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.

 

[AlViking]

I'd like to offer an amendment to that: I see nothing that explains why a private investor with the kind of money it would take to buy D&D would be any better for it. I think there are plenty of people who could do better (from an artistic/consumer perspective) with D&D, and there are some people/companies with the financial muscles to buy D&D. The overlap between those categories basically does not exist.

Better for who? I get that some people have this concept of an ideal, altruistic owner but there's no guarantee that owner would make a game that would work better for me. There are lots of people who love what they do and produce things that for my tastes are total crap.

Meanwhile a lot of people who actually create the books and other products for D&D do love the game. They may have certain restrictions, but there are still tons of restrictions when running a small company if you want to stay in business. As the saying goes, if you hate your boss it's probably not going to change when you're self employed.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

To say what is wrong is not enough. We should suggest other options to fix or improve. And we have to explain the reasons, for example I can say I would rather 3.5 Draconomicon because paying less I had got more pages of crunch, player options and monsters.

The IPs based in TTRPGs work in a different way because the main point is the setting or worldbuilding instead a group of characters.

D&D has earned a lot of brand power in the last years but Hasbro wants more.

Ravenloft may be right for "crossovers" or collabs with horror IPs, even some indie comic.

And D&D has got a curious "frienemy", the isekai manganime subgenre. This may be a hook for new hobbyists but also a rival.

 

[mamba]

Maybe. If you look at the Magic side, they're doing some stuff that's... maybe not shady, but not exactly customer-friendly, and which I think are bad for the long-term health of the game.

so far it seems to be working out for them, if it no longer does they can always change direction

Ultimately the customer has to decide what they want, and if they keep buying every new set then they are the ones giving WotC the incentive to create ever more decks in ever shorter periods of time. WotC is not forcing anyone to buy their cards, they respond to demand.

Contrast that with the D&D side where they deliberately slowed down the release frequency with 5e by a lot compared to 3e and 4e, and where that strategy has been working out for them.

But when we see Wizards bosses start talking about increasing D&D's monetization, it's hard not to look at what they've done with Magic and wonder how they'll apply that kind of thinking to D&D.

I assume Sigil was one attempt at this, but that backfired spectacularly. They might face the fact that this is not happening for D&D and find other ways to make money with it (and maybe try again in 10 years).

Merchandise seems a way to go, as is bringing a variety of D&D content onto DDB. Maybe they will have some LotR or FF campaign book in the future. I don’t think the money lies in D&D the TTRPG the way it lies in Magic cards, so they will need a different strategy

 

[mamba]

I'd like to offer an amendment to that: I see nothing that explains why a private investor with the kind of money it would take to buy D&D would be any better for it. I think there are plenty of people who could do better (from an artistic/consumer perspective) with D&D

that was implied (and in some other post explicitly mentioned). If you cannot afford to buy D&D then you cannot run it as a private investor.

Are there other people that I might prefer working on D&D over the ones that do, probably, but let’s not kid ourselves, this is mainly because I think I would like the direction / end result more rather than because it is necessarily better in some absolute and measurable way, and the same is true for whoever you have in mind here

 

[aco175]

When BG4 comes out I hope the tabletop version of the game adds stuff that video game does.

I do not play these video games but would like some sort of crossover. I have a campaign around Neverwinter and look online for resources and end up finding things that tie in with the video game such as a ruin or village and it is not in the more 'official' books and products. I would likely buy an adventure with some sort of crossover to the video game following the game and better if it added some crunch to use in the world.

Not sure why I have not seen anything before? Might be a licensing thing with the video game company?

 

[Parmandur]

that was implied (and in some other post explicitly mentioned). If you cannot afford to buy D&D then you cannot run it as a private investor.

Are there other people that I might prefer working on D&D over the ones that do, probably, but let’s not kid ourselves, that this is mainly because I think I would like the direction / end result more rather than because it is necessarily better in some absolute and measurable way, and the same is true for whoever you have in mind here

Yeah, Hasbro sells off business lines, but they keep IP when they do: to "buy D&D" a company would need to buy Hasbro...which is a multi-billion proposal that is unattractive to equity by design. Hasbro has large cash reserves, when a company is bought the cash reserves need to be met, and the board has a poison pill in stock options to prevent a hostile takeover. Somebody would need ro come in with a ludicrously high cash offer that the board could not in good conscience refuse to pay off shareholders, so ovedvaluing Hasbro as a whole by a lot of money.

I don't lay good odds on somebody doing that and also being somebody I'd be happy with running D&D at the same time.

 

[Parmandur]

Just as an example of the sort of realistic scenario we could see for D&D ever being owned by a different company...Mattel and Disney have been bandied about as potentially buying or merging with Hasbro over the years.

So, Disney D&D or Mattel D&D are realistic possibilities. Lateral move, at best.

 

[Pamphylian]

In an ideal world, I can imagine the franchise model allowing them to be more magnanimous with their IP and material in the TTRPG arena. Creative Commons more old stuff, avoid microtransactioning TTRPG things, just sell books and be a beloved steward of a beloved brand. You don't have to make much money on the TTRPG, and can use it to boost good will, if you are getting most of your money from licensing games, movies, crochet books, etc. But this seems optimistic.

 

[bedir than]

In an ideal world, I can imagine the franchise model allowing them to be more magnanimous with their IP and material in the TTRPG arena. Creative Commons more old stuff, avoid microtransactioning TTRPG things, just sell books and be a beloved steward of a beloved brand. You don't have to make much money on the TTRPG, and can use it to boost good will, if you are getting most of your money from licensing games, movies, crochet books, etc. But this seems optimistic.

This doesn't describe the franchise model as their leadership and former leadership have.

 

[mamba]

Yeah, Hasbro sells off business lines, but they keep IP when they do: to "buy D&D" a company would need to buy Hasbro...which is a multi-billion proposal that is unattractive to equity by design

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