D&D General Is DnD being mothballed?

[Alzrius]

Do we know the trend of those numbers? Did they go from 20M to 30M, or from 50M to 30M? If they cut the rope instead of following the trajectory to the bitter end, that is perfectly ok and not greed.

I'm not aware that we do. But as I noted before, the #2 company in the TTRPG space found a way to make them work.

Now, I want to be clear that I'm not drawing a straight line from Paizo to WotC in that regard; quite the contrary. Would WotC have needed to change their distribution method(s), and possibly their target audience? That seems likely. Would they have been able to hit $100M or more per year? I'd call that very unlikely. But the salient point is that that particular publishing model was not inherently unprofitable.

It is also 15 years later, what was your goal 15 years ago can be today's undermonetized. I doubt the company I work for would be happy with its sales / profits from 15 years ago.

It can be, but I don't believe that it actually is. Certainly, that's my lay opinion, and based on incomplete information, but based on the information that I have I don't think it's an unreasonable opinion.

I have no problem with WotC building their own VTT, releasing computer games, movies, .... those are all legitimate ways to grow their business. I was very much opposed to their OGL stance, but they have reversed that and released the SRD under CC, so while not everything is forgiven and forgotten, I am ok where we are, but keeping an eye on them and 'diversifying'

Which is a perfectly respectable take on things. I personally worry about the VTT, since that seemed to be a major aspect to why they tried such a draconian move with the OGL v1.1 (in that it seemed to be trying to squeeze out established VTTs through leveraging the new license), but I'm not suggesting that there's anything wrong with WotC licensing movies, video games, etc.

 

[Alzrius]

While 5e sales growth has apparently slowed, sure, is there any indication that it isn’t still growing?

Slowing is understandable with the revision on the way. But is there any indication that the 5e market isn’t still growing?

I'm not sure if this was directed toward me (or if it was just thrown out there in particular), but I'll admit that I don't know; Teos Abadia may have drawn some conclusions in that regard, but I honestly can't recall off the top of my head, though to be fair that's not really germane to what I've been discussing here.

 

[Iosue]

I suspect you know that the incredibly poor terms, and trying to renege on the perpetuity of the OGL v1.0, was what I was referring to. That those were leaked doesn't really change anything; the community was always going to rebel against what WotC was trying to pull, and they should have known that and course-corrected ahead of time, rather than after the fact.

Their strategy as I understand it, was to move to a new license* in which they could have more control over digital offerings, and obtain royalties from TPPs. To this end, they invited major TPPs to hear favorable term offers under NDA, with the intention of obtaining TPP buy-in for the move to a license. Regardless of whether I agree with that strategy in the abstract, I don't think it is an untenable strategy for a company to pursue.

In as much as most TPP consumers get their product from the major TPPs, nor do I think it was a fait accompli that backlash would have been as strong if the major TPPs supported the move. It may have been at an acceptable level to justify the move to the better (in WotC's eyes) license. Keep in mind that WotC announced the license with royalties and new VTT policy in December 2022, and there was no significant backlash or boycotts, so I don't think it's so obvious--from a corporate perspective--that the OGL would have such an emotional valence for a significant number of end-users, who do not have a financial stake in it.

With the terms under NDA, WotC ostensibly had the ability to quietly retool the new license in light of resistance from the major TPPs, which they were apparently doing, since the 1.1 license was scheduled for release on January 4, but was not released at that time (Codega's article detailing the leak was published on January 5).

So, no, I don't think we can judge whether WotC's strategy was optimal or not, since it never got implemented. TPP buy-in was not forthcoming, and then the terms were leaked, and the backlash ensued, before WotC had a chance to revise or abandon the new license. If you want to say that going forward with the 1.1 license despite not having TPP buy-in is a bad strategy, I absolutely agree, but WotC didn't do that. Everyone was angry for what they explored doing, not what they actually did.

*Technically called "OGL 1.1," but since it was not at all an open license, I decline to call it that.

 

[Alzrius]

Their strategy as I understand it, was to move to a new license* in which they could have more control over digital offerings, and obtain royalties from TPPs. To this end, they invited major TPPs to hear favorable term offers under NDA, with the intention of obtaining TPP buy-in for the move to a license. Regardless of whether I agree with that strategy in the abstract, I don't think it is an untenable strategy for a company to pursue.

Leaving aside the introduction of the term "untenable" into the discussion, the offer was only "favorable" compared to what other people would have gotten with regard to the OGL v1.1 itself, not with the status quo established under the OGL v1.0a and the understanding that it was perpetual. To go from a more favorable status quo to a less favorable new paradigm (in terms of what everyone who wasn't WotC/Hasbro would consider "favorable") strikes me as being, well...unfavorable. Which is another way of saying suboptimal.

In as much as most TPP consumers get their product from the major TPPs, nor do I think it was a fait accompli that backlash would have been as strong if the major TPPs supported the move. It may have been at an acceptable level to justify the move to the better (in WotC's eyes) license. Keep in mind that WotC announced the license with royalties and new VTT policy in December 2022, and there was no significant backlash or boycotts, so I don't think it's so obvious--from a corporate perspective--that the OGL would have such an emotional valence for a significant number of end-users, who do not have a financial stake in it.

I disagree with regard to the backlash not being fait accompli, though I think it's kind of a moot point because the idea that the major third-party companies going along with the OGL v1.1 always struck me as ludicrous; it wasn't that long ago that almost every third-party company out there turned their nose up at the GSL (both versions), and that wasn't as harsh as the OGL v1.1 was. That the OGL v1.1 and its attempt to kill the OGL v1.0a would go over like a lead balloon was in no way unforeseeable.

With the terms under NDA, WotC ostensibly had the ability to quietly retool the new license in light of resistance from the major TPPs, which they were apparently doing, since the 1.1 license was scheduled for release on January 4, but was not released at that time (Codega's article detailing the leak was published on January 5).

This strikes me as extremely optimistic; based on WotC's responses to the public backlash, I'm of the opinion that only such a move would have gotten them to drop their alternative OGLs (remember, we saw a draft of v1.1, then heard about a 2.0, and finally saw a v1.2 floating around before they scrapped them all). Recall that Linda Codega also reported that it was the mass cancellations of D&D Beyond which finally got WotC to give up the ghost in that regard. (Also, while Codega's article detailing the leak might not have come out until January 5th, it wasn't a total surprise; there had been rumors since the previous November, though a lot of people, myself included, didn't believe them.)

So, no, I don't think we can judge whether WotC's strategy was optimal or not, since it never got implemented. TPP buy-in was not forthcoming, and then the terms were leaked, and the backlash ensued, before WotC had a chance to revise or abandon the new license. If you want to say that going forward with the 1.1 license despite not having TPP buy-in is a bad strategy, I absolutely agree, but WotC didn't do that. Everyone was angry for what they explored doing, not what they actually did.

*Technically called "OGL 1.1," but since it was not at all an open license, I decline to call it that.

Again, I disagree here, though I'll note again that this strikes me as a tangent of a tangent (of a tangent). While the entire thing is a counterfactual, the circumstantial evidence as I see it suggests that feedback from a select group of third-party publishers wasn't going to move WotC out of their position; it might have changed a few things with regards to the specifics, but I believe that whether or not the leaks happened, they were always going to put forward a new, more-restrictive license. Likewise, I think that the difference between what they "explored" and what they "actively tried to do" is paper-thin to the point of being nonexistent. They stopped before they "actually" revoked the OGL v1.0a, but only barely.

 

[Clint_L]

Leaving aside that I'm not sure "evil" is necessarily the right word here, it sounds like you're talking about something else entirely. My point was that it's not at all impossible, or unreasonable, to find certain TTRPG companies more or less ethical than others. That's a separate consideration from whether or not any of them are as good as the very best, or as bad as the very worst, companies out there.

It seems odd that you seem to keep contrasting WotCs business practices negatively with Paizos, when until very recently a large part of Paizos practice was “pay employees the bare minimum.”

 

[Maxperson]

3.5 following the sales trend of every other edition of the game previously isn’t evidence that it was destined to failure? When every other edition to date failed?

So 1e didn't fail. 2e happened because the people who took over TSR wanted to screw over Gygax. 2e also didn't fail. TSR failed due to gross mismanagement which took down 2e with it. 3e didn't fail any more than 5e is failing. In both instances WotC wanted to update the rules and make some changes. 3.5 therefore hasn't followed any trend of D&D failure. 4e did fail, but one instance of a D&D failure isn't a trend.

 

[Alzrius]

It seems odd that you seem to keep contrasting WotCs business practices negatively with Paizos, when until very recently a large part of Paizos practice was “pay employees the bare minimum.”

That's because you're misunderstanding my position. I'm not contrasting business practices (at least not in the general manner you're presenting here); my original point was that the 3.5 release schedule was not necessarily unsustainable or unprofitable. The ethical tangent was introduced by another poster.

Having said that, in general I find that WotC's scandals have done more harm for the overall community, which is the metric which I personally find to be most salient.

 

[Parmandur]

It seems odd that you seem to keep contrasting WotCs business practices negatively with Paizos, when until very recently a large part of Paizos practice was “pay employees the bare minimum.”

That inconvenient set of facts gets in the way of a "big business bad, small business good" narrative.

But just because Paizo has had issues with a toxic work environment historically doesn't mean people can enjoy their products or buy them: Joe Blow subscribing to their Adventure Path or what have you is not directly engaging with that problematic behavior or intending to endorse it.

And hey, like the OGL situation, Paizo improved on thst score.

 

[teitan]

I remember when it was more than 6 a month.

D&D's release schedule peaked in 1995 with 53 softcovers, 15 boxed sets, 3 hardcovers, 3 fake leather encyclopedias, 2 sets of looseleaf pages and 1 screen. There were also 40 novels and gamebooks that year!

And people call 5e bloated with… 3 players option books and 4 monster expansions. Or three monster expansions if you prefer MotM to Volo and ToF.

 

[Clint_L]

That's because you're misunderstanding my position. I'm not contrasting business practices (at least not in the general manner you're presenting here); my original point was that the 3.5 release schedule was not necessarily unsustainable or unprofitable. The ethical tangent was introduced by another poster.

Having said that, in general I find that WotC's scandals have done more harm for the overall community, which is the metric which I personally find to be most salient.

But your essential evidence for 3.5 being sustainable has been Paizo. Which was partly sustaining itself by treating its employees poorly.

I also do not understand holding the OGL debacle, never actually implemented and in fact more than reversed, more harmful to the community than actually causing measurable harm to members of that community.

Edit: unless by “community” you mean “people who harvest views by being self-righteous on the internet.” In which case, WotC did them a solid.