D&D 5E D&D Beyond Cancels Competition

D&D Beyond has been running an art contest which asked creators to enter D&D-themed portrait frame. DDB got to use any or all of the entries, while the winner and some runners up received some digital content as a prize.

There was a backlash -- and DDB has cancelled the contest.

Thank you to all of our community for sharing your comments and concerns regarding our anniversary Frame Design Contest.

While we wanted to celebrate fan art as a part of our upcoming anniversary, it's clear that our community disagrees with the way we approached it. We've heard your feedback, and will be pulling the contest.

We will also strive to do better as we continue to look for ways to showcase the passion and creativity of our fellow D&D players and fans in the future. Our team will be taking this as a learning moment, and as encouragement to further educate ourselves in this pursuit.

Your feedback is absolutely instrumental to us, and we are always happy to listen and grow in response to our community's needs and concerns. Thank you all again for giving us the opportunity to review this event, and take the appropriate action.

The company went on to say:

Members of our community raised concerns about the contest’s impact on artists and designers, and the implications of running a contest to create art where only some entrants would receive a prize, and that the prize was exclusively digital material on D&D Beyond. Issues were similarly raised with regards to the contest terms and conditions. Though the entrants would all retain ownership of their design to use in any way they saw fit, including selling, printing, or reproducing, it also granted D&D Beyond rights to use submitted designs in the future. We have listened to these concerns, and in response closed the competition. We’ll be looking at ways we can better uplift our community, while also doing fun community events, in the future.

Competitions where the company in question acquires rights to all entries are generally frowned upon (unless you're WotC).

 

[PsyzhranV2]

It’s a nice link. But almost certainly doesn’t cover large swathes of exploitation. Unsurprisingly as you just picked that definition from halfway through one section of the linked article.

It is helpful to see where you’re coming from though so I can back away slowly in another direction. Capitalist bashing isn’t really of much interest to me.

Given that this thread started off being a discussion of a case where artists were being asked to engage in spec work, and enough of them went "No, this is a bad idea" for D&D Beyond to pull the contest, I'd say a definition of exploitation centered around economic value is the most relevant to this discussion. I'd go so far to say that trying to bring in other forms of exploitation into the discussion is a red herring at best.

 

[TheSword]

Given that this thread started off being a discussion of a case where artists were being asked to engage in spec work, and enough of them went "No, this is a bad idea" for D&D Beyond to pull the contest, I'd say a definitoon of exploitation centered around economic value is the most relevant to this discussion. I'd go so far to say that trying to bring in other forms of exploitation into the discussion is a red herring at best.

Well you have no idea how many of the people that complained were artists and how many had an ideological objection. As it certainly seems several of the fervent opponents of competitions in this thread aren’t artists or creators either.

There were plenty of non-professional artists who would never dream of charging for their work would also have entered too. But don’t worry about them.

 

[BookTenTiger]

Well you have no idea how many of the people that complained were artists and how many had an ideological objection. As it certainly seems several of the fervent opponents of competitions in this thread aren’t artists or creators either.

All the information we have is from the Dndbeyond statement, which says they received feedback from their community.

I guess you can choose to take that at face value, or you can add layers of conspiracy to it.

 

[FrogReaver]

All the information we have is from the Dndbeyond statement, which says they received feedback from their community.

I guess you can choose to take that at face value, or you can add layers of conspiracy to it.

Why would you take any corporate statement at face value?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Given that this thread started off being a discussion of a case where artists were being asked to engage in spec work, and enough of them went "No, this is a bad idea" for D&D Beyond to pull the contest, I'd say a definition of exploitation centered around economic value is the most relevant to this discussion. I'd go so far to say that trying to bring in other forms of exploitation into the discussion is a red herring at best.

That's not at all what happened. This wasn't "a case where artists were being engaged in spec work ..."

I have a whole examination of it, including the source documents (look at post 10 if it's confusing)-

D&D 5E - Anatomy of a Snafu- D&D Beyond and the Curious Contest

Is it snafu or snarfu? I digress.... The following two threads are probably relevant to this thread, and will explain why I am doing a deep dive on this issue: Thread about pay in the TTRPG Industry Thread about D&D Beyond Canceling an Art Competition I realized today that while many people...

www.enworld.org

Short version- D&D Beyond had no idea what they were doing because they were using off-the-shelf marketing software.

 

[Bolares]

Why would you take any corporate statement at face value?

Well, because without other information, we'd be just guessing and theorizing

 

[FrogReaver]

Well, because without other information, we'd be just guessing and theorizing

We are anyways. The only fact we have is they said X. But them saying it doesn’t mean X is true.

there’s a tendency in discussions to take at face value any statement that agrees with our assumptions and ideology/beliefs/worldview. There’s a tendency to assert that any critical thinking relative to those statements is speculative conspiracy theories. But IMO it’s not a conspiracy to question whether a statement is truthful when we have countless examples of companies issuing misleading and untrustworthy statements.

 

[BookTenTiger]

Why would you take any corporate statement at face value?

Look, it's impossible to approach a situation like this without bias because there is so little information. Here's what we actually know:

Dndbeyond holds a digital art contest.

Dndbeyond cancels the digital art contest.

Dndbeyond releases a statement saying they canceled the digital art contest because of feedback from their community.

When I see this, I think about other articles I've read about digital art contests, and how they are problematic and sometimes exploitative. I have posted links to some of those articles multiple times.

I get a little frustrated when others argue that Dndbeyond canceled the contest because of a "vocal minority" or "idealogues" without supporting that idea with links or articles. To me it reeks of fearmongering and othering, two things which fuel the flames of partisanship and tribalism, especially in social media.

So if you really think a vocal minority of idealogues bullied Dndbeyond into canceling the contest, support your claim! Otherwise I think it's irresponsible to be heaping blame on imaginary foes.

 

[FrogReaver]

Look, it's impossible to approach a situation like this without bias because there is so little information. Here's what we actually know:

Dndbeyond holds a digital art contest.

Dndbeyond cancels the digital art contest.

Dndbeyond releases a statement saying they canceled the digital art contest because of feedback from their community.

When I see this, I think about other articles I've read about digital art contests, and how they are problematic and sometimes exploitative. I have posted links to some of those articles multiple times.

I get a little frustrated when others argue that Dndbeyond canceled the contest because of a "vocal minority" or "idealogues" without supporting that idea with links or articles. To me it reeks of fearmongering and othering, two things which fuel the flames of partisanship and tribalism, especially in social media.

So if you really think a vocal minority of idealogues bullied Dndbeyond into canceling the contest, support your claim! Otherwise I think it's irresponsible to be heaping blame on imaginary foes.

One can say we listened to our community when you have 1 vocal person making a complaint. There simply is no proof or evidence either direction on this one.

 

[BookTenTiger]

One can say we listened to our community when you have 1 vocal person making a complaint. There simply is no proof or evidence either direction on this one.

That is true.

I just don't see it as a reasonable assumption. Can you find any evidence of this having happened?

I'll admit I got a little lost in the weeds on all the discussion of "boilerplate" legal schmegal stuff, but based on the information we have, here's my assumption:

Dndbeyond wants to engage their community, they create a digital art contest and grab whatever legal language is usual for it.

The Dndbeyond creative community gives negative feedback to the contest, I'm assuming based on the history of exploitative digital art contests (I'm basing this, again, on articles I've read and linked to).

Dndbeyond realizes this is not a good way to engage their community, cancels the contest, and will try something new.

I don't think Dndbeyond was purposefully trying to pull the wool over the eyes of their community, I think they were just trying to engage them. But the method they chose to use (digital art contest) does have a history of exploitation. So Dndbeyond responded to their community and canceled it.

Now I am making a lot of assumptions there! But my suspicion is that no one on either side was acting out of malice.