D&D General Why Enworld should liberate D&D from Hasbro

I don’t know which picture you’re referring to, but it’s almost certainly trying to appeal to LGBTQIA+ folks and allies. There are a lot of us, we’re a market worth appealing to.
Dungeons & Dragons - Fall 2025 Pride Playmat
The official Dungeons and Dragons YouTube channel posted this. Apparently it’s a playmat they’re selling.


@GothmogIV, it’s a product they’re selling. There is a lot of money you can make selling products to the LGBTQ+ community. The fact that bigots online will post about it in outrage, giving WotC free marketing, is just a bonus.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

This is what I'm trying to say. You don't have to abandon one demographic to go after another.

I'm curious what demographic you think they are abandoning. Because I'm almost 50 and I see WotC pandering to my generation all over the place with the 5.5e books targeting 80's nostalgia that would go completely over the heads of the younger crowd. WotC cares ONLY about money and if you have money to spend, then you are 100% their core demographic that they care about. There is no age limit on having money to spend.

I would wager a guess that your actual issue is that you prefer the Old School nitty-gritty realism rules approach, which just isn't widely popular anymore. That's not WotC abandoning any particular demographic, that's them wisely abandoning a gaming style that video games do far better, and focusing more on the collaborative storytelling gaming style that TTRPGs do FAR better than video games.
 

Dungeons & Dragons - Fall 2025 Pride Playmat
The official Dungeons and Dragons YouTube channel posted this. Apparently it’s a playmat they’re selling.


@GothmogIV, it’s a product they’re selling. There is a lot of money you can make selling products to the LGBTQ+ community. The fact that bigots online will post about it in outrage, giving WotC free marketing, is just a bonus.

Bit cartoony for my tastes but why not? Dont have to buy it.
 

Like everything else, it varies by group, but I believe the intended playstyle was avoidance when possible. Getting the treasure/xp without getting killed was optimal by my reading.

If you played a published AD&D adventure with the idea you are going to kill everyone you better be about 5 levels higher than the recommended level range.
 


Please, take care with the slang because some readers are from other nations and our English level is different.

Teenagers have got more time to play TTRPGs with their friends, but not enough money. Adults have got enough money but they are too busy with their jobs and families (more if their children are babies or toddlers). The adventage of D&D is this can be an intergenerational hobby, parents playing with their children. Some new players from the youngest generation started thanks their parents or other family member.

Even a mature who doesn't play any more can spend his money for gifts, for example the romantic comedy novel "Dating Dragons" for his teenage niece.

Maybe in the next years we will see more LEGO sets for the new line D&D. This is the way Hasbro bets for D&D toys. I guess they don't want to create a new line of action figures because they would rather to keep selling figures of Disney and Warner franchises, and the toy market isn't the same with the arrival of videoconsoles.

D&D is not only a group of guys throwing dices on a table. It is also when a geek is writting her own fanfiction.

Hasbro is a megacorporation and this means more power for better deals in agreements with other companies about collabs and crossovers.

* D&D franchise could be affected if there is some merger or acquisition among Hasbro or other company with its own IPs but this enters in the field of speculation.
 

I think I'd argue it was largely marketed at 20-somethings in the 70's, but that's not probably a significant difference.
I'd argue the same, and it's a huge difference.

A game marketed to 20-somethings can include adult or off-colour content and doesn't have to be sanitized for the kids, and 70s era D&D was all of this - and was better for it.

During the 80s the marketing focus got steadily younger, or so it appeared, eventually leading to 2e: bland, inoffensive, and dull.
 


I was a 1E player...

The default position was to fight the monster (or run if it was too powerful).

Talking was almost never an option.
I think that's a table-by-table thing, and even maybe player-by-player.

Some just want to fight everything that moves. Others will do anything to avoid fighting (which in a 1e-like game can sometimes be the wiser play). Others are a mix and can - and will - go either way, depending on a host of random factors at the time.
 

If you played a published AD&D adventure with the idea you are going to kill everyone you better be about 5 levels higher than the recommended level range.
Really depends on the adventure. For some of them, particularly at low level, what you say is true. For others, a lot depends on party makeup, party numbers, and how much magic they have in items and spells: a well-rounded well-equipped party can punch way above their pay grade.
 

Remove ads

Top