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

 

[I'm A Banana]

20 years of nudity, sex, gore and nude sex gore released under the OGL and no one associating it with WotC even when people get mad about it shows that this is a complete non-issue and any supposed concern about this by Hasbro is fake.

We live in a year where Nazis are pretty open about their affiliations and there are certainly a number of chuds in the community. And yet, somehow, they aren't doing big projects that blow back on the good name of Wizards of the Coast. The amount of pearl-clutching about this is utterly inane, especially given that the people who give Wizards the most PR problems about racist stuff is Wizards themselves. You don't need to change the OGL to stop Hasbro from getting a bunch of bad PR, you just need to maybe let the sensitivity editors get a few more passes at the draft.

I think that if you're only looking at the past 20 years and not looking to the next 20 years and what might happen or could happen in that span of time, then you're not looking at this the same way WotC is looking at this. Yeah, it could definitely still be either simply overblown or a lie designed to placate the community. I believe it could also be people trying to do a good job at protecting the brand (which means exerting more control over content where they can), and I'm describing why I am keeping that possibility open.

So I'm entering the possibility as something one might want to entertain, if you're inclined to be open-minded about it. But at the end of the day, it's all just reading tea leaves to divine the intentions of people we'll never meet. Regardless of their actual intentions, what I'm very confident of is that their next version of this is still going to have some kind of "don't do naughty things under this license" clause, and that no amount of community grousing will get them to abandon that aspect of it.

Where I think we might have more leverage is in this de-authorization thing, It's a lot less clear to me why that would be something they'd really want to keep, especially as it is also likely to be the thing that is the most risky to the community and legally dubious.

 

[Scribe]

Where I think we might have more leverage is in this de-authorization thing, It's a lot less clear to me why that would be something they'd really want to keep, especially as it is also likely to be the thing that is the most risky to the community and legally dubious.

They must deauthorize the 1.0, as it already contains the 5.0 SRD, 5e-alike systems based upon said SRD already exist for sale outside of Wizbro control, and OneD&D is stated to be intended to be backwards compatible with said 5e.

All of that amounts to.

The core of their next 'evergreen' edition, is being sold by others, RIGHT NOW, and could be picked up on by some other larger company, and replicated.

1.0 will be the last thing they give up, as it is an existential threat to their desire for an evergreen edition if anyone else can sell it out from under them.

 

[mamba]

Where I think we might have more leverage is in this de-authorization thing, It's a lot less clear to me why that would be something they'd really want to keep, especially as it is also likely to be the thing that is the most risky to the community and legally dubious.

not a chance, that really is the only part they care about. What good is an OGL 2.0 if 1.0a does not fall.
Might as well just save yourself the money for writing it

 

[Dreamscape]

The fact that this red herring has derailed so many discussions about WotC's de facto licence-grab shows that it was clearly a good point with which to disguise their non-retraction.

 

[raniE]

I think that if you're only looking at the past 20 years and not looking to the next 20 years and what might happen or could happen in that span of time, then you're not looking at this the same way WotC is looking at this. Yeah, it could definitely still be either simply overblown or a lie designed to placate the community. I believe it could also be people trying to do a good job at protecting the brand (which means exerting more control over content where they can), and I'm describing why I am keeping that possibility open.

No, that is not a realistic concern. D&D has never faced blowback for something that some other company did. This is 100% naughty word designed to make them look like good guys to certain people. Luckily, very few are falling for it.

So I'm entering the possibility as something one might want to entertain, if you're inclined to be open-minded about it. But at the end of the day, it's all just reading tea leaves to divine the intentions of people we'll never meet. Regardless of their actual intentions, what I'm very confident of is that their next version of this is still going to have some kind of "don't do naughty things under this license" clause, and that no amount of community grousing will get them to abandon that aspect of it.

Where I think we might have more leverage is in this de-authorization thing, It's a lot less clear to me why that would be something they'd really want to keep, especially as it is also likely to be the thing that is the most risky to the community and legally dubious.

I’m 100% positive that community grousing could get them to do exactly anything we want. It just needs to be loud enough in the only way they actually hear, so stopping the money. On the other hand, the de-authorization is absolutely the last thing they will give up, because without it nothing else matters. If the OGL 1.0a is not revoked, there is nothing stopping every single publisher to just keep using that and ignore everything in the new OGL version. That’s why they have to destroy the OGL 1.0a, because without doing that nothing else they do matters.

 

[Enrahim2]

If the OGL 1.0a is not revoked, there is nothing stopping every single publisher to just keep using that and ignore everything in the new OGL version. That’s why they have to destroy the OGL 1.0a, because without doing that nothing else they do matters.

They could just have created a new GSL and associated a badge with it. Markeded that heavily as the only real oneD&D compliant material as to pared to legacy compatible, and the huge causal marked would likely have followed. Creators would have gone where the consumers were.

At the 4ed time they didn't have the large causal following, and the transition cost they asked from fans was too steep compared to the benefit gained. I see absolutely no reason it should be essential for wizard's gameplay to get rid of 1.0a. Had they managed to do so quietly, they would have gotten a quite nice benefit, yes. But now I really can't see how that benefit can possibly outweight the cost of driving away absolutely all their quality creators, and a significant portion of their promoters.

 

[raniE]

They could just have created a new GSL and associated a badge with it. Markeded that heavily as the only real oneD&D compliant material as to pared to legacy compatible, and the huge causal marked would likely have followed. Creators would have gone where the consumers were.

Nope. They want their new edition to remain compatible with 5e to a large extent. That means material released using the 5e SRD could be used for the new edition. Third party stuff released under the OGL has never been allowed to explicitly state compatibility anyway, so there would be no difference. No one would publish under more onerous terms. The huge casual market may have just stopped playing (I’m almost certain this is a fad that won’t last forever) when they realized WotC wanted them to pay for the game again anyway, and the 3rd party market isn’t aimed at casual players anyway.

At the 4ed time they didn't have the large causal following, and the transition cost they asked from fans was too steep compared to the benefit gained. I see absolutely no reason it should be essential for wizard's gameplay to get rid of 1.0a. Had they managed to do so quietly, they would have gotten a quite nice benefit, yes. But now I really can't see how that benefit can possibly outweight the cost of driving away absolutely all their quality creators, and a significant portion of their promoters.

Yeah they had. 3.5 was another era with lots of players. Nowhere near where they are today perhaps, but the fundamentals don’t change.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Nope. They want their new edition to remain compatible with 5e to a large extent. That means material released using the 5e SRD could be used for the new edition. Third party stuff released under the OGL has never been allowed to explicitly state compatibility anyway, so there would be no difference. No one would publish under more onerous terms. The huge casual market may have just stopped playing (I’m almost certain this is a fad that won’t last forever) when they realized WotC wanted them to pay for the game again anyway, and the 3rd party market isn’t aimed at casual players anyway.

This is an incredibly self-defeating argument lol.

You want to argue both "WotC had to destroy the OGL 1.0a to save the OGL" (lol) and simultaneously "All the casual are going to stop playing 1D&D", which just makes WotC's move even dumber.

The 3PP market is absolutely aimed at pretty casual players. I know because lots of my friends back Kickstarters and the like, and none of the ones who do are "serious" D&D players.

You think things like this are aimed at "non-casual" players?

Animal Adventures: Tales of Cats and Catacombs

A range of highly detailed cats compatible with role-playing systems.

www.kickstarter.com

This one used because one of the most casual-ass D&D players I know literally WhatsApp'd me a few days ago to say he'd got it.

Yeah they had. 3.5 was another era with lots of players. Nowhere near where they are today perhaps, but the fundamentals don’t change.

The 3.XE era was successful in large part because of the OGL and d20 STL, so yeah fundamentals don't change.

You drive away everyone with a restrictive non-OGL like 1.1 or 2.0 and you're not going to help your situation.

 

[raniE]

This is an incredibly self-defeating argument lol.

You want to argue both "WotC had to destroy the OGL 1.0a to save the OGL" (lol) and simultaneously "All the casual are going to stop playing 1D&D", which just makes WotC's move even dumber.

What? WotC don’t want to save the OGL, they want to destroy it, because they have some insane idea that it will bring them more money. Their new OGL doesn’t work if the old one exists but that has nothing to do with saving the OGL.

And yes, WotC’s plans have been super dumb all through this, so what’s the surprise?

The 3PP market is absolutely aimed at pretty casual players. I know because lots of my friends back Kickstarters and the like, and none of the ones who do are "serious" D&D players.

You think things like this are aimed at "non-casual" players?

Animal Adventures: Tales of Cats and Catacombs

A range of highly detailed cats compatible with role-playing systems.

www.kickstarter.com

I mean for god's sake.

Absolutely. A casual player doesn’t really buy anything, maybe a PHB. Once they start buying third party supplements they’re certainly not casual anymore. Casual has nothing to do with the type of content you enjoy, it has to do with how invested you are in the game.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Absolutely. A casual player doesn’t really buy naughty word, maybe a PHB. Once they start buying third party supplements they’re certainly not casual anymore. Casual has nothing to do with the type of content you enjoy, it has to do with how invested you are in the game.

That's a ridiculous distinction, frankly.

 

[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.