Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
RPG Evolution: The Art of the Apology
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="talien" data-source="post: 8898024" data-attributes="member: 3285"><p>Thanks to Patreon, we have a template for what a good apology looks like. So how did Wizards of the Coast do?</p><p></p><p style="text-align: center">[ATTACH=full]272554[/ATTACH]</p> <p style="text-align: center"><a href="https://pixabay.com/illustrations/excuse-me-apologize-rubber-stamp-2696394/" target="_blank">Picture courtesy of Pixabay.</a></p><h3>A Best Practice</h3><p>When Patreon <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/this-sounds-familiar.694368/" target="_blank">made a change that caused customers to flee the platform</a>, Patreon reversed course and apologized, <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/fixing-the-mess.694381/" target="_blank">explaining in no uncertain terms that they screwed up</a>. Wizards of the Coast (WOTC) <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/rumours-wotc-announcement-today-insider-email-reveals-plans.694392/" target="_blank">similarly had to reassess</a> after their <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/the-ogl-just-whats-going-on.694193/" target="_blank">changes to the Open Game License (OGL)</a> caused an uproar. So how did they do?</p><h3>Was it Timely? (A-)</h3><p>Patreon announced its fee structure changes <a href="https://blog.patreon.com/updating-patreons-fee-structure" target="_blank">on December 6, 2017</a>. Seven days later, <a href="https://blog.patreon.com/not-rolling-out-fees-change" target="_blank">on December 13</a>, they reversed the policy and apologized. io9 reported on the Open Game License concerns <a href="https://gizmodo.com/dnd-wizards-of-the-coast-ogl-1-1-open-gaming-license-1849950634" target="_blank">on January 5, 2023</a>. WOTC released their own statement in response eight days later, <a href="https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1423-an-update-on-the-open-game-license-ogl" target="_blank">on January 13</a>. It certainly seemed like an eternity in the world of social media and likely satisfied no one with how long it took to respond, but WOTC's response is in line with Patreon's. Overall, a week is about how long large organizations can take to get approvals, so this seems right.</p><h3>Who Apologized? (D)</h3><p>One of the striking aspects of Patreon's apology is that it was released by its founder, Jack Conte, who didn't shy away from tough questions. In contrast, WOTC released a statement from "<a href="https://www.dndbeyond.com/members/DDB_Staff" target="_blank">D&D Beyond Staff</a>." The statement used the word "we" 37 times. A key component of an apology is transparency, and the fact that no one individual spoke on behalf of the company makes it difficult to engage with the message. It's hard to forgive an anonymous speaker on behalf of a corporation.</p><h3>Did it Address the Issue? (B)</h3><p>Patreon reversed their implementation. Although they admitted payment terms still needed to be addressed, Patreon unequivocally reversed their plans. Similarly, WOTC never actually rolled out the new OGL and announced that they wouldn't roll out a new version of the OGL with some (<a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/wotc-walks-back-some-ogl-changes-but-not-all.694440/" target="_blank">but not all</a>) of the issues to be addressed in the new version. Their statement did address most of the pressing concerns, but never rolled back one of the biggest worries: <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/so-why-didnt-the-ogl-contain-the-word-irrevocable.694514/" target="_blank">deauthorizing older versions of the OGL</a>.</p><h3>Was It Contrite? (C)</h3><p>Conte openly admitted:</p><p></p><p>WOTC similarly said:</p><p></p><p>The contrition is appropriate, but it's at the end instead of the beginning of the statement. Good apologies lead with "I'm sorry," not conclude with it. Weirdly, the last two paragraphs feel tacked on, like another voice (it's impossible to tell who, since there's no author) added more important info. It also includes this:</p><p></p><p><strong><span style="color: rgb(184, 49, 47)">No apology should ever invoke winners or losers.</span></strong> It devalues the apology and it makes it sound like a game of one-upmanship. That statement seems like "making your voices heard" was a bad thing. Which leads to the next issue...</p><h3>Was There a Plan to Listen Better? (D)</h3><p>Patreon changed how they were engaging with their customers as a result of their misstep, including open channels with leadership. WOTC's letter explains that their plan was always to:</p><p></p><p>And yet, there was no acknowledgement that one of the reasons the community pushed back so fiercely is that there is no single means of providing input to WOTC. WOTC seems to define the community as the 20 biggest RPG publishers using the OGL, as that's who received the first draft that caused the uproar in the first place. Those 20 publishers by no means represented the entirety of the very diverse community of creators. As a result of this lack of clarity on how to let WOTC know what they think, the company has been subjected to a swarming approach, <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/d-d-beyond-cancelations-changed-wotcs-plans.694482/" target="_blank">with mass D&D Beyond cancellations</a>, <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/support-the-ogl-v1-0a-sign-this-change-org-petition.694396/" target="_blank">change.org petitions</a>, <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/community-posts-open-letters-to-wotc-about-new-ogl.694283/" target="_blank">open letters to the company</a>, and phone calls and emails to their headquarters. Having a channel for garnering feedback would go a long way to at least let the community feel like their voices are being heard, but the apology letter provided no insight on how to do that or if it will change in the future.</p><h3>Was There a Plan to Communicate Better? (D)</h3><p>Patreon made it a point of appointing a new Chief Product Officer and a newsletter to provide updates. WOTC claimed that they "love D&D’s devoted players and the creators who take them on so many incredible adventures," and a promise to not let the community down ... but no explanation as to what the next steps are or when. Currently, the OGL will be released with no explanation as to when and where.</p><h3>Overall: C-</h3><p>Well, that wasn't great.</p><p></p><p>WOTC's apology had some important nuggets that could potentially go a long way to mollifying the community's frustration with the OGL rollout. But it came after a spotty explanation and included some false equivalencies that likely further antagonized a passionate community trying hard to preserve their game's future.</p><p></p><p>Nobody "wins" by getting a company to listen to them. That's just good business. As future companies and coalitions launch to take up the mantle of OGL's future, they would do well to remember that.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="talien, post: 8898024, member: 3285"] Thanks to Patreon, we have a template for what a good apology looks like. So how did Wizards of the Coast do? [CENTER][ATTACH type="full" alt="excuse-me-2696394_960_720.jpg"]272554[/ATTACH] [URL='https://pixabay.com/illustrations/excuse-me-apologize-rubber-stamp-2696394/']Picture courtesy of Pixabay.[/URL][/CENTER] [HEADING=2]A Best Practice[/HEADING] When Patreon [URL='https://www.enworld.org/threads/this-sounds-familiar.694368/']made a change that caused customers to flee the platform[/URL], Patreon reversed course and apologized, [URL='https://www.enworld.org/threads/fixing-the-mess.694381/']explaining in no uncertain terms that they screwed up[/URL]. Wizards of the Coast (WOTC) [URL='https://www.enworld.org/threads/rumours-wotc-announcement-today-insider-email-reveals-plans.694392/']similarly had to reassess[/URL] after their [URL='https://www.enworld.org/threads/the-ogl-just-whats-going-on.694193/']changes to the Open Game License (OGL)[/URL] caused an uproar. So how did they do? [HEADING=2]Was it Timely? (A-)[/HEADING] Patreon announced its fee structure changes [URL='https://blog.patreon.com/updating-patreons-fee-structure']on December 6, 2017[/URL]. Seven days later, [URL='https://blog.patreon.com/not-rolling-out-fees-change']on December 13[/URL], they reversed the policy and apologized. io9 reported on the Open Game License concerns [URL='https://gizmodo.com/dnd-wizards-of-the-coast-ogl-1-1-open-gaming-license-1849950634']on January 5, 2023[/URL]. WOTC released their own statement in response eight days later, [URL='https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1423-an-update-on-the-open-game-license-ogl']on January 13[/URL]. It certainly seemed like an eternity in the world of social media and likely satisfied no one with how long it took to respond, but WOTC's response is in line with Patreon's. Overall, a week is about how long large organizations can take to get approvals, so this seems right. [HEADING=2]Who Apologized? (D)[/HEADING] One of the striking aspects of Patreon's apology is that it was released by its founder, Jack Conte, who didn't shy away from tough questions. In contrast, WOTC released a statement from "[URL='https://www.dndbeyond.com/members/DDB_Staff']D&D Beyond Staff[/URL]." The statement used the word "we" 37 times. A key component of an apology is transparency, and the fact that no one individual spoke on behalf of the company makes it difficult to engage with the message. It's hard to forgive an anonymous speaker on behalf of a corporation. [HEADING=2]Did it Address the Issue? (B)[/HEADING] Patreon reversed their implementation. Although they admitted payment terms still needed to be addressed, Patreon unequivocally reversed their plans. Similarly, WOTC never actually rolled out the new OGL and announced that they wouldn't roll out a new version of the OGL with some ([URL='https://www.enworld.org/threads/wotc-walks-back-some-ogl-changes-but-not-all.694440/']but not all[/URL]) of the issues to be addressed in the new version. Their statement did address most of the pressing concerns, but never rolled back one of the biggest worries: [URL='https://www.enworld.org/threads/so-why-didnt-the-ogl-contain-the-word-irrevocable.694514/']deauthorizing older versions of the OGL[/URL]. [HEADING=2]Was It Contrite? (C)[/HEADING] Conte openly admitted: WOTC similarly said: The contrition is appropriate, but it's at the end instead of the beginning of the statement. Good apologies lead with "I'm sorry," not conclude with it. Weirdly, the last two paragraphs feel tacked on, like another voice (it's impossible to tell who, since there's no author) added more important info. It also includes this: [B][COLOR=rgb(184, 49, 47)]No apology should ever invoke winners or losers.[/COLOR][/B] It devalues the apology and it makes it sound like a game of one-upmanship. That statement seems like "making your voices heard" was a bad thing. Which leads to the next issue... [HEADING=2]Was There a Plan to Listen Better? (D)[/HEADING] Patreon changed how they were engaging with their customers as a result of their misstep, including open channels with leadership. WOTC's letter explains that their plan was always to: And yet, there was no acknowledgement that one of the reasons the community pushed back so fiercely is that there is no single means of providing input to WOTC. WOTC seems to define the community as the 20 biggest RPG publishers using the OGL, as that's who received the first draft that caused the uproar in the first place. Those 20 publishers by no means represented the entirety of the very diverse community of creators. As a result of this lack of clarity on how to let WOTC know what they think, the company has been subjected to a swarming approach, [URL='https://www.enworld.org/threads/d-d-beyond-cancelations-changed-wotcs-plans.694482/']with mass D&D Beyond cancellations[/URL], [URL='https://www.enworld.org/threads/support-the-ogl-v1-0a-sign-this-change-org-petition.694396/']change.org petitions[/URL], [URL='https://www.enworld.org/threads/community-posts-open-letters-to-wotc-about-new-ogl.694283/']open letters to the company[/URL], and phone calls and emails to their headquarters. Having a channel for garnering feedback would go a long way to at least let the community feel like their voices are being heard, but the apology letter provided no insight on how to do that or if it will change in the future. [HEADING=2]Was There a Plan to Communicate Better? (D)[/HEADING] Patreon made it a point of appointing a new Chief Product Officer and a newsletter to provide updates. WOTC claimed that they "love D&D’s devoted players and the creators who take them on so many incredible adventures," and a promise to not let the community down ... but no explanation as to what the next steps are or when. Currently, the OGL will be released with no explanation as to when and where. [HEADING=2]Overall: C-[/HEADING] Well, that wasn't great. WOTC's apology had some important nuggets that could potentially go a long way to mollifying the community's frustration with the OGL rollout. But it came after a spotty explanation and included some false equivalencies that likely further antagonized a passionate community trying hard to preserve their game's future. Nobody "wins" by getting a company to listen to them. That's just good business. As future companies and coalitions launch to take up the mantle of OGL's future, they would do well to remember that. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
RPG Evolution: The Art of the Apology
Top