RPG Evolution: The Dragons Come Home to Roost

D&D has long striven to be more than a game, but a brand. Thanks to the game's surge in popularity, those plans are coming to fruition.

Hasbro’s Strategy​

Hasbro’s association with the movie industry has long been a mutually beneficial relationship, in which toy sales surge with each new movie. Star Wars and Transformers are both examples of how Hasbro’s bottom line is impacted by the release of the latest film. Unfortunately, this strategy means Hasbro is reliant on third party schedules to produce revenue, and the pandemic highlighted just how much can go wrong with the complicated process of releasing a movie. No wonder the company wants its own intellectual property that it can monetize for movies and streaming.

This is why Hasbro's strategy has moved well beyond just producing toys and games. Hasbro divides their new approach into four quadrants: Toys & Games, Digital Gaming, Licensed Consumer Products, and Media (TV, Film, Digital Shorts, Emerging Media). Hasbro previously announced plans to execute on this four quadrant strategy with all of its licenses, including My Little Pony, Transformers, Magic: The Gathering, and Dungeons & Dragons. Some of those Media plans have been easier to execute than others, with Transformer movies running out of steam, the My Little Pony series winding down, and a Magic: The Gathering series yet to launch on streaming. That leaves D&D.

WOTC’s Strategy​

Wizards of the Coast has always struggled to justify its revenue goals for Dungeons & Dragons amidst high revenue brands like Magic: The Gathering. At one point, each division was given a goal of $100 million in annual sales, a number that was not reachable through tabletop gaming channels.

The solution was digital gaming. D&D tried several times to mimic the Massive Multi-Player Online Role-Playing Game (MMORPG) space, which it inadvertently spawned dating all the way back to Multi-User Dungeons (MUDs) and Interactive Fiction (IF). The idea was that if the company could own a slice of that digital engagement dedicated to off-brand D&D, they could reach at least $50 million.

It didn’t work. WOTC never had enough resources, the right partners, or the technical know-how to effectively launch a digital ecosystem that would last longer than a few years. Then something surprising happened: D&D became more popular than all the other Hasbro brands combined.

The Dragons Take Over​

The passing of the previous Hasbro CEO created a power vacuum quickly filled by the staff shepherding D&D into the new age. The twin factors of the pandemic and streaming made D&D uniquely suited to a much wider audience, and it didn’t take long before WOTC was responsible for 72% of Hasbro’s total operating profit. In a very short period of time, WOTC went from a barely-mentioned division on Hasbro investor calls to the darling of the company, with CEO Chris Cocks taking the reins as Hasbro’s CEO in February 2022.

So what’s next? Sure enough, WOTC is executing on Hasbro's four quadrant plan for D&D. Let’s break it down:

• Media: The juggernaut most likely to influence the other three quadrants is the upcoming D&D movie. There have been many attempts at making D&D movies that have all been commercial failures. This time around feels different, if only because there was a legal battle waged through proxies on behalf of movie-making behemoths (Universal Studios vs. Warner Bros.) for D&D’s film rights. It’s clear they think there’s a lot of money to be made with a D&D movie. Unlike other movie launches, Hasbro is supporting the movie with the full force of its license. For an example of what this might look like, see the above picture of the D&D Advent Calendar. Speaking of which...
• Licensed Consumer Products: Advent calendars are interesting products because they can contain just about anything, but that thing has to be small. They also require a lot of creativity to produce, as 25 different items is a lot to put into one package. If the D&D advent calendar is any indication, we’re going to see a lot more of beholders, displacer beasts, mimics, owlbears, and gelatinous cubes. There are stylized, iconic images of each monster repeated across everything that’s in the calendar, including stickers, gift tags, pencils, and ornaments.
• Toys & Games: D&D is a game first and foremost, so the release of the next edition (an edition that requires playtesting but holds out the promise for backwards compatibility) is the obvious prime mover in this space. In addition to the aforementioned licenses, D&D toys are starting to show up in the wild. Egg Embry wrote an overview of just some of the D&D action figures available. We can expect a slew of monster toys too.
• Digital Gaming: The big news here is One D&D, which uses D&D Beyond as its base. With 13 million registered users, WOTC is banking on D&D Beyond as a base for propagating One D&D to the masses. For better or worse, this includes changes to the OGL with the likely plan to defragment any digital content that currently resides on third-party platforms. There has been several failed attempts at establishing a digital home base for D&D, so it’s really important they get this right.

Cocks has never hidden his digital ambitions for D&D, and now with the company’s full resources at his disposal, we’re about to see a four quadrant D&D plan in action. Hasbro and WOTC are all in on this plan, with the future edition of D&D, the D&D movie, and its reinvigorated digital platform all unified in an attempt to make D&D not just a game, but a brand expression.

Will it work? Perhaps the more relevant question for current D&D fans is ... what if it does?

 

[haakon1]

The differences in businesses are not even comparable today.

Perhaps … I think the themes of overreach and corporate ownership by people who don’t “get it“ are similar.

Anyhow, if you haven’t read “Slaying the Dragon”, and you’re interested in the history of D&D, or in the business of gaming, you totally should. I guarantee you’ll like it!

 

[Oofta]

Solid theory, but not true for all 5e refuseniks.

I started with AD&D (1e) when I was 13, and my “forever edition” of 3.5e came out when I was 34. I’m still fond of AD&D, and a LOT of what I DM are 1e scenarios, but for actual rules, I mostly don’t use it.

I do still reference AD&D (1e) rules for things like building up manors the PC’s are developing. Reference, but not follow verbatim.

I may be a bit of an outlier. I get tired of oldies music so I listen to mostly new stuff. So far 5E is my favorite edition because it holds together better at high levels even if I do miss the overpowered build options of 3.5.

However I know a lot of people that think that no good music has been released since they graduated from high school. Plenty of people on this forum seem to think D&D has been going the wrong direction for decades. Different strokes for different folks and all, there are plenty of examples of people getting lumped together because of some artificial categorizations. All, boomers, millennials and gen X are not the same.

Just because a significant number of people wear rose colored nostalgia glasses doesn't mean that everyone does, even if for some people they seem to be firmly affixed.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

even if I do miss the overpowered build options of 3.5

Shhhhh we don't talk about that!

But yeah really I do sometimes miss that as a player. Not as a DM though! I also miss a specific 4E character I had who could basically play ice hockey with the monsters as pucks. She was amazing - a Battlemind with very specific Feats. But at the same time I don't think that should really be allowed lol.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't think that's really true.

I mean, maybe me and my players are weird, but no-one really wishes we were still playing 2E, which is what we all started with. The only edition anyone in my group sometimes wants to go back to is 4E, and it's two specific players - who habitually play Rogues and Fighters respectively. Both of them sometimes moan about how 5E isn't as much fun as 4E, and frankly, I can see why - 4E gave both classes a hell of a lot more and more interesting tools in combat, and even slightly more out-of-combat, because of the sheer number of Feats you get, which could easily be used to add skills, ritual magic, and so on (and which had no competition with ASIs).

Personally some of the very best RPGs I've ever seen, I didn't see until I was 40 or older. The state of RPG design now is hugely, insanely better than it was in, say 1989, when I started out. Because of two big factors:

1) We've had 30+ years of learning shown by RPGs succeeding and failing at stuff.

2) We've got the internet to communicate those ideas and discuss RPG design theory, and even when we don't agree, if we listen, we find out stuff.

While the specific games I like the most are relatively new (...Without Number, DCC, ACKS, Level Up) what I like about all of them is an adherance to the spirit of an style of play that originated decades before, in the games I  did grow up with. So to me the theory more or less holds.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

While the specific games I like the most are relatively new (...Without Number, DCC, ACKS, Level Up) what I like about all of them is an adherance to the spirit of an style of play that originated decades before, in the games I  did grow up with. So to me the theory more or less holds.

Interesting.

What I have is a residual fondness from a "grime-y" and "detailed" kind of level/style of play and setting that D&D has been veering away from for a long time. But I've found the actual rules don't matter as much as the vibe, it's just that some rules-sets actively conflict with that vibe. And like, even though I like details, I don't, for example, want to go back to ultra-detailed equipment lists, say, so instead I'm finding I'm happy for players to establish they have equipment as and when needed, within reason (may insist on a check or just say no if they're pushing it). That revelation was actually from running a specific 4E adventure from Dungeon lol (Blood Money).

I also find there are things I dislike from Ye Olde Dayes, that never sat well with me, like it being easy to die from bad rolls (I know you don't mind that in the least lol), and more modern systems often give me the old-skool vibe whilst taking a more interesting approach there. Like, you can really brutalize characters in Spire with all sorts of interesting "fallout" (anything from broken limbs to going broke) without having to kill off PCs.

 

[Oofta]

Shhhhh we don't talk about that!

But yeah really I do sometimes miss that as a player. Not as a DM though! I also miss a specific 4E character I had who could basically play ice hockey with the monsters as pucks. She was amazing - a Battlemind with very specific Feats. But at the same time I don't think that should really be allowed lol.

Yeah, don't get me started on my favorite builds! I don't really consider myself a powergamer but I did have a lot of fun, especially when a PC took several levels to really come together at which point they went from decent to "You guys [5 of them] take on that definitely-not-a-LOTR-fellbeast, I've got this one." Or my PC that ... wait. Never mind.

 

[DarkCrisis]

I don't think that's really true.

I mean, maybe me and my players are weird, but no-one really wishes we were still playing 2E, which is what we all started with. The only edition anyone in my group sometimes wants to go back to is 4E, and it's two specific players - who habitually play Rogues and Fighters respectively. Both of them sometimes moan about how 5E isn't as much fun as 4E, and frankly, I can see why - 4E gave both classes a hell of a lot more and more interesting tools in combat, and even slightly more out-of-combat, because of the sheer number of Feats you get, which could easily be used to add skills, ritual magic, and so on (and which had no competition with ASIs).

Personally some of the very best RPGs I've ever seen, I didn't see until I was 40 or older. The state of RPG design now is hugely, insanely better than it was in, say 1989, when I started out. Because of two big factors:

1) We've had 30+ years of learning shown by RPGs succeeding and failing at stuff.

2) We've got the internet to communicate those ideas and discuss RPG design theory, and even when we don't agree, if we listen, we find out stuff.

I've introed 5E players to 2E and the 2 of the 3 love it more because, and I quote, "I feel like what I do matters".

I often think about what requires more work, smoothing out the jankiness of 2E (Thac0, skills, saves etc) or modifying 5E to fit what I want from D&D (more grit, less HP, less... everything).

Once i finish this 2E campaign I may intro them to BECMI.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I've introed 5E players to 2E and the 2 of the 3 love it more because, and I quote, "I feel like what I do matters".

I often think about what requires more work, smoothing out the jankiness of 2E (Thac0, skills, saves etc) or modifying 5E to fit what I want from D&D (more grit, less HP, less... everything).

Once i finish this 2E campaign I may intro them to BECMI.

I think a lot of modern systems achieve the exact same "what I do matters" too - but 5E isn't one of them, 5E is more "my stats/build/class matter" (which was also true of 3E though weirdly slightly less true of 4E but for complicated reasons). PbtA stuff like Dungeon World absolutely hits that "what I do matters" vibe for example.

BECMI/RC is solid but I don't think I could go back to race-as-class so I'd probably use a retro-clone which dealt with that (or just make races essentially cosmetic).

 

[MGibster]

I started with AD&D (1e) when I was 13, and my “forever edition” of 3.5e came out when I was 34. I’m still fond of AD&D, and a LOT of what I DM are 1e scenarios, but for actual rules, I mostly don’t use it.

I started with AD&D 1st edition, but I had turned 13 the year 2nd edition was released and that's when I had a steady enough income to start purchasing my own books. I have a lot of good memories from those days, but I'd rather swallow thumbtacks than go back to playing using those rules. I only have 7-8 years of experience with 2nd edition and that came to and end almost 25 years ago. I do think 5th edition is the best edition yet. Though the settings they've released have been very, very weak and the game is getting a bit boring to me.

 

[Von Ether]

I think a lot of modern systems achieve the exact same "what I do matters" too - but 5E isn't one of them, 5E is more "my stats/build/class matter" (which was also true of 3E though weirdly slightly less true of 4E but for complicated reasons). PbtA stuff like Dungeon World absolutely hits that "what I do matters" vibe for example.

BECMI/RC is solid but I don't think I could go back to race-as-class so I'd probably use a retro-clone which dealt with that (or just make races essentially cosmetic).

I suggest Worlds Without Number. Lots of flexibility and uses BECMI/RC monster stats.

 

[Von Ether]

While the specific games I like the most are relatively new (...Without Number, DCC, ACKS, Level Up) what I like about all of them is an adherance to the spirit of an style of play that originated decades before, in the games I  did grow up with. So to me the theory more or less holds.

I can not find fault with your choice of games.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I suggest Worlds Without Number. Lots of flexibility and uses BECMI/RC monster stats.

Seconded, WWN is amazing and definitely has that old-skool vibe.

 

[Remathilis]

I've introed 5E players to 2E and the 2 of the 3 love it more because, and I quote, "I feel like what I do matters".

I often think about what requires more work, smoothing out the jankiness of 2E (Thac0, skills, saves etc) or modifying 5E to fit what I want from D&D (more grit, less HP, less... everything).

Once i finish this 2E campaign I may intro them to BECMI.

Can you explain what "I feel like what I do matters" means? What they feel that AD&D is offering that later editions don't as far as empowerment. I want to say I feel the opposite, but I'm curious to see what they are seeing first.

 

[DarkCrisis]

Can you explain what "I feel like what I do matters" means? What they feel that AD&D is offering that later editions don't as far as empowerment. I want to say I feel the opposite, but I'm curious to see what they are seeing first.

The Fighter was happy that when he hit something it generally died, and visa versa.. HP bloat and tons of healing have made fights take longer. He also expressed that he preferred one saving throw over say 3 saving throws. Why try to turn anyone to stone when they got 3 chances to avoid it?

He went from a player in 5E who kicked in a door or tripped a trap because he was never worried about actual consequences. His character would live more often than not.

Now in 2E, he lets the Thief do her job. He uses strategy. He's even switched to playing a Wizard and comes up with creative ways to use his limited spells. He recently defeated a Chimera by using illusions (and the monster failed it's ONE save) to scare it off.

The Thief (our usual sneaky type player) likes that she's actually useful. Traps actually need to be found and dealt with. Listening at doors is a life saver. Scouting ahead. Picking locks. Sneaking is its either working or its not, which she really liked. No perception checks.

Of the 5 players, 4 of them like the old school difficulty that swings both ways. One save can make a combat. One swing of an axe can turn the tide of battle. AC actually matters! And they love getting XP. A small reward every session!

The only hick up is of course the different ways to do skills and another to do saves and another for combat etc etc. After like 4 months I still don't think they have a grasp on THAC0, but hey that's what charts are for. And the one who always plays a Druid now feels really under powered. A few magic items helped her out though but she'd still rather be playing 5E.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

You are just as much of a problem as he is, ready to judge/scream and a reading apprehension of 'not much' (if you think I'm writing apologia for him). Maybe put down that lance, get of that high horse and stop angling for those windmills...

Please don't "both sides!" bigotry. The post that started this literally said that the majority of a generation was stupid, implying that the generation the poster is from was/is better. That's ageist. @Azzy isn't "tilting at windmills" or being on a high horse. It's calling out bigotry.

A person calling out someone else for bigotry is not as bad as the bigotry. A person mocking the bigot is not as bad as the bigot. However, a person supporting the bigot is as bad as the bigot.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Please don't "both sides!" bigotry. The post that started this literally said that the majority of a generation was stupid, implying that the generation the poster is from was/is better. That's ageist. @Azzy isn't "tilting at windmills" or being on a high horse. It's calling out bigotry.

A person calling out someone else for bigotry is not as bad as the bigotry. A person mocking the bigot is not as bad as the bigot. However, a person supporting the bigot is as bad as the bigot.

I think you may have misunderstood the post that @Azzy was responding to (in the same way that Azzy seems to have misunderstood it). It was the original poster ( @Vincent55 ) who made the hateful/ageist/bigoted/etc. statement. @Cergorach wasn't defending Vincent55's statement... in fact, Cergorach is very explicitly calling out the tone/malevolence of Vincent55's language. What Cergorach was saying (in the post that Azzy responded to) was that Cergorach felt that there was a neutral and perhaps valid reason behind Vincent55's misdirected/holier than though/nasty screed. That doesn't make what Vincent55 said okay! Vincent55 took a valid concern and blamed 'youth and lack of intelligence' for it instead of coming up with a more reasonable, objective and non-judgmental cause. Which was part of Cergorach's point.

 

[Stormonu]

The expansion into products other than focusing on the core printed book business is what gives me hope because it takes some of the pressure off of the publish or perish side of things. Time will tell, but the three core books are still selling fairly well and many people are coming around to the idea of the long tail of getting profits with minimal investment. I guess I've just chosen to be an optimist, it's better than assuming gloom and doom all the time.

I have no problems with them branching out into VTT's, minis, board games, themed notebooks, artbooks, novels and movies - but when they start selling D&D socks and blankets, that's a bridge too far.

 

[JEB]

I have no problems with them branching out into VTT's, minis, board games, themed notebooks, artbooks, novels and movies - but when they start selling D&D socks and blankets, that's a bridge too far.

Bad news...

https://www.amazon.com/Dungeons-Dragons-Socks-DAD-Gift/dp/B07C8G1ZWH

https://www.amazon.com/Bioworld-Dungeons-Dragons-Throw-Blanket/dp/B07KPMG93P

 

[Stormonu]

Bad news...

https://www.amazon.com/Dungeons-Dragons-Socks-DAD-Gift/dp/B07C8G1ZWH

https://www.amazon.com/Bioworld-Dungeons-Dragons-Throw-Blanket/dp/B07KPMG93P

Yeah, I have the throw blanket - got it for Christmas.

Still, I don't think this what they need to be worrying about putting out.

Though I wouldn't mind a reissue/update of Star Frontiers.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I have no problems with them branching out into VTT's, minis, board games, themed notebooks, artbooks, novels and movies - but when they start selling D&D socks and blankets, that's a bridge too far.

I will not rest until it's under a Cloaker blanket.