coordinated, and well-funded approach for the franchise.

Ayoub comes from the video game industry, having worked at Microsoft for 11 years prior to jumping over to Wizards of the Coast. He notably worked on the Halo video game franchise for years, working as a Studio Head and Executive Producer of 343 Industries. He also worked as an executive producer for Ubisoft and a Game Director for The Walt Disney Company.

When first announcing his move to Wizards of the Coast back in 2022, Ayoub stated that he was a fan of both D&D and Magic: The Gathering, having played both as a child.

 

[Goss0104]

Good... Now since they've already declared FR as the "MAIN WORLD" (via Eye Of he Beholder video games and Honor Among Thieves it won't be that hard to introduce SPELLJAMMING) Which then means (I HOPE) we can go to Dragonlance (As I would LOVE to see Tinker Gnomes and Kender "HANDLERS"). Or any of the OTHER worlds that exist in CANON!

 

[Amphytrion]

How did that shift between 2020 to today? I’m not sure I could pinpoint the exact difference in a way noticeable to me. Like, for instance, BG3 came out in that time frame despite being a product designed earlier on. If Descent into Avernus was supposed to tie into BG3 in some way, they certainly didn’t align well schedule wise. Also the last few years have also been about designing the new edition. What would the franchise model have impacted differently here, hypothetically?

I think the shift from pre-2020 to post-2020 was pretty stark, not only in design but also in brand management. The concept of storylines coordinated across various media vanished, for one. Beforehand, we had streams, game expansions, boardgames, etc. all themed around the same concept. The way books were written and the density of setting information also changed substantially to a minimalistic approach that makes coordination harder.

Descent Into Avernus was a fine tie-in for its time, as it was released to coincide with the early access of BG3 (and it did). It is also a hardcover adventure, and therefore much more likely to work as a converter of DMs into BG3 players rather than the other way around.

BG3 was fully released in late 2023, well beyond 2020. The fact that there was no tie-in in 2023 for wide release meant to target BG3 players who could feasibly become D&D players is the real missed opportunity. The four years that elapsed between 2019 and 2023 should have been more than enough for WotC to prepare proper tie-in coordinated products.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That was very different management. The kind of management that sold back or released IP back to creators. We're in Hedgefund land now.

I miss the old days (yeah I know, big surprise).

 

[Micah Sweet]

Perhaps, but that needn't be assumed.

The rights to how, what, when, and where you can use all or only some of an IP can be complex. An example would be the Supernatural TV show having rights to use music in episodes when episodes are on DVD but streaming versions of the same episodes needing to use different music because rights to a particular song do not extend to streaming.

Similarly, there was a time when, despite Spiderman being a Marvel character, the character could not be used in the Marvel movies because the rights to that specific character had been granted to a different company.

It would not be unheard of for an IP with as much content as D&D to slice the pie into smaller pieces. Doing so would not be unusual for a company looking for ways to better monetize parts of their IP.

The music in streaming shows thing is about the stupidest thing I've ever experienced. At least it encourages the ownership of physical media.

 

[Cordwainer Fish]

Good... Now since they've already declared FR as the "MAIN WORLD" (via Eye Of he Beholder video games and Honor Among Thieves it won't be that hard to introduce SPELLJAMMING) Which then means (I HOPE) we can go to Dragonlance (As I would LOVE to see Tinker Gnomes and Kender "HANDLERS"). Or any of the OTHER worlds that exist in CANON!

UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED, ESPECIALLY to COMPUTER BULLETIN BOARDS.

 

[Argyle King]

The end result of doing it piecemeal with a setting here or there, and doing it with the entre kit and kaboodle in one package is not at all the same.

I agree.

I had neither said nor implied that it was.

My comment was that D&D has a catalog of IP that could be licensed out. Say that does not mean it must be licensed out in its entirety. How thinly IP is sliced for a contractual agreement is up to WotC.

The reason that I used music in Supernatural as an example is because it is an example that illustrates how specific a license can be made to be if so desired. Similarly, there are sone movies that specify that a particular song can be used but only for 1 particular scene or for a specified number of minutes within the movie.

I also used Spiderman as an example because that's an example of one specific character from Marvel being licensed out in a way that did not include other parts of Marvel.

I am not suggesting that WotC should go that far, but they could if they wanted to do so. "Sure, you can use a Beholder in your project, but it can only appear on screen X amount of times." "You can write a Ravenloft supplement, but we retain creative control and must approval of how you handle Strahd before anything is released."

On the other hand, I do think it could be cool if a particular setting was allowed to be used by another system that may better fit the sensibilities and aesthetics of a particular setting better than contemporary D&D.

 

[Argyle King]

The music in streaming shows thing is about the stupidest thing I've ever experienced. At least it encourages the ownership of physical media.

+1

Like many people, my collection of things is increasingly digital.

However, there are particular items (and Supernatural is one) for which I make sure to retain physical copies because the physical copies are different.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The music in streaming shows thing is about the stupidest thing I've ever experienced. At least it encourages the ownership of physical media.

Not that a lot of these companies aren't trying to make that disappear, too.

 

[WinningerR]

I don't fully understand what this means, but it being Hasbro, I await the inevitable downside.

I'll translate.

Until now, the D&D brand was carved up into a few separate pieces, each managed different senior leaders.

During my tenure, as EP and D&D Studio Head, I was responsible for the tabletop game (business and creative) as well as the creative development of D&D-related IPs (Forgotten Realms, Ravenloft, etc). Video Games (both licensed and internally developed), "Entertainment" (TV shows, movies, novels, comics), and "Consumer Products" (various licensed goods like apparel, toys, non-narrative books, and such) were each managed by other groups. The four of groups collaborated, of course--subject matter experts from the tabletop studio were frequently called upon to advise the other groups, for instance--but we each ran our own businesses the way we saw fit.

After I left, my responsibilities plus the newly acquired D&D Beyond plus the D&D-related "Entertainment" business were consolidated under a new senior VP of D&D. Now, everything D&D-related--all four of those areas--are consolidated under a single VP and being run as a single business.

So what does this mean for D&D fans? In theory, it allows the new VP to plan and execute "franchise-wide" initiatives. In general, you'll likely see a new emphasis on D&D products in multiple categories cross-promoting each other. Maybe something like "2027 is the year of Strahd; there will be new Strahd products in all categories." (That's a very simple example; there are a lot of possibilities.) Or maybe you'll WotC attempt to boost the popularity of a new setting by aggressively supporting it with video games and other licensed products. Is this a good thing? Maybe! There are pros and cons of both this new "franchise" model and the old "siloed" model.

I wouldn't assume that the way the tabletop products are created will change; that's not this new VP's area of expertise. But, of course, you never know.

 

[Argyle King]

I'll translate.

Until now, the D&D brand was carved up into a few separate pieces, each managed different senior leaders.

During my tenure, as EP and D&D Studio Head, I was responsible for the tabletop game (business and creative) as well as the creative development of D&D-related IPs (Forgotten Realms, Ravenloft, etc). Video Games (both licensed and internally developed), "Entertainment" (TV shows, movies, novels, comics), and "Consumer Products" (various licensed goods like apparel, toys, non-narrative books, and such) were each managed by other groups. The four of groups collaborated, of course--subject matter experts from the tabletop studio were frequently called upon to advise the other groups, for instance--but we each ran our own businesses the way we saw fit.

After I left, my responsibilities plus the newly acquired D&D Beyond plus the D&D-related "Entertainment" business were consolidated under a new senior VP of D&D. Now, everything D&D-related--all four of those areas--are consolidated under a single VP and being run as a single business.

So what does this mean for D&D fans? In theory, it allows the new VP to plan and execute "franchise-wide" initiatives. In general, you'll likely see a new emphasis on D&D products in multiple categories cross-promoting each other. Maybe something like "2027 is the year of Strahd; there will be new Strahd products in all categories." (That's a very simple example; there are a lot of possibilities.) Or maybe you'll WotC attempt to boost the popularity of a new setting by aggressively supporting it with video games and other licensed products. Is this a good thing? Maybe! There are pros and cons of both this new "franchise" model and the old "siloed" model.

I wouldn't assume that the way the tabletop products are created will change; that's not this new VP's area of expertise. But, of course, you never know.

If you're allowed to answer this...

Under the previous structure, what prevented the different chunks of the business from working toward established franchise-wide initiatives?

I understand that the different parts were run as their respective senior leads saw fit, but I'm curious why that structure could not still be given an overall directive to produce things for a particular setting, theme, or whatever.

From my own experience, upper level leadership in the military could set an overall goal to be accomplished while still allowing lower level leadership some autonomy to decide how their particular element worked toward the overall goal. Does/Did the corporate structure behind the D&D brand not allow for that?

I'm trying to better understand what capabilities the new VP has that were not previously available. If the new structure is better, that's a good thing.