Is Evil Genius Games Doubling Down On NFTs & Blockchain?

Despite public pledges not to use controversial technologies.

Screenshot 2024-06-18 at 16.55.19.png

Evil Genius Games' Dave Scott presents to a panel of judges at a cryptocurrency convention in May 2024

Earlier this year, it was revealed that Evil Genius Games--publisher of the d20 Modern inspired Everyday Heroes TTRPG--was considering use of certain controversial Web3 technologies, such as non-fungible tokens (NFTs) and blockchains. In response to that, EGG published a manifesto on February 6th, 2024, which they called their 'Technology Code of Ethics' in which the company pledged not to use blockchain or cryptocurrencies (along with AI, and other pledges). Indeed, Scott himself told me back in February that the company had decided not to use blockchain technology. For a full background on EGG and recent events, you can read more in The Rise And Fall Of Evil Genius Games.

#2: Evil Genius Games will not use Blockchain or Cryptocurrency technologies in the building or operation of its technology platform.

At the end of 2023 and the start of 2024 numerous employees resigned from Evil Genius Games citing--amongst other things--ethical concerns with the technologies that the company was planning to use, something which Dave Scott made public assurances that they would not do. At the time Scott said: “We made the decision not to do AI in October, and then not to do Web3 in December. But apparently, it wasn't enough to allay any concerns. So after the resignations, we brought the team together to discuss. And we felt a public and permanent statement on this issue would be useful. That's why we drafted the code of ethics after the fact.” In fact, back when I spoke to Scott in February of this year, one of the questions I asked him was why the staff who had recently resigned from EGG did not believe him when he repeated that the company did not intend to use those controversial technologies, and he indicated to me that he didn't know why that was the case.

EGG Pitches At Consensus 2024
However, last week, EGG participated in a pitch competition at an event at Consensus 2024, a convention in Texas run by Coindesk. Consensus describes itself as "the world's largest, longest-running and most influential gathering that brings together all sides of the cryptocurrency, blockchain and Web3 community". EGG's owner Dave Scott pitched a future for their TTRPG offerings which leaned heavily on both blockchains and on non-fungible tokens. Scott introduced the company and told the attendees that "we make turn-based RPGs on chain based on famous Blockbuster movie franchises that we all know and love."

Interestingly, Scott also stated that Jeff Grubb (Dragonlance, d20 Modern) works for the company and describes him as "the father of modern day Dungeons and Dragons"; Grubb made it clear earlier this year that he had no current involvement with Evil Genius Games. In my previous delve into EGG, it turned out that Grubb's participation in Everyday Heroes was that he wrote the foreword in 2023.

I'm not the best person on the staff. Meet Jeff Grub. Jeff Grub is the father of modern day Dungeons and Dragons.

Screenshot 2024-06-18 at 16.53.09.png

So how do NFTs fit into this vision? Dave Scott described it as follows:

Imagine a scenario where you could actually buy NFT utilities that are exclusive to these licenses you could actually pilot Gypsy Danger, you can carry Rambo's M60, all of these that have value that can be bought sold and traded but more importantly in the Roblox fashion we're going to allow other people to actually create their own NFTs which can be thrown onto a marketplace where they can buy, sell and trade those adventures as well.

Screenshot 2024-06-18 at 16.49.56.png


Scott's pitch can be watched below--in the video the CEO presented an NFT and blockchain powered future for Evil Genius Games' tabletop offerings in front of three judges, who then proceeded to ask him questions about the pitch.

During the Q&A which followed, Scott confirmed that there was no actual NFT technology in place yet, indicating that "we've just started to set up the infrastructure to be able to create the NFT program". He also claimed that the company has made $1.2M in revenue in the last year based on sales of digital products.

When asked about the blockchain components of the setup, Scott described the content creator marketplace.

All the Creator Marketplace components of it, the UGC components of it, the entire utility is on chain. If you've actually played RPGs before there's a character sheet, all the components of the character sheet will have objects on it, all the objects will be NFTs. In addition to that the actual character sheet itself will be minted as an NFT as well so what that means is that if we use your character as an NPC in a future game we'll actually pay you royalties on the character itself. So the whole thing is based off of objects which are have NFT components to it.

He went on to describe some of the more technical aspects of the platform, including the use of a 'wallet-as-a-service' company called Stardust. Stardust's mission statement is to "democratise blockchain technology for developers and players at scale".

What we're really excited about is the idea that we can use blockchain to be able to control the value and to create value around the objects which make up your character, that's going to be a really important component of it so if you actually create for example an adventure on our system that'll be something that you own as the creator from here on out but the experience we're going after is a Web2 experience which means that we don't want to expose the wallet, we're going to be using a company called Stardust be able to create custodial wallets for that reason.



This was part of a competition, which--as it happens--Evil Genius Games won!

To Pledge Or Not To Pledge?
Whether or not one supports the idea of blockchains and NFTs, Evil Genius Games did make a very public pledge not to use blockchains--and reiterated to staff, to me, and on forums that they did not plan to go ahead with that course. This presentation appears to indicate otherwise, with CEO Dave Scott declaring his intentions towards both blockchains and NFTs in a very public venue.

Screenshot 2024-06-18 at 17.26.58.png

EGG's technology Code of Ethics, published in February 2024
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Juxtapozbliss

Explorer
Pretty much this.

Personally, I put my entire pay on freeze for over 3 months when Evil Genius Games was in financial trouble at the end of last year, to ensure the business could pay the employees who needed that money to pay their rent, buy food etc. To me, that's the way a good leader takes responsibility, even if the situation isn't their fault.

Having worked on the vision, design, and architecture for the Evil Genius Games tech offerings (I was in a joint CPO/CTO role), I can confidently state that to you that there is nothing—absolutely zero—to be gained by using blockchain technology to implement any of the ideas that Dave Scott articulated.

All of the ideas around owning specific, rare content, can be fully solved with a standard, proprietary database instead of NFTs. Honestly though, that sort of scarcity model is just akin to loot boxes in video games (also a grift designed to extort money from consumers).

Worse, utilising blockchain would be significantly more resource intensive and carry much higher transaction costs, resulting in a significantly higher operating cost to run, translating into higher coats for consumers.

As others have mentioned above, Web3 is a dead technology. It's been around for a decade now. Given how fast technology accelerates and products reach the market, if there were legitimate use cases for web3 tech, then Google, Amazon, Microsoft, IBM etc would all have major products that used that technology. Just try naming a full web3 product from a major tech company.

What they do however is serve that technology up to others who wish to build web3 products using the tech. The primary purpose for these is to convince VCs to invest money into building something that has the appearance of success, and to possibly generate an exit and sell the company at a profit before people realise it's worthless.


For avoidance of doubt, I am entirely against any form of blockchain technology, whether it's crypto, NFTs or other. Same with using generative AI to replace artists and writers - no thanks. I'm also against using micro transactions and artificial scarcity models ("there are only 5 of this digital product available").

Here, here!
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Jon Lane

Villager
I realise this is several weeks old now, but I wanted to add some recent activity.

As some of you may know, EGG have just begun crowdfunding for their next product in the Everyday Heroes line - the Armory (I'm not going to link it here, because I don''t want to encourage traffic in that direction). Given Dave's claims of offering iconic weapons as NFTs in his pitch at Consensus (and since no other comments on the campaign page had brought it up yet), I wanted to see if there were plans for this book to be the start of that blockchain integration, and if so, how that squared with the pledge not to use blockchain technology in any way in the platform being set up by EGG.

Sigfried - who I believe posted here several times on the other EGG thread - replied, and assured me that he and Dave had had clear conversations about the matter, and Dave had assured him that NFTs were not going to be involved in any way - ir was all just pdfs and print books. I asked how that fit with the pitchfest entry at Consensus, but got no reply as to that particular question.

So... I decided to head on over to the EGG site, and ask directly; especially once I saw that Dave had unveiled the technology roadmap at the end of last month, and what was written there aligned completely with the second part of his pitch to the judges - a monthly subscription service, which granted access to a character creator and digital copies of the books online (access to the SRD would be free), along with several other membership benefits. What was lacking, though, was mention of the third part of Dave's pitch - the NFT marketplace. So, I decided to press him on that, and wrote a comment.

This evening, I received an email reply from Dave himself! He told me he had received my message, and would be happy to continue the conversation directly with me, via email; or, I could join the Discord server and ask my questions in his AMA channel. I responded, and said I would love to continue the discussion; but felt the best place to do so would be in the comments section where I had started it, in the interests of openness and accountability.

Imagine my surprise, however, when I returned to the EGG website, only to discover my comment had been removed! This did not seem in keeping with their stated Values of honesty or authenticity, and I wrote a new comment to say just that. I also made sure to reassure Dave that the missing comment, while gone from his site, still remained in a draft document I had created for safe-keeping, so I was free to repost it should the need arise.

But this raises the question... I took the fight to the lion's den, as it were, because it looked as though no one else had thought to question this seeming duplicity from Dave Scott before me. But now, I'm left wondering - does he simply remove any mention of it from the website, to prevent any negative press being seen on his site?. I'm sure he'd state unequivocally that he is committed to the company's Mission Vision and Values Statement, and is happy to have these discussions, and would never seek to silence any customers with... difficult questions. But if his apparent lack of transparency regarding the plans for an NFT marketplace are anything to go by, I don't know whether I'd have much faith in any such claims...

Anyone else try to post comments on EGG's journal entries, only to find them disappear?
 

I'm sure he'd state unequivocally that he is committed to the company's Mission Vision and Values Statement, and is happy to have these discussions, and would never seek to silence any customers with... difficult questions. But if his apparent lack of transparency regarding the plans for an NFT marketplace are anything to go by, I don't know whether I'd have much faith in any such claims...
I'm sure he is basically lying to everyone. Techbros just can'tresist.
 
Last edited:

Jon Lane

Villager
I'm sure he is basically lying to everyone. Techbros can't be reformed.
Well, based on the email thread I've had with him (which I'm sorely tempted to reproduce here, for the benefit of all to make their own minds up), he's certainly reluctant to actually give any answers.

See, here's the thing - I did some research on the Pitchfest Terms, and I learned that in order to be eligible, you had to be a new startup working with Web3 technologies; and you have to have submitted your entry by April 19th. Which would appear to indicate that either:

a) the Technical Code of Ethics is meaningless, and Evil Genius Games is, indeed, actively pursuing the implementation of Blockchain technology into its platform (this could be seen to be borne out by Scott stating in his Discord AMA that the Code of Ethics was never meant to be taken as being set in stone, and that he had intended to be able to revisit Blockchain technologies when he felt it had become more viable), or;

b) Dave Scott and Evil Genius Games lied in their application to Pitchfest, and won the competition and prizes under false pretences.

Now, I don't know which of these is true, if either of them is - there may well be a third option that I haven't thought of, that somehow squares a February promise not to use Blockchain technology, with entering a competition just two months later (at the outside), stating that you are a company that utilises Blockchain technology. The problem is, Dave won't answer the questions I've asked him, telling me only to go to the Discord AMA, where he answers all the tough questions (I did go there, and read it through, and he doesn't answer the questions I asked him).

My biggest concern is, if he considers point 2 of the Code of Ethics to be mutable and subject to change, without informing his customers (despite transparency, honesty and authenticity being core Values of the company); then how set in stone are the other two points? Why should he not utilise AI artwork or writing, if the technology reaches a point where it becomes, in his eyes, more viable? Or what's to stop him from packaging up and selling on customers' information, if it becomes more profitable for him to do so?


Another concern, arising from.his various statements and the AMA - he calls himself a technologist, and is pitching the use of NFTs in an online marketplace built around his TTRPG; yet simultaneously, in the AMA, says he doesn't know a great deal about NFTs and Blockchain, and hasn't looked into the ethical concerns surrounding the technology - this despite his company hemorrhaging staff because of discussions had with them over this very issue.

Finally, a question to everyone here (and especially to Morrus, to clarify the legality of doing this): should I publish my email chain with Dave on this site, as a part.of this comment thread? There is nothing on the emails from Dave that contains the usual warning against dissemination of his replies; and I made it very clear, in my first reply to him, that I would very much prefer to have the conversation in a public arena, where we could be both held accountable for our words. I would greatly appreciate some other voice here, recommending what the best course of action would be.
 

Snarf Zagyg

Notorious Liquefactionist
Supporter
Finally, a question to everyone here (and especially to Morrus, to clarify the legality of doing this): should I publish my email chain with Dave on this site, as a part.of this comment thread? There is nothing on the emails from Dave that contains the usual warning against dissemination of his replies; and I made it very clear, in my first reply to him, that I would very much prefer to have the conversation in a public arena, where we could be both held accountable for our words. I would greatly appreciate some other voice here, recommending what the best course of action would be.

Given he isn't omniscient and may not have seen this, I will @Morrus so he can choose to respond. Or you can DM him.
 


flowerysong

Villager
Finally, a question to everyone here (and especially to Morrus, to clarify the legality of doing this): should I publish my email chain with Dave on this site, as a part.of this comment thread?
No, you should not, unless you have received explicit permission from Dave to do so. In addition to the ethical concerns, the emails he wrote are copyrighted material that you do not have the right to publish.
 

No, you should not, unless you have received explicit permission from Dave to do so. In addition to the ethical concerns, the emails he wrote are copyrighted material that you do not have the right to publish.

There are, of course, many reasons to be cautious.

But, IMNSHO, fears about of copyright infringement are so unlikely to be of real concern that this could possibly be construed as an argument to go ahead and post the emails.
 

flowerysong

Villager
There are, of course, many reasons to be cautious.

But, IMNSHO, fears about of copyright infringement are so unlikely to be of real concern that this could possibly be construed as an argument to go ahead and post the emails.
It's not "fears" about copyright infringement, it's just the way things are. You, as the creator of a work, have the right to control where and how it is published and copied. It is illegal to post private correspondence publicly without the permission of the author.

EDIT: There are, of course, times where there's a large enough public interest in what was said privately to override this, but people being vaguely interested in exactly what phrasing someone used when refusing to give any answers doesn't rise to that level.
 
Last edited:

Jon Lane

Villager
No, you should not, unless you have received explicit permission from Dave to do so. In addition to the ethical concerns, the emails he wrote are copyrighted material that you do not have the right to publish.

Thanks for your response. I did a little research, and apparently, under UK law (I am a UK citizen and, as far as I am aware, this site is hosted in the UK?), "a recipient of a communication is obliged not to disclose its content or use it for a purpose other than the purpose for which it was communicated, if (but only if) the communication was expressly or implicitly confidential." (emphasis mine, source: Weblaw.co.uk)

Now, this still doesn't address the ethical concerns, and I'd prefer to wait for @Morrus to give his thoughts before I do publish. A possible workaround could be that I publish my side of the email chain, with a precis or synopsis of Dave's side of the conversation in between?
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Related Articles

Remove ads

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top