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

 

[raniE]

That's a ridiculous distinction, frankly.

No, it’s the only reasonable one, a casual player is one who plays casually, isn’t too invested, could just stop participating in the hobby whenever. Someone getting a bunch of third party stuff is almost certainly beyond that point. Whether it’s third party stuff you would like or think is serious is kind of irrelevant. They’re invested in the game.

I’m sure there’s exceptions of a casual player just getting a book but still not being that invested, and there’s definitely serious players who buy little. But in general, this is what the suits are talking about when they say D&D is under-monetized. Bunch of people playing but not paying.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

But at the end of the day, it's all just reading tea leaves to divine the intentions of people we'll never meet.

It's very easy to determine someone's intentions when they shove a baseball bat in your face and say "SIGN OR ELSE".

Which is what the OGL 1.1 and associated term sheet essentially was.

That you're claiming it's a matter of being "open-minded" is utterly destroyed by WotC's own behaviour. If IP protection was remotely a serious concern, they wouldn't have presented such an aggressive, stupid, and grasping OGL 1.1, would they?

Because what they're going to actually achieve is a myriad of books with a stuff like 5E in a giant font on them, or "For use with the world's most popular roleplaying game" or even "Compatible with D&D". This will be all over them. And none of them will be OGL. If WotC wants to stop that, they're going to have to go to court, and literally "risk it all" trying to suppress them.

What they've achieved, if anything, is to significantly increase the real-terms risk to their brand.

If brand protection was really the goal, they would have made a very generous OGL 1.1, which did NOT invalidate the OGL 1.0a (because that's unnecessary and increases risk as I've said), and just had that OGL offer an actual "WotC Seal of Approval"-type branding (perhaps with the D&D logo). That could have got countless people to sign. But because they're not actually serious about brand protection, they went for maximum greed, maximum stupidity, like some '90s cartoon villain.

No, it’s the only reasonable one, a casual player is one who plays casually, isn’t too invested, could just stop participating in the hobby whenever.

You think that's true of 20m of the 30m now playing fit that? I don't.

But in general, this is what the suits are talking about when they say D&D is under-monetized. Bunch of people playing but not paying.

I agree there, but none of them are going to balk at buying a new PHB or whatever, it's been years, and probably only some of them even need it. You implied they'd quit with 1D&D.

What will actually make them quit, though, is trying to make them "pay to play". That's a different thing from just an edition change, though.

 

[Enrahim2]

As I was the one using causal players at the start of this mini echange, maybe I should clarify what I meant. I intended it to mean consumers that are not very into looking at the "meta" of what is going on aroubd the game. They can be heavy spenders, but their purchase decissions is more formed by "wow, this looks cool" or "this seem practical", than any deeper dive into the merits of the various products.

For this category a simple badge is of immense value, as they then know at a glance they got something matching their game, and not for instance a supplement for some retroclone that is unusable at your table. (My dad once bought Drakar och Demoner assuming it was a D&D translation)

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I intended it to mean consumers that are not very into looking at the "meta" of what is going on aroubd the game. They can be heavy spenders, but their purchase decissions is more formed by "wow, this looks cool" or "this seem practical, than any deeper dive in the merits of the various products.

That's what I would normally understand by the usage.

 

[raniE]

You think that's true of 20m of the 30m now playing fit that? I don't.

Sounds about right, yeah. Maybe 15 million. Roleplaying is a precarious hobby, it is easy to fall out of if circumstances change.

I agree there, but none of them are going to balk at buying a new PHB or whatever, it's been years, and probably only some of them even need it. You implied they'd quit with 1D&D.

Oh I think many will. For a lot of people this will be their first edition change, and it’s not even going to be a particularly massive change. So why should they need to buy new rule books when the content is almost exactly the same.

What will actually make them quit, though, is trying to make them "pay to play". That's a different thing from just an edition change, though.

I think this would be worse, for sure, but I think both will happen. I also think some exodus of players is probably already happening.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I also think some exodus of players is probably already happening.

I very much doubt they're leaving RPGs entirely, though, to be honest.

 

[raniE]

I very much doubt they're leaving RPGs entirely, though, to be honest.

I think some certainly are. D&D group collapses because some people say “I’m not playing any Hasbro stuff” and someone else says “I don’t want to learn another game” so you just go back to playing video games, or board games, or sewing or working on restoring that classic car or whatever other hobbies and interests you have.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I think some certainly are. D&D group collapses because some people say “I’m not playing any Hasbro stuff” and someone else says “I don’t want to learn another game” so you just go back to playing video games, or board games, or sewing or working on restoring that classic car or whatever other hobbies and interests you have.

Very skeptical.

People tend to drop out of D&D or RPGs due to life/lifestyle changes, not because someone didn't want to play a specific game. Obviously things like sewing/restoring don't fill the same gap. RPGs are a very social thing that take a lot of effort to organise. Board games can replace them, but nobody who plays boardgames is freaking out about "I don't want to learn another game" lol.

 

[raniE]

Very skeptical.

People tend to drop out of D&D or RPGs due to life/lifestyle changes, not because someone didn't want to play a specific game. Obviously things like sewing/restoring don't fill the same gap. RPGs are a very social thing that take a lot of effort to organise. Board games can replace them, but nobody who plays boardgames is freaking out about "I don't want to learn another game" lol.

The part about RPGs taking a lot of time to organize is exactly why people fall out. I didn’t really play outside of one convention a year for five years, 2010-2014, with the preceding three years having a total of maybe six play sessions stretched across them. Because it was hard to organize, and it was a lot easier to get people to do board game nights or watch tv shows or go out drinking.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The part about RPGs taking a lot of time to organize is exactly why people fall out. I didn’t really play outside of one convention a year for five years, 2010-2014, with the preceding three years having a total of maybe six play sessions stretched across them. Because it was hard to organize, and it was a lot easier to get people to do board game nights or watch tv shows or go out drinking.

That sounds a lot more a lifestyle issue than anything else. I don't mean that in a mean way, but most people have periods in their lives when the practical difficulties of organising RPGs are more or less significant.

On the other hand, I've never seen an edition change wipe out a group. Either they go with the new edition or they don't, tends to be the reaction. I'm sure there are exceptions, but I don't think it's common. Similarly with RPG changes - the only times I've seen those go wrong are when the DM is the only person who wants to change, and he wants to change to something totally different in style and clunk-as-heck in mechanics.

I do think 5E will lose some people over time (more with this idiocy disenchanting people re: D&D), because the huge bulk of 5E's players are in 15-29 age range, which is the easiest range to play D&D in until you get into what, your mid-40s or later? As more and more of those people hit their 30s, where they're having to deal with kids and so on, but where those kids are far too young to play RPGs with, I think there will be a dip.