If you do not like the description given, do not pre-order. Wait until you can review the book and then make an informed decision on your purchase. I do not understand the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha'apai reenactment over this. Pre-orders for any product on DDB or anywhere else are made on a bit of faith. If you have enjoyed the recent content, odds are you will enjoy the next one they are releasing.
I have to agree with Yurei on this. If this is just "remastered" content, a glorified errata if you will, that will impact the other books, then people will be paying a massive amount of money for content they already have. This is not a "leap of faith"; this would be tantamount to theft. You cannot sell someone something they already own. You wouldn't, for instance, take someone's Player's Handbook and then force them to pay you to get it back; why should anyone have to pay to get what they already own?
However, there is a cumulative overreaction from the community. While players that have Volo's and Mordenkainen's will be losing an awful lot if all this content is turned into errata, those who don't possess these books will not, and in fact be getting an excellent deal. That is why a simple statement on behalf of D&D Beyond or Wizards of the Coast answering whether M3 will be treated as Errata or a wholly separate piece of content would be useful. Just remind me not to get in a fuss about how having to buy M3 if it isn't all considered an errata is a tantamount theft anyway, because you're paying astronomical amounts of money for content you technically possess already in an older form - you're paying for errata now.
Here's another thing: Volo's was very recently errata'ed. WotC is known for being very slow and deliberate when it comes to erratas, and they're also intensely bound to the capitalism ideals of Hasbro. As such, they wouldn't errata Volo's unless they are continuing to print it. This implies M3 is not going to errata previous books, and so makes any purchase of Volo's and Mordenkainen's redundant except for lore purposes.
By the way, I am someone who does not own any version of Volo's or of Mordenkainen's, so I am less biased on this as others.
I would remind others, perhaps, that "the depth of the issues" is actually more relative than some appear to think. I offered myself up as an example - I honestly don't find anything about the M3 content to be contentious.
That's fine, but most of the queries here have not been about the content so much as the implementation thereof here on DDB. There's definitely a bit of the former as well, sure, but it's mostly the latter. And while the D&D IP is held by WotC, DDB has its own products derived from their licence with WotC. That implementation is part of those DDB products, so asking DDB what's what seems... obvious? Moreover, contacting WotC in a way that will presumably lead to getting an answer is next to impossible. There's nothing surprising or wrong about customers aiming their questions at DDB to me if those questions are about how DDB will handle a product they are putting on the market.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Can someone confirm, I've only heard it mentioned:
Can you obtain refunds for pre orders before the release date?
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.
If you do not like the description given, do not pre-order. Wait until you can review the book and then make an informed decision on your purchase. I do not understand the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha'apai reenactment over this. Pre-orders for any product on DDB or anywhere else are made on a bit of faith. If you have enjoyed the recent content, odds are you will enjoy the next one they are releasing.
I have to agree with Yurei on this. If this is just "remastered" content, a glorified errata if you will, that will impact the other books, then people will be paying a massive amount of money for content they already have. This is not a "leap of faith"; this would be tantamount to theft. You cannot sell someone something they already own. You wouldn't, for instance, take someone's Player's Handbook and then force them to pay you to get it back; why should anyone have to pay to get what they already own?
However, there is a cumulative overreaction from the community. While players that have Volo's and Mordenkainen's will be losing an awful lot if all this content is turned into errata, those who don't possess these books will not, and in fact be getting an excellent deal. That is why a simple statement on behalf of D&D Beyond or Wizards of the Coast answering whether M3 will be treated as Errata or a wholly separate piece of content would be useful. Just remind me not to get in a fuss about how having to buy M3 if it isn't all considered an errata is a tantamount theft anyway, because you're paying astronomical amounts of money for content you technically possess already in an older form - you're paying for errata now.
Here's another thing: Volo's was very recently errata'ed. WotC is known for being very slow and deliberate when it comes to erratas, and they're also intensely bound to the capitalism ideals of Hasbro. As such, they wouldn't errata Volo's unless they are continuing to print it. This implies M3 is not going to errata previous books, and so makes any purchase of Volo's and Mordenkainen's redundant except for lore purposes.
By the way, I am someone who does not own any version of Volo's or of Mordenkainen's, so I am less biased on this as others.
I personally find the belief that WotC is out to screw customers is a wildly paranoid mindset. It makes no business sense. The goal is to sell books and incentivize further sales in the future. Assuming that WotC is out to harm its customers, how does this accomplish any kind of sustainable sales goal?
That said, even if there would be a significant overlap between creatures, does that really matter? The beholder has recently been featured in many debates on DDB. Is it not featured in multiple books already? There is enough unique beholder content in the Monster Manual and Volo's Guide to Monsters to justify it being featured in both. Is there reason to believe this will be different in practice with Monsters of the Multiverse?
At the end of the day, if you think it is not worth buying, then do not buy. Someone said a few pages back that one should never buy pre-orders. For any product ever. I understand this perspective even if I do not practice it. Pre-orders can never match the wealth of knowledge available after a product is released.
I have purchased Volo's, the MM, and Mordenkainen's. I am not worried, but I do believe that if some feel compelled to attack actual people for what they have no control over, that maybe those people need to take a walk.
The problem isn't for those people or people like me who don't have any of those books and so aren't affected by this. The problem is that for people who have bought those previous books already. Let's run through a hypothetical scenario - one that I'm not so sure is so hypothetical.
A D&D enthusiast who doesn't frequent the forums buys Volo's and most of the sourcebooks on DDB. Recently, they see the advert for MMM, and wants the updates for their games. They decide that they might as well get it on preorder, because why not? They pay for it. May comes around, and they find that pretty much everything they wanted comes free (for them, having purchased the other books) anyway. They've just paid for their content twice, because DDB/WotC/whoever hid that fact from them. Even if they realise tomorrow, after they paid for it, they can't get a refund.
That's not ethical. The book was announced months ago - this was a detail that should have been hashed out back then, not now the banner has encouraged people buy without knowledge of what they're actually receiving. It's not a problem that they've put a banner out or encouraged preorders - not my cup of tea after the Mario Tennis Aces debacle, but if others want to do it, great - but the product details really should have been released either simultaneously or before they did so.
That's why everyone is up in arms over it. I wish people would be nicer about it, but I understand the problem. I personally don't care which way they go with it, and I can see valid arguments either way, but the information should be presented before sale. At the least, any preorders made before that information is released should be refundable.
Although there is a lot going on in this response that I cannot find fault with - there is a question that I have been forming over some of the responses of others that I think I might be able to articulate at this point. . . My question is somewhat two-fold, so please be patient with me.
Question Part One:
In the scenario posed above, the Enthusiast sees the advert for M3, decides to preorder, and pays for it. In this scenario, it is necessarily implied that Enthusiast goes to the DDB store link and puts the book in the cart directly from the marketplace front page (by default, the featured selection). The reason I think this is necessarily implicit is because once May comes around the scenario states that Enthusiast has now paid for identical content twice without realising it. As far as I can tell, adding the book to the DDB shopping cart directly from the marketplace front page is the only way to have paid for a preorder of the book and justifiably not know what the contents are....
So my Question part one is this: what do y'all mean when y'all are saying that DDB/WotC/whoever is hiding information about the book's contents? When I paid for my preorder earlier today, I went to the product page for M3, and because I just adore words words words, I read the whole darn thing before putting anything into my cart. Here are some of the things I read before I made my purchase (emphasis in the following is mine) : > represents a race option when you create your D&D character, expanding on the choices in the Player’s Handbook > Compiling and updating monsters that originally appeared in Volo’s Guide to Monsters and Mordenkainen’s Tome of Foes, this book presents... > brings all the game’s setting-agnostic races into one book and adds even more options for your next character. > Updates to the monsters include making spellcasters easier for Dungeon Masters to run; giving many monsters more damage and resilience; and improving the organization of monster stats
Was this information unavailable at some point in time when the preorders were "live" but this book-jacket-blurb was not readily available on both DDB and WotC and Google? I was under the impression that this info was basically available as of the leak which was prior to preorder sales being opened up. Am I mistaken? I'm genuinely asking - because, from my perspective, I knew an excessively tantalizing amount of content information before I put that book in my cart for preorder, and most definitely prior to clicking Yes to any sending of money.
Question Part Two:
I agree that a company deliberately hiding information from an consumer to knowingly encourage the sale of a product that the consumer does not need/already has/duplicates a previous purchase - yeah, that's unethical, and in many places, illegal (assuming a person can afford to take it to court). As you can see from the first part of my question - I am a little at a loss for how WotC or DDB could be considered to be doing that - but I become genuinely confused at the discussion following the part where Enthusiast discovers they can't get a refund.
The next two sections (beginning with "That's not ethical") seem to discuss the information issue as a still unresolved point of contention. Here is a clear implication that the missing product information should have been prepared and ready to deploy alongside the start of preorder sales, and that the information is still not available prior to currently ongoing sales. If the missing information being discussed is the product details that reveal a potential duplication of content, I address that in the first part of the question above.... But if the missing information is now something else - my second part of the question is: what else is being withheld or deliberately hidden that is both unethical, and also key to making an informed decision about making a pre-order. I have heard it maybe-suggested that the missing information is not the product content details (above) - but is actually information or guidance from DDB regarding how this new content will be implemented.
If the missing information IS related to DDB's plans for implementation, then if I recall correctly, DDB has already said something to the effect of "we aren't entirely decided about that yet - we'll certainly let you know when we have more information." So even that missing information scenario has at least been acknowledged and given the start of a response. To my knowledge, I have not seen any such intense interest - let alone vitriol - focused on the intimate details of how DDB is going to handle implementation and integration of new content from Wizards. I do not recall any kind of forum post suggesting that DDB is acting from a suspect if not downright illegal motive when they did not make a statement regarding their plan for implementation of dragons and updated / new content from Fizban's. I recall being excited and pleased alongside others prior to Tasha's release, knowing that the source book promised some updated info and expanded options for character creation - even though I didn't have any specific information about what those updates were or how DDB was going to handle them. It never once even crossed my mind that I required information about exactly how big of a change the updates would cause during DDB's implementation to evaluate whether I wanted to preorder/purchase Tasha's.
And, finally, if there is a question as to why DDB did not already have a prepared response for the question about implementation.... it is at least possible that DDB did not anticipate that they were going to need one. Implementation has not really been a matter of question prior to now (see also: my above personal comments about the release of prior "new content" with updates or revised old content). Perhaps some of y'all are generally more involved in gathering information down to the last detail about every new release, and this is simply the first time I've stumbled across it. I mean, that's certainly possible; and I would appreciate it if someone would let me know if that is the case.
And, honestly, apologies to Linklite for accidentally being the response that finally helped me realise the specifics of something that had been nagging at the back of my mind all day. I don't really have any issue with the scenario presented or the conclusions drawn from that scenario. If that hypothetical is true, I would be in agreement that some shady ethics needed to be called out.
In the words of the late Totalbiscuit: "The only time you should ever pre-order anything, is if the quality of the end product will not in any way, no matter how terrible, contribute to your decision to buy it or not."
If you do not like the description given, do not pre-order. Wait until you can review the book and then make an informed decision on your purchase. I do not understand the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha'apai reenactment over this. Pre-orders for any product on DDB or anywhere else are made on a bit of faith. If you have enjoyed the recent content, odds are you will enjoy the next one they are releasing.
I have to agree with Yurei on this. If this is just "remastered" content, a glorified errata if you will, that will impact the other books, then people will be paying a massive amount of money for content they already have. This is not a "leap of faith"; this would be tantamount to theft. You cannot sell someone something they already own. You wouldn't, for instance, take someone's Player's Handbook and then force them to pay you to get it back; why should anyone have to pay to get what they already own?
However, there is a cumulative overreaction from the community. While players that have Volo's and Mordenkainen's will be losing an awful lot if all this content is turned into errata, those who don't possess these books will not, and in fact be getting an excellent deal. That is why a simple statement on behalf of D&D Beyond or Wizards of the Coast answering whether M3 will be treated as Errata or a wholly separate piece of content would be useful. Just remind me not to get in a fuss about how having to buy M3 if it isn't all considered an errata is a tantamount theft anyway, because you're paying astronomical amounts of money for content you technically possess already in an older form - you're paying for errata now.
Here's another thing: Volo's was very recently errata'ed. WotC is known for being very slow and deliberate when it comes to erratas, and they're also intensely bound to the capitalism ideals of Hasbro. As such, they wouldn't errata Volo's unless they are continuing to print it. This implies M3 is not going to errata previous books, and so makes any purchase of Volo's and Mordenkainen's redundant except for lore purposes.
By the way, I am someone who does not own any version of Volo's or of Mordenkainen's, so I am less biased on this as others.
I personally find the belief that WotC is out to screw customers is a wildly paranoid mindset. It makes no business sense. The goal is to sell books and incentivize further sales in the future. Assuming that WotC is out to harm its customers, how does this accomplish any kind of sustainable sales goal?
That said, even if there would be a significant overlap between creatures, does that really matter? The beholder has recently been featured in many debates on DDB. Is it not featured in multiple books already? There is enough unique beholder content in the Monster Manual and Volo's Guide to Monsters to justify it being featured in both. Is there reason to believe this will be different in practice with Monsters of the Multiverse?
At the end of the day, if you think it is not worth buying, then do not buy. Someone said a few pages back that one should never buy pre-orders. For any product ever. I understand this perspective even if I do not practice it. Pre-orders can never match the wealth of knowledge available after a product is released.
I have purchased Volo's, the MM, and Mordenkainen's. I am not worried, but I do believe that if some feel compelled to attack actual people for what they have no control over, that maybe those people need to take a walk.
As you say, people should just look at the content and decide if it's worth the price or not. It's not the same content, even if it covers the same races - if it was the same content, we wouldn't be having all this lamenting about WotC "changing what we bought after we bought it" after all. There are differences. If you want these updated versions and are willing to pay what they cost, go ahead and buy them. If you don't want them, don't want to pay what they cost or both, don't buy them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
If the missing information IS related to DDB's plans for implementation, then if I recall correctly, DDB has already said something to the effect of "we aren't entirely decided about that yet - we'll certainly let you know when we have more information."
DDB has indeed said something to this effect. Long after we've had a bunch of threads asking about it and lamenting the fact that no answer or acknowledgment had been forthcoming, including this one. The chronology explains it, no?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I personally find the belief that WotC is out to screw customers is a wildly paranoid mindset. It makes no business sense. The goal is to sell books and incentivize further sales in the future. Assuming that WotC is out to harm its customers, how does this accomplish any kind of sustainable sales goal?
That is again not what I was saying, but it does contribute to sales - not sustainable, never would a big company go for long term benefits, as seen by the inimitable rise of climate change. I dind't look at it from this perspective however. I cut WotC out. They just "do", and the very fact M3 was first released in an over-ambitious, somewhat misguided super bundle a fair time ahead of being solo released shows WotC cares more for fast, easy money than for player satisfaction.
That said, even if there would be a significant overlap between creatures, does that really matter? The beholder has recently been featured in many debates on DDB. Is it not featured in multiple books already? There is enough unique beholder content in the Monster Manual and Volo's Guide to Monsters to justify it being featured in both. Is there reason to believe this will be different in practice with Monsters of the Multiverse?
This is a different thing. The beholders of Volo were additions to the one in the MM. Conversely, the beholders of M3 are replacements to the beholders of Volo. There is no way these can be likened like this legitimately.
A clearer example: imagine the MM is an apple iPad. This makes Volos and Mordenkainen more like two parts of an apple stylus pen than anything else. In comparison, this makes M3 the new 2-in-one stylus pen that does exactly what the previous ones did. Nothing wrong with that, EXCEPT for the fact that apple now switches off the two-part stylus (Volo and Mordenkainen) on all devices, so now you have to buy the new product. You have no real choice not to anymore.
At the end of the day, if you think it is not worth buying, then do not buy. Someone said a few pages back that one should never buy pre-orders. For any product ever. I understand this perspective even if I do not practice it. Pre-orders can never match the wealth of knowledge available after a product is released.
This is what WotC says all the time. "Maybe this just isn't for you." But when that slogan dominates most things (including the entire future D&D rules sets), you can't really choose not to. Again, this is not being kind to the customer, this is akin to a less serious version of threatening to remove your rent on your house unless you pay extra money this week to keep it. It's not really fair. Why should errata not exist for Volo's and Mordenkainen's based off the errata made in this book? It makes millions of purchases of others now seem pointless.
I have purchased Volo's, the MM, and Mordenkainen's. I am not worried, but I do believe that if some feel compelled to attack actual people for what they have no control over, that maybe those people need to take a walk.
I agree, attacking is not good. But WotC of course started this by using a very greedy version of capitalism to get their way no matter the cost. WotC is getting record sales, and whether people like it or not they will buy this product - if they don't, they will be shut out from future D&D groups in the thousands, same as no-one plays 4E anymore as 5E exists. This is NOT fair.
We're all a democracy, right? Then we can disagree in a calm and polite fashion, and get angry in a civil way; we are verifiably being trodden over and bullied. By a company that makes insane sales and doesn't care a bit about the consumer. If they did, they wouldn't rush out so many products, they wouldn't be... Well, they wouldn't be modern WotC, they might actually be a fair and good company that cares about their players and the game that, coincidentally, M3 warps and breaks (this is the topic for decades of conversation, starting with spells).
WotC doesn't care about you, they don't care about the game, they only care about money. This can be demonstrated, but I won't. I am so crushed by this that I don't even want to. It even made me quit homebrewing for 5E, a thing I loved above all else about any RPG. Good night, and I hope you understand that, while your opinions that M3 is good are valid, the way that WotC is marketing and selling it is not.
With a paper book I can go the LGS, have a flick through the pages and decide if I want to buy it. If I preorder a paper book then I'm essentially buying it unseen simply based on whatever blurb has been published prerelease, without knowing exactly what the content is. At the end of day though, if some of that content supersedes a portion of previous book I already bought, then I still own both books and can decide which version to use.
All we're asking for is clarification as to how M3 is going to work on DDB, and I think it is fair to criticise them for making the prerelease available for sale without clarifying this. Whether or not the blame lies with WotC is a different matter.
I'm not fussed about it personally, because I'm happy to wait. But I still think those who are upset have some cause to be.
With a paper book I can go the LGS, have a flick through the pages and decide if I want to buy it. If I preorder a paper book then I'm essentially buying it unseen simply based on whatever blurb has been published prerelease, without knowing exactly what the content is. At the end of day though, if some of that content supersedes a portion of previous book I already bought, then I still own both books and can decide which version to use.
All we're asking for is clarification as to how M3 is going to work on DDB, and I think it is fair to criticise them for making the prerelease available for sale without clarifying this. Whether or not the blame lies with WotC is a different matter.
I'm not fussed about it personally, because I'm happy to wait. But I still think those who are upset have some cause to be.
A clearer example: imagine the MM is an apple iPad. This makes Volos and Mordenkainen more like two parts of an apple stylus pen than anything else. In comparison, this makes M3 the new 2-in-one stylus pen that does exactly what the previous ones did. Nothing wrong with that, EXCEPT for the fact that apple now switches off the two-part stylus (Volo and Mordenkainen) on all devices, so now you have to buy the new product. You have no real choice not to anymore.
Nobody's shutting off your content. And either a group will play with the old version or with the new one, but they'll have access to that version. Or both. This is a non-issue.
Let me put it this way: I would prefer it if the updates in M3 were kept separate from the existing content and I had to spend money again. Were that the case, and more importantly KNOWN TO BE THE CASE, I would have no beef with DDB offering the book for preorder.
But we don't know that. Nobody knows that. Apparently not even DDB, and they're selling the bloody thing.
Selling a product one does not have and cannot define is the province of schysters, hoods, and con men. It's nothing a respectable business should be doing, and the fact that some people are happily preordering anyways does not excuse the shoddy, anticonsumer business decision.
In that bigass post earlier where you took me to task without giving me the courtesy of naming me, you told me it was rude to be dissatisfied with something a business was doing and that if I didn't like it I was welcome to simply not spend my money without having to complain about it. I would argue it's a lot more rude to sell someone something, and then only decide after the fact and after you've squirreled away their money unrecoverably whether or not they already owned the thing you sold them.
Was I vicious about it? Sure. They've known this was coming for months. There's been at least a dozen other forum threads asking this question in a Calm And Civil Manner. Calm And Civil got us absolutely nowhere. We were deliberately, actively, and quite possibly even maliciously ignored. So now they get the Hot & Spicy version. If they didn't want Hot & Spicy, they should've sorted this out before, when people were doing Calm And Civil.
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.
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?
To hone in on this point, because this is the crux of the issue in my opinion. They could do it in that way, but they have also in the past overwritten existing creatures with automatic errata. The problem here is that they are not saying which one they'll pick. Or being open about how the updated creatures and races will be handled. We don't arrive at the conclusion that they're going to simply overwrite everything or the conclusion that they're keeping it secret. We are arriving at the conclusion that we don't know because nobody on DDB's side is clear about this. If they would just come out with ANYTHING about how they will handle it, people could make an informed decision about wether they want to pre-order or not. But right now, nobody knows what they are buying. This is why people are calling it scummy and placing explicit blame at DDB, because if they didn't know they shouldn't have launched the pre-order. And even if WotC is making them launch, they could at least put in a disclaimer or be perfectly clear about why they can't answer.
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?
Like Tasha's Bladesinger overwriting the original one?
The reason several different options are seen as plausible is simply that over the course of the last few years DDB has implemented updates in different ways, and the logic - if any - behind these implementations is unclear. Actual errata have always overwritten pre-existing text, as required by WotC. The Bladesinger doesn't really feel like an erratum, but was treated as such nonetheless. The Ranger class feels more like an erratum than the Bladesinger, but got the 'both versions' treatment. Floating ASIs were presented as optional in Tasha's, but appear to (have) become the standard. Since there's no clear rule of thumb, people are going to have doubts - and thus questions.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I would remind others, perhaps, that "the depth of the issues" is actually more relative than some appear to think. I offered myself up as an example - I honestly don't find anything about the M3 content to be contentious.
That's fine, but most of the queries here have not been about the content so much as the implementation thereof here on DDB. There's definitely a bit of the former as well, sure, but it's mostly the latter. And while the D&D IP is held by WotC, DDB has its own products derived from their licence with WotC. That implementation is part of those DDB products, so asking DDB what's what seems... obvious? Moreover, contacting WotC in a way that will presumably lead to getting an answer is next to impossible. There's nothing surprising or wrong about customers aiming their questions at DDB to me if those questions are about how DDB will handle a product they are putting on the market.
Honestly, in broad strokes, I agree with this. From the beginning, the aspect I have found fault with was the extent of the underlying negativity in many of the posts. To be perfectly clear, it was not all but neither was it only one particular bad-faith commenter.
Personally, I don't feel comfortable with public assertions that someone is acting with malicious intent that are not anchored by some pretty solid evidence. To discover that DDB was the entity accused of malicious intent was somewhat shocking and surprising - as my experience with DDB has been consistently positive, as evidenced by my continued use of the site for my digital content and campaign management, etc. I am still uncertain as to exactly why I ought to be displeased or suspicious with DDB. I have been working my way through replies and discussions on pages 7+ in order to piece that puzzle together for myself.
I have found your replies to be easy to conceptualize regardless of whether I agree or not - so perhaps you can explain to me, this distrust and suspicion that WotC has made a source book full of content that is a duplicate instead of a compilation of decently substantive changes worth owning in and of itself... where did this notion come from in the first place? Is there some compelling reason to believe that DDB is complicit in what would largely amount to a very obvious cashgrab product that clearly would alienate a large chunk of the consumer base - since merely the suspicion of such activity is already causing much disaffection?
(only tackle this response if you have the time and energy, ofc).
As you say, people should just look at the content and decide if it's worth the price or not. It's not the same content, even if it covers the same races - if it was the same content, we wouldn't be having all this lamenting about WotC "changing what we bought after we bought it" after all. There are differences. If you want these updated versions and are willing to pay what they cost, go ahead and buy them. If you don't want them, don't want to pay what they cost or both, don't buy them.
I added that emphasis. I just pretty much adore these sentences.
We have experience of precedent that when exact content is already owned, DDB reduces the purchase price accordingly. We also have experience of precedent that when a new source book improves/upgrades/updates/revises already existing content, DDB treats these elements as unique content unlocked by purchasing the sourcebook containing the details and rules regarding that new "default" - and adds that version of the content into character creation as a variant of a class or race, or as a toggle to use / not use the additional/optional content.
I do not believe it is unreasonable to assume that DDB will follow precedent when possible for this new content. And in a different direction, I have yet to see reasonable evidence suggesting that I need to anticipate / expect that DDB will be screwing me over either because of some directive from WotC, or in collusion with WotC.
Clearly the content is different. There are even words provided to the public to give some basic idea of what aspects of various content will be different, and in some cases, how they will be different. It is completely reasonable for each consumer to decide for themselves if they consider the differences to be substantive enough to warrant purchasing a new book.
I might recommend that responses try to own their own opinions (using I-references is a fairly straight-forward way to do so) - In my experience, there are not many individuals who feel kindly to being given an ultimatum or a command. "Personally, I make a point to never purchase a pre-order, ever. It is a rule of thumb that has served me well" might be better received than something like "NEVER pay for a pre-order. EVER. NOBODY should ever make this mistake. and UR DUMB if u do!" (example exaggerated with intent to avoid singling anyone out for this kind of approach)
I have found your replies to be easy to conceptualize regardless of whether I agree or not - so perhaps you can explain to me, this distrust and suspicion that WotC has made a source book full of content that is a duplicate instead of a compilation of decently substantive changes worth owning in and of itself... where did this notion come from in the first place?
Can't speak for everyone, but for most - or so it seems to me anyway - the crux is that it's unclear what WotC (and thus DDB) will consider a substantive change that warrants a separate entry and what is minor enough that it's a basic erratum. The distinction is meaningful because one will be a (paid for) alternate option and the other a (free) mandatory change. Keep in mind this is not necessarily about the content as a complete source - I'm sure there'll be big changes in flavour text, possibly illustrations etc - but about the content as it pertains to the toolset: relatively short entries as they can be seen in the character builder, for instance. Users who bought content mainly or even exclusively for that purpose might see the changes that are pertinent for them as minor (and thus free mandatory changes) while users interested in the lore and presentation of the info will likely feel M³ changes quite a lot (which would warrant not being free, and handled as optional). Whether content will be/should be free is a rather important question if you're being asked to pay for it, after all.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
We have experience of precedent that when exact content is already owned, DDB reduces the purchase price accordingly. We also have experience of precedent that when a new source book improves/upgrades/updates/revises already existing content, DDB treats these elements as unique content unlocked by purchasing the sourcebook containing the details and rules regarding that new "default" - and adds that version of the content into character creation as a variant of a class or race, or as a toggle to use / not use the additional/optional content.
We also have a precedent that deviates from the above: the Bladesinger. There is no completely consistent guideline, thus there is confusion.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Like Tasha's Bladesinger overwriting the original one?
The reason several different options are seen as plausible is simply that over the course of the last few years DDB has implemented updates in different ways, and the logic - if any - behind these implementations is unclear. Actual errata have always overwritten pre-existing text, as required by WotC. The Bladesinger doesn't really feel like an erratum, but was treated as such nonetheless. The Ranger class feels more like an erratum than the Bladesinger, but got the 'both versions' treatment. Floating ASIs were presented as optional in Tasha's, but appear to (have) become the standard. Since there's no clear rule of thumb, people are going to have doubts - and thus questions.
Okay, yes; thank you for taking the time to write this out - I'm still not sure I entirely agree.... But I have a much better idea about what is informing the "general sense of unease" now. I still have a feeling in the back of my mind that I'll eventually have more questions about all this ... but the gods know, I'll need way more sleep before I can see the scope and implications of your examples, etc.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
💜 Spes Æternum Oritur💜
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I have to agree with Yurei on this. If this is just "remastered" content, a glorified errata if you will, that will impact the other books, then people will be paying a massive amount of money for content they already have. This is not a "leap of faith"; this would be tantamount to theft. You cannot sell someone something they already own. You wouldn't, for instance, take someone's Player's Handbook and then force them to pay you to get it back; why should anyone have to pay to get what they already own?
However, there is a cumulative overreaction from the community. While players that have Volo's and Mordenkainen's will be losing an awful lot if all this content is turned into errata, those who don't possess these books will not, and in fact be getting an excellent deal. That is why a simple statement on behalf of D&D Beyond or Wizards of the Coast answering whether M3 will be treated as Errata or a wholly separate piece of content would be useful. Just remind me not to get in a fuss about how having to buy M3 if it isn't all considered an errata is a tantamount theft anyway, because you're paying astronomical amounts of money for content you technically possess already in an older form - you're paying for errata now.
Here's another thing: Volo's was very recently errata'ed. WotC is known for being very slow and deliberate when it comes to erratas, and they're also intensely bound to the capitalism ideals of Hasbro. As such, they wouldn't errata Volo's unless they are continuing to print it. This implies M3 is not going to errata previous books, and so makes any purchase of Volo's and Mordenkainen's redundant except for lore purposes.
By the way, I am someone who does not own any version of Volo's or of Mordenkainen's, so I am less biased on this as others.
Frequent Eladrin || They/Them, but accept all pronouns
Luz Noceda would like to remind you that you're worth loving!
That's fine, but most of the queries here have not been about the content so much as the implementation thereof here on DDB. There's definitely a bit of the former as well, sure, but it's mostly the latter. And while the D&D IP is held by WotC, DDB has its own products derived from their licence with WotC. That implementation is part of those DDB products, so asking DDB what's what seems... obvious? Moreover, contacting WotC in a way that will presumably lead to getting an answer is next to impossible. There's nothing surprising or wrong about customers aiming their questions at DDB to me if those questions are about how DDB will handle a product they are putting on the market.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Can someone confirm, I've only heard it mentioned:
Can you obtain refunds for pre orders before the release date?
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.
I personally find the belief that WotC is out to screw customers is a wildly paranoid mindset. It makes no business sense. The goal is to sell books and incentivize further sales in the future. Assuming that WotC is out to harm its customers, how does this accomplish any kind of sustainable sales goal?
That said, even if there would be a significant overlap between creatures, does that really matter? The beholder has recently been featured in many debates on DDB. Is it not featured in multiple books already? There is enough unique beholder content in the Monster Manual and Volo's Guide to Monsters to justify it being featured in both. Is there reason to believe this will be different in practice with Monsters of the Multiverse?
At the end of the day, if you think it is not worth buying, then do not buy. Someone said a few pages back that one should never buy pre-orders. For any product ever. I understand this perspective even if I do not practice it. Pre-orders can never match the wealth of knowledge available after a product is released.
I have purchased Volo's, the MM, and Mordenkainen's. I am not worried, but I do believe that if some feel compelled to attack actual people for what they have no control over, that maybe those people need to take a walk.
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
Although there is a lot going on in this response that I cannot find fault with - there is a question that I have been forming over some of the responses of others that I think I might be able to articulate at this point. . . My question is somewhat two-fold, so please be patient with me.
Question Part One:
In the scenario posed above, the Enthusiast sees the advert for M3, decides to preorder, and pays for it. In this scenario, it is necessarily implied that Enthusiast goes to the DDB store link and puts the book in the cart directly from the marketplace front page (by default, the featured selection). The reason I think this is necessarily implicit is because once May comes around the scenario states that Enthusiast has now paid for identical content twice without realising it. As far as I can tell, adding the book to the DDB shopping cart directly from the marketplace front page is the only way to have paid for a preorder of the book and justifiably not know what the contents are....
So my Question part one is this: what do y'all mean when y'all are saying that DDB/WotC/whoever is hiding information about the book's contents? When I paid for my preorder earlier today, I went to the product page for M3, and because I just adore words words words, I read the whole darn thing before putting anything into my cart. Here are some of the things I read before I made my purchase (emphasis in the following is mine) :
> represents a race option when you create your D&D character, expanding on the choices in the Player’s Handbook
> Compiling and updating monsters that originally appeared in Volo’s Guide to Monsters and Mordenkainen’s Tome of Foes, this book presents...
> brings all the game’s setting-agnostic races into one book and adds even more options for your next character.
> Updates to the monsters include making spellcasters easier for Dungeon Masters to run; giving many monsters more damage and resilience; and improving the organization of monster stats
Was this information unavailable at some point in time when the preorders were "live" but this book-jacket-blurb was not readily available on both DDB and WotC and Google? I was under the impression that this info was basically available as of the leak which was prior to preorder sales being opened up. Am I mistaken? I'm genuinely asking - because, from my perspective, I knew an excessively tantalizing amount of content information before I put that book in my cart for preorder, and most definitely prior to clicking Yes to any sending of money.
Question Part Two:
I agree that a company deliberately hiding information from an consumer to knowingly encourage the sale of a product that the consumer does not need/already has/duplicates a previous purchase - yeah, that's unethical, and in many places, illegal (assuming a person can afford to take it to court). As you can see from the first part of my question - I am a little at a loss for how WotC or DDB could be considered to be doing that - but I become genuinely confused at the discussion following the part where Enthusiast discovers they can't get a refund.
The next two sections (beginning with "That's not ethical") seem to discuss the information issue as a still unresolved point of contention. Here is a clear implication that the missing product information should have been prepared and ready to deploy alongside the start of preorder sales, and that the information is still not available prior to currently ongoing sales. If the missing information being discussed is the product details that reveal a potential duplication of content, I address that in the first part of the question above.... But if the missing information is now something else - my second part of the question is: what else is being withheld or deliberately hidden that is both unethical, and also key to making an informed decision about making a pre-order. I have heard it maybe-suggested that the missing information is not the product content details (above) - but is actually information or guidance from DDB regarding how this new content will be implemented.
If the missing information IS related to DDB's plans for implementation, then if I recall correctly, DDB has already said something to the effect of "we aren't entirely decided about that yet - we'll certainly let you know when we have more information." So even that missing information scenario has at least been acknowledged and given the start of a response. To my knowledge, I have not seen any such intense interest - let alone vitriol - focused on the intimate details of how DDB is going to handle implementation and integration of new content from Wizards. I do not recall any kind of forum post suggesting that DDB is acting from a suspect if not downright illegal motive when they did not make a statement regarding their plan for implementation of dragons and updated / new content from Fizban's. I recall being excited and pleased alongside others prior to Tasha's release, knowing that the source book promised some updated info and expanded options for character creation - even though I didn't have any specific information about what those updates were or how DDB was going to handle them. It never once even crossed my mind that I required information about exactly how big of a change the updates would cause during DDB's implementation to evaluate whether I wanted to preorder/purchase Tasha's.
And, finally, if there is a question as to why DDB did not already have a prepared response for the question about implementation.... it is at least possible that DDB did not anticipate that they were going to need one. Implementation has not really been a matter of question prior to now (see also: my above personal comments about the release of prior "new content" with updates or revised old content). Perhaps some of y'all are generally more involved in gathering information down to the last detail about every new release, and this is simply the first time I've stumbled across it. I mean, that's certainly possible; and I would appreciate it if someone would let me know if that is the case.
And, honestly, apologies to Linklite for accidentally being the response that finally helped me realise the specifics of something that had been nagging at the back of my mind all day. I don't really have any issue with the scenario presented or the conclusions drawn from that scenario. If that hypothetical is true, I would be in agreement that some shady ethics needed to be called out.
💜 Spes Æternum Oritur 💜
In the words of the late Totalbiscuit: "The only time you should ever pre-order anything, is if the quality of the end product will not in any way, no matter how terrible, contribute to your decision to buy it or not."
As you say, people should just look at the content and decide if it's worth the price or not. It's not the same content, even if it covers the same races - if it was the same content, we wouldn't be having all this lamenting about WotC "changing what we bought after we bought it" after all. There are differences. If you want these updated versions and are willing to pay what they cost, go ahead and buy them. If you don't want them, don't want to pay what they cost or both, don't buy them.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
DDB has indeed said something to this effect. Long after we've had a bunch of threads asking about it and lamenting the fact that no answer or acknowledgment had been forthcoming, including this one. The chronology explains it, no?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
That is again not what I was saying, but it does contribute to sales - not sustainable, never would a big company go for long term benefits, as seen by the inimitable rise of climate change. I dind't look at it from this perspective however. I cut WotC out. They just "do", and the very fact M3 was first released in an over-ambitious, somewhat misguided super bundle a fair time ahead of being solo released shows WotC cares more for fast, easy money than for player satisfaction.
This is a different thing. The beholders of Volo were additions to the one in the MM. Conversely, the beholders of M3 are replacements to the beholders of Volo. There is no way these can be likened like this legitimately.
A clearer example: imagine the MM is an apple iPad. This makes Volos and Mordenkainen more like two parts of an apple stylus pen than anything else. In comparison, this makes M3 the new 2-in-one stylus pen that does exactly what the previous ones did. Nothing wrong with that, EXCEPT for the fact that apple now switches off the two-part stylus (Volo and Mordenkainen) on all devices, so now you have to buy the new product. You have no real choice not to anymore.
This is what WotC says all the time. "Maybe this just isn't for you." But when that slogan dominates most things (including the entire future D&D rules sets), you can't really choose not to. Again, this is not being kind to the customer, this is akin to a less serious version of threatening to remove your rent on your house unless you pay extra money this week to keep it. It's not really fair. Why should errata not exist for Volo's and Mordenkainen's based off the errata made in this book? It makes millions of purchases of others now seem pointless.
I agree, attacking is not good. But WotC of course started this by using a very greedy version of capitalism to get their way no matter the cost. WotC is getting record sales, and whether people like it or not they will buy this product - if they don't, they will be shut out from future D&D groups in the thousands, same as no-one plays 4E anymore as 5E exists. This is NOT fair.
We're all a democracy, right? Then we can disagree in a calm and polite fashion, and get angry in a civil way; we are verifiably being trodden over and bullied. By a company that makes insane sales and doesn't care a bit about the consumer. If they did, they wouldn't rush out so many products, they wouldn't be... Well, they wouldn't be modern WotC, they might actually be a fair and good company that cares about their players and the game that, coincidentally, M3 warps and breaks (this is the topic for decades of conversation, starting with spells).
WotC doesn't care about you, they don't care about the game, they only care about money. This can be demonstrated, but I won't. I am so crushed by this that I don't even want to. It even made me quit homebrewing for 5E, a thing I loved above all else about any RPG. Good night, and I hope you understand that, while your opinions that M3 is good are valid, the way that WotC is marketing and selling it is not.
Frequent Eladrin || They/Them, but accept all pronouns
Luz Noceda would like to remind you that you're worth loving!
With a paper book I can go the LGS, have a flick through the pages and decide if I want to buy it. If I preorder a paper book then I'm essentially buying it unseen simply based on whatever blurb has been published prerelease, without knowing exactly what the content is. At the end of day though, if some of that content supersedes a portion of previous book I already bought, then I still own both books and can decide which version to use.
All we're asking for is clarification as to how M3 is going to work on DDB, and I think it is fair to criticise them for making the prerelease available for sale without clarifying this. Whether or not the blame lies with WotC is a different matter.
I'm not fussed about it personally, because I'm happy to wait. But I still think those who are upset have some cause to be.
Well said.
Frequent Eladrin || They/Them, but accept all pronouns
Luz Noceda would like to remind you that you're worth loving!
Nobody's shutting off your content. And either a group will play with the old version or with the new one, but they'll have access to that version. Or both. This is a non-issue.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
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.
💜 Spes Æternum Oritur 💜
To hone in on this point, because this is the crux of the issue in my opinion. They could do it in that way, but they have also in the past overwritten existing creatures with automatic errata. The problem here is that they are not saying which one they'll pick. Or being open about how the updated creatures and races will be handled. We don't arrive at the conclusion that they're going to simply overwrite everything or the conclusion that they're keeping it secret. We are arriving at the conclusion that we don't know because nobody on DDB's side is clear about this. If they would just come out with ANYTHING about how they will handle it, people could make an informed decision about wether they want to pre-order or not. But right now, nobody knows what they are buying. This is why people are calling it scummy and placing explicit blame at DDB, because if they didn't know they shouldn't have launched the pre-order. And even if WotC is making them launch, they could at least put in a disclaimer or be perfectly clear about why they can't answer.
I am also here.
Am snek.
Like Tasha's Bladesinger overwriting the original one?
The reason several different options are seen as plausible is simply that over the course of the last few years DDB has implemented updates in different ways, and the logic - if any - behind these implementations is unclear. Actual errata have always overwritten pre-existing text, as required by WotC. The Bladesinger doesn't really feel like an erratum, but was treated as such nonetheless. The Ranger class feels more like an erratum than the Bladesinger, but got the 'both versions' treatment. Floating ASIs were presented as optional in Tasha's, but appear to (have) become the standard. Since there's no clear rule of thumb, people are going to have doubts - and thus questions.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Honestly, in broad strokes, I agree with this. From the beginning, the aspect I have found fault with was the extent of the underlying negativity in many of the posts. To be perfectly clear, it was not all but neither was it only one particular bad-faith commenter.
Personally, I don't feel comfortable with public assertions that someone is acting with malicious intent that are not anchored by some pretty solid evidence. To discover that DDB was the entity accused of malicious intent was somewhat shocking and surprising - as my experience with DDB has been consistently positive, as evidenced by my continued use of the site for my digital content and campaign management, etc. I am still uncertain as to exactly why I ought to be displeased or suspicious with DDB. I have been working my way through replies and discussions on pages 7+ in order to piece that puzzle together for myself.
I have found your replies to be easy to conceptualize regardless of whether I agree or not - so perhaps you can explain to me, this distrust and suspicion that WotC has made a source book full of content that is a duplicate instead of a compilation of decently substantive changes worth owning in and of itself... where did this notion come from in the first place? Is there some compelling reason to believe that DDB is complicit in what would largely amount to a very obvious cashgrab product that clearly would alienate a large chunk of the consumer base - since merely the suspicion of such activity is already causing much disaffection?
(only tackle this response if you have the time and energy, ofc).
💜 Spes Æternum Oritur 💜
I added that emphasis. I just pretty much adore these sentences.
We have experience of precedent that when exact content is already owned, DDB reduces the purchase price accordingly.
We also have experience of precedent that when a new source book improves/upgrades/updates/revises already existing content, DDB treats these elements as unique content unlocked by purchasing the sourcebook containing the details and rules regarding that new "default" - and adds that version of the content into character creation as a variant of a class or race, or as a toggle to use / not use the additional/optional content.
I do not believe it is unreasonable to assume that DDB will follow precedent when possible for this new content. And in a different direction, I have yet to see reasonable evidence suggesting that I need to anticipate / expect that DDB will be screwing me over either because of some directive from WotC, or in collusion with WotC.
Clearly the content is different. There are even words provided to the public to give some basic idea of what aspects of various content will be different, and in some cases, how they will be different. It is completely reasonable for each consumer to decide for themselves if they consider the differences to be substantive enough to warrant purchasing a new book.
I might recommend that responses try to own their own opinions (using I-references is a fairly straight-forward way to do so) - In my experience, there are not many individuals who feel kindly to being given an ultimatum or a command. "Personally, I make a point to never purchase a pre-order, ever. It is a rule of thumb that has served me well" might be better received than something like "NEVER pay for a pre-order. EVER. NOBODY should ever make this mistake. and UR DUMB if u do!" (example exaggerated with intent to avoid singling anyone out for this kind of approach)
💜 Spes Æternum Oritur 💜
Can't speak for everyone, but for most - or so it seems to me anyway - the crux is that it's unclear what WotC (and thus DDB) will consider a substantive change that warrants a separate entry and what is minor enough that it's a basic erratum. The distinction is meaningful because one will be a (paid for) alternate option and the other a (free) mandatory change. Keep in mind this is not necessarily about the content as a complete source - I'm sure there'll be big changes in flavour text, possibly illustrations etc - but about the content as it pertains to the toolset: relatively short entries as they can be seen in the character builder, for instance. Users who bought content mainly or even exclusively for that purpose might see the changes that are pertinent for them as minor (and thus free mandatory changes) while users interested in the lore and presentation of the info will likely feel M³ changes quite a lot (which would warrant not being free, and handled as optional). Whether content will be/should be free is a rather important question if you're being asked to pay for it, after all.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
We also have a precedent that deviates from the above: the Bladesinger. There is no completely consistent guideline, thus there is confusion.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Okay, yes; thank you for taking the time to write this out - I'm still not sure I entirely agree.... But I have a much better idea about what is informing the "general sense of unease" now. I still have a feeling in the back of my mind that I'll eventually have more questions about all this ... but the gods know, I'll need way more sleep before I can see the scope and implications of your examples, etc.
💜 Spes Æternum Oritur 💜