I wouldn’t call the OGL situation, AI art controversy, One D&D backpedal, or Pinkertons scare “crises,” but these strange scandals aren’t entirely the fault of our perpetually dissatisfied community.
I wouldn’t call the OGL situation, AI art controversy, One D&D backpedal, or Pinkertons scare “crises,” but these strange scandals aren’t entirely the fault of our perpetually dissatisfied community.
What is this so called One D&D backpedal?
Presumably it references some of the larger overhauls made to some classes and rules in the UA that were tested early on and discarded after strong negative feedback.
I wouldn’t call the OGL situation, AI art controversy, One D&D backpedal, or Pinkertons scare “crises,” but these strange scandals aren’t entirely the fault of our perpetually dissatisfied community.
What is this so called One D&D backpedal?
Presumably it references some of the larger overhauls made to some classes and rules in the UA that were tested early on and discarded after strong negative feedback.
Really? But that's what supposed to happen during playtesting. How would that be any kind of scandal?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Just wait until they decide to release the new stuff as 6e so that they can force us to buy all new books, force us to exclusively use their vtt, and remove all that is good.
Just wait until they decide to release the new stuff as 6e so that they can force us to buy all new books, force us to exclusively use their vtt, and remove all that is good.
How exactly can they force people to use their VTT? They cannot make the fundamental building blocks of a character sheet or monster block proprietary, so at best they could miss out on licensing revenue if people used something like Roll20 in the same way you do a classic pen and paper game. They can certainly attempt to make instant integration of all owned/shared content with their VTT a selling point, but frankly I'd be surprised if they even move to block something like Beyond20 because a) I don't know if they'd have a leg to stand on prohibiting it b) I don't know how effectively they could police for it in any case and c) it would just dis-incentivize people from buying the books straight from WotC in the first place, which is where they see their best profit margins.
Just wait until they decide to release the new stuff as 6e so that they can force us to buy all new books, force us to exclusively use their vtt, and remove all that is good.
How exactly can they force people to use their VTT? They cannot make the fundamental building blocks of a character sheet or monster block proprietary, so at best they could miss out on licensing revenue if people used something like Roll20 in the same way you do a classic pen and paper game. They can certainly attempt to make instant integration of all owned/shared content with their VTT a selling point, but frankly I'd be surprised if they even move to block something like Beyond20 because a) I don't know if they'd have a leg to stand on prohibiting it b) I don't know how effectively they could police for it in any case and c) it would just dis-incentivize people from buying the books straight from WotC in the first place, which is where they see their best profit margins.
Also, not sure about Roll20, etc. but they just did an official partnership with Foundry VTT at the end of January. Doesn't seem like they are trying to lock in anyone there.
I wouldn’t call the OGL situation, AI art controversy, One D&D backpedal, or Pinkertons scare “crises,” but these strange scandals aren’t entirely the fault of our perpetually dissatisfied community.
What is this so called One D&D backpedal?
Presumably it references some of the larger overhauls made to some classes and rules in the UA that were tested early on and discarded after strong negative feedback.
Really? But that's what supposed to happen during playtesting. How would that be any kind of scandal?
"Scandal" is overstating it, but some of the people who liked some of the changes got pretty intense about how people who didn't like them were "grognards" and "dragging the game down" and "not letting the devs innovate", etc. If you look at the threads for some of the Warlock changes you'll see how fierce it was at times. And, to be fair, some people got pretty vociferous about their disapproval for the changes as well. It was hardly a crisis, but "WotC is taking this game in the wrong direction, and I might not want to buy the new stuff based on so-and-so" got tossed around at times.
I realize y'all aren't actually going to stop using incorrect and misleading terminology just because I point out the flaws in the position, but the update is not a new edition. Compare 3rd to 5th, and then compare 3rd to 3.5. The coming update will resemble the latter, not the former. They've explicitly made it a point that the update is to remain backwards compatible with existing material and everything we've seen so far supports this, ergo it is demonstrably not a new edition. Also, based on past evidence, they'll just bump the old core books back to Legacy. And once more, given that we've already seen spells, races, and classes appear in multiple different books, sometime with minor tweaks between iterations, they're unlikely to attempt to cherry pick content from books besides the old core 3. Obviously I cannot positively prove this will happen, but all of the past evidence we have supports this, whereas the "they're going to burn the bridge a significant segment of their market is standing on" argument has nothing but rampant speculation and fearmongering.
"Rampant speculation and fearmongering" is exactly the point. The actual complaint is "I think the C-Suite at Wizards and Hasbro are too focused on short-term profitability to make sound decisions regarding the stewardship of a property that is near and dear to my heart, and I am endlessly frustrated by watching misplay after misplay from people who fundamentally do not understand gaming." But that complaint doesn't get clicks and views or feed the ragebaiting Twitterati reflex, and it doesn't get other people riled up into a spitting contest so the poster can get their mad on. So we get stuck with this "THEY'RE GONNA KILL HOMEBREW BECAUSE KILLING HOMEBREW WOULD BE BAD AND WIZARDS ONLY MAKES BAD DECISIONS BECAUSE THEY'RE MOUSTACHE TWIRLING VILLAINS!!1!" nonsense because people forget one of the core rules of dealing with humanity: Hanlon's Razor
"Rampant speculation and fearmongering" is exactly the point. The actual complaint is "I think the C-Suite at Wizards and Hasbro are too focused on short-term profitability to make sound decisions regarding the stewardship of a property that is near and dear to my heart, and I am endlessly frustrated by watching misplay after misplay from people who fundamentally do not understand gaming." But that complaint doesn't get clicks and views or feed the ragebaiting Twitterati reflex, and it doesn't get other people riled up into a spitting contest so the poster can get their mad on. So we get stuck with this "THEY'RE GONNA KILL HOMEBREW BECAUSE KILLING HOMEBREW WOULD BE BAD AND WIZARDS ONLY MAKES BAD DECISIONS BECAUSE THEY'RE MOUSTACHE TWIRLING VILLAINS!!1!" nonsense because people forget one of the core rules of dealing with humanity: Hanlon's Razor
I think for a lot of the folks who are complaining, the actual complaint has nothing to do with profitability. I think most of us have probably recognized the almost 1 for 1 overlap between folks who insist on fear mongering about “6e” and folks whose posting history betrays a completely different motive that has nothing to do with the actual health of the game.
But, alas, that is the nature of the D&D community. This is a game prone to fantasy - which means there is always going to be a very vocal minority whose fantasies are less than savory and who engage in proxy arguments to galvanize a much larger vocal minority of players who are simply prone to perhaps accepting fantastical claims. Though, just for once, I would love to see the second group be galvanized for something actually beneficial to the game - folks who actually care about this game were doing a pretty good job leading people on a quest of polite dissent against the a la carte changes, and we were engaged in an open dialogue with Wizards on this forum. But then, lo and behold, the crazy fear mongering started coming out, the conversation started to devolve… and the staff member who was listening to intelligent conversation took a step back from the sea of rampant speculation that did not actually advance the underlying dialog.
Another possibility is that these things may be released on a "when we get it done, we get it out, and announce it then" timetable. That is, the parties may not necessarily know when 3pp books will drop. My guess is 3pp adaptations may still be too experimental a process for anyone to commit to a release timetable, so instead we got the surprise system. Does DDB bring it online in house? Do they give James Introscaso the API? How long does it take to get all the artists who didn't realize their works are going to be published on DDB sign releases (if those are necessary)? I don't think they have it all worked out yet, so rather than providing release dates, they drop books out when they're done.
I can see the frustration regarding planning purchases. I think, for better or worse, between now and the new core we're just going to be seeing a very spammy chaotic marketplace. This summer is D&D's sort of "lame duck" season, there won't be a lot of new buyers, new buyers waiting out the arrival of new core books, so they're going to double down on the existing player base of the 2014 rules and flood the market with 3pp.
To be honest "when we get it done we get it out" is the only thing that makes sense for their third party releases. Why else release Flee Mortals and Where Evil Lives now, a week before an official release? It makes far more sense to space the third party releases out and slot them in between official releases to both avoid competition and to ensure a steady flow of new stuff (and therefore new customer spend) on the site
The company needs to see this and have it shoved down their throats until they get the point. Revert or lose your business.
I’m sure after almost a year WotC now have much better evidence to base a decision on than an online poll which are notoriously bad ways to get a representative sample of opinions. The fact they’ve not brought it back as a feature means they’ve either not seen a drop in profits or the drop was smaller than the hassle involved in tracking part ownership
The company needs to see this and have it shoved down their throats until they get the point. Revert or lose your business.
I’m sure after almost a year WotC now have much better evidence to base a decision on than an online poll which are notoriously bad ways to get a representative sample of opinions. The fact they’ve not brought it back as a feature means they’ve either not seen a drop in profits or the drop was smaller than the hassle involved in tracking part ownership
It's more complicated than that - there are numerous reasons why they might not backpedal on this, many of which are not really for the good of the company itself.
However, you're mostly right in that a poll won't change things. It's possible they've seen increased profits, it's possible there's been no change, it's possible that they've lost profits but not enough to overcome the obstacles or it's even possible that they're in the middle of rolling it back and we'll hear the good news soon. We just don't know anything about what's going on.
What we can reasonably assume though is that the poll won't move the needle either way.
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.
We just don't know anything about what's going on.
Which very much seems to be WotC's modus operandi about almost everything now (new book/project promotion notwithstanding). Hopefully they have good reasons for their minimalist to deathly silent approach to community management, because I think it burns a lot of good will, well past just unpopular business decisions
revive another sky is falling thread. I thought thread necromancy was against the rules.
Not any longer, and if you don’t care for the conversation, then unsubscribe from the thread.
The recent comments are about how WotC/DnDB has been making changes to the system and how they have the bad habit of now not informing the community about what they intend to change till after they have made the changes.
The mentality of wizbro as of late has been that they will do whatever they want, and because they know a good number of people will just accept it because they have little choice in the matter, it feeds a negative mindset in wizbro that they can do whatever and it will be fine.
Not everyone is ok with how the company is managing the change, and people should be able to come to the forums and talk about how displeased they are.
It’s called feedback, good and bad.
That still amounts to 'Oh, no, they might do this bad thing too'
Feedback to something that hasn't happened so far does seem a bit sensationalist
revive another sky is falling thread. I thought thread necromancy was against the rules.
Not any longer, and if you don’t care for the conversation, then unsubscribe from the thread.
The recent comments are about how WotC/DnDB has been making changes to the system and how they have the bad habit of now not informing the community about what they intend to change till after they have made the changes.
The mentality of wizbro as of late has been that they will do whatever they want, and because they know a good number of people will just accept it because they have little choice in the matter, it feeds a negative mindset in wizbro that they can do whatever and it will be fine.
Not everyone is ok with how the company is managing the change, and people should be able to come to the forums and talk about how displeased they are.
It’s called feedback, good and bad.
That still amounts to 'Oh, no, they might do this bad thing too'
Feedback to something that hasn't happened so far does seem a bit sensationalist
maybe the writing is already on the wall, and we can’t see it yet.
Point is, what’s wrong with a small amount of caution in thinking that the 2014 5e home brew tools won’t eventually have to be replaced to be able to make 2024 home brew, and what would happen to the 2014 home brew?
Will we get the ability to update it’ or will it have to be abandoned?
Inquiring minds would like to have a solid answer on this.
Do you deny that eventually the home brew tools of the site will need to be updated?
I personally see them having to do so, as people will want to continue to make personal homebrew for 2024.
So , what happens to 2014 homebrew tools?
Will they still be supported?
Or will they be discontinued?
What about 2014 homebrewed elements that many may wish to transfer into 2024?
So, what is the invisible writing on the wall of DDBeyond that says how will this be handled?
They already do cover both sets, though. Magic items do not seem cleanly differentiated, but if you do a subclass and choose the class it relates to, you can choose 2024 class version or 2014 (Legacy) version. Check for yourself.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
What is this so called One D&D backpedal?
Presumably it references some of the larger overhauls made to some classes and rules in the UA that were tested early on and discarded after strong negative feedback.
Really? But that's what supposed to happen during playtesting. How would that be any kind of scandal?
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Just wait until they decide to release the new stuff as 6e so that they can force us to buy all new books, force us to exclusively use their vtt, and remove all that is good.
Check us out on Twitch, YouTube and the DISCORD!
How exactly can they force people to use their VTT? They cannot make the fundamental building blocks of a character sheet or monster block proprietary, so at best they could miss out on licensing revenue if people used something like Roll20 in the same way you do a classic pen and paper game. They can certainly attempt to make instant integration of all owned/shared content with their VTT a selling point, but frankly I'd be surprised if they even move to block something like Beyond20 because a) I don't know if they'd have a leg to stand on prohibiting it b) I don't know how effectively they could police for it in any case and c) it would just dis-incentivize people from buying the books straight from WotC in the first place, which is where they see their best profit margins.
Also, not sure about Roll20, etc. but they just did an official partnership with Foundry VTT at the end of January. Doesn't seem like they are trying to lock in anyone there.
Im guessing that people have to hate on everything WotC does no matter what it is.
"Scandal" is overstating it, but some of the people who liked some of the changes got pretty intense about how people who didn't like them were "grognards" and "dragging the game down" and "not letting the devs innovate", etc. If you look at the threads for some of the Warlock changes you'll see how fierce it was at times. And, to be fair, some people got pretty vociferous about their disapproval for the changes as well. It was hardly a crisis, but "WotC is taking this game in the wrong direction, and I might not want to buy the new stuff based on so-and-so" got tossed around at times.
I realize y'all aren't actually going to stop using incorrect and misleading terminology just because I point out the flaws in the position, but the update is not a new edition. Compare 3rd to 5th, and then compare 3rd to 3.5. The coming update will resemble the latter, not the former. They've explicitly made it a point that the update is to remain backwards compatible with existing material and everything we've seen so far supports this, ergo it is demonstrably not a new edition. Also, based on past evidence, they'll just bump the old core books back to Legacy. And once more, given that we've already seen spells, races, and classes appear in multiple different books, sometime with minor tweaks between iterations, they're unlikely to attempt to cherry pick content from books besides the old core 3. Obviously I cannot positively prove this will happen, but all of the past evidence we have supports this, whereas the "they're going to burn the bridge a significant segment of their market is standing on" argument has nothing but rampant speculation and fearmongering.
"Rampant speculation and fearmongering" is exactly the point. The actual complaint is "I think the C-Suite at Wizards and Hasbro are too focused on short-term profitability to make sound decisions regarding the stewardship of a property that is near and dear to my heart, and I am endlessly frustrated by watching misplay after misplay from people who fundamentally do not understand gaming." But that complaint doesn't get clicks and views or feed the ragebaiting Twitterati reflex, and it doesn't get other people riled up into a spitting contest so the poster can get their mad on. So we get stuck with this "THEY'RE GONNA KILL HOMEBREW BECAUSE KILLING HOMEBREW WOULD BE BAD AND WIZARDS ONLY MAKES BAD DECISIONS BECAUSE THEY'RE MOUSTACHE TWIRLING VILLAINS!!1!" nonsense because people forget one of the core rules of dealing with humanity: Hanlon's Razor
Please do not contact or message me.
I think for a lot of the folks who are complaining, the actual complaint has nothing to do with profitability. I think most of us have probably recognized the almost 1 for 1 overlap between folks who insist on fear mongering about “6e” and folks whose posting history betrays a completely different motive that has nothing to do with the actual health of the game.
But, alas, that is the nature of the D&D community. This is a game prone to fantasy - which means there is always going to be a very vocal minority whose fantasies are less than savory and who engage in proxy arguments to galvanize a much larger vocal minority of players who are simply prone to perhaps accepting fantastical claims. Though, just for once, I would love to see the second group be galvanized for something actually beneficial to the game - folks who actually care about this game were doing a pretty good job leading people on a quest of polite dissent against the a la carte changes, and we were engaged in an open dialogue with Wizards on this forum. But then, lo and behold, the crazy fear mongering started coming out, the conversation started to devolve… and the staff member who was listening to intelligent conversation took a step back from the sea of rampant speculation that did not actually advance the underlying dialog.
To be honest "when we get it done we get it out" is the only thing that makes sense for their third party releases. Why else release Flee Mortals and Where Evil Lives now, a week before an official release? It makes far more sense to space the third party releases out and slot them in between official releases to both avoid competition and to ensure a steady flow of new stuff (and therefore new customer spend) on the site
https://dungeonmister.com/news/85-say-theyll-spend-less-on-dd-beyond-following-removal-of-a-la-carte-purchases/
The company needs to see this and have it shoved down their throats until they get the point. Revert or lose your business.
I’m sure after almost a year WotC now have much better evidence to base a decision on than an online poll which are notoriously bad ways to get a representative sample of opinions. The fact they’ve not brought it back as a feature means they’ve either not seen a drop in profits or the drop was smaller than the hassle involved in tracking part ownership
It's more complicated than that - there are numerous reasons why they might not backpedal on this, many of which are not really for the good of the company itself.
However, you're mostly right in that a poll won't change things. It's possible they've seen increased profits, it's possible there's been no change, it's possible that they've lost profits but not enough to overcome the obstacles or it's even possible that they're in the middle of rolling it back and we'll hear the good news soon. We just don't know anything about what's going on.
What we can reasonably assume though is that the poll won't move the needle either way.
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.
Which very much seems to be WotC's modus operandi about almost everything now (new book/project promotion notwithstanding). Hopefully they have good reasons for their minimalist to deathly silent approach to community management, because I think it burns a lot of good will, well past just unpopular business decisions
revive another sky is falling thread. I thought thread necromancy was against the rules.
That still amounts to 'Oh, no, they might do this bad thing too'
Feedback to something that hasn't happened so far does seem a bit sensationalist
Ah, yes, the invisible writing on the wall.
They already do cover both sets, though. Magic items do not seem cleanly differentiated, but if you do a subclass and choose the class it relates to, you can choose 2024 class version or 2014 (Legacy) version. Check for yourself.