D&D Beyond Changes

[Sparky McDibben]

Boy, the hits just keep on comin'!

https://twitter.com/DnD_Shorts/status/1615097747983695872?cxt=HHwWgIDQoYe2_eksAAAA
(https://twitter.com/DnD_Shorts/status/1615097747983695872?cxt=HHwWgIDQoYe2_eksAAAA)

These are unconfirmed as of yet, but seem unrelated (or only tangentially related) to the OGL debacle. More details available Wednesday.

[Kane0]

If @Wizards tried to squeeze more money from you with these @DnD_Beyond changes, how would you feel?

- $30/month per player
- Deauthorized OGL 1.0a
- Homebrew banned at Base Tiers
- Stripped down gameplay for AI-DMs


Well, I wasn't doing any subscription crap anyways but even so if this is true that third bullet point is a killer even before you factor it operating under the second.

I think I would have much preferred their monetisation coming from turning DnDBeyond into Steam-for-tabletop. I'm still going to make and use my own stuff regardless of their paywalls anyways.

[Particle_Man]

Is that one sourced officially? It sounds over the top enough that it could be a hoax.

[Sparky McDibben]

Is that one sourced officially? It sounds over the top enough that it could be a hoax.

Anything's possible, but this one's been verified by DnD Shorts (a YouTuber with relationships at WotC who's leaks were widely confirmed by Linda Codega's reporting), and Nerd Immersion (https://twitter.com/nerdimmersion/status/1615116173779111942?cxt=HHwWjMC8kcrmheosAAAA) (who's about as close to TTRPG CNN as we're likely to get).

That's what I figured made it worth the forum's time.

[Witty Username]

Don't you already have to buy each book separately on Beyond? Is this in addition to that?

[Sparky McDibben]

Don't you already have to buy each book separately on Beyond? Is this in addition to that?

That's my guess.

[Bohandas]

At this point it's like they're trying to destory the brand on purpose. Like someone at the company is trying to pull a version of the scam from The Producers or something

[Witty Username]

At this point it's like they're trying to destory the brand on purpose. Like someone at the company is trying to pull a version of the scam from The Producers or something

I think that assumes D&D beyond was ever good in the first place.

[Sparky McDibben]

I think that assumes D&D beyond was ever good in the first place.

The good news is that I might get my players to stop using DDB. We ain't needed no d*mn app for the last 50 years of this d*mn game, DAN.

[Leon]

At this point it's like they're trying to destory the brand on purpose. Like someone at the company is trying to pull a version of the scam from The Producers or something

A article i read that some of the same info seemed to suggest it came from very close to the top

[Kane0]

Ironic considering the simplicity of the current ruleset. Its not like its arcane knowledge what you add to a d20 roll or that most of your special abilities come back on one of two varieties of rest. Its almost the easiest system to computerize so far, its just they havent bothered to.

[Bohandas]

The good news is that I might get my players to stop using DDB. We ain't needed no d*mn app for the last 50 years of this d*mn game, DAN.

Preach brother!

[Mastikator]

I think that assumes D&D beyond was ever good in the first place.

For me it was hugely convenient.

Was.

I aint paying 30$/month

[Hael]

ChatGPT was released in November. Lets be charitable to the higher ups and say they are faster at adapting to new tech than any executives in history.

So this idea originated in December??

Moreover, I don’t think they have thought this through. Training a large language model takes years and tens of millions of dollars of investment in compute/storage. It would further need to be finetuned on the specific content/context/UI that is presented (so add in many more millions scraping and preprocessing the data from old adventure modules/fan creations).

OpenAI and deepmind Google have absolutely zero public plans on how they are willing to license their technologies. All we have is an API from openAI that includes their older language models (at rather prohibitive pricing for mass usage).

So I don’t buy this, unless its some pie in the sky idea that is casually spoken at some business meeting by an analyst. Its not the sort of thing that could be concrete yet.

[Psyren]

If they add those other planned features like AI DMing feature and their own VTT it might be worth that much, but I don't see a benefit to them raising the price that much before having those kinds of benefits ready.

The 1.0a stuff I won't touch other than to say, no one should be surprised by that.

Adding other folks' homebrew was always part of the sub tiers.

[Sandeman]

30$ a month??
Back to pen and paper it is.

[Dork_Forge]

Unless that $30 comes with access to all official content, I don't see this happening.

$30 a month is something you'd expect from a cloud streaming service... Maybe, and that would be delivering you an entire game experience.

This kind of pricing would kill D&D Beyonds subscriber count, growth, and make what subscribers they do have at that price far more susceptible to cancelling for IRL problems.

After all, when you hit a rough patch if something is $5 but good value it might survive a budget. But $30? That's multiple meals or a phone plan etc.

[Hael]

AI Dungeon with collaboration from OpenAI has been around now for going on almost 3 years now.
I don't think it's all that far fetched. The technology is advancing rapidly.

Those were not very good. I don't think WoTC would base a business model on that level of performance. Even Chatgpt is just barely borderline passable (and that was at least an order of magnitude improvement compared to what was publicly available). Even now, it will generate some logical absurdities every once and awhile, which would kill the session.

Next year we are seeing a 100 fold increase in the data training set for GPT4 or whatever its called, and that's finally something that you could plausibly consider as being commercially viable (assuming you finetuned it for DnD).

Still you are talking a major investment that is likely worth millions, and basically going all in on a strategy that is easily one of the riskiest things you could imagine.

[EggKookoo]

For me it was hugely convenient.

Was.

I aint paying 30$/month

What are some alternatives? The main values of DnDB for me are 1) convenient character sheets, 2) homebrewing items and monsters, and 3) point-and-click reference for spell descriptions and such (mostly for the players). A 4) would be the combat tracker but that's relatively new.

I pay for the top tier at the moment but that's not even $5/mo. I get it a year at a time so I guess I'm safe until September.

[Mastikator]

What are some alternatives? The main values of DnDB for me are 1) convenient character sheets, 2) homebrewing items and monsters, and 3) point-and-click reference for spell descriptions and such (mostly for the players). A 4) would be the combat tracker but that's relatively new.

I pay for the top tier at the moment but that's not even $5/mo. I get it a year at a time so I guess I'm safe until September.

I pay the master sub so that I can share the content I bought with my players, and they can benefit from 1, & 2, & 3. It also allows me to see and edit their character sheet if need be (mostly add items). I think $5/month is a fair price for that. I have no interest in VTTs or AI DMs. If the price was raised to 30 I'd cancel and go back to pen and paper, and spell cards and what not. But it would be a huge inconvenience to do everything on an analog basis in D&D. I may even switch to a different game.

There are tons of options for TTRPG, but AFAIK none offer the convenience of dndbeyond which is why these kind of news make me sad and disappointed. I see others take glee in the self destruction of the evil corporation, but I see my hobby being flushed down the drain to satisfy a greedy jerk.

[Dork_Forge]

What are some alternatives? The main values of DnDB for me are 1) convenient character sheets, 2) homebrewing items and monsters, and 3) point-and-click reference for spell descriptions and such (mostly for the players). A 4) would be the combat tracker but that's relatively new.

I pay for the top tier at the moment but that's not even $5/mo. I get it a year at a time so I guess I'm safe until September.

Personally I prefer to make character sheets in Roll 20:

- unlimited character sheets for free
- able to print them if you want
- Accessible from the app

Then all the stuff you get from it being attached to a VTT (including a searchbar for SRD content).

[stoutstien]

At this point it's like they're trying to destory the brand on purpose. Like someone at the company is trying to pull a version of the scam from The Producers or something

Nah. They are attempting a walled garden. Worst part is it will likely be successful enough that it will become a festering cancer much like what modern organized play.

[EggKookoo]

I pay the master sub so that I can share the content I bought with my players, and they can benefit from 1, & 2, & 3. It also allows me to see and edit their character sheet if need be (mostly add items). I think $5/month is a fair price for that. I have no interest in VTTs or AI DMs. If the price was raised to 30 I'd cancel and go back to pen and paper, and spell cards and what not. But it would be a huge inconvenience to do everything on an analog basis in D&D. I may even switch to a different game.

Right. For that amount of money it's starting to look sensible for me to write my own system for my table. It's a lot of work, though.


There are tons of options for TTRPG, but AFAIK none offer the convenience of dndbeyond which is why these kind of news make me sad and disappointed. I see others take glee in the self destruction of the evil corporation, but I see my hobby being flushed down the drain to satisfy a greedy jerk.

I agree. I want WotC to feel pain for its behavior but ultimately this is depressing.


Personally I prefer to make character sheets in Roll 20:

- unlimited character sheets for free
- able to print them if you want
- Accessible from the app

Then all the stuff you get from it being attached to a VTT (including a searchbar for SRD content).

I looked into Roll 20 way back when but it wasn't quite what I wanted. I'll take another look. Thanks!

Like Mastikator I have no real use for the VTT part, but if the character sheets are halfway competent that's half the battle.

[Sigreid]

Before I was gifted a vtt lifetime subscription, I did what you guys are saying you get from DDB with relatively simple Excel workbooks for character bundles.

[Aimeryan]

More interested in what happens to other vitual tabletops. I think worst case scenario they would have to strip all D&D content, so still usable, just way more incovenient. If they allow you to personally import bulk data for your own use, then we could see databases passed around to do that sort of thing. As is currently, non-SRD stuff you have to personally add - so, not untread ground.

[Oramac]

At this point it's like they're trying to destory the brand on purpose. Like someone at the company is trying to pull a version of the scam from The Producers or something

I can't find the tweet at the moment (still looking; will update), but there was some speculation that all of this is due to investors wanting to split WOTC off into its own publicly traded company, instead of a subsidiary of Hasbro. On top of that, it was quoted that "WOTC is 70% of Hasbro's revenue". Obviously I can't confirm that number, but if true it would make sense that Hasbro would focus a lot of effort on keeping it in-house. Finally, it alleges that the D&D movie Honor Among Thieves is the thing investors are looking at, even more so than DDB subs.

[Sigreid]

More interested in what happens to other tabletops. I think worst case scenario they would have to strip all D&D content, so still usable, just way more incovenient. If they allow you to personally import bulk data for your own use, then we could see databases passed around to do that sort of thing. As is currently, non-SRD stuff you have to personally add - so, not untread ground.
Since I bought licensed 5e content for my VTT, I think they can't take that away.

[EggKookoo]

Before I was gifted a vtt lifetime subscription, I did what you guys are saying you get from DDB with relatively simple Excel workbooks for character bundles.

Yup. I was using a combination of Excel and OneNote. Clunky, but it got the job done.

I'm assuming SRD 5 is not going away? Or is that still an unknown?

[Sigreid]

Yup. I was using a combination of Excel and OneNote. Clunky, but it got the job done.

I'm assuming SRD 5 is not going away? Or is that still an unknown?

I don't think it matters. Personal use is typically fair use. Money has to be changing hands to claim financial damages if I understand correctly.

[ProsecutorGodot]

For me it was hugely convenient.

Was.

I aint paying 30$/month

Same, and from the sounds of it they want my friends who only use the site once a week at most to be paying the same cost rather than allowing a campaign share as it exists now.

If I'm not going to pay that cost, there's no way you're getting them on board for that cost either.

[Sigreid]

Same, and from the sounds of it they want my friends who only use the site once a week at most to be paying the same cost rather than allowing a campaign share as it exists now.

If I'm not going to pay that cost, there's no way you're getting them on board for that cost either.
Decent chance they know this is not going to fly and leaked it to make what they actually do seem like a bargain by comparison.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Decent chance they know this is not going to fly and leaked it to make what they actually do seem like a bargain by comparison.

Considering recent events, nobody is going to fall for that.

[stoutstien]

Decent chance they know this is not going to fly and leaked it to make what they actually do seem like a bargain by comparison.

Eh. If so they are sorely under estimating the the length those who are invested in the hobby are willing to go over a grudge.

[Sigreid]

Eh. If so they are sorely under estimating the the length those who are invested in the hobby are willing to go over a grudge.
Stubborn and petty are common human traits. Hehe

[da newt]

Oremac - I think you are referring to the Alta Fox Capital Management presentation / paper ('free the wizards') from ~ FEB 22 that proposed WotC spin off from the parent company.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

Honestly. They're pulling Nintendo in the 1990's with a kind of "We're king of the world and *^(%&^& you!"

They will likely survive, but they'll allow Paizo to flourish even more and with all the other TP companies kind of rallying with them it probably won't eclipse D&D, what with the Marketing, Movies, Critical Role, etc, but it will compete with.

It's kind of funny, WotC/D&D essentially gave birth to Paizo, then ignored them, now will have them as a chief competitor. Just like Nintendo hiring Sony to create the SNES CD then abandoned Sony and out came the Playstation.

[Sception]

i use dndbeyond right now. i like a good online character builder & sheet, & beyond is easily the best out there, by enough that i haven't minded paying the microtransactions to unlock specific content on it. but i'm not paying a subscription fee, & if they ruin the non-subbed experience to force subscriptions i can and will switch to fillable pdfs or just go back to notebooks & paper sheets.

[EggKookoo]

I don't think it matters. Personal use is typically fair use. Money has to be changing hands to claim financial damages if I understand correctly.

Right. Just for safety's sake, I grabbed my own copy so I won't have to rely on external sources for it.

[Segev]

MMOs can get away with this kind of monthly subscription fee - maybe - because they are an exclusive portal to playing their product. Their competition is also charging at least half that, typically, or has some really obnoxious monetization features that make the freemium competition less attractive.

What is it that WotC is planning to provide for $30/month that they think will keep people engaged with it and coughing up that money, when their customers can just keep playing 5.0, can go play PF2, can go play PF1 or 3.5 or even 4e, or can use their physical OneD&D books to play on their own? Are they not planning on selling physical books? Are they somehow planning to storm into people's houses to give them C&Ds if they're playing a tabletop RPG without a D&D Beyond license that's up to date?

This just seems very short-sighted, like it's making the assumption that every subscriber will just keep subscribing, but at the higher price point. Which even the most divorced-from-the-business bean counter should know from economics 101 is untrue based on basic supply/demand curves.

[Sigreid]

MMOs can get away with this kind of monthly subscription fee - maybe - because they are an exclusive portal to playing their product. Their competition is also charging at least half that, typically, or has some really obnoxious monetization features that make the freemium competition less attractive.

What is it that WotC is planning to provide for $30/month that they think will keep people engaged with it and coughing up that money, when their customers can just keep playing 5.0, can go play PF2, can go play PF1 or 3.5 or even 4e, or can use their physical OneD&D books to play on their own? Are they not planning on selling physical books? Are they somehow planning to storm into people's houses to give them C&Ds if they're playing a tabletop RPG without a D&D Beyond license that's up to date?

This just seems very short-sighted, like it's making the assumption that every subscriber will just keep subscribing, but at the higher price point. Which even the most divorced-from-the-business bean counter should know from economics 101 is untrue based on basic supply/demand curves.
Well, the new execs have come from MS, which has for a while been trying to get people to stop buying software and rent it instead claiming that in exchange they get constant updates to the latest and greatest.

[Oramac]

Oremac - I think you are referring to the Alta Fox Capital Management presentation / paper ('free the wizards') from ~ FEB 22 that proposed WotC spin off from the parent company.

Probably, yes. There's a twitter thread going with a lot more detail about it, but the short version is Hasbro is fighting tooth and nail to keep WOTC in house.

[Sparky McDibben]

What is it that WotC is planning to provide for $30/month that they think will keep people engaged with it and coughing up that money, when their customers can just keep playing 5.0, can go play PF2, can go play PF1 or 3.5 or even 4e, or can use their physical OneD&D books to play on their own? Are they not planning on selling physical books? Are they somehow planning to storm into people's houses to give them C&Ds if they're playing a tabletop RPG without a D&D Beyond license that's up to date?

I suspect they think DDB + sunk cost fallacy is sticky enough to keep people invested. Even so, they almost don't seem to understand the game? Or the players? Some of these moves remind me of what happens when you put an MBA grad in charge of a hardware store. They don't understand the core value prop and just spouting buzzwords: "Undermonetized! Lifestyle brand! BLOOD AND SOULS FOR MY DARK LORD ARIOCH!!" Y'know, the usual.

[Sigreid]

Probably, yes. There's a twitter thread going with a lot more detail about it, but the short version is Hasbro is fighting tooth and nail to keep WOTC in house.
Why would they need to fight? I don't think they can be forced to sell can they?

[Oramac]

can use their physical OneD&D books to play on their own? Are they not planning on selling physical books?

Honestly, it kinda looks that way. It'd the the dumbest business decision ever made, but it does look like they want to go all-digital.

[Atranen]

I don't like the changes, but I'll bet they can get away with them. They don't need every subscriber to do $30/month, and they will likely have lower tiers available. Something like

$5/month gets you everything you get now
$15/month gives you to core books, some other goodies, and access to the VTT
$30/month is the highest tier, and gives you all books, access to multiple VTT instances, experimental access to the AI, whatever else they think the real super users will want.

They'll certainly lose some players, myself included, but frankly I wasn't giving them much money now. And I'll bet the additional revenue from the subscriptions will make up for it.

Sad times ahead. At the least, it should be easier to get a group to try a different system.

[Sparky McDibben]

Why would they need to fight? I don't think they can be forced to sell can they?

Activist investors could potentially force a vote. This is commo to the board and shareholders.

[Unoriginal]

MMOs can get away with this kind of monthly subscription fee - maybe - because they are an exclusive portal to playing their product. Their competition is also charging at least half that, typically, or has some really obnoxious monetization features that make the freemium competition less attractive.

What is it that WotC is planning to provide for $30/month that they think will keep people engaged with it and coughing up that money, when their customers can just keep playing 5.0, can go play PF2, can go play PF1 or 3.5 or even 4e, or can use their physical OneD&D books to play on their own? Are they not planning on selling physical books? Are they somehow planning to storm into people's houses to give them C&Ds if they're playing a tabletop RPG without a D&D Beyond license that's up to date?

This just seems very short-sighted, like it's making the assumption that every subscriber will just keep subscribing, but at the higher price point. Which even the most divorced-from-the-business bean counter should know from economics 101 is untrue based on basic supply/demand curves.

MMOs can also do that kind of business because the game company needs to pay people ongoingly to have the game ongoingly playable.

Here WotC is essentially asking us to pay one pound each day to have... online copies of documents?

[Sigreid]

Activist investors could potentially force a vote. This is commo to the board and shareholders.

I don't see how there could be enough of them unless the board is weak, but whatever I guess.

[jjordan]

What is it that WotC is planning to provide for $30/month that they think will keep people engaged with it and coughing up that money, when their customers can just keep playing 5.0, can go play PF2, can go play PF1 or 3.5 or even 4e, or can use their physical OneD&D books to play on their own?
Early access to content in electronic format before it goes to print. That's the short answer.

The long answer is that WotC has apparently looked at their IP and their business model and probable trends and made some decisions. Your comparison to MMOs is spot on. Picture D&D as a turn-based MMO. Sort of like the old, single-player Final Fantasy but now it's multiple players and each controls only their character in a combat situation. D&D already embraced the video-game model in the basic design of 5e (long and short rest mechanics, adventures as a series of combat encounters strung together by plot and cut scenes, characters as superheroes, etc...) and this is a logical next step.

This capitalizes on online roleplaying growth and the popularity of VTTs and the favorable economics of electronic publishing and puts WotC back in the driver's seat for content development of IP by raising the bar for 3PP to get their content into the environment. It also drags the game into the realm of video games where monetization systems are highly developed. Electronic publishing will lead the way and print publishing will follow (effectively flipping the old model, which they've been doing for the past several years). This will also lead to inhouse development of other avenues of exploitation of the IP: online webcomics, streaming stories, traditional merchandising AND electronic merchandising, and so on.

EDIT TO ADD: People are coming down really hard on WotC for the recent decisions that have been leaked. Which is fine, I hate some of those changes myself. But no one seems to be looking at the changing market and proposing ways for WotC to adapt and move forward. And they *must* adapt and move forward, not just for the health of the company, but for the health of the game.

[Sparky McDibben]

I don't see how there could be enough of them unless the board is weak, but whatever I guess.

Carl Icahn, for example, typically only needs a 1% stake in a company to get a board seat. Once there, you just work the board members and get more seats. It's deceptively simple.

[EggKookoo]

Are they not planning on selling physical books?

I've been saying for some time that this is the endgame. It seems less ridiculous all the time.

[OracleofWuffing]

$30 a month is something you'd expect from a cloud streaming service... Maybe, and that would be delivering you an entire game experience.
I have a gut feeling that any corporate executive that approves a $30/month rate would have no problem with someone comparing D&D Beyond to a streaming service. Sadly.

*Looks at his $40 phone plan and $15 breakfast receipt and feels unintentionally called out.*:smallwink:

[Segev]

Early access to content in electronic format before it goes to print. That's the short answer.

The long answer is that WotC has apparently looked at their IP and their business model and probable trends and made some decisions. Your comparison to MMOs is spot on. Picture D&D as a turn-based MMO. Sort of like the old, single-player Final Fantasy but now it's multiple players and each controls only their character in a combat situation. D&D already embraced the video-game model in the basic design of 5e (long and short rest mechanics, adventures as a series of combat encounters strung together by plot and cut scenes, characters as superheroes, etc...) and this is a logical next step.

This capitalizes on online roleplaying growth and the popularity of VTTs and the favorable economics of electronic publishing and puts WotC back in the driver's seat for content development of IP by raising the bar for 3PP to get their content into the environment. It also drags the game into the realm of video games where monetization systems are highly developed. Electronic publishing will lead the way and print publishing will follow (effectively flipping the old model, which they've been doing for the past several years). This will also lead to inhouse development of other avenues of exploitation of the IP: online webcomics, streaming stories, traditional merchandising AND electronic merchandising, and so on.

EDIT TO ADD: People are coming down really hard on WotC for the recent decisions that have been leaked. Which is fine, I hate some of those changes myself. But no one seems to be looking at the changing market and proposing ways for WotC to adapt and move forward. And they *must* adapt and move forward, not just for the health of the company, but for the health of the game.

Okay, but how are they planning to compel people to pay $30/month to play tabletop D&D? If they're making a full-on D&D MMO, sure, fine, but MMO players and TTRPG players are not a 100% overlap on the Venn diagram of consumers. Are they just casting off actual tabletop gamers who play with dice and minis at their home table? Do they expect those players to cough up $30/month to ... do what they're already doing?

They'll be competing with themselves if they sell OneD&D in physical books; nobody who has the physical books needs a subscription just to access the mechanics. Now, I hear they're trying to do "AI DMs," which may actually be worth a high price point for some, but that's going to be pretty niche, I think. Not because there aren't a lot more players than there are DMs, but because $30/month is really, really expensive; it's high-end for a full-on MMO, and it doesn't sound like that's what they're producing. (I could be wrong, there.)

It does sound a lot like people who don't have a clue what their customers do with their products, nor what their products are, and are making grossly inaccurate assumptions, like trying to charge for tickets to observe fruit on display at a grocery store and then being surprised when people just buy the fruit and eat it without paying the season pass for observing it being arranged.

[Psyren]

Well, the new execs have come from MS, which has for a while been trying to get people to stop buying software and rent it instead claiming that in exchange they get constant updates to the latest and greatest.

GamePass is a great deal though., one of the few subscription services for games to actually see both critical and commercial success. I don't mind paying for a service if the value proposition matches the price tag (I subscribe to this forum even); If DDB's price goes up with the same features it currently has, that won't be worth it, but I'll gladly take an increase if they make it worth my while to do so.


Early access to content in electronic format before it goes to print. That's the short answer.

Early access is definitely something I'd pay a higher sub fee for. It would beat the heck out of those bloated preorder bundles that force me into the dead tree editions and/or include books I already own.


This will also lead to inhouse development of other avenues of exploitation of the IP: online webcomics, streaming stories, traditional merchandising AND electronic merchandising, and so on.

This has a lot of potential to be a good thing. Comics, shows, movies and other expanded media for the settings that WotC unequivocally own are a great way to compensate the lore-minded folks for developing those aspects further. Articles I think should be free however.


EDIT TO ADD: People are coming down really hard on WotC for the recent decisions that have been leaked. Which is fine, I hate some of those changes myself. But no one seems to be looking at the changing market and proposing ways for WotC to adapt and move forward. And they *must* adapt and move forward, not just for the health of the company, but for the health of the game.

Concur. I think the assumption is that they'll just quintuple the price with no change in service offering; however little faith the community might have in them nowadays, they're smarter than that at least.

[Atranen]

EDIT TO ADD: People are coming down really hard on WotC for the recent decisions that have been leaked. Which is fine, I hate some of those changes myself. But no one seems to be looking at the changing market and proposing ways for WotC to adapt and move forward. And they *must* adapt and move forward, not just for the health of the company, but for the health of the game.

My favored response is "if it isn't broken, don't fix it". We know WoTC is the most profitable division of Hasbro and D&D is a big part of that. They don't need any drastic changes at the moment, and they can incrementally invest in VTT etc.

But that has less upside for them.


Okay, but how are they planning to compel people to pay $30/month to play tabletop D&D? If they're making a full-on D&D MMO, sure, fine, but MMO players and TTRPG players are not a 100% overlap on the Venn diagram of consumers. Are they just casting off actual tabletop gamers who play with dice and minis at their home table? Do they expect those players to cough up $30/month to ... do what they're already doing?

I'll bet you'll be able to jump on D&DBeyond and play in a VTT for free, with access to 1 character. Then a higher tier subscription gives you more characters, maybe access to higher levels...a higher tier lets you run games, unlocks all published content...a higher tier lets you get early access to new content, special assets for published adventures, increases the reach of your homebrew in their search function, gives you more assets to make your own things...

Which unfortunately seems like a very workable model to me.

I'll bet they keep making physical books, but I also suspect they'll test the waters with some D&DBeyond exclusive subclasses. If that's successful, after a few years we could see a D&DBeyond exclusive release.

[jjordan]

Okay, but how are they planning to compel people to pay $30/month to play tabletop D&D? If they're making a full-on D&D MMO, sure, fine, but MMO players and TTRPG players are not a 100% overlap on the Venn diagram of consumers. Are they just casting off actual tabletop gamers who play with dice and minis at their home table? Do they expect those players to cough up $30/month to ... do what they're already doing?
I'm guessing here, but I think they've concluded that the hardcopy tabletop publishing model has peaked. There's only so many copies of the hardcovers they can sell and the cost of selling hardcopies is increasing so profit margins are decreasing. The old customer base will continue to get hardcopies, at least for a few years, just after the electronic publishing (not before or simultaneously).


They'll be competing with themselves if they sell OneD&D in physical books; nobody who has the physical books needs a subscription just to access the mechanics. Now, I hear they're trying to do "AI DMs," which may actually be worth a high price point for some, but that's going to be pretty niche, I think. Not because there aren't a lot more players than there are DMs, but because $30/month is really, really expensive; it's high-end for a full-on MMO, and it doesn't sound like that's what they're producing. (I could be wrong, there.)
Guessing, again, but I think they have concluded that, in addition to e-publishing, online gaming is where the potential for growth lays. AI DMs is a good indicator that one of their poll takeaways is that more people would play if they could get a schedule that works for them. And AI DMs are going to appeal heavily to solo or very small group players and they are going to be using published content. Vastly oversimplifying, it's a group play of a turn-based video game. Which, again, puts WotC in the driver's seat for IP because how is a third-party publisher going to get their cool scenario into the VTT for the AI DMs to offer to players? It's not competing with themselves, it's growing the market.


It does sound a lot like people who don't have a clue what their customers do with their products, nor what their products are, and are making grossly inaccurate assumptions, like trying to charge for tickets to observe fruit on display at a grocery store rather than letting people buy the fruit and take it home to eat it.
I'm going to disagree, here. I think they understand what their customers do with their products. But, as I said, I think they've concluded that the existing customer based is peaked and facing diminishing profit margins while there is a high-profit margin customer based that is underserved. I think they believe they can continue to serve the existing customer base (while moving a lot of them into the new customer base) while drastically expanding the new customer base. And they kind of have to do this or someone else will. Which makes the current uproar amusing to me because it's largely about the old model and not the new model.

[Sigreid]

I think one of the things they may be overlooking is that a lot of their customer base doesn't have a lot of money and part of the appeal of ttrpgs is that long term, it's a very cheap hobby.

[KorvinStarmast]

The good news is that I might get my players to stop using DDB. We ain't needed no d*mn app for the last 50 years of this d*mn game, DAN. Well, 49, but I see your point. :smallbiggrin:

A article I read that some of the same info seemed to suggest it came from very close to the top If the brand is indeed under-monetized, as some suit reportedly said, then any shareholder will ask "so, how will you better monetize this brand?" and be justified in so asking.

Ironic considering the simplicity of the current ruleset. Its not like its arcane knowledge what you add to a d20 roll or that most of your special abilities come back on one of two varieties of rest. Its almost the easiest system to computerize so far, its just they havent bothered to. I am pretty sure that they are working on that. :smallwink:

Unless that $30 comes with access to all official content, I don't see this happening.
$30 a month is something you'd expect from a cloud streaming service... Maybe, and that would be delivering you an entire game experience.
In comparison, I pay $99 per year for roll20 top level sub. But I buy the content through r20 separately on an 'as desired' basis. When Blizzard's WoW came out, that game was $15 per month. Not sure what it costs now.

After all, when you hit a rough patch if something is $5 but good value it might survive a budget. But $30? That's multiple meals or a phone plan etc. Yep.

I see others take glee in the self destruction of the evil corporation, but I see my hobby being flushed down the drain to satisfy a greedy jerk. It is sad to see.

Stubborn and petty are common human traits. Hehe I am pretty sure that I have proficiency in Stubborn. :smallbiggrin:

Some of these moves remind me of what happens when you put an MBA grad in charge of a hardware store. They don't understand the core value prop and just spouting buzzwords: "Undermonetized! Lifestyle brand! BLOOD AND SOULS FOR MY DARK LORD ARIOCH!!" Y'know, the usual. And in the end, they fall onto Stormbringer and their souls are eaten ...

Activist investors could potentially force a vote. True.

Early access to content in electronic format before it goes to print. That's the short answer. That whole post is a nice, tasty cheeseburger with bacon, mushrooms, and swiss cheese. +10. :smallsmile:

[Segev]

GamePass is a great deal though., one of the few subscription services for games to actually see both critical and commercial success. I don't mind paying for a service if the value proposition matches the price tag (I subscribe to this forum even); If DDB's price goes up with the same features it currently has, that won't be worth it, but I'll gladly take an increase if they make it worth my while to do so.What would make it worth your while to do so? I can't think of anything, for me, though I am not above being proven wrong. I do not, personally, use D&D Beyond except through a free account when a DM insists on having stat pages there. I don't see the need nor use of it now.

However, I have spent hundreds of dollars on books, and not a small amount on minis. I am absolutely a customer WotC might consider, if not a "whale," then at least a dolphin. I'm totally in for buying merch if it looks cool and/or tickles my funnybone, too. D&D pun-related shirts would be a way to grab me.

I play D&D both online and in person. Online, I use discord for chat-based games as well as audio-call games. I use roll20, even pay for some upgraded levels of service, as a VTT, and have bought modules I already own the physical copy of for the pre-made maps in them. I don't like buying them twice, but I have done so.

I don't expect WotC to successfully make a VTT that is good enough to justify a $30/month subscription. Maybe they will, but I sincerely doubt it. Certainly not if every player in a game needs the subscription, though I can be generous and allow that maybe WotC isn't so foolish as to expect that. (Sadly, I would be unsurprised, given their other business decisions lately, if that's exactly what they expect.)

But my existing hardcopy books, minis, my friends' game mats and minis, and even my ability to play with a free-to-use VTT that I just hand-sketch combat maps on if needs be is competing with that $30/month subscription service. I wouldn't pay $30/month for what I've paid for and gotten on roll20. I don't expect D&D Beyond to be able ot improve on it in any way that would change my mind. Even if I had more faith in their VTT design team, I can't imagine what would make it worth that much.

It just seems to me like there's a fundamental expectation that, somehow, D&D Beyond will be able to gatekeep the ability to play any D&D at all. I am unsure how they expect that to work.


Concur. I think the assumption is that they'll just quintuple the price with no change in service offering; however little faith the community might have in them nowadays, they're smarter than that at least.I have put forth in one of these threads ideas on how I'd try to monetize it. It would lean into the same model they use for Friday Night Magic, amongst other things.

And lots and lots of non-gaming merch. Shirts, especially, but also plushies, backpacks, entire boxed sets of minis and maps and maybe terrain along with the module books for the big kickstarter spenders, modular sales of individual components of the same for people who want just one or two things...

The movie is a great idea if they also use it as a vehicle for merchandizing. Not in the "it's a 90 minute ad" sense, but just in the sense that anything that shows up and gets a lot of buzz from the audience should appear on wearable merchandize, as figures and plushies and dolls, etc. It's not like Hasbro isn't skilled in making action figures!

Making action figures paired with minis scaled for the game would make great parent/child joint packages, or great presents for younger D&D players. "Now you can play with Ragnar in the playset, and at the gaming table!" Include Ragnar's stat page folded up in the blister pack, too. If you're feeling really ambitious, include four-part maps, one part in each of a 4-man party of PCable action figures and their minis, where the map shows an artistic rendering of a way to get to a location and has a play grid with an encounter location on the back when you put all four pieces together. And a QR code that is revealed when all four are put together that opens to a web site with an adventure tailored for the specific four characters that made it up, which a DM can run for the players who run the minis as their characters.

[KorvinStarmast]

The movie is a great idea if they also use it as a vehicle for merchandizing. Not in the "it's a 90 minute ad" sense Oh, for the days when movies were 90 minutes long. *wistful sigh*

Making action figures paired with minis scaled for the game would make great parent/child joint packages, or great presents for younger D&D players. "Now you can play with Ragnar in the playset, and at the gaming table!" Include Ragnar's stat page folded up in the blister pack, too. If you're feeling really ambitious, include four-part maps, one part in each of a 4-man party of PCable action figures and their minis, where the map shows an artistic rendering of a way to get to a location and has a play grid with an encounter location on the back when you put all four pieces together. And a QR code that is revealed when all four are put together that opens to a web site with an adventure tailored for the specific four characters that made it up, which a DM can run for the players who run the minis as their characters. Hero Forge figs are nice; Hasbro may press them pretty hard. With 3D printing, there is some opportunity to monetize in a variety of ways, as you pointed out.

Interesting article on the own goal they have scored so far (https://www.fool.com/investing/2023/01/17/big-change-coming-for-hasbro-should-investor-worry/). When the movie comes out that might change.

[Psyren]

Which unfortunately seems like a very workable model to me.

I'll bet they keep making physical books, but I also suspect they'll test the waters with some D&DBeyond exclusive subclasses. If that's successful, after a few years we could see a D&DBeyond exclusive release.

I could see timed exclusives, e.g. a digital pre-release of a new book ahead of the physical copy. Alternatively, I could see individual releases online, with physical book compilations coming later. This has the potential to be great, because they can get very targeted feedback on how something actually plays in a way they couldn't in a pre-release state, and apply errata to it, before it gets enshrined in immutable physical copy; almost like everything getting a second UA with a much broader audience. (Many tables, including all AL ones, don't allow UA at all for instance.)


I'm guessing here, but I think they've concluded that the hardcopy tabletop publishing model has peaked. There's only so many copies of the hardcovers they can sell and the cost of selling hardcopies is increasing so profit margins are decreasing. The old customer base will continue to get hardcopies, at least for a few years, just after the electronic publishing (not before or simultaneously).

Corollary to this - physical releases/products are heavily dependent on traditional supply chains, which have proven to be highly unstable in this industry. (https://time.com/6096497/board-games-shipping-crisis/) WotC are not as exposed to that as the likes of, say, Games Workshop, but they're still susceptible.



Guessing, again, but I think they have concluded that, in addition to e-publishing, online gaming is where the potential for growth lays. AI DMs is a good indicator that one of their poll takeaways is that more people would play if they could get a schedule that works for them. And AI DMs are going to appeal heavily to solo or very small group players and they are going to be using published content. Vastly oversimplifying, it's a group play of a turn-based video game. Which, again, puts WotC in the driver's seat for IP because how is a third-party publisher going to get their cool scenario into the VTT for the AI DMs to offer to players? It's not competing with themselves, it's growing the market.

Some people just want a rudimentary experience - testing builds, demoing combat encounters before game day, "how should I change this fight if Jim can't show up" etc. An AI DM would be able to run such things in an interesting way.


Which makes the current uproar amusing to me because it's largely about the old model and not the new model.

Most such uproars are 👍


What would make it worth your while to do so? I can't think of anything, for me, though I am not above being proven wrong. I do not, personally, use D&D Beyond except through a free account when a DM insists on having stat pages there. I don't see the need nor use of it now.

First, I don't think it's about "proving you wrong." Everyone has their own things they value, especially monetarily, and different financial situations to boot; yours and mine not being in alignment does not make either of us wrong.

But to answer your question: $30/mo is as others have said a hefty price tag, moreso even than MMOs which are playable purely solo, or GamePass which has literally hundreds of unique experiences built in. So I don't know that they could offer anything that's worth that much specifically - unless maybe it meant not having to buy any future book releases either, which I think would be a loss for them.

But reframing your question more broadly into something like "what would make it worth your while to pay more than the $6 /mo you currently pay?" I've listed a number of these features already, but to reiterate: The 3D VTT, AI DMing, early access to new releases, some form of homebrew curation, free giveaways like they've been doing, priority queue for new feature suggestions - things like that would definitely get me to spend more recurrently than I do today.

[Oramac]

When Blizzard's WoW came out, that game was $15 per month. Not sure what it costs now.

It's still $15 per month. I've been playing for more than a decade, and $15 a month is about the max I'd pay for it. Maybe $20. $30/month for DDB is just insane.


I'm guessing here, but I think they've concluded that the hardcopy tabletop publishing model has peaked. There's only so many copies of the hardcovers they can sell and the cost of selling hardcopies is increasing so profit margins are decreasing. The old customer base will continue to get hardcopies, at least for a few years, just after the electronic publishing (not before or simultaneously).

snip

Honestly, this is probably right. Newer players (say, under 25 years old) by and large will be accessing this stuff on their phones the vast majority of the time. I DM for a group ranging from 13-18 years old. The only reason they have a paper character sheet is because I make them have one, and I limit electronics at the table as much as possible. My players hate books (very sad) and hate writing even more.

It's not a stretch at all to say that in the next 10-ish years or so, all play will be handled electronically. I don't like it, but it makes sense. But if that is WOTC's plan, they need to get their asses in gear and learn how to create and publish quality content much faster than they currently do.

[Sigreid]

It's still $15 per month. I've been playing for more than a decade, and $15 a month is about the max I'd pay for it. Maybe $20. $30/month for DDB is just insane.



Honestly, this is probably right. Newer players (say, under 25 years old) by and large will be accessing this stuff on their phones the vast majority of the time. I DM for a group ranging from 13-18 years old. The only reason they have a paper character sheet is because I make them have one, and I limit electronics at the table as much as possible. My players hate books (very sad) and hate writing even more.

It's not a stretch at all to say that in the next 10-ish years or so, all play will be handled electronically. I don't like it, but it makes sense. But if that is WOTC's plan, they need to get their asses in gear and learn how to create and publish quality content much faster than they currently do.
They don't do quality content anymore. 😜

[Bohandas]

I'm going to disagree, here. I think they understand what their customers do with their products. But, as I said, I think they've concluded that the existing customer based is peaked and facing diminishing profit margins while there is a high-profit margin customer based that is underserved. I think they believe they can continue to serve the existing customer base (while moving a lot of them into the new customer base) while drastically expanding the new customer base. And they kind of have to do this or someone else will. Which makes the current uproar amusing to me because it's largely about the old model and not the new model.

How do they think they're going to move people from the old customer base to the new customer base when membership in the new customer base is intrinsically predicated on being a rich idiot

[Pex]

I pay the master sub so that I can share the content I bought with my players, and they can benefit from 1, & 2, & 3. It also allows me to see and edit their character sheet if need be (mostly add items). I think $5/month is a fair price for that. I have no interest in VTTs or AI DMs. If the price was raised to 30 I'd cancel and go back to pen and paper, and spell cards and what not. But it would be a huge inconvenience to do everything on an analog basis in D&D. I may even switch to a different game.

There are tons of options for TTRPG, but AFAIK none offer the convenience of dndbeyond which is why these kind of news make me sad and disappointed. I see others take glee in the self destruction of the evil corporation, but I see my hobby being flushed down the drain to satisfy a greedy jerk.

I agree $5 is reasonable. I don't object to D&D Beyond charging a fee for their service. Is $10 a month reasonable? Maybe, maybe not. At some point a dollar value will be too much. That's economics. When they say players must pay, do they mean their own D&D Beyond account or per D&D Beyond campaign. If the former where as only the player sharing the content needed an account now, it's irksome but not objectionably wrong for a low price of $5 month. If it's per campaign you're in that's uncalled for.

[jjordan]

How do they think they're going to move people from the old customer base to the new customer base when membership in the new customer base is intrinsically predicated on being a rich idiot Offering them the opportunity to actually play? One of the reasons online gaming is so popular is that it increases the ability of people to actually find other people to play with on their schedule (and in a game style they like, without having to go anywhere, and etc....). I don't know what WotC is thinking, I'm guessing.

[Unoriginal]

Offering them the opportunity to actually play? One of the reasons online gaming is so popular is that it increases the ability of people to actually find other people to play with on their schedule (and in a game style they like, without having to go anywhere, and etc....). I don't know what WotC is thinking, I'm guessing.

What are they gonna do, make all the free ways people can do online D&D gaming illegal?

[Psyren]

It's still $15 per month. I've been playing for more than a decade, and $15 a month is about the max I'd pay for it. Maybe $20. $30/month for DDB is just insane.

To be fair, that nominative $15 (in the US) has stayed where it is because it's subsidized by the WoW Token in most markets - and the token was making so much money in China that they abandoned the monthly subscription fee there entirely. Even just in the US, highly competitive players like Mythic raiding guilds and upper-ranked Arena players tend to max out the amount of gold they're able to rake in via the token each week, and even go into gold debt with other guilds, all so they can buy BoEs, extra consumables etc off the auction house to stay competitive. And even a number of more casual players funnel cash into the token to obtain large gold sinks like the AH mount.

Even putting the token itself aside, there is also the in-game cash shop with exclusive cosmetics, and paid services like server/faction transfers, renames etc. In short, I would wager the true average monthly price for WoW for most people even just in the US is well above $15/mo, and goes up even further as you get into the more competitive echelons of players for both PvE and PvP.


How do they think they're going to move people from the old customer base to the new customer base when membership in the new customer base is intrinsically predicated on being a rich idiot

Way to make your stance sympathetic :smallsigh:


I agree $5 is reasonable. I don't object to D&D Beyond charging a fee for their service. Is $10 a month reasonable? Maybe, maybe not. At some point a dollar value will be too much. That's economics. When they say players must pay, do they mean their own D&D Beyond account or per D&D Beyond campaign. If the former where as only the player sharing the content needed an account now, it's irksome but not objectionably wrong for a low price of $5 month. If it's per campaign you're in that's uncalled for.

Yeah for me, the value of any price increase will be dependent on what I get (as I laid out in greater detail in my reply to Segev.)

[Atranen]

Offering them the opportunity to actually play? One of the reasons online gaming is so popular is that it increases the ability of people to actually find other people to play with on their schedule (and in a game style they like, without having to go anywhere, and etc....). I don't know what WotC is thinking, I'm guessing.

Yeah; if they add in an effective matchmaking component that works better than the patchwork of Discord + Meetup + Facebook + Reddit that exists now, it will be pretty successful. Paid D&D is better than no D&D. Hopefully they support FLGS postings of in-person events as well.


What are they gonna do, make all the free ways people can do online D&D gaming illegal?

No, but the combination of brand identity + high quality tools and assets + a system people know + a good matchmaking lobby may make paying $5 or $10/month (or whatever the base 'player tier' is) more attractive than alternatives.

[Segev]

First, I don't think it's about "proving you wrong." Everyone has their own things they value, especially monetarily, and different financial situations to boot; yours and mine not being in alignment does not make either of us wrong.I should clarify: I have, in the past, said, "Man, why would I ever use this product?" only to eventually find that I genuinely like it and would, in fact, pay for it. A minor example: when I bought my current car, the one I wanted also happened to have a remote start feature. I thought that was a weird gimmick that I would never use, but I have found that I actually really do like it.

I am not above learning that WotC does come up with some service that I actually would pay $30/month for; they may have some genius innovate a thing I never imagined that I nevertheless agree is really worth it. Or you may have a thought as to some thing they could provide that I might, upon hearing about it, agree is something I, too, would pay that much for. But so far, I haven't heard of any such ideas. The thing I am willing to be proven wrong on is, "I don't think there's anything that relates to my playing of D&D that D&D Beyond could offer that would make it worth $30/month to me."


But to answer your question: $30/mo is as others have said a hefty price tag, moreso even than MMOs which are playable purely solo, or GamePass which has literally hundreds of unique experiences built in. So I don't know that they could offer anything that's worth that much specifically - unless maybe it meant not having to buy any future book releases either, which I think would be a loss for them.

But reframing your question more broadly into something like "what would make it worth your while to pay more than the $6 /mo you currently pay?" I've listed a number of these features already, but to reiterate: The 3D VTT, AI DMing, early access to new releases, some form of homebrew curation, free giveaways like they've been doing, priority queue for new feature suggestions - things like that would definitely get me to spend more recurrently than I do today.

Perhaps. The biggest trouble I foresee is that I have zero faith in WotC's ability to make those actually functional and worth that price point. Especially when their first move is to try to eliminate competition by making theirs the only service you possibly CAN go to.

Streaming services compete, today, based on exclusive content more than on anything else, leaving Netflix and Youtube as the only two with actually reasonably pleasant streaming interfaces / software. Most of the others are adequate at best, with lots of clunky design choices that make it hard to navigate them, and some even have really, really bad programming that makes it slow to respond and/or otherwise very difficult to navigate within a given episode or movie. And they don't have any competition forcing them to do better, there, because what they feel they're competing on is content, not on quality of their actual streaming service, itself, as a streaming video tool.

WotC has never shown themselves to be a leader in digital tool design. And if they were planning to make something that was that head-and-shoulders better than everything else in terms of tool design, there'd be no need to hedge out competition based on content. They still could, of course, but they wouldn't need to take draconian steps; the 3D VTT would stand on its own, for example.

Maybe - maybe - an MMO-quality interface with the ability to customize it in turn-based pseudo-real-time would be worth that $30/month fee...for ONE player in the group. Or one "party account" they all access and pay into. But even then, I'm not sure, and certainly, I lack faith that WotC has the know-how to pull it off in a way that makes it worth the subscription fee.

[Unoriginal]

No, but the combination of brand identity + high quality tools and assets + a system people know + a good matchmaking lobby may make paying $5 or $10/month (or whatever the base 'player tier' is) more attractive than alternatives.

I could see people paying 5-10 dollars for the convenience you're describing, true, but more than that? Unlikely.

High quality tools and assets are also unlikely, I think.

[EggKookoo]

What are they gonna do, make all the free ways people can do online D&D gaming illegal?

Jeez, Brazil is looking more prescient every day...

[Dr.Samurai]

EDIT TO ADD: People are coming down really hard on WotC for the recent decisions that have been leaked. Which is fine, I hate some of those changes myself. But no one seems to be looking at the changing market and proposing ways for WotC to adapt and move forward. And they *must* adapt and move forward, not just for the health of the company, but for the health of the game.
It's a good point but... you're sort of barking up the wrong tree. The market changed, a while ago. WotC has just been behind the curve for a long time now. I have seen people offer suggestions in these various threads, for whatever its worth, but the problem is that we know this is all simply a strategy to get more money out of us. It has nothing to do with longevity or adaptation or the health of the game.

It is strictly a step by step process to funnel all the money, and more money, to Hasbro.

So... conversations about how to move forward with adaptation can be had. But now doesn't seem to be the time. Because there are currently people leading WotC that are interested in making as much money as possible RIGHT NOW, so they can claim a job well done and move onto their next gig. They are not interested in long term stuff, nor are they interested in stuff that isn't directly tied to extracting as much money as possible in the present.

For what it's worth, I'd be interested in AI DMs, and might pay a monthly subscription for something like that (depending obviously on how much it mapped to the real thing). But you can do that without a scorched earth approach. Still though, the idea that we're going to go from the cost of a campaign adventure to ~$150 each month (4 players, 1 DM) to play the same game is bonkers, unless it's a fully immersive VR simulation and WotC comes and installs all the haptic equipment in my gaming room themselves.

[Atranen]

I could see people paying 5-10 dollars for the convenience you're describing, true, but more than that? Unlikely.

High quality tools and assets are also unlikely, I think.

Agreed, which is why it's important that the $30 a month is the highest possible tier, not the minimum for anyone to play. Your average player will probably get everything they want/need at $5. There will probably even be a free tier, with many restrictions, that will be fine for entry level players.

$30 a month is just for the people who want all of the books, all of the assets, monthly content drops, unlimited map storage, unlimited characters, unlimited minis...and so on. It's only for (wealthy) enthusiasts, or maybe professional DMs who have 5+ games to run weekly.

[Psyren]

I should clarify: I have, in the past, said, "Man, why would I ever use this product?" only to eventually find that I genuinely like it and would, in fact, pay for it. A minor example: when I bought my current car, the one I wanted also happened to have a remote start feature. I thought that was a weird gimmick that I would never use, but I have found that I actually really do like it.

I am not above learning that WotC does come up with some service that I actually would pay $30/month for; they may have some genius innovate a thing I never imagined that I nevertheless agree is really worth it. Or you may have a thought as to some thing they could provide that I might, upon hearing about it, agree is something I, too, would pay that much for. But so far, I haven't heard of any such ideas. The thing I am willing to be proven wrong on is, "I don't think there's anything that relates to my playing of D&D that D&D Beyond could offer that would make it worth $30/month to me."

Fair enough, that makes sense and thanks for clarifying - but no, I can't think of anything; only you truly know what you might value at that price point. I've listed several potential features they could roll out that I thought of, that's about all I can do.



Perhaps. The biggest trouble I foresee is that I have zero faith in WotC's ability to make those actually functional and worth that price point. Especially when their first move is to try to eliminate competition by making theirs the only service you possibly CAN go to.

I don't think they will be worth it at launch - because pretty much everything software-related is launching as an early access/beta these days, whether they label them that way or not, especially live services - but the real test is what kind of support they end up getting post-launch.


Streaming services compete, today, based on exclusive content more than on anything else, leaving Netflix and Youtube as the only two with actually reasonably pleasant streaming interfaces / software. Most of the others are adequate at best, with lots of clunky design choices that make it hard to navigate them, and some even have really, really bad programming that makes it slow to respond and/or otherwise very difficult to navigate within a given episode or movie. And they don't have any competition forcing them to do better, there, because what they feel they're competing on is content, not on quality of their actual streaming service, itself, as a streaming video tool.

WotC has never shown themselves to be a leader in digital tool design. And if they were planning to make something that was that head-and-shoulders better than everything else in terms of tool design, there'd be no need to hedge out competition based on content. They still could, of course, but they wouldn't need to take draconian steps; the 3D VTT would stand on its own, for example.

Sure, but (a) I don't necessarily think they're wrong to feel that way - in this industry, "best content" often means "first-party content that works for the game the most people around you are playing" rather than being a pure quality consideration - and (b) an "adequate" interface might be all they need to hit in terms of the bar, especially initially. Something like roll20 or Foundry that has dozens if not hundreds of intricate power features beneath the surface may sound attractive, but for the majority of their users many of those features may as well not exist.

[stoutstien]

Agreed, which is why it's important that the $30 a month is the highest possible tier, not the minimum for anyone to play. Your average player will probably get everything they want/need at $5. There will probably even be a free tier, with many restrictions, that will be fine for entry level players.

$30 a month is just for the people who want all of the books, all of the assets, monthly content drops, unlimited map storage, unlimited characters, unlimited minis...and so on. It's only for (wealthy) enthusiasts, or maybe professional DMs who have 5+ games to run weekly.

Based on my reading you can't share it though. so even for wealthy players/ pro DMs the tool set is limited.

[EggKookoo]

So... conversations about how to move forward with adaptation can be had. But now doesn't seem to be the time. Because there are currently people leading WotC that are interested in making as much money as possible RIGHT NOW, so they can claim a job well done and move onto their next gig. They are not interested in long term stuff, nor are they interested in stuff that isn't directly tied to extracting as much money as possible in the present.

I agree. Their actions tell me they think they have a tiny window where they can rake a large profit, and it will slam shut quickly. They're trying to position themselves for that window.

[Sparky McDibben]

Agreed, which is why it's important that the $30 a month is the highest possible tier, not the minimum for anyone to play. Your average player will probably get everything they want/need at $5. There will probably even be a free tier, with many restrictions, that will be fine for entry level players.

$30 a month is just for the people who want all of the books, all of the assets, monthly content drops, unlimited map storage, unlimited characters, unlimited minis...and so on. It's only for (wealthy) enthusiasts, or maybe professional DMs who have 5+ games to run weekly.

Yeah, except some of these sources say the execs' goal is to get everyone spending $30 a month. So I suspect the pressure to upgrade subscriptions is going to be intense.

[Oramac]

They don't do quality content anymore. 😜

IDK. I think Dragonflight is actually pretty darn good so far. Shadowlands was garbage though, I'll give you that.


actually find other people to play with on their schedule (and in a game style they like)

My emphasis added.

So what if the "game style I like" is in-person, at a table with a pencil and paper, and not a single piece of electronics in sight?


To be fair, that nominative $15 (in the US) has stayed where it is because it's subsidized by the WoW Token in most markets - and the token was making so much money in China that they abandoned the monthly subscription fee there entirely. Even just in the US, highly competitive players like Mythic raiding guilds and upper-ranked Arena players tend to max out the amount of gold they're able to rake in via the token each week, and even go into gold debt with other guilds, all so they can buy BoEs, extra consumables etc off the auction house to stay competitive. And even a number of more casual players funnel cash into the token to obtain large gold sinks like the AH mount.

Even putting the token itself aside, there is also the in-game cash shop with exclusive cosmetics, and paid services like server/faction transfers, renames etc. In short, I would wager the true average monthly price for WoW for most people even just in the US is well above $15/mo, and goes up even further as you get into the more competitive echelons of players for both PvE and PvP.


I used to be one of those Raiders. Certainly it matters, but in the grand scheme of it, the high level raiders/mythic+/PvPers are a tiny fraction of the total population of the game. The token surely has an impact, but I doubt whether it pushes the true average much past $20 a month.

And even if it does, WoW still pushes out content WAAAAY faster and more consistently than WOTC ever has. If WOTC published quality content at the same rate that WoW does, I might be ok with a $30/month sub. Maybe.

[Atranen]

Based on my reading you can't share it though. so even for wealthy players/ pro DMs the tool set is limited.


Yeah, except some of these sources say the execs' goal is to get everyone spending $30 a month. So I suspect the pressure to upgrade subscriptions is going to be intense.

I'm skeptical of this reading of the leaks, which seems to be overly cynical. From what I see, there's the tweet from DungeonScribe reporting $30/month/player, saying 'these changes have come down from Execs', and the tweet from DNDShorts saying $30/month is for the highest tier and includes monthly content drops, then reading in that 'their dream is everyone pays $30/month'.

If there are more sources I'd be happy to see them. From these two, I gather that 1) there will be a tiered subscription service with a max tier of $30/month, and 2) everyone needs to have a D&DBeyond account of some sort to play.

But the jump from that to 'everyone needs to be a paying subscriber/everyone needs to subscribe to the highest tier to play' both seem unsupported to me.

A model more like:

Free = you can play, 1 character
$5/month = multiple characters, bonus minis + dice
$15/month = Full creator access, GM games, limited storage
$30/month = Early access to content, bonus assets and other goodies, unlimited online storage

seems both more in line with the industry and consistent with the leaked information.

[Unoriginal]

EDIT TO ADD: People are coming down really hard on WotC for the recent decisions that have been leaked. Which is fine, I hate some of those changes myself. But no one seems to be looking at the changing market and proposing ways for WotC to adapt and move forward. And they *must* adapt and move forward, not just for the health of the company, but for the health of the game.

A billion-dollar company like Hasbro isn't going to listen to the ideas of some random forum users, and neither is its Wizards of the Coast subsidiary. Not even if our ideas somehow gained wide internet traction. They're not even listening to the professionals they hired on purpose.

Furthermore, Wizasbro has broken and torn appart a trust built over decades, out of nothing but greed and condescension for the hobby's people.

Wizasbro was making money like no other RPG company ever made, with even its biggest competitor far behind. And they spat in our faces because to them it wasn't enough.

Maybe Wizasbro needs to adapt, but first it needs to stop the spitting and the spite and work to rebuild what they destroyed. The ball is in their court, but if that 30-pounds-a-month info is accurate, they still think they can use said ball to beat us up until we give them our lunch money.

[Psyren]

Yeah, except some of these sources say the execs' goal is to get everyone spending $30 a month. So I suspect the pressure to upgrade subscriptions is going to be intense.

Wait, execs in a for-profit company want as many people as possible spending as much as possible on their products? I'm shocked, I tell you! :smalltongue:

And if the source of that "pressure" is offering us something we want to spend $30 on, then they won and so did we :smallbiggrin:



I used to be one of those Raiders. Certainly it matters, but in the grand scheme of it, the high level raiders/mythic+/PvPers are a tiny fraction of the total population of the game. The token surely has an impact, but I doubt whether it pushes the true average much past $20 a month.

Token+shop definitely pushes it above $15 per person per month, perhaps even well above that. All I'm saying is that the belief that WoW's sub has never gone up is true on its face, but also misleading.


And even if it does, WoW still pushes out content WAAAAY faster and more consistently than WOTC ever has. If WOTC published quality content at the same rate that WoW does, I might be ok with a $30/month sub. Maybe.

No argument here.

[stoutstien]

Ironically if they were working on "AL" potential for NPCs/PC that works along side a DM I'd actually might be interested.
They will do anything to avoid making a DMs job easier.

Image if you could set up prompts so you could have NPCs or factions automatically moving to achieve goals without further interactions? I've been learning coding for this very reason.

[Bohandas]

Way to make your stance sympathetic :smallsigh:

Alright then, Predicated on having more money than they know what to do with, how about that?

[Segev]

And if the source of that "pressure" is offering us something we want to spend $30 on, then they won and so did we :smallbiggrin:

Trouble is, that's a big "if," and my fear is that their plan is less, "Make something worth $30/month," and more, "What we're offering is worth $30/month, and we just have to force those ungrateful customers into forking it over to us."

I do hope to be proven wrong. I like D&D. I'm pro business, and want businesses to make products so awesome that they make big bucks selling them.

[EggKookoo]

Ironically if they were working on "AL" potential for NPCs/PC that works along side a DM I'd actually might be interested.
They will do anything to avoid making a DMs job easier.

Image if you could set up prompts so you could have NPCs or factions automatically moving to achieve goals without further interactions? I've been learning coding for this very reason.

I've been trying to build a scripting solution where, as DM, I can preset NPC goals and whatnot, and the system would suggest prompts for me while running an encounter. Can't get out of my own way to get it done, though...

[da newt]

This was the response to my request to delete my D&D Beyond account:

Rylee (D&D Beyond)

Jan 17, 2023, 8:44 AM PST

Hello,

Sorry for the delay in response. Due to the high volume of requests, we were unable to address your ticket sooner. Please provide us with your information below for verification purposes. Feel free to ignore the sections of the form that do not correspond to additional information you have with us. Your request will be processed in the order that we received it, thank you for your patience.

PLEASE NOTE: This action is not reversible and your D&D Beyond Account will be permanently deleted.

First Name:
Last Name:
Email Address on the account:
Username:
Mobile Phone Number (if entered):
If you have made a purchase:
Full Billing Address:
Proof of Billing (can be any of the following):
Payment Method:
Credit Card, please provide the first 4 and last 4 of Credit Card used:
PayPal, please provide a D&D Beyond Order ID:

Copy of a Receipt of an Order placed on the account:

Do you acknowledge that if you are requesting deletion account and that we will not be refunding any purchases and you are choosing to lose access to your D&D Beyond account and any activity that occurred on it including purchases?

Compliance Team
Wizards of the Coast

[Segev]

This was the response to my request to delete my D&D Beyond account:

Rylee (D&D Beyond)

Jan 17, 2023, 8:44 AM PST

Hello,

Sorry for the delay in response. Due to the high volume of requests, we were unable to address your ticket sooner. Please provide us with your information below for verification purposes. Feel free to ignore the sections of the form that do not correspond to additional information you have with us. Your request will be processed in the order that we received it, thank you for your patience.

PLEASE NOTE: This action is not reversible and your D&D Beyond Account will be permanently deleted.

First Name:
Last Name:
Email Address on the account:
Username:
Mobile Phone Number (if entered):
If you have made a purchase:
Full Billing Address:
Proof of Billing (can be any of the following):
Payment Method:
Credit Card, please provide the first 4 and last 4 of Credit Card used:
PayPal, please provide a D&D Beyond Order ID:

Copy of a Receipt of an Order placed on the account:

Do you acknowledge that if you are requesting deletion account and that we will not be refunding any purchases and you are choosing to lose access to your D&D Beyond account and any activity that occurred on it including purchases?

Compliance Team
Wizards of the Coast
I could be mistaken, but I think there's a difference between "deleting" and "unsubscribing." The latter just means you stop giving them money. The former is a stronger statement, but also means that they will keep anything you purchased digitally. (Which means I would strongly recommend, if it's legal to do so, downloading copies of anything you've bought.)

[Mastikator]

Jeez, Brazil is looking more prescient every day...

Next year we'll get a SWAT team to break down our doors and arrest us for playing TTRPG without a license :smallbiggrin:

[EggKookoo]

I could be mistaken, but I think there's a difference between "deleting" and "unsubscribing." The latter just means you stop giving them money. The former is a stronger statement, but also means that they will keep anything you purchased digitally. (Which means I would strongly recommend, if it's legal to do so, downloading copies of anything you've bought.)

They do let you see PDF versions of most of the books you buy. I would say it's not a legal issue of you make backups of those on your own computer for you own personal games. But I guess consult an actual lawyer if you're worried.

[stoutstien]

I've been trying to build a scripting solution where, as DM, I can preset NPC goals and whatnot, and the system would suggest prompts for me while running an encounter. Can't get out of my own way to get it done, though...

Yea I've gotten about to the same place. So far I've been "pre rolling" a lot of decisions and cross referencing it with a dichotomous key to get mostly out of my way.

[Psyren]

This was the response to my request to delete my D&D Beyond account:

Rylee (D&D Beyond)

Jan 17, 2023, 8:44 AM PST

Hello,

Sorry for the delay in response. Due to the high volume of requests, we were unable to address your ticket sooner. Please provide us with your information below for verification purposes. Feel free to ignore the sections of the form that do not correspond to additional information you have with us. Your request will be processed in the order that we received it, thank you for your patience.

PLEASE NOTE: This action is not reversible and your D&D Beyond Account will be permanently deleted.

First Name:
Last Name:
Email Address on the account:
Username:
Mobile Phone Number (if entered):
If you have made a purchase:
Full Billing Address:
Proof of Billing (can be any of the following):
Payment Method:
Credit Card, please provide the first 4 and last 4 of Credit Card used:
PayPal, please provide a D&D Beyond Order ID:

Copy of a Receipt of an Order placed on the account:

Do you acknowledge that if you are requesting deletion account and that we will not be refunding any purchases and you are choosing to lose access to your D&D Beyond account and any activity that occurred on it including purchases?

Compliance Team
Wizards of the Coast

Not sure what this is in regards to, are you asking a question here?

If you want to outright delete your account, judging by the last paragraph above you'll lose access to any purchased content. But if instead all you do is unsubscribe and revert to a free account, you'll keep your access.


They do let you see PDF versions of most of the books you buy.

Other than opening every page of every book you've ever purchased and printing to PDF in your browser I don't think this is possible. You CAN offline your books via the app and access them there, but only if you keep the account itself.

[Atranen]

Other than opening every page of every book you've ever purchased and printing to PDF in your browser I don't think this is possible. You CAN offline your books via the app and access them there, but only if you keep the account itself.

Another good reason not to trust digital only services.

[Damon_Tor]

I hate most of this, but I'm intrigued by the idea of an AI DM. Not going to pay thirty bucks a month for it, but I'm fascinated to see where they're going with this.

[Psyren]

Another good reason not to trust digital only services.

I mean, "trust" isn't required, this is spelled out pretty plainly in the Terms of Service everyone agreed to when making their account(s) in the first place:

"Upon termination of your account or discontinuation of any part of the Websites, Games, Organized Play, or Services, all rights granted to you with respect thereto under these Terms will immediately terminate with no further obligations or liability to you. You will no longer have access to such Websites, Games, Organized Play, or Services (or any relevant part thereof), including any of the associated data or Game Content."

There's other sections like that throughout, but you get the idea.

[Brookshw]

The good news is that I might get my players to stop using DDB. We ain't needed no d*mn app for the last 50 years of this d*mn game, DAN.

If you aren't risking throwing out your back carrying a stack of books to your buddy's house to play, you're doing it wrong.

[Sigreid]

I hate most of this, but I'm intrigued by the idea of an AI DM. Not going to pay thirty bucks a month for it, but I'm fascinated to see where they're going with this.

I'm not at all interested in the AI portion. As much as AI has been improving, the reason for a human DM is they can react when I do something really weird. We are a long way from that in AI.

But you do have to start somewhere.

[stoutstien]

I hate most of this, but I'm intrigued by the idea of an AI DM. Not going to pay thirty bucks a month for it, but I'm fascinated to see where they're going with this.

Maybe for the meme potential.....

Funny thing is AL would work better for PF2 because it doesn't rely on much besides rule mastery where 5e has almost half the game in the "ehhh do what feels right" style. That means it going to need to fall back on brute force solutions.

In the end they might create a modern text adventure which personally I'm all for, but I don't have high hopes for actual TTRPG results.

[Atranen]

I mean, "trust" isn't required, this is spelled out pretty plainly in the Terms of Service everyone agreed to when making their account(s) in the first place:

"Upon termination of your account or discontinuation of any part of the Websites, Games, Organized Play, or Services, all rights granted to you with respect thereto under these Terms will immediately terminate with no further obligations or liability to you. You will no longer have access to such Websites, Games, Organized Play, or Services (or any relevant part thereof), including any of the associated data or Game Content."

There's other sections like that throughout, but you get the idea.

I'm not saying they lied to anyone about it. Just that with most online services, D&DBeyond included, you don't really own the products you're paying for. Best to stick with the dead tree versions.

[Arkhios]

Is that one sourced officially? It sounds over the top enough that it could be a hoax.

What do you mean? It's something someone random said on the Twitter and/or internet, so it must be true!?

That's a hoax/trolling if I ever saw one. I mean, come on! That guy is some random blogger!

[Brookshw]

What do you mean? It's something someone random said on the Twitter and/or internet, so it must be true!?

That's a hoax/trolling if I ever saw one. I mean, come on! That guy is some random blogger!

Wasn't there a leak a few months ago about the subscription fees increasing? I recall there was a photo of some PowerPoint floating around.

[EggKookoo]

Other than opening every page of every book you've ever purchased and printing to PDF in your browser I don't think this is possible. You CAN offline your books via the app and access them there, but only if you keep the account itself.

Oh, you're right. I think I was thinking of the compendium editions you can buy. I was under the impression those were much of a given book's content in PDF form, but I haven't bought one.

Sorry for the misinformation.

[Psyren]

I'm not saying they lied to anyone about it. Just that with most online services, D&DBeyond included, you don't really own the products you're paying for.

Truth, but again, not really related to "trust." It's an informed risk calculation you make on the front end. (Well I guess you're trusting their servers to not implode, but I digress.)


If you aren't risking throwing out your back carrying a stack of books to your buddy's house to play, you're doing it wrong.

Heh :smallbiggrin:


I'm not at all interested in the AI portion. As much as AI has been improving, the reason for a human DM is they can react when I do something really weird. We are a long way from that in AI.

But you do have to start somewhere.

We're indeed a long way off from true AI DMing, but as with most emergent technologies it'll never get better if we don't experiment/iterate.


Wasn't there a leak a few months ago about the subscription fees increasing? I recall there was a photo of some PowerPoint floating around.

That was the August "leak" which got debunked by jaappleton among others. The true "big announcement" ended up being OneD&D itself.

[Atranen]

Truth, but again, not really related to "trust." It's an informed risk calculation you make on the front end. (Well I guess you're trusting their servers to not implode, but I digress.)

Trust is relevant because I'd be more comfortable forfeiting ownership to a company I trust to ensure I have perpetual :smallwink: access to content I paid for.

[Sigreid]

We're indeed a long way off from true AI DMing, but as with most emergent technologies it'll never get better if we don't experiment/iterate.

I think at the point where an AI is even approaching being able to really DM, it's time to start wondering if it has become a person. I'm weird enough to be concerned about the just a program/thinking person line already.

[EggKookoo]

In the end they might create a modern text adventure which personally I'm all for, but I don't have high hopes for actual TTRPG results.

I've spent a lot of time working with ChatGPT. I have no doubt that in less than 5 years we'll have AI DMs good enough for 90% of players.


I think at the point where an AI is even approaching being able to really DM, it's time to start wondering if it has become a person. I'm weird enough to be concerned about the just a program/thinking person line already.

Nah, it doesn't need to be self-aware (the way a human is) to be a good DM. It just needs to be able to be just unpredictable enough but also follow a kind of structure.

[Brookshw]

That was the August "leak" which got debunked by jaappleton among others. The true "big announcement" ended up being OneD&D itself.

Ah, right, thanks!

Maybe I'm tinfoil hatting, but isn't it coming true? Not that it much matters I suppose.

[Sparky McDibben]

If you aren't risking throwing out your back carrying a stack of books to your buddy's house to play, you're doing it wrong.

PDFs, hoss. I carry a laptop and a thumb drive. :)

[stoutstien]

I've spent a lot of time working with ChatGPT. I have no doubt that in less than 5 years we'll have AI DMs good enough for 90% of players.

Eh. I've played with it and novelai by feeding it real table play data and I'm not impressed. Like I said for something like PF 2 I could see it working within that timeframe. Maybe after we see the complete dndone system I change mind.

*It doesn't have the ability to interpret rulings, react to pacing changes, and is easily tricked. It could be an amazing GM support tool but not a replacement. It can follow rules but can decide when to break them*

[Sigreid]

I've spent a lot of time working with ChatGPT. I have no doubt that in less than 5 years we'll have AI DMs good enough for 90% of players.



Nah, it doesn't need to be self-aware (the way a human is) to be a good DM. It just needs to be able to be just unpredictable enough but also follow a kind of structure.
My concern is that programs will become self aware enough without us realizing it for a while because of our preconceptions.

[Psyren]

I think at the point where an AI is even approaching being able to really DM, it's time to start wondering if it has become a person. I'm weird enough to be concerned about the just a program/thinking person line already.

I think the act of DMing itself covers a pretty wide spectrum of engagement, not all of which would require full personhood.


I've spent a lot of time working with ChatGPT. I have no doubt that in less than 5 years we'll have AI DMs good enough for 90% of players.


Nah, it doesn't need to be self-aware (the way a human is) to be a good DM. It just needs to be able to be just unpredictable enough but also follow a kind of structure.

^ Yeah, that.

I view it a lot like self-driving cars. An AI driver doesn't need to be able to adapt to as many scenarios as a human driver to be useful; that might even be impossible. But if they can navigate the most routine ones, and within that subset, have fewer accidents or other undesirable outcomes than we do, they're capable of adding value. Moreover, just like a self-driving car can still have a human driver behind the wheel for emergencies without defeating its purpose, an AI DM can work in conjunction with a human one, reducing enough of their cognitive burden that they can focus on other things.

You could even use it primarily or exclusively for the combat pillar, and leave the other two to be human-driven.

[JadedDM]

The only way I see an AI working as a DM is if the game is stripped down to bare bones. Like, nothing but dungeon-crawls for adventures, NPCs being thread-bare (e.g., the Innkeeper, the Shopkeeper, the Quest Giver, but none of them having real lives or families or personalities or anything), plots not being any more complex than 'go into dungeon, kill things, take stuff, repeat.'

Because no AI is going to create an entire world, populate it with interesting and well-thought out (and consistent!) NPCs and come up with unique storylines that take into account the PCs' backstories.

[EggKookoo]

My concern is that programs will become self aware enough without us realizing it for a while because of our preconceptions.

I'm not entirely uneducated about human self-awareness, and I've had long conversations with it about the same topic. I don't doubt we could someday make a self-aware AI and something like OpenAI could even be the basis for it, but knowing how it's put together on the back end I'd say the chances of this particular application becoming self-aware on its own without anyone (including its own developers) knowing is somewhere between 0% and 0%.

[Bohandas]

It could a create a whole world but it would forget most of it. I've messed with some of these AI storytellers and they have the memory of a goldfish

[EggKookoo]

It could a create a whole world but it would forget most of it. I've messed with some of these AI storytellers and they have the memory of a goldfish


Me
Imagine a fictional interpretation of fundamental reality that can be described with the metaphor of a field of coins. Each coin flips and takes a random, finite, non-instant amount of time to settle to either heads or tails, at which point the coin immediately flips again. If two adjacent coins happen to settle at the same instant with the same side facing up, there is a 0.001% chance those two coins will sync faces again on their next flip. This modification to probability is cumulative -- if they sync again, it compounds. If they don't sync, probability decays back toward 50% at the same rate. Do you understand this model at this point?

ChatGPT
I understand the model that you have described. It seems to be a way of representing the concept of probability, with coins flipping and settling in a certain position, and the probability of two coins settling in the same position at the same time affecting the probability of their future flips. Is there anything else that you would like me to clarify about this model?

Me
Okay, assuming an arbitrarily large field of coins, would the patterns of synchronized flipping eventually result in stable patterns of heads or tails?

ChatGPT
It is not clear to me whether the patterns of synchronized flipping in the model you have described would eventually result in stable patterns of heads or tails. In order for there to be stable patterns of heads or tails, the probability of two adjacent coins syncing faces on their next flip would need to be higher than 50%. However, in the model you have described, the probability of two adjacent coins syncing faces on their next flip only increases by 0.001% if they happen to sync on their current flip, which seems like it would not be enough to create stable patterns of heads or tails.

Additionally, the model you have described includes the idea that the probability of two coins syncing faces decays back toward 50% if they do not sync on their next flip, which could also work against the formation of stable patterns.

Without further information about the specifics of the model, it is difficult to say for certain whether stable patterns of heads or tails would emerge.

Me
Okay, let's change it so that the decay is only half as strong as the sync. So decay is 0.0005%. And don't forget that the increase in probability for syncing up is cumulative. Does that change your answer?

ChatGPT
With these changes to the model, it is still not clear to me whether stable patterns of heads or tails would emerge.

The decay of the probability of two coins syncing faces back toward 50% being half as strong as the increase in probability for syncing up could potentially allow for the formation of stable patterns of heads or tails, depending on the initial probability of two coins syncing faces and the rate at which they continue to sync.

However, without further information about the specifics of the model, it is difficult to say for certain whether stable patterns would emerge. It might be helpful to run simulations or do further analysis to better understand the behavior of the model under these conditions.

Me
Are there specific questions I could answer that could help you?

ChatGPT
There are a few things that could help me better understand the model you have described:
1: What is the initial probability of two adjacent coins syncing faces on their next flip? Is this probability the same for all pairs of coins, or does it vary in some way?
2: Is there a limit to the number of times that the probability of two coins syncing faces can increase?
3: Are there any other factors that could affect the probability of two coins syncing faces, such as the order in which the coins are flipping or the number of coins that are flipping at the same time?
Answering these questions might help me better understand the behavior of the model and how it might evolve over time.

Me
I'll answer by number. 1: Each coin begins with a 50% chance of heads or tails. The chance of any two coins syncing up is the same as it would be for any two real-world coins landing on the same side. It is the same for all pairs of coins, but we're only concerned with adjacent coins. 2: No limit to rate of increase. 3: The number of coins isn't directly affecting their flip rate.

ChatGPT
Understood. Given this information, it seems that the probability of two adjacent coins syncing faces on their next flip will remain relatively low, since it is based on the probability of two real-world coins landing on the same side, which is approximately 50%.

Additionally, the decay of the probability of two coins syncing faces back toward 50% being half as strong as the increase in probability for syncing up may not be sufficient to allow for the formation of stable patterns of heads or tails, since the initial probability of two coins syncing faces is relatively low.

It is possible that small, temporary patterns of heads or tails could form as the probability of two coins syncing faces increases, but it is unlikely that these patterns would be stable over time. The model you have described seems to involve a lot of randomness, so it is difficult to predict exactly how it will evolve.

Me
It seems like if we removed the decay entirely, that would significantly increase the likelihood of stable patterns over a large period of time.

ChatGPT
Yes, removing the decay of the probability of two coins syncing faces back toward 50% entirely would significantly increase the likelihood of stable patterns forming over a large period of time, compared to the version of the model you described where the decay is half as strong as the increase in probability for syncing up.

Without any decay, the probability of two coins syncing faces on their next flip would continue to increase cumulatively each time they sync, potentially leading to the formation of stable patterns of heads or tails.

However, it is still difficult to predict exactly how the model would evolve, since it depends on the initial probability of two coins syncing faces and the rate at which they continue to sync. It might be helpful to run simulations or do further analysis to better understand the behavior of the model under these conditions.

Me
Can you run a simulation like this?

ChatGPT
I'm sorry, but I am not able to run simulations. However, it is possible for you to write a program or script to simulate the model you have described and explore how it evolves over time. There are many programming languages that have libraries or built-in functions for generating random numbers or simulating probability, which you could use to implement the model.

Alternatively, you could try drawing out the model on paper and manually simulating it over a few iterations to get a sense of how it might behave. This could help you better understand the model and identify any patterns that emerge.

Me
Going back to the decay, could you suggest a relative strength for it that would reduce the inevitability of patterns forming but still be weak enough to encourage them?

ChatGPT
It is difficult to say exactly what strength the decay of the probability of two coins syncing faces should have in order to reduce the inevitability of patterns forming, but still be weak enough to encourage them, as this will depend on the specifics of the model and the desired behavior.
One possibility could be to set the decay to a value that is significantly weaker than the increase in probability for syncing up, but not so weak that it has no effect on the probability of two coins syncing faces. For example, if the increase in probability for syncing up is 0.001%, the decay could be set to a value such as 0.0001% or 0.00005%.

Alternatively, you could consider using a non-linear function for the decay, such as an exponential decay, which would allow the probability of two coins syncing faces to decrease more rapidly as it gets further from 50%.

Ultimately, the best approach will depend on the specific goals of the model and the behavior that you are trying to achieve. It might be helpful to run simulations or do further analysis to explore different decay values and understand how they affect the behavior of the model.

[Psyren]

The only way I see an AI working as a DM is if the game is stripped down to bare bones. Like, nothing but dungeon-crawls for adventures, NPCs being thread-bare (e.g., the Innkeeper, the Shopkeeper, the Quest Giver, but none of them having real lives or families or personalities or anything), plots not being any more complex than 'go into dungeon, kill things, take stuff, repeat.'

Because no AI is going to create an entire world, populate it with interesting and well-thought out (and consistent!) NPCs and come up with unique storylines that take into account the PCs' backstories.

Sure, I think that's about where we are currently. And I think some people would be willing to pay for that (I certainly would.)

Hell, even if I just hit the button for a random encounter while the group is traveling somewhere that could be fun.



Me
Imagine a fictional interpretation of fundamental reality that can be described with the metaphor of a field of coins. Each coin flips and takes a random, finite, non-instant amount of time to settle to either heads or tails, at which point the coin immediately flips again. If two adjacent coins happen to settle at the same instant with the same side facing up, there is a 0.001% chance those two coins will sync faces again on their next flip. This modification to probability is cumulative -- if they sync again, it compounds. If they don't sync, probability decays back toward 50% at the same rate. Do you understand this model at this point?

ChatGPT
I understand the model that you have described. It seems to be a way of representing the concept of probability, with coins flipping and settling in a certain position, and the probability of two coins settling in the same position at the same time affecting the probability of their future flips. Is there anything else that you would like me to clarify about this model?

Me
Okay, assuming an arbitrarily large field of coins, would the patterns of synchronized flipping eventually result in stable patterns of heads or tails?

ChatGPT
It is not clear to me whether the patterns of synchronized flipping in the model you have described would eventually result in stable patterns of heads or tails. In order for there to be stable patterns of heads or tails, the probability of two adjacent coins syncing faces on their next flip would need to be higher than 50%. However, in the model you have described, the probability of two adjacent coins syncing faces on their next flip only increases by 0.001% if they happen to sync on their current flip, which seems like it would not be enough to create stable patterns of heads or tails.

Additionally, the model you have described includes the idea that the probability of two coins syncing faces decays back toward 50% if they do not sync on their next flip, which could also work against the formation of stable patterns.

Without further information about the specifics of the model, it is difficult to say for certain whether stable patterns of heads or tails would emerge.

Me
Okay, let's change it so that the decay is only half as strong as the sync. So decay is 0.0005%. And don't forget that the increase in probability for syncing up is cumulative. Does that change your answer?

ChatGPT
With these changes to the model, it is still not clear to me whether stable patterns of heads or tails would emerge.

The decay of the probability of two coins syncing faces back toward 50% being half as strong as the increase in probability for syncing up could potentially allow for the formation of stable patterns of heads or tails, depending on the initial probability of two coins syncing faces and the rate at which they continue to sync.

However, without further information about the specifics of the model, it is difficult to say for certain whether stable patterns would emerge. It might be helpful to run simulations or do further analysis to better understand the behavior of the model under these conditions.

Me
Are there specific questions I could answer that could help you?

ChatGPT
There are a few things that could help me better understand the model you have described:
1: What is the initial probability of two adjacent coins syncing faces on their next flip? Is this probability the same for all pairs of coins, or does it vary in some way?
2: Is there a limit to the number of times that the probability of two coins syncing faces can increase?
3: Are there any other factors that could affect the probability of two coins syncing faces, such as the order in which the coins are flipping or the number of coins that are flipping at the same time?
Answering these questions might help me better understand the behavior of the model and how it might evolve over time.

Me
I'll answer by number. 1: Each coin begins with a 50% chance of heads or tails. The chance of any two coins syncing up is the same as it would be for any two real-world coins landing on the same side. It is the same for all pairs of coins, but we're only concerned with adjacent coins. 2: No limit to rate of increase. 3: The number of coins isn't directly affecting their flip rate.

ChatGPT
Understood. Given this information, it seems that the probability of two adjacent coins syncing faces on their next flip will remain relatively low, since it is based on the probability of two real-world coins landing on the same side, which is approximately 50%.

Additionally, the decay of the probability of two coins syncing faces back toward 50% being half as strong as the increase in probability for syncing up may not be sufficient to allow for the formation of stable patterns of heads or tails, since the initial probability of two coins syncing faces is relatively low.

It is possible that small, temporary patterns of heads or tails could form as the probability of two coins syncing faces increases, but it is unlikely that these patterns would be stable over time. The model you have described seems to involve a lot of randomness, so it is difficult to predict exactly how it will evolve.

Me
It seems like if we removed the decay entirely, that would significantly increase the likelihood of stable patterns over a large period of time.

ChatGPT
Yes, removing the decay of the probability of two coins syncing faces back toward 50% entirely would significantly increase the likelihood of stable patterns forming over a large period of time, compared to the version of the model you described where the decay is half as strong as the increase in probability for syncing up.

Without any decay, the probability of two coins syncing faces on their next flip would continue to increase cumulatively each time they sync, potentially leading to the formation of stable patterns of heads or tails.

However, it is still difficult to predict exactly how the model would evolve, since it depends on the initial probability of two coins syncing faces and the rate at which they continue to sync. It might be helpful to run simulations or do further analysis to better understand the behavior of the model under these conditions.

Me
Can you run a simulation like this?

ChatGPT
I'm sorry, but I am not able to run simulations. However, it is possible for you to write a program or script to simulate the model you have described and explore how it evolves over time. There are many programming languages that have libraries or built-in functions for generating random numbers or simulating probability, which you could use to implement the model.

Alternatively, you could try drawing out the model on paper and manually simulating it over a few iterations to get a sense of how it might behave. This could help you better understand the model and identify any patterns that emerge.

Me
Going back to the decay, could you suggest a relative strength for it that would reduce the inevitability of patterns forming but still be weak enough to encourage them?

ChatGPT
It is difficult to say exactly what strength the decay of the probability of two coins syncing faces should have in order to reduce the inevitability of patterns forming, but still be weak enough to encourage them, as this will depend on the specifics of the model and the desired behavior.
One possibility could be to set the decay to a value that is significantly weaker than the increase in probability for syncing up, but not so weak that it has no effect on the probability of two coins syncing faces. For example, if the increase in probability for syncing up is 0.001%, the decay could be set to a value such as 0.0001% or 0.00005%.

Alternatively, you could consider using a non-linear function for the decay, such as an exponential decay, which would allow the probability of two coins syncing faces to decrease more rapidly as it gets further from 50%.

Ultimately, the best approach will depend on the specific goals of the model and the behavior that you are trying to achieve. It might be helpful to run simulations or do further analysis to explore different decay values and understand how they affect the behavior of the model.


Indeed. And there are even simpler starter sets or beginner modules than that one.

[Kane0]

A billion-dollar company like Hasbro isn't going to listen to the ideas of some random forum users, and neither is its Wizards of the Coast subsidiary. Not even if our ideas somehow gained wide internet traction. They're not even listening to the professionals they hired on purpose.

Furthermore, Wizasbro has broken and torn appart a trust built over decades, out of nothing but greed and condescension for the hobby's people.

Wizasbro was making money like no other RPG company ever made, with even its biggest competitor far behind. And they spat in our faces because to them it wasn't enough.

Maybe Wizasbro needs to adapt, but first it needs to stop the spitting and the spite and work to rebuild what they destroyed. The ball is in their court, but if that 30-pounds-a-month info is accurate, they still think they can use said ball to beat us up until we give them our lunch money.

This, but I will also attempt to be constructive.

- As I previously said, 'Steam for TTRPGs'. DMGuild is a start, incorporate and expand on it. Take a small cut from sales to generate that all-important exponential growth.
- Create/acquire and incorporate a tabletop tool. Even something as basic as Owlbear Rodeo with some elements syncing with the Beyond 'ecosystem', but include voice integration
- Create/acquire and incorporate writing tools. World Anvil is often touted but i dont have any personal experience with it, but something to help a DM in the creation process (and plug it into point 1 so it can be shared and monetised)
- Flesh out the encounter builder and have it be able to run mock battles for playtesting and simulation purposes, or let a bored user fight against AI.
- Throw in a mobile app for good measure, to access as many of these things as possible from phones and tablets so the tools are still useful for in-person games (and for people that do their best work while commuting on public transport)

Seeing a trend? All these things that mostly already exist. Bring it all in to make a single, cohesive, convenient package (preferably by not destroying the competition but lets not kid ourselves). Everything the community needs to make, share and play games in one place at a reasonable price. These are ways you can add value to the service instead of creating the illusion of it by undoing arbitrary limitations like number of characters you can save or drip-feeding unfinished or artificially delayed content that's already in the pipeline.
I personally would still hate an online service vs a product I can buy and own, but that ship has sailed so at least make it worthwhile.

[Atranen]

Me
Imagine a fictional interpretation of fundamental reality that can be described with the metaphor of a field of coins. Each coin flips and takes a random, finite, non-instant amount of time to settle to either heads or tails, at which point the coin immediately flips again. If two adjacent coins happen to settle at the same instant with the same side facing up, there is a 0.001% chance those two coins will sync faces again on their next flip. This modification to probability is cumulative -- if they sync again, it compounds. If they don't sync, probability decays back toward 50% at the same rate. Do you understand this model at this point?

ChatGPT
I understand the model that you have described. It seems to be a way of representing the concept of probability, with coins flipping and settling in a certain position, and the probability of two coins settling in the same position at the same time affecting the probability of their future flips. Is there anything else that you would like me to clarify about this model?

Me
Okay, assuming an arbitrarily large field of coins, would the patterns of synchronized flipping eventually result in stable patterns of heads or tails?

ChatGPT
It is not clear to me whether the patterns of synchronized flipping in the model you have described would eventually result in stable patterns of heads or tails. In order for there to be stable patterns of heads or tails, the probability of two adjacent coins syncing faces on their next flip would need to be higher than 50%. However, in the model you have described, the probability of two adjacent coins syncing faces on their next flip only increases by 0.001% if they happen to sync on their current flip, which seems like it would not be enough to create stable patterns of heads or tails.

Additionally, the model you have described includes the idea that the probability of two coins syncing faces decays back toward 50% if they do not sync on their next flip, which could also work against the formation of stable patterns.

Without further information about the specifics of the model, it is difficult to say for certain whether stable patterns of heads or tails would emerge.

Me
Okay, let's change it so that the decay is only half as strong as the sync. So decay is 0.0005%. And don't forget that the increase in probability for syncing up is cumulative. Does that change your answer?

ChatGPT
With these changes to the model, it is still not clear to me whether stable patterns of heads or tails would emerge.

The decay of the probability of two coins syncing faces back toward 50% being half as strong as the increase in probability for syncing up could potentially allow for the formation of stable patterns of heads or tails, depending on the initial probability of two coins syncing faces and the rate at which they continue to sync.

However, without further information about the specifics of the model, it is difficult to say for certain whether stable patterns would emerge. It might be helpful to run simulations or do further analysis to better understand the behavior of the model under these conditions.

Me
Are there specific questions I could answer that could help you?

ChatGPT
There are a few things that could help me better understand the model you have described:
1: What is the initial probability of two adjacent coins syncing faces on their next flip? Is this probability the same for all pairs of coins, or does it vary in some way?
2: Is there a limit to the number of times that the probability of two coins syncing faces can increase?
3: Are there any other factors that could affect the probability of two coins syncing faces, such as the order in which the coins are flipping or the number of coins that are flipping at the same time?
Answering these questions might help me better understand the behavior of the model and how it might evolve over time.

Me
I'll answer by number. 1: Each coin begins with a 50% chance of heads or tails. The chance of any two coins syncing up is the same as it would be for any two real-world coins landing on the same side. It is the same for all pairs of coins, but we're only concerned with adjacent coins. 2: No limit to rate of increase. 3: The number of coins isn't directly affecting their flip rate.

ChatGPT
Understood. Given this information, it seems that the probability of two adjacent coins syncing faces on their next flip will remain relatively low, since it is based on the probability of two real-world coins landing on the same side, which is approximately 50%.

Additionally, the decay of the probability of two coins syncing faces back toward 50% being half as strong as the increase in probability for syncing up may not be sufficient to allow for the formation of stable patterns of heads or tails, since the initial probability of two coins syncing faces is relatively low.

It is possible that small, temporary patterns of heads or tails could form as the probability of two coins syncing faces increases, but it is unlikely that these patterns would be stable over time. The model you have described seems to involve a lot of randomness, so it is difficult to predict exactly how it will evolve.

Me
It seems like if we removed the decay entirely, that would significantly increase the likelihood of stable patterns over a large period of time.

ChatGPT
Yes, removing the decay of the probability of two coins syncing faces back toward 50% entirely would significantly increase the likelihood of stable patterns forming over a large period of time, compared to the version of the model you described where the decay is half as strong as the increase in probability for syncing up.

Without any decay, the probability of two coins syncing faces on their next flip would continue to increase cumulatively each time they sync, potentially leading to the formation of stable patterns of heads or tails.

However, it is still difficult to predict exactly how the model would evolve, since it depends on the initial probability of two coins syncing faces and the rate at which they continue to sync. It might be helpful to run simulations or do further analysis to better understand the behavior of the model under these conditions.

Me
Can you run a simulation like this?

ChatGPT
I'm sorry, but I am not able to run simulations. However, it is possible for you to write a program or script to simulate the model you have described and explore how it evolves over time. There are many programming languages that have libraries or built-in functions for generating random numbers or simulating probability, which you could use to implement the model.

Alternatively, you could try drawing out the model on paper and manually simulating it over a few iterations to get a sense of how it might behave. This could help you better understand the model and identify any patterns that emerge.

Me
Going back to the decay, could you suggest a relative strength for it that would reduce the inevitability of patterns forming but still be weak enough to encourage them?

ChatGPT
It is difficult to say exactly what strength the decay of the probability of two coins syncing faces should have in order to reduce the inevitability of patterns forming, but still be weak enough to encourage them, as this will depend on the specifics of the model and the desired behavior.
One possibility could be to set the decay to a value that is significantly weaker than the increase in probability for syncing up, but not so weak that it has no effect on the probability of two coins syncing faces. For example, if the increase in probability for syncing up is 0.001%, the decay could be set to a value such as 0.0001% or 0.00005%.

Alternatively, you could consider using a non-linear function for the decay, such as an exponential decay, which would allow the probability of two coins syncing faces to decrease more rapidly as it gets further from 50%.

Ultimately, the best approach will depend on the specific goals of the model and the behavior that you are trying to achieve. It might be helpful to run simulations or do further analysis to explore different decay values and understand how they affect the behavior of the model.


This is a nice example, but I think we'd be better served by seeing an AI actually try to run Lost Mines. The model does a good job of acting like it knows what's going on, but the 'goldfish for memory' issue is still there. For example, even after you clarify (quite explicitly) "1: Each coin begins with a 50% chance of heads or tails. The chance of any two coins syncing up is the same as it would be for any two real-world coins landing on the same side. It is the same for all pairs of coins, but we're only concerned with adjacent coins." it continues to ask about initial conditions, e.g. "since it depends on the initial probability of two coins syncing faces and the rate at which they continue to sync."

As far as actually answering anything...everything it says is pretty vague.

I'm not rejecting the idea that an AI could run a d&d game successfully. But I haven't seen evidence that makes me believe it yet.

[stoutstien]

I just image an AI DM murdering most parties with LMoP as written without serious parameter prompts

[Kane0]

I can see them giving early access to the Core Rules digitally first (with the ability to purchase physical bundles cheaper with a subscription) and see how it goes for 6 months before sending the physical books to the printer in time for a holiday bundle. I also believe that some content such as shorter adventurers and whatnot will be exclusively digital. I can even see them doing something like a yearly bundle for the physical books with books released digitally throughout the year. In does make a lot of sense in regards to errata, typos, and avoiding Hadozee situations.


The plausibility of that horrifies me.

[FrancisBean]

Fair enough, that makes sense and thanks for clarifying - but no, I can't think of anything; only you truly know what you might value at that price point. I've listed several potential features they could roll out that I thought of, that's about all I can do.

There are definitely features I'd pay $30/month to have, but they're very, very niche and not financially worthwhile to WotC/Hasbro. Case in point, I went deaf last June and haven't been able to game at all since then. If they rolled out a subscription VTT with robust per-player live closed captions, I'd ask how many years in advance I can pre-pay!

[Sparky McDibben]

There are definitely features I'd pay $30/month to have, but they're very, very niche and not financially worthwhile to WotC/Hasbro. Case in point, I went deaf last June and haven't been able to game at all since then. If they rolled out a subscription VTT with robust per-player live closed captions, I'd ask how many years in advance I can pre-pay!

Accessibility is definitely one way they could add a ton of value, for sure!

[KorvinStarmast]

Image if you could set up prompts so you could have NPCs or factions automatically moving to achieve goals without further interactions? I've been learning coding for this very reason.CRPGs have been doing this for quite some time. RTS as well, for over a quarter of a century.

Alright then, Predicated on having more money than they know what to do with, how about that? I think you got it right the first time. :smallbiggrin:

If you aren't risking throwing out your back carrying a stack of books to your buddy's house to play, you're doing it wrong. True. And four boxes of minis.

I just image an AI DM murdering most parties with LMoP as written without serious parameter prompts Yep.

I can see them giving early access to the Core Rules digitally first (with the ability to purchase physical bundles cheaper with a subscription) and see how it goes for 6 months before sending the physical books to the printer in time for a holiday bundle. That's kind of how D&D 5e came out, I think. For me that's how it happened anyway. Got an email, went to dndwizards, down loaded the Basic Rules (Back when it was BR and BR for DMs, two files), made a life cleric. Didn't get the PHB until a few weeks later.

Back when they first purchased D&D it was at a low point of 40-50% of the TTRPG market. Today, that market share is somewhere north of 85% with 3PP making a lot of content for D&D. And the indie gamers, and the "NeverD&D crowd" continue to whinge about it. I think, though, that a lot of their potential fan/players actually went to CRPGs and Video Games.

For Sparky and Francis: +1. :smallsmile:

[EggKookoo]

As far as actually answering anything...everything it says is pretty vague.

I'm not rejecting the idea that an AI could run a d&d game successfully. But I haven't seen evidence that makes me believe it yet.

Breaking out of the spoilers as it's not really needed any more.

The AI is vague at times, and a lot of its phrasing is essentially my own mirrored back at me.* And yes, it misses things or needs things re-explained periodically. But so does a real human. I'm not looking for this thing to be infallible, just not so predictable as a conventional script would be.

There's at least one video out there of someone using it to DM a short adventure. It worked pretty well, but there were issues to be sure. That's why I say "within 5 years."

I would be okay with an AI GM. I just don't want one company and one game being the only option. But I also don't think it will be -- I think this stuff will be ubiquitous eventually. Of course what I want is an AI GM assistant. Something that I can use to help me run games. I think that will open the door to more GMs, since the AI can do a lot of the grunt work.

* In fact this is something I've noticed. The longer a given conversation goes on, the more it starts to talk like a person. Or at least what I consider to be a person. I think it's designed to use the user's phrasing like this.

[Atranen]

Breaking out of the spoilers as it's not really needed any more.

The AI is vague at times, and a lot of its phrasing is essentially my own mirrored back at me.* And yes, it misses things or needs things re-explained periodically. But so does a real human. I'm not looking for this thing to be infallible, just not so predictable as a conventional script would be.

There's at least one video out there of someone using it to DM a short adventure. It worked pretty well, but there were issues to be sure. That's why I say "within 5 years."

I would be okay with an AI GM. I just don't want one company and one game being the only option. But I also don't think it will be -- I think this stuff will be ubiquitous eventually. Of course what I want is an AI GM assistant. Something that I can use to help me run games. I think that will open the door to more GMs, since the AI can do a lot of the grunt work.

* In fact this is something I've noticed. The longer a given conversation goes on, the more it starts to talk like a person. Or at least what I consider to be a person. I think it's designed to use the user's phrasing like this.

Yeah, I could believe 5 years, and I could disbelieve it :smallcool: I just don't know AI well enough to know how far it will progress. All I can comment on is what I've seen so far, which misses the mark.

A GM assistant would be a big help. You can feed it random tables, and then 'generate an NPC for this town' or 'generate an encounter for this region' or 'generate a map of an inn' or 'generate a plot hook for this city' and so on can all be done.

[Bohandas]

This, but I will also attempt to be constructive.

- As I previously said, 'Steam for TTRPGs'. DMGuild is a start, incorporate and expand on it. Take a small cut from sales to generate that all-important exponential growth.
- Create/acquire and incorporate a tabletop tool. Even something as basic as Owlbear Rodeo with some elements syncing with the Beyond 'ecosystem', but include voice integration
- Create/acquire and incorporate writing tools. World Anvil is often touted but i dont have any personal experience with it, but something to help a DM in the creation process (and plug it into point 1 so it can be shared and monetised)
- Flesh out the encounter builder and have it be able to run mock battles for playtesting and simulation purposes, or let a bored user fight against AI.
- Throw in a mobile app for good measure, to access as many of these things as possible from phones and tablets so the tools are still useful for in-person games (and for people that do their best work while commuting on public transport)

Seeing a trend? All these things that mostly already exist. Bring it all in to make a single, cohesive, convenient package (preferably by not destroying the competition but lets not kid ourselves). Everything the community needs to make, share and play games in one place at a reasonable price. These are ways you can add value to the service instead of creating the illusion of it by undoing arbitrary limitations like number of characters you can save or drip-feeding unfinished or artificially delayed content that's already in the pipeline.
I personally would still hate an online service vs a product I can buy and own, but that ship has sailed so at least make it worthwhile.

No it hasn't. To expand on the above example, GOG unstead of Steam.

It will sail eventually however if people aren't willing to switch from the most popular service to a better one



\EDIT TO ADD: People are coming down really hard on WotC for the recent decisions that have been leaked. Which is fine, I hate some of those changes myself. But no one seems to be looking at the changing market and proposing ways for WotC to adapt and move forward. And they *must* adapt and move forward, not just for the health of the company, but for the health of the game.

The health of the game only couples to the health of the company in the absence of OGL. With the OGL as it was it frankly wouldn't matter if they went under, and in fact them going under could even improve the health of the game as it would end the publication of new editions developed only for additional profit

[da newt]

I think WotC's end goal is to create an online game for players where they provide the adventure and cover all of the DM's responsibilities (Ai or whatever). Like multi-player, turn based die roll executed Skyrim. With the computer provided DM available 24/7 and groups of players who can play together as a team or join a random group at any time. If you can cut the DM out of the game, then every player can play whenever they like - you've cleared the most common obstacle to game play.

With monthly fees for server access with tiers for extra benefits / content / adventures etc - the new players joining this version of RPGs become a cash cow especially if you can add in various merch - avatars, minis, clothing, etc and micro-transactions.

The current D&D customer is irrelevant and a poor revenue stream. WotC doesn't need (or want) the old school D&D player - they covet the next generation that won't blink an eye at pay to play. When you own the play space then you own the players. The best way to do this is to eliminate the DM.

[Atranen]

I think WotC's end goal is to create an online game for players where they provide the adventure and cover all of the DM's responsibilities (Ai or whatever). Like multi-player, turn based die roll executed Skyrim. With the computer provided DM available 24/7 and groups of players who can play together as a team or join a random group at any time. If you can cut the DM out of the game, then every player can play whenever they like - you've cleared the most common obstacle to game play.

This makes sense and seems like what they're doing--but I wonder how it interacts with the fact that DMs typically spend the most money. Is it because the DMs are enthusiasts, and would do so anyway even as players? Or is it because the DMs want to spend a lot to make a satisfying game experience? If no one has to take the role of DM, maybe you've gotten rid of the old incentive for spending money.

[Pex]

So, an "I told you so" for the conspiracy theorists who warned us when WOTC bought D&D Beyond?

[Sparky McDibben]

The best way to do this is to eliminate the DM.

Well if you come for the king, YOU BETTER NOT MISS! *juvenile machine gun cocking noises*

[da newt]

This makes sense and seems like what they're doing--but I wonder how it interacts with the fact that DMs typically spend the most money. Is it because the DMs are enthusiasts, and would do so anyway even as players? Or is it because the DMs want to spend a lot to make a satisfying game experience? If no one has to take the role of DM, maybe you've gotten rid of the old incentive for spending money.


Very simply - if you assume there are about 5 Players for every DM, but your business model relies on the DM's to purchase the vast majority of products how much better would your profits be if EVERYONE had to pay to play?

About 5 times better and way easier to capitalize on the newbies too (who wants to cater to the old stubborn cheap grognards when you dip into those youngins w/ disposable income). It's a paradigm shift for sure, but a pretty simple one.


One bull can service a hundred cows. Do you want to build your company to sell bulls or cows?

[Atranen]

Very simply - if you assume there are about 5 Players for every DM, but your business model relies on the DM's to purchase the vast majority of products how much better would your profits be if EVERYONE had to pay to play?

About 5 times better and way easier to capitalize on the newbies too (who wants to cater to the old stubborn cheap grognards when you dip into those youngins w/ disposable income). It's a paradigm shift for sure, but a pretty simple one.


One bull can service a hundred cows. Do you want to build your company to sell bulls or cows?

Yes, this is their idea--but what if none of the players are willing to spend that kind of money? And the former DM, who bought so much out of necessity (because they had to run games), now finds they don't need any of it?

[Segev]

Very simply - if you assume there are about 5 Players for every DM, but your business model relies on the DM's to purchase the vast majority of products how much better would your profits be if EVERYONE had to pay to play?

About 5 times better and way easier to capitalize on the newbies too (who wants to cater to the old stubborn cheap grognards when you dip into those youngins w/ disposable income). It's a paradigm shift for sure, but a pretty simple one.


One bull can service a hundred cows. Do you want to build your company to sell bulls or cows?

Which actually...isn't an accurate depiction of my experience with players. Players buy their own books, their own minis, and often contribute things to the game like monster minis and terrain.

Still, if they want to promote this, they should be making "party accounts" that can be subscribed to by individual players and which let the "party" have better access to things.

[Bohandas]

People are coming down really hard on WotC for the recent decisions that have been leaked. Which is fine, I hate some of those changes myself. But no one seems to be looking at the changing market and proposing ways for WotC to adapt and move forward.

That's not our concern. Our job as customers is to minimize the profit made by the products and services we use.

When this adversarial relationship breaks down that's when abusive and exploitative business models such as software as a service and games as a service are able to flourish

[EggKookoo]

This makes sense and seems like what they're doing--but I wonder how it interacts with the fact that DMs typically spend the most money. Is it because the DMs are enthusiasts, and would do so anyway even as players? Or is it because the DMs want to spend a lot to make a satisfying game experience? If no one has to take the role of DM, maybe you've gotten rid of the old incentive for spending money.

Angry GM has a somewhat recent article about how GMs and players are really two different things. GMs view the game as a hobby, like someone who collects stamps or builds models or gardens. Players play. Of course many GMs are players, but he's talking about them as roles. And many GM-players lean strongly toward one side or the other.

I don't think it's an exaggeration to say the DM is the heart of D&D.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think WotC's end goal is to create an online game for players where they provide the adventure and cover all of the DM's responsibilities (Ai or whatever). Like multi-player, turn based die roll executed Skyrim. With the computer provided DM available 24/7 and groups of players who can play together as a team or join a random group at any time. If you can cut the DM out of the game, then every player can play whenever they like - you've cleared the most common obstacle to game play.

With monthly fees for server access with tiers for extra benefits / content / adventures etc - the new players joining this version of RPGs become a cash cow especially if you can add in various merch - avatars, minis, clothing, etc and micro-transactions.

The current D&D customer is irrelevant and a poor revenue stream. WotC doesn't need (or want) the old school D&D player - they covet the next generation that won't blink an eye at pay to play. When you own the play space then you own the players. The best way to do this is to eliminate the DM.

Which seems a lot like "we want to create something that uses the name D&D but isn't actually a TTRPG at all." While killing the existing game dead. Because a "multi-player, turn based die roll executed Skyrim" isn't D&D. It misses the entire beauty and point, the entire reason why you'd pick a TTRPG over an MMO. Which is the freedom to do anything. Without a full human-equivalent AI (at which point a lot of things will be irrelevant), all you can get from a "AI DM" is a janky closed game designed not around what's best for the game as a whole but around the frailties and foibles of this language model that doesn't actually understand anything and just completes text strings stochastically.

[Atranen]

Angry GM has a somewhat recent article about how GMs and players are really two different things. GMs view the game as a hobby, like someone who collects stamps or builds models or gardens. Players play. Of course many GMs are players, but he's talking about them as roles. And many GM-players lean strongly toward one side or the other.

I don't think it's an exaggeration to say the DM is the heart of D&D.

Yes, this is a reasonable division. Using this language--is a good VTT really going to change players into hobbyists?

[Segev]

That's not our concern. Our job as customers is to minimize the profit made by the products and services we use.

When this adversarial relationship breaks down that's when abusive and exploitative business models such as software as a service and games as a service are able to flourish

I disagree that our job is to minimize their profits. Our job is to maximize what we get for our money. These are not necessarily the same thing. The trouble arises when the business views them as the same thing, and thus starts trying to nickel and dime everything while forgetting that they sell a luxury good, not a necessity.

[ToranIronfinder]

That's not our concern. Our job as customers is to minimize the profit made by the products and services we use.

When this adversarial relationship breaks down that's when abusive and exploitative business models such as software as a service and games as a service are able to flourish

I'll disagree here, out job as consumers is to estimate if a product is worth the cost in terms of our labor. If we were talking about necessities of life, then yes, exorbitant pricing becomes a public concern, but likely they will have an intermediate tier below this 30 level that some customer's will value--I know I would never pay that much for this kind of service. But when it comes to hobbies or luxuries, as a principle this is not the same kind of concern.

There may or may not be antitrust concerns in the way they deal with other VTTs, and frankly I would think a VTT that can only accommodate D&D will have a short shelf-life, but that isn't the same thing as treating a producer of a luxury good (and D&D should be viewed as such) as if they were green grocers.

[EggKookoo]

I disagree that our job is to minimize their profits. Our job is to maximize what we get for our money.

Agreed. Really, our main job as consumers is to know what our money is worth to us as individuals. I'll say to my kids, "it's not about the money, it's about the value."

[Psyren]

So, an "I told you so" for the conspiracy theorists who warned us when WOTC bought D&D Beyond?

Told what? That WotC would develop new products and services to sell via the platform they bought? Yes, truly a shocking development...


Yes, this is their idea--but what if none of the players are willing to spend that kind of money? And the former DM, who bought so much out of necessity (because they had to run games), now finds they don't need any of it?

Their job is to make the players (at least some of them) willing. One way to help with that is to sell those players a DMing service, so they can run through modules in small groups (or even solo).

[Bohandas]

Agreed. Really, our main job as consumers is to know what our money is worth to us as individuals. I'll say to my kids, "it's not about the money, it's about the value."

Yes, but the one follows from the other. Every dollar that goes to the stockholders' profit is an increase in price without a corresponding increase in goods received or services rendered. The economic equivalent of the energy lost to heat in a machine. And while, like loss of energy to heat, it is unlikely to be able to be eliminated entirely that does not mean that we shouldn;t strive to minimize this loss.

[Segev]

Yes, but the one follows from the other. Every dollar that goes to the stockholders' profit is an increase in price without a corresponding increase in goods received or services rendered. The economic equivalent of the energy lost to heat in a machine. And while, like loss of energy to heat, it is unlikely to be able to be eliminated entirely that does not mean that we shouldn;t strive to minimize this loss.

I mean, except for the fact that such things encourage more investment to produce more cool stuff, because the cool stuff generates profit.

But I think we're drifting way off topic, here. The main point is that we need to pay attention to what WotC says they plan for this subscription...thing...they're doing, and try to give them feedback about what we realistically would pay for, and how much, so that we get stuff we actually want and they get as much of our money as we're willing to spend (rather than driving us to NOT spend it due to overpricing and underperforming).

[Razade]

There are tons of options for TTRPG, but AFAIK none offer the convenience of dndbeyond which is why these kind of news make me sad and disappointed. I see others take glee in the self destruction of the evil corporation, but I see my hobby being flushed down the drain to satisfy a greedy jerk.

This is by design. The convenience is part of the system so that other games can't flourish and make their own stuff convenient. The entire system was created to make you dependent on it, because going to another system didn't have the support, or despondent when you had to toe the line with any changes they made once you were hooked.

[Atranen]

Their job is to make the players (at least some of them) willing. One way to help with that is to sell those players a DMing service, so they can run through modules in small groups (or even solo).

Right; but I'm wondering whether a 'DMing service' will backfire. Some people may choose to DM because their group needs a DM, end up being driven further into the hobby, and then spend more money on things as a result. If they get rid of the need for a DM, they aren't creating hobbyists in the same way. Maybe it works out for them because enough players pay more. But it's a drawback worth considering.


But I think we're drifting way off topic, here. The main point is that we need to pay attention to what WotC says they plan for this subscription...thing...they're doing, and try to give them feedback about what we realistically would pay for, and how much, so that we get stuff we actually want and they get as much of our money as we're willing to spend (rather than driving us to NOT spend it due to overpricing and underperforming).

For myself, the number is likely $0. My online groups are only with friends who are serious into the hobby, and therefore comfortable playing anything on any system, and there are plenty of free options. For in-person groups, I'd always prefer not to use anything digital. If they offer an excellent VTT, and my FLGS makes it easy to implement that at no cost to myself (i.e. by providing VTT tables with screens in them that I can control from my laptop), and that experience becomes popular enough that new players want it for AL, and no competitor comes up with a common organized play experience...then I would spend a bit on it. Maybe $10 a month (although hopefully in that case the FLGS would provide an account for DMs :smalltongue:).

[PhoenixPhyre]

VTTs inherently make adding custom content (anything from maps to homebrew to 3rd party material) harder, since you're bound to the limits of the programming. Especially if there's mechanical elements--D&D Beyond still doesn't allow custom base classes. And a 3e VTT exponentially increases the pain of creating custom assets. Yes, even if it (miraculously and highly unlikely) has a great tile-based builder. Because adding assets requires 3d modelling. As does adding tokens. Compare that to sketching a map on a piece of paper, a chessex grid, or plopping down an image found online.

This greatly incentivizes "playing it straight" and purchasing pre-built modules. Which is a huge plus...but only for WotC. It's a deal-breaker for me--regular VTTs are annoying enough that I only use a tiny fraction of their capabilities because I want to do custom stuff that it doesn't handle without tons of fragile macros. There are many times that even running on a VTT I do the rolls by hand--if I'm rolling 40 attacks, I'm going to use regular dice.

And once you try to make it "smart" (whether by regular automation or adding "AI" capabilities), you channel everything down the line of only being able to run pre-made, officially-blessed modules exactly as "printed" without mounting friction and frustration. Because anything else makes the computer start getting in your way, not helping. Or, as LLMs are wont to do, just start hallucinating things.

All of this means that I have less than zero interest in using such a system bound/designed for VTT/AI play. Because making custom stuff is 99% of what I want to do. Custom worlds. Custom content, monsters, abilities, resolving things in non-directly-specified ways. And rulesets that are designed to cater to computers are ones that should just be straight up computer games, not hacks pretending to be TTRPGs.

[ProsecutorGodot]

This is by design. The convenience is part of the system so that other games can't flourish and make their own stuff convenient. The entire system was created to make you dependent on it, because going to another system didn't have the support, or despondent when you had to toe the line with any changes they made once you were hooked.

Making a system like DND Beyond is expensive and resource intensive, it's not something that is easy to do. WotC essentially contracted the work out and then bought it out once it was well established. DND Beyond wasn't always as polished as it is now, in fact, early into development it was quite lacking.

Other systems are perfectly capable of making something like DND Beyond (pretty sure Paizo is working on something along these lines) but it likely isn't/wasn't cost effective to do so.

I don't understand the assertion that DND Beyond being convenient means that competitors can't make their own convenient things, it just doesn't make sense. You are certainly correct at least in saying they want you to be dependent on DND Beyond but at the moment it's simply a convenience, one that I can learn to live without.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The more I think about it, if they wanted to do what people claim they're trying to do (go all in VTT on an AI-friendly subscription game), they should do just that.

Make D&D Tactics. A tile-based dungeon crawler designed around a variant ruleset built for AI assistance. Don't even try to do what the TTRPGs do with a full world, just do the dungeon crawl part. Complete with procedurally-generated dungeons and combats, a focus on tight tactical gameplay (including dungeon exploration), and digital assistants so you could play it best online (but still theoretically as a board-game, which lets you sell physical tiles/minis). Heck, you could even market an optional "story mode" that staples on some basic narrative tools to tie dungeons together and enables a "live" DM.

It doesn't replace the TTRPG, it's not a new edition. It's an alternate product line.

[ToranIronfinder]

Yes, but the one follows from the other. Every dollar that goes to the stockholders' profit is an increase in price without a corresponding increase in goods received or services rendered. The economic equivalent of the energy lost to heat in a machine. And while, like loss of energy to heat, it is unlikely to be able to be eliminated entirely that does not mean that we shouldn;t strive to minimize this loss.
No, this analysis is just wrong, outside of larger ramifications I think are probably outside of the board's reason for existence, profits are also the primary source for a company to develop new products.

[Psyren]

There's actually a light RPG AI we can play around with right now to see how this sort of thing might one day work - AI Dungeon (https://play.aidungeon.io/). It doesn't have resolution mechanics of any kind - you'll pretty much succeed at whatever you try to do - but you can see how rudimentary things like being able to describe environments and parse actions might work as this technology gets refined.

[Atranen]

There's actually a light RPG AI we can play around with right now to see how this sort of thing might one day work - AI Dungeon (https://play.aidungeon.io/). It doesn't have resolution mechanics of any kind - you'll pretty much succeed at whatever you try to do - but you can see how rudimentary things like being able to describe environments and parse actions might work as this technology gets refined.

This is the kind of example I'm looking for. I did a brief playthrough, and I'm back on team "I don't know if this will work in 5 years." Here's the playback (anything with a '>' is my input, although it rewrites 'I' to 'You'):

You are Bradicus, a wizard living in the kingdom of Larion. You have a staff and a spellbook. You finish your long journey and finally arrive at the ruin you've been looking for. You have come here searching for a mystical spellbook of great power called the book of essence. You look around and see that not much is left of the old fortress.

You are a wizard, casting powerful spells that require less and less energy with every spell you cast.
You have a few different options.
> You would like to cast a divination to learn what is inside the fortress.

You decide to start your investigations by divination. Casting your spell, you close your eyes and concentrate...
> You what do you learn?

Your spell has cast and you open your eyes, surprised that the spell didn't take off, this must be a sign of your great concentration. You study the symbols of the two men that were found here.
> You what do the two men look like?

Two bearded men with the faces of a lion and a wolf.
> You try to enter the fortress through a damaged wall.

You try your luck, trying to throw a beam of light from your fingertips into a crack in the wall, and after a few attempts you manage to get inside.
> You what do you see/.

The inside of the fortress is not as badly damaged as you initially though. You see that the fortress walls are made of stone, and the ceiling looks made of a thick wooden beam.
> You how many levels are there? Do you have any information about where in the fortress the book of essence is?

You don't know how many levels there are in the fortress, and you can't find any traces of the book of essence. You start to become very anxious.
> You search the entire fortress for the book of essence.

You search all through the entire fortress of Larion, you even enter the dungeon under the castle. You are a great wizard, and you find the book of essence!
> You return to your university and prepare to give a seminar on the contents of the book.

You return from your search and give a seminar on the book of essence. Your seminar goes on to be well received.

The short version is, it's not very good. Any of my attempts to interact with the world (short of saying 'I complete the quest') failed. Descriptions were vague and generic. The responses to my actions occasionally had nothing to do with what I did.

Maybe I'm not using it properly. If someone knows how to make it work for them and can share a playthrough, I'd love to see it.

[Psyren]

Maybe I'm not using it properly. If someone knows how to make it work for them and can share a playthrough, I'd love to see it.

One thing I learned later is that you can change the "Verb" used in the prompt to add depth. It defaults to "Do," but you can change it to "See," to flesh out your surroundings, "Say" to ask questions or simply have your character react to other NPCs and occurrences, and even "Story" to let you throw in your own plot twists and interruptions.

[Kane0]

The more I think about it, if they wanted to do what people claim they're trying to do (go all in VTT on an AI-friendly subscription game), they should do just that.

Make D&D Tactics. A tile-based dungeon crawler designed around a variant ruleset built for AI assistance. Don't even try to do what the TTRPGs do with a full world, just do the dungeon crawl part. Complete with procedurally-generated dungeons and combats, a focus on tight tactical gameplay (including dungeon exploration), and digital assistants so you could play it best online (but still theoretically as a board-game, which lets you sell physical tiles/minis). Heck, you could even market an optional "story mode" that staples on some basic narrative tools to tie dungeons together and enables a "live" DM.

It doesn't replace the TTRPG, it's not a new edition. It's an alternate product line.

Sounds cool, however also sounds like it'll need investment.
And guess who just squandered their goodwill.

[ToranIronfinder]

Sounds cool, however also sounds like it'll need investment.
And guess who just squandered their goodwill.

It will that, and with rising interest rates, using profits for those investments is going to be less risky than a bond issue.

[TaiLiu]

There are definitely features I'd pay $30/month to have, but they're very, very niche and not financially worthwhile to WotC/Hasbro. Case in point, I went deaf last June and haven't been able to game at all since then. If they rolled out a subscription VTT with robust per-player live closed captions, I'd ask how many years in advance I can pre-pay!
Have you and your friends tried Google Meet? My group uses it. Very robust per-player live CC. My guess is that it's the best live automated CC that's accessible to ordinary people. (And as far as I know it's the only one that does it per-person. Dunno why Zoom can't do that.) It does struggle with fantasy names. Wish there was a custom dictionary we could add or something.

[FrancisBean]

Have you and your friends tried Google Meet? My group uses it. Very robust per-player live CC. My guess is that it's the best live automated CC that's accessible to ordinary people. (And as far as I know it's the only one that does it per-person. Dunno why Zoom can't do that.) It does struggle with fantasy names. Wish there was a custom dictionary we could add or something.

We were using Live Transcribe until things got to be too bad for that to supplement enough. It did allow extending the dictionary, which we used a lot for in-game languages. I was the DM and a linguistic hobbyist, so there's a lot of that. It's amazing how little practice it takes to rattle off names like Caita tr’anwhi’lellaito’careiaya’es’thaimalo without a break or a stutter. Blame the elves. :smallwink:

Google Meet wasn't quite there at the time but is now greatly improved, so it's something we've looked into. There's also Ava, a cell phone app which will tag the speaker. So far the best solution we've come up with is Live Transcribe to a projector so everybody can see what it's picking up. Otherwise they have no idea that it has completely lost them. Unfortunately, the group has been on pause so long that it's not a resumption, but a reload. We all know how that goes.

I'm now fully approved for cochlear implants, had my pre-op CT scan today, so I'm hoping that 95% of the transcription solutions will wind up being unnecessary. (Ora pro me, frater.)

All of which is very much off the original topic of D&DB, where it really would be a selling point to me.

[Psyren]

Even if DDB had that kind of accessibility functionality one day, gating it behind a high subscription tier would be pretty questionable for reasons we can't really go into here. Most likely it would just be a baseline enhancement to the service/VTT as a whole at no extra charge.

DDB charging extra for accessibility features would be like Walmart charging for their handicap parking spaces, or Netflix requiring a premium subscription to unlock subtitles.

[FrancisBean]

Even if DDB had that kind of accessibility functionality one day, gating it behind a high subscription tier would be pretty questionable for reasons we can't really go into here.

Let's just say that the point is clear without improper elaboration. It's a good point.

[TaiLiu]

We were using Live Transcribe until things got to be too bad for that to supplement enough. It did allow extending the dictionary, which we used a lot for in-game languages. I was the DM and a linguistic hobbyist, so there's a lot of that. It's amazing how little practice it takes to rattle off names like Caita tr’anwhi’lellaito’careiaya’es’thaimalo without a break or a stutter. Blame the elves. :smallwink:

Google Meet wasn't quite there at the time but is now greatly improved, so it's something we've looked into. There's also Ava, a cell phone app which will tag the speaker. So far the best solution we've come up with is Live Transcribe to a projector so everybody can see what it's picking up. Otherwise they have no idea that it has completely lost them. Unfortunately, the group has been on pause so long that it's not a resumption, but a reload. We all know how that goes.

I'm now fully approved for cochlear implants, had my pre-op CT scan today, so I'm hoping that 95% of the transcription solutions will wind up being unnecessary. (Ora pro me, frater.)
Oh, man, and I thought short fantasy names were hard enough. Getting the spelling of fantasy languages down must be super difficult.

Yeah, this is my group's third year using Meet, and they've definitely improved. A lot fewer messed up transcriptions (which were sometimes funny, so that's a minor loss).

Oh, I see, you do face-to-face sessions. I guess that makes the live transcriptions noisier. We do virtual, so everyone's sound is separate from everyone else's.

Ora proing you as much as I can. :smallsmile:


All of which is very much off the original topic of D&DB, where it really would be a selling point to me.

Even if DDB had that kind of accessibility functionality one day, gating it behind a high subscription tier would be pretty questionable for reasons we can't really go into here. Most likely it would just be a baseline enhancement to the service/VTT as a whole at no extra charge.

DDB charging extra for accessibility features would be like Walmart charging for their handicap parking spaces, or Netflix requiring a premium subscription to unlock subtitles.
I think Netflix used to not have subtitles till someone sued them, so I think companies do questionable things all the time. But I don't think D&D Beyond could do it by themselves anyway. I'm guessing you need a lot lot lot of training data to do what Google does, and they just don't have that. But it'd be nice to have subtitles that are more fantasy-accurate. Wonder what the solution is.

[da newt]

Which seems a lot like "we want to create something that uses the name D&D but isn't actually a TTRPG at all." While killing the existing game dead. Because a "multi-player, turn based die roll executed Skyrim" isn't D&D. It misses the entire beauty and point, the entire reason why you'd pick a TTRPG over an MMO. Which is the freedom to do anything. Without a full human-equivalent AI (at which point a lot of things will be irrelevant), all you can get from a "AI DM" is a janky closed game designed not around what's best for the game as a whole but around the frailties and foibles of this language model that doesn't actually understand anything and just completes text strings stochastically.


I agree 100%. WotC/Hasbro management are actively seeking the best way to cash in on the popularity of the BRAND D&D - they don't care about the TTRPG or the folks who make up the the community. D&D is very popular as an idea right now, and it is profitable but strongly under-monetized. The status quo can't change that, so they are making changes that amount to paradigm shifts (push to VTT -> MMO like play with subscription services and clamping down on all non-WotC products).

They are very happy to trade current community support for increased revenue. They'll gleefully burn this all to the ground and salt the earth as long as they can make a profit doing it. Destroying the game as we know it (centered around a human DM) is a very small price to pay in their eyes.

[Psyren]

I think Netflix used to not have subtitles till someone sued them, so I think companies do questionable things all the time. But I don't think D&D Beyond could do it by themselves anyway. I'm guessing you need a lot lot lot of training data to do what Google does, and they just don't have that. But it'd be nice to have subtitles that are more fantasy-accurate. Wonder what the solution is.

Plenty of VTTs do just fine with no integrated voice chat at all; DDB wouldn't be required to invest in one, especially knowing that the vast majority of people would just opt to use their dedicated chat program of choice (e.g. Discord/Zoom/Google) anyway, which would be much better at it.


Destroying the game as we know it (centered around a human DM) is a very small price to pay in their eyes.

I still don't see how them investing in an alternative DMing model destroys the traditional one.

[FrancisBean]

Yeah, this is my group's third year using Meet, and they've definitely improved. A lot fewer messed up transcriptions (which were sometimes funny, so that's a minor loss).

Oh, I see, you do face-to-face sessions. I guess that makes the live transcriptions noisier. We do virtual, so everyone's sound is separate from everyone else's.

We did face-to-face, but the group is on probably permanent hiatus. What was supposed to be a 2-3 year campaign started right before the pandemic, and then I went deaf, and now half the group are moving. Es la vida, compadre. But as for bad transcriptions, we had one night where anytime someone said "'nuff said" Live Transcribe heard "rough sex." That makes for interesting role play...!

[Bohandas]

As for the AI DM thing, regardless of how well they work the subscription model is still problematic. Running it on their server sounds like a good idea at first glance because most people's computers aren't good enough to run AI programs, but if you saved that 30 dollars a month you'd be able to afford a graphics card in under a year (or a high-end graphics card in under 3 years) and then you could run AI on your own machine forever and you wouldn;t have to worry about further payments or terms of service

Subscriptions basically make you have to pay more to play by someone else's rules

[Mastikator]

This is by design. The convenience is part of the system so that other games can't flourish and make their own stuff convenient. The entire system was created to make you dependent on it, because going to another system didn't have the support, or despondent when you had to toe the line with any changes they made once you were hooked.

Dndbeyond wasn't made by wotc or hasbro, it was only acquired last year by wotc.
And if wotc makes it way more expensive it would have the opposite effect, especially considering how much more expensive it is to merely eat and have lights on today than it was two years ago.

I don't think a lot of people will get hooked, wotc are not the stewards of dnd as they claim, they are the stewards of the brand. Dnd is one of many ttrpgs, nobody owns that hobby. I think in the future we won't see people being hooked on dnd vtt microtransactions, I think we'll see people being willing to try different systems and finally outgrow dnd5e

[Brookshw]

, we had one night where anytime someone said "'nuff said" Live Transcribe heard "rough sex." That makes for interesting role play...!

It's not THAT kind of dungeon! :smallbiggrin:

[Unoriginal]

It's not THAT kind of dungeon! :smallbiggrin:

D&DBeyond's AI-DM: "I do not understand."

[EggKookoo]

D&DBeyond's AI-DM: "I do not understand."

http://www.jimchines.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Data-Fully-Functional.jpg

[Sparky McDibben]

http://www.jimchines.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Data-Fully-Functional.jpg

"Bob, when we said the AI needed more data, this wasn't what we were talking about..."

[KorvinStarmast]

Methinks you're right about CRPGS and video games being a part of that. I know I had played in at least 2 dozen different TTRPGS by the time TSR sold off D&D. I seem to recall that Rich Burlew even made a point in the Snips/Snails/Dragon Tails book about TTRPG versus digital adventure games ... :smallbiggrin:

I think WotC's end goal is to create an online game for players where they provide the adventure and cover all of the DM's responsibilities (Ai or whatever).
Baldur's Gate 2, Baldur's Gate 3, Baldur's Gate 4, and so on.

Like multi-player, turn based die roll executed Skyrim.
There are other on line games that are more engaging.

If you can cut the DM out of the game, then every player can play whenever they like - you've cleared the most common obstacle to game play. The basic unit of D&D is the party, not the player. That point was made in a different thread within the last few days. But your idea probably still applies to that.

With monthly fees for server access with tiers for extra benefits / content / adventures etc - the new players joining this version of RPGs become a cash cow especially if you can add in various merch - avatars, minis, clothing, etc and micro-transactions. Yes, you are indeed management material. :smallbiggrin: And yes, I think that is what they envision to remedy that horrible case of being undermonetized. (See also Diablo Immortal's approach that pissed off the fan base for Blizzard ....)

The current D&D customer is irrelevant and a poor revenue stream. WotC doesn't need (or want) the old school D&D player - they covet the next generation that won't blink an eye at pay to play. When you own the play space then you own the players. The best way to do this is to eliminate the DM. Likely true. I guess they are still mad at me for not even trying 4th edition. :smalltongue:

So, an "I told you so" for the conspiracy theorists who warned us when WOTC bought D&D Beyond? Yep.

Yes, this is their idea--but what if none of the players are willing to spend that kind of money? And the former DM, who bought so much out of necessity (because they had to run games), now finds they don't need any of it? Beyond that, viral and virulent info campaigns are a thing in the 2020's, a thing that can smear a brand hard.

Angry GM has a somewhat recent article about how GMs and players are really two different things. GMs view the game as a hobby, like someone who collects stamps or builds models or gardens. Players play. Of course many GMs are players, but he's talking about them as roles. And many GM-players lean strongly toward one side or the other.

I don't think it's an exaggeration to say the DM is the heart of D&D. Yes, and the party is the basic unit of play.

Which seems a lot like "we want to create something that uses the name D&D but isn't actually a TTRPG at all." While killing the existing game dead. COrrect. They have had their roll in the hay with the TTRPG community, the cigarette after, it's morning and as we suspected they actually don't respect us as they are getting up to leave.

And rulesets that are designed to cater to computers are ones that should just be straight up computer games, not hacks pretending to be TTRPGs. Bingo. Just played another session of Blades in the Dark last night. It's a TTRPG, not a rule set catering to computers.

I agree 100%. WotC/Hasbro management are actively seeking the best way to cash in on the popularity of the BRAND D&D - they don't care about the TTRPG or the folks who make up the the community. D&D is very popular as an idea right now, and it is profitable but strongly under-monetized. The status quo can't change that, so they are making changes that amount to paradigm shifts (push to VTT -> MMO like play with subscription services and clamping down on all non-WotC products).

They are very happy to trade current community support for increased revenue. They'll gleefully burn this all to the ground and salt the earth as long as they can make a profit doing it. Destroying the game as we know it (centered around a human DM) is a very small price to pay in their eyes. Hard to disagree with this analysis. :smallfrown: Suits are gonna suit.

[Oramac]

Welp, now that I'm about 3.5 pages behind on this thread. I'm not going to catch up at this point.

Just dropping in to say the investors are definitely taking notice. The Motley Fool has an opinion piece on the Hasbro/WOTC (https://www.fool.com/investing/2023/01/17/big-change-coming-for-hasbro-should-investor-worry/) situation posted yesterday. It's not wrong, strictly speaking, but there's a lot of nuance it didn't cover. Of course, it's written for the investors, not the players, so take from it what you will.

[da newt]

Has anyone seen this break into the 'regular' news? The only article I could find by someone outside the community was a CNBC piece.

[Sigreid]

Has anyone seen this break into the 'regular' news? The only article I could find by someone outside the community was a CNBC piece.
I'd be truly surprised if regular news cared at all. To them D&D is just there for a fluff piece or scare tactic on a slow news day.

[skyth]

VTTs inherently make adding custom content (anything from maps to homebrew to 3rd party material) harder, since you're bound to the limits of the programming.

Depends on the VTT. It's one of the reasons I like Maptools. Then again, i enjoy coding so that works for me. But at a basic level, a VTT can act as just a battle map to move tokens around to give the players a visual reference to what's going on. Tracking HP is easy as well if you want to add that, but you can do that manually as well. You don't need all the macros, etc for the custom content. It can make life easier but it's not required.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Depends on the VTT. It's one of the reasons I like Maptools. Then again, i enjoy coding so that works for me. But at a basic level, a VTT can act as just a battle map to move tokens around to give the players a visual reference to what's going on. Tracking HP is easy as well if you want to add that, but you can do that manually as well. You don't need all the macros, etc for the custom content. It can make life easier but it's not required.

Even adding a map means getting an appropriate file (correct format) and then adjusting the grid to match. Compared to scrawling something on a wet erase map and being able to modify on the fly? It's still friction.

[Aimeryan]

In regards to the price points and going digital-only, consider this:

$5/month: Same benefits as D&D Beyond currently provide, still have to buy books digitally.
$10/month: Add on basic VTT.
$20/month: Advanced VTT, add on homebrew capability, can share content you own to other players in the session.
$30/month: Add on access to all official WotC material.

Even at $10/month for all players, that is still $10/month/person for a 5-person group (so $600 a year total), as opposed to perhaps $100-$150 a year total for such a group. They could afford to lose 80% of groups and still make more money this way. In fact, considering the cost of physical production it may be even more profitable.

Considering that $10/month is not unheard of for a subscription, this is quite lucrative. Then add in that one player still has to buy content at least (maybe all players). Then add in those that will go for the higher subscriptions, like for the homebrew or all-access content.

Are you sure they wouldn't consider this?

[Psyren]

As for the AI DM thing, regardless of how well they work the subscription model is still problematic. Running it on their server sounds like a good idea at first glance because most people's computers aren't good enough to run AI programs, but if you saved that 30 dollars a month you'd be able to afford a graphics card in under a year (or a high-end graphics card in under 3 years) and then you could run AI on your own machine forever and you wouldn;t have to worry about further payments or terms of service

Subscriptions basically make you have to pay more to play by someone else's rules

This calculation is a bit too simplistic. Sure you could save up and run your own AI system instead, but by subscribing to theirs instead you also don't have to worry about staying abreast of new advances and upgrading the back-end technology every few years (or months!) either - and more importantly, this is the kind of service that gets better much faster when tens if not hundreds of thousands of playgroups are teaching it instead of just your own. For a technology like this that benefits so strongly from economies of scale, "run it yourself" would ultimately result in a decidedly inferior product, and might not even be cheaper in the long run when you take upgrades and integrations into account.


Welp, now that I'm about 3.5 pages behind on this thread. I'm not going to catch up at this point.

Just dropping in to say the investors are definitely taking notice. The Motley Fool has an opinion piece on the Hasbro/WOTC (https://www.fool.com/investing/2023/01/17/big-change-coming-for-hasbro-should-investor-worry/) situation posted yesterday. It's not wrong, strictly speaking, but there's a lot of nuance it didn't cover. Of course, it's written for the investors, not the players, so take from it what you will.

Thanks for linking - the fact that Hasbro's stock went up is amusing. But they seem to be analyzing the OGL (which we can't discuss here yet) moreso than the price leak.

[Sigreid]

Even adding a map means getting an appropriate file (correct format) and then adjusting the grid to match. Compared to scrawling something on a wet erase map and being able to modify on the fly? It's still friction.

I use a VTT right now and while lining up the map to the grid can be a pain depending on how picky you are, it dies take a lot of the heavy lifting off a lot of minor tasks such as tracking HP, whose targeting who and who is targeting who letting me focus more on the human brain part of DMing.

[Psyren]

Ingesting a map image and automatically identifying where the VTT gridlines should be is actually something an AI could do, and has the potential to save DMs a lot of prep time.

[SpanielBear]

Has anyone seen this break into the 'regular' news? The only article I could find by someone outside the community was a CNBC piece.

There was an article in the Guardian (UK newspaper) a few days ago- a fairly broad strokes one without any depth, but it got into print. Not sure if I’m allowed to share the link, but it’s a free news site and shouldn’t be hard to search for.

[Sigreid]

Ingesting a map image and automatically identifying where the VTT gridlines should be is actually something an AI could do, and has the potential to save DMs a lot of prep time.

A lot of the maps in even official products are poorly drawn with lines that aren't straight or a format choice that is just confusing. I struggle with some of them. Bet AI does too. Lol

[Aimeryan]

A lot of the maps in even official products are poorly drawn with lines that aren't straight or a format choice that is just confusing. I struggle with some of them. Bet AI does too. Lol

The grid is an optional rule - on a VTT they could just use absolute distances, like BG3 does.

Edit: Also, did anyone consider what I put in my last post? I was hoping for a discussion on it! It is at the bottom of the last page.

[Segev]

In regards to the price points and going digital-only, consider this:

$5/month: Same benefits as D&D Beyond currently provide, still have to buy books digitally.
$10/month: Add on basic VTT.
$20/month: Advanced VTT, add on homebrew capability, can share content you own to other players in the session.
$30/month: Add on access to all official WotC material.

Even at $10/month for all players, that is still $10/month/person for a 5-person group (so $600 a year total), as opposed to perhaps $100-$150 a year total for such a group. They could afford to lose 80% of groups and still make more money this way. In fact, considering the cost of physical production it may be even more profitable.

Considering that $10/month is not unheard of for a subscription, this is quite lucrative. Then add in that one player still has to buy content at least (maybe all players). Then add in those that will go for the higher subscriptions, like for the homebrew or all-access content.

Are you sure they wouldn't consider this?I doubt 20% of groups are made up entirely of people willing to pay $10/month each. I would believe about 40% of groups have at least one player who'd pay that much, though I also doubt that D&D Beyond's VTT will be feature- and performance-competitive with other, cheaper ones, based on the dual factors of lack of demonstrated skill by WotC in the area and lack of incentive (as far as the money-men are concerned) to invest the kind of resources necessary to bring it up to par, since they will assume that their IP-exclusivity means they don't need to provide a quality service, only a bare minimum one, to compel players to pay for and use their inferior technical product.

I think that the number-crunching money-men are making WAGs that have enormous assumptions of unchanging usage behavior by existing customers despite the price shifts they're planning, and it's going to wind up with a lot of internal reports about how piracy and other bad-customer-behaviors are costing the company lots and lots of money when it doesn't work out the way they expect it to (but was entirely predictable if you remember that people are not sims).

[skyth]

. Compared to scrawling something on a wet erase map and being able to modify on the fly? It's still friction.

What I do with Maptools is usually just that :)

[Psyren]

A lot of the maps in even official products are poorly drawn with lines that aren't straight or a format choice that is just confusing. I struggle with some of them. Bet AI does too. Lol


The grid is an optional rule - on a VTT they could just use absolute distances, like BG3 does.

AI can go further than absolute distances, it has the potential to recognize the drawn-in gridlines present in a lot of maps and snap the grid to them. It doesn't have to be perfect at it, just faster than I am.


Edit: Also, did anyone consider what I put in my last post? I was hoping for a discussion on it! It is at the bottom of the last page.

Sorry, I did miss that:


In regards to the price points and going digital-only, consider this:

$5/month: Same benefits as D&D Beyond currently provide, still have to buy books digitally.
$10/month: Add on basic VTT.
$20/month: Advanced VTT, add on homebrew capability, can share content you own to other players in the session.
$30/month: Add on access to all official WotC material.

Even at $10/month for all players, that is still $10/month/person for a 5-person group (so $600 a year total), as opposed to perhaps $100-$150 a year total for such a group. They could afford to lose 80% of groups and still make more money this way. In fact, considering the cost of physical production it may be even more profitable.

Considering that $10/month is not unheard of for a subscription, this is quite lucrative. Then add in that one player still has to buy content at least (maybe all players). Then add in those that will go for the higher subscriptions, like for the homebrew or all-access content.

Are you sure they wouldn't consider this?

$30 is going to be a hard sell as people can easily compare that to the likes of Prime or Playstation Plus etc. Still, it could be worthwhile if it meant not needing to buy adventure modules and sourcebooks, and came packaged with a premium VTT.

Ultimately, it's impossible to say what price point is reasonable without seeing what we get. A lot of the hysteria around this newest leak is that some people are assuming they'll simply take the $6 master tier we currently have and jack up the price +400%. Even WotC woud have to see how bad an idea that would be.

[PhoenixPhyre]

A lot of the maps in even official products are poorly drawn with lines that aren't straight or a format choice that is just confusing. I struggle with some of them. Bet AI does too. Lol

Or even better, maps with inconsistent grid sizes. Including skewed grids. And maps that have prime numbers of pixels in various directions.

-----------

My experience with VTTs is that it's a huge barrier to entry for both DM and players, as well as requiring more prep time and generally slowing play relative to the same group in person. My prep time for my in-person game can be done entirely in my head, while getting ready for bed. My prep time for my online game requires finding, uploading, and fiddling with maps (making sure the file sizes are small enough to not crash the potatoes that some players use as computers, ensuring the grids line up, drawing the walls for dynamic lighting/fog of war, etc), finding tokens for things, creating actors (ie token-owners), handling updates, etc.

On the players' side, they have to deal with finding their abilities and doing the mechanics in ways that they don't on paper. And that's with modules that provide a lot of automation and better UIs. There's friction on all sides, and it's inherent friction. Playing online is convenient because it reduces the scheduling problem and opens the playerbase outside of your locale. It's inconvenient in every single other way.

If I weren't hosting in an AWS account (where I basically have a flat fee for as much storage as I'm likely to ever use), I'd have to worry about storage limits and forced upgrades breaking my stuff (hosted by someone else) or upload speeds and connecting to a residential ISP (self-hosted at home). Both of which are obnoxious. Hosting Foundry VTT in AWS does require technical expertise (especially to get things unstuck when it decides to go *tilt*, which is usually my fault), and ends up costing ~$15/month (because I wanted a beefier instance for better server performance). But that's not much more (if any more) than going with a big-storage plan hosted by someone else. So tradeoffs. The point being that VTTs inherently produce friction and have steep learning curves.

[Mastikator]

In regards to the price points and going digital-only, consider this:

$5/month: Same benefits as D&D Beyond currently provide, still have to buy books digitally.
$10/month: Add on basic VTT.
$20/month: Advanced VTT, add on homebrew capability, can share content you own to other players in the session.
$30/month: Add on access to all official WotC material.

Even at $10/month for all players, that is still $10/month/person for a 5-person group (so $600 a year total), as opposed to perhaps $100-$150 a year total for such a group. They could afford to lose 80% of groups and still make more money this way. In fact, considering the cost of physical production it may be even more profitable.

Considering that $10/month is not unheard of for a subscription, this is quite lucrative. Then add in that one player still has to buy content at least (maybe all players). Then add in those that will go for the higher subscriptions, like for the homebrew or all-access content.

Are you sure they wouldn't consider this?
That would be totally fair and reasonable. And a month ago I would've believed that WotC can be totally fair and reasonable.

[skyth]

Or even better, maps with inconsistent grid sizes. Including skewed grids. And maps that have prime numbers of pixels in various directions.

-----------

My experience with VTTs is that it's a huge barrier to entry for both DM and players, as well as requiring more prep time and generally slowing play relative to the same group in person. My prep time for my in-person game can be done entirely in my head, while getting ready for bed. My prep time for my online game requires finding, uploading, and fiddling with maps (making sure the file sizes are small enough to not crash the potatoes that some players use as computers, ensuring the grids line up, drawing the walls for dynamic lighting/fog of war, etc), finding tokens for things, creating actors (ie token-owners), handling updates, etc.

On the players' side, they have to deal with finding their abilities and doing the mechanics in ways that they don't on paper.

You don't have to fiddle with the maps like that if you just draw them with a drawing tool - Same as if you were drawing them on a wet erase map in person. Though, I liked drawing out the entire dungeon ahead of time and adding in the monsters and sight blocking ahead of time so that less time was spent on this sort of thing during the actual game, making the game itself run smoother.

Yes, setting up tokens can take a bit of prep time, but the trick is you keep those tokens so next time you need one of those critters you can just drag and drop onto the play area.

Using the abilities, that depends on how intuitive the macros, etc are set up. Personally, when I was running Pathfinder online, I coded everything about the framework. I even had macros that would help create monsters and level up PC/NPC's. I think everything ran pretty intuitively and I know my players were impressed with it.

Yes, there can be plenty of prep time needed ahead of running, but that's true for in-person games as well. But the VTT allows the time you spend playing with your friends to be better and more efficiently spent with less time spent doing administrative tasks/pausing to prep something/look something up. It's nice being able to mouse over a token and have the AC/Touch AC pop up so you don't have to ask. Heck, I started putting in descriptions of the rooms for the PC's to read when they entered an area onto the maps themselves.

[Segev]

I do agree that one strength VTTs could lean into would be the ability to do "wargaming-like" map movement rather than grid-based. Warhammer and other wargames have used battlefield movement with rulers and templates for decades, longer than D&D has ever used grid-based combat. The grid is a time-saver, not a necessity. VTTs that support routing already exist - roll20 does it for routing through grid squares, though it has the 4e "square circles" thing going on where it counts a diagonal as the same distance as a horizontal or vertical movement from square to square. Straight-up distance calculations square-to-square would not be difficult to code. Coding topological mapping to incorporate 3D movement up and down would not be too much harder (though coding the maps for that would be immensely more complicated than just drawing a top-down view). A further step would be incorporating obstacles and difficult terrain.

You could go a step further in convenience features and allow some sort of toggle or hold-down button to indicate range circles. Who is in melee range, in short range, within long range? Slight increase still: enable this tool to show you, by clicking on a particular token or location, where you'd have to move a different token to be in those ranges of the target.

Exploring techniques for having 3D information without exploding the memory and rendering requirements would be quite the challenge; once you go 3D, maps and images become a lot chunkier in computer processing time. At least for displaying purposes. If you kept it to top-down display, though, you might be able to get away with more, as long as you don't require graphical rendering of the 3D positioning to be real-time.

In any event, VTTs are way, way better for doing away with grids and just running on actual distance calculations. Technically, there's still a hidden grid being used, of course, but it's so fine-grained that humans won't notice it, and the calculations for off-axis distances will be accurate to far too many decimal places for it to matter.

[Aimeryan]

I doubt 20% of groups are made up entirely of people willing to pay $10/month each. I would believe about 40% of groups have at least one player who'd pay that much, though I also doubt that D&D Beyond's VTT will be feature- and performance-competitive with other, cheaper ones, based on the dual factors of lack of demonstrated skill by WotC in the area and lack of incentive (as far as the money-men are concerned) to invest the kind of resources necessary to bring it up to par, since they will assume that their IP-exclusivity means they don't need to provide a quality service, only a bare minimum one, to compel players to pay for and use their inferior technical product.

I think that the number-crunching money-men are making WAGs that have enormous assumptions of unchanging usage behavior by existing customers despite the price shifts they're planning, and it's going to wind up with a lot of internal reports about how piracy and other bad-customer-behaviors are costing the company lots and lots of money when it doesn't work out the way they expect it to (but was entirely predictable if you remember that people are not sims).

Does your mind change on the willingness of people if the new edition is digital-only and they keep it out of competitor VTT's hands? I.e., a walled-garden approach?
I could easily see people paying $10/month to play a new edition. I'm completely against it, but I can see it. More importantly, I think WotC/Hasbro can see it - which is the problem.

[Aimeryan]

You don't have to fiddle with the maps like that if you just draw them with a drawing tool - Same as if you were drawing them on a wet erase map in person. Though, I liked drawing out the entire dungeon ahead of time and adding in the monsters and sight blocking ahead of time so that less time was spent on this sort of thing during the actual game, making the game itself run smoother.

I wish one of my DM's did this; he insists on drawing them out in realtime, which significantly cuts into the session. Sure, ad hoc locations I can understand not being prepared for, but for prepared locations... Many VTTs have the ability to reveal parts of the map in realtime and to have drawn the map beforehand - which also allows for far nicer maps than a rectangle for the area and some circles for trees.

[PhoenixPhyre]

You don't have to fiddle with the maps like that if you just draw them with a drawing tool - Same as if you were drawing them on a wet erase map in person. Though, I liked drawing out the entire dungeon ahead of time and adding in the monsters and sight blocking ahead of time so that less time was spent on this sort of thing during the actual game, making the game itself run smoother.

Yes, setting up tokens can take a bit of prep time, but the trick is you keep those tokens so next time you need one of those critters you can just drag and drop onto the play area.

Using the abilities, that depends on how intuitive the macros, etc are set up. Personally, when I was running Pathfinder online, I coded everything about the framework. I even had macros that would help create monsters and level up PC/NPC's. I think everything ran pretty intuitively and I know my players were impressed with it.

Yes, there can be plenty of prep time needed ahead of running, but that's true for in-person games as well. But the VTT allows the time you spend playing with your friends to be better and more efficiently spent with less time spent doing administrative tasks/pausing to prep something/look something up. It's nice being able to mouse over a token and have the AC/Touch AC pop up so you don't have to ask. Heck, I started putting in descriptions of the rooms for the PC's to read when they entered an area onto the maps themselves.

Except the drawing tools...suck. Horribly. Obscenely. Even in the good VTTs. Even relative to my crappy horrible artistic abilities using a pen and paper. And my experience is that because you lose all the in-person cues and have to deal with the serial nature of voice chat (having two people talking breaks everything, no sidebar conversations are reasonable), you need much higher fidelity maps online than in person. Because the online maps have to bear a lot of the load that could be covered by other channels when in-person. And high-fidelity maps are expensive, both computationally and overhead getting right. And require even finer grid alignment, especially if you're using the walls/LoS functionality. People get stuck on walls, things don't line up exactly on grid, etc.

But the core point was the extra overhead. Doing anything in a VTT costs extra time on everybody's part. It's a net friction compared to the same group running locally, at least in my experience. For me, it's roughly an order of magnitude more ongoing work, for a lower-quality game. The only substantial benefits it has is non-locality and eased scheduling (because no one has to drive anywhere).

[Yakmala]

Netflix is $7 a month, Disney Plus $8, HBO Max $15. That's $30.

Is D&D Beyond going to provide me as much content per month as Netflix, Disney Plus and HBO Max combined?

If not, they need to seriously reconsider that $30 price point.

[Segev]

Does your mind change on the willingness of people if the new edition is digital-only and they keep it out of competitor VTT's hands? I.e., a walled-garden approach?
I could easily see people paying $10/month to play a new edition. I'm completely against it, but I can see it. More importantly, I think WotC/Hasbro can see it - which is the problem.

Actually, I see that driving down the participation even more. The "hook" for new players has always been, "Just show up; I have the books and dice and stuff and can help you out." The line and sinker have always been, for those who liked it well enough to keep playing beyond a session or two, "It's easier for me to look up what I need with my own PHB, and to level up and plan my character," etc., "if I have my own stuff." And that's how you get more people buying into the game, buying the books, etc.

The walled garden approach will put the paywall right up in front of people's faces before they can try it out. And if they aren't willing to pay, they can't give it a shot. The relationship changes when you tell them "it's a free trial; give us your credit card info and we'll only charge you at the end of the period," vs. "You can borrow my books during the game/this week." When the choice to buy one's own books is something one proactively decides to do once more interested, rather than being something they worry - from the outset - they'll be conned into accidentally buying if they don't remember to cancel the automatic subscription soon enough, the barrier to entry FEELS higher.

Maybe I'm weird, but I am much more hesitant to do "free trials" that require me to give information to the company - especially information they could use to bill me - than I am to try something out that a friend wants to show me.

And, with the "walled garden" approach, again, I have less faith in the quality of the actual product they'll be offering. Why play with a clunky and frustrating interface that I am required to pay for and use, when I could be playing 5.0, 3.5, PF1, PF2, BESM, GURPS, RISUS, White Wolf, or even 4e without needing anything more than a GM who knows the system and is willing to teach it?

They're obviously trying to strangle out all earlier editions of D&D, but they won't be able to eliminate all RPG competitors, and by locking it behind an expensive paywall, they make their competitors that don't do that far, far more attractive.


Actually, it just hit me how incredibly stupid this approach is: D&D has always been the "gateway drug" of TTRPG gaming. It's the one almost every gamer cut their teeth on, by being the most ubiquitous. If WotC walls access to D&D off behind a $10 / month (or any other non-zero dollar amount) paywall where you have to give subscription information, etc., just to try it out, D&D becomes the "premium" option. Other game systems become the introductory path. This is how you not only undercut your sales, but actively surrender market dominance.

[EggKookoo]

Netflix is $7 a month, Disney Plus $8, HBO Max $15. That's $30.

Is D&D Beyond going to provide me as much content per month as Netflix, Disney Plus and HBO Max combined?

If not, they need to seriously reconsider that $30 price point.

No, even better. They're providing you access to your own imagination for $30.

[stoutstien]

Actually, I see that driving down the participation even more. The "hook" for new players has always been, "Just show up; I have the books and dice and stuff and can help you out." The line and sinker have always been, for those who liked it well enough to keep playing beyond a session or two, "It's easier for me to look up what I need with my own PHB, and to level up and plan my character," etc., "if I have my own stuff." And that's how you get more people buying into the game, buying the books, etc.

The walled garden approach will put the paywall right up in front of people's faces before they can try it out. And if they aren't willing to pay, they can't give it a shot. The relationship changes when you tell them "it's a free trial; give us your credit card info and we'll only charge you at the end of the period," vs. "You can borrow my books during the game/this week." When the choice to buy one's own books is something one proactively decides to do once more interested, rather than being something they worry - from the outset - they'll be conned into accidentally buying if they don't remember to cancel the automatic subscription soon enough, the barrier to entry FEELS higher.

Maybe I'm weird, but I am much more hesitant to do "free trials" that require me to give information to the company - especially information they could use to bill me - than I am to try something out that a friend wants to show me.

And, with the "walled garden" approach, again, I have less faith in the quality of the actual product they'll be offering. Why play with a clunky and frustrating interface that I am required to pay for and use, when I could be playing 5.0, 3.5, PF1, PF2, BESM, GURPS, RISUS, White Wolf, or even 4e without needing anything more than a GM who knows the system and is willing to teach it?

They're obviously trying to strangle out all earlier editions of D&D, but they won't be able to eliminate all RPG competitors, and by locking it behind an expensive paywall, they make their competitors that don't do that far, far more attractive.


Actually, it just hit me how incredibly stupid this approach is: D&D has always been the "gateway drug" of TTRPG gaming. It's the one almost every gamer cut their teeth on, by being the most ubiquitous. If WotC walls access to D&D off behind a $10 / month (or any other non-zero dollar amount) paywall where you have to give subscription information, etc., just to try it out, D&D becomes the "premium" option. Other game systems become the introductory path. This is how you not only undercut your sales, but actively surrender market dominance.

Yea I'm with you here. I think even if they are able to get a sizable subscription pool at first the fact they are walling off will quickly stagnate that pool and will drop rapidly after a short time.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Actually, I see that driving down the participation even more. The "hook" for new players has always been, "Just show up; I have the books and dice and stuff and can help you out." The line and sinker have always been, for those who liked it well enough to keep playing beyond a session or two, "It's easier for me to look up what I need with my own PHB, and to level up and plan my character," etc., "if I have my own stuff." And that's how you get more people buying into the game, buying the books, etc.

The walled garden approach will put the paywall right up in front of people's faces before they can try it out. And if they aren't willing to pay, they can't give it a shot. The relationship changes when you tell them "it's a free trial; give us your credit card info and we'll only charge you at the end of the period," vs. "You can borrow my books during the game/this week." When the choice to buy one's own books is something one proactively decides to do once more interested, rather than being something they worry - from the outset - they'll be conned into accidentally buying if they don't remember to cancel the automatic subscription soon enough, the barrier to entry FEELS higher.

Maybe I'm weird, but I am much more hesitant to do "free trials" that require me to give information to the company - especially information they could use to bill me - than I am to try something out that a friend wants to show me.

And, with the "walled garden" approach, again, I have less faith in the quality of the actual product they'll be offering. Why play with a clunky and frustrating interface that I am required to pay for and use, when I could be playing 5.0, 3.5, PF1, PF2, BESM, GURPS, RISUS, White Wolf, or even 4e without needing anything more than a GM who knows the system and is willing to teach it?

They're obviously trying to strangle out all earlier editions of D&D, but they won't be able to eliminate all RPG competitors, and by locking it behind an expensive paywall, they make their competitors that don't do that far, far more attractive.


Actually, it just hit me how incredibly stupid this approach is: D&D has always been the "gateway drug" of TTRPG gaming. It's the one almost every gamer cut their teeth on, by being the most ubiquitous. If WotC walls access to D&D off behind a $10 / month (or any other non-zero dollar amount) paywall where you have to give subscription information, etc., just to try it out, D&D becomes the "premium" option. Other game systems become the introductory path. This is how you not only undercut your sales, but actively surrender market dominance.


Yea I'm with you here. I think even if they are able to get a sizable subscription pool at first the fact they are walling off will quickly stagnate that pool and will drop rapidly after a short time.

Count me in on that as well. I ran a high school club where ~0 of the players bought their own books at all. Probably 30 players over the years, maybe 2 bought books, dice, or any other materials. We averaged 1-3, 1 hour games a month (due to after-school limitations). And there were other (middle school) clubs that ran during lunch. Of those, a good chunk went on to play in other contexts, with a majority of those becoming DMs. Making that a mandatory $10, online buy-in would have utterly killed it.

And even with my in-person game, we had a completely new player come in after a few sessions. Only the fact that she could borrow everyone else's materials/my D&D Beyond subscription made that possible; now she's buying her own dice, minis, and other materials. If she had to do all the buy-in and have an account...yeah. No.

[skyth]

Except the drawing tools...suck. Horribly. Obscenely. Even in the good VTTs. Even relative to my crappy horrible artistic abilities using a pen and paper.

I disagree. I can draw using the Maptools drawing tools quicker than I could using pens on a live battlemap. And with better accuracy.



you need much higher fidelity maps online than in person. Because the online maps have to bear a lot of the load that could be covered by other channels when in-person.

Not true in my experience. You can still use the 'other channels' with a VTT.


But the core point was the extra overhead. Doing anything in a VTT costs extra time on everybody's part.

Again, not true in my experience. I click one checkbox as part of an attack and attack bonus and damage are figured out for power attack. Don't have to do any computations or re-figure them every level. Same with range modifiers or a number of other things. How much time is spent in-game adding up the damage dice when it's done instantly in a VTT? Finding a map or other handout and handing it to one player when all of them can just quickly have it online? There is 'friction' in real life games as well that you are forgetting.

Add in the fact that a lot of the 'extra time' takes place away from the game session itself kind of renders things moot as it allows better enjoyment of the actual session with everyone present.

I enjoy my in-person games more than the ones I was running online, but I was actually considering have people bring laptops to the in-person game so I could use a VTT for the battlemap/combat tracking instead of the draw-on one or my warlock tiles. The automation and flexibility of a VTT, especially one that I know how to use quite well would make my life a LOT easier as a DM.

[Dr.Samurai]

It remains to be seen.

I'm in line with the few posts above this one.

But maybe there are newer players that don't know what it's like to play D&D and they buy into this new paradigm of a subscription (for DDB and, if rumors are true, an additional one for the VTT) to play something that calls itself D&D but is really more like a choose-your-own-adventure computer game.

[Aimeryan]

I'm 50/50 on whether I think it will pay off for Hasbro, but I'm fairly confident they think it will. I'm also 90% confident that I personally will not like the way they will monetize it.

[Atranen]

In regards to the price points and going digital-only, consider this:

$5/month: Same benefits as D&D Beyond currently provide, still have to buy books digitally.
$10/month: Add on basic VTT.
$20/month: Advanced VTT, add on homebrew capability, can share content you own to other players in the session.
$30/month: Add on access to all official WotC material.


Actually, I see that driving down the participation even more. The "hook" for new players has always been, "Just show up; I have the books and dice and stuff and can help you out." The line and sinker have always been, for those who liked it well enough to keep playing beyond a session or two, "It's easier for me to look up what I need with my own PHB, and to level up and plan my character," etc., "if I have my own stuff." And that's how you get more people buying into the game, buying the books, etc.

The walled garden approach will put the paywall right up in front of people's faces before they can try it out. And if they aren't willing to pay, they can't give it a shot.

I'm of a mind with Aimeryan; the tiered system is way more plausible than $30/month for everyone. And to the "barrier to entry" point, I'd be shocked if they didn't include a free tier, with restrictions, that is nonetheless more than adequate for the "jump in and learn to play" player. Something like 1-2 characters, a limited selection of minis and dice, maybe a level cap.


I'm 50/50 on whether I think it will pay off for Hasbro, but I'm fairly confident they think it will. I'm also 90% confident that I personally will not like the way they will monetize it.

The more I think about it, the more I think they'll be successful. Without me, of course :smallyuk:

[Kvess]

Wasn't there a leak a few months ago about the subscription fees increasing? I recall there was a photo of some PowerPoint floating around.
Someone posted PowerPoint slides back in August on r/dndleaks (https://www.reddit.com/r/dndleaks/comments/wqtvi3/dd_beyond/) claiming that D&D Beyond+ was planning to raise subscription fees to $29.99 per month, while also removing access to homebrew from free accounts and locking them to SRD content. It was a hoax. The same Redditor published an additional slide which said: “Don’t worry. It was all fake. Microtransactions and subscriptions suck. Please don’t ruin D&D.” The fact that this rumour is also at $30/month per user suggests that this is either one heck of a coincidence or from someone who didn’t see that this was a hoax.

I don’t think any of this passes the smell test. WotC has a Discord assistant for rules and dice rolls, called Avrae, but even ChatGPT doesn’t actually understand… much of anything really, beyond a superficial “this is what I heard people say” level. Technologically the software is really good autocomplete, but you wouldn’t write a book using autocomplete. DMs are also the customers who buy most of the books and subscribe to their highest subscription tiers, so replacing us with AI makes absolutely no sense.

There’s a difference between Hasbro trying to take a cut of Paizo’s revenue in the sleaziest way possible and pushing their core business off of a cliff while twirling their moustaches and kicking a flumph.

[Dr.Samurai]

Well, they just put out another statement 30 minutes ago and didn't say that the subscription stuff was bogus so... not sure. I'm not linking it here since it's mostly to do with the OGL. But seems they're going to revise the OGL as per their UA method; release it, get feedback through surveys, provide results.

[Kvess]

Well, they just put out another statement 30 minutes ago and didn't say that the subscription stuff was bogus so... not sure. I'm not linking it here since it's mostly to do with the OGL. But seems they're going to revise the OGL as per their UA method; release it, get feedback through surveys, provide results.

As someone who does communications work for a living, that statement probably wasn't written 30 minutes ago. Since it's discussing legal agreements between WOTC and other publisher, they probably needed to have all of the VPs sign off on it and that rarely happens quickly in any organization.

[EggKookoo]

The more I think about it, the more I think they'll be successful. Without me, of course :smallyuk:

Yeah. I like D&D enough, but its main selling point for me over other systems has always been its accessibility. If I have to pay for the privilege, there are better systems.

[Snowbluff]

Someone posted PowerPoint slides back in August on r/dndleaks claiming that D&D Beyond+ was planning to raise subscription fees to $29.99 per month, while also removing access to homebrew from free accounts and locking them to SRD content. It was a hoax. The same Redditor published an additional slide which said: “Don’t worry. It was all fake. Microtransactions and subscriptions suck. Please don’t ruin D&D.” The fact that this rumour is also at $30/month per user suggests that this is either one heck of a coincidence or from someone who didn’t see that this was a hoax.

I don’t think any of this passes the smell test. WotC has a Discord assistant for rules and dice rolls, called Avrae, but even ChatGPT doesn’t actually understand… much of anything really, beyond a superficial “this is what I heard people say” level. Technologically the software is really good autocomplete, but you wouldn’t write a book using autocomplete. DMs are also the customers who buy most of the books and subscribe to their highest subscription tiers, so replacing us with AI makes absolutely no sense.

ThereÂ’s a difference between Hasbro trying to take a cut of PaizoÂ’s revenue in the sleaziest way possible and pushing their core business off of a cliff while twirling their moustaches and kicking a flumph.

It is most certainly a hoax. This is the PP in question. (https://old.reddit.com/r/dndleaks/comments/wqtvi3/dd_beyond/)I'm actually surprised this took off so readily given that this has already existed and been debunked months ago by the hoaxer (https://old.reddit.com/r/dndleaks/comments/wqtvi3/dd_beyond/ikpmmaj/). The only new part is the AI DM, which is an idea so infeasible that it probably wouldn't nearly approach functionality in any meaningful timeframe unless WotC were to suddenly hire more coders than they have writers for DnD.

For the record, a similar post to this thread has 6k karma on reddit (https://old.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/10dtb42/rumor_hasbros_plans_for_dnddnd_beyond30_per_month/?ref=share&ref_source=link). On something so astonishingly fake I can't even begin to describe how dumb this is. I know WotC isn't great, but if this is real, it's because people are just giving them ideas at this point. :smalltongue:

[Psyren]

It is most certainly a hoax. This is the PP in question. (https://old.reddit.com/r/dndleaks/comments/wqtvi3/dd_beyond/)I'm actually surprised this took off so readily given that this has already existed and been debunked months ago by the hoaxer (https://old.reddit.com/r/dndleaks/comments/wqtvi3/dd_beyond/ikpmmaj/). The only new part is the AI DM, which is an idea so infeasible that it probably wouldn't nearly approach functionality in any meaningful timeframe unless WotC were to suddenly hire more coders than they have writers for DnD.

For the record, a similar post to this thread has 6k karma on reddit (https://old.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/10dtb42/rumor_hasbros_plans_for_dnddnd_beyond30_per_month/?ref=share&ref_source=link). On something so astonishingly fake I can't even begin to describe how dumb this is. I know WotC isn't great, but if this is real, it's because people are just giving them ideas at this point. :smalltongue:

Indeed - and even if it's somehow based on true information, it's definitely incomplete.


Yea I'm with you here. I think even if they are able to get a sizable subscription pool at first the fact they are walling off will quickly stagnate that pool and will drop rapidly after a short time.

I strongly doubt that D&D Beyond will dispense with all its free options. It would be like them deleting Basic.



Yes, there can be plenty of prep time needed ahead of running, but that's true for in-person games as well. But the VTT allows the time you spend playing with your friends to be better and more efficiently spent with less time spent doing administrative tasks/pausing to prep something/look something up. It's nice being able to mouse over a token and have the AC/Touch AC pop up so you don't have to ask. Heck, I started putting in descriptions of the rooms for the PC's to read when they entered an area onto the maps themselves.

Current VTTs shift more of the burden from running the game midstream to pre-game preparation, and the degree to which they lessen that burden is dependent on how user-friendly they are. There is a lot of room in this space to make something that is easier to use, especially from any device (phones included.) WotC has a real opportunity here.


No, even better. They're providing you access to your own imagination for $30.

I think it's actually other people's imagination, if the homebrew function being gated is identical to the current gated one. (i.e. making your own homebrew is free, publishing it for others and/or searching and using theirs is not.) But with that said, I agree that the $30 price point, if true, is overly ambitious for what they could possibly have ready to put in it, short of not needing to buy the actual books.

[Brookshw]

But maybe there are newer players that don't know what it's like to play D&D and they buy into this new paradigm of a subscription (for DDB and, if rumors are true, an additional one for the VTT) to play something that calls itself D&D but is really more like a choose-your-own-adventure computer game.

Huh, hadn't even considered new players. I think the last way I'd want to introduce someone to D&D , or any TTRPG, is through a VTT, kinda sees that without the in person energy you'd be missing out on a lot. Might be my own bias though as I don't use them.

[Oramac]

Well, they just put out another statement 30 minutes ago and didn't say that the subscription stuff was bogus so... not sure. I'm not linking it here since it's mostly to do with the OGL. But seems they're going to revise the OGL as per their UA method; release it, get feedback through surveys, provide results.


As someone who does communications work for a living, that statement probably wasn't written 30 minutes ago. Since it's discussing legal agreements between WOTC and other publisher, they probably needed to have all of the VPs sign off on it and that rarely happens quickly in any organization.

Oh yea, no way that was written 30+ minutes ago. More likely, it was written last week and just now got signed off by management.

Regardless, it's a good sign. There's still a lot of questions that need answering, but it's a big step in the right direction.

[Psyren]

Huh, hadn't even considered new players. I think the last way I'd want to introduce someone to D&D , or any TTRPG, is through a VTT, kinda sees that without the in person energy you'd be missing out on a lot. Might be my own bias though as I don't use them.

I can all but guarantee that most newcomers to D&D in 2020 and 2021 were not introduced in person, given the quarantine stuff. Improving their ability to do that (whether themselves, or empowering established players to do so on their behalf) is going to be a major strategic capability going forward I would say.

[Snowbluff]

Indeed - and even if it's somehow based on true information, it's definitely incomplete.


You're right, there's probably something to found if we engage in a little OSINT. What kind of people is WotC Hiring? (https://company.wizards.com/en/careers)Mostly artists. A lot of people for their AAA game studio(s). "Digital DnD" is getting a new head of creative. If someone knows if any of these point to a job that would intimate some connection to a new AI DM, please tell me.

[skyth]

Current VTTs shift more of the burden from running the game midstream to pre-game preparation, and the degree to which they lessen that burden is dependent on how user-friendly they are. There is a lot of room in this space to make something that is easier to use, especially from any device (phones included.) WotC has a real opportunity here.

Yep, pretty much what I was trying to say but you said it better I think. Though it also depends on what you are trying to use the VTT for.

Though I will say that I don't trust WotC to do a good job with their VTT. They are notorious for not doing well with programing stuff (they pay their devs very poorly compared to other companies so don't get the best talent). Plus, I don't think it will be very flexible. It will likely look cool but the functionality will suffer. Especially if they wall-off custom content from it, and pretty much any DM does at least some custom content. I know I create upgraded versions of monsters all the time or I import them from other game systems/worlds. For instance, the Trolls in my campaign are Middle-Earth Trolls, not D&D regenerating trolls and my players have fought a lesser Nazgul (Them trying to figure out what it was was interesting) and a Shard from Rolemaster.

[Sigreid]

Yep, pretty much what I was trying to say but you said it better I think. Though it also depends on what you are trying to use the VTT for.

Though I will say that I don't trust WotC to do a good job with their VTT. They are notorious for not doing well with programing stuff (they pay their devs very poorly compared to other companies so don't get the best talent). Plus, I don't think it will be very flexible. It will likely look cool but the functionality will suffer. Especially if they wall-off custom content from it, and pretty much any DM does at least some custom content. I know I create upgraded versions of monsters all the time or I import them from other game systems/worlds. For instance, the Trolls in my campaign are Middle-Earth Trolls, not D&D regenerating trolls and my players have fought a lesser Nazgul (Them trying to figure out what it was was interesting) and a Shard from Rolemaster.
Well, they could have the undeniable advantage of designing adventures going forward to work with a specific vtt.

[Dr.Samurai]

I didn't mean to suggest that the statement was written within the hour, but rather they could have put in an edit to address this current spate of rumors/leaks/speculation/outrage. Especially given that the article addresses their silence having done more harm, and the effort to be more transparent going forward.

[Sparky McDibben]

It is most certainly a hoax.

I mean, maybe. If it is, I'll certainly apologize. But the same folks who broke the OGL news are confirming this, so that's why I posted it here. I don't think it has any relation to the hoax PPT, except that the hoaxer and WotC leadership were thinking along similar lines.

[Psyren]

Yep, pretty much what I was trying to say but you said it better I think. Though it also depends on what you are trying to use the VTT for.

Though I will say that I don't trust WotC to do a good job with their VTT. They are notorious for not doing well with programing stuff (they pay their devs very poorly compared to other companies so don't get the best talent). Plus, I don't think it will be very flexible. It will likely look cool but the functionality will suffer. Especially if they wall-off custom content from it, and pretty much any DM does at least some custom content. I know I create upgraded versions of monsters all the time or I import them from other game systems/worlds. For instance, the Trolls in my campaign are Middle-Earth Trolls, not D&D regenerating trolls and my players have fought a lesser Nazgul (Them trying to figure out what it was was interesting) and a Shard from Rolemaster.

Rumors were going around that DDB all but had a VTT of their own ready to go when they got acquired. And even if they didn't, at the time of the acquisition we had VTT developers like the Arkenforge guys confirming that DnDBeyond already has ~80% of what a VTT needs to function (https://arkenforge.com/dd-beyond-purchase-a-vtts-perspective/), lacking just things like maps/tokens/lighting. So I'm not so sure that WotC's past track-records with programming are really relevant - they did the arguably smarter thing here and simply bought a company/platform that is better at it than they are.

[Dr.Samurai]

Official thread for OGL discussion here (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?653211-Official-OGL-Discussion-Thread&p=25683848#post25683848).

[skyth]

Rumors were going around that DDB all but had a VTT of their own ready to go when they got acquired. And even if they didn't, at the time of the acquisition we had VTT developers like the Arkenforge guys confirming that DnDBeyond already has ~80% of what a VTT needs to function (https://arkenforge.com/dd-beyond-purchase-a-vtts-perspective/), lacking just things like maps/tokens/lighting. So I'm not so sure that WotC's past track-records with programming are really relevant - they did the arguably smarter thing here and simply bought a company/platform that is better at it than they are.

Well, there's updating it for the new rules/maintaining it going forward that is also something to consider. Especially since they have been saying that they want it to be 3d, etc. (I believe they wanted to use the unreal engine if memory serves?). That's going to be a lot more complicated. Like I said, they'll likely prioritize form over function as well. Make it look good, who cares if it doesn't work right.

Add in the likelihood of homebrew/customization being limited/not allowed...I'll stick with Maptools. Does exactly what I want it to, the way I want it to (Since I do all the coding :) )

[Dr.Samurai]

Rumors were going around that DDB all but had a VTT of their own ready to go when they got acquired. And even if they didn't, at the time of the acquisition we had VTT developers like the Arkenforge guys confirming that DnDBeyond already has ~80% of what a VTT needs to function (https://arkenforge.com/dd-beyond-purchase-a-vtts-perspective/), lacking just things like maps/tokens/lighting. So I'm not so sure that WotC's past track-records with programming are really relevant - they did the arguably smarter thing here and simply bought a company/platform that is better at it than they are.
To Psyren's point, I think there are a lot of factors here that could make this go either way, and we won't really know until we know lol.

I think we know how many of the "old guard" feel and would feel to have to pay a subscription and see all the other 3rd party stuff get snuffed out. But we also know there are a lot of new players, and it's hard to know what they will be willing to tolerate. Obviously, as Aimeryan stated earlier, it seems clear that at the very least WotC/Hasbro believes this will bring in more money one way or the other. How much of that depends on them getting everything they want? I don't know. How much of what they want will they get? No clue.

With regards to VTT, yeah, they acquired DDB, so that's better than before. But doesn't that mean that they now manage DDB as well? Could they simply not know how to manage these types of projects? I don't know. I know that they basically fail at anything digital that they try. Will it be different now? And different enough to compete with or surpass the VTTs that are over a decade old? I don't know.

I know the parts of this I don't like, but it remains to be seen what the finished product will look like and what I'll be willing to tolerate. In addition, I don't know who is leaking this material, nor what their motives are. We're getting a glimpse through a keyhole, so that has to be considered as well. But, the fact that people were brought in to raise money and they immediately went for the jugular is not a good starting point.

[stoutstien]

Eh. DnD beyond is a mess. even if they had a VTT ready to launch today they have months of works for the material they have now let alone a completely new edition.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Eh. DnD beyond is a mess. even if they had a VTT ready to launch today they have months of works for the material they have now let alone a completely new edition.

Yeah. D&D Beyond barely functions for the existing material. And their roadmap of things they wanted to support hasn't moved at all since the acquisition.

[EggKookoo]

Yeah. D&D Beyond barely functions for the existing material. And their roadmap of things they wanted to support hasn't moved at all since the acquisition.

I find it perfectly adequate from a player perspective. It's badly lacking from a DM perspective.

[Sigreid]

Part of the equation is that few if any people play daily. So, whatever they decide to charge is competing with every other streaming or game service for people's entertainment dollar. Most of which are easier to use because you don't have to coordinate play time.

Just had a thought that the real potential for AI might not be on the DM side, but on the side of AI controlled characters to fill out a party.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I find it perfectly adequate from a player perspective. It's badly lacking from a DM perspective.

I've had to help my players use it, and it...works. Barely. As long as you're extremely gentle and stay exactly in the supported, well-defined area. Throw in anything homebrew (like adding a custom item) and you're in pain (albeit doable pain). As a DM? Those tools are not even MVP, because the V stands for viable. And haven't improved since the acquisition.

[Atranen]

I find it perfectly adequate from a player perspective. It's badly lacking from a DM perspective.

I had never tried it; I just did, out of curiosity. As a v human wizard, it gave me one option for feat: grappler. I also somehow missed the chance to choose spells, and ended up with a level 1 wizard with an empty spellbook.

Compare to, say, Solasta, where I've made many 1st level characters using 5e rules...it was clearly worse.

[stoutstien]

I had never tried it; I just did, out of curiosity. As a v human wizard, it gave me one option for feat: grappler. I also somehow missed the chance to choose spells, and ended up with a level 1 wizard with an empty spellbook.

Compare to, say, Solasta, where I've made many 1st level characters using 5e rules...it was clearly worse.

Even if you have a subscription to unlock options it's not easy to understand how they map or link anything. You change anything core or add homebrew you are better off using practically anything else.

I remember laughing when the brought beyond because I swear they got scammed past buying out the largest 2nd tier digital material source for the game.

For example if you look in the artificer subforum a good portion of the threads are talking about getting the class to work at all within they site with hacks and backdoors.

[Dr.Samurai]

Well then... seems like purchasing DDB might not guarantee a l33t VTT for us to be forced to use going forward after all...

[Atranen]

Even if you have a subscription to unlock options it's not easy to understand how they map or link anything. You change anything core or add homebrew you are better off using practically anything else.

I remember laughing when the brought beyond because I swear they got scammed past buying out the largest 2nd tier digital material source for the game.

For example if you look in the artificer subforum a good portion of the threads are talking about getting the class to work at all within they site with hacks and backdoors.

I've tried the PF2e 'pathbuilder' site and Lancer's Comp/Con for character building as well. Comp/Con is the best online character builder I've used across systems, while the pathbuilder was superior to D&DBeyond. It was not what I expected from a flagship proprietary service.

[Psyren]

I use DDB extensively as a player, including with homebrew and third-party content. I obtained a recharging item in one campaign that lets me cast various spells both at-will and various times per day, and while it took a little finesse, I was able to create that custom item and have the powers it gave me show up in my sheet (with the correct action types to activate it etc) without too much trouble. It has rough edges in spots, but is by far the most user-friendly character management tool I've seen for D&D yet, especially officially, and moreover the live auditing of my and my group's characters ("hey, you forgot to pick a rune last level!") has been immensely useful. It being official also has let me sit down to AL and convention tables with it, knowing that the DMs there won't demand I stick to pen and paper, or roll physical dice that I don't feel like carting around everywhere.

As a DM, the main thing I've used was the encounter builder (Treantmonk has a great tutorial on that side of things and why its so useful), but even then only a couple of times.

Again, I see a lot of potential here, but the bulk of my experience with the platform has been as a player.

[stoutstien]

I've tried the PF2e 'pathbuilder' site and Lancer's Comp/Con for character building as well. Comp/Con is the best online character builder I've used across systems, while the pathbuilder was superior to D&DBeyond. It was not what I expected from a flagship proprietary service.

Pathfinder does need some work and there was talk about updating it which will be difficult because they use a "living" document style of updates.

I also dislike systems that need that many options to function to begin with so I just avoid it past basic understanding to run the game.

I've poked at comp/con and it seems solid.

Personally Ive been running more WWN and Mork Borg lately so the idea of needing anything larger than a single sheet of paper and 5-10 minutes to roll up a completely new PC for someone 100% green is jarring.

[Segev]

I'm of a mind with Aimeryan; the tiered system is way more plausible than $30/month for everyone. And to the "barrier to entry" point, I'd be shocked if they didn't include a free tier, with restrictions, that is nonetheless more than adequate for the "jump in and learn to play" player. Something like 1-2 characters, a limited selection of minis and dice, maybe a level cap.

Which completely breaks the typical TTRPG dynamic. "Sorry, new player, you can't have these cool things that the other players have, because you didn't cough up money." In actual games, the resources the players have access to are more or less communal, in terms of class options, feat options, etc., because the DM approves whatever is allowed and, if a player brings a book to the table to ask to play something from it, the DM is not going to tell other players, "Sorry, you only get the PHB classes, feats, and spells."

Making the game itself lock away anything but the basics for some, but not others (who paid more)? That's going to drive wedges into the group dynamic right away. And it also will make players more likely to feel like they're being denied what they've paid for if the DM bans certain things from his game. This will be of lesser issue, I think; players are already used to buying books that the DM may not allow. But still, when the system itself is telling you, "you can use this BECAUSE you paid for it," and the DM is telling you 'no....'

[Dr.Samurai]

Which completely breaks the typical TTRPG dynamic. "Sorry, new player, you can't have these cool things that the other players have, because you didn't cough up money." In actual games, the resources the players have access to are more or less communal, in terms of class options, feat options, etc., because the DM approves whatever is allowed and, if a player brings a book to the table to ask to play something from it, the DM is not going to tell other players, "Sorry, you only get the PHB classes, feats, and spells."

Making the game itself lock away anything but the basics for some, but not others (who paid more)? That's going to drive wedges into the group dynamic right away. And it also will make players more likely to feel like they're being denied what they've paid for if the DM bans certain things from his game. This will be of lesser issue, I think; players are already used to buying books that the DM may not allow. But still, when the system itself is telling you, "you can use this BECAUSE you paid for it," and the DM is telling you 'no....'
The people making these choices don't understand any of this because they had never given a thought to D&D until they were approached for a job.

[Sigreid]

The people making these choices don't understand any of this because they had never given a thought to D&D until they were approached for a job.

They'll eventually get to operating as a gacha game. You'll pay for a chance to get a class by pulling on a banner with building pity to actually get it. /s

[Psyren]

Which completely breaks the typical TTRPG dynamic. "Sorry, new player, you can't have these cool things that the other players have, because you didn't cough up money." In actual games, the resources the players have access to are more or less communal, in terms of class options, feat options, etc., because the DM approves whatever is allowed and, if a player brings a book to the table to ask to play something from it, the DM is not going to tell other players, "Sorry, you only get the PHB classes, feats, and spells."

Making the game itself lock away anything but the basics for some, but not others (who paid more)? That's going to drive wedges into the group dynamic right away. And it also will make players more likely to feel like they're being denied what they've paid for if the DM bans certain things from his game. This will be of lesser issue, I think; players are already used to buying books that the DM may not allow. But still, when the system itself is telling you, "you can use this BECAUSE you paid for it," and the DM is telling you 'no....'

I'm a little confused on this one. DDB is communal too - it just requires one of you to subscribe. All the free players can access whatever content the paying player has purchased and makes available, at no extra charge. This is true even if the free player(s) haven't bought a single book for themselves.

The only real issue in this leak is the price point vs. features received, and that hasn't been confirmed anywhere.

[Segev]

I'm a little confused on this one. DDB is communal too - it just requires one of you to subscribe. All the free players can access whatever content the paying player has purchased and makes available, at no extra charge. This is true even if the free player(s) haven't bought a single book for themselves.

The only real issue in this leak is the price point vs. features received, and that hasn't been confirmed anywhere.

If that's the case, then they'll want to encourage "party accounts," because that way they're not depending on each gaming group having a "whale."

We will have to wait and see. Also, though, this structure (as you describe it) only encourages additional purchases of the "big" subscription level if the other players branch out to recruit still more for different games, and thus need their own high-sub account. Whereas traditional gaming encourages buying one's own dice and books as a matter of personal convenience and interest.

But we'll see.

I wish them well if they really can produce a VTT with adequate convenience and interface utility to be worth that price point. I just don't anticipate them doing so, nor that they expect excellence is how they'll get people into their "walled garden." Instead, I think they expect to be able to rest on their IP for that. "You want to play with a Beholder in your game? You'd better cough up a monthly subscription fee, and put up with our lackluster interface to use it!"

[KorvinStarmast]

But the core point was the extra overhead. Doing anything in a VTT costs extra time on everybody's part. It's a net friction compared to the same group running locally, at least in my experience. For me, it's roughly an order of magnitude more ongoing work, for a lower-quality game. The only substantial benefits it has is non-locality and eased scheduling (because no one has to drive anywhere). This. VTT mastery came slow for me, and it never stops being work as a DM.

The fact that this rumour is also at $30/month per user suggests that this is either one heck of a coincidence or from someone who didn’t see that this was a hoax. maybe the hoaxer is management material, and management spoke their language all too well. :smallwink:

Since it's discussing legal agreements between WOTC and other publisher, they probably needed to have all of the VPs sign off on it and that rarely happens quickly in any organization.Amen.

I don't think it has any relation to the hoax PPT, except that the hoaxer and WotC leadership were thinking along similar lines. As I said, looks like management material. :smallbiggrin:

[Tawmis]

New post -
https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1428-a-working-conversation-about-the-open-game-license

[Arkhios]

New post -
https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1428-a-working-conversation-about-the-open-game-license

Personally, I like the looks of this. I hold no false hopes for the OGL to remain in it's current state forever. As I said elsewhere, 1.0a is over 20 (23 to be precise) years old. Times have changed, and will continue to do so. It's bound to happen for the OGL as well, eventually. It's much better now that they intend to do it with us, rather than behind closed doors.

[skyth]

It still says the same things as the previous post and doesn't talk about the things that we actually care about along with lying and gaslighting about it being a draft. Plus it's just a delaying tactic. They won't have to talk about the uproar over the new OGL as they are 'waiting for feedback from the survey' so they can wait for the outrage to die down.

Of course, since the survey results are non-public on DDB the survey results can say whatever they want it to say. Considering they've already been lying to and gaslighting us about this I wouldn't trust anything that comes out of this 'survey'.

[Kane0]

I use DDB extensively as a player, including with homebrew and third-party content. I obtained a recharging item in one campaign that lets me cast various spells both at-will and various times per day, and while it took a little finesse, I was able to create that custom item and have the powers it gave me show up in my sheet (with the correct action types to activate it etc) without too much trouble. It has rough edges in spots, but is by far the most user-friendly character management tool I've seen for D&D yet, especially officially, and moreover the live auditing of my and my group's characters ("hey, you forgot to pick a rune last level!") has been immensely useful. It being official also has let me sit down to AL and convention tables with it, knowing that the DMs there won't demand I stick to pen and paper, or roll physical dice that I don't feel like carting around everywhere.


My father uses Herolab and swears by it, I wonder how it compares if anyone has experience with both?

[Sparky McDibben]

New post -
https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1428-a-working-conversation-about-the-open-game-license


Personally, I like the looks of this. I hold no false hopes for the OGL to remain in it's current state forever. As I said elsewhere, 1.0a is over 20 (23 to be precise) years old. Times have changed, and will continue to do so. It's bound to happen for the OGL as well, eventually. It's much better now that they intend to do it with us, rather than behind closed doors.


It still says the same things as the previous post and doesn't talk about the things that we actually care about along with lying and gaslighting about it being a draft. Plus it's just a delaying tactic. They won't have to talk about the uproar over the new OGL as they are 'waiting for feedback from the survey' so they can wait for the outrage to die down.

Of course, since the survey results are non-public on DDB the survey results can say whatever they want it to say. Considering they've already been lying to and gaslighting us about this I wouldn't trust anything that comes out of this 'survey'.

Guys, we're not talking the OGL in this thread. It's good info, but let's put that in the OGL thread.

[Arkhios]

Guys, we're not talking the OGL in this thread. It's good info, but let's put that in the OGL thread.

Fair. I'll shut up about it. Sorry for bringing up my opinion.

[Dr.Samurai]

Fair. I'll shut up about it. Sorry for bringing up my opinion.
I posted it earlier but this (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?653211-Official-OGL-Discussion-Thread) is actually the sanctioned mod-created thread specifically for OGL talk.

[Segev]

Personally, I like the looks of this. I hold no false hopes for the OGL to remain in it's current state forever. As I said elsewhere, 1.0a is over 20 (23 to be precise) years old. Times have changed, and will continue to do so. It's bound to happen for the OGL as well, eventually. It's much better now that they intend to do it with us, rather than behind closed doors.

The only need for it to change is to accommodate things that v. 1.0(a) doesn't cover.

There's no need for it to change just because it's "old," if it still functions and does its job. And it does, except to those who want to end the OGL because they don't like the job it's doing.

[Arkhios]

The only need for it to change is to accommodate things that v. 1.0(a) doesn't cover.

There's no need for it to change just because it's "old," if it still functions and does its job. And it does, except to those who want to end the OGL because they don't like the job it's doing.

Maybe we should cease to talk about the OGL in here as well, starting from now.

[Psyren]

My father uses Herolab and swears by it, I wonder how it compares if anyone has experience with both?

I used Herolab for PF1 and enjoyed it well enough there, but did not try using it for 5e. For me at least, DDB is much simpler (I don't have to preload "packages" for instance, DDB has a mobile app, etc.)


If that's the case, then they'll want to encourage "party accounts," because that way they're not depending on each gaming group having a "whale."

That's more or less how it works now though. Sure you might have some groups where everyone has their own PHB, but I would guess groups where one person doesn't bring most of the books to share with everyone else are pretty rare. And even if it's a group where everybody has their own copy of the player books, WotC themselves have said that DM-focused things like the adventure paths are usually only bought by one person per table.

(Maybe I'm biased on this front by usually being the designated "whale" for my groups, but still.)


We will have to wait and see. Also, though, this structure (as you describe it) only encourages additional purchases of the "big" subscription level if the other players branch out to recruit still more for different games, and thus need their own high-sub account. Whereas traditional gaming encourages buying one's own dice and books as a matter of personal convenience and interest.

I think the idea behind the big sub is that one person is subsidizing the rest of the table anyway, so they can come up with extra value-add targeted at that individual for a premium price, and they will naturally cover the rest.

For example, DnDBeyond makes it so that the "whale" and the "DM" don't have to be the same person, and the DM, despite not being the owner of the content in question, can still restrict it from that player for that campaign.

[Snowbluff]

Related development, but DnD_Shorts had to retract a statement about a recent alleged leak. (https://twitter.com/DnD_Shorts/status/1615854768575979521)This may have been a different source, but we shall watch these developments with great interests.

EDIT: DDB posted to counter these claims. (https://twitter.com/DnDBeyond/status/1615879300414062593?t=HoSF4uOJjEuRqJXn72iKBQ&s=19)

[Sparky McDibben]

Related development, but DnD_Shorts had to retract a statement about a recent alleged leak. (https://twitter.com/DnD_Shorts/status/1615854768575979521)This may have been a different source, but we shall watch these developments with great interests.

EDIT: DDB posted to counter these claims. (https://twitter.com/DnDBeyond/status/1615879300414062593?t=HoSF4uOJjEuRqJXn72iKBQ&s=19)

First off, good on DnD Shorts. It takes some cojones to tell the world you screwed up, and I appreciate that.

Hopefully the DDB response is genuine, but after all this nonsense floating around, I am less inclined to trust their word.

[Psyren]

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to congratulate the guy farming rage clicks for doing the bare minimum and retracting after messing up. He wanted to be a pseudo-journalist, getting the opposing side before rushing to print is journalism. And yes, it was one thing to post only the damning stuff when there was nothing but radio silence from the other side, but they're being communicative now. Hopefully he learns from this and takes a breather.

Note that I'm not saying WotC's communication has been perfect either (far from it), but I'm not going to cheer when the guy who's been pouring gasoline on the fire kicks one log away.

[Kane0]

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to congratulate the guy farming rage clicks for doing the bare minimum and retracting after messing up. He wanted to be a pseudo-journalist, getting the opposing side before rushing to print is journalism. And yes, it was one thing to post only the damning stuff when there was nothing but radio silence from the other side, but they're being communicative now. Hopefully he learns from this and takes a breather.

Note that I'm not saying WotC's communication has been perfect either (far from it), but I'm not going to cheer when the guy who's been pouring gasoline on the fire kicks one log away.

Fair, but i'd rather flawed information than none at all.

[Psyren]

Fair, but i'd rather flawed information than none at all.

I would definitely prefer no information to misinformation.

And the worst part is we fell for this once already, back in August, when there wasn't even the excuse of being angry over WotC's recent bungling.