D&D Beyond Changes

[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.

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.

[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 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 ).

[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. 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.