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

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Literally, it means 10,000-99,999. In actual use it's a means of obfusticating the true number (it's not that hard to write, say, 32,000) to make it look smaller or larger, depending on your goal. If you want to make 10,000 sound a lot, you say "5 figures". If you want to make 99,000 sound less than "almost a hundred thousand", you also say 5 figures.

Giving the actual number to Linda, assuming the leaker has it, would narrow down who the leaker was, since only a limited subset of employees have access to the real numbers and, since it's a moving target, it would reveal when they saw the numbers.

You can get more accuracy, but it means the people who are on your side will lose their jobs and likely get sued.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Yeah, how many are paying anything and how many of those are canceling would be the bottom line numbers of biggest impact I would expect.

I'm sure I'm going to get stuff thrown at me, but I haven't cancelled my Masters subscription yet. My whole game group (more than a dozen people) have paid for books for our games to use, and I'm not comfortable cutting everyone off at this time. I suspect there are other whales like me sticking around for the moment, even if it's uncomfortable.

Now, if WotC keeps f'in' around like this, they're definitely going to find out when I and the other whales start to cancel.

 

[Scribe]

I think it a a fundamental misunderstanding. WoTC executive see D&D less as primarily a RPG and more as a brand. Like Lord of the Rings for example. They want to a) protect it and b) monetize it. LoTR didn’t let Lego use their IP for free. Or Amazon for that matter. It was licensed and paid for.

I am not saying WoTC is correct or right but I see that as the crux of the issue.

LotR is a brand. It is setting, it is history, it is characters, it is style.

D&D is an open SRD, 'we are everything' RPG rules set.

This is Wizard's unstated issue. This is the total problem here.

The actual issue, is that D&D is not a brand at all, at least not one that is anything but generic and shallow.

 

[Incenjucar]

Hey, be fair.

They're Lawful Evil.

Neutral Evil is more fitting for those willing to haphazardly ignore the law.

 

[MockingBird]

I'm sure I'm going to get stuff thrown at me, but I haven't cancelled my Masters subscription yet. My whole game group (more than a dozen people) have paid for books for our games to use, and I'm not comfortable cutting everyone off at this time. I suspect there are other whales like me sticking around for the moment, even if it's uncomfortable.

Now, if WotC keeps f'in' around like this, they're definitely going to find out when I and the other whales start to cancel.

I haven't canceled yet either. I would like to see where all this lands before making that decision.

 

[jerryrice4949]

LotR is a brand. It is setting, it is history, it is characters, it is style.

D&D is an open SRD, 'we are everything' RPG rules set.

This is Wizard's unstated issue. This is the total problem here.

The actual issue, is that D&D is not a brand at all, at least not one that is anything but generic and shallow.

Says you but that is not how they see it. Rules sets don’t have movies and TV shows. That is the why each side cannot find a middle. Lots of RPG players see it as a game and WoTC sees it as a brand. If you read OGL 1.1 it looks exactly the type of thing Marvel, LoTR etc would have for their licensed product. We can just think Hasbro is evil. That is ok but it misses the nuance.

 

[Composer99]

I'm inclined to say that there's plenty of stuff to build a D&D brand on - and to my mind none of it requires closing off the OGL.

The brands that Hasbro/WotC might choose to emulate - LotR, Harry Potter, or Marvel/DC, in particular - aren't rulesets. They're characters. They're stories. They're icons and symbols. Think the Bat-symbol in the air, the One Ring with its Elvish script shining, Spider-Man, Superman, iconic magic wands, and on and on.

Nothing about the OGL prevents WotC from leveraging those elements of D&D - almost none of which are part of any SRD (save, perhaps, for the varieties of dragon) - into a brand. At least, not IMO. Nothing about the OGL keeps beholders, Tiamat, rust monsters, Drizz't, the D&D ampersand, or the Heroes of the Lance (etc.) from appearing on t-shirts, ball caps, coffee mugs, and so on.

Yes, many D&D characters and stories are separated into different settings - but I suspect that's why the new "implied setting" that comes across in 1D&D playtest documents is "The D&D Multiverse", which ties them all together.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Neutral Evil is more fitting for those willing to haphazardly ignore the law.

Neutral Evil doesn't typically try to get things done through the law, IMO. That's too slow and too indirect and pretending that the law matters to NE.

(That's right: An argument about alignment is always on topic at ENWorld!)

 

[Yaarel]

Can someone explain the "5 digits complaining" thing? To me it sounds like it was only 5 tickets for cancelations but I know I'm not understanding it correctly.

5-digit figures:

10,000
99,999

 

[jerryrice4949]

I'm inclined to say that there's plenty of stuff to build a D&D brand on - and to my mind none of it requires closing off the OGL.

The brands that Hasbro/WotC might choose to emulate - LotR or Marvel/DC, in particular - aren't rulesets. They're characters. They're stories. They're icons and symbols. Think the Bat-symbol in the air, the One Ring with its Elvish script shining, Spider-Man, Superman, Ms Marvel, and on and on.

Nothing about the OGL prevents WotC from leveraging those elements of D&D - almost none of which are part of any SRD (save, perhaps, for the varieties of dragon) - into a brand. At least, not IMO. Nothing about the OGL keeps beholders, Tiamat, rust monsters, Drizz't, the D&D ampersand, or the Heroes of the Lance (etc.) from appearing on t-shirts, ball caps, coffee mugs, and so on.

Yes, many D&D characters and stories are separated into different settings - but I suspect that's why the new "implied setting" that comes across in 1D&D playtest documents is "The D&D Multiverse", which ties them all together.

I tend to agree with you. But reverse it. Could you ever see Marvel/DC, Harry Potter and LoTR ever having an OGL of any type. Of course not. It is not apples to apples and I understand that. And the difference is D&D was a game before it became whatever it is now.