Mod+ OGL 1.1 is not an Open License.

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’m not saying they won’t do it, lots of dumb thing are done in the rpg world, but if you are a convention pissing off the largest game doesn’t seem smart.

Depends on what's important to someone. Prioritizing an ethical choice over money isn't "stupid", and allowing money to be one's deciding motivation isn't "smart". But since WotC isn't going to Gencon anymore it's irrelevant, I suppose.
 
I think it also shows pretty clearly that the Hasbro/WotC suits don't see themselves as part of the same industry or hobby as the rest of the RPG world. They don't want to be present at a convention where there are other games, because that might draw attention to there being other games. It also promotes the whole social and physical thing, and that's not what they want. They want digital connections, people playing on VTTs (eventually just their VTT) and none of this other stuff.
 
I didn’t know that they stopped attending GenCon. In that case yeah, there is no reason for the ex CEO to not make a statement.
 
lol, I have never been to ANY gaming convention in my life. The concept actually kinda horrifies me, I don't even like it when there are too many people in the FLGS at the same time as me.
I went to GenCon in like 2015. I knew this was going to be an issue. I got a hotel room a bit off the path, but still within walking distance. I deliberately ran a few games but then walked away after those. I strolled the floor and saw some stuff, even bought a great drinking horn. However, I did not socialize much - 2 single meetings with people I had known (one online, one an old childhood friend) and didn’t do any more. It worked, and I would do that again, but I’m pretty loathe to be on the convention bus or spend a lot of time with folks. I tried my own local convention and those people are just too much for me.
 
I went to GenCon in like 2015. I knew this was going to be an issue. I got a hotel room a bit off the path, but still within walking distance. I deliberately ran a few games but then walked away after those. I strolled the floor and saw some stuff, even bought a great drinking horn. However, I did not socialize much - 2 single meetings with people I had known (one online, one an old childhood friend) and didn’t do any more. It worked, and I would do that again, but I’m pretty loathe to be on the convention bus or spend a lot of time with folks. I tried my own local convention and those people are just too much for me.

Meeting new people at cons is a crap-shoot with the odds against you.

Cons are best enjoyed when you go with your crew. Or perhaps to meet up with your old gaming buddies who live afar. Or if you know some of your favorite game designers will be there to run games.
 
lol, I have never been to ANY gaming convention in my life. The concept actually kinda horrifies me, I don't even like it when there are too many people in the FLGS at the same time as me.
My wife was horrified when she attended her first Fan Expo in Boston with our daughter and I and saw some of the cosplayers.
 
The only reason I go to gaming cons is for board games, not RPGs. I'd rather play RPGs at home with my friends.

But for board games it is cool cause you can snag the hot new releases, demo stuff that isn't out yet, etc. etc. etc.
 
I've been going to conventions for over twenty years, at least once a year, and I was involved with running one for about seven years. I love game conventions. I do agree that going alone is not nearly as fun as going with a group, but you can definitely meet people and have fun playing games with them at a con too.
 
I've been going to conventions for over twenty years, at least once a year, and I was involved with running one for about seven years. I love game conventions. I do agree that going alone is not nearly as fun as going with a group, but you can definitely meet people and have fun playing games with them at a con too.

I'm a horribly antisocial person, my personal aversion to cons shouldn't be looked at as a criticism of conventions themselves.

It's very much a "it's not you, it's me" situation.
 
I'm a horribly antisocial person, my personal aversion to cons shouldn't be looked at as a criticism of conventions themselves.

It's very much a "it's not you, it's me" situation.
Right I understand that, I have a friend who can't handle being around that many people at the same time, while their partner ran a game convention. No problem between them over this. Just thought I'd offer a different perspective on it :smile:
 
lol, I have never been to ANY gaming convention in my life. The concept actually kinda horrifies me, I don't even like it when there are too many people in the FLGS at the same time as me.
That's me "now". lol. The guy who would wander into large concert floors with abandon, crowded busy market places in third world countries nowadays is rather uncomfortable in any kinda of crowd. lol So I can now relate. When I see a line someplace I do an about face, and my wife knows I will and won't argue with me.
 
New Roll of Law video is good.



Last half hour is basically just talking about Paranoia (the RPG)

About thirty minutes in. Some good questions by people and some really ignorant dumb statements. Glad he responded to some of those ignorant comments but main they are painful. I'm enjoying his responses overall so far.
 
I've been going to conventions for over twenty years, at least once a year, and I was involved with running one for about seven years. I love game conventions. I do agree that going alone is not nearly as fun as going with a group, but you can definitely meet people and have fun playing games with them at a con too.

Yep! I went to my first convention (mixed stuff - rpgs, comics, etc.) sometime in the early 80s, and have been to many, of all sorts, since then. With the exception of my high school days, I almost always go alone, simply because most of my friends and gaming buddies don't like going to conventions. I am gregarious enough to strike up conversations with people in line or sitting in convention halls, so I end up doing as much socializing as I feel like doing.

I usually try to run at least one session of an rpg (often Call of Cthulhu) at gaming conventions, and I usually play in a lot of sessions, so I talk to even more people that way.
 
Give the length and speed of this thread, I'm not going to reference any particular post, but in general I would like to point out that Hasbro/WOTC's decisions on all this aren't really an indication of "evil" on anyone's part. The problem is that they are a publicly traded company in a time period when investors want to see ever-increasing quarterly growth. They also have leadership who are used to thinking in terms of video game customers, a lack of understanding of their core market, and some (evidently) really bad advice from lawyers. That combination is pretty much a recipe for disaster. Having to answer to shareholders alone puts them on track to making decisions that don't align with the interests of their customer base.

Their decisions from this point on will be in keeping with that reality. They will do whatever they think will maximize their profits. Nothing more, nothing less. The sudden loss of subscribers to D&D Beyond is the only thing that really gave them pause, because that is a clear statement on how this OGL thing is going to affect their profits. Regardless of where things go from here, they will continue to make decisions based solely on short-term profits, because (with shareholders) they don't really have much of a choice. They may end up making better informed decisions, but any concessions they make about the OGL may be reversed or bypassed at some point in the future if they think that it will help their bottom line. That would be true of any company that is subject to the whims of shareholders. That alone is more than enough reason to move away from the OGL, or any license that is controlled by an individual company.
 
I think it also shows pretty clearly that the Hasbro/WotC suits don't see themselves as part of the same industry or hobby as the rest of the RPG world. They don't want to be present at a convention where there are other games, because that might draw attention to there being other games. It also promotes the whole social and physical thing, and that's not what they want. They want digital connections, people playing on VTTs (eventually just their VTT) and none of this other stuff.

I don't think it's that in this case, the year that they decided to not go to Gencon Mearls announced they would be going to Garycon instead. And as far as I know they continued to go to Garycon for years after.

Not sure what motivated that decision about Gencon. Maybe it was simply a cut in budget and going to Garycon was cheaper and since it was a growing convention they thought their time was better spent there, at least as an experiment.
 
It goes without saying that, rationally, Hasbro's decisions aren't evil in the Putin/PolPot sense. carpocratian carpocratian is completely right about the profit motive and how that shapes their decision making. But I do think that what they've done (and will probably continue to do) has acted as a lightning rod for people who generally feel totally powerless in a world where power and decision-making has been removed from ordinary people's hands. A good whack of RPG players seem to have taken this as a call to action, myself included. This is something that - through cancelling subs, creating new licenses, writing new games - has created a battlefield where the consumer feels like they can take on the corporation. I'll stop here with my theory of praxis before it gets too political, but you know what I'm driving at. In my black van filled with d20s and fireworks.

Over on en-world the polling stands at around 45% "done with d&d" vs 55% "don't really care I'm a d&d person". Even if that 45% slips down a few notches, I imagine it might represent a worry for Hasbro's bean counters in the short-medium term. Which as we know, is all they care about.
 
Give the length and speed of this thread, I'm not going to reference any particular post, but in general I would like to point out that Hasbro/WOTC's decisions on all this aren't really an indication of "evil" on anyone's part. The problem is that they are a publicly traded company in a time period when investors want to see ever-increasing quarterly growth. They also have leadership who are used to thinking in terms of video game customers, a lack of understanding of their core market, and some (evidently) really bad advice from lawyers. That combination is pretty much a recipe for disaster. Having to answer to shareholders alone puts them on track to making decisions that don't align with the interests of their customer base.

Their decisions from this point on will be in keeping with that reality. They will do whatever they think will maximize their profits. Nothing more, nothing less. The sudden loss of subscribers to D&D Beyond is the only thing that really gave them pause, because that is a clear statement on how this OGL thing is going to affect their profits. Regardless of where things go from here, they will continue to make decisions based solely on short-term profits, because (with shareholders) they don't really have much of a choice. They may end up making better informed decisions, but any concessions they make about the OGL may be reversed or bypassed at some point in the future if they think that it will help their bottom line. That would be true of any company that is subject to the whims of shareholders. That alone is more than enough reason to move away from the OGL, or any license that is controlled by an individual company.

We all know that companies are motivated by making profit.
WotC failed at that quite spectacularly. They've cost themselves money probably in 5-6 digits already, and we'll have to see what the longterm consequences of this fallout are, but it's very possible that they just cost themselves millions.

The thing about the profit motivation is, it doesn't excuse their behaviour - it doesn't even explain it so much as ignorance, arrogance, stupidity, dishonesty, and grossly underestimating the intelligence of their customers. It absolutely does not stop them from being "evil", whatever that means.

Their decisions may be in keeping with them wanting profit, but they are miles off from actually making profit. They self-sabotaged themselves at their peak, and heads will roll for this (I think Williams was already fired because of it). It's actually kinda funny, all they had to do was stay the course, D&D had unprecedented brand loyalty, market penetration, and an army of free employees supporting their game. And they pissed it all away.

Bet those shareholders ain;t too happy right about now.
 
It goes without saying that, rationally, Hasbro's decisions aren't evil in the Putin/PolPot sense. carpocratian carpocratian is completely right about the profit motive and how that shapes their decision making. But I do think that what they've done (and will probably continue to do) has acted as a lightning rod for people who generally feel totally powerless in a world where power and decision-making has been removed from ordinary people's hands. A good whack of RPG players seem to have taken this as a call to action, myself included. This is something that - through cancelling subs, creating new licenses, writing new games - has created a battlefield where the consumer feels like they can take on the corporation. I'll stop here with my theory of praxis before it gets too political, but you know what I'm driving at. In my black van filled with d20s and fireworks.

Over on en-world the polling stands at around 45% "done with d&d" vs 55% "don't really care I'm a d&d person". Even if that 45% slips down a few notches, I imagine it might represent a worry for Hasbro's bean counters in the short-medium term. Which as we know, is all they care about.
Several of those “I’ll keep playing D&D” voters have also said “yes I’ll keep playing, but I won’t buy anything from Hasbro again”. Hasbro doesn’t care if you play, they care if you buy. That a poll on “will you keep playing D&D” can be even close to even on Enworld, the D&D site, should be ringing alarm bells for Hasbro.
 
Over on en-world the polling stands at around 45% "done with d&d" vs 55% "don't really care I'm a d&d person". Even if that 45% slips down a few notches, I imagine it might represent a worry for Hasbro's bean counters in the short-medium term. Which as we know, is all they care about.

At the very least, if those numbers remain consistent, they are looking at a division of their customer base not unlike the divide between 4E and Pathfinder (which is one of the things this whole new license was intended to avoid).
 
At the very least, if those numbers remain consistent, they are looking at a division of their customer base not unlike the divide between 4E and Pathfinder (which is one of the things this whole new license was intended to avoid).

The schadenfreude from the irony of unintended consequences in this case is a very fine vintage
 
The thing about the profit motivation is, it doesn't excuse their behaviour - it doesn't even explain it so much as ignorance, arrogance, stupidity, dishonesty, and grossly underestimating the intelligence of their customers.

It explains the behavior. They were just coming at it from a place of incredible (and avoidable) ignorance. As I said, their lack of understanding of their customer base and the difference between videogames and tabletop rpgs led them to make some very bad decisions that will (ultimately) do the opposite of what they intended. In trying to increase their profits in the short term, they have inadvertently hurt them, both in the short and long terms.

Publicly traded corporations focusing on short-term profits are pretty much a given these days. A lot of that is driven by shareholders who are pushing for unrealistic short-term gains and CEOs focused on pump-and-run tactics (with golden parachutes to protect them). What surprises me a little is that all of this surprises anyone. Once D&D was purchased by a publicly traded company, it was almost inevitable that something would happen that put them at odds with their customer base, and even the rpg community at large. The only people who ever benefit from IPOs or sales of companies to publicly traded ones are the owners and investors. It is never a positive thing for the customers.
 
It explains the behavior.

I don't think anyone is looking for an explanation. "Greed" was written all over the face of the 1.1 leak in bold letters.

What surprises me a little is that all of this surprises anyone.

The depths of stupidity are always surprising.
 
As I've said, corporations aren't by their nature good or evil so much as amoral. It's society, goverments, regulators and consumers that will drive their actions and what they understand is acceptable to make money.

In many ways WotC actions are a reflection of the fact that the vast majority of rpgers play D&D and are inelastic in their demand for other rpgs.

The best thing that could come out of this isn't people walking away from WotC so much as people understanding the company is not their friend, or fellow gamer or even has the ever so slightest interest in your fun or hobby more than is necessary to sell a product.
 
As I've said, corporations aren't by their nature good or evil so much as amoral. It's society, goverments, regulators and consumers that will drive their actions and what they understand is acceptable to make money.

In many ways WotC actions are a reflection of the fact that the vast majority of rpgers play D&D and are inelastic in their demand for other rpgs.

The best thing that could come out of this isn't people walking away from WotC so much as people understanding the company is not their friend, or fellow gamer or even has the ever so slightest interest in your fun or hobby more than is necessary to sell a product.

Yes, exactly. Well said.
 
Corporations are just legal constructs. They do not make decisions, people make decisions. Hasbro as an entity did not decide on any course of action. Chris Cocks and Cynthia Williams and other human beings made these decisions. They could have made different decisions, but they didn’t. They can and should be judged for the decisions they chose to make.
 
It explains the behavior. They were just coming at it from a place of incredible (and avoidable) ignorance. As I said, their lack of understanding of their customer base and the difference between videogames and tabletop rpgs led them to make some very bad decisions that will (ultimately) do the opposite of what they intended. In trying to increase their profits in the short term, they have inadvertently hurt them, both in the short and long terms.

Publicly traded corporations focusing on short-term profits are pretty much a given these days. A lot of that is driven by shareholders who are pushing for unrealistic short-term gains and CEOs focused on pump-and-run tactics (with golden parachutes to protect them). What surprises me a little is that all of this surprises anyone. Once D&D was purchased by a publicly traded company, it was almost inevitable that something would happen that put them at odds with their customer base, and even the rpg community at large. The only people who ever benefit from IPOs or sales of companies to publicly traded ones are the owners and investors. It is never a positive thing for the customers.

But just because something is the case doesn't mean there is an ought here. I agree, understanding that short term profit is the motive, is useful (and also part of a healthy skepticism of corporate power), but it doesn't justify how they decide to pursue that profit (nor does it make me sympathetic to them). People are reacting so negatively because open gaming has been at the center of this hobby for over twenty years now, and it is just part of the air we breathe. What they are doing is a bit like Nestle suddenly saying water isn't a human right.

I think the issue of surprise is a mixture. If there is surprise most of it is probably around the established understanding of what was possible under the OGL. Until about a month ago no one seemed to think it could be de-authorized. That a company like Hasbro would try to find a loophole in order to end the OGL, doesn't surprise me.

I do think maybe among some younger gamers, who had tremendous goodwill towards WOTC, their behavior may have been surprising. I have seen some people react in a way that it appears they are genuinely surprised WOTC would act so aggressively and so greedily, and be willing to undo open gaming in that way. And you can see this in the passion of their posts (I have seen several posters online who were ardent defenders of WOTC a month or two ago, now feeling very betrayed and showing tremendous hostility towards the company). One thing that does appear to be emerging from this is a restoration of some healthy skepticism of corporations. There has been a move towards trusting companies to do the right thing, and maybe being a 90s Gen X, I was always pretty skeptical of that. It might be good for the hobby to return a bit to that attitude
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top