The Devil’s in the D&Details

How Hasbro learned the power of collaboration… The hard way

TL;DR:

• D&D Is owned by Wizards of the Coast (WotC), now owned by Hasbro
• WotC allegedly planned to kill the OGL that made D&D an ecosystem
• Control is dangerous when wielded in an ecosystem
• Collaboration has untold power, often surprising individuals in power
• You can’t turn an ecosystem into a walled garden… without a lot of pain
• The community keeps corporations in check, but use barbs not poison
• So much more could be covered here, stay tuned

Photo by Ricardo Gomez Angel on Unsplash

It’s wild that my first article back is about such a distinctly nerdy topic… though I might as well lean into it now. I take solace in the fact that D&D has basically become mainstream and the recent events surrounding it are the perfect introduction into my “new life focus”. That focus, and this article, are not D&D or TTRPGs but rather complex collaborative leadership, here played out in the dynamics we see when a community built around a system of freedom collide with a corporation looking to gain more control over that system. This is the story of collaboration vs control and how the modern world is shifting power towards the collaborative. (Sorry 90s fundamentalists, this is not an exposé on the Devil’s hand in D&D)

Background: The Origin of Wizards

Wizards didn’t come from across the sea, but they did come from the coast

I’ll provide a bit of background for the normal people before I dive into my reflections and what this all is pointing to. Feel free to skip to “Attempted Murder of the OG(L)” if you aren’t interested in the origins of D&D or context about the game.

Dungeons & Dragons (D&D) is a Table Top Role Playing Game (TTRPG) owned by Wizards of the Coast (WotC) an American game publisher who’s original breakout product was Magic: The Gathering. WotC was bought by Hasbro in 1999 and operated with waning levels of independence until 2021 when it was reorganized to lead the charge on Hasbro’s digitalized strategy. WotC was not the originator of D&D but gained ownership of it in ’97 when it acquired TSR who created D&D, credited as the avant-garde of TTRPGs. WotC, however, was not unfamiliar with TTRPGs having originally formed around their own properties in the space before running into legal troubles with Palladium Books and pivoting to their popular deck building game: Magic.

With fresh access to capital and distribution under Hasbro, WotC was poised to dominate a fragmented TTRPG market. Though there was much shifting in leadership and properties that stayed under Wizards, in those first years one last piece of the puzzle came into play. In 2000 WotC released it’s Open Gaming License (OGL), encouraging others to build content on top of and in parallel to the D&D system. Ryan Dancy spearheaded the effort. Given that WotC’s original TTRPG work was stymied by their inclusion of certain derivative work, you may wonder how Peter Adkison (founder of WotC) felt about this change in direction for TTRGPs (he ultimately left Hasbro the following year). Regardless, there was a distinct intent to expand the market as a whole and thus improve D&D’s position in it. Clearly a smashing success as countless works started being published on the up-and-coming “platform” of D&D.

From 2000 forward, D&D saw growth under this OGL and the general openness allowed the community to participate in contributing & sharing their love for the platform. Though when 3.5 was released it did impact a lot of this secondary market, D&D and the market as a whole still continued on. This general growth pattern often saw its downs when Wizards brought in new editions and as players fractured between them. In 2012 a sales slump was noted and was followed by efforts for a broad “open play test” to make a unified new edition. It seems that D&D took the biggest hits whenever it attempted to assert control over the market, and then responded by attempting to re-open the game for input in “building something better”. As such, we may see a relatively similar slump (though the modern meteoric growth may keep it from a total downturn) in D&D property revenues following the recent events we will now discus.

Attempted Murder of the OG(L)

I don’t believe anyone involved would consider this framing an overstatement, and they say such bold claims get the views ;P . Regardless of the intent is overstated, this is exactly how the community took it. Here I won’t attempt a play-by-play of the events which transpired around the news that D&D was intending to change the OGL as you can find this information here, here, here & here.

In short, after a leaked version of a new OGL came out looking to remove the OG OGL from it’s place and killing much of the freedom granted in its predecessor, the community pulled out their proverbial great-axes and fireball spells and went to work. Over several back-and-forth exchanges which gathered the awareness of top media headlines and following a mass collective action by the D&D community to cancel subscriptions to WotC’s primary recurring revenue source (DnD Beyond), it became clear that this assertion of control by the conglomerate was only losing ground. Finally on January 27th WotC conceded and gave the community what they requested: the continued existence of the OG OGL. They also handing over the whole 5e SRD (System Reference Document) to Creative Commons. This was all due to collective action driven by community voices & leaders like Ginny Di encouraging the exit from DnD Beyond and support of the creators most impacted by the potential OGL changes.

I will not get into the importance & characteristics of such collaborative leadership here, but there is no question that Ginny’s community respect, honest but positive voice, and willingness to be open and real, were key traits to the successful leadership of this cause. Plenty of others also had voices, some as laudable as Ginny’s, others just loud. Yet, the outcomes were actualized by the countless individuals passionate about the cause: keeping the openness which allowed their favorite creators and themselves to participate in the growth of the pastime. So, what does this all have to do with collaboration and control?

Control & The Fruit of Death

Though the Christian tradition is not universal, the story of the Forbidden Fruit is pretty well recognized. Regardless of your take on the validity of it, there is a cautionary tale to be observed and which shows up throughout history & story alike. Though the source of that “original sin” may be debated, clearly a part of the draw for Adam & Eve to “accept death” was the control over their own destiny which the Devil said the fruit offered. We see this parable played out through history as people pursue “a control beyond themselves” and find destruction on the other side. Be it the enslavement of others, pursuing deadly means of control, or seeking mystical powers which ultimately never bring the resolution one seeks, humans seem to be unable to avoid the temptation to leverage what they have to extract more than they would otherwise reasonably deserve.

If we were to anthropomorphize “control” its most devious strategy is the contractual offering of immediate gratification but with veiled consequences which inevitably extract more than the signer intended. I am currently leading a campaign of Descent Into Avernus, where this exact personification is defined in the way devils are supposed to be run as Non-Player Characters (NPCs). It seems D&D writes its own cautionary tale in showing that you can make a deal with a devil for control, but it will cost you in the end. As such, when “control” is used to drive personal gain, the rise may be meteoric but the fall leaves a crater which vaporizes more than just the one who finally found the effects of gravity.

As “owners” of the platform, Hasbro has the control to decide how D&D moves forward and who gets to participate in that new evolution of the product. It is not hard to imagine that the sparkling hoard of gold hidden behind the OGL blinded them to the effects of gravity gathered in the body of participants who loved the system they created. But how could they be so blind to the impact their “overreach” would have? And why does this story matter to you (assuming you don’t play D&D)? It all comes down to collaboration, autonomy, and a little bit of ambition.

Collaboration, The Tower of Babel & The Unstoppable Future

Another well known story in the Bible is that of the tower of Babel. In essence the people who had been given control by the aforementioned fruit, which they exchanged for a life awaiting death, collaborated to build something so great as to “build a name for themselves & defy God”. This collaboration ultimately drew God’s attention, recognizing that “together there is nothing they can’t do”. Though potentially sacrilegious, you might say that, like Hasbro, God was caught off guard by how powerful people were when they worked together.

Regardless of if you assume this origin story to be true, a possible interpretation is that people were divided across the world to keep them from collaborating too much and becoming as powerful as God. The logical conclusion being that, as people are more able to overcome their differences and join together, they may be able to find this same level of unstoppable power left to the lost tomes of history. The fear of being smote by God notwithstanding, it seems few forces can hold back the inevitable power of collective action. The point here is not of course to debate the voracity of Biblical texts but rather to look again at how we understand power in the context of the “one in control” vs the many. Even outside the spiritual texts of various religions, there seems to be a growing realization that some ethereal capacity exists in collaborative efforts of people using their autonomy in unison, potentially with less of the devilish tradeoffs housed in the contract of individual control.

The Walled Garden or The Fruitful Forest?

In seeking to control its own destiny (and stock prices), Hasbro looked to claw back its power over a system which was given to the people. It was likely impressed by the walled garden found in the back yard of Apple with the abundance of fruit gathered from the foliage therein. However, Apple painstakingly curated that garden from the beginning, never opening it up to the people at the fruit stand. WotC, on the other hand, made an open invitation for all to plant and take part in the bounty of their labor. There should be no surprise when the community comes with trowel and shovel after the wall blueprints come out: the community garden is no longer just Hasbro’s to enjoy… they let others grow their own livelihood there.

What WotC had created was an ecosystem of sorts. Whereas in a garden much continual effort must be expended to create more fruit, a healthy ecosystem is productive with limited centralized cultivation effort. Ecosystems team with nutrients & plenty for all to share, they draw others from outside the forest to grow the ecosystem, and their boundaries have freedom to expand. This is an enticing proposition for the one who cares little about control and much about collaboration… as the very nature of an ecosystem is the various participants working in concert. But for the individual looking for control and to extract value, they see only “unproductive plants” taking up space for a greater harvest.

There are assuredly companies who have successfully built and maintained ecosystems for years. However, their business was often founded around these ecosystems with much intentionality to maintain & support them in a healthy way. When “ecosystem building” is in the DNA of corporate leadership & culture there is a mindset shift from linear growth thinking to systems thinking. If a company seeks to maintain a long standing ecosystem and build on a collaborative future, they must doff the protective armor of linear growth and pursue a 20 (out of 20) dexterity stat to protect them in the agile environment of an ecosystem. And even with this mindset shift, regular intentionality must be taken to keep a toxic growth mindset in check. It seems that without being kept in check, the motivations of a corporation’s ever expanding efficiency & profitability directly conflict with the nature & nurture of an ecosystem which they may manage.

Check or Checkmate?

Who then can keep the hungry corporation in check? Theoretically it is the denizens of the forest. However, this check is best “cashed” if the denizens use barbs, not poison. That is, there must be an immediate pain feedback which indicates the danger of the corporation’s actions. Too often it seems that the community attempts to protect itself only with poison & disease: the natural effects of people slowly leaving communities they find toxic, or refraining from that next purchase a year later. Though this may be retributive and self protecting, it doesn’t provide the proper feedback loop to keep that specific relationship thriving. It’s even possible, with the adaptive biology a corporation has, that it can adjust and becomes immune to the long acting impact of its actions. Allowing it to continue doing harm while remaining oblivious to the impact.

Ideally a situation shouldn’t come to blows for the community to keep corporations in check. A lot of damage and loss can happen when collective action is used to impact the bottom line of a corporation. And there is no doubt that this experience is painful. However, in many situations it is necessary and with the OGL situation it seems you couldn’t leave the mate behind when trying to keep check (please don’t banish me for my stretched play on words). Though obviously there was some “looking out for oneself” involved in the OGL showdown, community members were able to look beyond themselves to the impact the decisions would have on their mates, the creators. The “looking out for others” symbiotic relationship is what ultimately created a momentum to force the hand of the conglomerate. Clearly for the sake of our mates we needed to put up enough barbs to checkmate the king into a corner.

Still, I caution any member of the community who seeks to continue inflicting poison when the proper barbs will do. Though no one can truly say if Hasbro has learned its lesson, for the moment their ecosystem harming actions have stopped. The barbs worked, and the overreaching control has been kept in check. However, things like boycotting an upcoming movie in retribution for actions resolved months earlier is injecting poison into the ecosystem, a dangerous gambit. This lesson is the same I would encourage anyone involved in any community or ecosystem to consider. When possible (and I know there are times when it isn’t) immediate and painfully clear action is healthier for an ecosystem than slow, ambiguous, and deadly actions towards a bad actor. That said, choosing not to participate in something you can’t stomach isn’t necessarily retribution, sometimes it’s just listening to your body… which is also ok.

Session 0

There is so much more to talk about here. Things like parallels to other events like Oracle’s control over Java, how being a DM is a great way to learn collaborative leadership, the economic impact of open licenses, and much more. Needless to say, this is just the first of many pieces of content I hope to put out around collaboration, leadership, and building a better world through ecosystems. When observing history we can see a trend in the continual tide moving humanity to a greater understanding of individual autonomy. Now we are seeing more and more work coalescing around the power of those with autonomy actively choosing to align around goals & purpose. Even as this work around collaboration has existed for years, it is still the first session of a long campaign where humanity learns how to be an adventuring party together in ways that are healthy and improve the mystical ecosystem we live in.

To Wrap Up

What can we learn from all this? Once you leave the Garden of Eden, there’s no going back. And if you eat the forbidden fruit of godlike control, you will likely find death. Let’s just hope that WotC wasn’t cut so deep by the barbs of the ecosystem that it bleeds out. Not in a desire to keep those seeking control from a just retribution, but so that the blood doesn’t taint the water and push everyone out of a beautiful ecosystem we all shared the fruits of. But of all things, please don’t use poison when a little prick will do. That said, when a predator prowls the ecosystem, it’s OK to seek a new habitat, or at least vacation spot. Finally, there’s something powerful about working together that can overcome even the most godlike conglomerates, and potentially make the Game Master wonder if the Player Characters are getting too good. But ultimately, collaboration is the only way to beat the devils we fight.

Peace to you and your adventures. Hopefully as you traverse this fantastic world you see the power of working together in adventuring parties and larger ecosystems. It’s never too late to learn how to be collaborative and look out for the mates around you, even if you realize you are the BBEG (Big Bad Evil Guy) who signed a devilish contract for control.

Shameless Plugs:
I asked the question “what would it look like for the community to build the next TTRPG” and came up with FROSTT_RPG to find out. Who knows if it goes anywhere, but Ryan Dancy believed that the best things are built together. Hopefully D&D in some ways continues to be (I want to keep GMing the system), but FROSTT always will.

I also have a newsletter if you want to track along with my work in the world of collaborative leadership & innovation.