The reason people are upset is not changes to the established lore of settings, people are upset because a product they paid money for was altered without any consent or consideration.
There are two options here.
Like me, you've bought the physical book. That belongs to you, and nothing has changed in it. You're more than free to ignore any errata. In fact, you have to go out of your way to incorporate it.
You've rented a service which provides the most up to date electronic copy of the books. Yes, rented. I'm pretty sure that if you read the Ts & Cs, you'll find that it doesn't actually belong to you and you have essentially paid for DDB to provide you access to a copy - but not the book itself. It may not use the word rent, but it will be to that effect. If DDB goes bust tomorrow, you lose your content, which is why I'm pretty hesitant to pay for books when I'm not given PDFs or a physical copy. More importantly, the second half says that it provides you with the most up to date version. That means that errata has to be incorporated. It's literally what is being paid for.
You say that consumers need more protection...you'll find that is not going to get traction. DDB is providing what was paid for. If they deleted what was in the book and replaced every page with "Sucka!", you'd have a point. DDB is just fulfilling its contractual obligations to its customers (and WotC).
If it bothers you enough to complain, lobby WotC to provide PDFs. When jew errata arrives, you can choose to replace the old ones or not, as you see fit. I'd be much quicker to spend coin here with the knowledge that the products I buy aren't going to disappear one day (or if it does, then it's my fault). How things are, with DDB insisting on showing only the most up-to-date version, isn't going to change otherwise, because of the contracts.
You have an unfortunate typo in your last paragraph.
Ah, so I do. I've edited it out, thanks for letting me know. Normally I'd laugh and move on, but that was a little too unfortunate!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
What has been devalued, as far as you are concerned? In what way was it devalued?
The book has objectively lost value as there is less text in the book than there was then when it was purchased. There is less of the thing I paid money for. I understand the whole "renting" argument. But the transaction is not presented as renting, regardless of what terms and conditions say.
It is presented as a purchase, one lump sum of currency exchanged for goods at the same price as the physical product, this is to establish in the customer's mind that the digital copy is the same as the physical copy. This is not true and though the site has followed the letter of the law in with the TaC, that does not make it right. Legal does not always mean just. I am not saying beyond has broken any laws, I'm saying they are using the laws in a way that is to the detriment of their customers.
So we are hoovering around 25% now. I will admit that is a little more than I had expected, but still not too bad. I felt that 20ish% would be about where the number actually were.
I expected much more, really. In the circles I frequent, the general feeling is of discomfort with the latest changes. Anyway, that usually happens with changes.
And I don't know a single D&D player who dislikes this change or hadn't already done basically the same thing in their homebrew already.
What does that prove? Absolutely nothing, because we're both working with small, non-random samples that are not reflective of the general population.
What you say is obvious. The world is not reduced to our circle. I expected a higher percentage of dissatisfaction based on my experience, and I was wrong. Which makes me really happy. I'm very tired of crybabies.
What has been devalued, as far as you are concerned? In what way was it devalued?
The book has objectively lost value as there is less text in the book than there was then when it was purchased. There is less of the thing I paid money for.
You value books by the word count? Fewer words = less value?
What has been devalued, as far as you are concerned? In what way was it devalued?
The book has objectively lost value as there is less text in the book than there was then when it was purchased. There is less of the thing I paid money for.
You value books by the word count? Fewer words = less value?
I value a product not being altered after it's been paid for. I value not having a corporation feeling comfortable to pull a bait-and-switch on their customers.
What has been devalued, as far as you are concerned? In what way was it devalued?
The book has objectively lost value as there is less text in the book than there was then when it was purchased. There is less of the thing I paid money for. I understand the whole "renting" argument. But the transaction is not presented as renting, regardless of what terms and conditions say.
It is presented as a purchase, one lump sum of currency exchanged for goods at the same price as the physical product, this is to establish in the customer's mind that the digital copy is the same as the physical copy. This is not true and though the site has followed the letter of the law in with the TaC, that does not make it right. Legal does not always mean just. I am not saying beyond has broken any laws, I'm saying they are using the laws in a way that is to the detriment of their customers.
You’re just mad cause they changed the text about drow all being evil and followers of Lolth to something more inclusive.
What has been devalued, as far as you are concerned? In what way was it devalued?
The book has objectively lost value as there is less text in the book than there was then when it was purchased. There is less of the thing I paid money for.
You value books by the word count? Fewer words = less value?
I value a product not being altered after it's been paid for. I value not having a corporation feeling comfortable to pull a bait-and-switch on their customers.
The product's been improved. That's an increase in value, albeit subjectively. And I reiterate, the removed text was nothing but repetition. No information was lost. It's a sourcebook. You presumably buy it for the info, not for the prose. That what you presumably buy it for has not been diminished. There is no bait and switch.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
What has been devalued, as far as you are concerned? In what way was it devalued?
The book has objectively lost value as there is less text in the book than there was then when it was purchased. There is less of the thing I paid money for.
You value books by the word count? Fewer words = less value?
I value a product not being altered after it's been paid for. I value not having a corporation feeling comfortable to pull a bait-and-switch on their customers.
I’m lost here? you purchased “Digital Game Content” and didn’t expect any changes/edits /updates? ……That’s the whole point and benefit of digital content? If you don’t want updates, you buy hard copy or PDF (if applicable). There would be a whole forum load of unhappy people in the feedback section here, if digital content wasn’t updated!
What has been devalued, as far as you are concerned? In what way was it devalued?
The book has objectively lost value as there is less text in the book than there was then when it was purchased. There is less of the thing I paid money for. I understand the whole "renting" argument. But the transaction is not presented as renting, regardless of what terms and conditions say.
It is presented as a purchase, one lump sum of currency exchanged for goods at the same price as the physical product, this is to establish in the customer's mind that the digital copy is the same as the physical copy. This is not true and though the site has followed the letter of the law in with the TaC, that does not make it right. Legal does not always mean just. I am not saying beyond has broken any laws, I'm saying they are using the laws in a way that is to the detriment of their customers.
This claim of devaluation is incorrect and has been debunked numerous times by myself and several others across four or five threads in past week or so. Firstly, value is not an objective term, but subjective and depends on the measures and those performing the measures. Simply having less text is not a devaluation unless you do not care about the content itself, but rather the word count. To me, that is just confusing. Removing redundancies in an effort to make text more concise is actually a good thing, which, near as I can see, is exactly what was done.
As far as the terms and conditions of this site, I would have to disagree with you. Others have pointed out that the terms and conditions are explicitly clear to anyone who bothers to read them; you do not own anything you purchase here. You are paying for the use of the product(s) offered on this site, which are the most recent version of the books offered by WotC.
Digital use has been the same for years across countless products. Your misunderstanding would be excused if this was the first purchase you have ever made in the roughly two decades that digital content has been available. The laws are not detrimental to the customer. You literally cannot proceed with any purchase on this site unless you have agreed to the terms and conditions - full stop.
The reason people are upset is not changes to the established lore of settings, people are upset because a product they paid money for was altered without any consent or consideration. I understand the site's policy and privilege to alter the books is technically legal but that does not make it right. At the end of the day text material was removed from a book after money had changed hands, apparently it was legal and allowed based on the regulations in place. This does not mean that the change has the moral high ground, it means the regulations and legislation in place is insufficient to protect the wellbeing of the customer and need to be ammended.
I wanted to address these two adjacent sentences, because they are in conflict with one another. Again, you MUST agree to the site’s policies before you can even be permitted to make a purchase. They explicitly state that there may be changes in the future. When you made your purchase and agreed to these terms, did you think that only changes that you approved of would happen? Did you honestly believe that you would be consulted before changes were made? Did you think that you would love any and all future updates of WotC content and that any failure to get your thumbs up would be halted?
There have been many updates to 5e since it has been released. I have never seen the dust-up that the most recent errata has caused. You have been on this site for almost two years, why do you care only now? I will not say that this is necessarily manufactured outrage, but I will say that the key to comedy is timing and that the past week has been hilarious for me.
What has been devalued, as far as you are concerned? In what way was it devalued?
The book has objectively lost value as there is less text in the book than there was then when it was purchased. There is less of the thing I paid money for.
You value books by the word count? Fewer words = less value?
I value a product not being altered after it's been paid for. I value not having a corporation feeling comfortable to pull a bait-and-switch on their customers.
you purchased “Digital Game Content” and didn’t expect any changes/edits /updates? ……That’s the whole point and benefit of digital content? If you don’t want updates, you buy hard copy or PDF (if applicable). There would be a whole forum load of unhappy people in the feedback section here, if digital content wasn’t updated!
Let's be fair:
The whole point of digital content isn't contained in the function of automatic updates. That's one of the least important aspects for me. One is the fact that I can store all my books in the volume of an electronic device, and have as many copies as I have appropriate devices.
You can't [legally] get PDFs. That's one of the reasons I don't buy more DDB content - it's entirely at their mercy.
I agree, the books should should kept up to date, or at least have it as an option. But let's notmpretend their options are greater than they are.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
The "games as a service" model is flawed. It has its benefits, but it also has drawbacks such as impermanence. I think we're all in agreement about that.
It would be great if there were other legal ways to get your D&D content digitally, without having to subscribe to something with the aforementioned flaws. More options is always good, I think we can all agree on that also.
We all were informed of the subscription service nature of Beyond, and consented to using it before we spent any money on it. That much is inarguable -- you have to agree to the terms of service before it'll let you spend money.
This errata is far from the first substantive alteration of game content that has occurred. One is invited to wonder why the conversation about subscription service gaming is only happening in response to this particular instance.
However, it's also not the first one to be motivated by, in the common parlance, "wokeness." Back in 2020 the intelligence penalty on orcs from Volo's was removed, and nobody came out complaining about the very nature of D&D Beyond at that time (to my recollection, anyway). While that of course doesn't preclude a reactionary political motive for the current outcry, it does make it less cut and dry.
In the event that those users upset by the things I described aren't political reactionaries using the issues as a convenient smokescreen... Maybe wait a little while and try again? Right now it really does look from the outside like you're bad faith actors. And it's impossible to verify.
If more people feel included that's a good thing. I don't mind the lore/alignment changes at all. I don't like the removal of sections "roleplaying a ____" without a replacement. I like to see WotC change their content to be more inclusive but I want replacements not removals. (I know people are of the opinion all the information is there so I explain this below.)
If these sections end up being replaced in Multiverse I will definitely feel that it was creating a problem to sell us the solution (when based on timing it could have been included in the errata) but time will tell on that.
As far as information goes it seems to mostly be there (looking at my physical copy as ref) - but the roleplay sections were more easily referenced and were extremely helpful to me when we first started playing DND. My whole table had never played DND or any TTRPG or really done any roleplay before and things were slow - so having more condensed sections for roleplaying monsters was helpful. Sometimes as a new player/DM these books were very hard to navigate and turning/clicking on roleplaying xyz and only seeing tables would have been meh to me. In the sense that it wouldn't have been a useful section. I never look at them anymore though so as an established player they aren't very useful sections anyway.
Overall I personally don't care either way as it won't change my games. With regards to other lore changes my games are pretty much already played this way. I view Tasha's optional racial traits the same - my table adopted that long before Tasha's. Again to the lore changes, making entry into the game smoother and people having to make fewer lore alterations to feel comfortable is great and a positive direction to take.
This is obviously my opinion and people will have different opinions on the roleplay sections being useful. Starting out they were useful to me and my group and that's about it so I'm disappointed they didn't replace those with something else but not about things being changed in general.
To the people saying you should be aware that your product will update based on digital products doing so for the last 20+ years. DNDBeyond are the first books I have ever had updated digitally and it's not a subscription based pricing model. My original perception when purchasing it was they wouldn't be updating the books. Yes, I didn't read the terms (or at least can't remember doing so before) I skip reading most terms believe it or not and I think that's pretty normal. Probably not a smart thing to do but certainly not uncommon.
I was basing my assumption on my prior purchases of digital books and the pricing model. Yes, there are loads of examples of the opposite where digital content is updated but not all of it is and not everyone is going to base their assumptions on the same prior experience let alone have the same prior experience. I've still never bought/found other digital books that update (I don't mean release new content but update old) outside of other TTRPG books/pdfs but even those I don't lose the original. I don't need to excuse my misunderstanding on the update model with anything further than I didn't read the terms - my experience is not yours. I don't expect updates to all my digital content across the board because some (could even be most) digital content gets updated. Even for things people know get updated (see video games) people dislike when content gets removed and quit.
However, when I found out they do update them here I was pleasantly surprised as it meant I didn't have to keep track of the errata myself. I only found out there was errata when I first found out they updated the books here. I happen to prefer content that gets updated without having to make a second purchase. I just didn't expect it and don't expect others, who like me didn't read (or didn't remember) the terms, to automatically assume updates will occur. Blast me all you want for not reading the terms originally but I'd be surprised if anyone wasn't guilty of that at one point or another.
All in all my vote goes in part to all three options. I'm happy with it for those it positively impacts and brings to the (virtual or real) table, I personally don't care for my table as it will make zero difference we already play this way and, I dislike the roleplay section removals with no replacement text for newer players, based on my own past experience, as it was helpful to have something easily referenced when I first started playing.
Since the beginning of the game, alignments have always been suggested, not outright. I honestly thought this was common knowledge until very recently, when playing with a brand new group DMed by someone who regrettably--and to the detriment of his campaign--insisted on following the most boring interpretation of the alignment system for all major NPCs... and worse... for player characters of certain races, trying to force their perspective of what a race must be on the player character themselves.
Having had this experience, I am glad the rulebooks are going to make the already-implied "suggested alignment" more explicit. I am not sure it will do much to help the most uncreative of DMs, but it might encourage a few to think more outside the box about what various creatures can be.
The backlash on this saddens me, the game I love playing and sharing with the people I love and care about is being clarified to try and be non racist and inclusive to all is being ragged by those that are racist and intolerant of others. The claiming that either WotC or DDB is cheating or being fraudulent to us for these changes are just showing how close minded they are, no matter what your reason is for not wanting these changes scream narrow mindset to be polite.
If more people feel included that's a good thing. I don't mind the lore/alignment changes at all. I don't like the removal of sections "roleplaying a ____" without a replacement. I like to see WotC change their content to be more inclusive but I want replacements not removals. (I know people are of the opinion all the information is there so I explain this below.)
The absence of the "role playing" is the point, and it's not a "political" one. It removes the impression of a dictate. Can you given the extant lore in the Monster Manual and Volo's, play a Beholder exactly the way it was described in the removed passage? Absolutely, but it's no longer "the way by WotC fiat" which was what WotC was getting at and have explained in their followups to the outrage mob. Moreover there are other ways one can role play a beholder besides the guidance originally given. Removing the text "Roleplaying an X" grants DMs more freedom ... honestly I play all my aberrations a lot weirder than as written in Volo's and elsewhere. Lines of text, and not many if you look at it in proportion with actual column lengths of the whole section for each "bowdlerized" monster. We're talking USA Today length paragraphs not War and Peace length paragraphs for those moaning the words "paragraphs" and "sidebars".
Really the sort of guidance given in Volo's is odd for a lot of D&D books, oddly specific. I still haven't heard anyone tell me how the editorial decision affects anyone's actual game, instead there's the mobilization around "consumers rights" which are more a confrontation of antiquated notions of what a "digital book" is and isn't. More significant mechanical changes have been made from the removal of negative modifiers in Volo's to more recent VRGtR and WBtW stat blocks leading to a magic item or a monster's stat block being replaced with that version regardless of whether you own the book or not. And a role playing suggestion language that can be construed as a dictate is what folks break the panic glass over? This is folks being mad because they've been told to be mad. I mean, if you want to draw a line in the sand against some sort of injury done D&D fine, but putting it here seems to be the least consequential battle.
FWIW, people did in fact complain on this forum about the negative modifiers being removed from the monster races; but the matter got subsumed into broader "culture war" style arguments in summer 2020 that were part of the landscape into "Diversity and Dragons" which was inserted.
Stop this nonsense. Nobody is angry that they have modified the digital material. That is a straw man because you cannot openly defend the real reason for your anger. It would be interesting to hear your real arguments, and to be able to refute them if necessary. But all this loss of value bullshit just isn't credible. And besides, it is noise for nothing more than wasting time. It is so absurd that you seem like a parody of yourself.
If more people feel included that's a good thing. I don't mind the lore/alignment changes at all. I don't like the removal of sections "roleplaying a ____" without a replacement. I like to see WotC change their content to be more inclusive but I want replacements not removals. (I know people are of the opinion all the information is there so I explain this below.)
If these sections end up being replaced in Multiverse I will definitely feel that it was creating a problem to sell us the solution (when based on timing it could have been included in the errata) but time will tell on that.
As far as information goes it seems to mostly be there (looking at my physical copy as ref) - but the roleplay sections were more easily referenced and were extremely helpful to me when we first started playing DND. My whole table had never played DND or any TTRPG or really done any roleplay before and things were slow - so having more condensed sections for roleplaying monsters was helpful. Sometimes as a new player/DM these books were very hard to navigate and turning/clicking on roleplaying xyz and only seeing tables would have been meh to me. In the sense that it wouldn't have been a useful section. I never look at them anymore though so as an established player they aren't very useful sections anyway.
Overall I personally don't care either way as it won't change my games. With regards to other lore changes my games are pretty much already played this way. I view Tasha's optional racial traits the same - my table adopted that long before Tasha's. Again to the lore changes, making entry into the game smoother and people having to make fewer lore alterations to feel comfortable is great and a positive direction to take.
This is obviously my opinion and people will have different opinions on the roleplay sections being useful. Starting out they were useful to me and my group and that's about it so I'm disappointed they didn't replace those with something else but not about things being changed in general.
To the people saying you should be aware that your product will update based on digital products doing so for the last 20+ years. DNDBeyond are the first books I have ever had updated digitally and it's not a subscription based pricing model. My original perception when purchasing it was they wouldn't be updating the books. Yes, I didn't read the terms (or at least can't remember doing so before) I skip reading most terms believe it or not and I think that's pretty normal. Probably not a smart thing to do but certainly not uncommon.
I was basing my assumption on my prior purchases of digital books and the pricing model. Yes, there are loads of examples of the opposite where digital content is updated but not all of it is and not everyone is going to base their assumptions on the same prior experience let alone have the same prior experience. I've still never bought/found other digital books that update (I don't mean release new content but update old) outside of other TTRPG books/pdfs but even those I don't lose the original. I don't need to excuse my misunderstanding on the update model with anything further than I didn't read the terms - my experience is not yours. I don't expect updates to all my digital content across the board because some (could even be most) digital content gets updated. Even for things people know get updated (see video games) people dislike when content gets removed and quit.
However, when I found out they do update them here I was pleasantly surprised as it meant I didn't have to keep track of the errata myself. I only found out there was errata when I first found out they updated the books here. I happen to prefer content that gets updated without having to make a second purchase. I just didn't expect it and don't expect others, who like me didn't read (or didn't remember) the terms, to automatically assume updates will occur. Blast me all you want for not reading the terms originally but I'd be surprised if anyone wasn't guilty of that at one point or another.
I don't think many people, even those shouting about it here, have read many Ts&Cs. Still, whilenthe "rented" aspect is a bit...less than ideal treat,ent, it's also very common. If you don't retain 100% control (eg it's not a PDF, or it's browser based, etc), it's a pretty safe bet with digital media that it's rented and not owned. Even if you do, it's not guaranteed to be owned. It's an unfortunate state of the market - consumers have let companies get away with it for so long that it's become the standard.
Still, I've can't help pointing out that that there have been other automatic updates, other errata being incorporated into their books without continued permission, and there wasn't this blowup. It's entirely possible that it was only one or two getting upset put the actual content, posting about it, then everyone else is genuinely finding out for the first time that this happens or always felt this way and just feel like the topic being broached makes it more socially acceptable for them to complain, so it's all genuine and innocent for most people. Even if I wonder why theyve only noticed now- if you have the app, it asks you to update the book, so they must have thought about it before. However, it does seem a big coincidence that people are getting upset over this topic matter.
The absence of the "role playing" is the point, and it's not a "political" one. It removes the impression of a dictate. Can you given the extant lore in the Monster Manual and Volo's, play a Beholder exactly the way it was described in the removed passage. Absolutely, but it's no longer "the way by WotC fiat" which was what WotC was getting at and have explained in their followups to the outrage mob. Moreover there are other ways one can role play a beholder besides the guidance originally given. Removing the text "Roleplaying an X" grants DMs more freedom ... honestly I play all my aberrations a lot weirder than as written in Volo's and elsewhere.
This is actually my concern. I feel that D&D doesn't give enough guidance. I don't know all these monsters, and trying to interoet the, from a statblock is hard. I bought D&D so it could do the heavy lifting of creating the races and cultures for me. I don't need this (actually quite expensive) franchise to be able to use my imagination - I need it to be giving me a base to work from, a framework so that I can focus on developing individual characters, rather than trying to invent racial mannerisms, attitudes and cultures and THEN having to come up with with interesting characters. That's what I'm paying WotC for - to offload that work onto them. I have no problem ignoring what isn't ideal for me. If I want a Kobold that doesn't worship dragons, it's easy enough for me to ignore that part of their description. It's not so easy to develop that lore just by looking at their statblock. It's much easier for me to start from an established base and work out from there than to invent stuff. From my point of view, WotC already doesn't go far enough to help me develop interesting characters. I paid for an expensive book to get a bunch of monster stats, but then, if I'm lucky, they'll release another expensive book that will give me the info I need to make the monsters come alive, but will only be one type, like dragons. That gets very expensive very quickly and won't cover everything anyway.
While alignments disappearing is a small thing, I can't help but feel that it's a step I the wrong direction. If it's felt that people aren't understanding the suggestion nature of the content, then I suggest that the principle be taught more clearly and more frequently. A preface telling the reader that they are free and even encouraged to modify and personalise any and every aspect of the creature they feel would improve from it should suffice. The problem with "let's not suggest stuff because people are clinging to it too rigidly" is that that logic will soon lead to an empty book being sold. I modify my monsters health. Is that wrong? Should the HP suggestion be removed to avoid people clinging too rigidly to it?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You have an unfortunate typo in your last paragraph.
https://dnd.wizards.com/dndstudioblog/sage-advice-book-updates
Ah, so I do. I've edited it out, thanks for letting me know. Normally I'd laugh and move on, but that was a little too unfortunate!
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
The book has objectively lost value as there is less text in the book than there was then when it was purchased. There is less of the thing I paid money for. I understand the whole "renting" argument. But the transaction is not presented as renting, regardless of what terms and conditions say.
It is presented as a purchase, one lump sum of currency exchanged for goods at the same price as the physical product, this is to establish in the customer's mind that the digital copy is the same as the physical copy. This is not true and though the site has followed the letter of the law in with the TaC, that does not make it right. Legal does not always mean just. I am not saying beyond has broken any laws, I'm saying they are using the laws in a way that is to the detriment of their customers.
What you say is obvious. The world is not reduced to our circle. I expected a higher percentage of dissatisfaction based on my experience, and I was wrong. Which makes me really happy. I'm very tired of crybabies.
You value books by the word count? Fewer words = less value?
I value a product not being altered after it's been paid for. I value not having a corporation feeling comfortable to pull a bait-and-switch on their customers.
You’re just mad cause they changed the text about drow all being evil and followers of Lolth to something more inclusive.
The product's been improved. That's an increase in value, albeit subjectively. And I reiterate, the removed text was nothing but repetition. No information was lost. It's a sourcebook. You presumably buy it for the info, not for the prose. That what you presumably buy it for has not been diminished. There is no bait and switch.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I’m lost here?
you purchased “Digital Game Content” and didn’t expect any changes/edits /updates? ……That’s the whole point and benefit of digital content? If you don’t want updates, you buy hard copy or PDF (if applicable).
There would be a whole forum load of unhappy people in the feedback section here, if digital content wasn’t updated!
This claim of devaluation is incorrect and has been debunked numerous times by myself and several others across four or five threads in past week or so. Firstly, value is not an objective term, but subjective and depends on the measures and those performing the measures. Simply having less text is not a devaluation unless you do not care about the content itself, but rather the word count. To me, that is just confusing. Removing redundancies in an effort to make text more concise is actually a good thing, which, near as I can see, is exactly what was done.
As far as the terms and conditions of this site, I would have to disagree with you. Others have pointed out that the terms and conditions are explicitly clear to anyone who bothers to read them; you do not own anything you purchase here. You are paying for the use of the product(s) offered on this site, which are the most recent version of the books offered by WotC.
Digital use has been the same for years across countless products. Your misunderstanding would be excused if this was the first purchase you have ever made in the roughly two decades that digital content has been available. The laws are not detrimental to the customer. You literally cannot proceed with any purchase on this site unless you have agreed to the terms and conditions - full stop.
I wanted to address these two adjacent sentences, because they are in conflict with one another. Again, you MUST agree to the site’s policies before you can even be permitted to make a purchase. They explicitly state that there may be changes in the future. When you made your purchase and agreed to these terms, did you think that only changes that you approved of would happen? Did you honestly believe that you would be consulted before changes were made? Did you think that you would love any and all future updates of WotC content and that any failure to get your thumbs up would be halted?
There have been many updates to 5e since it has been released. I have never seen the dust-up that the most recent errata has caused. You have been on this site for almost two years, why do you care only now? I will not say that this is necessarily manufactured outrage, but I will say that the key to comedy is timing and that the past week has been hilarious for me.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
That's not what you said here, though.
Let's be fair:
I agree, the books should should kept up to date, or at least have it as an option. But let's notmpretend their options are greater than they are.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
The "games as a service" model is flawed. It has its benefits, but it also has drawbacks such as impermanence. I think we're all in agreement about that.
It would be great if there were other legal ways to get your D&D content digitally, without having to subscribe to something with the aforementioned flaws. More options is always good, I think we can all agree on that also.
We all were informed of the subscription service nature of Beyond, and consented to using it before we spent any money on it. That much is inarguable -- you have to agree to the terms of service before it'll let you spend money.
This errata is far from the first substantive alteration of game content that has occurred. One is invited to wonder why the conversation about subscription service gaming is only happening in response to this particular instance.
However, it's also not the first one to be motivated by, in the common parlance, "wokeness." Back in 2020 the intelligence penalty on orcs from Volo's was removed, and nobody came out complaining about the very nature of D&D Beyond at that time (to my recollection, anyway). While that of course doesn't preclude a reactionary political motive for the current outcry, it does make it less cut and dry.
In the event that those users upset by the things I described aren't political reactionaries using the issues as a convenient smokescreen... Maybe wait a little while and try again? Right now it really does look from the outside like you're bad faith actors. And it's impossible to verify.
If more people feel included that's a good thing. I don't mind the lore/alignment changes at all. I don't like the removal of sections "roleplaying a ____" without a replacement. I like to see WotC change their content to be more inclusive but I want replacements not removals. (I know people are of the opinion all the information is there so I explain this below.)
If these sections end up being replaced in Multiverse I will definitely feel that it was creating a problem to sell us the solution (when based on timing it could have been included in the errata) but time will tell on that.
As far as information goes it seems to mostly be there (looking at my physical copy as ref) - but the roleplay sections were more easily referenced and were extremely helpful to me when we first started playing DND. My whole table had never played DND or any TTRPG or really done any roleplay before and things were slow - so having more condensed sections for roleplaying monsters was helpful. Sometimes as a new player/DM these books were very hard to navigate and turning/clicking on roleplaying xyz and only seeing tables would have been meh to me. In the sense that it wouldn't have been a useful section. I never look at them anymore though so as an established player they aren't very useful sections anyway.
Overall I personally don't care either way as it won't change my games. With regards to other lore changes my games are pretty much already played this way. I view Tasha's optional racial traits the same - my table adopted that long before Tasha's. Again to the lore changes, making entry into the game smoother and people having to make fewer lore alterations to feel comfortable is great and a positive direction to take.
This is obviously my opinion and people will have different opinions on the roleplay sections being useful. Starting out they were useful to me and my group and that's about it so I'm disappointed they didn't replace those with something else but not about things being changed in general.
To the people saying you should be aware that your product will update based on digital products doing so for the last 20+ years. DNDBeyond are the first books I have ever had updated digitally and it's not a subscription based pricing model. My original perception when purchasing it was they wouldn't be updating the books. Yes, I didn't read the terms (or at least can't remember doing so before) I skip reading most terms believe it or not and I think that's pretty normal. Probably not a smart thing to do but certainly not uncommon.
I was basing my assumption on my prior purchases of digital books and the pricing model. Yes, there are loads of examples of the opposite where digital content is updated but not all of it is and not everyone is going to base their assumptions on the same prior experience let alone have the same prior experience. I've still never bought/found other digital books that update (I don't mean release new content but update old) outside of other TTRPG books/pdfs but even those I don't lose the original. I don't need to excuse my misunderstanding on the update model with anything further than I didn't read the terms - my experience is not yours. I don't expect updates to all my digital content across the board because some (could even be most) digital content gets updated. Even for things people know get updated (see video games) people dislike when content gets removed and quit.
However, when I found out they do update them here I was pleasantly surprised as it meant I didn't have to keep track of the errata myself. I only found out there was errata when I first found out they updated the books here. I happen to prefer content that gets updated without having to make a second purchase. I just didn't expect it and don't expect others, who like me didn't read (or didn't remember) the terms, to automatically assume updates will occur. Blast me all you want for not reading the terms originally but I'd be surprised if anyone wasn't guilty of that at one point or another.
All in all my vote goes in part to all three options. I'm happy with it for those it positively impacts and brings to the (virtual or real) table, I personally don't care for my table as it will make zero difference we already play this way and, I dislike the roleplay section removals with no replacement text for newer players, based on my own past experience, as it was helpful to have something easily referenced when I first started playing.
How to get your dice to look like the ones in my profile picture and a full site dark mode.
Tutorial thread by Hyrkali
Since the beginning of the game, alignments have always been suggested, not outright. I honestly thought this was common knowledge until very recently, when playing with a brand new group DMed by someone who regrettably--and to the detriment of his campaign--insisted on following the most boring interpretation of the alignment system for all major NPCs... and worse... for player characters of certain races, trying to force their perspective of what a race must be on the player character themselves.
Having had this experience, I am glad the rulebooks are going to make the already-implied "suggested alignment" more explicit. I am not sure it will do much to help the most uncreative of DMs, but it might encourage a few to think more outside the box about what various creatures can be.
The backlash on this saddens me, the game I love playing and sharing with the people I love and care about is being clarified to try and be non racist and inclusive to all is being ragged by those that are racist and intolerant of others. The claiming that either WotC or DDB is cheating or being fraudulent to us for these changes are just showing how close minded they are, no matter what your reason is for not wanting these changes scream narrow mindset to be polite.
The absence of the "role playing" is the point, and it's not a "political" one. It removes the impression of a dictate. Can you given the extant lore in the Monster Manual and Volo's, play a Beholder exactly the way it was described in the removed passage? Absolutely, but it's no longer "the way by WotC fiat" which was what WotC was getting at and have explained in their followups to the outrage mob. Moreover there are other ways one can role play a beholder besides the guidance originally given. Removing the text "Roleplaying an X" grants DMs more freedom ... honestly I play all my aberrations a lot weirder than as written in Volo's and elsewhere. Lines of text, and not many if you look at it in proportion with actual column lengths of the whole section for each "bowdlerized" monster. We're talking USA Today length paragraphs not War and Peace length paragraphs for those moaning the words "paragraphs" and "sidebars".
Really the sort of guidance given in Volo's is odd for a lot of D&D books, oddly specific. I still haven't heard anyone tell me how the editorial decision affects anyone's actual game, instead there's the mobilization around "consumers rights" which are more a confrontation of antiquated notions of what a "digital book" is and isn't. More significant mechanical changes have been made from the removal of negative modifiers in Volo's to more recent VRGtR and WBtW stat blocks leading to a magic item or a monster's stat block being replaced with that version regardless of whether you own the book or not. And a role playing suggestion language that can be construed as a dictate is what folks break the panic glass over? This is folks being mad because they've been told to be mad. I mean, if you want to draw a line in the sand against some sort of injury done D&D fine, but putting it here seems to be the least consequential battle.
FWIW, people did in fact complain on this forum about the negative modifiers being removed from the monster races; but the matter got subsumed into broader "culture war" style arguments in summer 2020 that were part of the landscape into "Diversity and Dragons" which was inserted.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Stop this nonsense. Nobody is angry that they have modified the digital material. That is a straw man because you cannot openly defend the real reason for your anger.
It would be interesting to hear your real arguments, and to be able to refute them if necessary. But all this loss of value bullshit just isn't credible. And besides, it is noise for nothing more than wasting time. It is so absurd that you seem like a parody of yourself.
I don't think many people, even those shouting about it here, have read many Ts&Cs. Still, whilenthe "rented" aspect is a bit...less than ideal treat,ent, it's also very common. If you don't retain 100% control (eg it's not a PDF, or it's browser based, etc), it's a pretty safe bet with digital media that it's rented and not owned. Even if you do, it's not guaranteed to be owned. It's an unfortunate state of the market - consumers have let companies get away with it for so long that it's become the standard.
Still, I've can't help pointing out that that there have been other automatic updates, other errata being incorporated into their books without continued permission, and there wasn't this blowup. It's entirely possible that it was only one or two getting upset put the actual content, posting about it, then everyone else is genuinely finding out for the first time that this happens or always felt this way and just feel like the topic being broached makes it more socially acceptable for them to complain, so it's all genuine and innocent for most people. Even if I wonder why theyve only noticed now- if you have the app, it asks you to update the book, so they must have thought about it before. However, it does seem a big coincidence that people are getting upset over this topic matter.
This is actually my concern. I feel that D&D doesn't give enough guidance. I don't know all these monsters, and trying to interoet the, from a statblock is hard. I bought D&D so it could do the heavy lifting of creating the races and cultures for me. I don't need this (actually quite expensive) franchise to be able to use my imagination - I need it to be giving me a base to work from, a framework so that I can focus on developing individual characters, rather than trying to invent racial mannerisms, attitudes and cultures and THEN having to come up with with interesting characters. That's what I'm paying WotC for - to offload that work onto them. I have no problem ignoring what isn't ideal for me. If I want a Kobold that doesn't worship dragons, it's easy enough for me to ignore that part of their description. It's not so easy to develop that lore just by looking at their statblock. It's much easier for me to start from an established base and work out from there than to invent stuff. From my point of view, WotC already doesn't go far enough to help me develop interesting characters. I paid for an expensive book to get a bunch of monster stats, but then, if I'm lucky, they'll release another expensive book that will give me the info I need to make the monsters come alive, but will only be one type, like dragons. That gets very expensive very quickly and won't cover everything anyway.
While alignments disappearing is a small thing, I can't help but feel that it's a step I the wrong direction. If it's felt that people aren't understanding the suggestion nature of the content, then I suggest that the principle be taught more clearly and more frequently. A preface telling the reader that they are free and even encouraged to modify and personalise any and every aspect of the creature they feel would improve from it should suffice. The problem with "let's not suggest stuff because people are clinging to it too rigidly" is that that logic will soon lead to an empty book being sold. I modify my monsters health. Is that wrong? Should the HP suggestion be removed to avoid people clinging too rigidly to it?
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.