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.