D&D Beyond Changes

[Dr.Samurai]

It's not "corporations gonna corporation" so much as "they were dumb enough to think that this OGL revocation 'update' would be a good business decision, so I can buy them thinking $30/month is also a good business decision."

I can trace the logic chain that leads to thinking it's a good idea. It's based on the same kinds of awful, stupid, totally false premises that lead to things like the OGL 1.1. (I am not going to discuss its contents, here, I only am saying the same mindset behind that could easily lead to the $30/month price point.)

I agree. It's a combination of things, and I think the misinformation is especially compelling because WotC's opening move was so brazen, delusional, and self-destructive that it leaves it wide open what else they think might be a sound business decision.

But again, more a lesson for us. We know what the field looks like now. There's lies on either side.

[Psyren]

With the $30/month off the table, perhaps that's not going to be the case. But the "walled garden" that we're told/seeing evidence of is a problem for them if D&D Beyond is to be something enough people use at a high price point, if there exist things outside that walled garden, such as physical books, physical play, etc., without being on D&D Beyond.

I use physical books with D&D Beyond today. And they are clearly intending that use, because they are putting DDB codes in the physical books now. This just isn't a credible worry by any stretch of the imagination..

It's not "corporations gonna corporation" so much as "they were dumb enough to think that this OGL revocation 'update' would be a good business decision, so I can buy them thinking $30/month is also a good business decision."

There's corporation dumb, and then there's just... pants-on-head moon logic. Again, any person can easily compare a DDB subscription to a MMO or streaming service and realize the former does not carry remotely enough value to be worth double the price. The "we're working on AI DMing" hoax was at least plausible, but not this, not without at a minimum granting access to every existing book - and even then, why would they roll that out for an edition that only has one year of life left? It just doesn't make any sense no matter what angle you approach it from. I can understand how it got some traction back in August before OneD&D's release date was confirmed, but at some point gullibility of the base does play a role.

[Bohandas]

I wouldn;t be surprised if they themselves secretly started this hoax to draw attention away from their other actual misdeeds

[skyth]

I use physical books with D&D Beyond today. And they are clearly intending that use, because they are putting DDB codes in the physical books now. This just isn't a credible worry by any stretch of the imagination..

Other than, if memory serves, the books with codes in them will only be available directly from Wizards and not FLGS's.

[Atranen]

I had a whole response for this and I just about hit "Submit" when I realized I just don't care anymore. Christ, I'm so tired. All the lies, all the yelling.

I just want my game back. I want to be able to screw around with the exploration mechanics. I want to give my players double feats, 'cuz it makes them look like kids at Christmas. And it feels like I can't do that anymore.

So, screw it. I'm done. Bye.

If you stay at home and play with your friends nothing changes, there's nothing wrong with sticking your head in the sand and ignoring all of this.

It's worth it to be vocal for the benefit of the community but that doesn't mean you can't carry on as usual in private, just because WotC is making terrible choices doesn't mean you have to stop playing DND if you still enjoy it.

I genuinely don't see what's stopping you, but okay.

I think both of these responses to Sparky miss the community/network effects inherent to RPGs. Of course if we go off and play with our friends, nothing changes, we can do what we want, and we can totally ignore WoTC.

But the fact is, people move, or have things going on in their life, or otherwise can't commit to a regular game, and at some point most of us will be in the position of having to find new players for a new group. The ease of doing that depends on whether what we're playing is popular, whether people have heard of it and want to try it.

And if we're playing an antiquated system and the flagship RPG product is now something we don't care for, things do change. It becomes harder to find a game. And so we have to either accept the changes or accept playing less.

So the idea that we can just wash our hands of anything WoTC is doing and say 'hey, it doesn't affect me' rings hollow.

[da newt]

I've seen quotes that WotC account for like 72% of Hasbro's profits, and that D&D took in ~$125M last year (according to various articles).

Does anyone know what % of WotC profit comes from D&D and any sort of break down of which D&D product lines account for XX% of D&D total profits? I wonder how much they take in in Merch vs books vs DnDBeyond vs what-not.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I've seen quotes that WotC account for like 72% of Hasbro's profits, and that D&D took in ~$125M last year (according to various articles).

Does anyone know what % of WotC profit comes from D&D and any sort of break down of which D&D product lines account for XX% of D&D total profits? I wonder how much they take in in Merch vs books vs DnDBeyond vs what-not.

Only thing I know is that D&D in general is the smaller piece of the WotC pie--MtG is their cash cow.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

The reality is, until we get official word, the rest is all nonsense and sky is falling.

In real terms I imagine Hasbro looked at the market and said "Folks like CR are getting rich off of what is essentially our IP, can we do something to reign that in and get a cut?"

And to be honest, it's not a wholly unreasonable take. To stick with CR because it's easy and most know it. Sure, you can argue that Mercer and others created Exandria, and they did. But they didn't create all of it. The gods? All D&D IP with the serial numbers shaved off (And originally not even that, they get called by name an awful lot though Mat himself is trying not to.) The races? All slight variations from D&D. The monsters? Straight out of D&D.

I love the OGL and there is a symbiotic relationship at work here, but being fair, a lot of it is WotC's.

Many of the leaked things would be insane and horrible, and from a competition is healthy standpoint I love hearing Paizo is doing their own OGL. I remember the days when TSR folded and suddenly the only BIG option was WhiteWolf rather you liked that style of game or not, I don't want that again. But acting like it's insane that WotC will change some things at DDB now that they own it or want a bit of royalties from the super big names is not exactly a surprise or a huge issue.

[EggKookoo]

And to be honest, it's not a wholly unreasonable take. To stick with CR because it's easy and most know it. Sure, you can argue that Mercer and others created Exandria, and they did. But they didn't create all of it. The gods? All D&D IP with the serial numbers shaved off (And originally not even that, they get called by name an awful lot though Mat himself is trying not to.) The races? All slight variations from D&D. The monsters? Straight out of D&D.

I just want to point out that the vast, vast majority of D&D's IP is just real-world mythology with the serial numbers filed off. You can't take orcs from WotC.

[Arkhios]

You can't take orcs from WotC.

I can't? Tolkien would disagree. He literally invented the creature.

[Sigreid]

The reality is, until we get official word, the rest is all nonsense and sky is falling.

In real terms I imagine Hasbro looked at the market and said "Folks like CR are getting rich off of what is essentially our IP, can we do something to reign that in and get a cut?"

And to be honest, it's not a wholly unreasonable take. To stick with CR because it's easy and most know it. Sure, you can argue that Mercer and others created Exandria, and they did. But they didn't create all of it. The gods? All D&D IP with the serial numbers shaved off (And originally not even that, they get called by name an awful lot though Mat himself is trying not to.) The races? All slight variations from D&D. The monsters? Straight out of D&D.

I love the OGL and there is a symbiotic relationship at work here, but being fair, a lot of it is WotC's.

Many of the leaked things would be insane and horrible, and from a competition is healthy standpoint I love hearing Paizo is doing their own OGL. I remember the days when TSR folded and suddenly the only BIG option was WhiteWolf rather you liked that style of game or not, I don't want that again. But acting like it's insane that WotC will change some things at DDB now that they own it or want a bit of royalties from the super big names is not exactly a surprise or a huge issue.

I don't recall anyone making a fuss over licensing fees or royalties other than maybe thinking 20% is a bit high. I saw people upset over requiring approval of their materials and claiming the right to use or sell other people's creative works without compensation.

[stoutstien]

I can't? Tolkien would disagree. He literally invented the creature.

No he didn't. He immortalized them in fantasy sure but that's different.

DnD has a very very small list of things they would have half a chance to get anyone to agree is actually thier IP. One reason why so many publishers feel safe to disregard it's as long as they are confident they can survive the court dragout.

[Tawmis]

No he didn't. He immortalized them in fantasy sure but that's different.

Correct. Tolkien took the name from Beowulf.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Correct. Tolkien took the name from Beowulf.

One semi-related thing I think about quite a bit--

What is a creature? That is, when we say "D&D took orcs from Tolkien" (or CR took X from D&D), what do we mean? Is it just the name? Does calling something an "orc" mean that it's specifically the same thing as the first thing ever called an orc? How much can we change before it's something new that happens to share the same name? And if we change the name but keep everything else the same, is it something else (aka the Romeo/Juliet question)? What's the weighting of the various parts of something? If the stat block is the same mechanically, but the underlying culture/traits (including the names) change...is it still the same creature?

I don't have any answers, just musings.

[Psyren]

I think both of these responses to Sparky miss the community/network effects inherent to RPGs. Of course if we go off and play with our friends, nothing changes, we can do what we want, and we can totally ignore WoTC.

But the fact is, people move, or have things going on in their life, or otherwise can't commit to a regular game, and at some point most of us will be in the position of having to find new players for a new group. The ease of doing that depends on whether what we're playing is popular, whether people have heard of it and want to try it.

And if we're playing an antiquated system and the flagship RPG product is now something we don't care for, things do change. It becomes harder to find a game. And so we have to either accept the changes or accept playing less.

So the idea that we can just wash our hands of anything WoTC is doing and say 'hey, it doesn't affect me' rings hollow.

Please note that my response was intended to be very specific to the examples Sparky raised, like messing around with exploration mechanics and giving extra feats to his players. I was neither stating nor implying that nothing about the macro game or its relative popularity would change.

I've seen quotes that WotC account for like 72% of Hasbro's profits, and that D&D took in ~$125M last year (according to various articles).

Does anyone know what % of WotC profit comes from D&D and any sort of break down of which D&D product lines account for XX% of D&D total profits? I wonder how much they take in in Merch vs books vs DnDBeyond vs what-not.

It's tricky because on their most recent annual report (2021), from a revenue standpoint they have D&D and Magic lumped into separate operating segments - MTG is under Franchise Brands alongside the likes of Transformers, Monopoly, MLP etc, and D&D is under Hasbro Gaming alongside Duel Masters and a host of other board games like Clue, Trivial Pursuit, Jenga etc. But when they dig into Operating Profit, they realign the segments to put MTG and D&D in the same one ("Wizards of the Coast and Digital Gaming.") 74% of that segment's revenue comes from WotC, but the breakdown between D&D and Magic specifically is not stated.

What it does mean though, is that D&D and Magic on their own brought in more profit than their entire Consumer Products and Entertainment segments combined in 2021 (74% * 574MM = 405MM vs. 401MM.) We'll know how the 2022 numbers shake out in February or so when they file the current 10-K, likely being feverishly worked on by folks like myself. Whether that is an 80-20 split between MTG and D&D or something else is not something I can tell from that 10-K, though I haven't done a ton of digging beyond hopping to the notes.

[stoutstien]

One semi-related thing I think about quite a bit--

What is a creature? That is, when we say "D&D took orcs from Tolkien" (or CR took X from D&D), what do we mean? Is it just the name? Does calling something an "orc" mean that it's specifically the same thing as the first thing ever called an orc? How much can we change before it's something new that happens to share the same name? And if we change the name but keep everything else the same, is it something else (aka the Romeo/Juliet question)? What's the weighting of the various parts of something? If the stat block is the same mechanically, but the underlying culture/traits (including the names) change...is it still the same creature?

I don't have any answers, just musings.

Aye. The neverending cycle of original idea and source material is a fun existential thought exercise. Ship of Theseus and all that but the twist of being memes in the extent of packets of loosely related ideas and connects is turning it up to 11.

[Xervous]

I don't recall anyone making a fuss over licensing fees or royalties other than maybe thinking 20% is a bit high. I saw people upset over requiring approval of their materials and claiming the right to use or sell other people's creative works without compensation.

It was the combination of threshold for qualifying revenue, the measure being gross revenue at such a rate, and the terms being changeable with 30 day notice. It was a clear demonstration that they wanted to cap the size of 3PP operations that were not working under special arrangements.

[Sigreid]

One semi-related thing I think about quite a bit--

What is a creature? That is, when we say "D&D took orcs from Tolkien" (or CR took X from D&D), what do we mean? Is it just the name? Does calling something an "orc" mean that it's specifically the same thing as the first thing ever called an orc? How much can we change before it's something new that happens to share the same name? And if we change the name but keep everything else the same, is it something else (aka the Romeo/Juliet question)? What's the weighting of the various parts of something? If the stat block is the same mechanically, but the underlying culture/traits (including the names) change...is it still the same creature?

I don't have any answers, just musings.

Not to mention many, if not most; fantasy creatures are derived from creatures pulled from legends that were often passed orally from generation to generation and people to people, sometimes across centuries. Just in folklore there's a lot of variation in what a creature is.

Tolekin did establish the base of what we tend to think of as an orc and seemed to creat them as essentially the worst of humanity at war.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Aye. The neverending cycle of original idea and source material is a fun existential thought exercise. Ship of Theseus and all that but the twist of being memes in the extent of packets of loosely related ideas and connects is turning it up to 11.

Which does, to me at least, mean that all the claims of "protecting our IP" or "X stole from Y" are...less potent than they would be in a different sphere. I'm of the "great artists borrow liberally" and "no new ideas under the sun" camps--trying to be truly original usually means you make something not as good, because all the pathways that are really pleasing have been trodden at least once. The trick as a creative mind is to remix things across various contexts in interesting ways, even if the themes, tropes, and concepts are old hat.

Not to mention many, if not most; fantasy creatures are derived from creatures pulled from legends that were often passed orally from generation to generation and people to people, sometimes across centuries. Just in folklore there's a lot of variation in what a creature is.

Tolekin did establish the base of what we tend to think of as an orc and seemed to creat them as essentially the worst of humanity at war.

Except I'd say that D&D orcs aren't actually very similar to Tolkien orcs except in name. Tolkien orcs were smaller and weaker than humans, more attuned to technology (in the ways to make things get hurt forms at least), cowardly, and not particularly angry. And the look (tusks and muscles) isn't the same either.

D&D orcs (drawing from the Forgotten Realms novels) are as big or bigger, stronger (by default at least), tribal, known for getting mad easily, bloodthirsty to the point of insanity, which leads a certain kind of foolhardy courage, and much more shamanistic than technologically-inclined.

D&D halflings, however, are pretty close to Tolkien hobbits--that's a very clear line of descent. Elves? There are some trace remnants, but those fade with every new book. Etc.

[EggKookoo]

I can't? Tolkien would disagree. He literally invented the creature.

That's the point. You can't take them from WotC because WotC doesn't own them.

[Sigreid]

Which does, to me at least, mean that all the claims of "protecting our IP" or "X stole from Y" are...less potent than they would be in a different sphere. I'm of the "great artists borrow liberally" and "no new ideas under the sun" camps--trying to be truly original usually means you make something not as good, because all the pathways that are really pleasing have been trodden at least once. The trick as a creative mind is to remix things across various contexts in interesting ways, even if the themes, tropes, and concepts are old hat.



Except I'd say that D&D orcs aren't actually very similar to Tolkien orcs except in name. Tolkien orcs were smaller and weaker than humans, more attuned to technology (in the ways to make things get hurt forms at least), cowardly, and not particularly angry. And the look (tusks and muscles) isn't the same either.

D&D orcs (drawing from the Forgotten Realms novels) are as big or bigger, stronger (by default at least), tribal, known for getting mad easily, bloodthirsty to the point of insanity, which leads a certain kind of foolhardy courage, and much more shamanistic than technologically-inclined.

D&D halflings, however, are pretty close to Tolkien hobbits--that's a very clear line of descent. Elves? There are some trace remnants, but those fade with every new book. Etc.

What I mean is now people think of Tolken when they hear orc. And I think they were loosely derived from the idea of orcs (such as the dwar animosity). Original D&D, orcs were basically wild boars made humanoid so they could use weapons and armor. They existed to be the threat to everything the civilized races built.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

I just want to point out that the vast, vast majority of D&D's IP is just real-world mythology with the serial numbers filed off. You can't take orcs from WotC.

That'd be a good argument if it comes up. I'm not on one side or another. I just don't think it's quite as bad as some have said.

The degree of variation is there, but to be honest, it's narrow and subjective. We can probably agree that, say, Dragons are open, but specific colored dragons with certain characteristics and elemental powers? We can agree that Asmodeus as a powerful evil force is open, but the Lord of Hells ruler over Baator? Again, moving away from open IP.

I don't recall anyone making a fuss over licensing fees or royalties other than maybe thinking 20% is a bit high. I saw people upset over requiring approval of their materials and claiming the right to use or sell other people's creative works without compensation.

It's all interconnected really. And it's again, not new. If I go make a character on World of Warcraft, that's not mine, that's something I'm licensing from Blizzard. If somehow I managed something incredible and they liked it, they can write it into canon somewhere and they don't owe me anything. I mean, I have an entire homebrew world drawing from the Legend of Zelda, but if I presented it exactly as it is around our table, Nintendo would get angry and have reason to, they'd also have every right to take everything I wrote and use it since it's their IP.

As has been pointed out, WotC cannot own rules, not really. But they can own IP.

[Unoriginal]

What I mean is now people think of Tolken when they hear orc.

I'd argue they think of Peter Jackson's trilogy, which while based on Tolkien's books is not actually representative of them in many ways, including how the orcs are portrayed.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'd argue they think of Peter Jackson's trilogy, which while based on Tolkien's books is not actually representative of them in many ways, including how the orcs are portrayed.

Or World of Warcraft. Which also has radically non-Tolkien orcs. Of the people I play with, I think only a couple (the older ones) have even actually read any Tolkien--everything all the rest know it only by cultural osmosis. Which is mostly D&D-sourced, not Tolkien sourced.

[ToranIronfinder]

Or World of Warcraft. Which also has radically non-Tolkien orcs. Of the people I play with, I think only a couple (the older ones) have even actually read any Tolkien--everything all the rest know it only by cultural osmosis. Which is mostly D&D-sourced, not Tolkien sourced.

The problem with Tolkien these days, more people have watched the movies, and half followed social media, have not read Tolkien and fewer still know much more about him than 4 books. I remember reading someone talking about how Tolkien had borrowed from Harry Potter, or some other more modern work once!

[PhoenixPhyre]

The problem with Tolkien these days, more people have watched the movies, and half followed social media, have not read Tolkien and fewer still know much more about him than 4 books. I remember reading someone talking about how Tolkien had borrowed from Harry Potter, or some other more modern work once!

Yeah. As with most of the Appendix material. People really only know it secondhand at best, usually through sources that modified it heavily or just took surface stuff like names.

Which is why I don't care for Appeals to Tolkien or Appeals to History in this context. That history is dead and gone and only lives on in the mutated form which must live or die on its own merits and flaws.

[Unoriginal]

Or World of Warcraft. Which also has radically non-Tolkien orcs. Of the people I play with, I think only a couple (the older ones) have even actually read any Tolkien--everything all the rest know it only by cultural osmosis. Which is mostly D&D-sourced, not Tolkien sourced.

And Warcraft's inspiration for orcs come from Warhammer's orcs, which are radically non-Tolkien-like and non-D&D-like (although closer to D&D-like than Tolkien-like).

I remember reading someone talking about how Tolkien had borrowed from Harry Potter, or some other more modern work once!

I've seen people blame D&D for things Warcraft did with their orcs.

[EggKookoo]

And Warcraft's inspiration for orcs come from Warhammer's orcs, which are radically non-Tolkien-like and non-D&D-like (although closer to D&D-like than Tolkien-like).

My impression is that D&D orcs drifted closer to WoW/Warhammer orcs over time. Were orcs explicitly green in 1e/2e like they became later?

[ToranIronfinder]

Yeah. As with most of the Appendix material. People really only know it secondhand at best, usually through sources that modified it heavily or just took surface stuff like names.

Which is why I don't care for Appeals to Tolkien or Appeals to History in this context. That history is dead and gone and only lives on in the mutated form which must live or die on its own merits and flaws.

Unless you are like myself and would create a setting that was more tolkienesque than DnD, and found others interpreting that work through the modern zeitgeist.

[Psyren]

And Warcraft's inspiration for orcs come from Warhammer's orcs, which are radically non-Tolkien-like and non-D&D-like (although closer to D&D-like than Tolkien-like).

I've seen people blame D&D for things Warcraft did with their orcs.

Obligatory: https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2...-you-like-text