As I understand your points, I don't find fault with the sentences you are saying. I really don't, and I have said as much multiple times already. If someone is selling a product that they neither have nor can define, yes I agree that's shady and suspicious. Implementing the new content in such a way that it overwrites prior content regardless of whether or not the consumer has bought the source book (i.e. has "opted in") is anticonsumer in multiple ways, and should be resisted, loudly, yes. Deliberately selling a consumer a duplicate without revealing as much and only allowing the consumer to discover this after the irreversible transaction has completed is terrible on multiple levels and in many locations, downright illegal. Yes, I agree.
The element that I am puzzled about is how some of y'all arrived at the conclusion that any of this accurately describes DDB practices or represents a plausible model for expectations for the release of this product. What is the basis supporting the expectation that DDB will not keep updated M3 content unique to its source book, and presented as a toggle or something equally "extra options for choice if you've unlocked the content"? Why is this considered a perfectly reasonable presumption, when it does not fit with established practices or precedent set by the DDB handling of literally every other bit of content? What reason is given for rejecting the expectation that DDB will most likely handle the WotC "update to the new version" rule in a similar (if not identical) manner to how they handled the revisions and updates in Tasha's?
What harbingers have been seen that indicate that DDB is preparing to radically reverse course in their established practice of not charging consumers twice for previously purchased content? Is there evidence that I am unaware of that makes a solid case that I need to start being suspicious of DDB business practices in a way that I emphatically was not prior to now? I generally find in life that when I go looking for snakes, I will find them; but can anyone present a case why it is necessary to go looking in the first place?
Beyond that, I was under the impression that questions about this product and/or product implementation have been raised before now - but were not, in fact, ignored. I was given to understand that DDB has responded multiple times that there was not yet any information to tell, and that they will make statements and provide information as soon as any such information actually exists. Yes, they've known about this for months, I can see how frustration and extended periods with no indication of progress / resolution can create a lot of ill-will and escalate concerns. If I honestly weighed in on that, it would be to admit that I knew I was going to start running a game for months - and yet, there I was the day before our first game session, frantically scribbling notes and desperately pulling ideas outta my butt. I've been there, maybe you have too - and this subject of discussion is so much bigger and more complex and involved than one ridiculous DM and her stupid, mess of a game she's running just for friends that nobody else will ever see.
Comments under the snip are more focused on responding in a personal way directly to Yurei . . .
For whatever it's worth, I never said that it was rude to be dissatisfied, or to speak up about something you are not okay about. Since you're saying it, I must acknowledge that what I did say must have come off that way. For that, I apologize. All y'all don't know me, so you have no reason to give me the benefit of doubt or anything like that - but I would suggest that I have personal reasons that I would never want someone to force down dissatisfaction without complaint, and simply be compliant or blindly trusting. And I am very sorry that it seems the impact of my words felt that way to you.
I also would want you to understand that from where I come from, refraining from naming a name and carefully not singling a person out is considered the most courteous way to discuss a potential difference of perspective. I was, honestly, making every effort to be intentional with what I said; and to speak to the impact of reading the first 7 pages of this topic. When I said some people, and some responses, I genuinely meant that there was no one specific person or comment I had in mind. I deliberately tried to speak only to patterns of responses or provocative language I saw repeated across different posts by multiple people. It wasn't you I was dismayed by, nor was it the thoughts and concerns you raised - it was the vitriol.
Were you vicious? Yes, by your own admission. I found the extent of the underlying viciousness disproportionate to the conduct in question, as far as I understood it - and was further disheartened to see similar negative sentiment repeating as a common aspect of other's responses. As I have stated before, in the first 7-odd pages of the topic, I had a general feeling of more diatribe than discourse. I wanted to call out the viciousness, not the people - and certainly not the act of dissent and holding thoughts and opinions of your own. In my experience, a person can have their own mind and voice about things they resolutely disagree with - and stand in the public forum all day vehemently speaking to their point of view - and not be rude.
Adhere to Calm & Civil, pursue Hot & Spicy, employ both or neither - I am comfortable endorsing these approaches because I acknowledge that there is a time and a place for everything. I suggest, however, that if the concerns explicitly ascribe malicious intent to someone, or something - it might behoove the conversation to seriously consider the burden of proof and make all possible attempts to pass that bar.
Precedent: when the artificer was reprinted in Tasha's Cauldron after first being printed in Eberron: Rising from the Last War, substantive changes were made to the class. Its list of Infusions were altered in ways I sharply disapprove of and the way its conjurable critters work and how their stat blocks are derived was wildly different. It was not major, character-ruining alterations, but there were mechanical alterations made to the class in order to make the artificer more palatable for multiversal play. Even players who did not desire those changes get them. In my specific case, the artificer I made during the days when Rising was the only source of the artificer class retains access to its proper infusion list, but I cannot make new artificers with access to that list, and neither can anyone else.
Precedent: as Pangurjan mentioned, when the Bladesinger wizard was pretty radically altered in Tasha's Cauldron, owners of the Bladesinger from SCAG had their content automatically updated. They got the new Bladesinger, whether they wanted it or not. The Bladesinger updates were generally considered almost universally good so no stink was raised, byt the content in the character builder tools was nevertheless scrubbed and replaced with the 'new' stuff. You've cited that you are a lore hound and see the words in the book as the primary product being sold, ne? For a lot of folks here, and I mean a lot, the options available in the character and encounter builder tools are the main draw. Words in the book are fine, but it's the implementation of those words that matters.
DDB, historically and provably, has replaced old content with the new version whenever The New Version has come out, whether people wanted that to be done or not. Generally it's been seen as errata, as patching and fixing the game, but M3 is the first book to consist of nothing but patches and fixes insofar as the creation tools goes. There are no new species, there are no new monsters, and for the first time in 5e's run, a very significant portion of the playerbase is fiercely opposed to the changes and actively dis-wants them. There are many, many, many players who absolutely hate the idea of the things they're using being summarily replaced without their say-so, and there are many more who wonder why they should pay thirty dollars for a bookful of updates they presume they're going to get anyways whether they want them or not. Because, again - a large majority of DDB users are here for the digital toolset as much if not more so than they are for the written content of the books themselves.
This situation is unprecedented, and Wizards flip-flopping on many subjects whilst also being entirely, 100% unapproachable by anyone and everyone doesn't help. Wizards does not, never has, and never will speak to customers directly, and frankly that doesn't matter because the entity we're dealing with is DDB, not Wizards. Yes, DDB is a 'retailer', but in this case the question lies entirely within the implementation of the value-added service DDB retails, namely their digital toolset. Are we going to have things we're all actively using taken away from us? Are we going to have things we didn't want replacing those things we're actively using? Conversely, are we going to have to pay for content we already own and will be getting in updated for for free anyways, and thus the written words in the book that many people ignore and/or disregard anyways are the only 'new' thing being sold here?
No one knows. That not-knowing is the entire problem. Nobody knows what's going to happen when M3 drops, who will get what, and how content they already own will be treated - and yet DDB is out there squawking its head off trying to convince king and country to rush out and spend their dollars as soon as ever they possibly can.
I don't believe that's fair. I don't believe that's okay. I believe that if DDB wants anyone to spend money on their product, they can do us the kindness and courtesy of telling us what that money actually buys them and how that product will function in the value-added service that is the core of their business. I believe DDB does not have an excuse. They knew this was coming, Wizards knew this was coming, and if they needed word from Wizards to figure out these answers they should have been pressing Wizards for answers.
I believe that doing your utmost to convince someone to buy a thing, selling that someone the thing, then telling that someone "Thanks! We'll figure out in fivish months what it is you actually just bought, and if you decide you don't like or want it well F@#$ YOU TOO because we've already got your money haha sucks to be you dumbass byeeeee!" is an ******* move. It is the sort of move that sharply disinclines a gal to continue doing business with a company willing to bamboozle its customer base that way, especially since the other precedent set by DDB recently is that the new management team is extremely bad at communication. The new guy, Joe Starr, has done almost nothing to communicate issues outside of Dev Update videos that have been canceled repeatedly now, and many of those Dev Update videos are more fluff than fact.
This entire situation represents a deep failure in communication, which extra sucks because the new team has promised multiple times to improve its communication and yet every time an opportunity to prove that they're working to do so comes up, they fall short. This should have been sorted out long before it came to this point, and as much as I appreciate Mellie stepping in here to tell us 'we're sorry this sucks, we agree it sucks, and we'll tell you everything we can when we're allowed to do it!", I also find that to be a deeply unsatisfactory answer.
"Standby, we're working on it" was okay before they started taking people's money. Now that money has changed hands, it is no longer okay. That ios the crux of it.
Don't f@#$ing sell people a product before you figure out how you're actually going to offer that product.
. .. ... Anyways. Cultural shit for Amata specifically in the blurb
I'm an American. Indirect he-said-she-said-they-said stuff, doing one's best to speak in vague, semi-related generalities and doing one's utmost to avoid names and specifics, is often seen as shifty, disingenuous, and rude here. To Muricans that stuff is often adjacent to outright lying and feels more like someone is trying to stealth-insult you or mislead you than someone is trying to be polite to you. We do not like and are not historically much good at playing Connect-The-Dots and figuring out the true intended meaning of indirect speech. That way lies confusion, miscommunication, and madness.
It is, I believe, one of the major contributing facotrs to ol' Eagleland's reputation abroad as being full of brash dumb idiots. As a general thing, we don't truck with "the maple leaf sways in the harsh winds of fall" pseudomystical nonsense. We're not concerned with saving face or any similar phenomenon. We say exactly what we mean and we expect others to do the same to us; when someone does not the response is not "oh, they're so polite!", it's "why are you being so weird what are you trying to pull?"
Don't know how much exposure you've had to Muricana and our brash bold-facedly faceless dumbness, but there ye go. That's why people get called out by name, and why responses here are often going to be brutally direct and unveiled. Especially when somebody is jerking my chain and has gotten my blood up the way DDB has with this latest tom****ery.
. . . The book will be out in May. That is plenty of time for DDB to let us know what's up and for us to decide if we want to pre-order or not.
As far as Fantasy Grounds. They may have a slightly different license than DDB so they can say "hey guys, if you want to use this, you have to buy it." It's also possible that DDB is trying to work out something different with Wizards because they are going to bat for us. We don't know. We aren't privy to those discussions and probably will never be. . .
I feel like this is such a great point, it bears repetition for the sake of taking a moment to stop and really consider its implications. Thank you MorriganMacha for stating this so plainly.
The truth is that we aren't privy to those details - and, yeah, for all we know DDB hasn't said much yet because they're in talks with Wizard because they want better for us. It is within the realm of possibilities, just as much as "DDB is purposefully being uncommunicative and demanding money from us bc reasons xx-_- xx" I have seen Fantasy Grounds brought up in counterpoint to the official "we don't have anything yet, plz be patient" from DDB and from other users.
I might suggest that using FG as a rebuttal actually weakens the part of the argument suggesting that DDB should not have open preorders until they did have more information. If digital retail competitors like Fantasy Grounds, Roll20, or Foundry have taken what Wizards has stipulated, not pushed back, and opened up preorders with the unfair "you want it, you buy it (again)"then DDB has been trapped in a corner. As a company, there is absolutely no way that DDB can afford to let competitors offer preorders without also starting DDB preorders; like many of y'all, I have worked in niche retail and if we sat to think it through, we'd most likely agree that this would be a terrible critical hit for a business.
If DDB has further details to work out with WotC, or decisions to be made regarding implementation, they really only have two choices: start pre-orders alongside competitors and follow up with "more information pending" or hold DDB preorders until there are more details to release alongside and watch newbies and potential new customers walk away to competitors during the months of interim dead time.
I must acknowledge that some of this logic is speculative. However, the alternative currently being suggested is that DDB is knowingly generating a ton of bad-faith with their users for no particular reason. I don't follow the logic in that - even if I put aside optimism and faith in notions of inherent goodness, I am still left with the underlying logic of enlightened self-interest. It just wouldn't be best business practice for DDB to behave that way. This is part of why I am comfortable with waiting in good faith and confidence that there might be more going on that I am not privy to - and that the opening of presales has more to do with market competition than with corporate greed.
How is it unfair to make you buy new and different content? Sounds like the typical "I want stuff for free" and "I bought the books in real life why should I have to buy them again digitally!!!?!?" stuff to me.
All the races, save I think the harengon, had major updates that change them quite a lot than mere errata usually does. As well as, if all the talk from WotC is to be believed, the monster statblocks have been massively updated to be boosted for power and ease of DM use.
These are completely different versions and therefore are in another book. Therefore you purchase it again. It makes sense that if you want new content you have to buy it.
Yurei, I agree with you completely as I'm sure many do. I maybe would have dialled the tone down a notch or two but understand your frustrations as they mirror mine!
Fear not as the Dev Update is just 2 and a half hours away. We'll get all our answers then...
...or perhaps a "we'll let you know when we know but for now, let's talk about our favourite dinosaurs and minor updates to the service we released last year" 🤦♂️
Wizards does not, never has, and never will speak to customers directly, ...
WotC had thriving forums and later a "community" from the early days of 3E until well into 4E. I had an absolutely ridiculous post count there, and that was with two extra separate accounts for in-character posting and DMing in the PbP section. It was great except when it wasn't, and it wasn't on a semi-regular basis due to cycles of negativity popping up. I'm sure they were happy to have an excuse too, but they closed off that easy access because the first impression newbies got of the game could be very unfavorable depending on which part of the cycle they picked to wade in.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I don't usually agree with Yurei, but when I do, I really do.
There are many, many, many players who absolutely hate the idea of the things they're using being summarily replaced without their say-so
This is me. I have NO desire to play monsters the "New" way, and I'll be super mad if my monsters in DDB get replaced with the new versions. I also don't agree with the changes made to the races, and would be super mad if the character builder replaces the existing options with these new ones.
This is exactly what I warned about in the last big thread where Yurei and I disagreed (talking about Orcs, etc). At some point they will make a change you don't like, and when they do you'll wish you'd stood up to them earlier to make it clear we want all the options, especially if we've already paid for something, and we don't want it changed.
IMO M3 is not errata, it is a book of new options for playing the game. It is so different that it cannot, and should not, be considered the same thing.
If DDB and WotC push the M3 changes on to everyone, and don't give us a way to use the old versions, I and others will never buy any more digital books from DDB.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing) You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
. . . The book will be out in May. That is plenty of time for DDB to let us know what's up and for us to decide if we want to pre-order or not.
As far as Fantasy Grounds. They may have a slightly different license than DDB so they can say "hey guys, if you want to use this, you have to buy it." It's also possible that DDB is trying to work out something different with Wizards because they are going to bat for us. We don't know. We aren't privy to those discussions and probably will never be. . .
I feel like this is such a great point, it bears repetition for the sake of taking a moment to stop and really consider its implications. Thank you MorriganMacha for stating this so plainly.
The truth is that we aren't privy to those details - and, yeah, for all we know DDB hasn't said much yet because they're in talks with Wizard because they want better for us. It is within the realm of possibilities, just as much as "DDB is purposefully being uncommunicative and demanding money from us bc reasons xx-_- xx" I have seen Fantasy Grounds brought up in counterpoint to the official "we don't have anything yet, plz be patient" from DDB and from other users.
I might suggest that using FG as a rebuttal actually weakens the part of the argument suggesting that DDB should not have open preorders until they did have more information. If digital retail competitors like Fantasy Grounds, Roll20, or Foundry have taken what Wizards has stipulated, not pushed back, and opened up preorders with the unfair "you want it, you buy it (again)"then DDB has been trapped in a corner. As a company, there is absolutely no way that DDB can afford to let competitors offer preorders without also starting DDB preorders; like many of y'all, I have worked in niche retail and if we sat to think it through, we'd most likely agree that this would be a terrible critical hit for a business.
If DDB has further details to work out with WotC, or decisions to be made regarding implementation, they really only have two choices: start pre-orders alongside competitors and follow up with "more information pending" or hold DDB preorders until there are more details to release alongside and watch newbies and potential new customers walk away to competitors during the months of interim dead time.
I must acknowledge that some of this logic is speculative. However, the alternative currently being suggested is that DDB is knowingly generating a ton of bad-faith with their users for no particular reason. I don't follow the logic in that - even if I put aside optimism and faith in notions of inherent goodness, I am still left with the underlying logic of enlightened self-interest. It just wouldn't be best business practice for DDB to behave that way. This is part of why I am comfortable with waiting in good faith and confidence that there might be more going on that I am not privy to - and that the opening of presales has more to do with market competition than with corporate greed.
How is it unfair to make you buy new and different content? Sounds like the typical "I want stuff for free" and "I bought the books in real life why should I have to buy them again digitally!!!?!?" stuff to me.
All the races, save I think the harengon, had major updates that change them quite a lot than mere errata usually does. As well as, if all the talk from WotC is to be believed, the monster statblocks have been massively updated to be boosted for power and ease of DM use.
These are completely different versions and therefore are in another book. Therefore you purchase it again. It makes sense that if you want new content you have to buy it.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding someone here, but I don't think anyone is upset about having to buy the new book to get the updates. In fact, I think many people are HOPING it's that way. What people are upset about is that we DON'T KNOW if we have to buy the book to get the updates, since previously that hasn't been the case.
Wizards does not, never has, and never will speak to customers directly, ...
WotC had thriving forums and later a "community" from the early days of 3E until well into 4E. I had an absolutely ridiculous post count there, and that was with two extra separate accounts for in-character posting and DMing in the PbP section. It was great except when it wasn't, and it wasn't on a semi-regular basis due to cycles of negativity popping up. I'm sure they were happy to have an excuse too, but they closed off that easy access because the first impression newbies got of the game could be very unfavorable depending on which part of the cycle they picked to wade in.
And they think that's not the case here?
There will always be communities for things people take an interest in. The supplier of those things can either take an active hand and leadership role in the community, or they can **** off to their ivory tower and let the peasants sort it out themselves. They may end up muddy and disheveled with the rest of us in the former case, but in the latter? Their glittering white tower of solitude ain't gonna stay so glittery and white after people get done flinging poo at it. The whole 'we're too busy and important to deal with any of you, go away and bother other peasants" approach ain't great for business either.
I'm an American. Indirect he-said-she-said-they-said stuff, doing one's best to speak in vague, semi-related generalities and doing one's utmost to avoid names and specifics, is often seen as shifty, disingenuous, and rude here. To Muricans that stuff is often adjacent to outright lying and feels more like someone is trying to stealth-insult you or mislead you than someone is trying to be polite to you. We do not like and are not historically much good at playing Connect-The-Dots and figuring out the true intended meaning of indirect speech. That way lies confusion, miscommunication, and madness.
As a Dutchman myself, I can't agree more. I can't deal with indirectness and turnarounds. Please just be direct, or I'm likely to assume you're trying to pull one over on me. In the Netherlands being indirect is actually seen as very impolite.
. . . The book will be out in May. That is plenty of time for DDB to let us know what's up and for us to decide if we want to pre-order or not.
As far as Fantasy Grounds. They may have a slightly different license than DDB so they can say "hey guys, if you want to use this, you have to buy it." It's also possible that DDB is trying to work out something different with Wizards because they are going to bat for us. We don't know. We aren't privy to those discussions and probably will never be. . .
I feel like this is such a great point, it bears repetition for the sake of taking a moment to stop and really consider its implications. Thank you MorriganMacha for stating this so plainly.
The truth is that we aren't privy to those details - and, yeah, for all we know DDB hasn't said much yet because they're in talks with Wizard because they want better for us. It is within the realm of possibilities, just as much as "DDB is purposefully being uncommunicative and demanding money from us bc reasons xx-_- xx" I have seen Fantasy Grounds brought up in counterpoint to the official "we don't have anything yet, plz be patient" from DDB and from other users.
I might suggest that using FG as a rebuttal actually weakens the part of the argument suggesting that DDB should not have open preorders until they did have more information. If digital retail competitors like Fantasy Grounds, Roll20, or Foundry have taken what Wizards has stipulated, not pushed back, and opened up preorders with the unfair "you want it, you buy it (again)"then DDB has been trapped in a corner. As a company, there is absolutely no way that DDB can afford to let competitors offer preorders without also starting DDB preorders; like many of y'all, I have worked in niche retail and if we sat to think it through, we'd most likely agree that this would be a terrible critical hit for a business.
If DDB has further details to work out with WotC, or decisions to be made regarding implementation, they really only have two choices: start pre-orders alongside competitors and follow up with "more information pending" or hold DDB preorders until there are more details to release alongside and watch newbies and potential new customers walk away to competitors during the months of interim dead time.
I must acknowledge that some of this logic is speculative. However, the alternative currently being suggested is that DDB is knowingly generating a ton of bad-faith with their users for no particular reason. I don't follow the logic in that - even if I put aside optimism and faith in notions of inherent goodness, I am still left with the underlying logic of enlightened self-interest. It just wouldn't be best business practice for DDB to behave that way. This is part of why I am comfortable with waiting in good faith and confidence that there might be more going on that I am not privy to - and that the opening of presales has more to do with market competition than with corporate greed.
How is it unfair to make you buy new and different content? Sounds like the typical "I want stuff for free" and "I bought the books in real life why should I have to buy them again digitally!!!?!?" stuff to me.
All the races, save I think the harengon, had major updates that change them quite a lot than mere errata usually does. As well as, if all the talk from WotC is to be believed, the monster statblocks have been massively updated to be boosted for power and ease of DM use.
These are completely different versions and therefore are in another book. Therefore you purchase it again. It makes sense that if you want new content you have to buy it.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding someone here, but I don't think anyone is upset about having to buy the new book to get the updates. In fact, I think many people are HOPING it's that way. What people are upset about is that we DON'T KNOW if we have to buy the book to get the updates, since previously that hasn't been the case.
And on the flip side, there are people who don't feel they should pay for updates as DDB has always had the mantra of "always updated to the latest version"
. . . The book will be out in May. That is plenty of time for DDB to let us know what's up and for us to decide if we want to pre-order or not.
As far as Fantasy Grounds. They may have a slightly different license than DDB so they can say "hey guys, if you want to use this, you have to buy it." It's also possible that DDB is trying to work out something different with Wizards because they are going to bat for us. We don't know. We aren't privy to those discussions and probably will never be. . .
I feel like this is such a great point, it bears repetition for the sake of taking a moment to stop and really consider its implications. Thank you MorriganMacha for stating this so plainly.
The truth is that we aren't privy to those details - and, yeah, for all we know DDB hasn't said much yet because they're in talks with Wizard because they want better for us. It is within the realm of possibilities, just as much as "DDB is purposefully being uncommunicative and demanding money from us bc reasons xx-_- xx" I have seen Fantasy Grounds brought up in counterpoint to the official "we don't have anything yet, plz be patient" from DDB and from other users.
I might suggest that using FG as a rebuttal actually weakens the part of the argument suggesting that DDB should not have open preorders until they did have more information. If digital retail competitors like Fantasy Grounds, Roll20, or Foundry have taken what Wizards has stipulated, not pushed back, and opened up preorders with the unfair "you want it, you buy it (again)"then DDB has been trapped in a corner. As a company, there is absolutely no way that DDB can afford to let competitors offer preorders without also starting DDB preorders; like many of y'all, I have worked in niche retail and if we sat to think it through, we'd most likely agree that this would be a terrible critical hit for a business.
If DDB has further details to work out with WotC, or decisions to be made regarding implementation, they really only have two choices: start pre-orders alongside competitors and follow up with "more information pending" or hold DDB preorders until there are more details to release alongside and watch newbies and potential new customers walk away to competitors during the months of interim dead time.
I must acknowledge that some of this logic is speculative. However, the alternative currently being suggested is that DDB is knowingly generating a ton of bad-faith with their users for no particular reason. I don't follow the logic in that - even if I put aside optimism and faith in notions of inherent goodness, I am still left with the underlying logic of enlightened self-interest. It just wouldn't be best business practice for DDB to behave that way. This is part of why I am comfortable with waiting in good faith and confidence that there might be more going on that I am not privy to - and that the opening of presales has more to do with market competition than with corporate greed.
How is it unfair to make you buy new and different content? Sounds like the typical "I want stuff for free" and "I bought the books in real life why should I have to buy them again digitally!!!?!?" stuff to me.
All the races, save I think the harengon, had major updates that change them quite a lot than mere errata usually does. As well as, if all the talk from WotC is to be believed, the monster statblocks have been massively updated to be boosted for power and ease of DM use.
These are completely different versions and therefore are in another book. Therefore you purchase it again. It makes sense that if you want new content you have to buy it.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding someone here, but I don't think anyone is upset about having to buy the new book to get the updates. In fact, I think many people are HOPING it's that way. What people are upset about is that we DON'T KNOW if we have to buy the book to get the updates, since previously that hasn't been the case.
And on the flip side, there are people who don't feel they should pay for updates as DDB has always had the mantra of "always updated to the latest version"
There is no easy path.
I haven't seen a single person say they shouldn't have to pay for MMM. Maybe I've missed it though. I've seen people say they'd be mad paying for MMM if the updates get pushed through for free, but not if you have to buy the book for the updates.
. . . The book will be out in May. That is plenty of time for DDB to let us know what's up and for us to decide if we want to pre-order or not.
As far as Fantasy Grounds. They may have a slightly different license than DDB so they can say "hey guys, if you want to use this, you have to buy it." It's also possible that DDB is trying to work out something different with Wizards because they are going to bat for us. We don't know. We aren't privy to those discussions and probably will never be. . .
I feel like this is such a great point, it bears repetition for the sake of taking a moment to stop and really consider its implications. Thank you MorriganMacha for stating this so plainly.
The truth is that we aren't privy to those details - and, yeah, for all we know DDB hasn't said much yet because they're in talks with Wizard because they want better for us. It is within the realm of possibilities, just as much as "DDB is purposefully being uncommunicative and demanding money from us bc reasons xx-_- xx" I have seen Fantasy Grounds brought up in counterpoint to the official "we don't have anything yet, plz be patient" from DDB and from other users.
I might suggest that using FG as a rebuttal actually weakens the part of the argument suggesting that DDB should not have open preorders until they did have more information. If digital retail competitors like Fantasy Grounds, Roll20, or Foundry have taken what Wizards has stipulated, not pushed back, and opened up preorders with the unfair "you want it, you buy it (again)"then DDB has been trapped in a corner. As a company, there is absolutely no way that DDB can afford to let competitors offer preorders without also starting DDB preorders; like many of y'all, I have worked in niche retail and if we sat to think it through, we'd most likely agree that this would be a terrible critical hit for a business.
If DDB has further details to work out with WotC, or decisions to be made regarding implementation, they really only have two choices: start pre-orders alongside competitors and follow up with "more information pending" or hold DDB preorders until there are more details to release alongside and watch newbies and potential new customers walk away to competitors during the months of interim dead time.
I must acknowledge that some of this logic is speculative. However, the alternative currently being suggested is that DDB is knowingly generating a ton of bad-faith with their users for no particular reason. I don't follow the logic in that - even if I put aside optimism and faith in notions of inherent goodness, I am still left with the underlying logic of enlightened self-interest. It just wouldn't be best business practice for DDB to behave that way. This is part of why I am comfortable with waiting in good faith and confidence that there might be more going on that I am not privy to - and that the opening of presales has more to do with market competition than with corporate greed.
How is it unfair to make you buy new and different content? Sounds like the typical "I want stuff for free" and "I bought the books in real life why should I have to buy them again digitally!!!?!?" stuff to me.
All the races, save I think the harengon, had major updates that change them quite a lot than mere errata usually does. As well as, if all the talk from WotC is to be believed, the monster statblocks have been massively updated to be boosted for power and ease of DM use.
These are completely different versions and therefore are in another book. Therefore you purchase it again. It makes sense that if you want new content you have to buy it.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding someone here, but I don't think anyone is upset about having to buy the new book to get the updates. In fact, I think many people are HOPING it's that way. What people are upset about is that we DON'T KNOW if we have to buy the book to get the updates, since previously that hasn't been the case.
And on the flip side, there are people who don't feel they should pay for updates as DDB has always had the mantra of "always updated to the latest version"
There is no easy path.
I haven't seen a single person say they shouldn't have to pay for MMM. Maybe I've missed it though. I've seen people say they'd be mad paying for MMM if the updates get pushed through for free, but not if you have to buy the book for the updates.
I personally think the stats blocks should be updated for free if you own the prior books. I don’t think I should get the new book for free and any other information provided in there like updated information on CR and how to create custom monsters. I own almost every book currently in D&D Beyond, money isn’t the issue it’s more principle based on what they have said prior.
. . . The book will be out in May. That is plenty of time for DDB to let us know what's up and for us to decide if we want to pre-order or not.
As far as Fantasy Grounds. They may have a slightly different license than DDB so they can say "hey guys, if you want to use this, you have to buy it." It's also possible that DDB is trying to work out something different with Wizards because they are going to bat for us. We don't know. We aren't privy to those discussions and probably will never be. . .
I feel like this is such a great point, it bears repetition for the sake of taking a moment to stop and really consider its implications. Thank you MorriganMacha for stating this so plainly.
The truth is that we aren't privy to those details - and, yeah, for all we know DDB hasn't said much yet because they're in talks with Wizard because they want better for us. It is within the realm of possibilities, just as much as "DDB is purposefully being uncommunicative and demanding money from us bc reasons xx-_- xx" I have seen Fantasy Grounds brought up in counterpoint to the official "we don't have anything yet, plz be patient" from DDB and from other users.
I might suggest that using FG as a rebuttal actually weakens the part of the argument suggesting that DDB should not have open preorders until they did have more information. If digital retail competitors like Fantasy Grounds, Roll20, or Foundry have taken what Wizards has stipulated, not pushed back, and opened up preorders with the unfair "you want it, you buy it (again)"then DDB has been trapped in a corner. As a company, there is absolutely no way that DDB can afford to let competitors offer preorders without also starting DDB preorders; like many of y'all, I have worked in niche retail and if we sat to think it through, we'd most likely agree that this would be a terrible critical hit for a business.
If DDB has further details to work out with WotC, or decisions to be made regarding implementation, they really only have two choices: start pre-orders alongside competitors and follow up with "more information pending" or hold DDB preorders until there are more details to release alongside and watch newbies and potential new customers walk away to competitors during the months of interim dead time.
I must acknowledge that some of this logic is speculative. However, the alternative currently being suggested is that DDB is knowingly generating a ton of bad-faith with their users for no particular reason. I don't follow the logic in that - even if I put aside optimism and faith in notions of inherent goodness, I am still left with the underlying logic of enlightened self-interest. It just wouldn't be best business practice for DDB to behave that way. This is part of why I am comfortable with waiting in good faith and confidence that there might be more going on that I am not privy to - and that the opening of presales has more to do with market competition than with corporate greed.
How is it unfair to make you buy new and different content? Sounds like the typical "I want stuff for free" and "I bought the books in real life why should I have to buy them again digitally!!!?!?" stuff to me.
All the races, save I think the harengon, had major updates that change them quite a lot than mere errata usually does. As well as, if all the talk from WotC is to be believed, the monster statblocks have been massively updated to be boosted for power and ease of DM use.
These are completely different versions and therefore are in another book. Therefore you purchase it again. It makes sense that if you want new content you have to buy it.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding someone here, but I don't think anyone is upset about having to buy the new book to get the updates. In fact, I think many people are HOPING it's that way. What people are upset about is that we DON'T KNOW if we have to buy the book to get the updates, since previously that hasn't been the case.
And on the flip side, there are people who don't feel they should pay for updates as DDB has always had the mantra of "always updated to the latest version"
There is no easy path.
I haven't seen a single person say they shouldn't have to pay for MMM. Maybe I've missed it though. I've seen people say they'd be mad paying for MMM if the updates get pushed through for free, but not if you have to buy the book for the updates.
I personally think the stats blocks should be updated for free if you own the prior books. I don’t think I should get the new book for free and any other information provided in there like updated information on CR and how to create custom monsters. I own almost every book currently in D&D Beyond, money isn’t the issue it’s more principle based on what they have said prior.
. . . The book will be out in May. That is plenty of time for DDB to let us know what's up and for us to decide if we want to pre-order or not.
As far as Fantasy Grounds. They may have a slightly different license than DDB so they can say "hey guys, if you want to use this, you have to buy it." It's also possible that DDB is trying to work out something different with Wizards because they are going to bat for us. We don't know. We aren't privy to those discussions and probably will never be. . .
I feel like this is such a great point, it bears repetition for the sake of taking a moment to stop and really consider its implications. Thank you MorriganMacha for stating this so plainly.
The truth is that we aren't privy to those details - and, yeah, for all we know DDB hasn't said much yet because they're in talks with Wizard because they want better for us. It is within the realm of possibilities, just as much as "DDB is purposefully being uncommunicative and demanding money from us bc reasons xx-_- xx" I have seen Fantasy Grounds brought up in counterpoint to the official "we don't have anything yet, plz be patient" from DDB and from other users.
I might suggest that using FG as a rebuttal actually weakens the part of the argument suggesting that DDB should not have open preorders until they did have more information. If digital retail competitors like Fantasy Grounds, Roll20, or Foundry have taken what Wizards has stipulated, not pushed back, and opened up preorders with the unfair "you want it, you buy it (again)"then DDB has been trapped in a corner. As a company, there is absolutely no way that DDB can afford to let competitors offer preorders without also starting DDB preorders; like many of y'all, I have worked in niche retail and if we sat to think it through, we'd most likely agree that this would be a terrible critical hit for a business.
If DDB has further details to work out with WotC, or decisions to be made regarding implementation, they really only have two choices: start pre-orders alongside competitors and follow up with "more information pending" or hold DDB preorders until there are more details to release alongside and watch newbies and potential new customers walk away to competitors during the months of interim dead time.
I must acknowledge that some of this logic is speculative. However, the alternative currently being suggested is that DDB is knowingly generating a ton of bad-faith with their users for no particular reason. I don't follow the logic in that - even if I put aside optimism and faith in notions of inherent goodness, I am still left with the underlying logic of enlightened self-interest. It just wouldn't be best business practice for DDB to behave that way. This is part of why I am comfortable with waiting in good faith and confidence that there might be more going on that I am not privy to - and that the opening of presales has more to do with market competition than with corporate greed.
How is it unfair to make you buy new and different content? Sounds like the typical "I want stuff for free" and "I bought the books in real life why should I have to buy them again digitally!!!?!?" stuff to me.
All the races, save I think the harengon, had major updates that change them quite a lot than mere errata usually does. As well as, if all the talk from WotC is to be believed, the monster statblocks have been massively updated to be boosted for power and ease of DM use.
These are completely different versions and therefore are in another book. Therefore you purchase it again. It makes sense that if you want new content you have to buy it.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding someone here, but I don't think anyone is upset about having to buy the new book to get the updates. In fact, I think many people are HOPING it's that way. What people are upset about is that we DON'T KNOW if we have to buy the book to get the updates, since previously that hasn't been the case.
And on the flip side, there are people who don't feel they should pay for updates as DDB has always had the mantra of "always updated to the latest version"
There is no easy path.
I haven't seen a single person say they shouldn't have to pay for MMM. Maybe I've missed it though. I've seen people say they'd be mad paying for MMM if the updates get pushed through for free, but not if you have to buy the book for the updates.
I personally think the stats blocks should be updated for free if you own the prior books. I don’t think I should get the new book for free and any other information provided in there like updated information on CR and how to create custom monsters. I own almost every book currently in D&D Beyond, money isn’t the issue it’s more principle based on what they have said prior.
I DON'T want the new stat blocks. Leave my books alone. I paid for X, I want to keep X. If they can leave us with both that's great, but some of us DON'T want these changes!!!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing) You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
. . . The book will be out in May. That is plenty of time for DDB to let us know what's up and for us to decide if we want to pre-order or not.
As far as Fantasy Grounds. They may have a slightly different license than DDB so they can say "hey guys, if you want to use this, you have to buy it." It's also possible that DDB is trying to work out something different with Wizards because they are going to bat for us. We don't know. We aren't privy to those discussions and probably will never be. . .
I feel like this is such a great point, it bears repetition for the sake of taking a moment to stop and really consider its implications. Thank you MorriganMacha for stating this so plainly.
The truth is that we aren't privy to those details - and, yeah, for all we know DDB hasn't said much yet because they're in talks with Wizard because they want better for us. It is within the realm of possibilities, just as much as "DDB is purposefully being uncommunicative and demanding money from us bc reasons xx-_- xx" I have seen Fantasy Grounds brought up in counterpoint to the official "we don't have anything yet, plz be patient" from DDB and from other users.
I might suggest that using FG as a rebuttal actually weakens the part of the argument suggesting that DDB should not have open preorders until they did have more information. If digital retail competitors like Fantasy Grounds, Roll20, or Foundry have taken what Wizards has stipulated, not pushed back, and opened up preorders with the unfair "you want it, you buy it (again)"then DDB has been trapped in a corner. As a company, there is absolutely no way that DDB can afford to let competitors offer preorders without also starting DDB preorders; like many of y'all, I have worked in niche retail and if we sat to think it through, we'd most likely agree that this would be a terrible critical hit for a business.
If DDB has further details to work out with WotC, or decisions to be made regarding implementation, they really only have two choices: start pre-orders alongside competitors and follow up with "more information pending" or hold DDB preorders until there are more details to release alongside and watch newbies and potential new customers walk away to competitors during the months of interim dead time.
I must acknowledge that some of this logic is speculative. However, the alternative currently being suggested is that DDB is knowingly generating a ton of bad-faith with their users for no particular reason. I don't follow the logic in that - even if I put aside optimism and faith in notions of inherent goodness, I am still left with the underlying logic of enlightened self-interest. It just wouldn't be best business practice for DDB to behave that way. This is part of why I am comfortable with waiting in good faith and confidence that there might be more going on that I am not privy to - and that the opening of presales has more to do with market competition than with corporate greed.
How is it unfair to make you buy new and different content? Sounds like the typical "I want stuff for free" and "I bought the books in real life why should I have to buy them again digitally!!!?!?" stuff to me.
All the races, save I think the harengon, had major updates that change them quite a lot than mere errata usually does. As well as, if all the talk from WotC is to be believed, the monster statblocks have been massively updated to be boosted for power and ease of DM use.
These are completely different versions and therefore are in another book. Therefore you purchase it again. It makes sense that if you want new content you have to buy it.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding someone here, but I don't think anyone is upset about having to buy the new book to get the updates. In fact, I think many people are HOPING it's that way. What people are upset about is that we DON'T KNOW if we have to buy the book to get the updates, since previously that hasn't been the case.
And on the flip side, there are people who don't feel they should pay for updates as DDB has always had the mantra of "always updated to the latest version"
There is no easy path.
I haven't seen a single person say they shouldn't have to pay for MMM. Maybe I've missed it though. I've seen people say they'd be mad paying for MMM if the updates get pushed through for free, but not if you have to buy the book for the updates.
I personally think the stats blocks should be updated for free if you own the prior books. I don’t think I should get the new book for free and any other information provided in there like updated information on CR and how to create custom monsters. I own almost every book currently in D&D Beyond, money isn’t the issue it’s more principle based on what they have said prior.
Exactly that.
I don't think one or two people disproves my point that MOST people are upset about not knowing one way or the other though.
I will die on the hill that at the time of my posting that, I had not, in fact, seen a single person say it. Actually, I still haven't seen A single person say it, I've seen TWO single persons. I'm still right, HA!
I will die on the hill that at the time of my posting that, I had not, in fact, seen a single person say it. Actually, I still haven't seen A single person say it, I've seen TWO single persons. I'm still right, HA!
Let us not be divided friend! DDB/WotC are the common enemy in their lack of a clear explanation of how this will work!
. . . The book will be out in May. That is plenty of time for DDB to let us know what's up and for us to decide if we want to pre-order or not.
As far as Fantasy Grounds. They may have a slightly different license than DDB so they can say "hey guys, if you want to use this, you have to buy it." It's also possible that DDB is trying to work out something different with Wizards because they are going to bat for us. We don't know. We aren't privy to those discussions and probably will never be. . .
<snip>
If digital retail competitors like Fantasy Grounds, Roll20, or Foundry have taken what Wizards has stipulated, not pushed back, and opened up preorders with the unfair "you want it, you buy it (again)"then DDB has been trapped in a corner.
<snip>
How is it unfair to make you buy new and different content? Sounds like the typical "I want stuff for free" and "I bought the books in real life why should I have to buy them again digitally!!!?!?" stuff to me.
All the races, save I think the harengon, had major updates that change them quite a lot than mere errata usually does. As well as, if all the talk from WotC is to be believed, the monster statblocks have been massively updated to be boosted for power and ease of DM use.
These are completely different versions and therefore are in another book. Therefore you purchase it again. It makes sense that if you want new content you have to buy it.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding someone here, but I don't think anyone is upset about having to buy the new book to get the updates. In fact, I think many people are HOPING it's that way. What people are upset about is that we DON'T KNOW if we have to buy the book to get the updates, since previously that hasn't been the case.
I have edited the post for context. I was responding to the specific statement from Amata that making you buy the content in the book was unfair.
But also, yes there have in fact been people in this very thread and elsewhere saying that they "shouldn't have to pay for the same thing twice"/"shouldn't have to pay for updates"/some form of that. There are 10 pages in this thread so I think you just missed them in the hubbub of quotation chains.
These are completely different versions and therefore are in another book. Therefore you purchase it again. It makes sense that if you want new content you have to buy it.
Except the couple of times in the past that wasn't true and WotC said "these are errata and they become the new official version that replaces the old version - you don't have to pay for it but you can't opt out either", thereby setting precedent and creating an expectation. Lest we forget, the automatic updates on DDB are promoted as a feature, as an advantage to having a digital ruleset. WotC now likely blurring the lines and changing the concept of errata they created and pushed themselves doesn't change that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I will die on the hill that at the time of my posting that, I had not, in fact, seen a single person say it. Actually, I still haven't seen A single person say it, I've seen TWO single persons. I'm still right, HA!
Well, pour one out for this lad cuz their time has come. Alex play taps.
There have been plenty of people saying they shouldn't have to pay for MMM because they see it as errata/an update. The thread of the poll on whether DDB should have MMM's content be separate options has them be more visible on account if its smaller size. But in this thread there have been several folks who've held that opinion.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Er ek geng, þat er í þeim skóm er ek valda.
UwU
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Precedent: when the artificer was reprinted in Tasha's Cauldron after first being printed in Eberron: Rising from the Last War, substantive changes were made to the class. Its list of Infusions were altered in ways I sharply disapprove of and the way its conjurable critters work and how their stat blocks are derived was wildly different. It was not major, character-ruining alterations, but there were mechanical alterations made to the class in order to make the artificer more palatable for multiversal play. Even players who did not desire those changes get them. In my specific case, the artificer I made during the days when Rising was the only source of the artificer class retains access to its proper infusion list, but I cannot make new artificers with access to that list, and neither can anyone else.
Precedent: as Pangurjan mentioned, when the Bladesinger wizard was pretty radically altered in Tasha's Cauldron, owners of the Bladesinger from SCAG had their content automatically updated. They got the new Bladesinger, whether they wanted it or not. The Bladesinger updates were generally considered almost universally good so no stink was raised, byt the content in the character builder tools was nevertheless scrubbed and replaced with the 'new' stuff. You've cited that you are a lore hound and see the words in the book as the primary product being sold, ne? For a lot of folks here, and I mean a lot, the options available in the character and encounter builder tools are the main draw. Words in the book are fine, but it's the implementation of those words that matters.
DDB, historically and provably, has replaced old content with the new version whenever The New Version has come out, whether people wanted that to be done or not. Generally it's been seen as errata, as patching and fixing the game, but M3 is the first book to consist of nothing but patches and fixes insofar as the creation tools goes. There are no new species, there are no new monsters, and for the first time in 5e's run, a very significant portion of the playerbase is fiercely opposed to the changes and actively dis-wants them. There are many, many, many players who absolutely hate the idea of the things they're using being summarily replaced without their say-so, and there are many more who wonder why they should pay thirty dollars for a bookful of updates they presume they're going to get anyways whether they want them or not. Because, again - a large majority of DDB users are here for the digital toolset as much if not more so than they are for the written content of the books themselves.
This situation is unprecedented, and Wizards flip-flopping on many subjects whilst also being entirely, 100% unapproachable by anyone and everyone doesn't help. Wizards does not, never has, and never will speak to customers directly, and frankly that doesn't matter because the entity we're dealing with is DDB, not Wizards. Yes, DDB is a 'retailer', but in this case the question lies entirely within the implementation of the value-added service DDB retails, namely their digital toolset. Are we going to have things we're all actively using taken away from us? Are we going to have things we didn't want replacing those things we're actively using? Conversely, are we going to have to pay for content we already own and will be getting in updated for for free anyways, and thus the written words in the book that many people ignore and/or disregard anyways are the only 'new' thing being sold here?
No one knows. That not-knowing is the entire problem. Nobody knows what's going to happen when M3 drops, who will get what, and how content they already own will be treated - and yet DDB is out there squawking its head off trying to convince king and country to rush out and spend their dollars as soon as ever they possibly can.
I don't believe that's fair. I don't believe that's okay. I believe that if DDB wants anyone to spend money on their product, they can do us the kindness and courtesy of telling us what that money actually buys them and how that product will function in the value-added service that is the core of their business. I believe DDB does not have an excuse. They knew this was coming, Wizards knew this was coming, and if they needed word from Wizards to figure out these answers they should have been pressing Wizards for answers.
I believe that doing your utmost to convince someone to buy a thing, selling that someone the thing, then telling that someone "Thanks! We'll figure out in fivish months what it is you actually just bought, and if you decide you don't like or want it well F@#$ YOU TOO because we've already got your money haha sucks to be you dumbass byeeeee!" is an ******* move. It is the sort of move that sharply disinclines a gal to continue doing business with a company willing to bamboozle its customer base that way, especially since the other precedent set by DDB recently is that the new management team is extremely bad at communication. The new guy, Joe Starr, has done almost nothing to communicate issues outside of Dev Update videos that have been canceled repeatedly now, and many of those Dev Update videos are more fluff than fact.
This entire situation represents a deep failure in communication, which extra sucks because the new team has promised multiple times to improve its communication and yet every time an opportunity to prove that they're working to do so comes up, they fall short. This should have been sorted out long before it came to this point, and as much as I appreciate Mellie stepping in here to tell us 'we're sorry this sucks, we agree it sucks, and we'll tell you everything we can when we're allowed to do it!", I also find that to be a deeply unsatisfactory answer.
"Standby, we're working on it" was okay before they started taking people's money. Now that money has changed hands, it is no longer okay. That ios the crux of it.
Don't f@#$ing sell people a product before you figure out how you're actually going to offer that product.
.
..
...
Anyways. Cultural shit for Amata specifically in the blurb
I'm an American. Indirect he-said-she-said-they-said stuff, doing one's best to speak in vague, semi-related generalities and doing one's utmost to avoid names and specifics, is often seen as shifty, disingenuous, and rude here. To Muricans that stuff is often adjacent to outright lying and feels more like someone is trying to stealth-insult you or mislead you than someone is trying to be polite to you. We do not like and are not historically much good at playing Connect-The-Dots and figuring out the true intended meaning of indirect speech. That way lies confusion, miscommunication, and madness.
It is, I believe, one of the major contributing facotrs to ol' Eagleland's reputation abroad as being full of brash dumb idiots. As a general thing, we don't truck with "the maple leaf sways in the harsh winds of fall" pseudomystical nonsense. We're not concerned with saving face or any similar phenomenon. We say exactly what we mean and we expect others to do the same to us; when someone does not the response is not "oh, they're so polite!", it's "why are you being so weird what are you trying to pull?"
Don't know how much exposure you've had to Muricana and our brash bold-facedly faceless dumbness, but there ye go. That's why people get called out by name, and why responses here are often going to be brutally direct and unveiled. Especially when somebody is jerking my chain and has gotten my blood up the way DDB has with this latest tom****ery.
Please do not contact or message me.
How is it unfair to make you buy new and different content? Sounds like the typical "I want stuff for free" and "I bought the books in real life why should I have to buy them again digitally!!!?!?" stuff to me.
All the races, save I think the harengon, had major updates that change them quite a lot than mere errata usually does. As well as, if all the talk from WotC is to be believed, the monster statblocks have been massively updated to be boosted for power and ease of DM use.
These are completely different versions and therefore are in another book. Therefore you purchase it again. It makes sense that if you want new content you have to buy it.
Er ek geng, þat er í þeim skóm er ek valda.
UwU
Yurei, I agree with you completely as I'm sure many do. I maybe would have dialled the tone down a notch or two but understand your frustrations as they mirror mine!
Fear not as the Dev Update is just 2 and a half hours away. We'll get all our answers then...
...or perhaps a "we'll let you know when we know but for now, let's talk about our favourite dinosaurs and minor updates to the service we released last year" 🤦♂️
WotC had thriving forums and later a "community" from the early days of 3E until well into 4E. I had an absolutely ridiculous post count there, and that was with two extra separate accounts for in-character posting and DMing in the PbP section. It was great except when it wasn't, and it wasn't on a semi-regular basis due to cycles of negativity popping up. I'm sure they were happy to have an excuse too, but they closed off that easy access because the first impression newbies got of the game could be very unfavorable depending on which part of the cycle they picked to wade in.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I don't usually agree with Yurei, but when I do, I really do.
This is me. I have NO desire to play monsters the "New" way, and I'll be super mad if my monsters in DDB get replaced with the new versions. I also don't agree with the changes made to the races, and would be super mad if the character builder replaces the existing options with these new ones.
This is exactly what I warned about in the last big thread where Yurei and I disagreed (talking about Orcs, etc). At some point they will make a change you don't like, and when they do you'll wish you'd stood up to them earlier to make it clear we want all the options, especially if we've already paid for something, and we don't want it changed.
IMO M3 is not errata, it is a book of new options for playing the game. It is so different that it cannot, and should not, be considered the same thing.
If DDB and WotC push the M3 changes on to everyone, and don't give us a way to use the old versions, I and others will never buy any more digital books from DDB.
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing)
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding someone here, but I don't think anyone is upset about having to buy the new book to get the updates. In fact, I think many people are HOPING it's that way. What people are upset about is that we DON'T KNOW if we have to buy the book to get the updates, since previously that hasn't been the case.
And they think that's not the case here?
There will always be communities for things people take an interest in. The supplier of those things can either take an active hand and leadership role in the community, or they can **** off to their ivory tower and let the peasants sort it out themselves. They may end up muddy and disheveled with the rest of us in the former case, but in the latter? Their glittering white tower of solitude ain't gonna stay so glittery and white after people get done flinging poo at it. The whole 'we're too busy and important to deal with any of you, go away and bother other peasants" approach ain't great for business either.
Please do not contact or message me.
As a Dutchman myself, I can't agree more. I can't deal with indirectness and turnarounds. Please just be direct, or I'm likely to assume you're trying to pull one over on me. In the Netherlands being indirect is actually seen as very impolite.
I am also here.
Am snek.
And on the flip side, there are people who don't feel they should pay for updates as DDB has always had the mantra of "always updated to the latest version"
There is no easy path.
I haven't seen a single person say they shouldn't have to pay for MMM. Maybe I've missed it though. I've seen people say they'd be mad paying for MMM if the updates get pushed through for free, but not if you have to buy the book for the updates.
I personally think the stats blocks should be updated for free if you own the prior books. I don’t think I should get the new book for free and any other information provided in there like updated information on CR and how to create custom monsters. I own almost every book currently in D&D Beyond, money isn’t the issue it’s more principle based on what they have said prior.
Exactly that.
I DON'T want the new stat blocks. Leave my books alone. I paid for X, I want to keep X. If they can leave us with both that's great, but some of us DON'T want these changes!!!
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing)
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
I don't think one or two people disproves my point that MOST people are upset about not knowing one way or the other though.
True, agreed that not knowing is the main issue it shouldn't be on pre-sale.
But you said a single person, and this is 2 including me right here :)
I will die on the hill that at the time of my posting that, I had not, in fact, seen a single person say it. Actually, I still haven't seen A single person say it, I've seen TWO single persons. I'm still right, HA!
Let us not be divided friend! DDB/WotC are the common enemy in their lack of a clear explanation of how this will work!
United we stand!
I have edited the post for context. I was responding to the specific statement from Amata that making you buy the content in the book was unfair.
But also, yes there have in fact been people in this very thread and elsewhere saying that they "shouldn't have to pay for the same thing twice"/"shouldn't have to pay for updates"/some form of that. There are 10 pages in this thread so I think you just missed them in the hubbub of quotation chains.
Er ek geng, þat er í þeim skóm er ek valda.
UwU
Except the couple of times in the past that wasn't true and WotC said "these are errata and they become the new official version that replaces the old version - you don't have to pay for it but you can't opt out either", thereby setting precedent and creating an expectation. Lest we forget, the automatic updates on DDB are promoted as a feature, as an advantage to having a digital ruleset. WotC now likely blurring the lines and changing the concept of errata they created and pushed themselves doesn't change that.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Well, pour one out for this lad cuz their time has come. Alex play taps.
There have been plenty of people saying they shouldn't have to pay for MMM because they see it as errata/an update. The thread of the poll on whether DDB should have MMM's content be separate options has them be more visible on account if its smaller size. But in this thread there have been several folks who've held that opinion.
Er ek geng, þat er í þeim skóm er ek valda.
UwU
