You can create homebrew, and also campaigns, as a free account. You cannot publish/share your homebrew (which you shouldn't do anyways), nor add anybody else's homebrew to your collection, without a paid account, but you can create homebrew for your own personal use as well as start, I believe, up to 3 campaigns as an unpaid account.
Not arguing against this, but it does seem weird to do. I know there’s lots of people out there interested in solo play, or groups who can’t find a DM. But an AI DM, people might as well just play baulder’s gate 3. It’s got co-op and everything.
We don't know what kind of custom campaign tools that game will include yet. It doesn't look like it includes any non-PHB content either. Most importantly though, BG3 uses scripts, not anything close to a true AI. "Go play BG3" is unhelpful.
After the very first 6 edition test release I told my group some of the changes only made sense if WOTC were trying to make the content usable by an AI for an automated DM. Nothing else made sense. Once we saw the second release, I knew that that’s what they were doing.
The DM is the biggest shortage in D&D and made sense on why they went with the software engine they did for their VTT design in the demo they showed.
After I retired from the military, I worked with a not-for-profit defense contractor (a few do exist) where our company managed both our people and a few other subcontractors from other companies on one of our projects. It was two easy-to-use N-tier software packages (both computer workstation and web based) that US military combat units could use to “program” these incredibly large, complicated and expensive computer systems owned by the Department of Defense that existed at a few locations for training for battle from crew sized up to Brigades. The project(s) was called “The Commanders' Integrated Training Tool for the Close Combat Tactical Trainer” or CITT for short. There are currently several spin offs of it for both crew and organization training for it still in use today by very large defense contractors with similar acronyms. It was not AI but it was the closest that we had at that time that I saw. The web-based server package is what I took over after another company suddenly quit work on it. I managed the server side of these and wrote the final instruction manuals along with some subject matter experts from my company and a few other defense contractor companies on the web based side. I have since retired from that defense contractor company and are no longer bound by any NDA's (The military made the projects public long ago).
I mention the above paragraph because I learned the kind of structure needed to create an AI to cut down on processing and separate the presentation, application and data layers. The same things I keep seeing with every 6e update. The same goes for cutting down on data branching.
In short, I believe the latest “leak” because I have been seeing this coming since the first talks of the sixth edition based on what I did before in the past.
Not arguing against this, but it does seem weird to do. I know there’s lots of people out there interested in solo play, or groups who can’t find a DM. But an AI DM, people might as well just play baulder’s gate 3. It’s got co-op and everything.
BG 3 has a soft limit of 4 or 5 players but can be tricked into 6 or 8 players but you need really good machines to run it.
BG 3 has a large footprint on the computers it is installed on and is NOT a web-based application that can run in web browsers on computers, laptops, tablets or cell phones.
It also does NOT precisely mirror the current rules set because it's too complicated. Notice 6e is making it simpler?
I think WOTC and HASBRO are aiming at a web-based N-Tier application with the presentation layer on the computer, laptop and tablet market. I suspect them someone at HASBRO has briefed it can run off cellphones like their current cell client does from D&D Beyond but from my knowledge of current presentation layering I think it’s a bridge too far and there is nobody at those companies willing to tell them that or they may just think they can write off cell phone and cheaper (Non Surface or Apple) tablets.
Thank you psyren and redsix for those clarifications.
Honestly, as I think about, if it’s a good product, I might be willing to pay for a solo game with an AI DM. I don’t know if I’d want to subscribe, but paying per session, maybe. Sometimes you want to play, and you can’t. If this fills that gap, it could be a good addition. As long as they keep it optional. If it starts getting required, that would be a hard no.
I would note that "AI DM" might just mean "make the game system easier to implement in a cRPG". Nothing about those rumors indicates that they're linked together.
The fact that the 'new' OGL proposes supposed -restrictions- to AI dm's, I think you should look at it logically and assume that they mean other people cannot make anything other than rudimentary AI dm's - even for free - because they don't want anyone to be able to code competition for their own AI dm's that they plan on monetizing through dnd beyond in the future. They wouldn't put restrictions in if it was to apply for themselves, that's nonsensical from a legal and corporate standpoint.
The fact that the 'new' OGL proposes supposed -restrictions- to AI dm's, I think you should look at it logically and assume that they mean other people cannot make anything other than rudimentary AI dm's - even for free - because they don't want anyone to be able to code competition for their own AI dm's that they plan on monetizing through dnd beyond in the future. They wouldn't put restrictions in if it was to apply for themselves, that's nonsensical from a legal and corporate standpoint.
The new 'OGL' is saying that you can't create computer tools to implement the SRD. That would naturally include cRPGs. They want anyone who produces a cRPG to talk to their licensing department.
That thread from five months ago now is not relevant to this new leak, save that it resembles the old leak to an almost spooky degree. Sarahiscoffee has yet to respond to this, so far as I know.
I said it in a different place, but the august leak was embers burning. Community saw it but since it only affected beyond it didnt gain public traction. OGL shit happens, thats a forest fire and now those embers are burning bright. Every new thing is gasoline because its drama time.
It's relevant because it's the same content, and now other sources are espousing it as fact. That said, I have baited breath until tomorrow when they supposedly come out to talk about it.
The fact that the 'new' OGL proposes supposed -restrictions- to AI dm's, I think you should look at it logically and assume that they mean other people cannot make anything other than rudimentary AI dm's - even for free - because they don't want anyone to be able to code competition for their own AI dm's that they plan on monetizing through dnd beyond in the future. They wouldn't put restrictions in if it was to apply for themselves, that's nonsensical from a legal and corporate standpoint.
The new 'OGL' is saying that you can't create computer tools to implement the SRD. That would naturally include cRPGs. They want anyone who produces a cRPG to talk to their licensing department.
Yes. I think they feel burned by Solasta and don’t want that to happen again.
The fact that the 'new' OGL proposes supposed -restrictions- to AI dm's, I think you should look at it logically and assume that they mean other people cannot make anything other than rudimentary AI dm's - even for free - because they don't want anyone to be able to code competition for their own AI dm's that they plan on monetizing through dnd beyond in the future. They wouldn't put restrictions in if it was to apply for themselves, that's nonsensical from a legal and corporate standpoint.
The new 'OGL' is saying that you can't create computer tools to implement the SRD. That would naturally include cRPGs. They want anyone who produces a cRPG to talk to their licensing department.
Yes. I think they feel burned by Solasta and don’t want that to happen again.
Solasta signed a separate agreement. It is not OGL.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM for life by choice, biggest fan of D&D specifically.
The fact that the 'new' OGL proposes supposed -restrictions- to AI dm's, I think you should look at it logically and assume that they mean other people cannot make anything other than rudimentary AI dm's - even for free - because they don't want anyone to be able to code competition for their own AI dm's that they plan on monetizing through dnd beyond in the future. They wouldn't put restrictions in if it was to apply for themselves, that's nonsensical from a legal and corporate standpoint.
The new 'OGL' is saying that you can't create computer tools to implement the SRD. That would naturally include cRPGs. They want anyone who produces a cRPG to talk to their licensing department.
Yes. I think they feel burned by Solasta and don’t want that to happen again.
Solasta signed a separate agreement. It is not OGL.
Interesting. I'd misunderstood.
So not burned, but still educated. Since a company could, under the current ogl, probably do something like Solasta.
Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess and the Official Scrabble Dictionary are in the top 5. Is that relevant? Is historical sales relevant other than to say we were all happy a few weeks ago? What, exactly, are you getting at other than D&D was popular before and a lot of people have extra kindling if they decide to move to other systems?
Let's say that altogether, third-party publishers can make 50 books a year. As a random, arbitrary number for example purposes. As it stands, 50 of those supplements are for D&D 5e. 5e players have a plethora of choices and rich fodder for their campaigns due to an abundance of third-party resources. Let's say D&D dies, the way everyone keeps arguing they want to happen. It is replaced by people scattering to twenty-five other, different games that do not have the unifying power of 5e. Now, each of those games can only receive two of the 50 supplements third-party publishers will make in this arbitrary year. In reality, many of those games will never receive third-party support at all while the top tennish all receive a share of books as third-party publishers try desperately to stay afloat in a reality where they cannot sell books to hardly anyone anymore.
That is what Xaltu is driving at. 5e is still the biggest game in town, and could still be a unifying standard for everyone to enjoy. Does this sound desirable, or do we want everybody to scatter to the winds and for gaming to fade into obscurity again?
Mmm... wonder if the AI DM will have a fudge slider
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“It cannot be seen, cannot be felt, Cannot be heard, cannot be smelt, It lies behind stars and under hills, And empty holes it fills, It comes first and follows after, Ends life, kills laughter.” J.R.R. Tolkien, The Hobbit, or There and Back Again
I dunno about anyone else... but before all this I was paying $10 a month for Roll20, $5ish for DnDB... plus any extras I might purchase from 3PP along the way (lookin' at you Classic Modules Today)...
If a company provided me with an exquisite VTT tool that worked well and was aesthetically pleasing, linked to the books and the online character sheet... I would seriously consider 'putting all my eggs in a single basket' as it were... but it would have to allow me to incorporate my own maps, etc. If all I am doing is buying their house-created stuff, that limits my game too much.
As for AI... if I wanted to play a virtual D&D game, I'd resub to D&D Online.
I dunno about anyone else... but before all this I was paying $10 a month for Roll20, $5ish for DnDB... plus any extras I might purchase from 3PP along the way (lookin' at you Classic Modules Today)...
If a company provided me with an exquisite VTT tool that worked well and was aesthetically pleasing, linked to the books and the online character sheet... I would seriously consider 'putting all my eggs in a single basket' as it were... but it would have to allow me to incorporate my own maps, etc. If all I am doing is buying their house-created stuff, that limits my game too much.
As for AI... if I wanted to play a virtual D&D game, I'd resub to D&D Online.
I agree, but $30 is a lot for a sub. The world is full of subs now and their price is high. I also believe that we are seeing people become more and more tired of subscription models - not the majority yet, but it’s growing. They will get a lot of resistance at this price.
I’ve played this game, among others, for 20 years. I DM, as well as am a player and have the high tier right now on Beyond. At $30/mo, I’m out. Back to PnP for our table. They need to get players to migrate from roll20, not push them to it. That price is going to push, hard. For me, their site is convenience, but not at that value. And if people aren’t using their online tools, aren’t immersing themselves in their ecosystem, then it’s that much easier to try a new game - maybe one that sticks. And at any price, if their VTT is anything, and I do mean anything, less than exquisite and fully integrated with their content and tools, it’ll be a flop.
I would bounce if they increase the highest tier by anything more than $10 (the cost of my roll20 sub). And even that depends on their model for VTT. How many micros will there be? Can I bring my own tokens? My own images? Make my own campaign? Or will I have to buy every monster token from them? The latter would make me not use their VTT even if it were free. I’m over micro transactions. I don’t, however, think it’s unreasonable to charge a small fee to players for the VTT if it’s fully integrated and top notch. But historically speaking, WotC fails at digital. I’m not holding my breath.
I just came from D&D Next reddit and people are saying you can't play without 30$ a month PER PLAYER! And not a single comment on how this may be just a rumor. So yeah, people are freaking out again and would believe anything bad about WotC at this point. A visit yonder also showed me that the D&D One playtest is now probably FUBAR as, according to a well upvoted theory, the most dedicated part of the community will not engage with it, and all who are left will be OGL ragers and, more importantly, trolls who will give intentionally bad advice to the designers. I'm planning on doing my best with D&D One, but I must say I am worried for 5.5/6e. We will see if Wizards announces this evil plan of theirs tomorrow, though they really probably won't even if this is true.
Look, my advice on how OP the Ranger is and it needs to be nerfed is Heartfelt. And my advice on allowing wizards to use INT as their strength stat while being allowed to rage into Troll Form was solid.
All I can say is IF this is true, I hope someone will pass this up to whatever exec thinks it's a good idea.
I'm almost the exact idea of what I'm guessing the execs think they're looking for.
I'm someone who got into D&D more recently, in large part thanks to D&D beyond. I own literally one physical D&D book, and that's Dragonlance because it was bundled with the Beyond version. I'm on the site pretty much every day, rolling up different characters. I have bought pretty much all the player resource books, and even some of the digital dice.
Thanks to me wanting to spend time with my parents, who are older and deal with conditions that make recent diseases a damn near definite death sentence for them, I absolutely minimize my time going out and such. I am very much connected to online play.
If D&D Beyond were to significantly up the subscription cost for me to keep having access to all my characters, or to use homebrew. I wouldn't just be spending less money here, I wouldn't be spending money here at all.
I hope the rumors are BS, folks got sources wrong and all, but even as a newer person in the sphere, I'm aware of a saying.
The fact that the 'new' OGL proposes supposed -restrictions- to AI dm's, I think you should look at it logically and assume that they mean other people cannot make anything other than rudimentary AI dm's - even for free - because they don't want anyone to be able to code competition for their own AI dm's that they plan on monetizing through dnd beyond in the future. They wouldn't put restrictions in if it was to apply for themselves, that's nonsensical from a legal and corporate standpoint.
The new 'OGL' is saying that you can't create computer tools to implement the SRD. That would naturally include cRPGs. They want anyone who produces a cRPG to talk to their licensing department.
Yes. I think they feel burned by Solasta and don’t want that to happen again.
It's honestly insane to me that so many companies feel entitled to the creative endeavors and efforts of other people purely because they happened to be using the toolbox they made.
If I hand 100 people a screwdriver and a pack of nails and tell them all to make me something, I'm going to get 100 different things of different creative value; the tools you use to make something are at most 10% of the end product. I don't care if someone used Warcraft 3's map editor to make League of Legends; someone came up with the CREATIVE IDEA to make an entirely new game mode out of these other tools and assets, and they are 100% entitled to the rewards of that creativity that THEY had - not the people who happened to have a toolchest that allowed them to express said creativity.
What's next, I should attribute my all of my art to Adobe because I made it in Photoshop?
Corporations really gotta get out of their own butts; if they button down everything so no one can use any tools ever, we're going to never see any genuine innovation because it's going to all be under lock and key and proprietary this and that and oh you can't have that feature because it was patented by so and so - what nonsense. I don't know how any person supports that mentality, like... gross.
What's next, I should attribute my all of my art to Adobe because I made it in Photoshop?
You picked... a supremely bad example here; Adobe Photoshop, being a cloud service now, has exactly the same licenseback provision that DnDBeyond does, and that people were freaking out about being in OGL 1.1.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Thanks for clarifying that.
We don't know what kind of custom campaign tools that game will include yet. It doesn't look like it includes any non-PHB content either. Most importantly though, BG3 uses scripts, not anything close to a true AI. "Go play BG3" is unhelpful.
BG 3 has a soft limit of 4 or 5 players but can be tricked into 6 or 8 players but you need really good machines to run it.
BG 3 has a large footprint on the computers it is installed on and is NOT a web-based application that can run in web browsers on computers, laptops, tablets or cell phones.
It also does NOT precisely mirror the current rules set because it's too complicated. Notice 6e is making it simpler?
I think WOTC and HASBRO are aiming at a web-based N-Tier application with the presentation layer on the computer, laptop and tablet market. I suspect them someone at HASBRO has briefed it can run off cellphones like their current cell client does from D&D Beyond but from my knowledge of current presentation layering I think it’s a bridge too far and there is nobody at those companies willing to tell them that or they may just think they can write off cell phone and cheaper (Non Surface or Apple) tablets.
Thank you psyren and redsix for those clarifications.
Honestly, as I think about, if it’s a good product, I might be willing to pay for a solo game with an AI DM. I don’t know if I’d want to subscribe, but paying per session, maybe. Sometimes you want to play, and you can’t. If this fills that gap, it could be a good addition. As long as they keep it optional. If it starts getting required, that would be a hard no.
I would note that "AI DM" might just mean "make the game system easier to implement in a cRPG". Nothing about those rumors indicates that they're linked together.
The fact that the 'new' OGL proposes supposed -restrictions- to AI dm's, I think you should look at it logically and assume that they mean other people cannot make anything other than rudimentary AI dm's - even for free - because they don't want anyone to be able to code competition for their own AI dm's that they plan on monetizing through dnd beyond in the future. They wouldn't put restrictions in if it was to apply for themselves, that's nonsensical from a legal and corporate standpoint.
The new 'OGL' is saying that you can't create computer tools to implement the SRD. That would naturally include cRPGs. They want anyone who produces a cRPG to talk to their licensing department.
I said it in a different place, but the august leak was embers burning. Community saw it but since it only affected beyond it didnt gain public traction. OGL shit happens, thats a forest fire and now those embers are burning bright. Every new thing is gasoline because its drama time.
It's relevant because it's the same content, and now other sources are espousing it as fact. That said, I have baited breath until tomorrow when they supposedly come out to talk about it.
Yes. I think they feel burned by Solasta and don’t want that to happen again.
Solasta signed a separate agreement. It is not OGL.
DM for life by choice, biggest fan of D&D specifically.
Interesting. I'd misunderstood.
So not burned, but still educated. Since a company could, under the current ogl, probably do something like Solasta.
Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess and the Official Scrabble Dictionary are in the top 5. Is that relevant? Is historical sales relevant other than to say we were all happy a few weeks ago? What, exactly, are you getting at other than D&D was popular before and a lot of people have extra kindling if they decide to move to other systems?
Some math:
Let's say that altogether, third-party publishers can make 50 books a year. As a random, arbitrary number for example purposes.
As it stands, 50 of those supplements are for D&D 5e. 5e players have a plethora of choices and rich fodder for their campaigns due to an abundance of third-party resources.
Let's say D&D dies, the way everyone keeps arguing they want to happen. It is replaced by people scattering to twenty-five other, different games that do not have the unifying power of 5e.
Now, each of those games can only receive two of the 50 supplements third-party publishers will make in this arbitrary year. In reality, many of those games will never receive third-party support at all while the top tennish all receive a share of books as third-party publishers try desperately to stay afloat in a reality where they cannot sell books to hardly anyone anymore.
That is what Xaltu is driving at. 5e is still the biggest game in town, and could still be a unifying standard for everyone to enjoy. Does this sound desirable, or do we want everybody to scatter to the winds and for gaming to fade into obscurity again?
Please do not contact or message me.
Mmm... wonder if the AI DM will have a fudge slider
“It cannot be seen, cannot be felt, Cannot be heard, cannot be smelt, It lies behind stars and under hills, And empty holes it fills, It comes first and follows after, Ends life, kills laughter.” J.R.R. Tolkien, The Hobbit, or There and Back Again
I dunno about anyone else... but before all this I was paying $10 a month for Roll20, $5ish for DnDB... plus any extras I might purchase from 3PP along the way (lookin' at you Classic Modules Today)...
If a company provided me with an exquisite VTT tool that worked well and was aesthetically pleasing, linked to the books and the online character sheet... I would seriously consider 'putting all my eggs in a single basket' as it were... but it would have to allow me to incorporate my own maps, etc.
If all I am doing is buying their house-created stuff, that limits my game too much.
As for AI... if I wanted to play a virtual D&D game, I'd resub to D&D Online.
Almost essential for getting lvl 1 characters through Mines of Phandelver!
I agree, but $30 is a lot for a sub. The world is full of subs now and their price is high. I also believe that we are seeing people become more and more tired of subscription models - not the majority yet, but it’s growing. They will get a lot of resistance at this price.
I’ve played this game, among others, for 20 years. I DM, as well as am a player and have the high tier right now on Beyond. At $30/mo, I’m out. Back to PnP for our table. They need to get players to migrate from roll20, not push them to it. That price is going to push, hard. For me, their site is convenience, but not at that value. And if people aren’t using their online tools, aren’t immersing themselves in their ecosystem, then it’s that much easier to try a new game - maybe one that sticks. And at any price, if their VTT is anything, and I do mean anything, less than exquisite and fully integrated with their content and tools, it’ll be a flop.
I would bounce if they increase the highest tier by anything more than $10 (the cost of my roll20 sub). And even that depends on their model for VTT. How many micros will there be? Can I bring my own tokens? My own images? Make my own campaign? Or will I have to buy every monster token from them? The latter would make me not use their VTT even if it were free. I’m over micro transactions. I don’t, however, think it’s unreasonable to charge a small fee to players for the VTT if it’s fully integrated and top notch. But historically speaking, WotC fails at digital. I’m not holding my breath.
Look, my advice on how OP the Ranger is and it needs to be nerfed is Heartfelt. And my advice on allowing wizards to use INT as their strength stat while being allowed to rage into Troll Form was solid.
All I can say is IF this is true, I hope someone will pass this up to whatever exec thinks it's a good idea.
I'm almost the exact idea of what I'm guessing the execs think they're looking for.
I'm someone who got into D&D more recently, in large part thanks to D&D beyond.
I own literally one physical D&D book, and that's Dragonlance because it was bundled with the Beyond version.
I'm on the site pretty much every day, rolling up different characters.
I have bought pretty much all the player resource books, and even some of the digital dice.
Thanks to me wanting to spend time with my parents, who are older and deal with conditions that make recent diseases a damn near definite death sentence for them, I absolutely minimize my time going out and such. I am very much connected to online play.
If D&D Beyond were to significantly up the subscription cost for me to keep having access to all my characters, or to use homebrew. I wouldn't just be spending less money here, I wouldn't be spending money here at all.
I hope the rumors are BS, folks got sources wrong and all, but even as a newer person in the sphere, I'm aware of a saying.
No D&D is better than bad D&D.
It's honestly insane to me that so many companies feel entitled to the creative endeavors and efforts of other people purely because they happened to be using the toolbox they made.
If I hand 100 people a screwdriver and a pack of nails and tell them all to make me something, I'm going to get 100 different things of different creative value; the tools you use to make something are at most 10% of the end product. I don't care if someone used Warcraft 3's map editor to make League of Legends; someone came up with the CREATIVE IDEA to make an entirely new game mode out of these other tools and assets, and they are 100% entitled to the rewards of that creativity that THEY had - not the people who happened to have a toolchest that allowed them to express said creativity.
What's next, I should attribute my all of my art to Adobe because I made it in Photoshop?
Corporations really gotta get out of their own butts; if they button down everything so no one can use any tools ever, we're going to never see any genuine innovation because it's going to all be under lock and key and proprietary this and that and oh you can't have that feature because it was patented by so and so - what nonsense. I don't know how any person supports that mentality, like... gross.
You picked... a supremely bad example here; Adobe Photoshop, being a cloud service now, has exactly the same licenseback provision that DnDBeyond does, and that people were freaking out about being in OGL 1.1.