Language is important though, and the sort of thinking and strategies certain language promotes can be surprising. The context of this statement doesn't tell me 'ignore it, it's not for you'. It tells me how important people at Hasbro currently view the D&D product and I can make guesses as to what that means for the future. If the language used has been somewhat different that would matter.
The language should tell you "Hasbro is a large, established, publicly traded corporate, and behaves in the way that should be expected from such an entity". Which is something you should already know.
Language is important though, and the sort of thinking and strategies certain language promotes can be surprising. The context of this statement doesn't tell me 'ignore it, it's not for you'. It tells me how important people at Hasbro currently view the D&D product and I can make guesses as to what that means for the future. If the language used has been somewhat different that would matter.
The language should tell you "Hasbro is a large, established, publicly traded corporate, and behaves in the way that should be expected from such an entity". Which is something you should already know.
Yeah, an executive of a major corporation using corporate terminology in a meeting with other corporate officials is really not shocking.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
"D&D has never been more popular, and we have really great fans and engagement," Williams told investors. "But the brand is really under-monetized." Williams pointed to market data from the recently acquired D&D Beyond that showed that Dungeon Masters made the vast majority of purchases related to Dungeons & Dragons, despite making up only 20% of the game's user base.
File this quote under "Tell me you don't really understand how Dungeons and Dragons works without telling me you don't really understand how Dungeons and Dragons works." Seems like the sort of executive who will flip out when they find out about DDB content sharing, beginning a process that will cede DDB's virtual space marketshare to other vendors. Let's hope the exec listens to their designers.
Of course with the content sharing it is the DMs who make most of the purchases. And it makes sense from the gameplay perspective as well, players will rarely buy books with adventures and rules for DMs. DMs use the most tool and spend a lot more time with the game, and need help with designing dungeons and encounters and coming up with new items, creatures and NPCs. There is no way to reasonably monetise regular players to such an extent. Besides a lot of groups pool up their resources and it is the DM who buys stuff.
It really does sound that it is horribly out of context or the person talking has no idea how D&D works.
Language is important though, and the sort of thinking and strategies certain language promotes can be surprising. The context of this statement doesn't tell me 'ignore it, it's not for you'. It tells me how important people at Hasbro currently view the D&D product and I can make guesses as to what that means for the future. If the language used has been somewhat different that would matter.
The language should tell you "Hasbro is a large, established, publicly traded corporate, and behaves in the way that should be expected from such an entity". Which is something you should already know.
Of course I know this. You should also know then that if they are making predictable and standard statements then established and proven consequences can be concluded. That this is normal then dictates the normal sort of distrust most people have for such people and statements. You have confirmed that people are right to have fears.
Language is important though, and the sort of thinking and strategies certain language promotes can be surprising. The context of this statement doesn't tell me 'ignore it, it's not for you'. It tells me how important people at Hasbro currently view the D&D product and I can make guesses as to what that means for the future. If the language used has been somewhat different that would matter.
The language should tell you "Hasbro is a large, established, publicly traded corporate, and behaves in the way that should be expected from such an entity". Which is something you should already know.
Yeah, an executive of a major corporation using corporate terminology in a meeting with other corporate officials is really not shocking.
You are both missing the point. The fact that this is the accepted language is part of the problem. It's probably too subtle a point to be made here though, but the language and culture most people treat as somehow natural in these sort of corporate environments is a factor that shapes and limits the nature of the strategies and expectations they develop.
I think it perfectly normal for people to be worried about what sort of anti-consumer measures could be promoted from such language, even though as pointed out that language is normal and accepted in that context.
You are both missing the point. The fact that this is the accepted language is part of the problem. It's probably too subtle a point to be made here though, but the language and culture most people treat as somehow natural in these sort of corporate environments is a factor that shapes and limits the nature of the strategies and expectations they develop.
There is a very clear implication in your post that you think the others you are conversing with are not clever enough to understand the (not as subtle as you seem to think) point you are making. The fact, however, appears to be they do understand the point you are making - but they also understand that certain industries need specific language in order to convey complex ideas in an efficient manner.
While your point might be accurate that “under monetised” sounds kind of bad from a n untrained point of view, you have to look at the term not just in its plain meaning, but in the context of experts trained to understand all the specific-use implications of the term talking to others who understand the specific use meaning of the term.
It is hardly different than any other professional industry - if you listened to a group of scientists, doctors, lawyers (who are also trained to use everyone else’s professional diction in the course of their representation) , etc. you’ll almost certainly find a plethora of similar situations where a layperson might miss all the subtleties of the conversation
Reading the thing with the "undermonetarized" is reminds me of that "Merchandise" szene from Mel Brooks Spaceballs.
Maybe that is something that Hasbro will see as an Avenue.
Think of what Hasbro did with Transformers, My Little Pony, Hasbro Star Wars and the rest.
"official" T-Shirts, Toys, DnD "The official drink", the Towel, the Lunch Box and "TIAMATS FLAMETHROWER!" (Kids just love that), paid Advertising, Product Placement, and so on. Hasbro knows how to milk the last drop of Merchandising from My little Pony. Or Transformers. Or Star Wars Toys.
And then, Cross-Advertising. I already have 5 My Little Pony Resin Figures in Dungeons and Dragons Style, using it to play MLP TTRPG with my daughters and their friends. I do believe that i will see an official Rulebook for that in the near future. Right now they already earn Money with the "Tails of Equestria" TTRPG.
Heck, Disney is already dipping into LARP business.... chance is high, Hasbro might look into that as well. Hasbro Rubber Swords, Shields, Children costumes. For the Kids Birthday Party.... don't forget: Quite a lot of DnD Players are in the Age structure of 35-50. With Kids. Gaming Parents probably would just love to buy that stuff for their kids...
following the entire presentation,, they were clearly talking about other avenues of gaining revenue, not microtransactions. sure, out of context, and in sound bytes presented by people that need sensationalist headlines, it looks bad.
i posted it earlier, but i think this is a great take:
Of course I know this. You should also know then that if they are making predictable and standard statements then established and proven consequences can be concluded.
The statements people are freaking out about are so generic that there really aren't any consequences to be drawn, except "upper management is aware this product exists".
Could Hasbro engage in corrosive behavior? Absolutely. Are the odds of them doing so significantly altered by this statement? No.
Heck, Disney is already dipping into LARP business.... chance is high, Hasbro might look into that as well. Hasbro Rubber Swords, Shields, Children costumes. For the Kids Birthday Party.... don't forget: Quite a lot of DnD Players are in the Age structure of 35-50. With Kids. Gaming Parents probably would just love to buy that stuff for their kids...
I can't believe this didn't occur to me lol. Nerf makes Fortnite and Star Wars crossover guns... Imagine having access to a toy version of the Holy Avenger or Driz'zt's twin scimitars! Or whatever weapons they end up featuring in the movie! That you can whack your siblings with!
This'll never happen, but imagine this -- a built-in dice roller that gives you to-hit and damage numbers in response to bonking someone with the toy sword? Little display screen on the handle? App integration with D&D Beyond character sheets?!
This'll never happen, but imagine this -- a built-in dice roller that gives you to-hit and damage numbers in response to bonking someone with the toy sword? Little display screen on the handle? App integration with D&D Beyond character sheets?!
Pop-a-Matic bubbles in the handles for the appropriate dice
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Trying to get the players to buy more stuff is a little like trying to put the genie back in the bottle.
Players at best only need to buy the PHB.
Something like this was tried way back when, in D&De2 and it sort of failed. The issued handbooks for each player race and class. Essentially they tried to get players and DMs to buy the same books. It didn't work, at all. Dms needed all the information from all the books, it pretty much killed off the 2nd edition. Who would buy 30 books just to try playing a game?
If they try to stop printing books and go just to digital editions for 6E or 1D&D they will kill off the brand again. In order to increase sales they will have to stop letting people share.
They need to view each D&D group as a single creature and sell to the group. Stop worrying about total players and go with total groups. What will cause a group to buy more? A good VTT. Better sharable content. More playable modules. Free digital content copies for physical books.
It seems so many of these things are based on someone who: 1) has very little actual info beyond "unnamed sources" and wild speculations, and 2) generates income from getting people to watch their videos.
I've been hearing about the supposed death of the OGL for a couple of weeks now, I think. As I understand it, they actually can't kill the current OGL, and they're trying to make 6e as compatible as possible with 5e, so most of the 5e OGL will still be useful even if they do decide not to make a new OGL for 6e.
I've been hearing about the supposed death of the OGL for a couple of weeks now, I think. As I understand it, they actually can't kill the current OGL, and they're trying to make 6e as compatible as possible with 5e, so most of the 5e OGL will still be useful even if they do decide not to make a new OGL for 6e.
I've been hearing about it for a while, for the simple reason that they haven't yet announced what they're doing for One D&D, but I've yet to see anything actually resembling evidence and Wizards has said that they plan to continue supporting third party creators.
Absence of evidence is not evidence for the contrary. It's just absence of evidence. There's no way they're going to do a One D&D SRD before they finish determining what One D&D actually is, so of course they aren't working on it right now.
"We will continue to support the thousands of creators making third-party D&D content with the release of One D&D in 2024. While it is certain our Open Game License (OGL) will continue to evolve, just as it has since its inception, we're too early in the development of One D&D to give more specifics on the OGL or System Reference Document (SRD) at this time."
While it's too early to say exactly how the OGL will work, I don't think there is any intention of removing it. I'm sure some of you have noticed that I'm not exactly one to get doe-eyed when WotC proclaims their virtue, but I think it's important to note that these leaks are coming from and being passed along a chain of people who have interest in making things juicy. Which isn't to say that there is dishonesty...so much as a tendency to jump to conclusions,.the worst ones, and assume they're the only possible conclusions...or at least, more likely than they actually are.
For example, is it not feasible that the source of this leak is that someone heard that the OGL isn't being considered (yet) or is going to be scrutinised before release, and then took that to mean that WotC is looking for a way around it?
As I said, I do look at WotC with skepticism. They do do anticonsumer things for a quick buck rather than put in the effort. Still, I'm not convinced that they're just going to abandon how they do things, risk alienating the majority of their consumer base...in the hopes of grabbing a few.extra bucks in official content sales. It would be a massive risk...and I'm not sure it would even be more profitable for them even if they didn't upset most of their customers.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
The Open Gaming License "removal" is just a bunch of mostly junk-filled rumors that Wizards of the Coast has explicitly said are not true. Yes, the OGL may be modified or tweaked, but no way is it going to be completely removed. The sky is not falling just yet guys.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
The Open Gaming License "removal" is just a bunch of mostly junk-filled rumors that Wizards of the Coast has explicitly said are not true. Yes, the OGL may be modified or tweaked, but no way is it going to be completely removed. The sky is not falling just yet guys.
I do believe that any new material does not have to fall under an OGL. And as for Open Licenses theirs must be far different than others I have seen in that others allow you to publish the original content as long as the original source is referenced. And I can not see WoTC doing that. Their OGL just lets you publish your ideas for their copy written content. Pretty much a legal nothing burger for us users.
The language should tell you "Hasbro is a large, established, publicly traded corporate, and behaves in the way that should be expected from such an entity". Which is something you should already know.
Yeah, an executive of a major corporation using corporate terminology in a meeting with other corporate officials is really not shocking.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Of course with the content sharing it is the DMs who make most of the purchases. And it makes sense from the gameplay perspective as well, players will rarely buy books with adventures and rules for DMs. DMs use the most tool and spend a lot more time with the game, and need help with designing dungeons and encounters and coming up with new items, creatures and NPCs. There is no way to reasonably monetise regular players to such an extent. Besides a lot of groups pool up their resources and it is the DM who buys stuff.
It really does sound that it is horribly out of context or the person talking has no idea how D&D works.
Of course I know this. You should also know then that if they are making predictable and standard statements then established and proven consequences can be concluded. That this is normal then dictates the normal sort of distrust most people have for such people and statements. You have confirmed that people are right to have fears.
You are both missing the point. The fact that this is the accepted language is part of the problem. It's probably too subtle a point to be made here though, but the language and culture most people treat as somehow natural in these sort of corporate environments is a factor that shapes and limits the nature of the strategies and expectations they develop.
I think it perfectly normal for people to be worried about what sort of anti-consumer measures could be promoted from such language, even though as pointed out that language is normal and accepted in that context.
There is a very clear implication in your post that you think the others you are conversing with are not clever enough to understand the (not as subtle as you seem to think) point you are making. The fact, however, appears to be they do understand the point you are making - but they also understand that certain industries need specific language in order to convey complex ideas in an efficient manner.
While your point might be accurate that “under monetised” sounds kind of bad from a n untrained point of view, you have to look at the term not just in its plain meaning, but in the context of experts trained to understand all the specific-use implications of the term talking to others who understand the specific use meaning of the term.
It is hardly different than any other professional industry - if you listened to a group of scientists, doctors, lawyers (who are also trained to use everyone else’s professional diction in the course of their representation) , etc. you’ll almost certainly find a plethora of similar situations where a layperson might miss all the subtleties of the conversation
Reading the thing with the "undermonetarized" is reminds me of that "Merchandise" szene from Mel Brooks Spaceballs.
Maybe that is something that Hasbro will see as an Avenue.
Think of what Hasbro did with Transformers, My Little Pony, Hasbro Star Wars and the rest.
"official" T-Shirts, Toys, DnD "The official drink", the Towel, the Lunch Box and "TIAMATS FLAMETHROWER!" (Kids just love that), paid Advertising, Product Placement, and so on. Hasbro knows how to milk the last drop of Merchandising from My little Pony. Or Transformers. Or Star Wars Toys.
And then, Cross-Advertising. I already have 5 My Little Pony Resin Figures in Dungeons and Dragons Style, using it to play MLP TTRPG with my daughters and their friends. I do believe that i will see an official Rulebook for that in the near future. Right now they already earn Money with the "Tails of Equestria" TTRPG.
Heck, Disney is already dipping into LARP business.... chance is high, Hasbro might look into that as well. Hasbro Rubber Swords, Shields, Children costumes. For the Kids Birthday Party.... don't forget: Quite a lot of DnD Players are in the Age structure of 35-50. With Kids. Gaming Parents probably would just love to buy that stuff for their kids...
following the entire presentation,, they were clearly talking about other avenues of gaining revenue, not microtransactions. sure, out of context, and in sound bytes presented by people that need sensationalist headlines, it looks bad.
i posted it earlier, but i think this is a great take:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cos31dCws4s&
The statements people are freaking out about are so generic that there really aren't any consequences to be drawn, except "upper management is aware this product exists".
Could Hasbro engage in corrosive behavior? Absolutely. Are the odds of them doing so significantly altered by this statement? No.
I can't believe this didn't occur to me lol. Nerf makes Fortnite and Star Wars crossover guns... Imagine having access to a toy version of the Holy Avenger or Driz'zt's twin scimitars! Or whatever weapons they end up featuring in the movie! That you can whack your siblings with!
This'll never happen, but imagine this -- a built-in dice roller that gives you to-hit and damage numbers in response to bonking someone with the toy sword? Little display screen on the handle? App integration with D&D Beyond character sheets?!
Pop-a-Matic bubbles in the handles for the appropriate dice
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Trying to get the players to buy more stuff is a little like trying to put the genie back in the bottle.
Players at best only need to buy the PHB.
Something like this was tried way back when, in D&De2 and it sort of failed. The issued handbooks for each player race and class. Essentially they tried to get players and DMs to buy the same books. It didn't work, at all.
Dms needed all the information from all the books, it pretty much killed off the 2nd edition. Who would buy 30 books just to try playing a game?
If they try to stop printing books and go just to digital editions for 6E or 1D&D they will kill off the brand again. In order to increase sales they will have to stop letting people share.
They need to view each D&D group as a single creature and sell to the group. Stop worrying about total players and go with total groups.
What will cause a group to buy more?
A good VTT.
Better sharable content.
More playable modules.
Free digital content copies for physical books.
It looks like things might be even more bleak than I thought: (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fgWlPcyi34U).
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
And counterpoint - https://twitter.com/legalkimchi/status/1604169108974706690
It seems so many of these things are based on someone who: 1) has very little actual info beyond "unnamed sources" and wild speculations, and 2) generates income from getting people to watch their videos.
I've been hearing about the supposed death of the OGL for a couple of weeks now, I think. As I understand it, they actually can't kill the current OGL, and they're trying to make 6e as compatible as possible with 5e, so most of the 5e OGL will still be useful even if they do decide not to make a new OGL for 6e.
Let's all keep our panic in check, lol.
I've been hearing about it for a while, for the simple reason that they haven't yet announced what they're doing for One D&D, but I've yet to see anything actually resembling evidence and Wizards has said that they plan to continue supporting third party creators.
Absence of evidence is not evidence for the contrary. It's just absence of evidence. There's no way they're going to do a One D&D SRD before they finish determining what One D&D actually is, so of course they aren't working on it right now.
WotC responded to these rumours:
While it's too early to say exactly how the OGL will work, I don't think there is any intention of removing it. I'm sure some of you have noticed that I'm not exactly one to get doe-eyed when WotC proclaims their virtue, but I think it's important to note that these leaks are coming from and being passed along a chain of people who have interest in making things juicy. Which isn't to say that there is dishonesty...so much as a tendency to jump to conclusions,.the worst ones, and assume they're the only possible conclusions...or at least, more likely than they actually are.
For example, is it not feasible that the source of this leak is that someone heard that the OGL isn't being considered (yet) or is going to be scrutinised before release, and then took that to mean that WotC is looking for a way around it?
As I said, I do look at WotC with skepticism. They do do anticonsumer things for a quick buck rather than put in the effort. Still, I'm not convinced that they're just going to abandon how they do things, risk alienating the majority of their consumer base...in the hopes of grabbing a few.extra bucks in official content sales. It would be a massive risk...and I'm not sure it would even be more profitable for them even if they didn't upset most of their customers.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
The "oh lawd monitization is coming" section of that article is rampant speculation not based on any specific quotes or references.
I will save my pearl clutching for when we have actual details.
Site Info: Wizard's ToS | Fan Content Policy | Forum Rules | Physical Books | Content Not Working | Contact Support
How To: Homebrew Rules | Create Homebrew | Snippet Codes | Tool Tips (Custom) | Rollables (Generator)
My Homebrew: Races | Subclasses | Backgrounds | Feats | Spells | Magic Items
Other: Beyond20 | Page References | Other Guides | Entitlements | Dice Randomization | Images Fix | FAQ
The Open Gaming License "removal" is just a bunch of mostly junk-filled rumors that Wizards of the Coast has explicitly said are not true. Yes, the OGL may be modified or tweaked, but no way is it going to be completely removed. The sky is not falling just yet guys.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Source?
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I do believe that any new material does not have to fall under an OGL.
And as for Open Licenses theirs must be far different than others I have seen in that others allow you to publish the original content as long as the original source is referenced. And I can not see WoTC doing that. Their OGL just lets you publish your ideas for their copy written content.
Pretty much a legal nothing burger for us users.