D&D General Interview with D&D VP Jess Lanzillo on Comicbook.com

[Imaro]

Should they not license the game out to Roll20 or Fantasy Grounds or Foundry?

Isn't this covered by the OGL... or do you mean license their software and tools out?

If Jess is sincere that they want to expand online gaming, an authenticated API so material can be used on other platforms is a great way to do it. And it doesn't hurt WOTC's business either – you'd still have to rent the material from them. You'd just get to use it where you want to.

There's already a plug in that can do this for Rolll20 not sure about Fantasy Grounds or Foundry though I believe you can purchase the books or packs for 5e on each... that said why would WotC who isn't a charity support another company's competing product with the suite of tools they own? They already have a free license for their game due to the OGL why isn't that enough?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

That clearly means that they will still have books, something a significant portion of the commentariat has insisted will no longer be true.

[CITATION NEEDED]

I don't think any significant proportion of the "commentariat" (ridiculous Twitter-mindset phrase in the context) has ever suggested anything of the sort.

What has been suggested is that they would like to transition as many people as possible to playing on digital - it would probably be most profitable for them if people actually used both! That's likely the real goal here. Not to eliminate books - but to make them a luxury item and be able to price them accordingly, whilst transitioning as many people as possible to paid subscriptions.

I think a lot of people don't realize how insanely, dementedly pure profit subscription-based stuff can be. That's why there's this huge push to digital - because it allows subscriptions. People are incredibly bad about cancelling subs and really strongly tend to buy into annual subs even for relatively small savings, so you can often extra dozens to hundreds of dollars from people even when they're not actually playing your game or using your facilities in any way (gyms know this better than anyone!).

I agree that this kind of hardhitting journalism needs to be done and they need to be kept accountable.

This is softball stuff that borders on access journalism - it's almost the opposite of "hard-hitting" journalism. AFAICT there's only one source of "hard-hitting" TT RPG-related journalism, and that's The Rascal. Or are you implying that such journalism should exist and this ain't it?

(ENworld isn't typically softball, to be clear, but doesn't really have the angle to be hard-hitting.)

 

[Shardstone]

[CITATION NEEDED]

I don't think any significant proportion of the "commentariat" (ridiculous Twitter-mindset phrase in the context) has ever suggested anything of the sort.

What has been suggested is that they would like to transition as many people as possible to playing on digital - it would probably be most profitable for them if people actually used both! That's likely the real goal here. Not to eliminate books - but to make them a luxury item and be able to price them accordingly, whilst transitioning as many people as possible to paid subscriptions.

I think a lot of people don't realize how insanely, dementedly pure profit subscription-based stuff can be. That's why there's this huge push to digital - because it allows subscriptions. People are incredibly bad about cancelling subs and really strongly tend to buy into annual subs even for relatively small savings, so you can often extra dozens to hundreds of dollars from people even when they're not actually playing your game or using your facilities in any way (gyms know this better than anyone!).


This is softball stuff that borders on access journalism - it's almost the opposite of "hard-hitting" journalism. AFAICT there's only one source of "hard-hitting" TT RPG-related journalism, and that's The Rascal. Or are you implying that such journalism should exist and this ain't it?

Im saying keep the microscope on wotc.

 

[Dire Bare]

Comicbook.com has an interview with the new D&D Vice President Jess Lanzillo.

Here are some interesting quotes with my own commentary.



This feels like misdirection. The question had nothing to do with a false dichotomy between players who play online and those who play in person. She steered the real question about a fear of a future digital D&D and mandates from on-high to shift to digital to a culture war between players who like playing in person and those who play online. That was never the concern. I don't know anyone who would say that playing online shouldn't exist. This is about a fear of WOTC trying to take further control of the game by pushing it into their own walled garden.



If by "freedom" you mean paying us rent to our own imaginations. I'd like the freedom to create by using PDFs of the rulesbooks so I know I'll have them forever. How about that freedom?

Going into this reading this interview, I was prepared for it to aim at the audience she had rather than opening up to any real truth to what decisions are going on with Hasbro and D&D. For me, the only thing that matters are when Hasbro and WOTC commit to things they can't take back like the 5.1 SRD in the CC, the SRD in four languages, actually producing physical books we can buy and keep, support for downloadable VTT platforms like Foundry and Fantasy Grounds – true Ulysses pacts.

I'd have loved to hear:

• Further confirmation of a 5.2 SRD in the CC in March 2024.
• Further commitment to release D&D on other digital platforms like Foundry and Fantasy Grounds.
• Further commitment that all major D&D releases will be in physical books.

Instead, I'm hearing I'm gatekeeping the hobby by being concerned that WOTC is shoring up the walls of their walled garden...



Ok, that sounds pretty cool.

Eh, I think fears of WotC creating a digital "walled garden" for D&D are overblown. I think Lanzillo's answer is a good one.

Could WotC push D&D into a dystopian digital walled garden? Yes. Is current leadership at the company aiming for that outcome? According to Lanzillo and other folks in charge over there, the answer is clearly "no". Could this change when inevitably leadership changes? Well, sure, of course. Let's worry about that when and if it happens.

Lanzillo is telling us that WotC is currently trying to support all modes of play. Fully in-person at the table, at the table with digital support, and fully digital. Which is exactly what they should be doing.

There is zero evidence that WotC is looking to create a dystopian digital experience for D&D, including (bad) microtransactions (and even good ones), and core material being moved to digital only.

They are definitely growing the digital D&D experience, but so far in a very consumer friendly way with their own products and allowing competitors to license both the current edition and classic editions.

WotC won't be taking away your books anytime soon. Not this year, likely not in the next decade either. Now when we reach the singularity, all bets are off . . . .

 

[occam]

[CITATION NEEDED]

D&D Pre-orders; this is sad

From the original post:

You used to be able to buy one product. You buy the book, you have the book, you play the game. You want more book? There's more books. It won't be the same. And, rightfully so, many will say "but you can still just buy the book and ignore all of that!". The thing, is that if my experience proves me right, the kind of practices detailed above will be embraced and accepted by enough people that it will prove the executives right. "That's where the money is." And it will continue to drift in that direction. With video games, you cannot just "buy the game" and ignore the naughty word. Your product is already cut in pieces. You pay the full price, get a part of it. And the design of your products is affected by it. They do not design the best product possible, they design the product they can monetize the most.

I guarantee that in a set number of years, it will all be subscription based and you will own nothing and be happy.

And there were other participants in that lengthy thread making the case that WotC's secret plan was to do away with physical books within the next X years.

We've had a few folks in this thread claim that "no one is saying" WotC will stop publishing physical books, so countering that argument is setting up a "strawman to defend WotC". The thing is, people have made that exact argument, multiple times, on these very boards!

 

[TiQuinn]

Eh, I think fears of WotC creating a digital "walled garden" for D&D are overblown. I think Lanzillo's answer is a good one.

Could WotC push D&D into a dystopian digital walled garden? Yes. Is current leadership at the company aiming for that outcome? According to Lanzillo and other folks in charge over there, the answer is clearly "no". Could this change when inevitably leadership changes? Well, sure, of course. Let's worry about that when and if it happens.

So here’s the thing about walled gardens. You have to have a very successful product first. Once you have a very successful product that has drawn in a majority of users, then you can start putting up the walls, and increasing the prices, and squeezing competitors and partners. Until then, it doesn’t benefit WotC to admit anything.

 

[occam]

• Dig at Gary Gygax: "We're not Gary Gygax. We're not going to tell you the right way to play."

I think the meaning of that comment is ambiguous. First of all, the quote was "We're not Gary Gygax. We don't get to tell you the right way to do it." To me, that could mean there's an understanding that current stewards of D&D don't have the authority that Gygax once had, so they have to listen more to what the expanding community of D&D players might want. You could interpret the comment in a number of ways, I think, but here's the full quote for context:

"I want to make... I don't know, Interview with the Vampire," Lanzillo said. "I don't know if that works for us as a business, but let's talk about it. Let's make sure our rules and our frameworks accommodate that. If that's the experience you want to have...I don't want to take it off the table. It goes back to our digital and analog conversation. We're not Gary Gygax. We don't get to tell you the right way to do it. The fans and the players are going to tell us what they want to do, and then we're going to say 'That sounds cool.' And we're going to have some cool, sick ideas, and we're going to do those, too."

 

[MockingBird]

In Christians video on this subject it was mentioned that WotC has noticed that on boarding new MtG players through the digital game increased sales in the tactile game. I feel this is an angle that's getting missed too.

 

[Dire Bare]

My key takeaways:

• Dig at Gary Gygax: "We're not Gary Gygax. We're not going to tell you the right way to play."

A fair dig, because that's what Gary did. He became very strident on the right way to play . . . his way. But, probably an unnecessary dig.

 

[Dire Bare]

Think the book Legends & Lattes or Fourth Wing.

Fourth Wing is Romantasy, Legends & Lattes is Cozy Fantasy.

Any fantasy novel can have romance in it, but Romantasy is a blending of the Romance and Fantasy genres that tells a fantasy story focused on the romance. Cozy Fantasy can have romance too, but it's more "slice of life" and low stakes than high adventure. In Legends and Lattes, the protagonist is an orc barbarian retiring from the adventuring life and just wants to open a coffee shop. In the process, she does find adventure and romance, but the core plot is opening that coffee shop.