Hasbro <-> UBS Fireside Chat/Webinar - D&D Updates [Archive]

SpikeFightwicky

2022-12-08, 05:33 PM

Oramac

2022-12-08, 06:11 PM

I find it hard to believe they'll resort to a micro-transaction economy for the game.

Heh. I don't find it hard to believe AT ALL that they'll try. I do find it hard to believe that they'll succeed, though.

I don't have time right now to listen. Will try to grab it tomorrow.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-12-08, 06:18 PM

Heh. I don't find it hard to believe AT ALL that they'll try. I do find it hard to believe that they'll succeed, though.

I don't have time right now to listen. Will try to grab it tomorrow.

I'd be shocked if they didn't include some form of micro-transaction with the new VTT. Things like content packs, unlocking new dice, new tokens, special effects, etc. All the way up to more predatory means like loot boxes for the VTT.

SpikeFightwicky

2022-12-08, 06:25 PM

I'd be shocked if they didn't include some form of micro-transaction with the new VTT. Things like content packs, unlocking new dice, new tokens, special effects, etc. All the way up to more predatory means like loot boxes for the VTT.

I REALLY hope it's not going to devolve to loot boxes. They have digital dice sets available now. I can accept having stuff like "Female Halfling Sorcerer, Male Dragonborn Paladin, etc..." as digital "tokens" to use with the VTT. I'd hate for it to turn into something like a booster pack, though. Though now I'm thinking that's exactly what they did (do they still make those?) for the figurines. I can accept trying to monetize (everyone is nowadays), but loot boxes I hope they don't go there. As long as I know what I'm getting, I can make the decision on what to buy. Once it turns into "you MIGHT get what you want after buying X random packs", I'm out. And this is all hoping I can still play on Roll20.

SpikeFightwicky

2022-12-08, 06:28 PM

Heh. I don't find it hard to believe AT ALL that they'll try. I do find it hard to believe that they'll succeed, though.

I don't have time right now to listen. Will try to grab it tomorrow.

Yeah... after more thought it'll definitely be micro-transactions, just hopefully not loot box items.

The problem I have with that is that it makes the space weird for kids who are trying to start up but their parents don't play. Will the younger crowd be priced out of the hobby if they don't have an option for a monthly account? I started at 12 years old... even got the PHB/DMG/Monster Manual for my birthday and Christmas. It was great! I was playing with my friends a week later.

Brookshw

2022-12-08, 06:29 PM

PhoenixPhyre

2022-12-08, 06:36 PM

I REALLY hope it's not going to devolve to loot boxes. They have digital dice sets available now. I can accept having stuff like "Female Halfling Sorcerer, Male Dragonborn Paladin, etc..." as digital "tokens" to use with the VTT. I'd hate for it to turn into something like a booster pack, though. Though now I'm thinking that's exactly what they did (do they still make those?) for the figurines. I can accept trying to monetize (everyone is nowadays), but loot boxes I hope they don't go there. As long as I know what I'm getting, I can make the decision on what to buy. Once it turns into "you MIGHT get what you want after buying X random packs", I'm out. And this is all hoping I can still play on Roll20.

Yeah. I'd be mostly ok with fixed-content packs of tokens, maps, even possibly premium features like environmental effects (rain, snow, etc). Absolutely NOT fine with random loot boxes. Although it affects me very little if it's restricted to OneD&D and the VTT--I have no intent on using either one. I'll stick to 5e and my personal Foundry VTT instance with its one-time license fee and continuing updates. I mean...I pay for AWS hosting because I want to be a special snowflake and am techy enough to do the technical bits. But that's different.

I also expect that using their VTT will have some kind of recurring fee above a free tier, paying for hosting/storage for example. And that's fine, as compute and storage and network charges aren't free.

Personally I've always considered buying minis to be micro transactions.

Minis...minis are an addiction. At the rate I used to buy them (individually, not so much the booster packs, since I wanted to paint my own), it wasn't a very micro transaction any more at all. Not quite WH plastic crack, but....

Brookshw

2022-12-08, 07:13 PM

Minis...minis are an addiction. At the rate I used to buy them (individually, not so much the booster packs, since I wanted to paint my own), it wasn't a very micro transaction any more at all. Not quite WH plastic crack, but....

Hah! Fair. Gotta feed the plastic addiction.

Imbalance

2022-12-08, 07:35 PM

KorvinStarmast

2022-12-08, 07:49 PM

Dork_Forge

2022-12-08, 07:50 PM

"Under-monetized" means they think they can squeeze even more juice from the lemon. And that the juice is worth the squeeze.

They're wrong to assume that DnDBeyond is giving them good insight. I'm sure it's great insight about how DnDB players play and how to squeeze more money out of them, but how much will they actually be able to understand about how offline players are playing and spending by that data?

Presumably, they will look at physical sales to reflect that.

Under monetized means everything from making more video games and media to t-shirts, dice and minis. D&D is a brand and the fact is that WotC eat a small part of the pie they own.

Think of how many 3rd party dice companies there are, or stores that sell shirts, stickers etc.

sambojin

2022-12-08, 08:12 PM

I'm surprised they don't have a magazine available. I'd probably pay $4-6.95 a month for a digital copy of Dragon magazine. Hell, I'd probably pay $12-16.95 for a hardcopy of the issues I really liked.

Then, as mentioned, include a little section with tokens, adventurer pieces, dungeon board pieces, even card buildings and terrain. Maybe some spell templates and stuff too. Sorta like how White Dwarf used to do little mini-games and Warhammer Quest dungeon pieces and stuff.

Print them out from digital, glue them to some card, and you're good to go. The actual hardcopy version contains actual glossy punchout card pieces for you to use. 4-8 card-piece pages each magazine, so even if it's a little light on pages/ art/ written content, what is there has value. And you always get some fun things to play with, so you always get your toys with every issue 😀

It's a really easy way to make an ecosystem surrounding a product, and a somewhat ongoing revenue stream. It's "Dragon stuff", so not really official-official, or even that well playtested, but you can use it it you want. Draw in all kinds of different hobbyists, even from different sorts of products (I'm ex-GW, because their prices annoyed me. But wotc *isn't* a miniatures company, they *are* a games company that appeals to hobbyists).

Card buildings, modular dungeon pieces and various templates would sell if for me, and I think it'd be great for newer players too. Even monster templates and stuff. All kinds of stuff, with a smattering of rules and stories etc. Like mid 90's- early 2000's white dwarf mixed with earlier Dragon stuff. There was some good things in there, and for what was essentially a wh40k/ whfb advertisement, you kind of felt that you were getting your money's worth.

(These days they could even include some 3d printer models of stuff. Sure, they won't be selling you the model, but they can charge you to let you print it. It's way easier, and far more profitable to do it that way. Almost zero logistics involved. Plus, you've got a huge built-in audience, so you'll get enough buyers that you can undercut the entire 3rd party market. $3-5 per .stl file, and you'd still make heaps of cash. And you don't really have to worry about piracy, because it's just paying an artist or two to make some models, and the rest is profit. Also incredibly synergistic if you're planning on making your own digital tabletop, because you'll need the models and templates made at some point anyway. Why not sell them twice?)

Brookshw

2022-12-08, 08:38 PM

Then, as mentioned, include a little section with tokens, adventurer pieces, dungeon board pieces, even card buildings and terrain. Maybe some spell templates and stuff too. Sorta like how White Dwarf used to do little mini-games and Warhammer Quest dungeon pieces and stuff.

Print them out from digital, glue them to some card, and you're good to go. The actual hardcopy version contains actual glossy punchout card pieces for you to use.

It's a really easy way to make an ecosystem surrounding a product, and a somewhat ongoing revenue stream. It's "Dragon stuff", so not really official-official, or even that well playtested, but you can use it if you want.

Card buildings, modular dungeon pieces and various templates would sell if for me, and I think it'd be great for newer players too. Even monster templates and stuff. All kinds of stuff, with a smattering of rules and stories etc. Like mid 90's- early 2000's white dwarf. There was some good things in there, and for what was essentially a wh40k/ whfb advertisement, you kind of felt that you were getting your money's worth.

(These days they could even include some 3d printer models of stuff. Sure, they won't be selling you the model, but they can charge you to let you print it. It's way easier, and far more profitable to do it that way. Almost zero logistics involved. Plus, you've got a huge built-in audience, so you'll get enough buyers that you can undercut the entire 3rd party market. $3-5 per .stl file, and you'd still make heaps of cash. And you don't really have to worry about piracy, because it's just paying an artist or two to make some models, and the rest is profit)

All true, they can't create an artificial ecosystem with that and are stuck with 3rd party competitors, there's no shortage of companies out there already in that sphere, and doing it for a pretty cheap price (if not free). Since they can't block competition in the physical sphere via IP, they're struck trying to force people into their virtual space which they can control....but, they also can't walk away from physical products as that's definitely a good portion of their market. At best, they can try and drop their prices so competitors opt out, but if they do it to artificially low levels they start risking antitrust lawsuits. Their planned strategy does seem like their best bet given the circumstances, I'm just skeptical how much it'll matter.

Telesphoros

2022-12-08, 09:12 PM

13 Million registered DnDBeyond accounts.

39k people filled out the OneD&D survey.

Feels like a very small minority that's driving OneD&D so far. Doesn't exactly give me the warm fuzzies that WotC/Hasbro will be heading into a bright future. Especially after this fireside chat.

I hope they've learned from TSR mistakes of the past and ramping up everything so fast, but I'm having some doubts... 350 new employees just in the last year? Purchasing DnDBeyond and sinking lots of resources into a VTT that presumably needs to be ready by the time OneD&D releases? More physical book releases every year with most being the slip case variety here recently and now coupled with digital bundles and still making missteps like the Hadozee? Big production movies and wanting to do TV shows too? More and more swag? More and more video games in production? Paid 4 billion dollars for Entertainment One (which is like the same price Disney paid for Star Wars, and Marvel come to think of it) and are already scurrying to sell off parts? And let's not even talk about Hasbro's stock tanking since Chris C. took over... and on and on. Books for their different setting seems like the only thing still in the slow lane.

Since 5E's release D&D was making a lot of gains to their player base and significantly increasing their net worth. That seems to be changing though this past year, and now instead of letting that happen more or less organically, they're taking a rapid fire approach going in a dozen different directions at once... It feels like they want D&D to match M:tG, making them both billion dollar companies, but they're pushing the D&D side of the house along at warp speed.

And if they're not careful that fireside chat could turn into a dumpster fire real quick.

sambojin

2022-12-08, 09:13 PM

Pretty hard to have an anti-trust lawsuit against "you can buy this additional content if you want it". Especially when you're printing it yourself on the hardware you want on the digital version.

On the magazine thing, it's pretty easy to do in some ways. It's direct-to-consumer, not in newsagencies, so you could probably lower printing costs a bit by having the slotta card pages printed seperately from the magazine itself. Then chuck them all in an envelope with a copy of the magazine and ship them off.

The digital copy that you print yourself has way lower logistical overheads, but a 6-12month subscription of the hardcopy version would make for a great gift.

Plus, as mentioned, why not sell the VTT assets that you're creating anyway a couple of times over? Some people will never migrate to digital. Doesn't mean there's not a revenue stream and ecosystem around your product to be had from those players.

Plus, easy craft-days with kids is fun, to rope them in early. Not only are you doing/ making something from a magazine, you/ they get to use them in a game too, for hours afterwards. It's a pretty easy way of crossing the "what's this demon-game with dice?" barrier, to the "let's make a nice little chapel/church diorama with my kid" on the "this game ain't so bad" type thing as well. Requires a craft knife, some glue, and an weekend morning/afternoon.

Plus, it gives some physical item from the game you play, so when people ask "what's that?", you can explain what DnD is. Word of mouth stuff, for people that would have never otherwise even see it or heard about it, on the internet or in real life.
Doesn't even need to differentiate "theatre of the mind" and "boardgame/ grid" style play of DnD, sometimes just having a terrain/ building/ playing piece on the table helps people visualise the scene in their mind.

(They could even do the hardcopy card gubbins on MtG card stock, with the same printing company doing it. Lower costs, lower shipping weight, and that stuff is surprisingly durable. Plus, they've got all the random stuff to add sparkles and FX onto card bits already, for magic'y or spooky or holy stuff. Just punchout dies needed (or, just tell your buyers to use a craft knife to cut them out. That works too).

Easy, random stuff to feature at conventions too, or on YouTube videos. With modelling conversions and tips as well, using the card toys as a base).

((I mean, seriously, having a diecut-tab-punchout cardbase, or craftknife cutout ruler-edge bendable+glueable-together thing off MtG card stock, of a Stable/ Barn with a fence from the card stock, with 4 ponies, 3 cows/oxen, 3 sheep, 3 riding horses, one grumpy warhorse, and three either happy/ confused/ scary unicorns as the creatures, is a bloody product in of itself. Include a humanoid boy and a girl creature as well. (+Two doggies and one big doggo, and maybe one cat as well. Cover every base). This should be pretty easy to do. Would work well for DnD as well. Horse thievery, information gathering, goblin attacks, defend the farm, the road is blocked (by farm animals) as the bad-guys attack, adding stabling to the Inn/Tavern from the previous issue, geez I want to cast Conjure Beast/ summon celestial but don't have any spare miniatures. Whatever. But still cool stuff anyway. Random crap like that, every issue, but also pretty kid/family friendly in what it is, even if there are spooky ghosts for Halloween, or both good and mean Orcs and towers and stuff as well. Just, lots of stuff, and templates alongside as well.
Heaps of other proper 1dnd content, but definitely always useful, regardless. Worthwhile buying every issue, for all the other content other than that, but every single copy gives you fun games and toys))

(((Add hay bales from the barn to the horsie's food bin, before the horsies run away! Unicorns draw in, scare off, or make some random thing happen. Doggos woof. Big scary Dire Wolf can be a thing, even with unicorns trying to steal your horsies to the neverwild. Cats add +1/-1 to rolls. Make a mini-game from it if you want. Teach pseudo-mechanics! Would take like 2-4 pages of a magazine's written content for a laugh, maybe a Kids Corner thing, and about 2-4 pages of cardstock of otherwise very useful terrain and pseudo-miniatures, with plenty of room to spare for hay bales, anything else, etc.
Mini-games are awesome, if you're not trapped into them in the actual game you want to play, and they're actually an enhancement to play alongside those you care about that don't care about the main thingy you do. Plus, I would so play that mini-game sometimes anyway amongst friends.
That's the "farm set", as issue 2 or 3 of the magazine, with anything before or after then being sweet to bolt it along through. But they all come with heaps of stuff and stories and characters and adventure hooks. But every issue does have a fun little mini-game as well, so it's completely fun even as a 1-off issue of the magazine.)))

((((I'm pretty sure you can laser-cut even MtG cardstock stuff pretty quickly these days, but also half-cut them for bends/tabs, so it makes it really easy on the consumer to glue them together for buildings and scenery. It might not be a craft knife necessary thing. A bit of glue is fine))))

Damon_Tor

2022-12-08, 09:16 PM

I find it hard to believe they'll resort to a micro-transaction economy for the game.

WotC practically invented PTW lootboxes, pre-internet. That's the MTG business model.

"Yeah, we know silvery barbs is very strong, but it's balanced by its rarity. There's only a 1/200 chance to get it in a Strixhaven Spellbook Pack, or 1/40 in a Strixhaven Deluxe Spellbook Pack. That puts it at the same rarity as spells like Simulacrum and Spiritual Weapon! Remember guys, Strixhaven Spellboxes are on sale right now for just 1500 DungeonBucks, but this sale only lasts until the end of the month, so get them now!"

Buckle up.

Brookshw

2022-12-08, 09:50 PM

Pretty hard to have an anti-trust lawsuit against "you can buy this additional content if you want it". Especially when you're printing it yourself on the hardware you want on the digital version.

Agreed, the issue would be of they were artificially reducing prices to drive competitors out of the market for physical products (terrain, tokens, minis, etc.)

SpikeFightwicky

2022-12-08, 09:52 PM

WotC practically invented PTW lootboxes, pre-internet. That's the MTG business model.

"Yeah, we know silvery barbs is very strong, but it's balanced by its rarity. There's only a 1/200 chance to get it in a Strixhaven Spellbook Pack, or 1/40 in a Strixhaven Deluxe Spellbook Pack. That puts it at the same rarity as spells like Simulacrum and Spiritual Weapon! Remember guys, Strixhaven Spellboxes are on sale right now for just 1500 DungeonBucks, but this sale only lasts until the end of the month, so get them now!"

Buckle up.

I've been out of MtG for so long I forget how the whole booster cracking went. You're 100% correct, though. And the MtG definitely knows how to do FOMO products and marketing (I remember going nuts over the "Secret Lair" releases back in the day).

Another question I have: it sounds like they're going to be aggressively ramping up monetization. But D&DOne doesn't come out until 2024. What are they going to do in the year and half-ish before it releases? Is the VTT going to be released before D&DOne? I had assumed it's being released in tandem, but I feel like it's where they're putting their eggs.

Gignere

2022-12-08, 11:05 PM

I've been out of MtG for so long I forget how the whole booster cracking went. You're 100% correct, though. And the MtG definitely knows how to do FOMO products and marketing (I remember going nuts over the "Secret Lair" releases back in the day).

Another question I have: it sounds like they're going to be aggressively ramping up monetization. But D&DOne doesn't come out until 2024. What are they going to do in the year and half-ish before it releases? Is the VTT going to be released before D&DOne? I had assumed it's being released in tandem, but I feel like it's where they're putting their eggs.

Nothing wrong with monetization, it’s more incentive for them to make better products to sell. Everyone wants to make more dough including Hasbro. As long as they are willing to invest in D&D it’s probably better for the RPG ecosystem in the long run.

Particle_Man

2022-12-08, 11:05 PM

Yeah... after more thought it'll definitely be micro-transactions, just hopefully not loot box items.

The problem I have with that is that it makes the space weird for kids who are trying to start up but their parents don't play. Will the younger crowd be priced out of the hobby if they don't have an option for a monthly account? I started at 12 years old... even got the PHB/DMG/Monster Manual for my birthday and Christmas. It was great! I was playing with my friends a week later.

Presumably it will be cheap/free to play with the basic stuff and only cost more if you want to play the new hotness. So a standard human champion fighter with the soldier background, elf evoker wizard, etc., wouldn’t cost more, but after a while the limited choices might seem a little dull and well, you see something you can ask mom and dad to get for you online for your birthday . . .

animewatcha

2022-12-08, 11:24 PM

One way to start this monetization is to restore the 3.5e archives in full and maybe charge 1 buck a month per account for access. only 30k people pay to access it due to existence of wayback machine? That's still 30k a month that can go towards getting 5e to do releases like 3.5e did. Plethora of books and writers and staff that had a passion for lore and stuff. Mechanics and sterf from 3.5 definitely needed work, but so much stuff to draw upon.

sambojin

2022-12-08, 11:32 PM

$30k isn't enough. And most of them are 3.5e users using the Wayback machine multiple times in any given month.

Not saying it wouldn't be a revenue stream, but why would you do it, as a company about to release a new product? Harsh but true. That's less than they pay a single employee in a year (I hope). I might go for a job with WotC soon. They don't really seem to know how to leverage income streams and generate new ones, in the short and longer term.

animewatcha

2022-12-08, 11:54 PM

Can be easier/lazier to access. Essentially 'free money'. If google is anything to go by, then an average salary is $94,663. Lower or higher depending upon department. Customer Service Rep around 39k (okay we all need to start working for WOTC now).
Easy for company to pull subclasses (prestige classes), feats, monsters, etc. from 3.5e switch them up to 5e and pad the book releases.

Cheesegear

2022-12-09, 03:41 AM

Some interesting stats: they mention that DMs represent 20% of the audience, but they're they account for the largest share of paying players.

I've been saying something similar for years.

What this means for future materials intended for DMs isn't mentioned, though.

My guess would be more stuff along the lines of Volo's and Mord's.

I'm not sure what exactly their plan is with DNDBeyond

As a DM; I hate D&D Beyond.

It encourages - if not necessitates - phones and mobile devices not just on the table, but constantly in your hands with your eyes down.

I'm a forever DM in my group, so it doesn't sound like I'm the target for this future environment.

My biggest concern with the future of D&D, is will they just make it into a video game? ...Or rather, like one? Will they ever allow players to play D&D, without a DM? After all, DMs only make up 20% of the audience. And yes, I am a Forever DM, but since I'm honest, I would also love to be a player. If I never DM'd ever again, would I still want to play D&D? ...Yes. If there was a DM-less D&D, that I could play with my friends, would I play it? Yes.

But, when I think about what DM-less D&D with my friends looks like...Yeah that's a video game. I already do that. D&D - and all TTRPGs, really - are simply something else. But I think it's the 'something else' that people kind of want to move away from.

I vaguely recall that GW once said that Fallout - the video game - was Warhammer 40K's - the miniatures game - competition in the market. On the surface, that sounds ridiculous - they're not even remotely the same! But the more I think about it, the more I understand it; People would rather play Fallout, than play Warhammer 40K. Why?

People don't want to play D&D...They want to...Just LARP, I think. But LARPing isn't really what D&D is. But it's not a video game, either. It's sort of both. It's an RP-G. Those words actually mean something. In modern vernacular RPG mostly means 'You can choose how you level up, sort of, within the bounds that have been coded for.'

Mostly how long before D&D just becomes a less good version of DDO or Neverwinter? Because it's trying to be both D&D and a video game and being neither.

MoiMagnus

2022-12-09, 05:57 AM

Hopefully, the D&D film is a success, and they start doing crazy money from some "D&D-CU", so that adding predatory monetisation systems to the TTRPG becomes too risky PR-wise compared to the money they can make out of it.

Sulicius

2022-12-09, 06:16 AM

I don’t think they will ever end the D&D TTRPG. We have the books, we have a solid edition and we have friends who want to play.

People who are more interested in video games will play video games, and some will still do both.

WotC won’t come into your house and take what you have away.

Cheesegear

2022-12-09, 06:35 AM

Hopefully, the D&D film is a success, and they start doing crazy money from some "D&D-CU"

I don't see that that would change anything, except to make more D&D movies.
A great, great example are Comic Book Movies. The MCU went insane, and the DCEU have pulled some decent numbers. Many, many millions of dollarydoos into the pockets of filmmakers.
The Marvel and DC comics? With very, very few exceptions...Those are dying.

Movie watchers absolutely did not convert into comic readers - let alone comic buyers.

Whoa...Did you see that Owlbear in the D&D movie. That's so cool. I could watch that bit over and over and over again.
Oh? You like Owlbears, ey? Wanna actually play some D&D?
You mean that game for nerds about maths? Pfft. No thanks.

You know the old social media saying; 5000 Likes and not a single sale.

I just don't think a success - if any - of the D&D Movie converts into players of the D&D game. Not without significant changes - at least. And I don't think D&Done's changes make the game more fun to play - I do, however, think D&Done will be more fun to watch, y'know, like on Streams.

WotC won’t come into your house and take what you have away.

No. But it does dilute the future.
Amazon's Rings of Power didn't "take away" Jackson's Lord of Rings...It just changed what Lord of the Rings meant to people. But this is a whole new conversation about brand dilution.

If you have a very, very, very stable D&D group that isn't going anywhere and all of you love whatever rules you play by, great.
If you have player turnover for any reason, the brand not being diluted, matters.

Sulicius

2022-12-09, 07:45 AM

No. But it does dilute the future.
Amazon's Rings of Power didn't "take away" Jackson's Lord of Rings...It just changed what Lord of the Rings meant to people. But this is a whole new conversation about brand dilution.

If you have a very, very, very stable D&D group that isn't going anywhere and all of you love whatever rules you play by, great.
If you have player turnover for any reason, the brand not being diluted, matters.

This is a pretty bleak view of the hobby, I think.

I can only speak for myself, but even The Hobbit did not take away from how I love the LotR trilogy, and how I rewatch them every year.

In a TTRPG, the biggest enjoyment does not come from the system, but from the experience at the table or, these days, online.

D&D has survived when it was barely scraping by, and it will survive without an MCU-like plan. If your enjoyment depends on the purity (my words) of the brand, then I don’t think you will find joy in this hobby whatever path they choose.

I just hope they don’t make the books into some lootbox like nonsense. I don’t want my players to feel like they should spend money to have fun in this hobby. It is 100% what Hasbro would want.

Sigreid

2022-12-09, 08:32 AM

Doesn't matter. I've already checked out of their new content. Just hoping that DnD1 gets its own section in the forums soon.

JackPhoenix

2022-12-09, 09:06 AM

D&DOne doesn't come out until 2024. What are they going to do in the year and half-ish before it releases? Is the VTT going to be released before D&DOne?

Presumably pray to whatever higher power they believe in that the current crisis goes away. I work in a similar sector (toys and tabletop games), and 2022 was *not* good for the industry. The Covid lockdowns are gone, so people aren't sitting in their homes with nothing better to do. With the inflation, people are less inclined to spend money for entertainment when they need to pay bills first. And the production costs are going up (2 years ago, a pallet of material from China cost 2500 EUR. Now it's 18k EUR) in a way that can't easily be offset by incresing the sale price... less people are buying as it is, making the product even more expensive won't help. While compared to company where I work, WotC has the advantage of the brand and the ability to sell non-physical product, the profit margins are going down everywhere.

While my company made roughly the same amount in sales as in the last two years, that's only half of the story... the actual profit is much lower. Last year, we made over 38 millions sets of various games, puzzles, and other products. This years, we're down to less than 32 millions, because the demand simply isn't there anymore.

Xervous

2022-12-09, 09:16 AM

If we’re talking lifestyle brands it’s a rather short step to get D&D monopoly now that I think about it.

Cheesegear

2022-12-09, 09:35 AM

In a TTRPG, the biggest enjoyment does not come from the system, but from the experience at the table or, these days, online.

Agreed.

D&D has survived when it was barely scraping by, and it will survive without an MCU-like plan. If your enjoyment depends on the purity (my words) of the brand, then I donÂ’t think you will find joy in this hobby whatever path they choose.

My enjoyment depends on cohesiveness of the community. I could tell you my thoughts on fracturing a community (of which brand dilution is a contributing factor), but we already did that thread.

EDIT: Speaking of Brand Dilution and fracturing communities; How's Magic the Gathering? That's what started this whole thing, right?

Oramac

2022-12-09, 10:06 AM

As a DM; I hate D&D Beyond.

It encourages - if not necessitates - phones and mobile devices not just on the table, but constantly in your hands with your eyes down.

Agreed, 100%. I've been this close to banning electronics at my table for this reason, and I take notes on a laptop!

Psyren

2022-12-09, 12:00 PM

Howdy folks,

I didn't see any other threads on this, so... here we go!

Did anyone catch the Hasbro / UBS fireside chat today? ( https://kvgo.com/ubs/hasbro-inc-webinar -> You don't need an account, but you do have to register. I can't say for certain... that if you can put ANY info into the registration... and that once you do and hit "Register"... you get taken right to the Webinar Audio :smallwink: Sounds like an easy thing to test out for anyone interested in listening :smallwink:)

The main D&D part starts at the 33 minute mark. The chat sounds mainly like a standard investor call where they speak about income potential.

Thanks for linking this! I follow things like investor calls as my day job so I'm always interested in where the business side and play side of the hobby intersect.

So... I'm not sure what exactly their plan is with DNDBeyond, but there will be a lot of future focus on offering players "rewarding experiences" through post-sale recurring expenditures.

This shouldn't be too surprising as they're doing this right now. DnDBeyond sells things like portraits as well as character sheet and dice skins that are clearly aimed at players. Pretty much anything you can visually look at while playing is a potential vehicle for cosmetics and therefore monetization, which also explains why theyre so eager to get a VTT of some kind up and running. Not only will everyone at the table be looking at that, you'll have situations where some players in your playgroup have cosmetics you don't and vice-versa, and "seeing them in action" will entice people to spend on things they weren't previously aware existed.

That being said... I'm a forever DM in my group, so it doesn't sound like I'm the target for this future environment. But like... how does one even go about doing that? I find it hard to believe they'll resort to a micro-transaction economy for the game (EDIT: Yeah upon reading the responses and head-slapping moments upon short reflection, even going as far as loot boxes might not be too far-fetched). Anyways... any thoughts? I recommend listening to the Webinar! There's a huge MTG section if that interests you. Fun fact: the D&D crossover set they released is the most popular set (I think ever?). I wonder how their MTG sourcebooks sell! I'd love a Lorwyn/Shadowmoor book release.

I don't think lootboxes are likely. Even putting all the backlash they've received in the gaming sphere in recent years, lots of jurisdictions are legislating against them now; their heyday was roughly in the 2015-2019 window. (And yes, Magic uses them as boosters are roughly analogous, but the big difference with Magic is that you can sell or trade your cards to other people.)

"Under-monetized" means they think they can squeeze even more juice from the lemon. And that the juice is worth the squeeze.

They're wrong to assume that DnDBeyond is giving them good insight. I'm sure it's great insight about how DnDB players play and how to squeeze more money out of them, but how much will they actually be able to understand about how offline players are playing and spending by that data?

No matter what you think of the kinds of players who use DnDBeyond vs those who don't - this is a far, far better source of real play data for them than any other they've ever had. Moreover, as they alluded to on the call, DnDBeyond is used even by players that are not playing on a VTT.

I'm surprised they don't have a magazine available. I'd probably pay $4-6.95 a month for a digital copy of Dragon magazine. Hell, I'd probably pay $12-16.95 for a hardcopy of the issues I really liked.

I'm glad they don't - that would mean either paywalling the few articles they make, paywalling UAs, or using the magazine to release additional player content like subclasses and spells just like they did in prior editions in order to justify its cost. And just like dragon magazine content of old, that would shift the focus back to quantity over quality.

13 Million registered DnDBeyond accounts.

39k people filled out the OneD&D survey.

Feels like a very small minority that's driving OneD&D so far. Doesn't exactly give me the warm fuzzies that WotC/Hasbro will be heading into a bright future. Especially after this fireside chat.

A small minority drive every playtest. A lot of people just like to sit back and wait for a finished product. That doesn't mean the ones that are participating are not statistically significant.

No. But it does dilute the future.
Amazon's Rings of Power didn't "take away" Jackson's Lord of Rings...It just changed what Lord of the Rings meant to people. But this is a whole new conversation about brand dilution.

It also vastly increased the audience who are exposed to Tolkien's work outside of the main trilogy. How many more people now have an inkling of what a "silmaril" is, or know about Numenor? How many new people decided to buy the books? (https://www.theonering.net/torwp/2022/04/07/112811-tolkien-books-rise-to-the-top-of-amazons-latest-book-sales-charts/) Regardless of what you think of the series itself, every fan should be celebrating about the effect these shows have to broaden the reach of the original.

Dr.Samurai

2022-12-09, 12:15 PM

Nothing wrong with monetization, it’s more incentive for them to make better products to sell. Everyone wants to make more dough including Hasbro. As long as they are willing to invest in D&D it’s probably better for the RPG ecosystem in the long run.
I wouldn't conclude that it will cause them to make "better" products necessarily. Just because some people are willing and able to spend more money on the hobby, it doesn't mean that catering to them will result in a better product. It will result in a product that can generate more money.

If the future of D&D is that we're all playing teleporting furries with fly speeds and swords that shoot lasers out of the blades, I would not consider that to be a "better" product.

Psyren

2022-12-09, 12:30 PM

I wouldn't conclude that it will cause them to make "better" products necessarily. Just because some people are willing and able to spend more money on the hobby, it doesn't mean that catering to them will result in a better product. It will result in a product that can generate more money.

It doesn't mean the product will be worse either. We have to judge the product on its own merits, not based on vague and nebulous fears.

If the future of D&D is that we're all playing teleporting furries with fly speeds and swords that shoot lasers out of the blades, I would not consider that to be a "better" product.

I highly doubt we'll "all" be doing any such thing :smalltongue: Remember, Human is the most popular race even now.

Dr.Samurai

2022-12-09, 12:46 PM

It doesn't mean the product will be worse either. We have to judge the product on its own merits, not based on vague and nebulous fears.
Mostly fair, but I wouldn't say fears are vague and nebulous either.

We all expect a business to want to generate profit; it's the point. But designing the product in such a way as to generate more profit doesn't always go hand in hand with making the product better, is my point. Intuitively it would have to, because people have to want to buy the product in order for the profit to occur.

Diablo Immortal is, according to some people, a very good game. But the implementation of its monetization has made it infamous now.

I don't know as much about the ttrpg world as most of you, so I don't think that things can get to those levels of crazy, but I don't know. I wouldn't mind paying more on the hobby if it made sense to me, but I already don't like how magical and gamey the game is becoming, so we'll see.

I highly doubt we'll "all" be doing any such thing :smalltongue: Remember, Human is the most popular race even now.
*clutches security blanket* I hope that's the case...

Psyren

2022-12-09, 12:57 PM

Diablo Immortal is, according to some people, a very good game. But the implementation of its monetization has made it infamous now.

DI is an extreme that D&D doesn't have to go anywhere near (and I would argue, couldn't.) To me this is like worrying about the future of roll20 because Diablo Immortal exists.

I don't know as much about the ttrpg world as most of you, so I don't think that things can get to those levels of crazy, but I don't know. I wouldn't mind paying more on the hobby if it made sense to me, but I already don't like how magical and gamey the game is becoming, so we'll see.

I don't know what "magical and gamey" even mean, much less why they are supposedly negatives for a game about magic :smalltongue:

Joe the Rat

2022-12-09, 01:03 PM

My big question is whether they will continue to license and support 3PVTTs. We did get by for a fair while without integrated official content, but I will tell you having an integrated (and up to date errata'd) rules compendium is nice.

13 Million registered DnDBeyond accounts.

39k people filled out the OneD&D survey.

Which gives your reported percentages a CI99 of about +/- of 0.65% Pollsters wish they could get that tight.

The real question comes down to representation - is there something qualitatively different about the 1DD respondents than the DDB users, or the overall player base ...which I guess you could try and surmise from all of their previous user surveys.

I'm going to guess that DDB users trend younger than the overall player population. Which is probably not a bad thing for these purposes.

Dr.Samurai

2022-12-09, 01:27 PM

DI is an extreme that D&D doesn't have to go anywhere near (and I would argue, couldn't.) To me this is like worrying about the future of roll20 because Diablo Immortal exists.
And to me it's acknowledging that monetization has pitfalls that can make things go sideways pretty quickly, and it's not unreasonable to be concerned about how it will be implemented in a space that is essentially going to be a new frontier really. DI isn't the only example and is at one end of a spectrum that does exist.

Obviously there are people that will be apprehensive about what they're going to do, and there are people that think WotC has never and will never make a bad decision so... to each their own.

I don't know what "magical and gamey" even mean, much less why they are supposedly negatives for a game about magic :smalltongue:
I'm not surprised, but suffice it to say that I don't think it's a game "about magic" and I think that there can certainly be a point where there's too much of any one thing.

Psyren

2022-12-09, 02:13 PM

And to me it's acknowledging that monetization has pitfalls that can make things go sideways pretty quickly, and it's not unreasonable to be concerned about how it will be implemented in a space that is essentially going to be a new frontier really. DI isn't the only example and is at one end of a spectrum that does exist.

Concern about how the future could be monetized is certainly reasonable. What I don't think is reasonable is immediately jumping all the way to not just a mobile game, but a AAA mobile game with some of the worst excesses not just of its medium, but of all gaming everywhere - and one whose very gameplay model is incompatible with D&D.

I'm not surprised, but suffice it to say that I don't think it's a game "about magic" and I think that there can certainly be a point where there's too much of any one thing.

Well, if you're not willing to be more detailed about what you mean by that, that's fine - but it makes it difficult to see where you're coming from.

Which gives your reported percentages a CI99 of about +/- of 0.65% Pollsters wish they could get that tight.

The real question comes down to representation - is there something qualitatively different about the 1DD respondents than the DDB users, or the overall player base ...which I guess you could try and surmise from all of their previous user surveys.

I'm going to guess that DDB users trend younger than the overall player population. Which is probably not a bad thing for these purposes.

Agreed with pretty much all of this.

Oramac

2022-12-09, 02:44 PM

I'm going to guess that DDB users trend younger than the overall player population. Which is probably not a bad thing for these purposes.

This is probably true, but there's (at least) one other MAJOR way that DDB users differ from the overall player population: they use DDB. Which gives a great representation of the people who are most likely to like and use a VTT and digital media, and absolutely zero representation of people who don't.

This was brought up in the UA thread (several pages back, now). It's extremely difficult to get a survey of both groups, especially one that is anonymous enough to attract many respondents, but protected enough to prevent spamming.

SpikeFightwicky

2022-12-09, 03:15 PM

Thanks for linking this! I follow things like investor calls as my day job so I'm always interested in where the business side and play side of the hobby intersect.

Glad I could provide! I'm paying a lot of attention to MtG lately and didn't notice a thread about the D&D side of things. And yeah, it's very interesting hearing about the financial side and the different lingo! I work in IT and it's basically a different vocabulary altogether when you're addressing different groups. It's interesting that the whole webinar was hosted (I think they hosted it?) by UBS! Not sure if that means they have lots of investors, shareholders and/or money in Switzerland.

This shouldn't be too surprising as they're doing this right now. DnDBeyond sells things like portraits as well as character sheet and dice skins that are clearly aimed at players. Pretty much anything you can visually look at while playing is a potential vehicle for cosmetics and therefore monetization, which also explains why theyre so eager to get a VTT of some kind up and running. Not only will everyone at the table be looking at that, you'll have situations where some players in your playgroup have cosmetics you don't and vice-versa, and "seeing them in action" will entice people to spend on things they weren't previously aware existed.

I don't think lootboxes are likely. Even putting all the backlash they've received in the gaming sphere in recent years, lots of jurisdictions are legislating against them now; their heyday was roughly in the 2015-2019 window. (And yes, Magic uses them as boosters are roughly analogous, but the big difference with Magic is that you can sell or trade your cards to other people.)

I feel like lootboxes are a "worst case scenario". I don't think they'll go that route, but I'm not sure. They mention their monetization inspiration is the video game eco-system, and that has everything from micro-transations, macro-transactions, battle/season passes and gambling loot boxes. Back in 3.0/3.5 I spent LOTS on their "table top creature booster boxes", so there's definitely a history of that kind of thing in WotC's outside of the digital sphere (I think they did something similar for 5e?). But unless Hasbro gets VERY desperate (which I also doubt at this point in time, at least), I don't think they'll go that route (knocking on wood with my fingers crossed :smallbiggrin: )

I know they'll be trying out different ways to monetize with DDB, but it's their inspiration from video games that has me a bit apprehensive.

And really.... D&D Monopoly would be awesome! You can have one version per "plane" :smallbiggrin:

Telesphoros

2022-12-09, 03:31 PM

A small minority drive every playtest. A lot of people just like to sit back and wait for a finished product. That doesn't mean the ones that are participating are not statistically significant.

Obviously true, although I would have thought more would have shown up for the playtesting the last version of D&D. Especially when hundreds of thousands of people downloaded the playtest material.

Which gives your reported percentages a CI99 of about +/- of 0.65% Pollsters wish they could get that tight.

The real question comes down to representation - is there something qualitatively different about the 1DD respondents than the DDB users, or the overall player base ...which I guess you could try and surmise from all of their previous user surveys.

I'm going to guess that DDB users trend younger than the overall player population. Which is probably not a bad thing for these purposes.

Yeah, I think that's a fair point. They said that 80% of D&D players are casual in their interactions after all. I just hope they're getting a nice broad spectrum of representation of the player base so the finished product will be welcomed by the majority of said player base. Basically I'm hoping those that respond to the surveys aren't just a niche vocal minority.

Phhase

2022-12-09, 03:36 PM

Another factoid they say is that they feel brand is under-monitized (33:14 minutes). It then goes on about how DNDBeyond gives them previously inaccessible insight to how players are playing the game, and how it's a good base to figure out future monetization. They're hoping that by going digital, they'll be able to generate post sale "rewarding experiences" that helps them unlock the kind of recurrent spending environment you see in video games, where more than 70% of sales in video games comes in post-sale.

So... I'm not sure what exactly their plan is with DNDBeyond, but there will be a lot of future focus on offering players "rewarding experiences" through post-sale recurring expenditures.

So, this is where we're going, huh? Words fail to accurately describe my loathing and contempt.

Psyren

2022-12-09, 03:38 PM

Glad I could provide! I'm paying a lot of attention to MtG lately and didn't notice a thread about the D&D side of things. And yeah, it's very interesting hearing about the financial side and the different lingo! I work in IT and it's basically a different vocabulary altogether when you're addressing different groups. It's interesting that the whole webinar was hosted (I think they hosted it?) by UBS! Not sure if that means they have lots of investors, shareholders and/or money in Switzerland.

They've hosted other fireside chats with other big corporations, e.g. Uber and Accenture. I wouldn't read too much into it beyond that they have the infrastructure and knowhow for this sort of thing.

Speaking personally I'll discuss the lootbox thing if we have any credible indication they're considering that route, it just comes off as alarmist to me otherwise.

This is probably true, but there's (at least) one other MAJOR way that DDB users differ from the overall player population: they use DDB. Which gives a great representation of the people who are most likely to like and use a VTT and digital media, and absolutely zero representation of people who don't.

This was brought up in the UA thread (several pages back, now). It's extremely difficult to get a survey of both groups, especially one that is anonymous enough to attract many respondents, but protected enough to prevent spamming.

This is true. However, concluding it is a problem requires assuming that "people unwilling to use DDB or a VTT" represent a material proportion of the larger "people who play D&D in 2022" population.

I won't go so far as to say that polling the former won't yield any useful insights; however, devising a means to do so in large enough numbers to be useful would likely require resources that I think could be better used elsewhere.

Obviously true, although I would have thought more would have shown up for the playtesting the last version of D&D. Especially when hundreds of thousands of people downloaded the playtest material.

Do we know how many downloaded this version vs. the last one? We got a number for the survey respondents, sure, but I'm willing to bet the number of people willing to sit through a lengthy survey are a fraction of the whole who read the materials.

Sigreid

2022-12-09, 03:44 PM

I will say that it could be good for digital content customers if they can buy just what they want in th future. I.e. "I don't want the SCAG, but I can just buy the bladesinger out of it, and I do want that".

SpikeFightwicky

2022-12-09, 04:11 PM

They've hosted other fireside chats with other big corporations, e.g. Uber and Accenture. I wouldn't read too much into it beyond that they have the infrastructure and knowhow for this sort of thing.

Ah, interesting. So it's more of like a "guest" thing. Random?

Speaking personally I'll discuss the lootbox thing if we have any credible indication they're considering that route, it just comes off as alarmist to me otherwise.

Considering you can currently order booster boxes of random physical D&D figurines direct from their website, I don't find the idea that they might consider doing the same thing in a virtual space alarmist. But to each their own!

This is true. However, concluding it is a problem requires assuming that "people unwilling to use DDB or a VTT" represent a material proportion of the larger "people who play D&D in 2022" population.

I won't go so far as to say that polling the former won't yield any useful insights; however, devising a means to do so in large enough numbers to be useful would likely require resources that I think could be better used elsewhere.

Do we know how many downloaded this version vs. the last one? We got a number for the survey respondents, sure, but I'm willing to bet the number of people willing to sit through a lengthy survey are a fraction of the whole who read the materials.

How did they operate for "D&D Next"? They would have had to do the same thing that time to poll people (I'll admit I was in a D&D lull at the time... I assume it was similar in that they released playtest materials online for feedback?)

Oramac

2022-12-09, 04:13 PM

This is true. However, concluding it is a problem requires assuming that "people unwilling to use DDB or a VTT" represent a material proportion of the larger "people who play D&D in 2022" population.

Damn near impossible to know for sure, but depending on your source, the number of normal tabletop players is anywhere from 9 to 50 million. Even if we use 9 million (which I think is low, but whatever), that's still a large enough percentage of the 13 million DDB accounts to make it worthwhile. And that assumes that NONE of the DDB accounts are duplicates.

devising a means to do so in large enough numbers to be useful would likely require resources that I think could be better used elsewhere.

Also true, though saddening. I think the responses from those people would put all of this One D&D stuff in a VERY different light for WOTC.

EDIT: here's a video (https://youtu.be/6GNiU08w4cM) (damn videos) detailing EXACTLY this issue. Even for those of us that don't like videos, it's worth watching (and it's only 6 minutes long).

Jervis

2022-12-09, 05:10 PM

SpikeFightwicky

2022-12-09, 05:29 PM

So, this is where we're going, huh? Words fail to accurately describe my loathing and contempt.

I do understand the sentiment, though I'm holding out for the monetization to be in a non-predatory form. It does seem ominous, though we're not sure exactly how far it will go. I mean... they already have options on DNDBeyond like virtual dice sets and such. If it's just cosmetic customization stuff like that, not so bad. If it goes further, I guess we'll have to see what their plan is in the long run for monetization. Definitely eyebrow raising at the minimum (with their "video game economies as inspiration" statement).

SpikeFightwicky

2022-12-09, 05:32 PM

Best speculation on dnd beyond and monetization. I’m going to go out on a limb and say that the dmsguild license is going to be the base of selling official homebrew on dndbeyond going forward. Probably a option for creators to sell their homebrew there with direct integration into the game. Personally i’m extremely uninterested in dealing with that horrible license and intend to keep making my stuff OGL compliant (assuming that remains unmared by corporate interference) since i’m not a fan of how it takes away creator freedom in exchange for the ability to reference existing spells.

Not sure if you have any knowledge (or if not, if anyone else does), but are they able to de-license sites like Roll20 from hosting 5e D&D games? If I can still play on Roll20, I don't really have a horse in this race, since I'm not too interested at this point in a full 3d VTT. I have little to no OGL knowledge beyond "I can use the SRD for free if I'm using it for homebrew games and I'm not monetizing it".

Envyus

2022-12-09, 06:25 PM

Damn near impossible to know for sure, but depending on your source, the number of normal tabletop players is anywhere from 9 to 50 million. Even if we use 9 million (which I think is low, but whatever), that's still a large enough percentage of the 13 million DDB accounts to make it worthwhile. And that assumes that NONE of the DDB accounts are duplicates.

Also true, though saddening. I think the responses from those people would put all of this One D&D stuff in a VERY different light for WOTC.

EDIT: here's a video (https://youtu.be/6GNiU08w4cM) (damn videos) detailing EXACTLY this issue. Even for those of us that don't like videos, it's worth watching (and it's only 6 minutes long).

I hate that guy’s videos and have never agreed with him.

Gignere

2022-12-09, 06:30 PM

So, this is where we're going, huh? Words fail to accurately describe my loathing and contempt.

I don’t get this sentiment. Hasbro should make money on D&D what is wrong with it? Go play some free home brew and compare it to D&D and I think you’ll be happy that they are trying to monetize it.

If Hasbro isn’t making money all they are going to do is fire all their D&D employees. Is that what you want?

If people don’t like people making they should take a 100% pay cut themselves first to see how that would feel like.

Particle_Man

2022-12-09, 07:48 PM

I have long outgrown my desire to "Collect all the things" wrt D&D stuff, but so long as I can play some of the classes and races and still have fun, its all good. If someone else wants to play the new hotness with the new hotness skin, I am not going to yuck in their yum - more power to them!

Jervis

2022-12-09, 08:29 PM

Not sure if you have any knowledge (or if not, if anyone else does), but are they able to de-license sites like Roll20 from hosting 5e D&D games? If I can still play on Roll20, I don't really have a horse in this race, since I'm not too interested at this point in a full 3d VTT. I have little to no OGL knowledge beyond "I can use the SRD for free if I'm using it for homebrew games and I'm not monetizing it".

The OGL is something anyone can use and that’s all they host freely. Wizards could opt to stop selling their products on the roll 20 marketplace if they wanted too but they can’t stop people from playing 5e/done games in the site. At most they could force them to remove dndone from their tags. Anything more would be a legal battle I doubt they want to engage in. Cutting their dmsguild dealings with one bookshelf, either erasing all existing fan content published through dms guild because of the horrible license rules or simply not expanding that licenses to dndone, is more likely but not a certainty. Realistically they would try to incentivize people to publish on dndbeyond by offering easier publishing and taking a smaller cut than one bookshelf (they would take as large or larger of a cut for themselves mind you but removing a third party would let creators keep a little bit more) and allowing people to use shiny new dndone material as a basis without using the OGL, if the OGL does still exist.

Telesphoros

2022-12-09, 08:54 PM

Do we know how many downloaded this version vs. the last one? We got a number for the survey respondents, sure, but I'm willing to bet the number of people willing to sit through a lengthy survey are a fraction of the whole who read the materials.

More than 175k playtested 5e combined.After they released the first OneD&D playtest WotC put out this:

In the first week alone, more of you have playtested One D&D than in the entirety of 5e playtesting!

Thank you to everyone who has helped shape the future of Dungeons & Dragons!

So bare minimum, it sounds like 200k people downloaded the playtest in the first week. And remember they extended the survey time, so I'd say a significant amount of people downloaded the first playtest material in the following weeks after the first while the survey was still ongoing. Like I said, I just hope they're getting good representation from all aspects of the player base. Obviously the numbers are wonderful compared to 5e's playtest. On the other hand though, there's sooo many more people playing D&D now than after the not so well received 4e and the 5e playtest.

Brookshw

2022-12-09, 08:56 PM

If Hasbro isn’t making money all they are going to do is fire all their D&D employees. Is that what you want?

Eh, probably sell or license the IP, it has too much recognition to be worthless, just a question of how much in house labor is the ROI worth.

Psyren

2022-12-09, 09:09 PM

Damn near impossible to know for sure, but depending on your source, the number of normal tabletop players is anywhere from 9 to 50 million. Even if we use 9 million (which I think is low, but whatever), that's still a large enough percentage of the 13 million DDB accounts to make it worthwhile. And that assumes that NONE of the DDB accounts are duplicates.

Love the not-at-all-subtle implication that DDB accounts and "normal tabletop players" are different populations.

EDIT: here's a video (https://youtu.be/6GNiU08w4cM) (damn videos) detailing EXACTLY this issue. Even for those of us that don't like videos, it's worth watching (and it's only 6 minutes long).

Before I even clicked I knew that would be Dungeon Masterpiece :smallsigh:

Jervis

2022-12-09, 10:16 PM

I don’t get this sentiment. Hasbro should make money on D&D what is wrong with it? Go play some free home brew and compare it to D&D and I think you’ll be happy that they are trying to monetize it.

If Hasbro isn’t making money all they are going to do is fire all their D&D employees. Is that what you want?

If people don’t like people making they should take a 100% pay cut themselves first to see how that would feel like.

If you’ve played free RPGs then you know that it’s often better than what WotC makes. Even fan made free homebrew for dnd is often better than official 5e by a wide margin *Glares antagonistically at the abomination that is 5e spelljammer*. Dnd books (sometimes) have good art and professional editing. The actual rules are often questionable.

Besides that the issue isn’t that they’re making money. 5e is already very expensive by tabletop standards (Gurps being the exception for having approximately all the splats). Beyond that dndbeyond has a very anti consumer business model already and MTG, WotC’s other flagship product, is infamous for being anti player and pro speculator to a ridiculous degree. The fact that dnd is wanting to make more money while taking a stance against releasing more content can only realistically mean charging more for less unless they come out with more services to monetize, something I find suspect but if they branch into VTTs with some genuine new ideas then I can see that being a possibility.

And as others have mentioned in the unlikely event that WotC isn’t seeing profits they would just sell the IP, likely to games workshop or something.

That above breakdown came across as too sensible so I’ll just say “Won’t somebody think of the multibillion dollar corporations and their bottom lines” will never get sympathy from me when blatantly anti consumer behavior is involved.

Sigreid

2022-12-09, 11:36 PM

Like I said, I just hope they're getting good representation from all aspects of the player base.

They aren't. A certain section of the player base is more likely to have reviewed the material and just checked out instead of responding than other sections.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-12-09, 11:43 PM

They aren't. A certain section of the player base is more likely to have reviewed the material and just checked out instead of responding than other sections.

/waves That's me. I read the first one in detail, saw that they were proceeding down a path I didn't like with very fixed intent, and checked out. I'm no casual--I've been running roughly 2 games a week for 8 years now. Currently in 3 groups. And a full high-tier D&D Beyond subscriber for like 4 years now.

Cheesegear

2022-12-10, 12:18 AM

They aren't. A certain section of the player base is more likely to have reviewed the material and just checked out instead of responding than other sections.

Can confirm.

Was very interested in the original material (Races, Backgrounds and Feats), wrote a couple hundred words in the survey...Haven't even looked at anything, since.

The only time I, personally ever use DND Beyond is as a searchable database for Spells.

Psyren

2022-12-10, 12:29 AM

They aren't. A certain section of the player base is more likely to have reviewed the material and just checked out instead of responding than other sections.

Exactly. Not much point in following up, gotta keep the playtest rolling.

Unoriginal

2022-12-10, 01:13 AM

Corporate suits are always eager to slaughter the Golden Egg Goose.

Cheesegear

2022-12-10, 01:21 AM

Corporate suits are always eager to slaughter the Golden Egg Goose.

The problem is that's nearly exactly what was said.

'So...It seems like we've bled Magic dry...So, let's talk D&D...'

Jervis

2022-12-10, 01:29 AM

Corporate suits are always eager to slaughter the Golden Egg Goose.

The problem is that's nearly exactly what was said.

'So...It seems like we've bled Magic dry...So, let's talk D&D...'

This basically. Something people forget about publically traded companies is that they care less about long term profitability than short term gain. Stock markets are short sighted and only care that line goes up. IIRC there was a analysis of WotC from one of the big banks recently that pointed out that their handling of MTG products was damaging to the brand long term.

Gignere

2022-12-10, 07:01 AM

This basically. Something people forget about publically traded companies is that they care less about long term profitability than short term gain. Stock markets are short sighted and only care that line goes up. IIRC there was a analysis of WotC from one of the big banks recently that pointed out that their handling of MTG products was damaging to the brand long term.

MtG is 30 years old, D&D 5e is 10 years old I think lecturing Hasbro about long and short term profitability is insane. You go and build a multi million dollar product for more than 5 years and see how easy it is. I think some posters comes here and post BS to sound sagacious. There appears to be some socialist or slavery bent to their ideology too, like Hasbro should only work for peanuts and that somehow that would maximize never defined “long term” profitability.

Cheesegear

2022-12-10, 07:19 AM

MtG is 30 years old, D&D 5e is 10 years old I think lecturing Hasbro about long and short term profitability is insane

Wrong. D&D is older than Magic by about 15 years. There are people who have been playing D&D since the 1970s and '80s. There are 60 year-olds, who make up the audience of D&D. Magic, too. But point is there are people who've been around since day dot, who are still around. Considering that in this thread we're also dealing with 1DD, we don't actually care about 5e, specifically. We care about D&D; What it was, is, and can or will be.

You go and build a multi million dollar product for more than 5 years and see how easy it is.

Wrong. You build a game system in your basement like Gygax did. You then let it mature for nearly 50 years, and you consistently reinvent and update (ideally whilst maintaining the audience), and then you see if you're in the same position as D&D is, now.

Hasbro should only work for peanuts and that somehow that would maximize never defined “long term” profitability.

Yes. Of course. 'Being a business' means nickel-and-diming people. Like those two should be synonymous?
Business. Equals. Gouging people.
Also...In the next 1-2 years...Inflation. N&D'ing people isn't going to be great.

'Give the people what they want, when they want it, in a format they want it in, at a reasonable price, and they'll more likely pay for it.'
or
You can just gouge whales, and hit everyone else with FOMO - that works too.

Gignere

2022-12-10, 07:27 AM

Wrong. D&D is older than Magic by about 15 years. There are people who have been playing D&D since the 1970s and '80s. There are 60 year-olds, who make up the audience of D&D. Magic, too. But point is there are people who've been around since day dot, who are still around. Considering that in this thread we're also dealing with 1DD, we don't actually care about 5e, specifically. We care about D&D; What it was, is, and can or will be.

Wrong. You build a game system in your basement like Gygax did. You then let it mature for nearly 50 years, and you consistently reinvent and update (ideally whilst maintaining the audience), and then you see if you're in the same position as D&D is, now.

Yes. Of course. 'Being a business' means nickel-and-diming people. Like those two should be synonymous.
Business. Equals. Gouging people.
Yes. I forgot that's how we want the world to run and that's what we want in our products.*

*Also...In the next 1-2 years...Inflation. N&D'ing people isn't going to be great.

'Give the people what they want, when they want it, in a format they want it in, at a reasonable price, and they'll more likely pay for it.'
or
You can just gouge the **** out of whales, and hit everyone else with FOMO - that works too.

What’s a reasonable price? I’ve found 5e is very reasonable. I spend at most $100 a year on it, some years way less. Over the 10 years 5e was out I’ve spent less than $1000 on it. If Hasbro decides to up it so I spend 1500 on it next 10 years, I would be very happy.

I think if D&D was more focused on making money it might have become popular earlier. The early D&D was basically unapproachable by casuals. I know because I started at 2e. I loved it but it was for the most part unintelligible for the vast majority of people.

You guys read one earnings meeting at Hasbro and immediately jump to one D&D is going to become an affordable hobby is crazy, the last 10 years Hasbro has not gouged in my opinion. There is no basis to think they will gouge in the next 10 years.

Cheesegear

2022-12-10, 07:37 AM

Over the 10 years 5e was out I’ve spent less than $1000 on it. If Hasbro decides to up it so I spend 1500 on it next 10 years, I would be very happy.

So you're in favour of Hasbro raising the prices by 50%!? Holy ****. :smalleek:

Either no-one DMs anymore, or piracy goes through the roof, and D&D minis effectively die as 3D printing becomes significantly cheaper (Also see; Piracy).

Gignere

2022-12-10, 07:44 AM

So you're in favour of Hasbro raising the prices by 50%!? Holy ****. :smalleek:

Either no-one DMs anymore, or piracy goes through the roof, and D&D minis effectively die as 3D printing becomes significantly cheaper (Also see; Piracy).

Yeah I do inflation alone in the last 10 years is probably close to that and what I’m paying my employees has jumped at least that much over the last 10 years. In the last 2 it’s jumped at least 20% my employee’s compensation.

I’m sure Hasbro has to increase the pay of their employees by that much and I want people, their employees to have a living wage. Slavery is great but not my cup of tea.

SpikeFightwicky

2022-12-10, 09:29 AM

The OGL is something anyone can use and that’s all they host freely. Wizards could opt to stop selling their products on the roll 20 marketplace if they wanted too but they can’t stop people from playing 5e/done games in the site. At most they could force them to remove dndone from their tags. Anything more would be a legal battle I doubt they want to engage in. Cutting their dmsguild dealings with one bookshelf, either erasing all existing fan content published through dms guild because of the horrible license rules or simply not expanding that licenses to dndone, is more likely but not a certainty. Realistically they would try to incentivize people to publish on dndbeyond by offering easier publishing and taking a smaller cut than one bookshelf (they would take as large or larger of a cut for themselves mind you but removing a third party would let creators keep a little bit more) and allowing people to use shiny new dndone material as a basis without using the OGL, if the OGL does still exist.

Thank you so much for this! Much appreciated. If D&DOne doesn't float my boat with its final release, if I can still do 5e "somewhere" that's good. All depends on what direction my group goes in at this point.

GentlemanVoodoo

2022-12-10, 09:51 AM

I don’t get this sentiment. Hasbro should make money on D&D what is wrong with it? Go play some free home brew and compare it to D&D and I think you’ll be happy that they are trying to monetize it.

If Hasbro isn’t making money all they are going to do is fire all their D&D employees. Is that what you want?

If people don’t like people making they should take a 100% pay cut themselves first to see how that would feel like.

Not really. While it is true that home brew items may sometimes be lacking in quality the same is also said for a multi-billion dollar company. I am more incline to trust home brew creations because even if bad, there is still a purer passion for the love of the hobby as compared to a corporation.

You are correct that Hasbro has to make money. That is the point of a business. But there is a stark difference between making money to keep it going (still maintaining a genuine passion of the product) as opposed to cranking out products which are there just for cash grab.

In general what I have heard of this, I understand from the business stand point in terms of trying to make more and grow a product. However, AS A CONSUMER OF SAID PRODUCT, I am not hearing good things that will make me want to invest in it. If Hasbro could find a way to balance growth without simply just doing what every other company in various mediums are doing now (quick cash grab gimmicks...like loot boxes or crap MTG has been doing) that would be one thing. However, after listing to this "chat" I do not see that happening and makes me have less faith in the company or its products, AS A CONSUMER.

Dr.Samurai

2022-12-10, 10:24 AM

Gignere

2022-12-10, 11:03 AM

Indeed. There's a position that can be had here that isn't "WotC can do no wrong and I'm sure their implementation of this will be 100% amazing and on the ball!" and "WotC are criminal scum and they should churn these products out for free because we're entitled to their services".

On balance given the last 10 years I felt Hasbro has managed the brand pretty well. That’s why I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt for the next 10 years. Monetization is very normal talk especially when they are giving a talk at an investment bank. What I find positive is that they are willing to invest in the brand, buying DandD Beyond to learn more about their customers.

Do you know what would be a red flag that they plan to kill the golden goose?

If they talk about cost cutting and stopping investments and maximizing returns on their current IP.

Brookshw

2022-12-10, 11:08 AM

However, AS A CONSUMER OF SAID PRODUCT, I am not hearing good things that will make me want to invest in it. If Hasbro could find a way to balance growth without simply just doing what every other company in various mediums are doing now (quick cash grab gimmicks...like loot boxes or crap MTG has been doing) that would be one thing.

Unless I'm missing something, I don't see traditional printed books going away, so it doesn't seem that anyone needs to change their consumption practices to remain with D&D. If they want to offer more online content via paid ,microtransactions dlcs, then power to them, I won't be buying them, but it's no skin off my nose for them to be available to those who want to purchase them.

Cheesegear

2022-12-10, 11:27 AM

On balance given the last 10 years I felt Hasbro has managed the brand pretty well. That’s why I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt for the next 10 years.

Hasbro stock went down 30% in the last six months, and currently sits lower than it was pre-COVID. Quite arguably because of their horrific mismanagement of MtG. However, according to the call, this is fine. This is the problem. This posts several red flags all over the place with klaxxons blaring.

Monetization is very normal talk especially when they are giving a talk at an investment bank.

The problem is the conversation almost feels like;

So, it appears that you've run Magic into the ground and stock prices are down 30% from Q2, and down 50% from 2020 What are you gonna do?
Do the same thing to D&D, what we did to Magic.

As an investor, that sounds like a great two years coming up.
As a consumer...What happens after two years? Is D&D gonna be in the same situation as Magic? ...That sounds bad.

What I find positive is that they are willing to invest in the brand, buying DandD Beyond to learn more about their customers.

Do you know what WotC knows about Magic players? ...That's right. Basically everything.

If they talk about cost cutting and stopping investments and maximizing returns on their current IP.

That's the complete opposite of what they did to Magic.

People aren't really looking at D&D.
They're looking at WotC, and Hasbro, and Magic...And using that call, equating it to the meme of the dog sitting in the fire...And then hearing that same dog, say 'And now we're going to monetise D&D even harder.'
...Y- ...You mean like you did to Magic...Oh God no...:smalleek:

Psyren

2022-12-10, 11:29 AM

Not really. While it is true that home brew items may sometimes be lacking in quality the same is also said for a multi-billion dollar company. I am more incline to trust home brew creations because even if bad, there is still a purer passion for the love of the hobby as compared to a corporation.

You are correct that Hasbro has to make money. That is the point of a business. But there is a stark difference between making money to keep it going (still maintaining a genuine passion of the product) as opposed to cranking out products which are there just for cash grab.

Oftentimes I find the term "cash grab" is defined as "they want to sell a product I'm personally not interested in."

In general what I have heard of this, I understand from the business stand point in terms of trying to make more and grow a product. However, AS A CONSUMER OF SAID PRODUCT, I am not hearing good things that will make me want to invest in it. If Hasbro could find a way to balance growth without simply just doing what every other company in various mediums are doing now (quick cash grab gimmicks...like loot boxes or crap MTG has been doing) that would be one thing. However, after listing to this "chat" I do not see that happening and makes me have less faith in the company or its products, AS A CONSUMER.

The word lootbox did not come up once in the entire call, and they spent the D&D segment discussing how fundamentally different the brand is from MTG. Yes, there is potential for post-sale or recurrent spending to become predatory, and I'll be in the trenches with the rest of you if I see things going in that direction, but "we're interested in finding more revenue streams beyond the books themselves" is, on its face, not that.

Cheesegear

2022-12-10, 11:32 AM

but "we're interested in finding more revenue streams beyond the books themselves" is, on its face, not that.

A big part of me thinks that probably (hopefully) means IP licensing. But like, even more than they already are (D&D Cookbooks, anyone?).
Like if D&D Movie is successful, we get a cut of that from licensing, and that's a revenue stream.

Another part of me says 'Maybe ban DM's Guild, and then set up something exactly the same on DNDB, and get people to pay us for homebrew? We don't want to ban homebrew - that's insane. We do, however, want to ban us-not-getting-a-cut.'
Another part of me says 'Disable content sharing on DNDB, that'll work. Let's charge people to share content - like Netflix is doing soon!'

Gignere

2022-12-10, 11:41 AM

Hasbro stock went down 30% in the last six months, and currently sits lower than it was pre-COVID. Quite arguably because of their horrific mismanagement of MtG. However, according to the call, this is fine. This is the problem. This posts several red flags all over the place with klaxxons blaring.

The problem is the conversation almost feels like;

So, it appears that you've run Magic into the ground and stock prices are down 30% from Q2, and down 50% from 2020 What are you gonna do?
Do the same thing to D&D, what we did to Magic.

As an investor, that sounds like a great two years coming up.
As a consumer...What happens after two years? Is D&D gonna be in the same situation as Magic? ...That sounds bad.

Do you know what WotC knows about Magic players? ...That's right. Basically everything.

That's the complete opposite of what they did to Magic.

People aren't really looking at D&D.
They're looking at WotC, and Hasbro, and Magic...And using that call, equating it to the meme of the dog sitting in the fire...And then hearing that same dog, say 'And now we're going to monetise D&D even harder.'
...Y- ...You mean like you did to Magic...Oh God no...:smalleek:

Magic the Gathering is just about the only positive for Hasbro at least through 3rd quarter of 2022. It is the exact opposite what you are claiming with just a quick google search.

Their stock dropping is due to inflation eating into their earnings.

Just because you don’t like where MtG is going, doesn’t mean it isn’t doing good.

Edit: the fact that inflation is eating into their earnings means the exact opposite of price gouging it means Hasbro has been willing to make less money instead of passing on higher costs to their consumers.

Cheesegear

2022-12-10, 11:46 AM

Their stock dropping is due to inflation eating into their earnings.

Google Bank of America and Hasbro.
That's about as much as I can say whilst sticking to forum rules.

Psyren

2022-12-10, 11:51 AM

I don't really care about MTG (or any TCG really) myself, so I have nothing to say about that.

A big part of me thinks that probably (hopefully) means IP licensing. But like, even more than they already are (D&D Cookbooks, anyone?).
Like if D&D Movie is successful, we get a cut of that from licensing, and that's a revenue stream.

Media licensing was indeed mentioned. Not just the movie, but video games like Baldurs Gate 3 were mentioned more than once.

Another part of me says 'Maybe ban DM's Guild, and then set up something exactly the same on DNDB, and get people to pay us for homebrew? We don't want to ban homebrew - that's insane. We do, however, want to ban us-not-getting-a-cut.'
Another part of me says 'Disable content sharing on DNDB, that'll work. Let's charge people to share content - like Netflix is doing soon!'

None of this was mentioned.

Cheesegear

2022-12-10, 11:54 AM

None of this was mentioned.

Do you mean:
'It wasn't mentioned so I wont doom-and-gloom about unless or until it does happen.' or
'It wasn't mentioned so therefore they wont do it because they didn't say they would.'
?

Psyren

2022-12-10, 11:57 AM

Do you mean:
'It wasn't mentioned so I wont doom-and-gloom about unless or until it does happen.' or
'It wasn't mentioned so therefore they wont do it because they didn't say they would.'
?

Given that I'm incapable of predicting the future, I meant the former.

Brookshw

2022-12-10, 12:19 PM

A big part of me thinks that probably (hopefully) means IP licensing. But like, even more than they already are (D&D Cookbooks, anyone?).
Like if D&D Movie is successful, we get a cut of that from licensing, and that's a revenue stream. There's already a D&D cookbook, and a D&D ABCs, and D&D 123's, plushies, and on, and on. I'm sure they'll continue to push licensing.

Another part of me says 'Maybe ban DM's Guild, and then set up something exactly the same on DNDB, and get people to pay us for homebrew? We don't want to ban homebrew - that's insane. We do, however, want to ban us-not-getting-a-cut.'
Another part of me says 'Disable content sharing on DNDB, that'll work. Let's charge people to share content - like Netflix is doing soon!'

I'd say that's extremely unlikely. DM's Guild is an offshoot (and a revenue driving one) of the OGL; the OGL is specifically implemented to create an "all roads lead to D&D" ecosystem to steer anyone in the hobby towards WoTC, and to avoid the entry of new competition into the market by saturating it (and to avoid the constant C&D streams required to protect their IP). If they walked away from either they'd be abandoning a strategy they implemented with 3e, one which has paid off very well. It is the licensing you just said you wanted.

Psyren

2022-12-10, 12:23 PM

I'd say that's extremely unlikely. DM's Guild is an offshoot (and a revenue driving one) of the OGL; the OGL is specifically implemented to create an "all roads lead to D&D" ecosystem to steer anyone in the hobby towards WoTC, and to avoid the entry of new competition into the market by saturating it (and to avoid the constant C&D streams required to protect their IP). If they walked away from either they'd be abandoning a strategy they implemented with 3e, one which has paid off very well. It is the licensing you just said you wanted.

Not to mention they tried once already (4e and the GSL) and it backfired so strongly it spawned their greatest competitor.

Unoriginal

2022-12-10, 12:31 PM

Not to mention they tried once already (4e and the GSL) and it backfired so strongly it spawned their greatest competitor.

Tbf they've been using/announcing they're going to use strategies WotC had discarded years ago as counter-productive.

Jervis

2022-12-10, 12:50 PM

MtG is 30 years old, D&D 5e is 10 years old I think lecturing Hasbro about long and short term profitability is insane. You go and build a multi million dollar product for more than 5 years and see how easy it is. I think some posters comes here and post BS to sound sagacious. There appears to be some socialist or slavery bent to their ideology too, like Hasbro should only work for peanuts and that somehow that would maximize never defined “long term” profitability.

WotC acquired dnd from the people who made it in a business deal and have ruined it at least once, up too three times if you ask some people. The success of dnd and MtG are less because of actual quality and more because of marketing. Put enough marketing money behind something and it will sell up to the point where the market does well and truly get fed up with it. Dnd is middle of the road in terms of quality, good for war gaming and dungeon crawling but ironically bad for what a lot of people use it for. MtG is solid as a card game but a lot of other games have improved on the formula since it’s release.

Besides that this isn’t exactly some baseless opinion. Back in November a Bank of America analyst slashed his price target in half precisely because of how WotC was treating MtG as a IP, he felt they were killing it for short term profits. And speaking solely from personal experience when shelves were empty during the shutdown and every other card game was sold out MtG was fully in stock everywhere and people still weren’t buying in my area.

Besides that, you aren’t really grasping the difference between being a company being profitable and a company engaging in anti consumer behavior. You can make money by making a valuable product and selling it and no one will fault you for it. Criticizing business practices doesn’t mean you want a company to not make money. That’s just silly.

Thank you so much for this! Much appreciated. If D&DOne doesn't float my boat with its final release, if I can still do 5e "somewhere" that's good. All depends on what direction my group goes in at this point.

Happy to help. I feel like dndone has a decent probability of spawning a pathfinder if people don’t like the changes they make. Homebrew 5e is in a good place so I wouldn’t blame people for not adopting dndone when it releases. I’m mostly happy with their current design direction even if more dndbeyond integration has me less than excited. If they do start nickel and dimming people to an excessive degree I wouldn’t be happy supporting it.

Gignere

2022-12-10, 01:04 PM

WotC acquired dnd from the people who made it in a business deal and have ruined it at least once, up too three times if you ask some people. The success of dnd and MtG are less because of actual quality and more because of marketing. Put enough marketing money behind something and it will sell up to the point where the market does well and truly get fed up with it. Dnd is middle of the road in terms of quality, good for war gaming and dungeon crawling but ironically bad for what a lot of people use it for. MtG is solid as a card game but a lot of other games have improved on the formula since it’s release.

Besides that this isn’t exactly some baseless opinion. Back in November a Bank of America analyst slashed his price target in half precisely because of how WotC was treating MtG as a IP, he felt they were killing it for short term profits. And speaking solely from personal experience when shelves were empty during the shutdown and every other card game was sold out MtG was fully in stock everywhere and people still weren’t buying in my area.

Besides that, you aren’t really grasping the difference between being a company being profitable and a company engaging in anti consumer behavior. You can make money by making a valuable product and selling it and no one will fault you for it. Criticizing business practices doesn’t mean you want a company to not make money. That’s just silly.

Happy to help. I feel like dndone has a decent probability of spawning a pathfinder if people don’t like the changes they make. Homebrew 5e is in a good place so I wouldn’t blame people for not adopting dndone when it releases. I’m mostly happy with their current design direction even if more dndbeyond integration has me less than excited. If they do start nickel and dimming people to an excessive degree I wouldn’t be happy supporting it.

If bank analysts were actually any good at making recommendations on stock investments or running companies they wouldn’t be stock analysts.

Also MtG just grew to be 1B revenue product line for Hasbro, which indicates they’ve grown. Anyway I don’t know why people are using MtG as an analogy, it’s Hasbro’s one bright spot in a challenging year.

They also said D&D is different than MtG and their approach towards D&D would be very different. It’s more like people are grasping at straws to attack a company that is trying to make any profits. Look at the posts complaining about monetization which is just very normal corporate speak. There is nothing alarming about it at all. Fact is Hasbro hasn’t or unable to past inflation costs to their customers, causing their earnings to drop, which is the exact opposite of gouging which other posters has alleged them of doing or planning to do.

Dr.Samurai

2022-12-10, 01:21 PM

On balance given the last 10 years I felt Hasbro has managed the brand pretty well. That’s why I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt for the next 10 years.
Which I find as unreasonable as you seem to find the concern in this thread. Benefit of the doubt for the next ten years? Why?

I'm hoping they implement whatever they have in mind well. But you speak as if there doesn't exist the potential for it to be done poorly, and/or as if WotC/Hasbro has never made bad decisions before or bungled their plans.

I know people think that it's something that WotC did that has made D&D massively popular in current times but it isn't. It's a happy accident. This popularity is not guaranteed to remain in "the next 10 years".

Monetization is very normal talk especially when they are giving a talk at an investment bank.
Push your chair away from the keyboard and take a look at your screen. We're not at an investment bank. We're on a forum. We are the people that they will be extracting the money from. The people here that are divided on any number of things about the game, and discuss/argue about it at length all the time.

It is very normal for consumers to be wondering what decisions they will make to extract more profits out of us and if and how things will be locked behind a paywall.

Like... this is super duper normal. If you can understand the monetization thing, surely you can understand the other side of it too?

What I find positive is that they are willing to invest in the brand, buying DandD Beyond to learn more about their customers.
1. Learn about their customers... to make them buy more things.

2. DND Beyond is how they're going to get that money from everyone.

You can't, on the one hand, lecture us about the realities of a business, and then on the other hand act like investing in DND Beyond to "learn about" us is a gesture of trying to get to know us better as friends and colleagues.

Do you know what would be a red flag that they plan to kill the golden goose?
We're not there yet. They're talking about how to turn DND into a golden goose.

Jervis

2022-12-10, 01:29 PM

If bank analysts were actually any good at making recommendations on stock investments or running companies they wouldn’t be stock analysts.

Also MtG just grew to be 1B revenue product line for Hasbro, which indicates they’ve grown. Anyway I don’t know why people are using MtG as an analogy, it’s Hasbro’s one bright spot in a challenging year.

They also said D&D is different than MtG and their approach towards D&D would be very different. It’s more like people are grasping at straws to attack a company that is trying to make any profits. Look at the posts complaining about monetization which is just very normal corporate speak. There is nothing alarming about it at all. Fact is Hasbro hasn’t or unable to past inflation costs to their customers, causing their earnings to drop, which is the exact opposite of gouging which other posters has alleged them of doing or planning to do.

That growth in revenue is part of why people are worried. They’re making too much product and saturating their own market. That’s the entire issue people are talking about when they say they’re killing the brand for a profit boost in the short term. Even just looking at expansion sets they went from 3 a year to 4-5 a year, and that’s ignoring other products. That might not seem like a big deal until you realize that MtG has set rotation and even without that the newest cards will always be the most impactful. Saying “but it’s a billion dollar product” doesn’t change that issue, especially when the way they’re increasing profits is the problem. People are still buying for now but yeah I can only keep it up for so long. Ironically this same thing happened to dnd once upon a time in 3.5. What happened there? Decreased interest in the game because people were being overwhelmed by the repeated releases. That’s something they said they wanted to avoid with 5e and ironically stumbled into with MtG. Again working for now but a simple google search shows post after post and article after article of people being worried or fed up with it. That sort of thing only works until the sentiment spreads from a few people dropping out of the game to a lot of people.

As for inflation costs and the like, it’s not some noble reason. Price increases are never something a company wants because it causes backlash from everyone. The typical approach is to cut costs or find other methods of monetization. Seeing as 5e has taken a approach to avoiding over saturation for reasons already discussed I’m not optimistic.

Psyren

2022-12-10, 01:52 PM

That growth in revenue is part of why people are worried. They’re making too much product and saturating their own market. That’s the entire issue people are talking about when they say they’re killing the brand for a profit boost in the short term. Even just looking at expansion sets they went from 3 a year to 4-5 a year, and that’s ignoring other products. That might not seem like a big deal until you realize that MtG has set rotation and even without that the newest cards will always be the most impactful. Saying “but it’s a billion dollar product” doesn’t change that issue, especially when the way they’re increasing profits is the problem. People are still buying for now but yeah I can only keep it up for so long. Ironically this same thing happened to dnd once upon a time in 3.5. What happened there? Decreased interest in the game because people were being overwhelmed by the repeated releases. That’s something they said they wanted to avoid with 5e and ironically stumbled into with MtG. Again working for now but a simple google search shows post after post and article after article of people being worried or fed up with it. That sort of thing only works until the sentiment spreads from a few people dropping out of the game to a lot of people.

IIRC the saturation of MTG was a supply chain issue (printing and distribution forced them to release two sets simultaneously) - but the important thing is that none of this has anything to do with D&D; D&D is far from saturated, if anything people are clamoring for more content.

OneD&D increasing focus on digital might even be prescient - it means that should the physical hobby world go through upheaval again, e.g. another pandemic or the like, they won't be wholly dependent on shuttered FLGS and cancelled conventions to drive sales of new releases.

As for inflation costs and the like, it’s not some noble reason. Price increases are never something a company wants because it causes backlash from everyone. The typical approach is to cut costs or find other methods of monetization. Seeing as 5e has taken a approach to avoiding over saturation for reasons already discussed I’m not optimistic.

I'm not sure they could do anything that would increase the optimism you speak of. Saturation is bad because MTG, avoiding saturation is also bad, it seems like they can't win.

Unoriginal

2022-12-10, 02:39 PM

I'm not sure they could do anything that would increase the optimism you speak of. Saturation is bad because MTG, avoiding saturation is also bad, it seems like they can't win.

Avoiding saturation is never bad, by definition.

Saturation is bad, releasing too little is bad. Winning is finding the happy medium between "we have the time to work quality content" and "our customers don't have to wait too long for the new stuff".

Telesphoros

2022-12-10, 03:17 PM

Unless I'm missing something, I don't see traditional printed books going away, so it doesn't seem that anyone needs to change their consumption practices to remain with D&D. If they want to offer more online content via paid ,microtransactions dlcs, then power to them, I won't be buying them, but it's no skin off my nose for them to be available to those who want to purchase them.

I suspect the core rulebooks and some supplemental type rulebooks will be fine for physical copies. And I bet there are going to be more alternate covers and Collector's versions ala Beadle and Grimm and slipcase sets.

There is, however, plenty of official D&D 5e stuff that doesn't come in printed form at the moment. I also expect this to continue to a greater degree, especially with Adventures, Extra Life style pdfs, maybe extra Species, Monsters and whatnot too. I can also see Adventurer's League type stuff being integrated into DnDBeyond and the VTT for pickup games and such for those without a regular gaming group or those that have extra time and want to play more.

IIRC the saturation of MTG was a supply chain issue (printing and distribution forced them to release two sets simultaneously) - but the important thing is that none of this has anything to do with D&D; D&D is far from saturated, if anything people are clamoring for more content.

I think supply chain issues were what they blamed the Q3 lost revenue on since some sets got pushed to Q4. The over saturation of product was already there to the tune of 25 Magic sets and 48 Secret Lairs this year alone. Even without supply chain issues, that's a set about every 2 weeks.

Yeah, D&D is far from saturated at this point, but it sounds like that could change here soon. And not necessarily with more content, but with the same content packaged in very different ways with maybe a few slight alterations here and there. And definitely more digital content. You don't hire 350 people for your Digital platform, pay 4 billion dollars for Entertainment One, and buy up game studios without producing a lot more content.

Psyren

2022-12-10, 03:20 PM

Avoiding saturation is never bad, by definition.

My point exactly, but it's being brought up as a criticism of D&D somehow.

I think supply chain issues were what they blamed the Q3 lost revenue on since some sets got pushed to Q4. The over saturation of product was already there to the tune of 25 Magic sets and 48 Secret Lairs this year alone. Even without supply chain issues, that's a set about every 2 weeks.

Sure, I guess? As I said, I couldn't care less about what MTG is doing, especially not commercially. I haven't bought a pack since the original Ravnica.

Yeah, D&D is far from saturated at this point, but it sounds like that could change here soon.

It really doesn't.

(Hell, we already have the entire 2023 release schedule. (https://screenrant.com/dnd-dungeons-dragons-books-2023-schedule-phandelver-planescape/))

PhoenixPhyre

2022-12-10, 03:34 PM

What do I expect from monetization:

Things that make total sense and I'd be mostly ok with (pending details):
* Charging someone for the VTT, possibly with a very limited (both materials and upload space) free tier.
* VTT microtransactions for things like maps, tokens, music, assets, and even a la carte access to character building assets.
* (unlikely) paid integrations between D&D Beyond and other VTTs. So you can add a WotC-supported "api bridge" to your Roll20 game, log in with your D&D Beyond credentials, and import supported, "blessed", legal versions of the content you own. This is possible now, but it's super shady and involves deeply 3rd-party integrations that are not well supported at all. And likely on the wrong side of legality.
* More licensing of IP for toys, swag, movies, other media, etc. And more strict enforcement of copyright/trademark on some of those things.

Things that are likely IMO and kinda bad
* Restricting content sharing on D&D Beyond, including possibly tying it in to paid subscriber status for both parties (ie you can only share it with other subscribers)
* Restricting use of homebrew materials on D&D Beyond, whether requiring payment, restricting amount, or otherwise.
* Publishing more, "lighter" books. At the same price. Basically shrinkflation--you're still paying $49.99 for a book, but now instead of 250 content-ful pages, you get 200 and more of those are artwork and bigger fonts. Or just generally lower levels of content quality. This is the old White Wolf and TSR model--churn out buckets of material that's mostly crap.

Things that are possible and bad
* Restricting the OneD&D SRD even further. So basically if the SRD were just the Basic Rules.
* Lumping more material into the proprietary bin. Like WH did when they changed all the lore around the space elves to make them fully protectible by IP laws.
* Much more aggressive legal action against homebrewers who don't use "blessed" (and monetizable) channels such as DM's Guild.
* Not extending current licensing for competing VTTs to OneD&D (currently they partner with a couple, including Fantasy Grounds IIRC, to make content more available there).

Things I don't expect
* Outright digital[1] lootboxes. Too many legal issues and potential for backlash.
* Stopping using the OGL entirely.
* Outright trying to shut down other VTTs. Too many legal issues.

[1] there are already physical ones for minis.

Telesphoros

2022-12-10, 04:16 PM

Sure, I guess? As I said, I couldn't care less about what MTG is doing, especially not commercially. I haven't bought a pack since the original Ravnica.

It really doesn't.

(Hell, we already have the entire 2023 release schedule. (https://screenrant.com/dnd-dungeons-dragons-books-2023-schedule-phandelver-planescape/))

I could care less about Magic myself, except how it was tied to D&D during the fireside chat and the cues they're taking from it to monetize D&D.

Those are the major books that are going to be released next year, yes. Entire product release schedule? Um, nope, don't think so.

Psyren

2022-12-10, 04:51 PM

I could care less about Magic myself, except how it was tied to D&D during the fireside chat and the cues they're taking from it to monetize D&D.

They talked about the cues they're not taking from it too.

Those are the major books that are going to be released next year, yes. Entire product release schedule? Um, nope, don't think so.

Any other releases will be too minor to constitute saturation.

Jervis

2022-12-10, 05:06 PM

IIRC the saturation of MTG was a supply chain issue (printing and distribution forced them to release two sets simultaneously) - but the important thing is that none of this has anything to do with D&D; D&D is far from saturated, if anything people are clamoring for more content.

OneD&D increasing focus on digital might even be prescient - it means that should the physical hobby world go through upheaval again, e.g. another pandemic or the like, they won't be wholly dependent on shuttered FLGS and cancelled conventions to drive sales of new releases.

I'm not sure they could do anything that would increase the optimism you speak of. Saturation is bad because MTG, avoiding saturation is also bad, it seems like they can't win.

It would be better to rephrase things. Their low amount of releases was a attempt to avoid saturation, I personally think they overcorrected somewhat but that’s besides the point. Point is they have stated that they don’t want to have too many releases. If they want to increase monetization without increasing output, something they previously said they were against, then their options are to piecemeal up content that previously would have been in a single book, charge more for less, start nickel and dimming with subscription services (likely ones that target GMs specifically since they buy most of everything), or some other form of real innovation that’s worth what they’re charging. Seeing WotC has a very long history of anti consumer behavior i’m doubtful that we’ll see any innovation from them and just more of the same. An increasing move towards digital is exactly what i’m afraid of since dndbeyond has such a anti consumer business model

As for MtG I understand the supply chain issues in that instance but the game has still seen a uptick in product that’s over saturating the market beyond that example. Even the original creator isn’t a fan of what they’re doing.

Brookshw

2022-12-10, 05:37 PM

Any other releases will be too minor to constitute saturation.

Now to hope they don't mess up Placescape....

OldTrees1

2022-12-10, 05:38 PM

It would be better to rephrase things. Their low amount of releases was a attempt to avoid saturation, I personally think they overcorrected somewhat but thatÂ’s besides the point. Point is they have stated that they donÂ’t want to have too many releases. If they want to increase monetization without increasing output, something they previously said they were against, then their options are -snip list-

As for MtG I understand the supply chain issues in that instance but the game has still seen a uptick in product thatÂ’s over saturating the market beyond that example. Even the original creator isnÂ’t a fan of what theyÂ’re doing.

Agreed. Assuming they stick to their design philosophy (generally a good bet) then they have limited options and I dislike most of those options.

I already found my demand for 5E books has greater diminishing returns as a result of some of 5E's structural design. So even if they alter their design philosophy and increase the amount of 5E books, it might have diminishing returns. Thus another reason for your list of their other options.

Relevant graph of the uptick in product.
https://www.hipstersofthecoast.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/CoverImage-1.jpg

Now to hope they don't mess up Placescape....

In my opinion, the Spelljammer books were not worth it for me. I wish you luck, but set your expectations low enough that you will be pleasantly surprised.

Psyren

2022-12-10, 05:42 PM

It would be better to rephrase things. Their low amount of releases was a attempt to avoid saturation, I personally think they overcorrected somewhat but that’s besides the point. Point is they have stated that they don’t want to have too many releases. If they want to increase monetization without increasing output, something they previously said they were against, then their options are to piecemeal up content that previously would have been in a single book, charge more for less, start nickel and dimming with subscription services (likely ones that target GMs specifically since they buy most of everything), or some other form of real innovation that’s worth what they’re charging. Seeing WotC has a very long history of anti consumer behavior i’m doubtful that we’ll see any innovation from them and just more of the same. An increasing move towards digital is exactly what i’m afraid of since dndbeyond has such a anti consumer business model

As for MtG I understand the supply chain issues in that instance but the game has still seen a uptick in product that’s over saturating the market beyond that example. Even the original creator isn’t a fan of what they’re doing.

Looking at the release schedule I'm not seeing anything that would/should have been in one book getting piecemealed out for nickels. We've got the heist adventure first which is almost certainly meant to line up with the DnD heist movie, the giant splat, the phandelver adventure to expand on their most popular starter set, what looks to be a magic item compendium, and then the planescape setting. And all of that will be running alongside multiple rounds of the 1DnD playtest. None of that looks like it should be bundled together and I really don't see the design team having the bandwidth to do a lot of other stuff besides this, so this belief has no basis as far as I can see.

Brookshw

2022-12-10, 06:12 PM

In my opinion, the Spelljammer books were not worth it for me. I wish you luck, but set your expectations low enough that you will be pleasantly surprised.

I've been playing since the 80s, and SJ 5e was the first time I returned a product. I'm planning on being VERY cautious about PS, and other products, going forward.

Dr.Samurai

2022-12-10, 06:53 PM

I've been playing since the 80s, and SJ 5e was the first time I returned a product. I'm planning on being VERY cautious about PS, and other products, going forward.
Right.

If "we need to make more money" means "we'll have robust setting books and splatbooks", I'm the first on the bandwagon. Spelljammer, Ships of Wildspace and Ship Combat, Aliens of the Stars, etc etc etc I'm all down for it.

If it's "we're going to half-ass a spelljammer book and then try to get you to buy little bits and doodads that say SPELLJAMMER on them to use with our VTT" then thanks but no thanks. Stripping lore and putting out lackluster setting books, and then musing on how to make more money seems like not going in the right direction.

But hey, who am I to not have unwavering loyalty to WotC, amirite?!?!

Psyren

2022-12-10, 06:58 PM

I've been playing since the 80s, and SJ 5e was the first time I returned a product. I'm planning on being VERY cautious about PS, and other products, going forward.

This reminds me of another good business practice they're doing, piecemeal sales. Say you find Spellljammer to not be worthwhile but you still want to use the six races in it on DDB, you can buy them separately at $2 each, or a bundle of all six for $9 total. Similarly, if you don't care about Dragonlance but want the Lunar Sorcerer for a different campaign, you can buy that by itself too for $2. And having access to those components via DDB still counts as official for the purposes of things like AL legality at conventions and FLGS.

Essentially, if you don't find a given book worthwhile, you don't have to buy the whole thing anymore if you don't want to, which is AFAICT a first for any edition of D&D.

Brookshw

2022-12-10, 08:19 PM

This reminds me of another good business practice they're doing, piecemeal sales. Say you find Spellljammer to not be worthwhile but you still want to use the six races in it on DDB, you can buy them separately at $2 each, or a bundle of all six for $9 total. Similarly, if you don't care about Dragonlance but want the Lunar Sorcerer for a different campaign, you can buy that by itself too for $2. And having access to those components via DDB still counts as official for the purposes of things like AL legality at conventions and FLGS.

Essentially, if you don't find a given book worthwhile, you don't have to buy the whole thing anymore if you don't want to, which is AFAICT a first for any edition of D&D.

Very true, sell it piecemeal, and eventually do some compendiums to sell em a third time.

Cheesegear

2022-12-10, 08:23 PM

Any other releases will be too minor to constitute saturation.

Depends how many there are.
Depends how good/powerful they are.
See; Magic the Gathering.

If WotC embraces digital, like, properly...You can release an infinite amount of three-page .pdfs, indefinitely, at say, $4 a pop.
Let's say that you release one every two weeks.
At the end of 2024 (?), you could have roughly 20-25 releases.
How many did you get?
How many are good?
How many are so good that you'd be stupid not to get it?
How many are so good that if you don't have a D&DB account you are dumb?
Something, something, does piracy go way up?

I'm not talking about UA.
I'm talking about splitting all of the Tasha's subclasses into their own microtransaction. But Tasha's in a compiled book form, doesn't exist for 1-3 more years after the final subclass is published.

Brookshw

2022-12-10, 08:45 PM

How many did you get?

Zero, because it's an annoying sales model and there are other games that are available in manners compatible with my preferred consumer practices.

Also we're now risking bloat nonsense, and you're relying on DMs allowing all that stuff.

Dr.Samurai

2022-12-10, 08:53 PM

Brookshw

2022-12-10, 09:10 PM

If they do split things up into these little transactions, isn't that more incentive to make them "must-haves"?

Power creep :smallsigh:

Cheesegear

2022-12-10, 09:57 PM

Also we're now risking bloat nonsense, and you're relying on DMs allowing all that stuff.

I'm actually envisioning a future where if it's "official", the DM doesn't actually get to disallow it.

I'm actually envisioning a future where the DM's job is to simply tell a story and moderate DCs, and the players are actually the ones in control...Because, y'know...The direction of the game.

I already have to go through the ringer when I have to justify banning a Race or Subclass. 'If it wasn't supposed to be used, why did they print it?'

I don't like that you have a resource-less Fly speed, starting from Level 1, with a caveat that doesn't even matter to a lot of really good classes. No Aaracokra.
What? You think you're better than WotC?
Oh FFS.

Sigreid

2022-12-10, 10:13 PM

I'm actually envisioning a future where if it's "official", the DM doesn't actually get to disallow it.

I'm actually envisioning a future where the DM's job is to simply tell a story and moderate DCs, and the players are actually the ones in control...Because, y'know...The direction of the game.

I already have to go through the ringer when I have to justify banning a Race or Subclass. 'If it wasn't supposed to be used, why did they print it?'

I don't like that you have a resource-less Fly speed, starting from Level 1, with a caveat that doesn't even matter to a lot of really good classes. No Aaracokra.
What? You think you're better than WotC?
Oh FFS.

Outside of organized play a DM can always limit or change anything he wants simply because you can't force someone to DM.

Particle_Man

2022-12-10, 10:15 PM

People are still buying for now but yeah I can only keep it up for so long. Ironically this same thing happened to dnd once upon a time in 3.5. What happened there? Decreased interest in the game because people were being overwhelmed by the repeated releases.

This seems odd to me because Pathfinder 1e did so well immediately upon taking over the 3.5 crown after Wotc stopped producing 3.5.

I mean, I could see an argument that 2nd edition AD&D was oversaturating the market with settings, but I don't see how 3.5 was oversaturated that is congruent with Pathfinder 1e doing so well immediately after 3.5 ended.

Psyren

2022-12-10, 10:21 PM

If they do split things up into these little transactions, isn't that more incentive to make them "must-haves"?

I'm not crazy about it even before then; make a book that I want to buy, not a book I don't want to buy but has a thing in it I'll purchase for a few bucks...

Power creep :smallsigh:

There's a concrete benefit to this split, it lets people vote with their wallet and still get the content they want. Imagine if people could buy the Binder without the rest of Tome of Magic, it would send a clear signal to WotC that the Truenamer and the Shadowcaster needed work. The same is true of Spelljammer, people who find the rules and adventure lacking can just buy the races.

See; Magic the Gathering.

Why? D&D isn't a TCG.

Let's say that you release one every two weeks.

Not even 3.5's torrent got anywhere near this kind of release schedule.

I'm actually envisioning a future where if it's "official", the DM doesn't actually get to disallow it.

How would you envision this future working? The WotC police storming your living room the moment you ban Lunar Sorcerer? :smalltongue:

Cheesegear

2022-12-10, 10:25 PM

Outside of organized play a DM can always limit or change anything he wants simply because you can't force someone to DM.

I've said it multiple times; If your pool of players is limited, you can't really afford for some players to walk away from the table.

Let's say that D&DB sells a Subclass for $5.
The player shows up to the session, with that Subclass, that they paid for.
The DM says no.

Either:
a) The sale never should've been made in the first place.
b) The player refunds the sale, nullifying the sale.
c) The DM owes that player $5?

...The best solution would be to remove the DM's say.

How would you envision this future working? The WotC police storming your living room the moment you ban Lunar Sorcerer? :smalltongue:

For older, established, stable tables? It wouldn't. Rule 0 is the DM can do whatever they want.

For new tables and new players, they would buy into the game without a pre-conceived notion that the 'DM is always right.' That notion has slowly been eroded in the last five years anyway:

Rule 0 is the DM's job is to make sure the players have fun.
If the players aren't having fun, it's the DM's fault. #BadDM

Psyren

2022-12-10, 11:02 PM

For older, established, stable tables? It wouldn't. Rule 0 is the DM can do whatever they want.

For new tables and new players, they would buy into the game without a pre-conceived notion that the 'DM is always right.' That notion has slowly been eroded in the last five years anyway:

The DM isn't always right. Pick any 10 threads asking for playgroup advice around here and you'll see that plain as day.

Rule 0 is the DM's job is to make sure the players have fun.
If the players aren't having fun, it's the DM's fault. #BadDM

The players not having fun might not be solely the DM's fault, but the DM should be involved in solving it, no?

Cheesegear

2022-12-10, 11:11 PM

The players not having fun might not be solely the DM's fault, but the DM should be involved in solving it, no?

My...Fun...Involves playing a specific Race and/or Subclass (or both)*, that the DM has said I can't use.

Am I having fun wrong? Is the DM a big poopy-head for no reason?

Well:
Can the DM do whatever they want, or
Is it the DM's responsibility to make sure I have fun?**

*I also conceptualise a scenario in which the player has potentially paid to use this Race and/or Subclass.
**This is probably philosophical, and relies heavily on your perception of the game, and the direction it's heading, and may even require a new thread.

JNAProductions

2022-12-10, 11:14 PM

Everyone should make sure that the entire table is having fun.
This will almost always involve some measure of compromise. From people playing the PCs and the DM.

Psyren

2022-12-10, 11:24 PM

My...Fun...Involves playing a specific Race and/or Subclass (or both)*, that the DM has said I can't use.

Am I having fun wrong? Is the DM a big poopy-head for no reason?

Well:
Can the DM do whatever they want, or
Is it the DM's responsibility to make sure I have fun?**

It's true that these positions appear mutually exclusive at first, but surely both you and the DM are adults who can eventually arrive at a compromise. And if you can't, that's fine too, there are other D&D games (or non-D&D ones) in the world. This isn't a rulebook or system problem.

JackPhoenix

2022-12-11, 12:15 AM

I've said it multiple times; If your pool of players is limited, you can't really afford for some players to walk away from the table.

Let's say that D&DB sells a Subclass for $5.
The player shows up to the session, with that Subclass, that they paid for.
The DM says no.

Either:
a) The sale never should've been made in the first place.
b) The player refunds the sale, nullifying the sale.
c) The DM owes that player $5?

...The best solution would be to remove the DM's say.

Same goes for the player. If the pool of players is limited, the pool of GMs is even more so. The player either accepts whatever game the GM offers, or doesn't get to play, and is still down 5$.
The actual best solution is not to engage in predatory buisiness practices.

My...Fun...Involves playing a specific Race and/or Subclass (or both)*, that the DM has said I can't use.

Am I having fun wrong?

Yes.

*I also conceptualise a scenario in which the player has potentially paid to use this Race and/or Subclass.

That's the his problem. Maybe next time, he'll be more careful with his money.

Kane0

2022-12-11, 12:31 AM

I'd probably buy D&D monopoly, or maybe catan
D&D cluedo!

Sigreid

2022-12-11, 01:08 AM

I've said it multiple times; If your pool of players is limited, you can't really afford for some players to walk away from the table.

Let's say that D&DB sells a Subclass for $5.
The player shows up to the session, with that Subclass, that they paid for.
The DM says no.

Either:
a) The sale never should've been made in the first place.
b) The player refunds the sale, nullifying the sale.
c) The DM owes that player $5?

...The best solution would be to remove the DM's say.

For older, established, stable tables? It wouldn't. Rule 0 is the DM can do whatever they want.

For new tables and new players, they would buy into the game without a pre-conceived notion that the 'DM is always right.' That notion has slowly been eroded in the last five years anyway:

Rule 0 is the DM's job is to make sure the players have fun.
If the players aren't having fun, it's the DM's fault. #BadDM
I get all that, but D&D isn't supposed to be an abusive relationship on either side.

Particle_Man

2022-12-11, 02:25 AM

I have bought for 3.5 The Book of Nine Swords and there are cool classes in it, but my current DM won't use that book in his campaign. I don't feel down the money I paid - I will just play other characters for now and maybe in the future if I find another DM that allows The Book of Nine Swords I will use a class from that book.

I am joining a 5e campaign and the DM is new and wants to just do core book only for the first campaign. Fine by me: I will rock my standard human champion fighter outlander. No multi-classing or feats needed. I can play other characters later when the DM is ready for expanding the options.

I mean, if a DM doesn't want a player to play subrace X in campaign Z, I assume that is not the only character the player ever wants to play. They can play something else for now, and keep subrace X in their back pocket for a different DM, or even a different campaign with the same DM.

Kane0

2022-12-11, 02:30 AM

I have bought for 3.5 The Book of Nine Swords and there are cool classes in it, but my current DM won't use that book in his campaign.

I am joining a 5e campaign and the DM is new and wants to just do core book only for the first campaign. Fine by me: I will rock my standard human champion fighter outlander.

I'd recommend battlemaster over champion, even (especially) in core-only.

Brookshw

2022-12-11, 07:52 AM

I've said it multiple times; If your pool of players is limited, you can't really afford for some players to walk away from the table. Nah. You can always switch to a game/activity that's non-contentious, or realize them game you want to run isn't the one they want to play, and offer to give the seat to someone who does want to run a game they group wants to play.. I hear a lot about online play as well with strangers (never tried, no opinion). DMs aren't sock puppets and I'll be damned if I ever run for people who expect they can treat me like one.

Let's say that D&DB sells a Subclass for $5.
The player shows up to the session, with that Subclass, that they paid for.
The DM says no.

Either:
a) The sale never should've been made in the first place.
b) The player refunds the sale, nullifying the sale.
c) The DM owes that player $5?

No, they still own their content, and can find somewhere else to use it.

The best solution would be to remove the DM's say. Worst advice I ever heard on the topic. Alternatively, try discussing other options to play, including how to modify the concerning content so that both sides can accept it.

For new tables and new players, they would buy into the game without a pre-conceived notion that the 'DM is always right.' That notion has slowly been eroded in the last five years anyway:

Rule 0 is the DM's job is to make sure the players have fun.
If the players aren't having fun, it's the DM's fault. #BadDM

Strangely, I've found players tend to kill each other's fun more than the DM.

Edit: to your earlier point, if/when chatAI sufficiently advances, I could see WoTC using that to offer DM-less games via their VTT, but don't see that becoming a mainstay of the hobby or nuking rule 0, but could see it in that specific scenario.

Segev

2022-12-11, 10:19 AM

Telesphoros

2022-12-11, 11:35 AM

Yeah, much rather own physical books than digital, especially if it's tied to a specific site. They can change the content whenever they like. Remove it if they want. Not offer certain things. Go down for site maintenance. Sell the platform to someone else. Or go away entirely. All in all, it feels like at best I'm renting the material.

Psyren

2022-12-11, 11:51 AM

They still own the content until WotC decides to edit it because of whatever reasons they choose, at least.

You know the old saw about how WotC won't break into your house and steal your D&D books that are out of date? You can bet that preventing that with digitally-owned content will be a fight.

You can stick to physical just fine if that's a concern. For me, seamless and continuous errata is a feature, not a bug.

Yeah, much rather own physical books than digital, especially if it's tied to a specific site. They can change the content whenever they like. Remove it if they want. Not offer certain things. Go down for site maintenance. Sell the platform to someone else. Or go away entirely. All in all, it feels like at best I'm renting the material.

You're licensing it to be precise (and as above, you don't have to.)

DMs aren't sock puppets and I'll be damned if I ever run for people who expect they can treat me like one.
...
No, they still own their content, and can find somewhere else to use it.
...
Worst advice I ever heard on the topic. Alternatively, try discussing other options to play, including how to modify the concerning content so that both sides can accept it.

^This, plus a healthy dose of backbone will go a long way.

Edit: to your earlier point, if/when chatAI sufficiently advances, I could see WoTC using that to offer DM-less games via their VTT, but don't see that becoming a mainstay of the hobby or nuking rule 0, but could see it in that specific scenario.

This prospect excites me about the future like few others!

Brookshw

2022-12-11, 12:26 PM

This prospect excites me about the future like few others!

It's an interesting prospect, between what we're seeing with AI generated art and chat, I can't imagine it's that far off. Make it available as a subscription model, each player needs a subscription. There's your cash cow. I don't see it replacing real DMs or in person games, but it'll definitely have a place/market.

Telesphoros

2022-12-11, 12:41 PM

You can stick to physical just fine if that's a concern. For me, seamless and continuous errata is a feature, not a bug.

You're licensing it to be precise (and as above, you don't have to.)

For most things, sure, but they don't make everything in physical form.

Yup, renting stuff. Mostly at physical copy price or more... no thanks.

Particle_Man

2022-12-11, 12:53 PM

I'd recommend battlemaster over champion, even (especially) in core-only.

Depends if you are going for power or simplicity. I am old and play in a distracted environment. "I attack" is about as complex as I wanna get for now. :smallsmile:

Psyren

2022-12-11, 01:00 PM

It's an interesting prospect, between what we're seeing with AI generated art and chat, I can't imagine it's that far off. Make it available as a subscription model, each player needs a subscription. There's your cash cow. I don't see it replacing real DMs or in person games, but it'll definitely have a place/market.

Exactly - it'll be an entirely new avenue of play, especially for groups experiencing DM burnout or other challenges, or simply to test builds and monsters etc.

For most things, sure, but they don't make everything in physical form.

The rulebooks are though, and as we so often see on this board, that's all people actually need to play D&D. Ancillary products like special statblocks and maps are just that - ancillary.

Brookshw

2022-12-11, 01:25 PM

Exactly - it'll be an entirely new avenue of play, especially for groups experiencing DM burnout or other challenges, or simply to test builds and monsters etc.

Possibly round out parties with comp run npcs, or have the comp run a PC if they can't make it that week (maybe replace difficult players who want to treat the DM like a sock puppet). Or, heck, all comp run party with a human DM for when you're just sick of balancing everyone's schedules :smallwink::smallbiggrin:

Telesphoros

2022-12-11, 01:38 PM

The rulebooks are though, and as we so often see on this board, that's all people actually need to play D&D. Ancillary products like special statblocks and maps are just that - ancillary.

A version of some rulebooks. We've been down that road before with SCAG, Volo's, and Tome of Foes.

Do you consider Adventures to be Ancillary products?

Segev

2022-12-11, 01:46 PM

You can stick to physical just fine if that's a concern. For me, seamless and continuous errata is a feature, not a bug.

Oh, it can be, right up until they make errata you hate and don't want to use, and can't access the old version anymore.

Or decide that an entire book is "below standards" (as established by whoever is in charge at the time) and just eliminate it entirely. Those standards may have nothing to do with rules quality, and could even just be, "The author is somebody we, the current people making these decisions, hate so much we want to wipe all trace of his touch from the game."

Hyperbolic, you might suggest, but there have already been instances of Amazon "removing" movies people have bought on their streaming service, and only restoring after there was a huge backlash and outcry. Sure, in this case, Amazon did credit their accounts with refunds, but they still were out the movie if the outcry hadn't reversed the decision, whereas somebody who owned the DVD or Blue Ray or whatever would not have Amazon breaking into their homes to extract them.

It's not a matter of "oh, you're paranoid; they'd never do that;" it's a matter of whether the possibility exists, and how much that diminishes the value.

Also, unlike, say, my 1e AD&D books that I still have, even decades after TSR went out of business, if WotC is shuttered, who's going to maintain the servers with all your stuff on them? You literally won't be able to play the game anymore if you don't have the books, unless you're really good at doing so from memory. (And if the VTT is so integral to 5.1 and 6e that you can't game without it, that, too, becomes a game with a shelf life that is out of your control.)

Yes, automatic errata is nice.

But I think, if they're going to do online services, until such time as online services and hard copies are both bought as a package - perhaps with a specified code in your hard copy you can enter into your account on D&DB to unlock the e-content - it's going to be less of a money-maker than they think. People don't like being charged twice for things, and people REALLY don't like paying for something that can just poof away.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-12-11, 02:04 PM

And remember that WOTC doesn’t exactly have a stirling record in the digital space. How many times have they blackholed content from their forums, website, etc? Even without malicious intent, trusting them to preserve access long term is…risky.

Psyren

2022-12-11, 03:30 PM

Oh, it can be, right up until they make errata you hate and don't want to use, and can't access the old version anymore.

Or decide that an entire book is "below standards" (as established by whoever is in charge at the time) and just eliminate it entirely. Those standards may have nothing to do with rules quality, and could even just be, "The author is somebody we, the current people making these decisions, hate so much we want to wipe all trace of his touch from the game."

Hyperbolic, you might suggest, but there have already been instances of Amazon "removing" movies people have bought on their streaming service, and only restoring after there was a huge backlash and outcry. Sure, in this case, Amazon did credit their accounts with refunds, but they still were out the movie if the outcry hadn't reversed the decision, whereas somebody who owned the DVD or Blue Ray or whatever would not have Amazon breaking into their homes to extract them.

It's not a matter of "oh, you're paranoid; they'd never do that;" it's a matter of whether the possibility exists, and how much that diminishes the value.

You're right, that's a risk you take with any digital content delivery platform. For me, that risk is worthwhile, for others it may not be, and that's okay.

Also, unlike, say, my 1e AD&D books that I still have, even decades after TSR went out of business, if WotC is shuttered, who's going to maintain the servers with all your stuff on them? You literally won't be able to play the game anymore if you don't have the books, unless you're really good at doing so from memory. (And if the VTT is so integral to 5.1 and 6e that you can't game without it, that, too, becomes a game with a shelf life that is out of your control.)

Not sure what you want me to say to this. Yes, there's a nonzero chance that 1DnD will fail, WotC will implode, DnDBeyond will be shut down, and everything I purchased there will become inaccessible. If that happens, I'll be sad, but I'll move on and play something else; I'm far from destitute. If that risk stops you from investing in a digital platform, that's understandable. Life is risk.

But I think, if they're going to do online services, until such time as online services and hard copies are both bought as a package - perhaps with a specified code in your hard copy you can enter into your account on D&DB to unlock the e-content - it's going to be less of a money-maker than they think. People don't like being charged twice for things, and people REALLY don't like paying for something that can just poof away.

This is literally what they've started doing as of Dragonlance, so you're in luck.

A version of some rulebooks. We've been down that road before with SCAG, Volo's, and Tome of Foes.

If you bought those books on DnDBeyond, they still exist. And if you didn't, then their removal from DnDBeyond doesn't affect your purchases.

Your ability to purchase them from WotC is affected - but then, so is your ability to purchase 4th edition PDFs from WotC. No product should be expected to be sold forever.

Do you consider Adventures to be Ancillary products?

Yes, of course I do. Published adventures are completely unnecessary to play D&D, and even if they were, there are tons of free ones. And if I didn't want any that WotC has to sell, there's always DMsGuild or Kickstarter.

Sigreid

2022-12-11, 04:01 PM

Yes, of course I do. Published adventures are completely unnecessary to play D&D, and even if they were, there are tons of free ones. And if I didn't want any that WotC has to sell, there's always DMsGuild or Kickstarter.
I personally think they'd be more profitable with smaller, cheap adventures than the massive expensive adventure paths. A format that would lend itself extremely well to digital only release.

Envyus

2022-12-11, 07:27 PM

I personally think they'd be more profitable with smaller, cheap adventures than the massive expensive adventure paths. A format that would lend itself extremely well to digital only release.

They already do smaller ones.

Theoboldi

2022-12-12, 12:31 AM

Possibly round out parties with comp run npcs, or have the comp run a PC if they can't make it that week (maybe replace difficult players who want to treat the DM like a sock puppet). Or, heck, all comp run party with a human DM for when you're just sick of balancing everyone's schedules :smallwink::smallbiggrin:

I dread the day when players will be able to reasonably leave the decision making to the AI party member.

Dr.Samurai

2022-12-12, 10:03 PM

Psyren

2022-12-12, 10:45 PM

But if that's not in the works... what is? Tell me what I'll be buying in the near future to help D&D grow to the heights of Icarus infinity and beyond.

The stuff they already said they're making in the near future? (https://screenrant.com/dnd-dungeons-dragons-books-2023-schedule-phandelver-planescape/)

Telesphoros

2022-12-12, 11:45 PM

So just thinking some more on this...

If splatbooks are "bloat" and therefore "bad"...

And lore is "inappropriate" outside of campaign settings and therefore should be reduced to a few bland sentences...

And the campaign settings themselves are lackluster and uninspired...

What exactly will I be purchasing to help Hasbro make more money?

Is it really custom dice or something? Is the idea that we're all switching over to VTT and will have to pay subscription fees and buy tokens and stuff? Like... help me envision what's to come. Because I know what I will definitely spend money on... crunchy splatbooks, robust settings, monster manuals with cool lore and minis (well, PLA, STLs, and paint lol).

But if that's not in the works... what is? Tell me what I'll be buying in the near future to help D&D grow to the heights of Icarus infinity and beyond.

I wouldn't expect a whole lot more in regards to physical books, both in quality or quantity. Judging by the last few releases and the UA releases for OneD&D the designers are in lazy mode in my opinion. The actual game itself is only one pillar of how they're going to monetize D&D and most of that monetization is going to come from DnD Beyond and their new VTT. Physical books don't make them a lot of money (since it basically DMs that buy most of the stuff) and will take a backseat to things like movies/tv shows, video games, and all kinds of D&D branded merch/licsensing. You can get those answers from the 10 minutes or so Hasbro/WotC talks about D&D after the pivot from Magic the Gathering stuff.

You've already got the Spelljammer slipcase and Dragonlance Shadows of a Dragon Queen, right? So buy bundles of the releases next year for physical books and DnD Beyond content. Renew your subscriptions. Buy the associated stuff. There's already stuff like playmats, character folios and whatnot for Keys from the Golden Vault. Alt cover? DM's Screen? Consume, consume, consume! Watch the Honor Among Thieves movie when it comes out March 31st. More than once. Get the Druid's Call and Road to Neverwinter novel tie-ins to the movie. Don't forget the prequel Graphic novel for the movie too. Got your Diceling Owlbears yet? What are you waiting for! Buy all the miniatures. Empty your wallet ad infinitum. Gotta make D&D a billion dollar brand in the next 5 years.

Yeah, of course you don't really need to buy all that stuff, but they're banking on the people who will.

Cheesegear

2022-12-13, 01:31 AM

I hear a lot about online play as well with strangers (never tried, no opinion).

As with 40K; I know D&D can be played online, I know that improvements to online play can and will be made in the future.

But if "online" ever becomes the/my main way of playing D&D (or 40K), I'm pretty sure that would kill the game(s) for me. No small part of that has to do with miniatures.

DMs aren't sock puppets and I'll be damned if I ever run for people who expect they can treat me like one.

No, they still own their content, and can find somewhere else to use it.

The problem is that there are two scenarios, and both are terrible:

I want to play an Aaracokra.
No. I wont budge on this so it's best if you leave the table. I'm no sock puppet and I'm not gonna just let you do whatever you want.
Wow. Just...You ban me from the table because I want to play a bird?...Just...Wow.

I want to play an Aaracokra.
No. We're playing a mostly-outdoors campaign and the fact that you can Fly 150 ft. in the air and be effectively invulnerable until mid/late-Tier 2, or how a Fly speed straight up just cancels out a lot of low-level challenges; You'll have an incredibly unfair advantage for a long time and I don't think that that's a good thing.
But that's why I want to play an Aaracokra. **** you, DM. Ruining my fun. You suck - and the bands you like, also suck.

Both scenarios are equally terrible.

But what's wrong with playing an Aaracokra? It's in the book. It's designed to be used. People paid money for the book, and inside the book, was Aaracokra. WotC wants me to play Aaracokra, so why can't the DM let me?

Can't the DM just make **** up as they go along? Why can't they make it so my Aaracokra is fine? There's nothing stopping them. Oh, the DM just wont let me, for reasons they can actually totally change. Oh the challenge is to cross a gorge on a rope bridge? ...Well how 'bout the DM just changes the Challenge? Problem solved.*

Isn't D&D supposed to be a player-centric game? Not a DM-centric game? Why does the DM get to tell me how to build my character? I thought I was telling the story. Isn't that what everyone keeps telling me? Why is the DM screwing with my agency at character creation?

*For the record I rewrote my entire campaign to be based around storms and hurricanes. Good luck flying in a storm! ...But I maintain that I shouldn't have had to because that was so much work rewriting challenges and encounters and rewriting entire sections of fluff. Then again, the fact that I did change certain conditions of my campaign, means that yes, it could be actually done and my player was right? ****.

Worst advice I ever heard on the topic.

As I said, in the last (five?) years, I have noticed a pretty big shift in players' perceptions of what the DM's role, both currently is, and also should be.

That being said, I should note that I completely disagree (except the bit about the power fantasy, it definitely is and/or can be. Nobody wants to play a character who sucks) with what I'm about to say next:

The DM's role, isn't to tell players 'No.' If D&D is an escapist power fantasy; having a DM that says 'No.' is antithetical to that.

Segev

2022-12-13, 02:00 AM

The DM's role, isn't to tell players 'No.' If D&D is an escapist power fantasy; having a DM that says 'No.' is antithetical to that.

I mean, sometimes it is, though, too. "No, you can't have a level 20 character; we're playing Sunless Citadel and the others want to start at level 1." "No, you can't find a +5 vorpal sword in the dungeon; I didn't put one there and if I WERE putting custom items in, I'd be putting in that Robe of Useful Items the rogue's been asking about, because it makes more sense here and you already have 2x as many items as the rest of the party combined." "No, you don't get to reroll a third time; just accept that your advantaged roll still failed. Sometimes it happens."

Psyren

2022-12-13, 02:03 AM

The problem is that there are two scenarios, and both are terrible:

I want to play an Aaracokra.
No. I wont budge on this so it's best if you leave the table. I'm no sock puppet and I'm not gonna just let you do whatever you want.
Wow. Just...You ban me from the table because I want to play a bird?...Just...Wow.

I want to play an Aaracokra.
No. We're playing a mostly-outdoors campaign and the fact that you can Fly 150 ft. in the air and be effectively invulnerable until mid/late-Tier 2, or how a Fly speed straight up just cancels out a lot of low-level challenges; You'll have an incredibly unfair advantage for a long time and I don't think that that's a good thing.
But that's why I want to play an Aaracokra. **** you, DM. Ruining my fun. You suck - and the bands you like, also suck.

Both scenarios are equally terrible.

Are these really the only two scenarios you can imagine? Truly?

Cheesegear

2022-12-13, 02:17 AM

Are these really the only two scenarios you can imagine? Truly?

As I said following that, playing an Aaracokra is not unreasonable. Neither is playing a Twilight Cleric. Neither is playing an Sorcerer. Neither is playing a Moon Druid. Neither is playing Warforged. Neither is a Gloomstalker. Neither is playing something that makes no sense in the DM's arbitrary homebrew.
No. I understand you don't have Leonin in your world. But you know you're the DM, right? You know you can just put some in anywhere you want. Why [I]wont you just put Leonin in your world? You know you can and there's nothing stopping you. Why are you singling me out? Everyone else get to play what they want...But I want to play a Leonin Bard and suddenly I'm not allowed to play what I want?

What's unreasonable is that WotC put those things in the game, in the first place (and D&DB giving everyone access to everything). Now that they're there, what can the DM do, except ruin players' fun that want to play those things?

A lot of times, in a fictional game of fictional make-pretend with your friends, saying 'No.', is actually the unreasonable thing.

Sometimes, when a DM puts their foot down, they look like an a**hole. Because it is a fictional game of fictional make-pretend with your friends, and the DM's arbitrary likes and dislikes don't hold water, when the aim of the game, is "To Have Fun."

Psyren

2022-12-13, 02:46 AM

What's unreasonable is that WotC put those things in the game, in the first place (and D&DB giving everyone access to everything). Now that they're there, what can the DM do, except ruin players' fun that want to play those things?

Talk it out like adults? Compromise, even?

Cheesegear

2022-12-13, 03:39 AM

Talk it out like adults? Compromise, even?

There is no compromise.

You have to convince the player that no, they aren't actually a furry and they don't want to actually play a Leonin. Or,
The player convinces you to put Leonin in your adventure.

To me, it still seems like one side loses. You can either play a Leonin because the DM gives in, or you can't, because the DM doesn't.

...Unless the compromise is that the player plays a Shifter? ...But that doesn't seem like like a compromise.

I dread the day when players will be able to reasonably leave the decision making to the AI party member.

I dread the day when AI party members will be able to leave the decision making to the AI party members.

Unoriginal

2022-12-13, 05:45 AM

Cheesegear, no one can logically defend the 'the DM's job isn't to say "no"' position. As their respective names indicates:

1) The Game Master is the master of the game, a role which includes choosing everything that is or isn't in the game.

2) It is then up to the players to choose if they want to play that specific game.

A key role of the Dungeon Master is to say "no". It's not the ONLY job, far from it, but saying "no" is a capital part of the task, and a tool one needs to master to be Dungeon Master.

If it is not the job of the DM to say "no", then the tabletop RPG is just unrestrained imagination, and there is nothing stopping a player from going "actually, my character got 30 in all stats and has a permanent flight that cannot be hindered by anything".

The DM saying "you roll 1d20 for ability checks, like it's said in the book" is the DM saying "no" to using all of the other dice. A player cannot decide "actually, I'm gonna use 3d6 for this ability check" on their own. If the DM decides to homebrew that ability checks actually use 3d6 at their table, it's up to them.

What is up to the player is if they continue to play with a DM who tells them "no" on X topic.

The goal of the game is to have fun, sure, but it doesn't change that DMs and players have fundamentally different ways of investing in and interacting with the game, and it's the DM who selects every single of the game's parts in the end. If the players don't find those limits fun, and the DM insists on those limits, they should vote with their feet.

Furthermore, there is nothing wrong/terrible about a player not playing because they want a Bird-Person as a PC and the DM doesn't want to have a Bird-Person as a PC. It's the natural consequences of people wanting different things, and it should be celebrated as two persons accepting each other's boundaries.

Dr.Samurai

2022-12-13, 08:01 AM

I wouldn't expect a whole lot more in regards to physical books, both in quality or quantity. Judging by the last few releases and the UA releases for OneD&D the designers are in lazy mode in my opinion.
I think "lazy" might be a good word for it. And I think it goes beyond the core game as well. The critical role animated series was perfectly mediocre, maybe even a bit cringey at times.

The new movie coming out looks... serviceable. It's not my cup of tea; I think there's so much good lore and story in D&D that a movie that takes itself seriously is warranted. But maybe this goofy comedy will be the springboard for better stuff.

But yeah, can't wait for the giants book: Frost giants can be found in arctic regions. But many can be found in sub-tropical and even tropical regions. They wear the skins and furs of polar animals, or clothing made out of banana leaves, it depends. Many frost giants worship the evil god Thrym, and just as many instead worship the goodly god Santa Claus. Just as many worship no gods at all, or all the gods. Just think of anything that can be said about anyone, and it applies to all the monsters in this book. If you want to use stats for frost giants in your game, please purchase our accompanying board game.

Brookshw

2022-12-13, 08:32 AM

Sometimes, when a DM puts their foot down, they look like an a**hole. Because it is a fictional game of fictional make-pretend with your friends, and the DM's arbitrary likes and dislikes don't hold water, when the aim of the game, is "To Have Fun."

The DM has to balance fun across the table, between the players and for themselves. I've definitely said "no" to things because it created to much power imbalance between players and left others having less fun. Same goes for the DM is also entitled to have fun, as are players who expect a coherent world, not one of special snowflake itis. That a thing is published, doesn't mean its automatically included, never has, might not ever (though they sure are using that marketing opportunity of "its a multiverse, you can buy our products and cram them into every setting").

"Arbitrary likes and dislikes" is a dumb reason, if you're actually saying "no" to something for arbitrary reasons, then you might want to re-evaluate that approach; if you're saying "no" for a reason, there's your opportunity to talk it out like adults. You want to play a bird person? Well, Aaracokra are pretty imbalanced power-wise against other races/species, how about a Ravenfolk from Kobold Press? Or whatever, you don't need a bunch of examples of how to discuss thing like an adult. Also, letting something in and then passive aggressively nerfing it by constant storms is a bad way to build trust at the table, better to discuss.

But yeah, can't wait for the giants book: Frost giants can be found in arctic regions. But many can be found in sub-tropical and even tropical regions. They wear the skins and furs of polar animals, or clothing made out of banana leaves, it depends. Many frost giants worship the evil god Thrym, and just as many instead worship the goodly god Santa Claus. Just as many worship no gods at all, or all the gods. Just think of anything that can be said about anyone, and it applies to all the monsters in this book. If you want to use stats for frost giants in your game, please purchase our accompanying board game.

I laughed. Too accurate.

Segev

2022-12-13, 08:45 AM

There is no compromise.

You have to convince the player that no, they aren't actually a furry and they don't want to actually play a Leonin. Or,
The player convinces you to put Leonin in your adventure.

To me, it still seems like one side loses. You can either play a Leonin because the DM gives in, or you can't, because the DM doesn't.

...Unless the compromise is that the player plays a Shifter? ...But that doesn't seem like like a compromise.

Since when did you have to be a furry to play a Leonin, or have to play a Leonin if you're a furry? A huge part of playing characters in an RPG is playing something other than what you are. Not that you can't go for "idealized version of yourself," but you certainly are not required to, and if the "idealized version of yourself" doesn't fit the game, perhaps it is appropriate to play something else.

Is the DM being a terrible DM and a mean person who should alter his game setting when he tells you that you can't play a starfleet officer wielding a non-magical phaser that casts "disintegrate" and single-target "sleep" at will in his Tomb of Annihilation game?

Sure, he could find a way to add what you want into the game. But why should he? Should he remove alignment from the game if you don't want to have to pick one? Should he include alignment when he doesn't want it just because you want to have it? What if another player wants the opposite?

The DM is the one running the game. He does get to - and even must - say "no" from time to time.

KorvinStarmast

2022-12-13, 09:23 AM

If the future of D&D is that we're all playing teleporting furries with fly speeds and swords that shoot lasers out of the blades, I would not consider that to be a "better" product. Nor would I, but there may be a market for that game.

Diablo Immortal is, according to some people, a very good game. It is the only Diablo product I have not purchased, nor will I ever.

I hate that guy’s videos and have never agreed with him. He made an excellent point.

A certain section of the player base is more likely to have reviewed the material and just checked out instead of responding than other sections. And WoTC doesn't get to hear from them. Self selection of survey audiences is an issue survey builders wrestle with for good reasons.
There are people who have been playing D&D since the 1970s and '80s. There are 60 year-olds, who make up the audience of D&D. *waves to Cheesegear* :smallsmile:

Google Bank of America and Hasbro. Will check that out.

I'm actually envisioning a future where if it's "official", the DM doesn't actually get to disallow it. That's adventurers league. If I choose to DM, and there is content I don't care for, it doesn't exist. End of.

What? You think you're better than WotC?
Oh FFS.
My response is "OK, you DM for this campaign."
*Shuts books, stacks up stuff next to chair, grabs 4d6 and begins rolling for character abilities*
Again, a core reason that I came back to D&D was that my brother promised me that I'd not be the DM.
So here I am, a DM again, but I also am in games where someone else is a DM (Kurt Kurageous has us in a Strahd campaign, woot! PhoenixPhyre has us in campaign 2, woot!) so I have made peace with that.

I'd probably buy D&D monopoly, or maybe catan... D&D cluedo!
I might offer those as Christmas gifts to selected folks on my list.

How many times have they blackholed content from their forums, website, etc? Yeah, their track record on that is not impressive.

Cheesegear

2022-12-13, 09:40 AM

If the players don't find those limits fun, and the DM insists on those limits, they should vote with their feet.

My point - as is the general point of this thread - is where do I see the game going?

I can legitimately see a point in time - soon - where the players tell the DM what they want, and it's the DM's job to run what the players ask for.

I believe that the game is heading towards a player-directed game, not a DM-directed game. I've seen some people say that not only should this be future...It's already here. Players don't like being told 'No.', players do like it when they are the "main characters", the world revolves around them specifically, and their backstory (not their Background), is the single most-important part of their character.

We already see tables where characters can't die, because that's how integral that, specific character is to the story being told (as opposed to the game, being played).

I can also see that this will likely be Hell. As for many current DMs - myself included, and many in this thread - this represents a fundamental philosophical shift in how the game is played. With the end result being that DMs don't want to DM anymore, or, players simply not liking having DMs (many already don't).

I don't know what DM-less D&D looks like. But that's the direction I feel like we're heading.

Maybe, just maybe, what I've seen/read/heard is a result of the explosion in customers throughout the pandemic. Maybe now that it's gone (relatively...You know what I mean), maybe that narcissistic (?) audience does, too? I can hope...But I've also seen some people genuinely believe that Radiant Citadel is better than Rime of the Frostmaiden...Which I mean...Like...That's certainly an opinion they can have...I just really want to know how they got it.

IsaacsAlterEgo

2022-12-13, 09:54 AM

My point - as is the general point of this thread - is where do I see the game going?

I can legitimately see a point in time - soon - where the players tell the DM what they want, and it's the DM's job to run what the players ask for.

I believe that the game is heading towards a player-directed game, not a DM-directed game. I've seen some people say that not only should this be future...It's already here. Players don't like being told 'No.', players do like it when they are the "main characters", the world revolves around them specifically, and their backstory (not their Background), is the single most-important part of their character.

We already see tables where characters can't die, because that's how integral that, specific character is to the story being told (as opposed to the game, being played).

I can also see that this will likely be Hell. As for many current DMs - myself included, and many in this thread - this represents a fundamental philosophical shift in how the game is played. With the end result being that DMs don't want to DM anymore, or, players simply not liking having DMs (many already don't).

I don't know what DM-less D&D looks like. But that's the direction I feel like we're heading.

Maybe, just maybe, what I've seen/read/heard is a result of the explosion in customers throughout the pandemic. Maybe now that it's gone (relatively...You know what I mean), maybe that narcissistic (?) audience does, too? I can hope...But I've also seen some people genuinely believe that Radiant Citadel is better than Rime of the Frostmaiden...Which I mean...Like...That's certainly an opinion they can have...I just really want to know how they got it.

Almost every game I've played in during my time with 5e (both as player and DM) has been the "Hell" you describe, which I find rather amusing because the games I've enjoyed the least are the ones that stray the farthest from your description here. I think "Narcissistic" is an unfair assessment of a group of people who simply value creativity and see DnD as a cooperative storytelling game, rather than a wargame. You should try playing in one of these more modern styled games, I think you might be surprised how much you enjoy it.

Sigreid

2022-12-13, 09:57 AM

My point - as is the general point of this thread - is where do I see the game going?

I can legitimately see a point in time - soon - where the players tell the DM what they want, and it's the DM's job to run what the players ask for.

I believe that the game is heading towards a player-directed game, not a DM-directed game. I've seen some people say that not only should this be future...It's already here. Players don't like being told 'No.', players do like it when they are the "main characters", the world revolves around them specifically, and their backstory (not their Background), is the single most-important part of their character.

We already see tables where characters can't die, because that's how integral that, specific character is to the story being told (as opposed to the game, being played).

I can also see that this will likely be Hell. As for many current DMs - myself included, and many in this thread - this represents a fundamental philosophical shift in how the game is played. With the end result being that DMs don't want to DM anymore, or, players simply not liking having DMs (many already don't).

I don't know what DM-less D&D looks like. But that's the direction I feel like we're heading.

Maybe, just maybe, what I've seen/read/heard is a result of the explosion in customers throughout the pandemic. Maybe now that it's gone (relatively...You know what I mean), maybe that narcissistic (?) audience does, too? I can hope...But I've also seen some people genuinely believe that Radiant Citadel is better than Rime of the Frostmaiden...Which I mean...Like...That's certainly an opinion they can have...I just really want to know how they got it.
I'd say that all of this means that not everyone should be welcomed at every table. Every table I've ever played at has developed its own feel, and the group shouldn't allow anyone at their table that isn't willing to go with that feel.

Unoriginal

2022-12-13, 10:16 AM

D&D cannot be directed by the players. "D&D, but the players can compel the DM to act a certain way if they've bought the right rulebook" was nothing but a merchandizing gimmick WotC tried for 3.X, with disastrous results that are felt to this day.

Maybe Hasbro will try the same gimmick, but so far D&Done doesn't seem to go that way.

Segev

2022-12-13, 10:18 AM

Psyren

2022-12-13, 10:22 AM

It is the only Diablo product I have not purchased, nor will I ever.

I assume you meant "will not spend money on" since it's free to play :smalltongue:

There is no compromise.

You have to convince the player that no, they aren't actually a furry and they don't want to actually play a Leonin. Or,
The player convinces you to put Leonin in your adventure.

To me, it still seems like one side loses. You can either play a Leonin because the DM gives in, or you can't, because the DM doesn't.

...Unless the compromise is that the player plays a Shifter? ...But that doesn't seem like like a compromise.

Again I have to ask, are those really the only possibilities you can imagine? Because if so, I think there are deeper problems with the way you engage with the game than any game company can reasonably be expected to solve.

Also, even if you did need to be a "furry" to want to play a Leonin (which... you don't), 2022/2023 is considerably late to be treating "furry" as though it's some global internet pejorative to be discouraged on sight.

I think "lazy" might be a good word for it. And I think it goes beyond the core game as well. The critical role animated series was perfectly mediocre, maybe even a bit cringey at times.

I didn't find Vox Machina particularly groundbreaking as a D&D aficionado either. But I do appreciate what it represents - another way to mainstream D&D tropes and themes. We're in a pretty exciting zeitgeist right now.

I can legitimately see a point in time - soon - where the players tell the DM what they want, and it's the DM's job to run what the players ask for.

To repeat my question from earlier in the thread, how do you see that being enforced? No one can be forced to DM. At best, for such an approach to work the DM would need to be compensated for their time - in which case, the market will pair up the DMs who don't mind player direction with the players willing to pay for that service.

KorvinStarmast

2022-12-13, 10:33 AM

I assume you meant "will not spend money on" since it's free to play :smalltongue: Sorry, it's the only one I have not installed, nor will I ever.

To repeat my question from earlier in the thread, how do you see that being enforced? No one can be forced to DM. Correct. :smallsmile:

Cheesegear

2022-12-13, 10:34 AM

I think "Narcissistic" is an unfair assessment of a group of people who simply value creativity and see DnD as a cooperative storytelling game, rather than a wargame.

I'll admit the word is stacked with negative connotations. Narcissism isn't neccessarily a bad thing - unless it becomes a personality disorder, but that's a whole different kettle of fish and nothing to do with this thread. Just...Narcissism and NPD aren't the same thing.

But, if you're playing a game where you get everything you want, and things rarely - if ever - go wrong, and your self-insert escapist power fantasy is turned up to 11, in the escapism, power, and fantasy...That is the word I'm looking for. The game is very much focused around you, and not only your ability to succeed, but also your inability to fail. I'm pretty sure I'm using the right word.

Self-insert escapist power fantasy. It's on the tin... Isn't it? How many people want to roleplay as a character that sucks?

Sigreid

2022-12-13, 10:36 AM

Unoriginal

2022-12-13, 10:38 AM

Er, where in 3e did WotC ever say that players could force the DM to use a rulebook just because the player bought it?

They were smart enough not to directly state it, but the expectation they were selling wasvery much 'if you buy this book, you can add X number of options to your character creation, and if the DM disagrees RAW is on your side", not 'if you buy this book, and find a DM who let you do it, you may have a certain percentage of X new options'.

Again, it was just a presentation gimmick to sell more books, but even nowadays you have people who think that you can point out to sonething written in the books and it trumps whatever the DM says.

Cheesegear

2022-12-13, 10:47 AM

To repeat my question from earlier in the thread, how do you see that being enforced?

You know how in the PHB/DMG there's a section that's like The Role of the DM. It'll be in there, and players will point to that.

As for it being enforced? It wont be. As I've said repeatedly, nothing at all will change for current DMs, who have played 20, 30, 40 years under one particular mindset.

Take 40K, for example:
How can we enforce that people call them Drukharii, and not 'Dark Eldar.'?
You can't.
What you can do, however, is change the name to Drukharii, and use the word as often as you can.
As the old guard leave, and new blood come in...New Blood wont even know what Dark Eldar are, all's they've ever heard of, is Drukharii. Then hopefully, a few years down the track, you hear a teenager ask an old grognard:

What's a Dark Eldar?
Like the evil version of Eldar.
You mean like Aeldari? Like the Craftworld Aeldari?
No, I mean...What? When did 'Eldar' get an "A" and an "I" tacked onto it?
Oh...Dark Eldar...Aeldari. I get it. You mean Drukharii.
...Am I old?
The future is now, old man.
Aside from the Malcolm in the Middle reference, I actually overheard this conversation last year or so.

That being said, nothing will be enforced. But it will be progressed.
There will be old, grognard DMs who insist that they're always right.
And there will be new DMs, who enter into D&D under let's say...7th Ed.'s new status quo of the DM's job being to enable players.
Eventually, one way or the other, the grognards will stop playing, and all's that will be left is the new way of doing things.

It's a story as old as [insert many, many, many progressive real-world examples where the older generation just...Fades out of relevancy. Nothing gets enforced. It's just that the old way is outdated and nobody does it anymore.]

SpikeFightwicky

2022-12-13, 10:58 AM

They were smart enough not to directly state it, but the expectation they were selling wasvery much 'if you buy this book, you can add X number of options to your character creation, and if the DM disagrees RAW is on your side", not 'if you buy this book, and find a DM who let you do it, you may have a certain percentage of X new options'.

Again, it was just a presentation gimmick to sell more books, but even nowadays you have people who think that you can point out to sonething written in the books and it trumps whatever the DM says.

I'm still not sure what was marketed as "if you buy a book, your DM MUST allow it" during 3.X's run. Back then, just as now, just as when I started in 2e AD&D, as a DM, if there was a book or part of a book I wasn't comfortable using, I wouldn't allow it. No player ever claimed I couldn't do that as DM in any edition I played in, and sure as heck couldn't find a printed rule that said players override the DM when it comes to what splatbook options are allowed.

As a player in all those editions, I not once saw anything printed anywhere that allowed me by RAW to overrule the DM.... do you have a link to the specific book that says this? I'm genuinely curious about this now.

Psyren

2022-12-13, 11:00 AM

You know how in the PHB/DMG there's a section that's like The Role of the DM. It'll be in there, and players will point to that.

So you're imagining a hypothetical future DMG that says "Greetings! Your job as Dungeon Master is to be a doormat punchcard machine that does only what the players ask you to do and is never allowed to say no. Accept this." Do I have that right?

But, if you're playing a game where you get everything you want, and things rarely - if ever - go wrong, and your self-insert escapist power fantasy is turned up to 11, in the escapism, power, and fantasy...That is the word I'm looking for. The game is very much focused around you, and not only your ability to succeed, but also your inability to fail. I'm pretty sure I'm using the right word.

Self-insert escapist power fantasy. It's on the tin... Isn't it? How many people want to roleplay as a character that sucks?

"A character that doesn't suck" =/= "A character that never fails"

IsaacsAlterEgo

2022-12-13, 11:01 AM

I'll admit the word is stacked with negative connotations. Narcissism isn't neccessarily a bad thing - unless it becomes a personality disorder, but that's a whole different kettle of fish and nothing to do with this thread. Just...Narcissism and NPD aren't the same thing.

But, if you're playing a game where you get everything you want, and things rarely - if ever - go wrong, and your self-insert escapist power fantasy is turned up to 11, in the escapism, power, and fantasy...That is the word I'm looking for. The game is very much focused around you, and not only your ability to succeed, but also your inability to fail. I'm pretty sure I'm using the right word.

Self-insert escapist power fantasy. It's on the tin... Isn't it? How many people want to roleplay as a character that sucks?

I personally quite enjoy roleplaying characters that suck, role-play wise rather than mechanically, people with flaws and problems are generally much more interesting. Obviously playing a character that can accomplish nothing mechanically, though, is similarly un-fun to being able to get everything you want no matter what, but I don't really see "character death is heavily discouraged" the same as having a 100% success rate. In most games I play in, it is fairly understood amongst the group that because the story is about our characters, killing a character usually only happens during important story moments. That is until resurrection magic is free and easy to access, anyway, after that the understanding is mostly just that the party isn't interested in being TPKed or having characters die in such a way that renders resurrection impossible, again, unless it is during an important story moment of some kind.

There are other kinds of failures, anyway. You lose the trust of the important NPC your character cared about because you messed up, you let an NPC die, you failed to get the Thing you were searching for all these years because the bad guys got there first, you said the wrong thing and now an entire faction is your enemy. Of course, you have to play with a group that trusts each other and has a certain amount of buy-in; it must be understood that you can't use this sort of 'Plot armor' to just pick fights with anyone and everything in order to get your way, and generally, it hasn't been a problem in games I have been in.

truemane

2022-12-13, 11:24 AM

My point - as is the general point of this thread - is where do I see the game going?

[SNIP]

Death, taxes and the kids these days. The only three constants.

It's constantly strange to me how this pattern repeats, almost word for word, again and again over time. It's like when you read that quote from Socrates in 300 some-odd BC where he's like "the kids these days don't listen to their parents and they only want to party and I fear for the future when they're in charge!"

I remember when proficiencies were added to 1E. I remember when the Barbarian and the Cavalier were introduced. I even remember when the Wilderness and Dungeoneer's Guide were published, and suddenly everyone's homebrewed rules for these things were overridden by canon.

Same arguments. Same fights. Same eye-rolling lament about where the game is headed and how can it be good if it's not what I'm used to and the kids these days, the kids these days, the kids these days.

And here's the thing: even if you're right and this is where 'the game' is headed, it doesn't matter. The basic interaction here is the same as it's always been: you sit down at a table and you say "This is the experience I would like to have. Does that match the experience you would like to have?" And then you talk about it. And you form a consensus. And anyone who doesn't like that consensus has the choice to either accept it and move on, or find something else to do. That's the same as it's always been.

If there is a difference, it's that Back in the DayTM, the range of accepted configurations was narrow enough that most of that process, for most tables, was assumed and nonverbal. Whereas now it's important to be able to clearly articulate what kind of game you want to play.

You might think it's insane that a DM would sit down and ask the players whether or not they want their characters to be able to die, but I do just that for every new campaign I run and every new group I sit with. And I've been doing it since the early 90's. I ask. I lay out some of the options that have worked for me in the past, we talk about it, and we come to a consensus.

And the world hasn't end. The hobby hasn't yet collapsed in on itself in an orgy of self-importance. The millennials didn't rise up with their internets and Instagrams and cast the Grognards from their beardy thrones.

Even if the plurality of players do want only good things to happen, to never fail at anything, to never take damage, to have infinite options and no restrictions, you're still allowed to run your game however you like. And, like every DM everywhere, since the dawn of Gygax, you'll attract and retain players at a rate determined by the intersection of your ability and their options.

It's one thing if you're being prevented from running a game the way you want (I honestly don't know how this would be possible, but let's say it is), but if you can still do what you want but you're upset that other (younger) people are doing it differently?

That's Old Man Yells at Cloud territory.

And if that's your thing, that's fine. You're allowed. I'd be happy to introduce you to a couple of 45 year old guys I know who are still upset about THAC0.

...but even nowadays you have people who think that you can point out to sonething written in the books and it trumps whatever the DM says.
This isn't nowadays. This is all the days. Right from the very murkiest beginnings of pre-1E. if anything, it was worse then, because the various subsystems evolved and were developed over time. So there was this constant tension between what a DM had been doing up to this point, and then what's 'supposed to happen' after a new book comes out.

I have this discussion with every new group in RL, as part of a larger discussion about resolving conflict. My Session 0 always includes a discussion about where the final authority lies while the game is in session. Is it with me, the DM? Or is it with the books? And there are benefits and liabilities of each.

I've found that, like a whole pile of things we can't discuss on this forum, it's one of those things that feels so simple and basic and obvious that it feels insane to discuss it. Until you start discussing it with different kinds of people. And you find that everyone has a different take on it that feels so basic and simple and obvious to them that they also can't believe we're discussing it.

Until they do.

Psyren

2022-12-13, 12:02 PM

Death, taxes and the kids these days. The only three constants.

It's constantly strange to me how this pattern repeats, almost word for word, again and again over time. It's like when you read that quote from Socrates in 300 some-odd BC where he's like "the kids these days don't listen to their parents and they only want to party and I fear for the future when they're in charge!"
...
It's one thing if you're being prevented from running a game the way you want (I honestly don't know how this would be possible, but let's say it is), but if you can still do what you want but you're upset that other (younger) people are doing it differently?

That's Old Man Yells at Cloud territory.

And if that's your thing, that's fine. You're allowed. I'd be happy to introduce you to a couple of 45 year old guys I know who are still upset about THAC0.

Well said (including the part I snipped for space).

Also, https://xkcd.com/1601/.

This isn't nowadays. This is all the days. Right from the very murkiest beginnings of pre-1E. if anything, it was worse then, because the various subsystems evolved and were developed over time. So there was this constant tension between what a DM had been doing up to this point, and then what's 'supposed to happen' after a new book comes out.

I have this discussion with every new group in RL, as part of a larger discussion about resolving conflict. My Session 0 always includes a discussion about where the final authority lies while the game is in session. Is it with me, the DM? Or is it with the books? And there are benefits and liabilities of each.

I've found that, like a whole pile of things we can't discuss on this forum, it's one of those things that feels so simple and basic and obvious that it feels insane to discuss it. Until you start discussing it with different kinds of people. And you find that everyone has a different take on it that feels so basic and simple and obvious to them that they also can't believe we're discussing it.

Until they do.

Exactly - and understanding that concept, is perhaps the best way to understand some of the moves WotC makes, especially recently. Because they are talking to different people - lots, and lots, and lots of different people. And pulling data through avenues and across playgroups we don't even know exist.

This isn't to say corporations are perfect, or even benevolent - but one thing they don't have, is the luxury to ignore which way the wind might be blowing. For so long as their self-interest and desire to expand the hobby happens to coincide with my own, I'm on board.

Dr.Samurai

2022-12-13, 12:31 PM

Brookshw

2022-12-13, 12:45 PM

Psyren

2022-12-13, 12:59 PM

Lol

"You're just an old grumpy alarmist, spewing tired old nonsensical complaints. People have said these things in the past, therefore they are meaningless now. No one has ever stopped playing D&D before due to no longer liking how it's going. No edition has ever failed before. No decision has ever spawned a direct competitor. No company has ever handled monetization poorly. I'm still playing D&D after all these years, so any concern you have that you might not like what's to come is invalid."

Well, I don't know about the rest of you but I'm convinced.

No one is saying expressing concerns is invalid.

But believing that this:

I can legitimately see a point in time - soon - where the players tell the DM what they want, and it's the DM's job to run what the players ask for.

I believe that the game is heading towards a player-directed game, not a DM-directed game. I've seen some people say that not only should this be future...It's already here. Players don't like being told 'No.', players do like it when they are the "main characters", the world revolves around them specifically, and their backstory (not their Background), is the single most-important part of their character.

will somehow be the only way to play the game in the future, has no basis.

And furthermore, implying that this:

We already see tables where characters can't die, because that's how integral that, specific character is to the story being told (as opposed to the game, being played).

I can also see that this will likely be Hell.

is somehow a universally invalid or negative way to play, has no basis either.

Atranen

2022-12-13, 02:43 PM

Psyren

2022-12-13, 03:33 PM

There's a lot of good stuff said already; I think Cheesegear's point is solid, and probably most obvious in AL games, which I take part in regularly. In that scenario, there's no opportunity for a discussion, the books are the law, and the law says you can play a Twilight Cleric if you want. In practice, it means a lot of the more abuseable or broken things in the rules get abused, and I'm left in a situation as DM where I'm not happy with something but powerless to change it.

Ok, fine, that's part of the territory with organized play; couldn't I do something else? Well organized play fits a niche that a like; playing in person and being able to introduce the game to new people. I also travel a lot and it's much easier to jump in and out of than an in person campaign.

How do you define "abuseable and broken?" Because AL curtails the stuff I would put under that category, like Simulacrum Wishes and the like. If you just mean stuff like "the players showed up with a Peace cleric and a Hexblade" - I'd consider that powerful, but hardly broken. Similarly, you have a lot more leeway than you think even in AL, e.g. with things like Conjure Animals. Certainly it's far, far more than we had in prior editions sanctioned play.

As new races and subclasses etc. have come out, there's been a real loss of thematic cohesion in a lot of these games. I go in now, and there's Yuan-Ti and Tabaxi running around parts of the Forgotten Realms they have no business being.

Adventurers often venture far from home, and meddle in affairs well beyond their borders. Their business tends to be what they decide it is. If those two races are allowed in AL, which they are, it's because they can be found in FR and that should really be the only concern from an organized play perspective.

As for in person games, the tables I'm in have generally had no problem adopting the thematic and balance constraints the DM wants. But I agree that it's less clear to DMs that they can (or ought to) enforce those sorts of constraints. And in my experience there is a divide here between people who came in pre-5e (who are good with this) and post-5e (who don't seem to get the DM can do it). That could just be my sample, but I suspect it's more wide-ranging.

I genuinely don't see how they could make it clearer that the DM is in charge than they already do (mandatory assertiveness training?) Is there something that existed in prior editions perhaps that you're not seeing here? And if those editions didn't have that either, perhaps your "divide" thesis is suspect.

Joe the Rat

2022-12-13, 03:55 PM

I believe that the game is heading towards a player-directed game, not a DM-directed game. I've seen some people say that not only should this be future...It's already here. Players don't like being told 'No.', players do like it when they are the "main characters", the world revolves around them specifically, and their backstory (not their Background), is the single most-important part of their character.

Powered by the Apocalypse games. You even can try to pull the "I have the playbook for it, I should be able to play it" thing.
That's Dungeon World if you want semi-solipsistic D&D.

Atranen

2022-12-13, 04:06 PM

How do you define "abuseable and broken?" Because AL curtails the stuff I would put under that category, like Simulacrum Wishes and the like. If you just mean stuff like "the players showed up with a Peace cleric and a Hexblade" - I'd consider that powerful, but hardly broken. Similarly, you have a lot more leeway than you think even in AL, e.g. with things like Conjure Animals. Certainly it's far, far more than we had in prior editions sanctioned play.

So much stronger than other options as to make people feel they are contributing significantly less.

Adventurers often venture far from home, and meddle in affairs well beyond their borders. Their business tends to be what they decide it is. If those two races are allowed in AL, which they are, it's because they can be found in FR and that should really be the only concern from an organized play perspective.

That they can be there does not make it normal; games don't have the time to go into detail about each characters backstory, and running around with a menagerie of extremely rare species is rarely narratively cohesive.

I genuinely don't see how they could make it clearer that the DM is in charge than they already do (mandatory assertiveness training?) Is there something that existed in prior editions perhaps that you're not seeing here? And if those editions didn't have that either, perhaps your "divide" thesis is suspect.

I don't think it's anything that is written in the rules as much as a culture shift.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-12-13, 04:16 PM

I don't think it's anything that is written in the rules as much as a culture shift.

Agreed. That's what I'm seeing--not explicit words, but definitely a developer culture thing. An expectation that the default state will be "anything goes" and that blocking things is expected to be both rare and for very particular reasons. Especially in published settings.

Psyren

2022-12-13, 04:50 PM

So much stronger than other options as to make people feel they are contributing significantly less.
...
I don't think it's anything that is written in the rules as much as a culture shift.

I don't think it's a shift at all, or at the very least not a downward one. In 3.5 sanctioned play, nothing could stop me from showing up with a Planar Shepherd either, or Incantatrix, or Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil. And those were far, far worse for balance than anything seen in 5e.

I'm sympathetic if sanctioned play is the only option you have for in-person gaming, but they can hardly restrict the options in the game at large because a handful of people have less than fortunate circumstances. Be the change you want to see and avoid AL.

That they can be there does not make it normal; games don't have the time to go into detail about each characters backstory, and running around with a menagerie of extremely rare species is rarely narratively cohesive.

Normal people usually don't become adventurers. Imagine if someone walked up to you on the street and told you their job was "adventurer", you'd think they were a basket case. Even in D&D worlds, it's not that different.

Brookshw

2022-12-13, 06:34 PM

Normal people usually don't become adventurers. Imagine if someone walked up to you on the street and told you their job was "adventurer", you'd think they were a basket case. Even in D&D worlds, it's not that different.

I don't agree there's a connection between being and "adventurer" and being a rare/menagerie party, the activities being unusual =/= the people performing them have to be, or even are commonly, unusual species.

Also, irl, we call "adventurers" "contractors", "security consultants", "mercenaries", and, maybe, occasionally, "scientist"; I've met many such people, never thought they were basket cases :smalltongue:

MadBear

2022-12-13, 06:53 PM

I don't agree there's a connection between being and "adventurer" and being a rare/menagerie party, the activities being unusual =/= the people performing them have to be, or even are commonly, unusual species.

I strongly disagree here. To use your IRL "mercenaries" example. If I was in Somalia and encountered a band of mercenaries working for shipping company protecting the local ships from pirates, I bet you'd find that the population of mercenaries was vastly different from the overall Somali population. Absolutely you'd have Somali mercenaries working to stop pirates, but you'd also be more likely to encounter American, French, & Chinese mercenaries.

How is this any different in a fantasy world? I'd expect the vast majority of harrengon to live in the Fey wild and interact rarely with FR or other worlds. On the other hand, if I was going to encounter a Harrengon, the likelihood that they'd come from a group like an adventurer is vastly more common.

Of course in your home game, you're welcome to discount or ban certain races that you don't find fit your world. AL is the exception, because this isn't just your world. It's a shared world with certain stipulations that you've agreed to prior to running it. With that said, I allow just about any race in my world that, because I find that a fun part of world building, but that isn't something I expect other DM's to do.

TLDR: Weird races are more likely to be encountered in jobs like adventurers so it makes sense for them to be there in that form.

Atranen

2022-12-13, 07:24 PM

I don't think it's a shift at all, or at the very least not a downward one. In 3.5 sanctioned play, nothing could stop me from showing up with a Planar Shepherd either, or Incantatrix, or Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil. And those were far, far worse for balance than anything seen in 5e.

Culture shift refers to the role of the DM and the players, not balanced vs nonbalanced options.

I'm sympathetic if sanctioned play is the only option you have for in-person gaming, but they can hardly restrict the options in the game at large because a handful of people have less than fortunate circumstances. Be the change you want to see and avoid AL.

It's more than that; as mentioned, I like and enjoy many aspects of organized play; I do not see it as a lesser version or something I only do because I have to. That said, this aspect of it bothers me.

TLDR: Weird races are more likely to be encountered in jobs like adventurers so it makes sense for them to be there in that form.

I agree with more likely, but not it makes sense. We live in a globalized society, where I can get to Somalia in a day if I wanted. In fantasy medieval Europe, rapid transit times are not widely accessible and distance is a bigger barrier. One rare species showing up now and then I understand. But a whole party full makes me feel disconnected from the world, as if I'm playing an MMO rather than a d&d game.

Brookshw

2022-12-13, 07:37 PM

Psyren

2022-12-13, 07:44 PM

I strongly disagree here. To use your IRL "mercenaries" example. If I was in Somalia and encountered a band of mercenaries working for shipping company protecting the local ships from pirates, I bet you'd find that the population of mercenaries was vastly different from the overall Somali population. Absolutely you'd have Somali mercenaries working to stop pirates, but you'd also be more likely to encounter American, French, & Chinese mercenaries.

How is this any different in a fantasy world? I'd expect the vast majority of harrengon to live in the Fey wild and interact rarely with FR or other worlds. On the other hand, if I was going to encounter a Harrengon, the likelihood that they'd come from a group like an adventurer is vastly more common.

Of course in your home game, you're welcome to discount or ban certain races that you don't find fit your world. AL is the exception, because this isn't just your world. It's a shared world with certain stipulations that you've agreed to prior to running it. With that said, I allow just about any race in my world that, because I find that a fun part of world building, but that isn't something I expect other DM's to do.

TLDR: Weird races are more likely to be encountered in jobs like adventurers so it makes sense for them to be there in that form.

That.

Culture shift refers to the role of the DM and the players, not balanced vs nonbalanced options.

I know what you meant. I'm saying that "I, the DM of an organized play game, might have to deal with disparate party combinations showing up to my table because most official content is assumed to be available" is not only not new to 5e, it's significantly improved in 5e.

It's more than that; as mentioned, I like and enjoy many aspects of organized play; I do not see it as a lesser version or something I only do because I have to. That said, this aspect of it bothers me.

I mean sure, you're certainly allowed to not like the "anything official goes" aspect of AL. But I'd posit that the niche you claim to like, (i.e. "playing in person and being able to introduce the game to new people") is not at all unique to AL. Organizing a non-AL-yet-still-in-person group via a service like MeetUp is not only possible, it's not even particularly hard unless you live in a remote area - and if you do, I'd guess you're not getting that many AL games in either.

I agree with more likely, but not it makes sense. We live in a globalized society, where I can get to Somalia in a day if I wanted. In fantasy medieval Europe, rapid transit times are not widely accessible and distance is a bigger barrier. One rare species showing up now and then I understand. But a whole party full makes me feel disconnected from the world, as if I'm playing an MMO rather than a d&d game.

I find this reaction odd and, honestly, rather limiting. Are you similarly disconnected when monks show up on the Sword Coast, or barbarians show up in metropolitan areas like Waterdeep? Most D&D settings existed for millennia before the era the campaign is set in, and one thing people are known to do reliably is move around. A rare race does not have to have migrated from halfway across the world right as the campaign starts; their parents, grandparents or even further back can have been the ones who did that.

Expecting to find representatives of statistically significant nationalities/species wouldn't be surprising, I agree, however, if you're talking about something that's doesn't actually have a significant presence, then that's another matter. To your counter example, it would be like find someone from Nauru in Somalia (or, frankly, anywhere else) serving as a mercenary. Now, if that species isn't actually rare (switching back to D&D), then I'd agree that it wouldn't be surprising, but that's a different hypothetical. Also, none of that says anything about people being basket cases based on profession.

How is this different from a fantasy world? Good question! The answer is, it depends what the DM decided was present in the fantasy world. If they already decided X isn't present, then, to go back to the earlier example, it would be like finding...I don't know, a troll lets say, serving as a mercenary in somalia, a thing that simply doesn't exist somehow existing, and not in some trick of physics manner.

Except a published setting is not entirely up to the DM, at least not the default published state of it. If you as the DM want a world that is entirely under your control, that's a completely valid thing to want, but then professing to run Faerun or some other setting that isn't actually theirs is probably going to result in disconnect when players who don't realize they're heavily altering that default show up. As always, session zero is crucial.

Atranen

2022-12-13, 07:51 PM

I know what you meant. I'm saying that "I, the DM of an organized play game, might have to deal with disparate party combinations showing up to my table because most official content is assumed to be available" is not only not new to 5e, it's significantly improved in 5e.

It may be; I didn't do organized play prior to 5e. I know that throughout 5e's lifespan, it has gotten worse. Part of that is unavoidable, and part is not.

I mean sure, you're certainly allowed to not like the "anything official goes" aspect of AL. But I'd posit that the niche you claim to like, (i.e. "playing in person and being able to introduce the game to new people") is not at all unique to AL. Organizing a non-AL-yet-still-in-person group via a service like MeetUp is not only possible, it's not even particularly hard unless you live in a remote area - and if you do, I'd guess you're not getting that many AL games in either.

I could do something else, but AL remains the most reliable method.

I find this reaction odd and, honestly, rather limiting. Are you similarly disconnected when monks show up on the Sword Coast, or barbarians show up in metropolitan areas like Waterdeep? Most D&D settings existed for millennia before the era the campaign is set in, and one thing people are known to do reliably is move around. A rare race does not have to have migrated from halfway across the world right as the campaign starts; their parents, grandparents or even further back can have been the ones who did that.

In a metropolitan area or where a character has a clear in-universe reason for being there, some rare species are understandable. When every species and character is rare, the world loses a sense of concreteness, of specificity. What is normal for the area, what is to be expected? It makes it more generic; if every place is like every other place, there is nothing unique.

Envyus

2022-12-13, 07:57 PM

Psyren

2022-12-13, 08:00 PM

It may be; I didn't do organized play prior to 5e. I know that throughout 5e's lifespan, it has gotten worse. Part of that is unavoidable, and part is not.

Agree to disagree it is.

I could do something else, but AL remains the most reliable method.

I can only suggest you try. What you do with that suggestion is up to you.

In a metropolitan area or where a character has a clear in-universe reason for being there, some rare species are understandable. When every species and character is rare, the world loses a sense of concreteness, of specificity. What is normal for the area, what is to be expected? It makes it more generic; if every place is like every other place, there is nothing unique.

If we were talking about the general populace I would agree, but again, we're talking about adventurers. They're already rare.

Dr.Samurai

2022-12-13, 08:05 PM

The more and more people argue the point that "what's the big deal? it makes perfect sense! it's always been like this!" the more we see very clearly that there is a shift occurring (and one that has been occurring for some time).

Because we know it hasn't always been like this. There was lore that suggested you wouldn't be bumping into certain creatures commonly in cities, etc. Now everything is cosmopolitan and watered down and video gamey. And we're supposed to let the wool get pulled over our eyes and accept that nothing's changed, we're just doomsaying, and it's the same as it ever was.

There's always been goodly drow hidden in the jungles, and orcs have always been tireless defenders of the realm. This has always been the case, it's YOU that's changin' man!

I agree that it breaks immersion to have the game be chock-full of weird races. And I think that it's disingenuous to pretend that ramped up monetization won't lead to more "weird" stuff just to sell it to players. And it continues to be disingenuous to then pretend there isn't cause for concern in how the game will be monetized and how it will drive design and development going forward.

Doomsaying doesn't have to apply to the game as a whole; it can be negative for some portion of players. And they're allowed to express their concern. It's possible that D&D continues to be successful and the designers make monetization and design choices that maintain D&D's popularity for years to come, but also that some large portion of players stop keeping up and purchasing D&D products. And I don't mean "large portion" like more than your side or more than people that disagree, like win condition. I just mean some substantial number that felt like the game was no longer aimed at what they wanted and they either stick with this edition or something previous (as others have done) or switch to another game entirely. This is normal, it's natural, it happens and already has happened with other editions.

Doesn't mean it doesn't suck for some people and is disappointing. We'll see how it goes. I saw a shooting star last night and I just wished "Please let barbarians and fighters and melee combat get a boost in OneD&D".

Envyus

2022-12-13, 08:11 PM

{Scrubbed}

Envyus

2022-12-13, 08:16 PM

Because we know it hasn't always been like this. There was lore that suggested you wouldn't be bumping into certain creatures commonly in cities, etc. Now everything is cosmopolitan and watered down and video gamey. And we're supposed to let the wool get pulled over our eyes and accept that nothing's changed, we're just doomsaying, and it's the same as it ever was.
".

{Scrubbed}

Psyren

2022-12-13, 08:22 PM

I agree that it breaks immersion to have the game be chock-full of weird races. And I think that it's disingenuous to pretend that ramped up monetization won't lead to more "weird" stuff just to sell it to players. And it continues to be disingenuous to then pretend there isn't cause for concern in how the game will be monetized and how it will drive design and development going forward.

If all you folks were concerned about was corporate monetization I'd at least understand that. I'm happy to acknowledge WotC's track record for monetization is far from perfect, even ignoring MTG and just focusing on D&D (that crap they tried with MPMM earlier in the year (https://cuchimes.com/02/2022/latest-dd-expansion-stuck-behind-169-price-tag/) still rankles) - though I can definitively say I've been happy with every purchase I ever made.

But it's when folks like Cheesegear start throwing in dire predictions like "DMs won't be allowed to say no!" and "DMs won't be allowed to kill players!" that I check out.

Sigreid

2022-12-13, 08:32 PM

If all you folks were concerned about was corporate monetization I'd at least understand that. I'm happy to acknowledge WotC's track record for monetization is far from perfect, even ignoring MTG and just focusing on D&D (that crap they tried with MPMM earlier in the year (https://cuchimes.com/02/2022/latest-dd-expansion-stuck-behind-169-price-tag/) still rankles) - though I can definitively say I've been happy with every purchase I ever made.

But it's when folks like Cheesegear start throwing in dire predictions like "DMs won't be allowed to say no!" and "DMs won't be allowed to kill players!" that I check out.

Meh, it's overstated, but it's certainly possible that new design theory in new books will set expectations in a different place for new players. This might even lead to conflicts that newly forming tables will have to work out if they're going to play together.

Dr.Samurai

2022-12-13, 08:33 PM

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}
Very classy, and compelling...

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}
Excellent argument. You have convinced me with your reason and rationale.

If all you folks were concerned about was corporate monetization I'd at least understand that.
"you folks"

Lol

I'm happy to acknowledge WotC's track record for monetization is far from perfect
Oh good, so we can stop pretending that all concerns are born out of evil commie hobbyists that want everything for free.

But it's when folks like Cheesegear start throwing in dire predictions like "DMs won't be allowed to say no!" and "DMs won't be allowed to kill players!" that I check out.
They clarified that they're talking about a cultural shift, and that they are speaking of generations to come, as opposed to you, me, and others engaging in this conversation right now.

Seems to me that D&D was originally much more lethal, and you were expected to regularly make new characters. We have come A LONG WAY from that. You know very well that PCs are harder to kill now than they ever have been, and they're just getting more and more buttons to let them overcome obstacles.

Where this will go I have no idea. But things are certainly trending in a direction. If Cheesegear is bold enough to make a prediction like that, okay. Maybe it's overstated, but I'm not going to pretend like it's coming out of left field or something.

Atranen

2022-12-13, 08:34 PM

If we were talking about the general populace I would agree, but again, we're talking about adventurers. They're already rare.

How rare? This is another weakness of the current d&d settings; the books say adventurers and class levels are rare, but don't really enumerate how rare or how special an adventurer (or a species) is. If they gave some guidelines there and made it so, when a Tabaxi and Yuan Ti show up together, you have an idea of how odd that is, I think it would help give the world some of the specificity its lacking.

EDIT: I missed a bit of the recent discussion; but I'll note that originally, character death in AL had some specific mechanisms to raise the character, including the use of gold and penalties associated with raise dead. Recently, the rule was changed, so now you come back to life no questions asked.

Psyren

2022-12-13, 08:54 PM

Meh, it's overstated, but it's certainly possible that new design theory in new books will set expectations in a different place for new players. This might even lead to conflicts that newly forming tables will have to work out if they're going to play together.

It's possible that I'll spontaneously combust next time I roll initiative too.

They clarified that they're talking about a cultural shift, and that they are speaking of generations to come, as opposed to you, me, and others engaging in this conversation right now.

I know he's talking about the future. It doesn't make it any easier to take seriously.

How rare?

Rare enough so that the table can run the characters they want to see.

EDIT: I missed a bit of the recent discussion; but I'll note that originally, character death in AL had some specific mechanisms to raise the character, including the use of gold and penalties associated with raise dead. Recently, the rule was changed, so now you come back to life no questions asked.

At the end of the adventure, no? And no more rewards after the point you died? It's hardly like death has no consequence.

Atranen

2022-12-13, 09:11 PM

Rare enough so that the table can run the characters they want to see.

Can you say anything more precise or quantitative? That would add specificity to the world. Saying 'people can play what they want' without specifying how odd certain things are makes it more generic. Whoever logged into to the MMO is fine, because those are the rules the computer has.

At the end of the adventure, no? And no more rewards after the point you died? It's hardly like death has no consequence.

But it does show that the trend Cheesegear has identified is correct; death is becoming less meaningful. Perhaps he overly exaggerates; perhaps not. "Come back to life for free in an hour or two" is pretty close to "DMs won't be allowed to kill players", which you dismiss as absurd.

Also you get to level up even if you died.

Dr.Samurai

2022-12-13, 09:18 PM

Can you say anything more precise or quantitative? That would add specificity to the world. Saying 'people can play what they want' without specifying how odd certain things are makes it more generic. Whoever logged into to the MMO is fine, because those are the rules the computer has.
Remember, argument #1 is "Lore belongs in the campaign settings only".

Argument #2 is "Campaign setting lore should change to accommodate all available race and class options".

But also remember, nothing is changing. There were always orcs in Dragonlance, and Dark Sun always had jackrabbit Harengon...

Cheesegear

2022-12-13, 09:28 PM

So you're imagining a hypothetical future DMG that says "Greetings! Your job as Dungeon Master is to be a doormat punchcard machine that does only what the players ask you to do and is never allowed to say no. Accept this." Do I have that right?

I'm imagining the following:

Rule 1. Have fun.
Rule 2. Players should be free to express themselves in meaningful ways.
Rule 3. The DM's job is to create adventures, scenarios and challenges that conform to Rules 1 and 2.

I can't really see any reason to disagree with that...Except that I disagree with it completely. But if I had players pointing to such, in a book, by WotC, I'm fairly certain my hands would be tied.

"A character that doesn't suck" =/= "A character that never fails"

Again, I ask you to look at tables that don't use dice, and why do they do that.

Same arguments. Same fights. Same eye-rolling lament about where the game is headed and how can it be good if it's not what I'm used to and the kids these days, the kids these days, the kids these days.

And in 4th Ed., we were right. :smalltongue:

You might think it's insane that a DM would sit down and ask the players whether or not they want their characters to be able to die

I don't.

It's one thing if you're being prevented from running a game the way you want (I honestly don't know how this would be possible, but let's say it is), but if you can still do what you want but you're upset that other (younger) people are doing it differently?

Yes. Because the problem is with player turnover.

If your table is stable and no-one ever leaves and you've been playing together for 20 years. There. Is. No. Concern. I repeat. You will not have any problems. What I am talking about doesn't concern you.

I live in a low population, low population density area. The socio-economic opportunities where I live, aren't exactly for everyone. The life cycle of a single player in my group is about 2-3 years before Life rears its head. People go to live with their significant other who lives in the city, people have babies, University is a thing, turbulent economy forces people to change their job, change their hours, they can't play anymore. Whatever... And that's not including pairs of players who both join and leave together and reduce the party by two.

Over the course of 5e alone (about a decade), I'm guessing I've had about 30-40 players over two/three tables (I had to stop the third table because my job got in the way). I haven't been with the same group for 25 years. I'm just not that lucky. In the New Year, three weeks from now, I'm set to lose at least another player to their job...And that kinda sucks 'cause I had a plan to finish that table's campaign around Christmas, but due to delays and scheduling I'm gonna have an extra three sessions to do in the New Year, and that player wont get to see the finale (which ties heavily into that specific player's backstory).

I have to recruit for my games semi-regularly...Annually? And the players I get, are more or less the only players I'm gonna get. But, I do get players, and that keeps the tables rolling dice.
Interestingly enough, more than a couple of recruits over the course of the last few years have come to my table because Adventurer's League at the game store is a dumpster fire where nothing gets done and there's a lot of yelling - allegedly. When I did AL at the local store I didn't have that experience - but that was many years ago, and now that I have my own tables I don't need AL.

I have noticed that as 5e has progressed, the newer players - and certainly the younger players - have different expectations of what D&D, is and/or should be (Maybe that's why my experience of AL from many years ago is different to someone's experience of AL, last year). Now, I'm fairly confident as to a few reasons for why that may be the case. But, suffice to say that it is the case, and that's why I believe the direction of the game, is going where it's going. Do I kick new and/or young players from my table? **** no. I'm an adult. I know what a social contract is. If you are under the assumption that that's what I'm doing - you're wrong.

I'm fairly unlikely to have the same group(s) I have, in 2024 when 1DD comes out. I'm gonna have players that are going to come into my tables when 1DD is released (New Edition, New Players!), who are going to expect me to run the game under that edition's philosophy - whatever it happens to be - I just have to hope it's a design philosophy that I like (i.e; Not 4th Ed.).

So once more I repeat. If you feel that my point doesn't apply to you, because WotC aren't going to come to your table and snatch the dice out of your hands...Dur. You do you. Keep playing with your group. If you've been friends for 10 years, it doesn't really matter what game you play, nor what edition you play, and it probably doesn't even matter what your homebrew is like, because you've been friends and playing together for 10 years and you trust each other. It's fine.

If your group is stable. With very low turnover rate, and everyone has been playing together a long time and everyone is happy with the style of their DM. There's no problem.
There.
Is.
No.
Problem.
When you have a stable table.

Having a stable table is the most wonderful thing in the world and I envy you - I truly do.

There's a lot of good stuff said already; I think Cheesegear's point is solid, and probably most obvious in AL games, which I take part in regularly.

I saw your post and bringing up AL reminded me of some of the things my players have said. Now maybe I think that some of the more disruptive players that I've had over the last few years have come from AL, and that's why they have several bad habits that I have to...Break, for lack of a better word.

In that scenario, there's no opportunity for a discussion, the books are the law, and the law says you can play a Twilight Cleric if you want.

AL has a problem where if someone brings something overpowered, the DM kind of just has to allow it, and that's a problem because their scenarios are - more or less - fixed and there's nothing they can do.

However, in my earlier example...I don't like Aaracokra. But sure I'll allow it. Just let me rewrite and change a whole bunch of **** so that Aaracokra aren't going to be as powerful as they should be. I can do that. I'm the DM.
I can't tell him that he can't play an Aaracokra. It's in the book. It's designed to be used. It's there. Okay. I don't want to fight you, and I certainly don't want you leaving the table. Sure. I don't like it. But I'll grudgingly...Accept...It.
Conversely, he can't tell me that no actually, I can't run storms and hurricanes and make a Fly speed near-useless whenever I feel like it. If you want it to change, start levelling up and cast Control Weather.

As new races and subclasses etc. have come out, there's been a real loss of thematic cohesion in a lot of these games. I go in now, and there's Yuan-Ti and Tabaxi running around parts of the Forgotten Realms they have no business being.

Q. F. T.
'How did this party form, again?'

That could just be my sample, but I suspect it's more wide-ranging.

Someone finally gets it.
I know I'm not alone. I know I'm not.

I know DMs who know what it's like are out there... It turns out those DMs are DMing for AL. :smallamused:

Normal people usually don't become adventurers. Imagine if someone walked up to you on the street and told you their job was "adventurer", you'd think they were a basket case. Even in D&D worlds, it's not that different.

When I was High School, police and defense personnel came to my high school telling people they were and/or could be *ahem*..."Adventurers."

Also, I live in Australia - I know plenty of Adventurers. One of my best friends' job title is 'Ranger'...He played D&D for a while - as a Druid, not a Ranger - until well, being a Ranger for the outback would take him away for 10 days at a stretch and his schedule was insane...Anyway...

Also, irl, we call "adventurers" "contractors", "security consultants", "mercenaries", and, maybe, occasionally, "scientist"; I've met many such people, never thought they were basket cases :smalltongue:

...That's exactly what I was thinking. :smallamused:

Also I will say this. Cheesegear has no point, nor even the basis of one.

You can think that if you want. I don't mind.

Different players have different expectations of the game.
I think I now understand that some tables don't have different players.

I have a feeling that most longtime D&D players, are longtime D&D players...With the same group where there's no problem, and there's never been any problems.

Brookshw

2022-12-13, 09:41 PM

Except a published setting is not entirely up to the DM, at least not the default published state of it. If you as the DM want a world that is entirely under your control, that's a completely valid thing to want, but then professing to run Faerun or some other setting that isn't actually theirs is probably going to result in disconnect when players who don't realize they're heavily altering that default show up. As always, session zero is crucial.

Yes and no, right? Published setting generally provide a default, but canonically don't reflect every possible race; how could they when they aren't released in tandem, right? While later publications which introduce new races might suggest, "well, you can slot them in like this", it's a very different thing from an existing presence. If you're changing significant races it's definitely worth addressing in session zero (and agreed on it's importance), but I don't see such changes really making it some other setting, take tinker gnomes out of DL, does it really change much? Personally, no, it's still DL, overwhelmingly the major elements are still there, but I leave it to the individual to weigh their ontological preference on what makes a setting "that setting".

Psyren

2022-12-13, 09:41 PM

Can you say anything more precise or quantitative?

Uh, why? It's supposed to be subjective, that's the whole point.

But it does show that the trend Cheesegear has identified is correct; death is becoming less meaningful.

Right, because losing money is so meaningful in 5e...

I'm imagining the following:

Rule 1. Have fun.
Rule 2. Players should be free to express themselves in meaningful ways.
Rule 3. The DM's job is to create adventures, scenarios and challenges that conform to Rules 1 and 2.

I can't really see any reason to disagree with that...Except that I disagree with it completely. But if I had players pointing to such, in a book, by WotC, I'm fairly certain my hands would be tied.

The... the books say these things right now :smallconfused:

Again, I ask you to look at tables that don't use dice, and why do they do that.

What? "Again?" You haven't mentioned diceless tables until now :smallconfused:

Having a stable table is the most wonderful thing in the world and I envy you - I truly do.

Most groups do.
(And you can't seriously expect them to design their game around unstable ones...)

Envyus

2022-12-13, 10:01 PM

I'm imagining the following:

Rule 1. Have fun.
Rule 2. Players should be free to express themselves in meaningful ways.
Rule 3. The DM's job is to create adventures, scenarios and challenges that conform to Rules 1 and 2.

I can't really see any reason to disagree with that...Except that I disagree with it completely. But if I had players pointing to such, in a book, by WotC, I'm fairly certain my hands would be tied.

So the books basically say that already, but they also say the DM is a player too and things should be fun for them, as well as that the DM is the final arbiter on any topic in the game including rules and house rules.

Envyus

2022-12-13, 10:08 PM

Different players have different expectations of the game.
I think I now understand that some tables don't have different players.

I have a feeling that most longtime D&D players, are longtime D&D players...With the same group where there's no problem, and there's never been any problems.

This is not true in my case at least. Many problems, many different players, some veteran, some brand new.

My current group is on hiatus due to problems outside the game.

I view myself as a pretty lenient DM and allow most things. Though characters that can freely fly from level 1 are not one of them.

Telesphoros

2022-12-13, 10:36 PM

They clearly are not.

Clearly your opinion and you're entitled to it. Mine is the designers are being lazy as of late.

Delete, simplify things until they don't make sense, and release less crunch and material per product are their design methods of choice from where I'm sitting.

Atranen

2022-12-13, 11:37 PM

Uh, why? It's supposed to be subjective, that's the whole point.

The point of buying a book with lore is so that you don't have to make lore up. This goes double for AL games, which take place in a shared universe. If every DM can make up whatever they want, there is no consistency to the world.

Right, because losing money is so meaningful in 5e...

So your argument here is 'death has never been meaningful in AL'? And you simultaneously think it is absurd to say 'DMs won't be allowed to kill players'?

Remember, argument #1 is "Lore belongs in the campaign settings only".

Argument #2 is "Campaign setting lore should change to accommodate all available race and class options".

But also remember, nothing is changing. There were always orcs in Dragonlance, and Dark Sun always had jackrabbit Harengon...

This captures the dynamics precisely. No specificity is allowed; it could be a problem. The DM can do what they want, as long as the setting is the same cosmopolitan mush as every other setting.

prototype00

2022-12-14, 12:07 AM

On the subject of monetization, I know if they started releasing a monthly dungeon magazine with an AL legal adventure path in it, I’d be all over a subscription.

I mean, hardcover books are nice for the shelf and all, but if you want steady cash from me, start cranking those monthly connected modules out WoTC. (Spent so much money on that stuff when Paizo was writing for Wizards)

Psyren

2022-12-14, 12:19 AM

The point of buying a book with lore is so that you don't have to make lore up. This goes double for AL games, which take place in a shared universe. If every DM can make up whatever they want, there is no consistency to the world.

FR is a kitchen-sink setting by design, and that's where most AL games are set, as is Eberron. Similarly, Ravenloft's whole deal is grabbing randoms from any other world. If that isn't what you want, then choosing to play AL is counterproductive.

So your argument here is 'death has never been meaningful in AL'? And you simultaneously think it is absurd to say 'DMs won't be allowed to kill players'?

What I said (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?652180-Hasbro-lt-gt-UBS-Fireside-Chat-Webinar-D-amp-D-Updates&p=25656054&viewfull=1#post25656054) was that if AL is your only avenue of playing D&D, I sympathize with that, but ultimately that is neither WotC's problem nor mine to solve.

Cheesegear

2022-12-14, 12:23 AM

The... the books say these things right now :smallconfused:

Could've fooled me. I've had a couple of people in this very thread say that they'd kick players for doing something the DM doesn't want them to do.

Most groups do.
(And you can't seriously expect them to design their game around unstable ones...)

Well, actually, yes. Adventurer's League has been invoked. Which I forgot about.

It's definitely part of D&D, and it's definitely unstable. For as much as people don't seem to like it, it definitely still exists and people still show up. Organised Play is real, and I think it's real-er than most people who play homebrew in their own home, believe.

If they are serious about monetising D&DBeyond - and to a lesser extent, the VTTs that connect to it (e.g; Roll 20) - that's how you go about doing it. Online play, with matchmaking and drop-in, drop-out. Again, I'm not totally sure how the roleplaying goes in online play, especially amongst random players thrown together. But I'm sure it's possible if you encourage the community in that direction. You effectively want to have online Adventurer's League. That's the real direction I would probably be looking into if I was WotC. Recurrent monitisisation of the D&DB userbase. If it takes off, you'd ideally want to have better visualisations.

At that point you're so close to an actual video game. Like a less good MMORPG.

Then what you do, is you build the ruleset around virtual tabletops, then port it to IRL.

Y'know. Like how you make games for mobile devices; Then port it to PC with no hotkeys and no enhanced functionality that a mouse-and-keyboard provides.
(Seriously, why is This War of Mine...The way it is? It's such a good game but the UI is agonising.)

Atranen

2022-12-14, 12:29 AM

FR is a kitchen-sink setting by design, and that's where most AL games are set, as is Eberron. Similarly, Ravenloft's whole deal is grabbing randoms from any other world. If that isn't what you want, then choosing to play AL is counterproductive.

How kitchen sink? What specifically exists in what part of the setting and what is odd in what parts of the setting?

If you can't answer this with some precision, you have no business publishing a campaign setting.

What I said (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?652180-Hasbro-lt-gt-UBS-Fireside-Chat-Webinar-D-amp-D-Updates&p=25656054&viewfull=1#post25656054) was that if AL is your only avenue of playing D&D, I sympathize with that, but ultimately that is neither WotC's problem nor mine to solve.

I don't think this statement is related to my point. You said previously:

But it's when folks like Cheesegear start throwing in dire predictions like "DMs won't be allowed to say no!" and "DMs won't be allowed to kill players!" that I check out.

But now you imply 'money is not really an issue for AL so character death has never really had consequences'.

Isn't 'death doesn't have consequences' rather similar to 'DMs won't be allowed to kill players'?

Psyren

2022-12-14, 12:38 AM

How kitchen sink? What specifically exists in what part of the setting and what is odd in what parts of the setting?

What is "odd in parts of the setting" is wholly irrelevant for adventurers; they can plausibly show up anywhere. That's, you know, what an adventure is.

I don't think this statement is related to my point. You said previously:

But now you imply 'money is not really an issue for AL so character death has never really had consequences'.

Isn't 'death doesn't have consequences' rather similar to 'DMs won't be allowed to kill players'?

You said "death is becoming less meaningful." Going from a gold deduction to nothing at all is barely a blip. The important part, having to sit out the session and its rewards, remains intact.

Atranen

2022-12-14, 12:47 AM

What is "odd in parts of the setting" is wholly irrelevant for adventurers; they can plausibly show up anywhere. That's, you know, what an adventure is.

A French person showing up for an adventure in Argentina is meaningfully different than a Argentinan person showing up for an adventure in Argentina. The extent to which this matters depends on what year it is; if it is 1900 it will be different than 2000. And both of these differ from, say 300, where the statement is nonsensical.

The setting refuses to tell us what year we're in.

You said "death is becoming less meaningful." Going from a gold deduction to nothing at all is barely a blip. The important part, having to sit out the session and its rewards, remains intact.

Yes, in agreeing with Cheesegear's point that at some point death would become meaningless. If you want to dispute that and say death was never meaningful, fine; I will concede that point, as the important one still stands--death does not have real consequences.

Do you think coming back to life for free and gaining a level is so different from "DMs won't be allowed to kill players"; that this is such a major distinction that you need to 'check out' as soon as someone suggests it?

Psyren

2022-12-14, 12:55 AM

A French person showing up for an adventure in Argentina is meaningfully different than a Argentinan person showing up for an adventure in Argentina. The extent to which this matters depends on what year it is; if it is 1900 it will be different than 2000. And both of these differ from, say 300, where the statement is nonsensical.

The setting refuses to tell us what year we're in.

Repeating the bad analogy multiple ways does not stop it from being bad. D&D adventurers are not French people in Argentina, regardless of the year.

Yes, in agreeing with Cheesegear's point that at some point death would become meaningless. If you want to dispute that and say death was never meaningful, fine; I will concede that point, as the important one still stands--death does not have real consequences.

Do you think coming back to life for free and gaining a level is so different from "DMs won't be allowed to kill players"; that this is such a major distinction that you need to 'check out' as soon as someone suggests it?

So what exactly are you proposing for AL? Should the coordinator rip your character sheet up in front of you? Throw you bodily out of the store? "Sit out the session" is all the consequence that is needed for that format.

Atranen

2022-12-14, 01:00 AM

Repeating the bad analogy multiple ways does not stop it from being bad. D&D adventurers are not French people in Argentina, regardless of the year.

What is bad about the analogy?

So what exactly are you proposing for AL? Should the coordinator rip your character sheet up in front of you? Throw you bodily out of the store? "Sit out the session" is all the consequence that is needed for that format.

At the moment, I am simply agreeing with Cheesegear that 'death has no consequences' is an accurate statement, at least in the AL format supported by WOTC.

Psyren

2022-12-14, 01:15 AM

What is bad about the analogy?

An PC is not merely "a {nationality} person." They are heroes, special forces, contractors, and other atypical labels that justify them appearing in incongruous places that laypeople wouldn't. The probabilities of normality don't apply to them by definition.

At the moment, I am simply agreeing with Cheesegear that 'death has no consequences' is an accurate statement, at least in the AL format supported by WOTC.

Sitting out the session is a consequence, so we'll have to agree to disagree as usual.

Atranen

2022-12-14, 01:26 AM

An PC is not merely "a {nationality} person." They are heroes, special forces, contractors, and other atypical labels that justify them appearing in incongruous places that laypeople wouldn't. The probabilities of normality don't apply to them by definition.

I'm not asking them to be normal -- I'm asking you to define how abnormal they are. A French special forces person in Argentina in 1900 is different than one in 2000 is different than one in 300.

Sitting out the session is a consequence, so we'll have to agree to disagree as usual.

Ok.

Psyren

2022-12-14, 01:34 AM

Leon

2022-12-14, 01:54 AM

It could work well or it could burn them harder than 4e did if mismanaged and i don't expect it to be well managed at all.

Brookshw

2022-12-14, 08:24 AM

I'm not asking them to be normal -- I'm asking you to define how abnormal they are. A French special forces person in Argentina in 1900 is different than one in 2000 is different than one in 300.

Doesn't matter, it misses the point; the argument is conflating that because profession [X] is rare, and species [Y] is rare, that if [X] shows up then [Y] also does. That adventurers may be in Chult says nothing about whether those adventurers are human, elf, dwarf, or any other species. Sure, you can, within certain bounds (e.g., if they exist, and are available to players), create scenarios that justify about anything being in a location, but that's a narrative function and a different argument tangent.

Segev

2022-12-14, 08:44 AM

But it's when folks like Cheesegear start throwing in dire predictions like "DMs won't be allowed to say no!" and "DMs won't be allowed to kill players!" that I check out.

I'm pretty sure the laws of most of the nations in which D&D is frequently played have something to say about DMs being allowed to kill players. :smallwink:

More seriously, I agree, those are a bit hyperbolic. Even the "death isn't meaningful" or "there's no tension because players don't fear their PCs will die" gripes are flawed, and have been since at least 3e, possibly throughout significant portions of 2e. We're a long, long way from the "rogue-like" nature of very old D&D when bringing a stack of stat pages to a game was expected because death was around every corner and your goal was to see how far you could get and how much loot you could haul before having to start over from level 1.

And there are much better ways to create tension than just threatening to kill PCs. It's all about the PCs' goals and motives, both long-term and in the immediate scene. There's not narrative tension when the party is negotiating with the king for permission to raise a small army to attack the lich's keep because the king is going to execute them for asking if they don't persuade him. There's tension because if they don't convince the king, they'll need to come up with a different plan, or raise the army in secret, or...something other than what they currently want. The same should be true even of most combats. The tension of threat-of-death should be there, but not as a major thing. That's an extreme failure state, not the only failure state. The acolyte of Tiamat escaping with the Dragon Orb she and the PCs are fighting over is a win state for her and a lose state for the PCs, even if the acolyte kills nobody.

KorvinStarmast

2022-12-14, 09:32 AM

Even if the plurality of players do want only good things to happen, to never fail at anything, to never take damage, to have infinite options and no restrictions, you're still allowed to run your game however you like. And, like every DM everywhere, since the dawn of Gygax, you'll attract and retain players at a rate determined by the intersection of your ability and their options. Part of my session zero includes: the character may die, it's part of the game, and you get to create a new one if that happens.

I'd be happy to introduce you to a couple of 45 year old guys I know who are still upset about THAC0. Mad that it's gone, or mad that it even happened? :smallconfused:

... it's one of those things that feels so simple and basic and obvious that it feels insane to discuss it. Until you start discussing it with different kinds of people. And you find that everyone has a different take on it that feels so basic and simple and obvious to them that they also can't believe we're discussing it. Until they do. I guess it depends on who you play with. If you play with people you already know, it is a different conversation that with people you have just met.

Because they are talking to different people - lots, and lots, and lots of different people. And pulling data through avenues and across playgroups we don't even know exist. I think that they are listening to the sounds of their own voices, mostly.
Agreed. That's what I'm seeing--not explicit words, but definitely a developer culture thing. An expectation that the default state will be "anything goes" and that blocking things is expected to be both rare and for very particular reasons. Especially in published settings. And yet, in both Xanathar's and Tasha's, it is explicitly stated that "these are optional rules" - I'll check my Fizban's and see if that is there in the early pages.

There were always orcs in Dragonlance, and Dark Sun always had jackrabbit Harengon... Winston Smith agrees.

Mine is the designers are being lazy as of late. Yes. "Unpolished" is a criticism I've levied on a few of their products. With that said, I have now used five of the Candlekeep adventures (which I've had to mod a bit to fit into our campaign, since I don't do FR) with reasonable results.
I know if they started releasing a monthly dungeon magazine with an AL legal adventure path in it, I’d be all over a subscription. My concern would be the median quality of each adventure. When Dungeon Magazine was an ongoing pub, there was some very good stuff in there, and some tripe.

SpikeFightwicky

2022-12-14, 10:39 AM

Yes. "Unpolished" is a criticism I've levied on a few of their products. With that said, I have now used five of the Candlekeep adventures (which I've had to mod a bit to fit into our campaign, since I don't do FR) with reasonable results.

Not sure if it's just that our bars are different, but if I run my own campaign or adventure, and the results are "reasonable", that means I need to work on whatever aspects prevented "great" results. If I'm paying money for a campaign or adventure designed by the people who created the game, I expect that it'll deliver, as a baseline, at least better than my own content.

Atranen

2022-12-14, 10:50 AM

Abnormal enough to be there. Which they could be.

But how abnormal is that? Are there tabaxi and Yuan Ti on every street? Have the people in this town ever seen those species before? Have they only heard of them from rumors? How does that affect their reaction?

What you suggest is an appropriate statement to get a game moving without thinking too much about it, but it's not conducive to verisimilitude or a 'lived-in' world; it's more like an MMO where a new premium species was just released so people get to play it, regardless of how it interacts with the lore.

MadBear

2022-12-14, 10:54 AM

I feel like this entire conversation would benefit from splitting the conversation into:

1. D&D in general.

2. AL specifically.

There's no getting around the fact that AL is a weird piece of D&D that exists. By its design it has to be very inclusive because you're asking a DM and players who might not have ever met, to play together at a shared table. As a result a lot of the expectations are not set by the DM or players, but instead by WOTC, as that's the only real way to make it universally work. That's very very different from normal. As such conflating AL with normal D&D or visa versa is likely to only produce unproductive conversation in general.

As far as "death has no meaningful consequences", I guess with D&D Beyond existing, we could give the DM's in adventure league the ability to delete characters that die in their games from the players database. That has potentially devastating and ridiculous consequences, but I guess if we want to make sure that an AL characters death has meaning we could do that. Outside of AL, I don't really see the issue as long as the DM and players have gone over the games norms/expectations. I will say that my group tends to use the rules that Critical Role uses for bringing dead players back.

Psyren

2022-12-14, 11:18 AM

But how abnormal is that? Are there tabaxi and Yuan Ti on every street? Have the people in this town ever seen those species before? Have they only heard of them from rumors? How does that affect their reaction?

Again, the point is that each DM gets to decide these things based on what best keeps the game moving. For example, having the noble contact that wants to hire the party for a job faint or have a heart attack every time she looks at the tabaxi party member is probably going to quickly bog down the game and be disruptive to the table's fun, so don't do that. And from what I can tell, having no farmer or street beggar even remark on that party member's odd appearance is going to impact your fun, so don't do that either. There's a lot of room in between those extremes, so figure it out. If everyone is having fun, you're doing it right, and if they're not, make adjustments; it's not hard.

What you suggest is an appropriate statement to get a game moving without thinking too much about it, but it's not conducive to verisimilitude or a 'lived-in' world; it's more like an MMO where a new premium species was just released so people get to play it, regardless of how it interacts with the lore.

Okay, I keep seeing the "MMO" pejorative thrown around and it makes no sense to me. have you people actually played one? When MMOs add new races, they usually have a big intro scenario explaining where that race came from and why people haven't seen them around before, but even then, the rank and file inhabitants of those worlds usually have way bigger problems than gawking at the panda people who showed up on a boat that morning. And AL worlds like Forgotten Realms, Eberron and Ravenloft are no different in that regard than somewhere like Azeroth, Eorzea, or Tyria.

You can have citizens react with surprise, and even distrust, at seeing someone of an unfamiliar species. But if your "verisimilitude" hinges on farmers diving for pitchforks the moment they glimpse something strange, then running AL is probably not for you. By your own admission you have other options to play in-person games, so problem solved.

Atranen

2022-12-14, 11:52 AM

Again, the point is that each DM gets to decide these things based on what best keeps the game moving. For example, having the noble contact that wants to hire the party for a job faint or have a heart attack every time she looks at the tabaxi party member is probably going to quickly bog down the game and be disruptive to the table's fun, so don't do that. And from what I can tell, having no farmer or street beggar even remark on that party member's odd appearance is going to impact your fun, so don't do that either. There's a lot of room in between those extremes, so figure it out. If everyone is having fun, you're doing it right, and if they're not, make adjustments; it's not hard.

This does nothing to address the problem that what exists in the world is not clearly specified. The space between those extremes that a rare species occupies will depend on the specifics of the world. Those are not provided.

Okay, I keep seeing the "MMO" pejorative thrown around and it makes no sense to me. have you people actually played one?

Yes. MMOs are fine, but they lack verisimilitude that a tabletop game can have. That's the sense in which I use it; a game that has sacrificed the feeling of realism, of groundedness, for some other goal.

When MMOs add new races, they usually have a big intro scenario explaining where that race came from and why people haven't seen them around before, but even then, the rank and file inhabitants of those worlds usually have way bigger problems than gawking at the panda people who showed up on a boat that morning. And AL worlds like Forgotten Realms, Eberron and Ravenloft are no different in that regard than somewhere like Azeroth, Eorzea, or Tyria.

Given the reputation of, say, Yuan Ti in the FR, you might expect one showing up to be a sign of bigger problems. Or not. It's not clear.

You can have citizens react with surprise, and even distrust, at seeing someone of an unfamiliar species. But if your "verisimilitude" hinges on farmers diving for pitchforks the moment they glimpse something strange, then running AL is probably not for you. By your own admission you have other options to play in-person games, so problem solved.

I never said anything of the sort.

Psyren

2022-12-14, 12:05 PM

This does nothing to address the problem that what exists in the world is not clearly specified.

As I said, the extent of the rare is intentionally left up to each GM. Feature, not bug.

Yes. MMOs are fine, but they lack verisimilitude that a tabletop game can have. That's the sense in which I use it; a game that has sacrificed the feeling of realism, of groundedness, for some other goal.

The MMOs I've played feel plenty grounded to me. Their settings aren't perfect, but then, I haven't encountered one that was.

Given the reputation of, say, Yuan Ti in the FR, you might expect one showing up to be a sign of bigger problems. Or not. It's not clear.

Is it fun for both you and your players to have all NPCs to react that way upon seeing one? If so, do it; if not, don't.

Atranen

2022-12-14, 12:15 PM

As I said, the extent of the rare is intentionally left up to each GM. Feature, not bug.

"Welcome to the forgotten realms campaign setting! What exists in this area of the world? Ehh...I'm just a book, not the DM. Why don't you decide?"

This is a failure of setting design. It's perfectly acceptable for the book to say something and then add "the DM may change facets of the world at their discretion." To instead say "hey, this is close to a blank slate, fill in what you want" is insulting to the DM who purchased it.

It also contributes to the problem of generic ville. A player wants a rare species, and they can say "well, the setting can be whatever you want, right?"

Is it fun for both you and your players to have all NPCs to react that way upon seeing one? If so, do it; if not, don't.

The fact that you think this is an accurate rendition of what I want shows you have not understood my point.

What I am asking for: A clear set of rules, maybe in a table, that roughly delineate what kinds of characters (species and class and level) can be found in a certain part of the world. Then, additional rules/incentives for playing characters that align with that concrete picture.

WOTC is not providing this and is instead letting people play whatever species they want with no need to try to integerate them into the narrative. This results in a generic, non-specific setting that feels like mush.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-12-14, 12:24 PM

"Welcome to the forgotten realms campaign setting! What exists in this area of the world? Ehh...I'm just a book, not the DM. Why don't you decide?"

This is a failure of setting design. It's perfectly acceptable for the book to say something and then add "the DM may change facets of the world at their discretion." To instead say "hey, this is close to a blank slate, fill in what you want" is insulting to the DM who purchased it.

It also contributes to the problem of generic ville. A player wants a rare species, and they can say "well, the setting can be whatever you want, right?"

The fact that you think this is an accurate rendition of what I want shows you have not understood my point.

What I am asking for: A clear set of rules, maybe in a table, that roughly delineate what kinds of characters (species and class and level) can be found in a certain part of the world. Then, additional rules/incentives for playing characters that align with that concrete picture.

WOTC is not providing this and is instead letting people play whatever species they want with no need to try to integerate them into the narrative. This results in a generic, non-specific setting that feels like mush.

I agree with this. Especially that last paragraph. They're trying to have their cake ("Lots of diversity! Bunches of different settings!") and eat it to ("but settings don't really matter and anyone can run anything and DMs should bend over for that" + "we don't want to tell you what to do, even in our own settings").

If info is to be done at setting level, it needs to be done at setting level. Which means actually making those hard decisions and publishing them. If it's not done at setting level, it needs to be done globally. Because that info is necessary.

Psyren

2022-12-14, 12:33 PM

"Welcome to the forgotten realms campaign setting! What exists in this area of the world? Ehh...I'm just a book, not the DM. Why don't you decide?"
...
What I am asking for: A clear set of rules, maybe in a table, that roughly delineate what kinds of characters (species and class and level) can be found in a certain part of the world. Then, additional rules/incentives for playing characters that align with that concrete picture.

They do tell you what's in each area. Evermeet has elves, Menzoberranzan has Drow, Damara has Dwarves , Tymanther has Dragonborn etc. That's not the same as saying what isn't in each area, and that's what you actually want. The game is intentionally quiet on that front to give you the freedom to decide. If you think it's completely impossible for a Dragonborn adventurer to ever arrive on Evermeet for any reason, that's totally fine, but WotC isn't going to enforce that from on high.

WOTC is not providing this and is instead letting people play whatever species they want with no need to try to integerate them into the narrative. This results in a generic, non-specific setting that feels like mush.

Your narrative and its contents are not WotC's job.

Segev

2022-12-14, 12:35 PM

Your narrative and its contents are not WotC's job.

It is if they're trying to sell me a setting book, a module, or a monster manual.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-12-14, 12:38 PM

It is if they're trying to sell me a setting book, a module, or a monster manual.

Exactly. Especially a setting book or module. That's their entire, 100% job there. To set the parameters of the setting and module. Those sorts of things are a big part of the work to create a setting. Cheaping out and saying "well, we don't care" is saying "yeah, we're not actually doing our job." It's like if they said "to make an attack, roll some dice and compare it to any number you want. It doesn't matter what dice or what number. Just figure out if it hits however you want and how much damage it does. We're not going to actually tell you that, because it's your game."

Psyren

2022-12-14, 12:51 PM

It is if they're trying to sell me a setting book, a module, or a monster manual.

None of those have or will ever have answers to everything you need to make a narrative. Some of it will always fall on the DM to determine. That's the whole reason we're playing tabletop and not a video game.

To be clear, I'm fine with more campaign settings, and even more detail. But what I see people clamoring for here is exclusion, i.e. "adventurers of this species don't make sense in this setting/location, keep them out", and I'll never get behind that. If you want to ban a species from your table or from a given campaign, go ahead and ban it, but don't call on WotC to ban it for you.

Segev

2022-12-14, 01:05 PM

None of those have or will ever have answers to everything you need to make a narrative. Some of it will always fall on the DM to determine. That's the whole reason we're playing tabletop and not a video game.

To be clear, I'm fine with more campaign settings, and even more detail. But what I see people clamoring for here is exclusion, i.e. "adventurers of this species don't make sense in this setting/location, keep them out", and I'll never get behind that. If you want to ban a species from your table or from a given campaign, go ahead and ban it, but don't call on WotC to ban it for you.

Frankly, I am more concerned that the lore about what is IN the settings will continue to be watered down to "it's this, maybe, unless it's this other thing, and some things aren't like that at all, and we won't be specific about any of it because that stifles creativity or whatever: do whatever you want, DM! Lack of lore is a feature, not a bug!"

MadBear

2022-12-14, 01:09 PM

Is that really something we as a community want? I'm all for DM's tailoring their world to their liking. Heck, I have a friend whose entire world is Dwarves and Elves. Those are your only options. You can't play any other race because that's not what's in the world he created. He's well within his right to say "sorry, you can play dwarves and elves and that's it".

However, if I was going to DM his world and a player really wanted to play a Human, I'd ask them first why. If it was just because of mechanical benefit, I'd probably nix it. If however a player wanted to play "I'm a human who got pushed through a Gate into this world, and now I'm the only human", that would be something I might allow, as it'd be a fun idea to play with. It'd be weird if after the fact, my friend came up and said "No! you can only have dwarves and elves here"!

PhoenixPhyre

2022-12-14, 01:23 PM

. If however a player wanted to play "I'm a human who got pushed through a Gate into this world, and now I'm the only human", that would be something I might allow, as it'd be a fun idea to play with. It'd be weird if after the fact, my friend came up and said "No! you can only have dwarves and elves here"!

To me, that's a huge red flag that the player wants to be a special snowflake. It has protagonist syndrome written all over it. "I know you said that there were only elves and dwarves, but I want to break the rules because I'm special." I'd be much more willing to allow "I use the mechanics of a human but am a dwarf or elf, just a weird one" than that. In part, because that human now has no connection to the world. He knows nothing, is part of nothing, has no reason to be there, his background is now meaningless, etc.

Setting invariants (what races exist, how they interact, the existence or non-existence of planar portals that just dump random people from other random worlds there, among other things) are, to me, inviolate. Whether mine or others. They're a fundamental part of what makes the setting different than others. And make up a large chunk of my enjoyment of the game. "Intruder" characters (including "I'm <other fiction character> with the serial numbers filed off") make me exceedingly unhappy because they shatter any ability I have to believe in the world. It reduces the world to the thickness and depth of cardboard.

Atranen

2022-12-14, 02:21 PM

They do tell you what's in each area. Evermeet has elves, Menzoberranzan has Drow, Damara has Dwarves , Tymanther has Dragonborn etc. That's not the same as saying what isn't in each area, and that's what you actually want. The game is intentionally quiet on that front to give you the freedom to decide. If you think it's completely impossible for a Dragonborn adventurer to ever arrive on Evermeet for any reason, that's totally fine, but WotC isn't going to enforce that from on high.

None of those have or will ever have answers to everything you need to make a narrative. Some of it will always fall on the DM to determine. That's the whole reason we're playing tabletop and not a video game.

To be clear, I'm fine with more campaign settings, and even more detail. But what I see people clamoring for here is exclusion, i.e. "adventurers of this species don't make sense in this setting/location, keep them out", and I'll never get behind that. If you want to ban a species from your table or from a given campaign, go ahead and ban it, but don't call on WotC to ban it for you.

I'm not asking them to provide everything, but I am asking them to provide more. I am not demanding outright exclusion of any species. I am asking for clarification as to how unusual certain species are in different locations. If you, a dragonborn, show up at Evermeet, will anyone have any idea what that is? Where you come from? What your abilities and history is? All of this information is necessary to make the world feel lived in.

Your narrative and its contents are not WotC's job.

It is if they're trying to sell me a setting book, a module, or a monster manual.

Exactly. Especially a setting book or module. That's their entire, 100% job there. To set the parameters of the setting and module. Those sorts of things are a big part of the work to create a setting. Cheaping out and saying "well, we don't care" is saying "yeah, we're not actually doing our job." It's like if they said "to make an attack, roll some dice and compare it to any number you want. It doesn't matter what dice or what number. Just figure out if it hits however you want and how much damage it does. We're not going to actually tell you that, because it's your game."

Amplifying both of these responses because they get it right. If I want to make up my own setting, I can do that. If I am buying a product, I expect them to fill in basic details about the world.

And to bring it back to AL--that is emphatically not my world, and DMs are in fact forbidden from rewriting big chunks of the setting to fit their needs. It is WOTCs world.

This doesn't have to mean outright exclusion. What I am asking for is for unusual species to be clearly noted as such, and for this to have some narrative impact. Here's a short version that might work for AL:

AL SEASON X GUIDELINES:

Season X of AL takes place along the Sword Coast Region. Common species include humans, dwarves, orcs, half-orcs, elves, halflings, gnomes, and half-elves.

Species not on this list are playable in season X, but it is unusual to see them in the region. Your character will be distinctive and have a difficult time blending in. Explain in your backstory how your character ended up on the sword coast: were they part of a community of that species that migrated to the area? Are they on a mission for their homeland? Are they an exile?

Or for an intro to an adventure for a home campaign:

Species include humans, dwarves, orcs, half-orcs, elves, halflings, gnomes, and half-elves. Other species may be present at the discretion of the DM.

This language makes it clear that the setting has expectations and the DM has the right to enforce those expectations.

KorvinStarmast

2022-12-14, 02:43 PM

This doesn't have to mean outright exclusion. What I am asking for is for unusual species to be clearly noted as such, and for this to have some narrative impact. Here's a short version that might work for AL:

AL SEASON X GUIDELINES:

Season X of AL takes place along the Sword Coast Region. Common species include humans, dwarves, orcs, half-orcs, elves, halflings, gnomes, and half-elves.

Species not on this list are playable in season X, but it is unusual to see them in the region. Your character will be distinctive and have a difficult time blending in. Explain in your backstory how your character ended up on the sword coast: were they part of a community of that species that migrated to the area? Are they on a mission for their homeland? Are they an exile?

Or for an intro to an adventure for a home campaign:

Species include humans, dwarves, orcs, half-orcs, elves, halflings, gnomes, and half-elves. Other species may be present at the discretion of the DM.

This language makes it clear that the setting has expectations and the DM has the right to enforce those expectations. Great idea except for ... gnomes. :smallyuk: :smallbiggrin:

Brookshw

2022-12-14, 04:13 PM

Great idea except for ... gnomes. :smallyuk: :smallbiggrin:

Burn them, burn them I say!

MadBear

2022-12-14, 04:14 PM

To me, that's a huge red flag that the player wants to be a special snowflake. It has protagonist syndrome written all over it. "I know you said that there were only elves and dwarves, but I want to break the rules because I'm special." I'd be much more willing to allow "I use the mechanics of a human but am a dwarf or elf, just a weird one" than that. In part, because that human now has no connection to the world. He knows nothing, is part of nothing, has no reason to be there, his background is now meaningless, etc.

Setting invariants (what races exist, how they interact, the existence or non-existence of planar portals that just dump random people from other random worlds there, among other things) are, to me, inviolate. Whether mine or others. They're a fundamental part of what makes the setting different than others. And make up a large chunk of my enjoyment of the game. "Intruder" characters (including "I'm <other fiction character> with the serial numbers filed off") make me exceedingly unhappy because they shatter any ability I have to believe in the world. It reduces the world to the thickness and depth of cardboard.

Completely disagree.

I think context here is important though. I'm playing with a group of friends I've known for over a decade and I know they're coming into any of my games with good and fun intent. I don't play with random people or people I barely know. This to me speaks more about the people who come to your table, then it does to what's happening as a whole.

I'll also point out that a lot of fun ideas/themes of our table come out of our shared liking of anime, which has a strong tradition of Isekai (people appearing from another world). It tends to be really fun, because they get to experience my world without any of it's background knowledge, because both they and their characters literally don't know the world they've entered.

I can see where this would be an issue if you had a player who was just "I found this powerful build online/I want to play Thor but in D&D/I read the campaign so I'm making a character specifically suited to win". But it isn't really WOTC's job to tell you who to play with. If you're playing with people who need strict boundaries, then give your group strict boundaries. I'm not, and think it's silly to expect the company to enforce those for me.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-12-14, 04:20 PM

Completely disagree.

I think context here is important though. I'm playing with a group of friends I've known for over a decade and I know they're coming into any of my games with good and fun intent. I don't play with random people or people I barely know. This to me speaks more about the people who come to your table, then it does to what's happening as a whole.

I'll also point out that a lot of fun ideas/themes of our table come out of our shared liking of anime, which has a strong tradition of Isekai (people appearing from another world). It tends to be really fun, because they get to experience my world without any of it's background knowledge, because both they and their characters literally don't know the world they've entered.

I can see where this would be an issue if you had a player who was just "I found this powerful build online/I want to play Thor but in D&D/I read the campaign so I'm making a character specifically suited to win". But it isn't really WOTC's job to tell you who to play with. If you're playing with people who need strict boundaries, then give your group strict boundaries. I'm not, and think it's silly to expect the company to enforce those for me.

I expect settings to have strict boundaries. Regardless of who is playing in them. Because otherwise they're not settings I'm interested in playing in. The restrictions are a necessary part of making an interesting setting--"anything goes from anywhere" is just incoherent mush.

And exploring interesting settings are 90% of the reason I play. A setting that feels like it was slapped together for this party's adventures, to me, is a total non-starter. I don't want a paper backdrop for "cool things", I want a setting that feels like it could be real. And that requires preparation, careful thought, worldbuilding, and yes, careful curation of what exists. So if you're publishing a setting for others to use, those pieces (including the restrictions) are necessary parts of having a product that means something.

Anyone can slap together an incoherent kitchen sink no thicker than paper in no time flat. All you need is a random name generator or two and a random quest generator. But if you publish that as a setting, I reserve the right to say that you're just milking things for dollars and should be ashamed of yourself.