D&D Beyond Cancellations Changed WotCs Plans

Gizmodo has revealed that the partial OGL v1.1 walkback yesterday was in response to the fan campaign to cancel D&D Beyond subscriptions, with "five digits" worth of cancellations. However, the site also reveals that management at the company believed that fans were overreating and that it would all be forgotten in a few months.

In order to delete a D&D Beyond account entirely, users are funneled into a support system that asks them to submit tickets to be handled by customer service: Sources from inside Wizards of the Coast confirm that earlier this week there were “five digits” worth of complaining tickets in the system. Both moderation and internal management of the issues have been “a mess,” they said, partially due to the fact that WotC has recently downsized the D&D Beyond support team.

Yesterday's walkback removed the royalties from the license, but still 'de-authorized' the OGL v1.0a, something which may or may not be legally possible, depending on who you ask.

Cancelled D&D Beyond Subscriptions Forced Hasbro's Hand

Swift consumer action prompted Dungeons & Dragons publisher Wizards of the Coast to to scrap licensing updates. The players aren't done yet.

gizmodo.com

 

[mamba]

That brand, that potential, the money it could make, is worth more than the entire TTRPG industry put togther. It's generational money. It's what Marvel has, what Disney has, what Warner Bros thinks it has (hahaha, Space Jam 2), what every corporate owner of IP really wants deep down. I find it entirely plausible that WotC wants that. And it's evident to me that WotC considers the OGL and it not giving them quality control over products made with it to be a risk to that.

well, it isn’t. The characters, the names, the cities, the history, … none of that is covered by the OGL

 

[isidorus]

I actually canceled and asked the to delete my account. They irritated me enough to do that. So I am c=going to concertrate on Level Up, Pathfinder 2e and Cypher (I really wish it had a good updated dedicated character generator) and maybe Savage Worlds

 

[Dausuul]

So how many people are cancelling their DDB subscription vs. completely deleting their account (whether or not they actually have a subscription)?

I've canceled my sub, but I have yet to delete my account. I'm in a similar position to @Whizbang Dustyboots, in that I have a Master subscription which my group has been relying on, and we're in the midst of a 5E campaign. However, my sub runs through November, and the campaign will certainly wrap up well before then.

Once it does, it will be my turn to GM again, and I plan to pitch the group on a new system -- probably Dungeon World. At that time, if Wizards hasn't yet gotten their cranium out of their rectal orifice, I'll delete my account entirely.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I don't think anyone doubts that they want to build up a bigger entertainment empire, @I'm A Banana .

We're two months out from the D&D movie and we've just heard the first concrete news in a while about the TV show. Those are definitely things they should be pursuing and you're right, I think a story about the elven civil war featuring the drow would be fantastic.

But none of that requires crushing someone who has a side hustle publishing 5E adventures from their kitchen table. And that is 100% what they're doing. And if they say that's not what they mean to do, the choices are that they're lying or they're grossly incompetent. There aren't any other choices here.

They say that's not their intent. I'm not a mind reader, and I find it very plausible that they're just real bad at this, so lets run with that for the sake of argument here first.

If it's incompetence, I think it's understandable incompetence. The kind of incompetence that follows pretty naturally from the position they're in. The standard in the World of Corporate Brands is to have very tight control over how people use those brands. Morality clauses, the GSL's "you can't redefine" clause, legal language that protects the brand from misuse...these are all pretty standard in that world, however bad a fit they are for the TTRPG space. You can't license a Disney board game and then show Mickey Mouse doing drugs or whatever. The OGL doesn't stop anyone from making a Cleric of Sacred Nudity, and that's a risk that brand teams are not happy with. Whether they're a good idea or enforceable or whatever is kind of beside the point, the point is that WotC's Brand Team is used to a world where control of the things that could impact the brand is much tighter than it is with the OGL as it is today.

So, when the Brand Team sees that the OGL lets someone make a D&D-alike RPG and WotC doesn't control the content that RPG, they see a risk to the brand. Is it a big risk? Is it a realistic risk? Well, it's definitely not what Disney or Warner would do, and that's the world that Corporate Brand People know.

So, yeah, if you're a profit-motivated company who is looking to Monetize Your Brand, I think it makes sense that you're going to want to make sure to send the message that you don't want people doing Naughty Things with it. Even if it's actually a very bad idea, it's the kind of bad idea that's appealing to you. It's familiar. It's protective. It's even virtuous ("stewardship"). As far as blunders go, I can understand why they're making it, over and over again (because this isn't the first time they've done something like this!). I don't need to invoke intentional deception or hostility. Not that this rules out intentional deception or hostility, just a bit of Occam's Razor on my part.

"Gross Incompetence" is definitely one way to put it, but I think that loses significant nuance in its simplistic appeal. Imagining the situation more complexly, I can see the perverse incentives of market capitalism and IP management at work. And that's useful because it helps show me what can be done about it. Why cancelling DDB subscriptions has a big impact. Why WotC has made this mistake again and again (and why it's not something they're willing to budge on for whatever the next version of this is).

Shaming WotC for their actions, calling them dishonest, saying they want to ruin 3PPs, sure. Makes sense, might even be true, whatever. None of that is going to stop them from doing this. Clearly, they're still moving forward with plans in the next OGL iteration to gain more control over the content of games that use the next OGL iteration. That's not something they're budging on, even with all the public outrage. In their minds, DDB cancellations and 3PPs abandoning D&D support are a price worth paying when compared with the massive possible gains. And they're blind to the idea that messing with this legalistic license would itself hurt the brand more, because being controlling about branding hasn't hurt Disney that much, so why would D&D be any different? (well, they're going to find out, I guess).

If you want to stop them, you've gotta remove their profit incentive to do it. Which, in the theoretical world where the Brand Shenanigans are a big driver, means you have to take it out of their control.

Which is part of why I really like the bit about the ORC being set up with a third party.

 

[I'm A Banana]

well, it isn’t. The characters, the names, the cities, the history, … none of that is covered by the OGL

I mean, yeah. But feelings don't care about your facts, and Brand Management is all about the feelings. Just because there's absolutely zero truth to the idea that D&D is a manual for worshiping Satan doesn't mean that the D&D brand wasn't significantly defined by that idea for like a decade. The facts will not save anyone. Modern brand managers worry about that kind of stuff, and more control over the brand is always going to be something they want.

So this idea that they were "being honest" is obviously wrong.

One of the things I think a lot of people are overlooking is that the facts aren't the most important thing here. The most important thing in the world of Brand Management is the feelings of the normie public. Copyright, trademark, licensing, product identity, these are all just various tools in the service of controlling perceptions. And if putting a morality clause in the OGL helps them get more control over public perceptions going forward than they have had in the past, they are going to do it, because it is Good for the Brand.

So whatever other solutions WotC puts in place, altering the OGL in a way that gives them more control over the content of things published in it is always going to seem like a good idea to them.

 

[rcade]

That brand, that potential, the money it could make, is worth more than the entire TTRPG industry put togther. It's generational money. It's what Marvel has, what Disney has, what Warner Bros thinks it has (hahaha, Space Jam 2), what every corporate owner of IP really wants deep down. I find it entirely plausible that WotC wants that. And it's evident to me that WotC considers the OGL and it not giving them quality control over products made with it to be a risk to that.

This seems like two separate issues to me. WOTC exploiting its distinctive settings for D&D in movies and TV shows has nothing to do with the OGL because the IP of their settings are is not shared with anybody. The D&D brand is not shared with anybody.

 

[overgeeked]

This seems like two separate issues to me. WOTC exploiting its distinctive settings for D&D in movies and TV shows has nothing to do with the OGL because the IP of their settings are is not shared with anybody. The D&D brand is not shared with anybody.

Exactly. "Roll 1d20 + modifiers vs DC" isn't the brand. If there is any "brand" to D&D it's all the specific stories and characters they own.

 

[Scribe]

This seems like two separate issues to me. WOTC exploiting its distinctive settings for D&D in movies and TV shows has nothing to do with the OGL because the IP of their settings are is not shared with anybody. The D&D brand is not shared with anybody.

Correct, this is corporate smokescreen.

This is not about the brand (insomuch as a name is a brand).

 

[jerryrice4949]

They say that's not their intent. I'm not a mind reader, and I find it very plausible that they're just real bad at this, so lets run with that for the sake of argument here first.

If it's incompetence, I think it's understandable incompetence. The kind of incompetence that follows pretty naturally from the position they're in. The standard in the World of Corporate Brands is to have very tight control over how people use those brands. Morality clauses, the GSL's "you can't redefine" clause, legal language that protects the brand from misuse...these are all pretty standard in that world, however bad a fit they are for the TTRPG space. You can't license a Disney board game and then show Mickey Mouse doing drugs or whatever. The OGL doesn't stop anyone from making a Cleric of Sacred Nudity, and that's a risk that brand teams are not happy with. Whether they're a good idea or enforceable or whatever is kind of beside the point, the point is that WotC's Brand Team is used to a world where control of the things that could impact the brand is much tighter than it is with the OGL as it is today.

So, when the Brand Team sees that the OGL lets someone make a D&D-alike RPG and WotC doesn't control the content that RPG, they see a risk to the brand. Is it a big risk? Is it a realistic risk? Well, it's definitely not what Disney or Warner would do, and that's the world that Corporate Brand People know.

So, yeah, if you're a profit-motivated company who is looking to Monetize Your Brand, I think it makes sense that you're going to want to make sure to send the message that you don't want people doing Naughty Things with it. Even if it's actually a very bad idea, it's the kind of bad idea that's appealing to you. It's familiar. It's protective. It's even virtuous ("stewardship"). As far as blunders go, I can understand why they're making it, over and over again (because this isn't the first time they've done something like this!). I don't need to invoke intentional deception or hostility. Not that this rules out intentional deception or hostility, just a bit of Occam's Razor on my part.

"Gross Incompetence" is definitely one way to put it, but I think that loses significant nuance in its simplistic appeal. Imagining the situation more complexly, I can see the perverse incentives of market capitalism and IP management at work. And that's useful because it helps show me what can be done about it. Why cancelling DDB subscriptions has a big impact. Why WotC has made this mistake again and again (and why it's not something they're willing to budge on for whatever the next version of this is).

Shaming WotC for their actions, calling them dishonest, saying they want to ruin 3PPs, sure. Makes sense, might even be true, whatever. None of that is going to stop them from doing this. Clearly, they're still moving forward with plans in the next OGL iteration to gain more control over the content of games that use the next OGL iteration. That's not something they're budging on, even with all the public outrage. In their minds, DDB cancellations and 3PPs abandoning D&D support are a price worth paying when compared with the massive possible gains. And they're blind to the idea that messing with this legalistic license would itself hurt the brand more, because being controlling about branding hasn't hurt Disney that much, so why would D&D be any different? (well, they're going to find out, I guess).

If you want to stop them, you've gotta remove their profit incentive to do it. Which, in the theoretical world where the Brand Shenanigans are a big driver, means you have to take it out of their control.

Which is part of why I really like the bit about the ORC being set up with a third party.

Well said. I believe tho is the crux of the issue. And the community just does not see it that way hence the outrage and anger and inability to find any middle ground. The two sides are looking at the issue for different planets.

 

[wellis]

Also, I get the feeling while Hasbro & WotC are looking at this from a "brand perspective", they don't seem to realize most 3PPs probably aren't making enough money to think of branching out to using their settings for stuff like video games or TV shows.

As much as I would love the idea of say a Scarred Lands video game, for example, I doubt it'll ever happen.