I hope they allow us to access campaign management for free and have the books be what is paid for.
Free accounts will be able to create and manage characters in a campaign. A DM can also share her "private" homebrew content with all the players in that campaign.
Checking in on the rest of this thread, I encourage everyone to check out the latest issue of Dragon+ - I gave a few more details there about how the pricing model will work (just not specific price points yet).
You can absolutely use D&D Beyond with a free account (without a subscription) and purchase the official digital content for a one-time cost. Some others will find value in the two different subscription tiers: Hero Tier aimed primarily at players and Master Tier intended for Dungeon Masters. If a DM has a Master Tier sub, any content she unlocks is considered unlocked for all characters in her campaign.
After reading the article, I see one potential benefit to me, as a DM.... When I was in college, I had a GM whose standard rule was "Only content from books I own is permitted. If there's something you want to play but it's in a book I don't value enough to buy, feel free to gift it to me." While I've never been quite that brazen, I do require that players are willing to lend me such sources (I loathe the Realms, so SCAG isn't going to be on my list) for a week or two, while I look it over. With the ability for my players to use content I own, I'm much more likely to say, "You can buy it for the group, but it stays with my account." Still not sure I'm willing to do anything that encourages financially supporting the Realms, even if it's someone else's money, but that's a totally different conversation.
Short form: I highly recommend a built-in way for players to buy content for the DM.
After reading the article, I see one potential benefit to me, as a DM.... When I was in college, I had a GM whose standard rule was "Only content from books I own is permitted. If there's something you want to play but it's in a book I don't value enough to buy, feel free to gift it to me." While I've never been quite that brazen, I do require that players are willing to lend me such sources (I loathe the Realms, so SCAG isn't going to be on my list) for a week or two, while I look it over. With the ability for my players to use content I own, I'm much more likely to say, "You can buy it for the group, but it stays with my account." Still not sure I'm willing to do anything that encourages financially supporting the Realms, even if it's someone else's money, but that's a totally different conversation.
Short form: I highly recommend a built-in way for players to buy content for the DM.
Even simpler: allow players to share purchased content with DM Tier subscribers similarly to the way homebrew content will be. This would be a nice subscription incentive and cost-sharing measure for DMs.
I am a little concerned by the pricing model as talked about in the Dragon+ article. It just seems odd to me that you would want to put the most useful stuff for DMs (you know the people that make games actually happen) behind the highest tier price point, I have always found that to be a little backwards in thinking. Provide tools for the DMs and the players will come and pay for the minority (in this case DMs). Just my two coppers.
That is what is amazing about this comminity. So many different opinions. I could not disagree more @bravesteel but totally respect your opinion. I feel that the DM is the one at the table willing and able to put the investment in, and those at the table may or may not depending on price point. I could totally be backward on this though.
After reading the article, I see one potential benefit to me, as a DM.... When I was in college, I had a GM whose standard rule was "Only content from books I own is permitted. If there's something you want to play but it's in a book I don't value enough to buy, feel free to gift it to me." While I've never been quite that brazen, I do require that players are willing to lend me such sources (I loathe the Realms, so SCAG isn't going to be on my list) for a week or two, while I look it over. With the ability for my players to use content I own, I'm much more likely to say, "You can buy it for the group, but it stays with my account." Still not sure I'm willing to do anything that encourages financially supporting the Realms, even if it's someone else's money, but that's a totally different conversation.
Short form: I highly recommend a built-in way for players to buy content for the DM.
Why would the player buy the DM the book, instead of buying it for themselves? If that DnD group splits, or the player has multiple groups, or whatever, they lose that content. Buying for the group to share makes sense, but if My buddy buys it for the group to share, it isn't mine, just bc I'm the DM.
That is what is amazing about this comminity. So many different opinions. I could not disagree more @bravesteel but totally respect your opinion. I feel that the DM is the one at the table willing and able to put the investment in, and those at the table may or may not depending on price point. I could totally be backward on this though.
As a DM I'm glad I'm not running one of your games, lol!
As a DM I put in the most effort into the games, but the less of a burden you put on me to be able to use your product the better. I've tried countless systems and adventures solely because they're free. I think Bravesteel raises a very good point, that I'm always the one that's spending money. It isn't that my friends are poor or anything. We're all nerds with our hobbies, and most are willing to spend hundreds of dollars on whatever. It would be nice if there was a way for a confirmed group of RPers to be able to chip in for certain digital content. Not mandatory, but an option.
That is what is amazing about this comminity. So many different opinions. I could not disagree more @bravesteel but totally respect your opinion. I feel that the DM is the one at the table willing and able to put the investment in, and those at the table may or may not depending on price point. I could totally be backward on this though.
As a DM I'm glad I'm not running one of your games, lol!
As a DM I put in the most effort into the games, but the less of a burden you put on me to be able to use your product the better. I've tried countless systems and adventures solely because they're free. I think Bravesteel raises a very good point, that I'm always the one that's spending money. It isn't that my friends are poor or anything. We're all nerds with our hobbies, and most are willing to spend hundreds of dollars on whatever. It would be nice if there was a way for a confirmed group of RPers to be able to chip in for certain digital content. Not mandatory, but an option.
Conversely, as a player, I would have never gotten involved with DnD if a DM who already had all the books hadn't invited me to play first without having to buy anything. Later, once I was hooked, I was more than happy to go out and buy my own PHB and even some extra books (this was in the 3.5 days when it seemed like a new book came out every third Tuesday), but I never bought a DMG or MM until I started DMing with 5e.
If the average player had to buy the 3 core books and the DM only bought the PHB! I don't think D&D would have survived as long as it did. It just seems more logical that you wouldn't have the people who used the least amount of content (players only) pay more than the people who used the most content (DMs). Maybe I've only gamed with generous DMs that were always willing to have players at their table who didn't even have their own dice, much less any books, and that skews my perspective, but it seems a bit backwards to have the players pay more than the DM. I can see players pooling together money to help offset the cost of some things, though, but the most that makes sense would be the players contributing less than or equal to the amount the DM does (allowing for exceptions in specific circumstances, of course).
I agree @CRich. And there is nothing stopping from the group pitching in. I DM two groups and they pitch in for materials and such. I play in a group and I bought the DM his books. So working it out outside the app is best, however the DM is responsible for having all the content to be able to run the game, and the players may all have different levels of interest b the game, which making them purchase all the content could dissuade them from picking up the hobby.
however the DM is responsible for having all the content to be able to run the game, and the players may all have different levels of interest
So then wouldn't it behoove D&D Beyond to make it easier on those who are expected to "have all the content to run the game," as you put it? Player's might have different levels of interest, yet effectively place a DM tax on the, apparently, most interested party (aka the DMs)?
I believe that anyone with a passing interest would be fine with the free content, as announced, being a player. Those that want more can get more. I just don't understand punishing those that make games happen. Yes, games need players too, but even in a play group of one player, you still need one DM (solo stuff aside, of course).
Ignoring digital content for the moment, which of the following situations makes the most sense?
1) The players buy the PHB, and the DM buys all three core books.
2) The players buy all three core books, and the DM buys the PHB.
Given that the average player has no need for any of the information in the DMG or MM, scenario 1 is, I think, the clear choice. This is especially true if you're talking about new players that aren't sure what DnD is all about or players that are a part of multiple groups. I've had at least 8 different DMs over the course of my gaming career, and I would have given up the game a long time ago if I had to "buy" a DMG and MM for each of them. And this doesn't even cover adventure modules that players shouldn't see.
Again, I can see splitting the cost occasionally, but the "financial burden" of the game, in my mind, has always been the DMs. Why wouldn't that carry over into digital rooms?
I believe a free option for those that aren't as hardcore is needed and you guys can throw in some ads on the side or bottom of the screen to generate revenue. A one time unlock payment (or subscription for those that don't plan on using the service for a large amount of time with extra campaign books purchased for a flat rate) without ads and all of the content would be nice. A lot of people including myself enjoy having the physical copies at the table rather than refering back to a digital version on a mobile device. That being said additional payments for digital copies doesn't jive with me when I already own the content and should be able to access features of the app I already paid for once.
I believe that the print versions are inherently different from digital tools. I certainly understand why people feel they are paying for the same content twice, but really what you are paying for is the tools, and the R&D that goes into creating these tools. For those who want print copies, the app/digital tools are not necessarily for them. Besides, there are a lot of free tools out there already. I do believe that having digital tools created and maintained by the creators of the game is a huge boon, and is worth supporting. I am behind the concept all the way. I just hope it works like I imagine it will!
That is what is amazing about this comminity. So many different opinions. I could not disagree more @bravesteel but totally respect your opinion. I feel that the DM is the one at the table willing and able to put the investment in, and those at the table may or may not depending on price point. I could totally be backward on this though.
As a DM I'm glad I'm not running one of your games, lol!
As a DM I put in the most effort into the games, but the less of a burden you put on me to be able to use your product the better. I've tried countless systems and adventures solely because they're free. I think Bravesteel raises a very good point, that I'm always the one that's spending money. It isn't that my friends are poor or anything. We're all nerds with our hobbies, and most are willing to spend hundreds of dollars on whatever. It would be nice if there was a way for a confirmed group of RPers to be able to chip in for certain digital content. Not mandatory, but an option.
Conversely, as a player, I would have never gotten involved with DnD if a DM who already had all the books hadn't invited me to play first without having to buy anything. Later, once I was hooked, I was more than happy to go out and buy my own PHB and even some extra books (this was in the 3.5 days when it seemed like a new book came out every third Tuesday), but I never bought a DMG or MM until I started DMing with 5e.
If the average player had to buy the 3 core books and the DM only bought the PHB! I don't think D&D would have survived as long as it did. It just seems more logical that you wouldn't have the people who used the least amount of content (players only) pay more than the people who used the most content (DMs). Maybe I've only gamed with generous DMs that were always willing to have players at their table who didn't even have their own dice, much less any books, and that skews my perspective, but it seems a bit backwards to have the players pay more than the DM. I can see players pooling together money to help offset the cost of some things, though, but the most that makes sense would be the players contributing less than or equal to the amount the DM does (allowing for exceptions in specific circumstances, of course).
I think you're being incredibly disingenuous, naive, or just plain dismissive here. Clearly, I'm not assuming that all players should pay for all content, just as I didn't assume nmajor3 was saying that the DM should purchase everything either. Not to mention it's very clear in my post that my group of friends are all into gaming and are willing to spend some money on some things, but just about all products for tabletop games are GM facing, not player facing. That effects everything about how games are packaged and sold. Pricing models that don't assume the DM should spend all the money, and allow for players some modicum of power and interest are not inherently bad.
Sorry if this is in the wrong thread of if this has already been discussed. If so, point to the right direction.
About Pricing... and what comes with it.
Any integration with Roll20 or FG?
You know since I'm sure a lot of us have purchased hard copies of all the books along with digital copies in multiple places? Just a thought, would be nice to not have to buy this stuff, AGAIN.
That is what is amazing about this comminity. So many different opinions. I could not disagree more @bravesteel but totally respect your opinion. I feel that the DM is the one at the table willing and able to put the investment in, and those at the table may or may not depending on price point. I could totally be backward on this though.
As a DM I'm glad I'm not running one of your games, lol!
As a DM I put in the most effort into the games, but the less of a burden you put on me to be able to use your product the better. I've tried countless systems and adventures solely because they're free. I think Bravesteel raises a very good point, that I'm always the one that's spending money. It isn't that my friends are poor or anything. We're all nerds with our hobbies, and most are willing to spend hundreds of dollars on whatever. It would be nice if there was a way for a confirmed group of RPers to be able to chip in for certain digital content. Not mandatory, but an option.
Conversely, as a player, I would have never gotten involved with DnD if a DM who already had all the books hadn't invited me to play first without having to buy anything. Later, once I was hooked, I was more than happy to go out and buy my own PHB and even some extra books (this was in the 3.5 days when it seemed like a new book came out every third Tuesday), but I never bought a DMG or MM until I started DMing with 5e.
If the average player had to buy the 3 core books and the DM only bought the PHB! I don't think D&D would have survived as long as it did. It just seems more logical that you wouldn't have the people who used the least amount of content (players only) pay more than the people who used the most content (DMs). Maybe I've only gamed with generous DMs that were always willing to have players at their table who didn't even have their own dice, much less any books, and that skews my perspective, but it seems a bit backwards to have the players pay more than the DM. I can see players pooling together money to help offset the cost of some things, though, but the most that makes sense would be the players contributing less than or equal to the amount the DM does (allowing for exceptions in specific circumstances, of course).
I think you're being incredibly disingenuous, naive, or just plain dismissive here. Clearly, I'm not assuming that all players should pay for all content, just as I didn't assume nmajor3 was saying that the DM should purchase everything either. Not to mention it's very clear in my post that my group of friends are all into gaming and are willing to spend some money on some things, but just about all products for tabletop games are GM facing, not player facing. That effects everything about how games are packaged and sold. Pricing models that don't assume the DM should spend all the money, and allow for players some modicum of power and interest are not inherently bad.
So, either I have completely misunderstood your post, or you have completely misunderstood mine. Regardless, saying that I am disingenuous, naive, or dismissive is a bit uncalled. Allow me to walk you through my thought process so that, hopefully, this can be cleared up.
Bravesteel brought up a concern regarding the pricing model as mentioned in the Dragon+ article. The concern seems to be that the DDB content aimed at DMs is set at a higher price point than that of the players. See these two posts:
I am a little concerned by the pricing model as talked about in the Dragon+ article. It just seems odd to me that you would want to put the most useful stuff for DMs (you know the people that make games actually happen) behind the highest tier price point, I have always found that to be a little backwards in thinking. Provide tools for the DMs and the players will come and pay for the minority (in this case DMs). Just my two coppers.
however the DM is responsible for having all the content to be able to run the game, and the players may all have different levels of interest
So then wouldn't it behoove D&D Beyond to make it easier on those who are expected to "have all the content to run the game," as you put it? Player's might have different levels of interest, yet effectively place a DM tax on the, apparently, most interested party (aka the DMs)?
I believe that anyone with a passing interest would be fine with the free content, as announced, being a player. Those that want more can get more. I just don't understand punishing those that make games happen. Yes, games need players too, but even in a play group of one player, you still need one DM (solo stuff aside, of course).
nmajor3 disagreed with Bravesteel on the grounds that DMs are the ones who are more invested in the game. This is not a statement that DMs pay for everything, but I think it is safe to say that there is an implication that DMs, being more invested, pay more than players.
You followed nmajor3's remark with a comment joking about not wanting to run his games. In that post, you stated that Bravesteel raised a good point about how things are priced for DnD. Given the understanding that Bravesteel's point was about not wanting DMs to pay more than players, from a logical standpoint, your statement that this point was a good one implies that you, too, believe that DMs should not pay more than players. Again, I am adding emphasis to show that I fully understand (and have from the beginning) that the point was not that DMs should not pay or that players should pay everything.
This is where my post comes in. In that post, I clearly stated that players chipping in to help offset costs was part of my perspective (so I'm not entirely sure why you thought I was thinking in terms of all or nothing). The main purpose of that post, however, was to say that, in my personal experience, a pricing model that expects DMs to pay more than players makes the most sense. 1, in terms of bringing new players to the game, having to pay less helps facilitate that. 2, DMs require more content than players do, so why wouldn't it cost more for more content? That's why I used the example of how weird it would be to have players buy all three core books but the DM only buys the PHB. To suggest that players should pay more than DMS for less content than DMs get seems ridiculous.
Again, and I want to stress this point, as I have made a point to mention it in all my posts on this topic, if players in a specific group want to help their DM out and pay for some (or all) of the material, great. I just don't think that should be the expectation across the board.
Again, and I want to stress this point, as I have made a point to mention it in all my posts on this topic, if players in a specific group want to help their DM out and pay for some (or all) of the material, great. I just don't think that should be the expectation across the board.
I understand where you are coming from, I suppose I just believe that Players and Dungeon Masters should pay the same for features. I think it's just a little funny that they have a tier for DMs to share their stuff with their player's, but not the other way around (I could be mistaken on this, but that's how I read it). If the opposite was true as well, then I would be pretty content, as I think the ability to upload/download homebrew content is worth a different tier price.
Again, and I want to stress this point, as I have made a point to mention it in all my posts on this topic, if players in a specific group want to help their DM out and pay for some (or all) of the material, great. I just don't think that should be the expectation across the board.
I understand where you are coming from, I suppose I just believe that Players and Dungeon Masters should pay the same for features. I think it's just a little funny that they have a tier for DMs to share their stuff with their player's, but not the other way around (I could be mistaken on this, but that's how I read it). If the opposite was true as well, then I would be pretty content, as I think the ability to upload/download homebrew content is worth a different tier price.
I agree with this if you have the master sub your content should be shared with any group you are a part of not just ones you are the DM of.
I understand where you are coming from, I suppose I just believe that Players and Dungeon Masters should pay the same for features. I think it's just a little funny that they have a tier for DMs to share their stuff with their player's, but not the other way around (I could be mistaken on this, but that's how I read it). If the opposite was true as well, then I would be pretty content, as I think the ability to upload/download homebrew content is worth a different tier price.
I guess, as a DM who primarily does home brew and has a campaign setting that lasted through three major groups, I'd rather not lose access to rules that I'd incorporated into my setting. Of course, my setting also survived two edition changes before I retired it, so it's not like the rules can't be redone. Also, I could always purchase the rules, myself, if the player left.
The point really is in the mentality around the traditional role of the DM: they're the gatekeeper of the rules, the referee, and the final arbiter of what is and is not allowed. With that authority comes the responsibility for actually having on-demand access to all the rules in play. There's always a bit of a mental shift in going digital. In this case, that means getting over the idea of the physical books existing at only one person's house. I wouldn't get too hung up on the stated intent of each tier. I think more than half my college group would've gone for the Master tier. Even though many hadn't run a game game in years and had no plans on doing so for the foreseeable future, they generally considered themselves GMs who just happened to be playing at the moment.
The other, logistical, issue of having the Master tier being the only way to share is that the web gets kind of weird. Let's say Player A gets the whole SCAG package to play a Spellsinger. He shares with his DM, who uses a few things out of it. Player B loses his character and decides he wants to create a Purple Dragon Knight. Can the DM re-share that info with Player B? Does Player A have to directly share it? If Player A has to directly share it, then he's pretty much doing what the Master tier is intended for, regardless of name.
We might see the sharing evolve, but who knows exactly what the demand is for it. Also, if we're really talking about just the Purple Dragon Knight (as an example), then that "module" might be cheap enough that it's actually more economical for Player B to just buy what he needs than for Player A to jump up a tier. Until we see the full pricing model, I think spending too much energy on those sort of questions is just borrowing trouble.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Free accounts will be able to create and manage characters in a campaign. A DM can also share her "private" homebrew content with all the players in that campaign.
Checking in on the rest of this thread, I encourage everyone to check out the latest issue of Dragon+ - I gave a few more details there about how the pricing model will work (just not specific price points yet).
You can absolutely use D&D Beyond with a free account (without a subscription) and purchase the official digital content for a one-time cost. Some others will find value in the two different subscription tiers: Hero Tier aimed primarily at players and Master Tier intended for Dungeon Masters. If a DM has a Master Tier sub, any content she unlocks is considered unlocked for all characters in her campaign.
After reading the article, I see one potential benefit to me, as a DM.... When I was in college, I had a GM whose standard rule was "Only content from books I own is permitted. If there's something you want to play but it's in a book I don't value enough to buy, feel free to gift it to me." While I've never been quite that brazen, I do require that players are willing to lend me such sources (I loathe the Realms, so SCAG isn't going to be on my list) for a week or two, while I look it over. With the ability for my players to use content I own, I'm much more likely to say, "You can buy it for the group, but it stays with my account." Still not sure I'm willing to do anything that encourages financially supporting the Realms, even if it's someone else's money, but that's a totally different conversation.
Short form: I highly recommend a built-in way for players to buy content for the DM.
I am a little concerned by the pricing model as talked about in the Dragon+ article. It just seems odd to me that you would want to put the most useful stuff for DMs (you know the people that make games actually happen) behind the highest tier price point, I have always found that to be a little backwards in thinking. Provide tools for the DMs and the players will come and pay for the minority (in this case DMs). Just my two coppers.
That is what is amazing about this comminity. So many different opinions. I could not disagree more @bravesteel but totally respect your opinion. I feel that the DM is the one at the table willing and able to put the investment in, and those at the table may or may not depending on price point. I could totally be backward on this though.
We do bones, motherf***ker!
I agree @CRich. And there is nothing stopping from the group pitching in. I DM two groups and they pitch in for materials and such. I play in a group and I bought the DM his books. So working it out outside the app is best, however the DM is responsible for having all the content to be able to run the game, and the players may all have different levels of interest b the game, which making them purchase all the content could dissuade them from picking up the hobby.
Ignoring digital content for the moment, which of the following situations makes the most sense?
1) The players buy the PHB, and the DM buys all three core books.
2) The players buy all three core books, and the DM buys the PHB.
Given that the average player has no need for any of the information in the DMG or MM, scenario 1 is, I think, the clear choice. This is especially true if you're talking about new players that aren't sure what DnD is all about or players that are a part of multiple groups. I've had at least 8 different DMs over the course of my gaming career, and I would have given up the game a long time ago if I had to "buy" a DMG and MM for each of them. And this doesn't even cover adventure modules that players shouldn't see.
Again, I can see splitting the cost occasionally, but the "financial burden" of the game, in my mind, has always been the DMs. Why wouldn't that carry over into digital rooms?
I believe a free option for those that aren't as hardcore is needed and you guys can throw in some ads on the side or bottom of the screen to generate revenue. A one time unlock payment (or subscription for those that don't plan on using the service for a large amount of time with extra campaign books purchased for a flat rate) without ads and all of the content would be nice. A lot of people including myself enjoy having the physical copies at the table rather than refering back to a digital version on a mobile device. That being said additional payments for digital copies doesn't jive with me when I already own the content and should be able to access features of the app I already paid for once.
I believe that the print versions are inherently different from digital tools. I certainly understand why people feel they are paying for the same content twice, but really what you are paying for is the tools, and the R&D that goes into creating these tools. For those who want print copies, the app/digital tools are not necessarily for them. Besides, there are a lot of free tools out there already. I do believe that having digital tools created and maintained by the creators of the game is a huge boon, and is worth supporting. I am behind the concept all the way. I just hope it works like I imagine it will!
Hey all,
Sorry if this is in the wrong thread of if this has already been discussed. If so, point to the right direction.
About Pricing... and what comes with it.
Any integration with Roll20 or FG?
You know since I'm sure a lot of us have purchased hard copies of all the books along with digital copies in multiple places? Just a thought, would be nice to not have to buy this stuff, AGAIN.
@orphansmith You would be correct in your assumption about the intent behind my post.
I understand where you are coming from, I suppose I just believe that Players and Dungeon Masters should pay the same for features. I think it's just a little funny that they have a tier for DMs to share their stuff with their player's, but not the other way around (I could be mistaken on this, but that's how I read it). If the opposite was true as well, then I would be pretty content, as I think the ability to upload/download homebrew content is worth a different tier price.