D&D Beyond Changes

[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 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. This may have been a different source, but we shall watch these developments with great interests.

EDIT: DDB posted to counter these claims.

[Sparky McDibben]

Related development, but DnD_Shorts had to retract a statement about a recent alleged leak. This may have been a different source, but we shall watch these developments with great interests.

EDIT: DDB posted to counter these claims.

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.

[P. G. Macer]

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.

I do recall there being outrage directed at WotC back in August, albeit for very different reasons, as that was around when the 5e Spelljammer set was released, with its mechanical shortcomings as well as a certain moral controversy I won’t go into here.

[Segev]

I mean, if you read the threads, there's a possibility that both of D&D Shorts's sources are accurate: the surveys WERE being read under the VP he trusts the word of, who is no longer there; the surveys are no longer treated with the same level of respect.

It is also possible people are just wrong.

Right now, it is less than safe to assume that "oh, this bad news about the surveys not being read is possibly just not true; I will wait and see and be quiet about it in the meantime," when, if the claims about them going unread are true, that is exactly the response that the malefactors want: "shut up and assume there's nothing malign happening."

So, the safe behavior is to act as if the surveys will not be read, and continue to be noisy and keep up the pressure. Sure, fill out the surveys, in case they are, in fact, read, but do not use the assumption that the surveys will be read as a reason why you should quiet down and let WotC assume the public firestorm has and will pass without them having to actually do anything substantive, and with them still planning to go through with what upset people.

[Snowbluff]

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.

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.

Something something by the time truth gets up in the morning a lie has gone around the globe.

There's multiple points of failure here, but I will point out that at the very least he failed to properly vet a source before posting this information, and at the worst he did it for clicks. I want to give him the benefit of the doubt but I'm not seeing anything that makes these "leaks" have any veracity, and at the very least he could have asked one of the many publicly facing former and current WotC Employees for their opinion on the survey process first.

Worse still, misinformation is gonna make it more difficult for people to get meaningful feedback to WotC and will just kludge up the discussion with nonsense. As noted earlier, this was a top post on r/dndnext, it had a legs and everyone was acting like it was entirely confirmed.

I do recall there being outrage directed at WotC back in August, albeit for very different reasons, as that was around when the 5e Spelljammer set was released, with its mechanical shortcomings as well as a certain moral controversy I won’t go into here.

If you do not know of which August based hoax I've been speaking of, here it is. I brought it up earlier because this confirmed fake has similarities to what we saw here.

[Psyren]

I mean, if you read the threads, there's a possibility that both of D&D Shorts's sources are accurate: the surveys WERE being read under the VP he trusts the word of, who is no longer there; the surveys are no longer treated with the same level of respect.

It is also possible people are just wrong.

WotC themselves specifically addressed that rumor. They read the surveys.

Right now, it is less than safe to assume that "oh, this bad news about the surveys not being read is possibly just not true; I will wait and see and be quiet about it in the meantime," when, if the claims about them going unread are true, that is exactly the response that the malefactors want: "shut up and assume there's nothing malign happening."

No, sorry but no, "yell just in case" cannot be the default answer to Every. Single. Rumor. Putting aside that that makes the entire community a very toxic and unwelcoming place to be, it will also just drown out every bit of actually legitimate concern and criticism that is being surfaced now and in the future.

And besides - even if "yell just in case" were the right attitude to have, then shouldn't filling out all the surveys anyway on the off-chance they do get read be the most correct course of action? Seriously, what's the alternative here?

Worse still, misinformation is gonna make it more difficult for people to get meaningful feedback to WotC and will just kludge up the discussion with nonsense. As noted earlier, this was a top post on r/dndnext, it had a legs and everyone was acting like it was entirely confirmed.

Of course it was. I'd expect no less.

[Sparky McDibben]

WotC themselves specifically addressed that rumor. They read the surveys.

Actually, the truth appears to be that the leaker was referring to the text field boxes, which aren't read and apparently dumped into cyberspace. And at this point, DnD Shorts has attempted to clarify across multiple platforms, so I'm willing to cut them some slack. They're not a journalist by training or profession, they were right on the OGL, right on the internal culture at WotC, and right on several of the statements WotC released. That guy's trying to do due diligence without a safety net, and without getting people fired. I'm willing to cut him some slack.

Also, WotC is still lying about the OGL 1.1's being "drafts," so at this point I'm putting more credibility in "angry Australian YouTuber" than "billion dollar enterprise." Weird times all 'round.

No, sorry but no, "yell just in case" cannot be the default answer to Every. Single. Rumor. Putting aside that that makes the entire community a very toxic and unwelcoming place to be, it will also just drown out every bit of actually legitimate concern and criticism that is being surfaced now and in the future.

I don't think that's the point - the point is not to get loud and toxic, the point is be forewarned that this company isn't your friend and will screw you given half a chance and a leaky condom. We should be cognizant of that.

[Snowbluff]

Actually, the truth appears to be that the leaker was referring to the text field boxes, which aren't read and apparently dumped into cyberspace. And at this point, DnD Shorts has attempted to clarify across multiple platforms, so I'm willing to cut them some slack. They're not a journalist by training or profession, they were right on the OGL, right on the internal culture at WotC, and right on several of the statements WotC released. That guy's trying to do due diligence without a safety net, and without getting people fired. I'm willing to cut him some slack.

I wasn't gonna say anything, since it is off topic, but this has been refuted (by people saying they literally read it) to the point the tweet alleging they weren't being read has been deleted and an apology was issued. I don't need to say the thing about truth in the morning again, right? Just this heads up will work?

Furthermore, this is a shot taken at a group of people not necessarily responsible for spearheading OGL changes, the game design team. I think the animosity may be misplaced in this case.

[Psyren]

Actually, the truth appears to be that the leaker was referring to the text field boxes, which aren't read and apparently dumped into cyberspace.

*OGL comment snipped*

Again, he retracted that rumor, deleted the tweet and apologized for it. It's not true. And further we have not only official confirmation from WotC themselves that this is not the case, but also direct responses from WotC insiders whose very job it was to read those text fields, even under the current design regime (Tasha's, Fizban's etc.) So no, I stand by how I characterized his behavior - irresponsible, reckless even.

I'm not responding to the OGL part of your post, as we're not allowed to do that here - there is only one mod-approved place on the forum for that topic (over in General Roleplaying.)

I don't think that's the point - the point is not to get loud and toxic, the point is be forewarned that this company isn't your friend and will screw you given half a chance and a leaky condom. We should be cognizant of that.

Putting that... charming... visual aside, I can be cognizant and cautious without leaping at every shadow. Hey, I heard a rumor that WotC is making their own game console called the DnDBox 6e and all the new sourcebooks will only be released there going forward. Anyone can make up anything that sounds even slightly negative, and the chances it gets heeded are higher when everyone is upset, but we still have the power to be judicious with what we choose to believe.

[Sparky McDibben]

I had a whole response for this and I just about hit "Submit" when I realized I just don't care anymore. Christ, I'm so tired. All the lies, all the yelling.

I just want my game back. I want to be able to screw around with the exploration mechanics. I want to give my players double feats, 'cuz it makes them look like kids at Christmas. And it feels like I can't do that anymore.

So, screw it. I'm done. Bye.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I had a whole response for this and I just about hit "Submit" when I realized I just don't care anymore. Christ, I'm so tired. All the lies, all the yelling.

I just want my game back. I want to be able to screw around with the exploration mechanics. I want to give my players double feats, 'cuz it makes them look like kids at Christmas. And it feels like I can't do that anymore.

So, screw it. I'm done. Bye.

If you stay at home and play with your friends nothing changes, there's nothing wrong with sticking your head in the sand and ignoring all of this.

It's worth it to be vocal for the benefit of the community but that doesn't mean you can't carry on as usual in private, just because WotC is making terrible choices doesn't mean you have to stop playing DND if you still enjoy it.

[TaiLiu]

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.

I'm not sure what to think about it. Your point is reasonable. It makes sense for D&D Beyond to just focus on the virtual tabletop and character sheet and 5e info aspects. But if they want D&D Beyond to be the one stop shop for all things D&D, it's hard for me to imagine that they wouldn't try to integrate voice and video. Roll20 and Foundry do, and they seem to be competing for the same sort of thing.

D&D Beyond probably won't supply any kind of automated captioning, though. It's a lot of work and it doesn't seem to be their expertise.

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...!

Oh, dang, that sucks about your group. Hope you can find new ones.

That's funny. Meet used to cram profanity when there wasn't any, too. I can't recall any funny stories, though.

[Psyren]

I just want my game back. I want to be able to screw around with the exploration mechanics. I want to give my players double feats, 'cuz it makes them look like kids at Christmas. And it feels like I can't do that anymore.

I genuinely don't see what's stopping you, but okay.

I'm not sure what to think about it. Your point is reasonable. It makes sense for D&D Beyond to just focus on the virtual tabletop and character sheet and 5e info aspects. But if they want D&D Beyond to be the one stop shop for all things D&D, it's hard for me to imagine that they wouldn't try to integrate voice and video. Roll20 and Foundry do, and they seem to be competing for the same sort of thing.

D&D Beyond probably won't supply any kind of automated captioning, though. It's a lot of work and it doesn't seem to be their expertise.

I mean, they might. Personally I don't know anyone who uses Roll20's integrated voice, it's awful and Discord exists. (Similarly, I don't know anyone who uses World of Warcraft's integrated voice, it's awful and Discord exists.) But I'm sure there are folks out there who do.

[Segev]

I genuinely don't see what's stopping you, but okay.

I believe the fear is that the lockdown to "you MUST play this using D&D Beyond" (at any subscription level) makes it a lot harder to have homebrew like adding extra feats.

Now, of course, one of the reasons WotC's plans seem so asinine to me, as we currently have them portrayed to us, is the fact that I don't see how they compel people to use D&D Beyond to play D&D. They're pricing themselves out of most of their market, competing with people who buy the physical books.

The other fear I could see would be, "I had hoped forever for exploration rules, maybe by a third party. I don't see WotC ever making any, and now I see them trying to shut down anybody else doing so. I don't feel I have the time/chops to make them, myself."

In any event, the concern I have about WotC's strategy is that it seems to be, once again, "cut off all alternative choices to how we want you to pay to play the game." Which would have to include denying physical sales of books if they really want to have a "walled garden" where you must pay that $30/month subscription fee (even if it's a per-DM fee, rather than a per-player fee).

[Brookshw]

It's worth it to be vocal for the benefit of the community but that doesn't mean you can't carry on as usual in private, just because WotC is making terrible choices doesn't mean you have to stop playing DND if you still enjoy it.

I wonder how much of a benefit the community really sees, or could see, about the results of being vocal. Big publishers already showed they're willing to jump ship and come up with a new system, which gives us more options and is a win, and small content producers can always jump on board that wagon if they want. Smaller content producers frankly just don't get much attention so I doubt there's any great net loss (for those who don't want to jump ship). People who publish on DMGuild/DriveThru already have other agreements in place, and those are the two biggest venues for distribution for the small content producers. A lot of homebrew you find online is questionable. To your point, you can always do whatever you want in private. Sure D&D has name recognition and is generally a easy medium to get a game going with new people, but you can still do that.

People want to make their voices heard, power to them, I suppose I'm not convinced that keeping the status quo would have actually been a net benefit comparatively. I think I'm much happier with the direction this is headed since it provides me with more options.

[Psyren]

I believe the fear is that the lockdown to "you MUST play this using D&D Beyond" (at any subscription level) makes it a lot harder to have homebrew like adding extra feats.

Now, of course, one of the reasons WotC's plans seem so asinine to me, as we currently have them portrayed to us, is the fact that I don't see how they compel people to use D&D Beyond to play D&D. They're pricing themselves out of most of their market, competing with people who buy the physical books.

Where did they say you must use D&D Beyond for anything? What did I miss? Genuine question. Physical books will still be a thing in 1D&D as far as I know.

The other fear I could see would be, "I had hoped forever for exploration rules, maybe by a third party. I don't see WotC ever making any, and now I see them trying to shut down anybody else doing so. I don't feel I have the time/chops to make them, myself."

In any event, the concern I have about WotC's strategy is that it seems to be, once again, "cut off all alternative choices to how we want you to pay to play the game." Which would have to include denying physical sales of books if they really want to have a "walled garden" where you must pay that $30/month subscription fee (even if it's a per-DM fee, rather than a per-player fee).

1) The $30/month was confirmed (just like it was in August) to be a hoax. And without sounding harsh, common sense should have shown it to be too; how could D&D of all things possibly get away with charging a higher sub fee than any MMO or streaming service known to man? I mean sure, corporations gonna corporation, but even they know when they're using a pricing model that even the most unsavvy consumer can easily compare to other services they pay for.

2) As previously noted, I'll reserve any OGL/third party publishing comments for the mod-blessed/monitored thread.

[Unoriginal]

I had a whole response for this and I just about hit "Submit" when I realized I just don't care anymore. Christ, I'm so tired. All the lies, all the yelling.

I just want my game back. I want to be able to screw around with the exploration mechanics. I want to give my players double feats, 'cuz it makes them look like kids at Christmas. And it feels like I can't do that anymore.

So, screw it. I'm done. Bye.

I mean, D&D 5e's official releases are stopping next year no matter what.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I mean, D&D 5e's official releases are stopping next year no matter what.

There haven't been any official releases since November 16, 2020[1].

[1] Tasha's came out on November 17th.

[Segev]

Where did they say you must use D&D Beyond for anything? What did I miss? Genuine question. Physical books will still be a thing in 1D&D as far as I know.

With the $30/month off the table, perhaps that's not going to be the case. But the "walled garden" that we're told/seeing evidence of is a problem for them if D&D Beyond is to be something enough people use at a high price point, if there exist things outside that walled garden, such as physical books, physical play, etc., without being on D&D Beyond.

1) The $30/month was confirmed (just like it was in August) to be a hoax. And without sounding harsh, common sense should have shown it to be too; how could D&D of all things possibly get away with charging a higher sub fee than any MMO or streaming service known to man? I mean sure, corporations gonna corporation, but even they know when they're using a pricing model that even the most unsavvy consumer can easily compare to other services they pay for.

It's not "corporations gonna corporation" so much as "they were dumb enough to think that this OGL revocation 'update' would be a good business decision, so I can buy them thinking $30/month is also a good business decision."

I can trace the logic chain that leads to thinking it's a good idea. It's based on the same kinds of awful, stupid, totally false premises that lead to things like the OGL 1.1. (I am not going to discuss its contents, here, I only am saying the same mindset behind that could easily lead to the $30/month price point.) After all, MMOs make $30/month at the high end. We (D&D) are The Most Popular RPG In The World; we are obviously high end. If we eliminate all possible other ways to play, obviously everyone will pay to play at MMO prices!

It makes all sorts of assumptions that don't understand their market, of course, but I can easily buy that the people making the top-level directives think their market is like "any other" (read: whatever market they think is the norm, possibly, if they're Microsoft executives like I've heard, the electronic/digital market), therefore they can do things that that market would (barely) permit to this market (which totally is the same and definitely won't simply abandon the product).


Now, hopefully, because I actually like 5e and would like to see more content made for it, all of this proves either wrong or at least to be something that gets walked back and changed to being an actual business model that understands its market.

I am all for monetizing the game. Let Hasbro and WotC make enormous scads of cash! That's great! But I want to see them doing it in ways that enhance the product, not just make the product harder to access if you don't cough up more cash. That latter path sounds a lot easier than making quality products, though, to guys with spreadsheets, and also tends to lead to diminishing quality and higher prices. There is a serious risk that these decision-makers think they can quell competition rather than recognizing that they'll simply destroy their own central position in the market doing this. I don't want WotC to lose its central position. (I am not going to say it's a bad thing if they do, but I am not unhappy with the status quo.) I think it sad that they're acting in a way that will damage them, damage the D&D brand, and possibly make gaming better in the long term but make it worse in the short and medium terms.

[Oramac]

snip

I am all for monetizing the game. Let Hasbro and WotC make enormous scads of cash! That's great! But I want to see them doing it in ways that enhance the product, not just make the product harder to access if you don't cough up more cash. That latter path sounds a lot easier than making quality products, though, to guys with spreadsheets, and also tends to lead to diminishing quality and higher prices. There is a serious risk that these decision-makers think they can quell competition rather than recognizing that they'll simply destroy their own central position in the market doing this. I don't want WotC to lose its central position. (I am not going to say it's a bad thing if they do, but I am not unhappy with the status quo.) I think it sad that they're acting in a way that will damage them, damage the D&D brand, and possibly make gaming better in the long term but make it worse in the short and medium terms.

Fully agree with all of this. I'd love to just keep using 5e and be done. Or, hell, I'd love to make the switch to OneD&D if it's not hot garbage (which remains to be seen). But so far it seems that the suits and spreadsheet counters are running the show.

[Snowbluff]

There haven't been any official releases since November 16, 2020[1].

[1] Tasha's came out on November 17th.

Speaking of, that was my birthday and I got a copy of Tasha's for it from one of my brothers. 10/10

[Amnestic]

After all, MMOs make $30/month at the high end.

Minor quibble I guess, I can't find any that cost that much - EVE is the highest I can find at $20/month if you pay monthly (discount if you buy multiple months at once), with most others hovering around the $15 mark (WoW: $15, FF14: $13-$15, ESO: $15, SWTOR: $15, Runescape: $11)

WoW is undoubtedly the most popular MMO, still, closely followed by FF14. They're half the price of the $30 point being proposed.