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

DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
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.
Heh... well there's the problem. Until the book is actually released we don't know whether what they are saying is true or not. It's all just speculation. So making declarations of truth on either side are both presenting falsehoods and it's no wonder both sides are "Nuh uh!"ing each other.

It's EN World. We all want to be considered "Right" when we post So anything we say that has the slightest chance of being thought of as incorrect will have someone come out and make that claim. That's just the way the world of message boards work. :)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
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.
Yeah, but you don't know what the truth is, because the book hasn't been released yet. So your evangelizing has to be made with a grain of salt regardless. Your spoken "truth" about the situation is just as false and unknown as someone else's.

But besides... your potential finding of new players have nothing to do with the people here on EN World or what any of us say, so none of them will be impacted by anyone's statements here one way or the other. What is said on EN World stays on EN World... cause only us nutty few actually come on here to argue with each other about 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.
and I will say calling it fully compatible when if they bring the 2014 PHB and a character they made useing it to the table will need to have time spent updateing it (petty much remaking it in some cases) is a HUGE potential problem to get the clarity to players
 

Heh... well there's the problem. Until the book is actually released we don't know whether what they are saying is true or not.
correct but we can look to the playtest and see the direction.
It's all just speculation.
yes all conversation on this board is.
So making declarations of truth on either side are both presenting falsehoods and it's no wonder both sides are "Nuh uh!"ing each other.
except again, one side is showing the playtest and the other is saying "I don't see it"
It's EN World. We all want to be considered "Right" when we post So anything we say that has the slightest chance of being thought of as incorrect will have someone come out and make that claim. That's just the way the world of message boards work. :)
it's not how it used to work. Moderation would keep thing civil. In this very thread someone already accused me of "You can't be serious"
 

and I will say calling it fully compatible when if they bring the 2014 PHB and a character they made useing it to the table will need to have time spent updateing it (petty much remaking it in some cases) is a HUGE potential problem to get the clarity to players
The current update doc required is "take a first level feat." That's the only character sheet change
 

DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
correct but we can look to the playtest and see the direction.
Sure. You are following the direction and looking off one way and other people are following it and looking off another way way. And neither of you can say that you are actually right.

All of you can say the other is merely making stuff up and that is essentially true. Because there is no truth yet.
 

darjr

I crit!
Sure---"in what would equate to a sixth edition"--is from the author of a legit publication who has done his research, including meeting the president of WotC.

Its a source.

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.

He then doubles down talking about it being from a “source”.

As far as being rude I think TerraDave had a good point. I just think he’s wrong not that it doesn’t “make sense”.
 

The current update doc required is "take a first level feat." That's the only character sheet change
oh did you not see playtest 2? We completly rebuilt the bard (and somewhat ranger)

I can easily make a phb 2014 character and need to have to completely rework it with just 2 play tests...
take a dwarf bard that is 5th level. My spells known change. My insperation class feature changed, my song of rest gone, I now have to learn to prep spells off a list that is sub list of the arcane list. if I am 1 type of dwarf my race just doesn't exsist (but the elf subraces made the cut) and my background feature is gone and now I have to choose a 1st level feat... and if at 4th level I took alert so I can't be surprised, I can't take that version of alert at all...
 

Sure. You are following the direction and looking off one way and other people are following it and looking off another way way. And neither of you can say that you are actually right.

All of you can say the other is merely making stuff up and that is essentially true. Because there is no truth yet.
but I don't insult people who see different I just show my way of seeing... in this very thread I was told I can't be taken serious.
 

He then doubles down talking about it being from a “source”.

As far as being rude I think TerraDave had a good point. I just think he’s wrong not that it doesn’t “make sense”.
it is a source... it is an author of a legit publication who has done his research, including meeting the president of WotC. now that doesn't mean it is 100% correct, but it is a supporting source.
 

darjr

I crit!
oh did you not see playtest 2? We completly rebuilt the bard (and somewhat ranger)

I can easily make a phb 2014 character and need to have to completely rework it with just 2 play tests...
take a dwarf bard that is 5th level. My spells known change. My insperation class feature changed, my song of rest gone, I now have to learn to prep spells off a list that is sub list of the arcane list. if I am 1 type of dwarf my race just doesn't exsist (but the elf subraces made the cut) and my background feature is gone and now I have to choose a 1st level feat... and if at 4th level I took alert so I can't be surprised, I can't take that version of alert at all...

but I don't insult people who see different I just show my way of seeing... in this very thread I was told I can't be taken serious.
Then please explain your prior post? How do these two posts even go together?
 

Then please explain your prior post? How do these two posts even go together?
excuse me what doesn't go together? A poster referenced playtest 1 (get a feat at first level) so I asked if they saw playtest 2. I then explained (without like you did inferring they can not be taken seriously) my point.

Even this is against the rules (ones that seem to be enforced less and less) you are not directing ANYthing at what I said but coming at me personally (again)

let me quote and break down for you, if you don't know what I mean

oh did you not see playtest 2?
I was shocked that something was only referencing 1 of 2 playtests, but before I went any farther I didn't assume they were dumb, I didn't assume they were not 'serious' I asked if they saw it. I talk to plenty of people who do not keep up to date with every single thing WotC puts out. SO I can't assume that this poster HAS SEEN AND READ WHAT I HAVE...

so again I didn't insult yet.
We completly rebuilt the bard (and somewhat ranger)
now here is where I take from playtest 2 the information I am refrencing... in this case I didn't insult I didn't 'not take him serious' I showed my point... something he (or you) can feel free to counter point as long as you DON'T INSULT PEOPLE...
I can easily make a phb 2014 character and need to have to completely rework it with just 2 play tests...
this is really a theisis statement and can be made in 100 threads to respond in 100 ways. It in no way insults or 'doesn't take serious' the other poster.
take a dwarf bard that is 5th level. My spells known change. My insperation class feature changed, my song of rest gone, I now have to learn to prep spells off a list that is sub list of the arcane list. if I am 1 type of dwarf my race just doesn't exsist (but the elf subraces made the cut) and my background feature is gone and now I have to choose a 1st level feat... and if at 4th level I took alert so I can't be surprised, I can't take that version of alert at all...
this spoiler is literally labeled just for the fun of it (not in those words) and again is actuall fact from play test and in no way insults or 'doesn't take serious' any other poster.


So again I ask what about these post don't go together?
 






The FAQ for 1D&D (if I'm not mistaken) only specifically calls out adventures and supplements for backwards compatibility. As much as I want the PHB 2014 to be backwards compatible I don't think it will for the most part. I have not seen WotC say it would be either. As far as the article goes, I think the writer misspoke and I don't feel like they have any inside info on anything. I would be surprised if they ever officially call it 6e. I could care less either way as long as it's good and the basics stay roughly the same as 5e.
 

The FAQ for 1D&D (if I'm not mistaken) only specifically calls out adventures and supplements for backwards compatibility. As much as I want the PHB 2014 to be backwards compatible I don't think it will for the most part. I have not seen WotC say it would be either. As far as the article goes, I think the writer misspoke and I don't feel like they have any inside info on anything. I would be surprised if they ever officially call it 6e. I could care less either way as long as it's good and the basics stay roughly the same as 5e.
I don't think the name matters (anniversary edition, 5.5, 50th, 6e, 17e, 1D&D) what matters is a close to uniform undersanding (and as you put it I agree so I will pull it out and quote you again so it doesn't get lost.
calls out adventures and supplements for backwards compatibility. As much as I want the PHB 2014 to be backwards compatible I don't think it will for the most part. I have not seen WotC say it would be either.
and again the writer didn't say "I have sources off the record confirming wotc is calling it 6e behind the scense"
they said "in what would equate to a sixth edition"
 

oh did you not see playtest 2? We completly rebuilt the bard (and somewhat ranger)

I can easily make a phb 2014 character and need to have to completely rework it with just 2 play tests...
take a dwarf bard that is 5th level. My spells known change. My insperation class feature changed, my song of rest gone, I now have to learn to prep spells off a list that is sub list of the arcane list. if I am 1 type of dwarf my race just doesn't exsist (but the elf subraces made the cut) and my background feature is gone and now I have to choose a 1st level feat... and if at 4th level I took alert so I can't be surprised, I can't take that version of alert at all...
Sure!

There's a new Bard. It doesn't mean that Bard14 no longer works. The power level, outside of the background feats is the same.
The mythology presented that the 14 classes can't coexist with the 24 classes has no basis in fact.
 

Related Articles

Visit Our Sponsor

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top