WotC Forbes’ Brett Knight visits Wizards of the Coast.

Brett Knight sits down with Cynthia Williams and talks about the future of the company with Dungeons and Dragons.

As Cynthia Williams settles into her chair atop a bearskin rug, three dragons stand watchful guard over her shoulder—each no more than a foot or so tall but no less fearsome, with plastic flames pouring from one’s mouth. The glass cases lining the room are filled with more horrible creatures, shrunken down in plastic miniature: ogres and devils and hobgoblins. Drawers pull out to reveal hundreds of polyhedral dice, with 10, 12 or 20 sides. Where a jumble of letters adorns the wall outside, the push of a button illuminates a hidden message: “Those granted entry shall be rewarded.”

1665528398153.png

Brett Knight mentions several things we already know, that D&D sales are growing rapidly among a younger audience.

Arpiné Kocharyan, a UBS analyst, estimates that D&D is now responsible for $100 million to $150 million in annual revenue ... around 40% of D&D players are now female ... 24% of D&D players are between 20 and 24 years old ... revenue up a reported 35% in 2020 from 2019 and more introductory D&D products sold in 2021 than when they were released in 2014 ...

They discuss the opportunity to grow via the VTT and DnDBeyond and marketing and selling digital things, about doing movies and TV, etc. Brett includes some history and quotes from the D&D historian Petersen, from Tim Kask, and the Hasbro CEO, Chris Cox.

I'm not sure how much is new in it, it does seem rather light for folks that have been reading about D&D and Wizards, but it's nice to see Cynthia Williams get some press. Here's hoping to hearing more from her.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

log in or register to remove this ad

yes trees grow but evergreen means the product stays in print (more or less) as is, not whole sale changes like we are seeing for 1D&D
Well we don’t know what ‘24 D&D will be yet. So far it seems pretty minor changes to me. If I can use the ‘14 MM and the ‘14-‘23 adventure as is (which I believe will be the case), then it is for all intents and purposes “evergreen.”
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Well we don’t know what ‘24 D&D will be yet. So far it seems pretty minor changes to me. If I can use the ‘14 MM and the ‘14-‘23 adventure as is (which I believe will be the case), then it is for all intents and purposes “evergreen.”
If I bring a current playtest bard back in time to 2014 most DMs would laugh me away from there table. I bet that come 2024,2025ish people are not going to let people play with the 2014 PHB without modification, and as of right now you would be remaking the character not adjusting it... but yeah it seems (so far) that Curse of Strahd or Neverwinter Adventures will work on the DM side with some minor work
 

If I bring a current playtest bard back in time to 2014 most DMs would laugh me away from there table. I bet that come 2024,2025ish people are not going to let people play with the 2014 PHB without modification, and as of right now you would be remaking the character not adjusting it... but yeah it seems (so far) that Curse of Strahd or Neverwinter Adventures will work on the DM side with some minor work
You notice I said adventures and MM? No mention of PHB. Though i still think it is likely you can use both, we will have to wait and see.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
I've said before I think Superhero movies are slowly going to go the way of the Western, there will be some that do very well, and there are still a lot of Superhero movies and TV shows to come, increasingly it's popularity will wane,leaving the door open to the next big thing, like the fall of the transformers Bayverse made space for Superheroes.

I think folks are hungry for something different, something that in some ways is a purer form of escapism not set on modern day earth, and not just D&D settings like the Forgotten Realms, but simular fantasy fair like the upcoming Red Sonya movie, I'm hearing that behind the scenes deals are being made for movie & TV adaptions for a lot of Table Top RPGs. I know of Warhammer & Scion, but it sounded like a lot more was in the works.

So D&D, Warhammer, Scion, World of Darkness, and possibly D&D offshoots like Golorian, Midguard, etc... Could end up having success movie and TV adaptions. Its going to be the next big thing.
I don't think superhero film and TV is remotely in jeopardy.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
Well we don’t know what ‘24 D&D will be yet. So far it seems pretty minor changes to me. If I can use the ‘14 MM and the ‘14-‘23 adventure as is (which I believe will be the case), then it is for all intents and purposes “evergreen.”
Monopoly is evergreen, but it still goes through rules edition changes over time. Slowly, organically.
 








the writer and researcher

no they are part of the source.

I don't understand what you are asking
No journalist can ever use themselves as a source. I've taught broadcast communications and a student doing so would fail.
A source should be identified. If they aren't identified with specificity they should be identified in a way that demonstrates that they are reliable.

 

Omand

Hero
If I may @bedir than @GMforPowergamers and @TerraDave

I think you are talking past each other here.

@TerraDave and @GMforPowergamers seem to be using source in the sense that this article is a source of information for us as consumers, and that it is revealing mew information from WotC about where OneD&D is headed.

@bedir than is, as just posted, taking the formal journalistic stance on what a source is in the technical sense.

I have to agree with @bedir than, however, that unless we have a true "source" in the journalistic sense that we can attribute that line about this being an edition change to, it is just the writer's invention. My read of the article is there is no journalistic sourcing of that type obvious to us. The statement about a new edition may be from WotC, or may simply be an interpretation by the author.

In other words, don't read too much into it. Unless and until it is confirmed directly by something released by WotC is it unproven and unverified.

Cheers :)
 

No journalist can ever use themselves as a source.
no you aren't understanding I me myself am using the Journalist (and publisher and researchers) as MY source.
I've taught broadcast communications and a student doing so would fail.
maybe you should take a step back then. Becuse what you just said isn't what I said. I said
it is a source showing that people who understand business' see it
It (the story)
is a source showing that people (the writer, editor, publisher and any researchers)
who understand business (this I am assuming based on the website and publisher being a pretty big business news reporter)
see it (not objective fact, although it is a bit of educated inference (IMO))
A source should be identified.
I'm sorry but when I type on a phone laying in bed I sometimes just speak like a human being not write like it is a term paper.
If they aren't identified with specificity they should be identified in a way that demonstrates that they are reliable.
again, this seems like something more akin to a professional discussion but I see enworld more as a friendly one (although getting less friendly every day)
 

If I may @bedir than @GMforPowergamers and @TerraDave

I think you are talking past each other here.

@TerraDave and @GMforPowergamers seem to be using source in the sense that this article is a source of information for us as consumers, and that it is revealing mew information from WotC about where OneD&D is headed.
correct that is what I was saying
@bedir than is, as just posted, taking the formal journalistic stance on what a source is in the technical sense.

I have to agree with @bedir than, however, that unless we have a true "source" in the journalistic sense that we can attribute that line about this being an edition change to, it is just the writer's invention. My read of the article is there is no journalistic sourcing of that type obvious to us. The statement about a new edition may be from WotC, or may simply be an interpretation by the author.
and my stance is that it doesn't matter if it is god given, wotc insider given or author interpretation, it is a educated look at the subject matter and as such in a casuals conversation a source.
In other words, don't read too much into it. Unless and until it is confirmed directly by something released by WotC is it unproven and unverified.
in my case that makes no sense.
My sense is that WotC is being less then honest (although not lieing, more like manipulating and 'suger coating') about weather this is a new edition or not. I see a source that says
"in what would equate to a sixth edition"
and see an educated journalist taking in more information then we have (unless you believe every single word said at WotC to the reporter was in the article) and drawing a conclusion. An educated conclusion by an expert published in a credible article seems to me to be a source.
 




Omand

Hero
correct that is what I was saying

and my stance is that it doesn't matter if it is god given, wotc insider given or author interpretation, it is a educated look at the subject matter and as such in a casuals conversation a source.

in my case that makes no sense.
My sense is that WotC is being less then honest (although not lieing, more like manipulating and 'suger coating') about weather this is a new edition or not. I see a source that says

and see an educated journalist taking in more information then we have (unless you believe every single word said at WotC to the reporter was in the article) and drawing a conclusion. An educated conclusion by an expert published in a credible article seems to me to be a source.
You are entitled to that opinion, and you may be correct.

It is not the interpretation I am taking away from this article however. As @Parmandur just posted, it comes off as editorializing to me. I deal with journalists on a regular basis as part of my day job. Many of them (oh so many) apply their own embellishments to stories that were not there in the original interview. I have been involved in stories where what was briefed on is barely recognizable in the final printed or broadcast story because the journalist editorialized and interpreted based upon what they think they heard, rather than digging more or seeking exact clarification.

The news business these days is not about the truth or being 100% correct, it is about selling thing (papers, airtime, advertising, etc.) and making money. It is also in many cases about making very complex and intricate issues into very simple stories without much nuance, because simple is easy to explain and it sells.

Some may claim I am being too cynical here, and perhaps I am. There certainly are good journalists out there who do great work, and the vast majority of journalists, even the ones I have issues with about their editorializing, do not set out to mislead or create false narratives. But in most cases they simply do not have the expertise and knowledge (education as you put it) to fully understand what they are reporting on/writing about.

@HammerMan I don't see myself here trying to discredit the article, I am simply saying we need to take it with a grain of salt because of the way it is written without professional journalistic sourcing.

Time will tell how One D&D shakes out. Will it be a new edition or simply a small tweak? I think more the latter than the former from what we have seen so far, but none of us will know for certain until the process is done.

Cheers :)
 

Related Articles

Visit Our Sponsor

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top