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

Also, its (pretty) official, read it and rejoice!

"in what would equate to a sixth edition"
Since when are editorial opinions of experts published in a accredited site/magazine not a source for a conversation?

This seems odd like people are tryin to discredit it because they don’t like it.
TerraDave refers to the statements as being (pretty) official.

But it's not. It's nothing like an official statement. It's not someone who writes regularly about D&D, nor gaming, nor general busines.
Knight is a sports writer, a good one. He didn't get a source to say that it's sixth edition and nothing that he's written for Forbes indicates that this is a topic on which he's should be considered an expert - it's his first non-sports credit there.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Parmandur

Book-Friend
Yeah but not like this. We are already seeing 2 of the 3 classes getting a rewrite. Almost every feat. The base rules (feats no longer optional)
The revisions are compatible, however: all existing Bard, Ranger, and Rogue Subclasses will work with what we've seen already, and that will only improve as they nail stuff down. I'm not saying it isn't a revision, because obvious it is: but Monopoly, Settlers of Catan, and other evergreen games go through big revisions, roo (Monopoly was on it's 9th Edition, last I recall hearing). Doesn't mean the 5E evergreen strategy isn't still working.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
Since when are editorial opinions of experts published in a accredited site/magazine not a source for a conversation?

This seems odd like people are tryin to discredit it because they don’t like it.
...? I didn't say I didn't like it (for what it's worth, I consider the 2014 "5E" to be somewhere between the 8th-17th Edition of D&D), just pointing out that an explanatory aside from a random journalist (no more expert than anyone here) isn't some sort of "official" statement.
 

JEB

Legend
Since the article isn't directly citing Wizards for that statement, I wouldn't count it as official acknowledgment that 1D&D is a 6E. Just the author's assessment.

The most official statement we have thus far on 1D&D being a new edition is in the One D&D FAQ:
Is One D&D introducing a new edition of D&D?

It’s bigger than that. One D&D will usher in the next generation of D&D with new and more comprehensive versions of the core rulebooks that millions of players have enjoyed for the past decade. The rules will be backward compatible with fifth edition adventures and supplements and offer players and Dungeon Masters new options and opportunities for adventure. The evolution of fifth edition has shown us it’s less important to create new editions of the game and more important to grow and expand the game you love with each new product.

Which never directly answers the stated question, but does make it clear that they see 1D&D as both an upgrade of "fifth edition" and distinct from it. This impression is reinforced by other answers in the FAQ. It'd certainly be reasonable to conclude that 1D&D would "equate to a new edition" as the author states, even if Wizards never uses the 'E' word.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
Since the article isn't directly citing Wizards for that statement, I wouldn't count it as official acknowledgment that 1D&D is a 6E. Just the author's assessment.

The most official statement we have thus far on 1D&D being a new edition is in the One D&D FAQ:


Which never directly answers the stated question, but does make it clear that they see 1D&D as both an upgrade of "fifth edition" and distinct from it. This impression is reinforced by other answers in the FAQ. It'd certainly be reasonable to conclude that 1D&D would "equate to a new edition" as the author states, even if Wizards never uses the 'E' word.
The same company that brought a "half-edition" to the market and people still call a whole Edition 3.5...
 

The same company that brought a "half-edition" to the market and people still call a whole Edition 3.5...

20 years ago...

I am not sure what we dig up when we look at other companies or what you or I did 20 years ago...
For me it is half a life ago. For some of the designers and people in charge it is several generations ago.
Most gamers who play now don't even know what happened 20 years ago, and surely can't remember, because they have not been born yet.

So what is the purpose of such a statement?
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
20 years ago...

I am not sure what we dig up when we look at other companies or what you or I did 20 years ago...
For me it is half a life ago. For some of the designers and people in charge it is several generations ago.
Most gamers who play now don't even know what happened 20 years ago, and surely can't remember, because they have not been born yet.

So what is the purpose of such a statement?
To point out that arguing about what a "real" Wdition is, is BS.TSR and WotC have both historically abused the term for marketing BS, which h us why WotC is now avoiding using the term for their marketing even if it is accurate. Is OneD&D "really 6E"? No, there have been way, way more than six Editions of D&D. The argument is silly.
 

You are entitled to that opinion, and you may be correct.
thank you for giving me permission to have an opinion?
What is this?!?! of course we all have our own opinions?!?!
As @Parmandur just posted, it comes off as editorializing to me.
editorialization from a trusted educated source.
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.
okay please give this conspiracy theory were stating it is 6e even if they don't call it that makes them more sales/money? I want to see this connection.
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.
no one is selling more papers/subscriptions/ads based on calling 1D&D a new edition or not.
 

TerraDave refers to the statements as being (pretty) official.

But it's not. It's nothing like an official statement. It's not someone who writes regularly about D&D, nor gaming, nor general busines.
Knight is a sports writer, a good one. He didn't get a source to say that it's sixth edition and nothing that he's written for Forbes indicates that this is a topic on which he's should be considered an expert - it's his first non-sports credit there.
he is a reporter. He has talked to people and has (at least) as much info as anyone here does (most likely more since I doubt even 1 in 10 enworld posters talked to anyone at WotC)
 

Since the article isn't directly citing Wizards for that statement, I wouldn't count it as official acknowledgment that 1D&D is a 6E. Just the author's assessment.
and no one has claimed it an official WotC decleration (that wouldn't even make sense with the wording)
The most official statement we have thus far on 1D&D being a new edition is in the One D&D FAQ:


Which never directly answers the stated question, but does make it clear that they see 1D&D as both an upgrade of "fifth edition" and distinct from it. This impression is reinforced by other answers in the FAQ. It'd certainly be reasonable to conclude that 1D&D would "equate to a new edition" as the author states, even if Wizards never uses the 'E' word.
See this "oh it's different but not a new edition" dance is just a line for advertising.
 

20 years ago...

I am not sure what we dig up when we look at other companies or what you or I did 20 years ago...
For me it is half a life ago. For some of the designers and people in charge it is several generations ago.
Most gamers who play now don't even know what happened 20 years ago, and surely can't remember, because they have not been born yet.

So what is the purpose of such a statement?
okay, the fact that 20 years ago a company said something, and again 8 years ago (remember evergreen PHB) shows that even if (and this is a big if) the current people at wotc THINK this is the end of editions, they can't see 8 more years into the future/
 

darjr

I crit!
Also, its (pretty) official, read it and rejoice!

"in what would equate to a sixth edition"

and no one has claimed it an official WotC decleration (that wouldn't even make sense with the wording)

See this "oh it's different but not a new edition" dance is just a line for advertising.

Someone did try. I think, could have been sarcasm and I just missed it. See the first quote by TerraDave. I won’t make the same judgement about it though, I do think they are mistaken. It’s what actually started this particular discourse in the thread.

I think.
 

Someone did try. I think, could have been sarcasm and I just missed it. See the first quote by TerraDave. I won’t make the same judgement about it though, I do think they are mistaken. It’s what actually started this particular discourse in the thread.

I think.
the word pretty is what you are missing.

it isn't official, but with a mix of what we already see in playtest (new rules on feats, new actions, new conditions, class rewrites (making subclasses not really work but maybe can be squished in with work) and the general rewrites to background, race and when we get feats) mixed with a journalist who is nationally published AND who went to and interviewed WotC saying
"in what would equate to a sixth edition"
even just look at the wording, not "it is 6th edition" but "in what would equate to"
 

Omand

Hero
thank you for giving me permission to have an opinion?
What is this?!?! of course we all have our own opinions?!?!

editorialization from a trusted educated source.

okay please give this conspiracy theory were stating it is 6e even if they don't call it that makes them more sales/money? I want to see this connection.

no one is selling more papers/subscriptions/ads based on calling 1D&D a new edition or not.
Look, last I will say on this matter, as it is quite clear that our personal experiences are quite different and you don't appear to be prepared to accept that there might be another angle on this issue.

Media are not going to make more money simply by calling One D&D as the Sixth Edition or 6E. They will make more money, however, by creating controversy or hype. This is how pretty much all media works these days. In order to pull in more eyeballs (which means visibility, money, profit, etc.), you need to have something to pull in those eyeballs. And hype or controversy is the way you do it. The most prolific examples nowadays are likely Facebook and Twitter (where algorithms are set up to throw controversial material your direction to push engagement). All media outlets, however, do this to a greater or lesser extent these days (and always have).

I mean, we can point to our discussion here in this thread as proof of the principle. Look at the number of views of this thread, the thumbs up for our various posts, the churn we are creating. We are creating controversy/hype which is likely pushing traffic back to the original article so that people can see for themselves what all the fuss is about. That in theory puts money in Forbes' pocket. Maybe not directly in sales to Forbes' itself, but more web traffic means they can charge on-site advertisers more for the privilege of advertising, etc.

Cheers :)
 

Look, last I will say on this matter, as it is quite clear that our personal experiences are quite different and you don't appear to be prepared to accept that there might be another angle on this issue.
I am, were I am not even slightly sold on there being a way that calling it out as 6e even if not in name can in any noticeable way effect the bottom line I am open to if you have some way to connect those.

News stations, reporters have a vested intrest in selling, but who do you think they are 'selling' to in this case?
Media are not going to make more money simply by calling One D&D as the Sixth Edition or 6E. They will make more money, however, by creating controversy or hype. This is how pretty much all media works these days. In order to pull in more eyeballs (which means visibility, money, profit, etc.), you need to have something to pull in those eyeballs. And hype or controversy is the way you do it. The most prolific examples nowadays are likely Facebook and Twitter (where algorithms are set up to throw controversial material your direction to push engagement). All media outlets, however, do this to a greater or lesser extent these days (and always have).
and again, now show where saying what was said would move the needle. If you think, even just a theory (aka I am not looking for hard numbers) on how this 'controversy' will drive clicks I will at least entertain the notion...

but it's like if I wrote a Comic book blog and I said "Yea (insert big comic company) just killed off (insert big name known even outside comics character) and said this is a game changer, but we all know at MOST it will be 2 years, more likely 6 months before they are back" isn't going to drive clicks.
I mean, we can point to our discussion here in this thread as proof of the principle. Look at the number of views of this thread, the thumbs up for our various posts, the churn we are creating.
a few here and there, but no where near enough to move the needle at Forbes... it's a rounding error. That is my point, if EVERYONE in this thread clicked on that link that still isn't enough. And if they didn't say it I bet 6 or 7 out of 10 of us would have clicked anyway
We are creating controversy/hype which is likely pushing traffic back to the original article so that people can see for themselves what all the fuss is about. That in theory puts money in Forbes' pocket.
if it put $0.12 worth of views I would be suprsed, and if it made 100x that ($12) it would still not be a drop in the bucket.
Maybe not directly in sales to Forbes' itself, but more web traffic means they can charge on-site advertisers more for the privilege of advertising, etc.

Cheers :)
 

DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
Does anyone actually genuinely care if WotC is or is not "lying to them" or "selling them a bill of goods"? Does their desire or need to play a game actually get affected by the words of the company that produces it?

Especially considering that you only know if you've been lied to if you go through the effort to look for the words being used in the first place. There are hundreds of thousands of other things in this world you've been lied to about but you just never know it because you never went looking for it.

Easiest way to avoid being lied to is to just not listen to people when they talk. But if you do go out of your way to listen and then get mad when you've been "lied to"-- mad enough to change your mind about using the thing-- you're cutting off your nose to spite your face.
 


Does anyone actually genuinely care if WotC is or is not "lying to them" or "selling them a bill of goods"? Does their desire or need to play a game actually get affected by the words of the company that produces it?
TBH I wouldn't care if the company was hiding it, I more care that when I point out that we most likely wont see tables using 2014 and 2024 PHBs together I wasn't getting people telling me how crazy I was. As others have pointed out the edition number is messed up anyway. I don't care what they call it (I guess if they really counted and labeled it 15 or 17 or something I might care). What I care about is conversation on enworld and at cons and at store.
Especially considering that you only know if you've been lied to if you go through the effort to look for the words being used in the first place. There are hundreds of thousands of other things in this world you've been lied to about but you just never know it because you never went looking for it.
again, if I get lied to (I am sure at least 20 times a day) and don't catch it thats it... I didn't. My problem is when I say "hey that doesn't fit" and then people have to jump up to defend the lie (I'm not even sure lie is the right word to be honest).
Easiest way to avoid being lied to is to just not listen to people when they talk. But if you do go out of your way to listen and then get mad when you've been "lied to"-- mad enough to change your mind about using the thing-- you're cutting off your nose to spite your face.
again, the only reason this matters is playability. As it stands now if I want to play a modern bard I have to do it soon, or I have to really position to get the 1D&D bard changed back.


let me go back to my comic book analogy. back in the 90's I thought superman was dead and being replaced by 4 other heroes... I was shocked when he came back.

a few years ago when logan/wolverine I died I laughed and asked for how long that would last.

when I said that yeah there were some kids (like I was in 93 I think) that believed he was dead no more gone, only alt earth stories never coming back... but even they didn't jump "NO they said" they just disagreed... but most people agreed "Yeah they all come back"
 

I have to admit here I’m pretty sure you’re not being serious.
yes I am, and please don't insult me by pretending my very well worded (and not exactly short) post is so insane it can't be serious.

(and I will add the "I'm pretty sure you are not serious" to the list of ways this web site is no longer user friendly)
 

Does anyone actually genuinely care if WotC is or is not "lying to them" or "selling them a bill of goods"? Does their desire or need to play a game actually get affected by the words of the company that produces it?
As someone who is an evangelist for this game that I love, the confusion around the amount of compatibility matters because it actively harms my ability to spread the love of the game and find new players. Calling a fully compatible game a new edition will intimidate potential players due to the lack of clarity as to which books they need, what rules to understand.

That matters.
 

Related Articles

Visit Our Sponsor

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top