Wizards of the Coast Head Explains Benefits to D&D Franchise Model

The head of Wizards of the Coast believes that moving to a franchise model will allow for more alignment between D&D multimedia and the core D&D tabletop game. Recently, Wizards of the Coast president John Hight spoke with GameIndustry.biz in a wide-ranging interview about the gaming company. Much of the interview was spent on Wizards' digital gaming ambitions, but Hight did speak about the realignment of the company to a franchise model.

Under the franchise model, all D&D-related operations now run through Dan Ayoub as opposed to having different arms for entertainment, video games, and tabletop. In the interview, Hight stated that the franchise model would allow for better coordination - specifically between different aspects of the franchise. One example was the D&D movie, which had relatively limited crossover with the D&D tabletop game. "We'd love to have had a D&D book or campaign a part and parcel with the movie," he says.

He also noted that Stranger Things - which is receiving a new tie-in project next month - could be integrated more with the game. "It'd be nice to have that all lined up, so when this thing rolls out, we've got a campaign for you to enjoy that's something you saw on the show, or the characters in the show."

Additionally, Hight noted that another side to the franchise model is to fully align the digital and physical sides of play, which he hopes will lead to in-person play. "Unfortunately, because of COVID, there's a whole generation of gamers that has spent a good deal of their time playing only online," he said. "And they're re-discovering the joy of being able to play together. What I want us to be able to do is have players move fairly seamlessly between in person play and online play."

Elsewhere in the interview, Hight hinted at a new D&D MMORPG, stating that he has encouraged development of a new MMO but stopped shy of saying a project was officially in the works.

 

[Parmandur]

even if they did sell off WotC, that is still a multi-billion deal, even just D&D probably would not be sold for less than $2B

Right, what I'm saying is that it wouldn't ever be sold separately, it's part of the package portfolio of Hasbro: the only way a company other than Hasbro gets control of D&D, they have to buy all of Hasbro, so only a company like Disney that might want some more.IP and some vertical integration of merchandising would even be a potential new owner. The brand isn't ever going to be separated out again, but it may become part of a bigger corporate conglomerate.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

Right, what I'm saying is that it wouldn't ever be sold separately, it's part of the package portfolio of Hasbro: the only way a company other than Hasbro gets control of D&D, they have to buy all of Hasbro, so only a company like Disney that might want some more.IP and some vertical integration of merchandising would even be a potential new owner. The brand isn't ever going to be separated out again, but it may become part of a bigger corporate conglomerate.

Paramount or Sony would benifit from buying Hasbro, then selling the Consumer Products Division (but keeping VALUABLE IP like transformerS) along with the Hasbro name and just make the Company Wizards of the Coast. It's the IP and Video games that would be the real value with buying Hasbro.

 

[Parmandur]

Paramount or Sony would benifit from buying Hasbro, then selling the Consumer Products Division (but keeping VALUABLE IP like transformerS) along with the Hasbro name and just make the Company Wizards of the Coast. It's the IP and Video games that would be the real value with buying Hasbro.

But they may or may not want to spend the coin to do so.

And I'm not sure Sony or Paramount would be an improvement for the D&D game.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

Hasbro tried a merger with Mattel and it didn't work. I doubt Hasbro wanted to be acquired by a bigger company if they lost the creative freedom or the controll over the IPs, and today Disney isn't in its best moment. Microsoft? its own videogame studios can create new franchises from zero. Elon Musk/Tesla? If really he was interested, the silence would be total to avoid speculations.

WotC publishing "World of Warcraft"? That could be possible but other company, Glass Cannon Unplugged, got the licence for "Diablo". ¿Everquest? It is one of oldest MMOs and it is still active.

My theory is Hasbro could want IPs by other publishers, for example the franchises by White Wolf/Onyx Path.

And this is not only money, but it is also culture.. and "soft power".

 

[Parmandur]

Earlier this year, when they announced this, Mike Mearls had said this about the change:

I think this means that in the future, stuff like Baldur's Gate 3 and the D&D movie would have actual tie-in products. IME the franchise model means that D&D looks more like Warhammer.

Everything in Warhammer is connected. If I play Space Marine 2, the events in that game are part of the 40k universe. If a faction or character from one game is popular, the franchise org tries to find ways to use them elsewhere. It's a big universe - just like D&D has multiple, sprawling worlds - so there is a ton of room to go around.

For the TTRPG, presumably it will now speak more to other products in D&D overall rather than being its own offshoot. It might even let them take more risks. I don't think it preordains any direction in terms of licensing the TTRPG.

Hell, Warhammer in the past few years has brought back the Old World setting that they destroyed and now have a full game for supporting the Horus Heresy era for 40k. In D&D terms, that would be like putting AD&D and 3e back into print. In a well-run franchise model, you don't focus on one type of fan or non-fans. You find ways to make every fan happy. They're your fans, after all.

As another example - the annual events like Tomb of Annihilation are 100% a byproduct of a franchise model. If you liked that era, this might be a signal that they want to go back to something like that.

Franchise model is how things worked from 2014 to 2020 or so. One group steered D&D and worked with licensees to set up their content.

If you've played Baldur's Gate 3, you might notice that they lean heavily into lore from Volo's Guide to Monsters, Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes, and the Baldur's Gate gazetteer from Descent into Avernus. That's the franchise model in action.

We literally wrote design guides for Larian and then inserted them into D&D products. The basic theory was that a DM and a narrative designer do the same job, just at a different scale. What's good for one works for the other.

 

[Incenjucar]

They need to work on making the IP more inherently attractive to use or license. The mechanics aren't special enough (or accurately used in games) to not be replaced with a new rules system, and the worlds and stories in them are not so well-known and popular that you can't come up with a something that people will reach the same average knowledge of while playing. Why use D&D when you can use generic fantasy?

Part of this is because people have learned from D&D and made new things inspired by it, certainly, but there are only a handful of characters the general public might know, and those are rarely core to any game. Most media also ignores a lot of D&D mechanics and other elements, and frequently gives characters special powers that bring it further from the feel of the game itself. I'll acknowledge BG3 at least leaned into game lore a decent amount even while giving the BG traditional extra powers.