Personally I don't see why No should really be an option.
The argument seems to be that this is going to take them extra time, except they are still needing to go into their program / database to change everything.. what's the difference in instead making it a new entry? DnD isn't cranking out so much material that DnDBeyond would be swamped under a massive workload uptick caused by having to create a new entry vs going back and editing out old entries.
As for the argument of storage.... are you serious? We're well past the days of floppy drives and 50 MB hard drives.. The storage these books take up and the database entries for the races/classes is miniscule.
Personally it's no big deal to me either way at this point but I don't see why not let this stuff continue to exist under archives or something
UPDATE 01/20: On the Dev stream, DDB confirmed that the new content of MMM will NOT replace our existing content. YAY!!!
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?
Man. It really is something. All I wanted was for DDB to be open and honest with its customers no matter which way the book was going, and I even agree with the end result! I was pulling for M3 to be its own thing. And this thread still makes me grind my teeth and start spooling up the fire hose.
October, I'm glad you get to keep your existing stuff. Maybe - just maybe - you can step down off your high horse for a moment and stop castigating people for trying to postulate reasons why your desire to have hundreds and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of super minor yet still conflicting versions of the official rules and toolset floating around might, in fact, not be optimal for either their own games or the business realities DDB faces.
You don't want to have to let players control their own characters or have to figure out how monsters work without alignment blocks. A'ight. I don't want to have to spend several hours pretending be an I.T. worker meticulously auditing my players' sheets to ensure they're all using v1.1.00357.00.X.1337.n00b of the current rules edition - not v1.1.00358.00.X.1337.n00b, not v1.1.00357.00.X.1327.n00b, and absolutely not v1.1.00357.00.X.1337.m00b, but specifically and solely v1.1.00357.00.X.1337.n00b and only that one specific version - prior to being able to play a game of D&D. That is frustrating and annoying busywork I don't need in my life, and you getting your archival/versioning system actively hurts my game because I have to deal with the versioning now.
I'm willing to deal with that in this case because the M3 changes are significant enough to warrant it. But holy shit, settle down if you want people to rally behind your cause. Your claims that excessive archival/versioning "doesn't hurt anybody!" are provably false and you know it, so stop accusing people of being Godwin's Law-esque complete monsters for not being super enthused about sharding the builder. You've been told before that a unified ruleset is good for the people using it as well as the people selling it. So stop being such a jerk about this, please?
Maybe - just maybe - you can step down off your high horse for a moment
That's not very nice. If DDB couldn't do this, they wouldn't be doing it, and it's not the consumer's concern how they accomplish it. Choice is good, and if it is technically possible, then there is no valid reason not to allow choice, since the continued existence of the original content doesn't hurt anyone.
Also, I don't ride horses, and I can castigate anyone I want, as long as it is within the ToS of this forum.
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?
Maybe - just maybe - you can step down off your high horse for a moment
That's not very nice. If DDB couldn't do this, they wouldn't be doing it, and it's not the consumer's concern how they accomplish it. Choice is good, and if it is technically possible, then there is no valid reason not to allow choice, since the continued existence of the original content doesn't hurt anyone.
The having to pay for it if you want it part does though, if you bought into the game on the promise that your digital content will continue to be updated automatically and free of cost forever.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
There's absolutely valid reasons to disallow choice. Even beyond business reasons, good DMs disallow choices from their table all the time. When I pitch a new campaign I hand my players an opt-in list of what's permitted in that campaign, and anything not on that list is not permitted in the campaign without a fan-goddamn-tastic reason otherwise.
Why do you think having many hundreds of different versions/instances/shards of the 5e ruleset is a pure positive? Can you honestly say to my digital tiffle-girl face over there, with a straight face, that you believe it's impossible that having a completely different version of the DDB toolset for every single errata change that's ever been announced since the start of 5e the way you're pushing for wouldn't be confusing or lead to problems? That you cannot imagine one single circumstance in which allowing players and DMs to freely ignore any and all updates to the content down to the most minor spelling error could lead to misunderstandings at the table?
Can you tell me that? Can you write those words and truly, honestly mean them?
If you can't - and you shouldn't be able to, because it's obvious you're smarter than that - then even you can acknowledge there are drawbacks to allowing Free And Unfettered Choice. You simply believe the benefits to outweigh those drawbacks, which is an entirely and fundamentally different thing than "there are no drawbacks."
[REDACTED]
Notes: Please remain constructive and respectful with your posts.
Aw, shucks. :p The day I move to the US for a moderate amount of time you can expect an invitation to play at my table, Yurei (I'll be looking for players anyway ;)). I think we'd have fun, and I'm pretty permissive when it comes to player creativity.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Heh. Man, it'd be so weird to play at a physical table. But yeah. I'm a huge proponent of allowing player creativity. Heh, I'm just an even bigger proponent of the idea that the player's creativity and the DM's creativity should work together in tandem like dogs hauling a sled, instead of the player trying to use their creativity to punch out the DM's world/story. A truly creative player is one that finds a great story to tell within the aegis of the DM's world and the dynamic of the group as a whole. If everybody can get their creativity pointed in the same direction before giving it the gas, that's when the magic happens.
And yeah, you're on the short list of folks I'd invite if I ever actually started the PbP game I've been toying with. I'd be irritated with the crap October's been slinging around here no matter who it was pointed at, but it's extra irritating to see it pointed at someone I trust to be a voice of reason and rationality in this madhouse.
There's absolutely valid reasons to disallow choice. Even beyond business reasons, good DMs disallow choices from their table all the time. When I pitch a new campaign I hand my players an opt-in list of what's permitted in that campaign, and anything not on that list is not permitted in the campaign without a fan-goddamn-tastic reason otherwise.
Why do you think having many hundreds of different versions/instances/shards of the 5e ruleset is a pure positive? Can you honestly say to my digital tiffle-girl face over there, with a straight face, that you believe it's impossible that having a completely different version of the DDB toolset for every single errata change that's ever been announced since the start of 5e the way you're pushing for wouldn't be confusing or lead to problems? That you cannot imagine one single circumstance in which allowing players and DMs to freely ignore any and all updates to the content down to the most minor spelling error could lead to misunderstandings at the table?
Can you tell me that? Can you write those words and truly, honestly mean them?
If you can't - and you shouldn't be able to, because it's obvious you're smarter than that - then even you can acknowledge there are drawbacks to allowing Free And Unfettered Choice. You simply believe the benefits to outweigh those drawbacks, which is an entirely and fundamentally different thing than "there are no drawbacks."
[REDACTED]
1. If there is an error it should be corrected and rolled back. These changes are not correcting errors, and just because you don't want your players to have choice does not mean you should stop ME from having that choice. I would hate to live in a world governed by you.
2. I have no problem with allowing unfettered choice as long as the things other people choose don't hurt me or others.
3. What "horrible" things did I accuse Pangurjan of? Maybe we have different definitions of horrible.
4. Am I supposed to be afraid of you? Not sure I understand your possibly slightly veiled, passive-aggressive threats.
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?
1. If there is an error it should be corrected and rolled back. These changes are not correcting errors, and just because you don't want your players to have choice does not mean you should stop ME from having that choice. I would hate to live in a world governed by you.
2. I have no problem with allowing unfettered choice as long as the things other people choose don't hurt me or others.
3. What "horrible" things did I accuse Pangurjan of? Maybe we have different definitions of horrible.
4. Am I supposed to be afraid of you? Not sure I understand your possibly slightly veiled, passive-aggressive threats.
Okay. let's try this.
1.) You have specifically stated otherwise. Your stated position is "any time anybody changes anything in these books, it should be documented, versioned, and the old pre-change version made available to players." As well, here's a good example of answerance to your other points - you're accusing me (and everyone else) of being tyrants because we're not enamored of the idea of having to play I.T. professional with our players' sheets. "I'd hate to live in a world governed by you" - is that so? At least there would be governance, as opposed to "every time a law gets changed for any reason, no matter what gets changed, the old version of the law is documented, versioned off, and made available for citizens to choose to follow instead."
2.) Your "unfettered choice" actively hurts me and my table. It hurts Pang's table. It hurts the tables of anyone else who doesn't want to deal with vetting seven hundred different toggles, switches, dials, and selectors to ensure everyone at their table is all using the same-ass rules. I should not need to write up a twenty-page step-by-step instruction document for setting up a god damned character sheet; I should be able to lay out in a paragraph or two in the campaign ref sheet what to do and what optional rules are in play.
[REDACTED]
Does that clear everything up?
Notes: Please remain constructive and respectful with your posts.
Here I am reading all these posts like watching a moving with popcorn and thinking to myself" Both are valid reasons and like every war, everyone is only defending their ideology, but damn Yurei you got the skills to articulate a comment in a funny way and I applaud that, bet that your tables are fun to play in.
I would pay to watch a goblin mud fight... gotta add that to a campaign.
But my 2 cp are that I'm pro-choice, but too much choice makes ppl suffer from the inability to choose, so I would keep the builder updated and toggle the books for those who wanna LOOK at the old versions. Let's be real if you search enough you can probably find all the pdf of the books only. why let ppl have to go outside of the site for that?
I mean they did pretty clearly say in their first post
There is a difference between errata, which should be for actual errors that need correcting, (like typos, bad math, wrong attributions, incorrect stats, etc) and actually changing something that had no errors into something different.
I understand the policies for digital content, and that I am paying for access to a product, but I disagree with the notion that I shouldn't have a right to access the content I originally paid for.
When WotC makes major changes to anything in previous books that goes beyond errata, we should have the option of keeping/using those previous versions we paid for.
so they definitely did NOT want old errata included as a kept version. All of the pro-change people keep saying “WoTC isn’t forcing you to accept any changes”, except clearly they are. Why is it people who have already spent their money on a product and aren’t interested in the adaptations have to have their stuff changed? Anytime this stuff comes up it’s about “I want to be able to play my way.” Well, so does everybody else. DDB already introduced toggles to turn on and off options from Tasha’s, and has toggles for whether or not to allow homebrew or CR content, and you can select core and non-core publications when building your character, so what’s one more toggle for old or new publications?
Obviously the default setting for the up to 3 toggles (not dozens, certainly not hundreds) would be default off. So those who don't want them on just don't touch them. Hell make them campaign level toggles if you guys are so worried about your players being inept when it comes to the tools/character sheet. (please implement campaign level toggles DDB 🙏)
You see the other versions or you don't. You don't have a toggle for each individual change. You don't need different off shoots of tools. I know you guys are smarter than to think that would be what most people are asking for or at the very least how it would be implemented.
The toggle would be default (off) it only shows the most recent version if you turn it on you see the other versions in the character builder/sheet (whether it's a campaign level toggle or character sheet level). A second toggle for viewing the expandable areas with the old text in books (not spelling/grammar). A 3rd toggle or filter for the search areas of the site. All default off.
This can be way simpler then your making it out to be.
I don't think all editions of DND should be here. I don't think all versions of spelling mistakes, grammar corrections should be here. It's pretty easy to tell what is a spelling or grammar change vs other type of change.
Only those who opt-in will see it. As far as the tools go it would be no different then making copies of the material into homebrew before it's archived and toggling homebrew on or off with the exception it would have it's own toggle. Because if I was in a game with someone and they turn on homebrew they are getting a lot of archived stuff that they might not want. Which is much more confusing then it being separated in my opinion.
The rules from the book would all be in their appropriate sections where they were errata'd out of. No duplicate sources. In neat little collapsible boxes that you wouldn't even see if you didn't opt in.
The hyperbole is off the charts.
As an aside laws are versioned and archived for the public to access where I'm from. Yes, we are required to follow the newest version but this isn't law or the real world. It's a game in a book/on a site.
Anyway this is all pretty moot unless WotC changes their mind about how to do this but it certainly is possible with zero impact to your games if you have control over the toggles and they are default off.
1. If there is an error it should be corrected and rolled back. These changes are not correcting errors, and just because you don't want your players to have choice does not mean you should stop ME from having that choice. I would hate to live in a world governed by you.
2. I have no problem with allowing unfettered choice as long as the things other people choose don't hurt me or others.
3. What "horrible" things did I accuse Pangurjan of? Maybe we have different definitions of horrible.
4. Am I supposed to be afraid of you? Not sure I understand your possibly slightly veiled, passive-aggressive threats.
Okay. let's try this.
1.) You have specifically stated otherwise. Your stated position is "any time anybody changes anything in these books, it should be documented, versioned, and the old pre-change version made available to players." As well, here's a good example of answerance to your other points - you're accusing me (and everyone else) of being tyrants because we're not enamored of the idea of having to play I.T. professional with our players' sheets. "I'd hate to live in a world governed by you" - is that so? At least there would be governance, as opposed to "every time a law gets changed for any reason, no matter what gets changed, the old version of the law is documented, versioned off, and made available for citizens to choose to follow instead."
2.) Your "unfettered choice" actively hurts me and my table. It hurts Pang's table. It hurts the tables of anyone else who doesn't want to deal with vetting seven hundred different toggles, switches, dials, and selectors to ensure everyone at their table is all using the same-ass rules. I should not need to write up a twenty-page step-by-step instruction document for setting up a god damned character sheet; I should be able to lay out in a paragraph or two in the campaign ref sheet what to do and what optional rules are in play.
[REDACTED]
Does that clear everything up?
You have attributed to me words that I never posted, and it feels like you are saying that you think everyone should play D&D your way.
"because we're not enamored of the idea of having to play I.T. professional with our players' sheets" < You won't need to. This seems like hyperbole.
"Your "unfettered choice" actively hurts me and my table" < D&D Beyond is for everyone.
"deal with vetting seven hundred different toggles, switches, dials, and selectors to ensure everyone at their table is all using the same-ass rules" < This seems like more hyperbole. Obviously this isn't how it's going to be.
"I should not need to write up a twenty-page step-by-step instruction document for setting up a god damned character sheet;" < Pretty sure you won't need to do this. Seems like more hyperbole.
I would respond to your #3 and #4, but the mods chose to delete them from your post. Others can draw from that what they will. I didn't report the post, I had hoped the mods would leave your post for all to see, but they have seen fit to redact part of it.
If you want to have a serious discussion about the ramifications of the decision, rebut my points with constructive or valid criticism.
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?
Obviously the default setting for the up to 3 toggles (not dozens, certainly not hundreds) would be default off.
Why only three? Why would it basically be all or nothing? If the idea is to offer people a choice, I'd expect every duplicate item could be toggled separately rather than there being one setting for "none of the updated versions" and another for "all of the updated versions".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Obviously the default setting for the up to 3 toggles (not dozens, certainly not hundreds) would be default off.
Why only three? Why would it basically be all or nothing? If the idea is to offer people a choice, I'd expect every duplicate item could be toggled separately rather than there being one setting for "none of the updated versions" and another for "all of the updated versions".
Because there is a line between reasonable requests and expectations versus unreasonable ones.
I'd consider myself fortunate, lucky and appreciated as a client by WoTC and DDB if there was just the one toggle between default mode (most current version) and original mode (initial release version). Asking for more than that seems unlikely at best to get any kind of a positive response from dev teams and site administrators.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
Why is it people who have already spent their money on a product and aren’t interested in the adaptations have to have their stuff changed?
Why is it people who have already spent their money on a product under the assumption it'd be updated automatically and for free as promised and as it has been until now have to pay to have their stuff changed?
I mean, we can keep going around on this, but that's the crux of it. There's people who don't want to have changes forced on them because maybe they don't like every change, and there's others who don't want to have to pay for changes because that's not what they were promised when they bought a digital ruleset. Everyone wants what they want for their own reasons, nobody wants what they want just so others can't have what they want. "Why do some of us have to get what we don't want" is the wrong question. The question is why some of us can't get what we want, and the unfortunate answer is that it's so others can. Not everyone can get what they want, because some things some people want are incompatible with other things other people want. The implication that this is somehow unacceptable or not right by asking why is silly. It's life. We can't always get what we want. That's why.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Personally I don't see why No should really be an option.
The argument seems to be that this is going to take them extra time, except they are still needing to go into their program / database to change everything.. what's the difference in instead making it a new entry? DnD isn't cranking out so much material that DnDBeyond would be swamped under a massive workload uptick caused by having to create a new entry vs going back and editing out old entries.
As for the argument of storage.... are you serious? We're well past the days of floppy drives and 50 MB hard drives.. The storage these books take up and the database entries for the races/classes is miniscule.
Personally it's no big deal to me either way at this point but I don't see why not let this stuff continue to exist under archives or something
Short version: DDB has no choice in that matter.
It was often said, they have to follow the guidelines that WotC give them. So as someone on the first page said:
"The real question would be "Should WoTC allow DDB (and other clients?) to host Archived content in addition to the most resent versions."
To which I would also vote "yes". "
UPDATE 01/20: On the Dev stream, DDB confirmed that the new content of MMM will NOT replace our existing content. YAY!!!
"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?
Praise the gods! Put your wallets on the pyre, lads (at least those who actually like MMM). Alexa play taps.
Er ek geng, þat er í þeim skóm er ek valda.
UwU
Man. It really is something. All I wanted was for DDB to be open and honest with its customers no matter which way the book was going, and I even agree with the end result! I was pulling for M3 to be its own thing. And this thread still makes me grind my teeth and start spooling up the fire hose.
October, I'm glad you get to keep your existing stuff. Maybe - just maybe - you can step down off your high horse for a moment and stop castigating people for trying to postulate reasons why your desire to have hundreds and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of super minor yet still conflicting versions of the official rules and toolset floating around might, in fact, not be optimal for either their own games or the business realities DDB faces.
You don't want to have to let players control their own characters or have to figure out how monsters work without alignment blocks. A'ight. I don't want to have to spend several hours pretending be an I.T. worker meticulously auditing my players' sheets to ensure they're all using v1.1.00357.00.X.1337.n00b of the current rules edition - not v1.1.00358.00.X.1337.n00b, not v1.1.00357.00.X.1327.n00b, and absolutely not v1.1.00357.00.X.1337.m00b, but specifically and solely v1.1.00357.00.X.1337.n00b and only that one specific version - prior to being able to play a game of D&D. That is frustrating and annoying busywork I don't need in my life, and you getting your archival/versioning system actively hurts my game because I have to deal with the versioning now.
I'm willing to deal with that in this case because the M3 changes are significant enough to warrant it. But holy shit, settle down if you want people to rally behind your cause. Your claims that excessive archival/versioning "doesn't hurt anybody!" are provably false and you know it, so stop accusing people of being Godwin's Law-esque complete monsters for not being super enthused about sharding the builder. You've been told before that a unified ruleset is good for the people using it as well as the people selling it. So stop being such a jerk about this, please?
Please do not contact or message me.
That's not very nice. If DDB couldn't do this, they wouldn't be doing it, and it's not the consumer's concern how they accomplish it. Choice is good, and if it is technically possible, then there is no valid reason not to allow choice, since the continued existence of the original content doesn't hurt anyone.
Also, I don't ride horses, and I can castigate anyone I want, as long as it is within the ToS of this forum.
"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 having to pay for it if you want it part does though, if you bought into the game on the promise that your digital content will continue to be updated automatically and free of cost forever.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
There's absolutely valid reasons to disallow choice. Even beyond business reasons, good DMs disallow choices from their table all the time. When I pitch a new campaign I hand my players an opt-in list of what's permitted in that campaign, and anything not on that list is not permitted in the campaign without a fan-goddamn-tastic reason otherwise.
Why do you think having many hundreds of different versions/instances/shards of the 5e ruleset is a pure positive? Can you honestly say to my digital tiffle-girl face over there, with a straight face, that you believe it's impossible that having a completely different version of the DDB toolset for every single errata change that's ever been announced since the start of 5e the way you're pushing for wouldn't be confusing or lead to problems? That you cannot imagine one single circumstance in which allowing players and DMs to freely ignore any and all updates to the content down to the most minor spelling error could lead to misunderstandings at the table?
Can you tell me that? Can you write those words and truly, honestly mean them?
If you can't - and you shouldn't be able to, because it's obvious you're smarter than that - then even you can acknowledge there are drawbacks to allowing Free And Unfettered Choice. You simply believe the benefits to outweigh those drawbacks, which is an entirely and fundamentally different thing than "there are no drawbacks."
[REDACTED]
Please do not contact or message me.
Aw, shucks. :p The day I move to the US for a moderate amount of time you can expect an invitation to play at my table, Yurei (I'll be looking for players anyway ;)). I think we'd have fun, and I'm pretty permissive when it comes to player creativity.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Heh. Man, it'd be so weird to play at a physical table. But yeah. I'm a huge proponent of allowing player creativity. Heh, I'm just an even bigger proponent of the idea that the player's creativity and the DM's creativity should work together in tandem like dogs hauling a sled, instead of the player trying to use their creativity to punch out the DM's world/story. A truly creative player is one that finds a great story to tell within the aegis of the DM's world and the dynamic of the group as a whole. If everybody can get their creativity pointed in the same direction before giving it the gas, that's when the magic happens.
And yeah, you're on the short list of folks I'd invite if I ever actually started the PbP game I've been toying with. I'd be irritated with the crap October's been slinging around here no matter who it was pointed at, but it's extra irritating to see it pointed at someone I trust to be a voice of reason and rationality in this madhouse.
Please do not contact or message me.
1. If there is an error it should be corrected and rolled back. These changes are not correcting errors, and just because you don't want your players to have choice does not mean you should stop ME from having that choice. I would hate to live in a world governed by you.
2. I have no problem with allowing unfettered choice as long as the things other people choose don't hurt me or others.
3. What "horrible" things did I accuse Pangurjan of? Maybe we have different definitions of horrible.
4. Am I supposed to be afraid of you? Not sure I understand your possibly slightly veiled, passive-aggressive threats.
"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?
Okay. let's try this.
1.) You have specifically stated otherwise. Your stated position is "any time anybody changes anything in these books, it should be documented, versioned, and the old pre-change version made available to players." As well, here's a good example of answerance to your other points - you're accusing me (and everyone else) of being tyrants because we're not enamored of the idea of having to play I.T. professional with our players' sheets. "I'd hate to live in a world governed by you" - is that so? At least there would be governance, as opposed to "every time a law gets changed for any reason, no matter what gets changed, the old version of the law is documented, versioned off, and made available for citizens to choose to follow instead."
2.) Your "unfettered choice" actively hurts me and my table. It hurts Pang's table. It hurts the tables of anyone else who doesn't want to deal with vetting seven hundred different toggles, switches, dials, and selectors to ensure everyone at their table is all using the same-ass rules. I should not need to write up a twenty-page step-by-step instruction document for setting up a god damned character sheet; I should be able to lay out in a paragraph or two in the campaign ref sheet what to do and what optional rules are in play.
[REDACTED]
Does that clear everything up?
Please do not contact or message me.
Here I am reading all these posts like watching a moving with popcorn and thinking to myself" Both are valid reasons and like every war, everyone is only defending their ideology, but damn Yurei you got the skills to articulate a comment in a funny way and I applaud that, bet that your tables are fun to play in.
I would pay to watch a goblin mud fight... gotta add that to a campaign.
But my 2 cp are that I'm pro-choice, but too much choice makes ppl suffer from the inability to choose, so I would keep the builder updated and toggle the books for those who wanna LOOK at the old versions. Let's be real if you search enough you can probably find all the pdf of the books only. why let ppl have to go outside of the site for that?
so they definitely did NOT want old errata included as a kept version. All of the pro-change people keep saying “WoTC isn’t forcing you to accept any changes”, except clearly they are. Why is it people who have already spent their money on a product and aren’t interested in the adaptations have to have their stuff changed? Anytime this stuff comes up it’s about “I want to be able to play my way.” Well, so does everybody else. DDB already introduced toggles to turn on and off options from Tasha’s, and has toggles for whether or not to allow homebrew or CR content, and you can select core and non-core publications when building your character, so what’s one more toggle for old or new publications?
Obviously the default setting for the up to 3 toggles (not dozens, certainly not hundreds) would be default off. So those who don't want them on just don't touch them. Hell make them campaign level toggles if you guys are so worried about your players being inept when it comes to the tools/character sheet. (please implement campaign level toggles DDB 🙏)
You see the other versions or you don't. You don't have a toggle for each individual change. You don't need different off shoots of tools. I know you guys are smarter than to think that would be what most people are asking for or at the very least how it would be implemented.
The toggle would be default (off) it only shows the most recent version if you turn it on you see the other versions in the character builder/sheet (whether it's a campaign level toggle or character sheet level). A second toggle for viewing the expandable areas with the old text in books (not spelling/grammar). A 3rd toggle or filter for the search areas of the site. All default off.
This can be way simpler then your making it out to be.
I don't think all editions of DND should be here. I don't think all versions of spelling mistakes, grammar corrections should be here. It's pretty easy to tell what is a spelling or grammar change vs other type of change.
Only those who opt-in will see it. As far as the tools go it would be no different then making copies of the material into homebrew before it's archived and toggling homebrew on or off with the exception it would have it's own toggle. Because if I was in a game with someone and they turn on homebrew they are getting a lot of archived stuff that they might not want. Which is much more confusing then it being separated in my opinion.
The rules from the book would all be in their appropriate sections where they were errata'd out of. No duplicate sources. In neat little collapsible boxes that you wouldn't even see if you didn't opt in.
The hyperbole is off the charts.
As an aside laws are versioned and archived for the public to access where I'm from. Yes, we are required to follow the newest version but this isn't law or the real world. It's a game in a book/on a site.
Anyway this is all pretty moot unless WotC changes their mind about how to do this but it certainly is possible with zero impact to your games if you have control over the toggles and they are default off.
It'll be interesting to see if we get "Orc" and "Orc (MM3)" in the list of races allowed for a new PC.
You have attributed to me words that I never posted, and it feels like you are saying that you think everyone should play D&D your way.
"because we're not enamored of the idea of having to play I.T. professional with our players' sheets" < You won't need to. This seems like hyperbole.
"Your "unfettered choice" actively hurts me and my table" < D&D Beyond is for everyone.
"deal with vetting seven hundred different toggles, switches, dials, and selectors to ensure everyone at their table is all using the same-ass rules" < This seems like more hyperbole. Obviously this isn't how it's going to be.
"I should not need to write up a twenty-page step-by-step instruction document for setting up a god damned character sheet;" < Pretty sure you won't need to do this. Seems like more hyperbole.
I would respond to your #3 and #4, but the mods chose to delete them from your post. Others can draw from that what they will. I didn't report the post, I had hoped the mods would leave your post for all to see, but they have seen fit to redact part of it.
If you want to have a serious discussion about the ramifications of the decision, rebut my points with constructive or valid criticism.
"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?
Why only three? Why would it basically be all or nothing? If the idea is to offer people a choice, I'd expect every duplicate item could be toggled separately rather than there being one setting for "none of the updated versions" and another for "all of the updated versions".
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Because there is a line between reasonable requests and expectations versus unreasonable ones.
I'd consider myself fortunate, lucky and appreciated as a client by WoTC and DDB if there was just the one toggle between default mode (most current version) and original mode (initial release version). Asking for more than that seems unlikely at best to get any kind of a positive response from dev teams and site administrators.
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
Why is it people who have already spent their money on a product under the assumption it'd be updated automatically and for free as promised and as it has been until now have to pay to have their stuff changed?
I mean, we can keep going around on this, but that's the crux of it. There's people who don't want to have changes forced on them because maybe they don't like every change, and there's others who don't want to have to pay for changes because that's not what they were promised when they bought a digital ruleset. Everyone wants what they want for their own reasons, nobody wants what they want just so others can't have what they want. "Why do some of us have to get what we don't want" is the wrong question. The question is why some of us can't get what we want, and the unfortunate answer is that it's so others can. Not everyone can get what they want, because some things some people want are incompatible with other things other people want. The implication that this is somehow unacceptable or not right by asking why is silly. It's life. We can't always get what we want. That's why.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].