D&D Beyond Changes

[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, 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.

[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, 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, 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.

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.

[Tawmis]

New post -
https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1428...n-game-license

[Arkhios]

New post -
https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1428...n-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...n-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.