I was inspired to purchase the 2024 rules by the playtest material and the follow up videos going over the changes. I feel that most the changes to the rules have been for the better. DnDBeyond may be owned by WotC, but it is a product and I can be perfectly happy with one product and unhappy with another from the same company. In this particular case, I would love a toggle for this product to make sorting through other the products easier. If that doesn't happen, then this product has less value to me than it would otherwise.
My dad taught me to play with pen and paper character sheets, and I am perfectly content to use that method. I can and do live without the character builder and as the site becomes more cluttered I may or may not invest more into this product. I am not angry about it though.
I was inspired to purchase the 2024 rules by the playtest material and the follow up videos going over the changes. I feel that most the changes to the rules have been for the better. DnDBeyond may be owned by WotC, but it is a product and I can be perfectly happy with one product and unhappy with another from the same company. In this particular case, I would love a toggle for this product to make sorting through other the products easier. If that doesn't happen, then this product has less value to me than it would otherwise.
My dad taught me to play with pen and paper character sheets, and I am perfectly content to use that method. I can and do live without the character builder and as the site becomes more cluttered I may or may not invest more into this product. I am not angry about it though.
So the spamming of the 2014 rules with the new stuff had no influence on you purchasing the '24 PHB?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
I was inspired to purchase the 2024 rules by the playtest material and the follow up videos going over the changes. I feel that most the changes to the rules have been for the better. DnDBeyond may be owned by WotC, but it is a product and I can be perfectly happy with one product and unhappy with another from the same company. In this particular case, I would love a toggle for this product to make sorting through other the products easier. If that doesn't happen, then this product has less value to me than it would otherwise.
My dad taught me to play with pen and paper character sheets, and I am perfectly content to use that method. I can and do live without the character builder and as the site becomes more cluttered I may or may not invest more into this product. I am not angry about it though.
So the spamming of the 2014 rules with the new stuff had no influence on you purchasing the '24 PHB?
Sorry but no.
Edit: I can see how it might be frustrating to those that are finishing up 2014 campaigns that DnDBeyond mixed the rules together. They really should have left the 2014 builder version intact for people playing 2014 games and used a copy as the base for the 2024 version. Kind of like how you can have Windows 10 and 11 versions that are available at the same time. However that doesn't have an impact on me personally. I just don't want to have 2 of everything to dig through when I do searches.
ya know, after 45 years and all the assorted edition was, my feelings on the whole thing can best be summed up by saying this:
The character builder should only work with 2024 content.
It is obvious they still want people to be able to use options from Tasha's and Xanathar's and other prior publications, and they want folks to be able to use their homebrew built off the old rules. Obvious because they are trying to figure out how to make that happen, and they did not, in fact, just shut down all the 2014 content.
the same argument for keeping 2014 around is the basic argument that says they should add every edition of the game into the website. Want to play 3.5 on DDB? Cool! Yay! Want to play 0e? Cool, yay. Want to play the completely dropped and kicked to the side Basic series? Sure, fine, go for it.
Notice how that isn't in the works, how no one is really calling for that? Where are the threats to boycott because you can't play 4e on DDB?
I don't mean in the past, I mean now.
If you don't think they should do that, should put in the effort to support old versions of D&D, then it seems to me that folks should feel the same way about the 2014 version. It is the Old Version of the game. It did its time, it served its role.
Just me. But I prefer my saltiness mixed with sweetness, i guess.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000 Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
ya know, after 45 years and all the assorted edition was, my feelings on the whole thing can best be summed up by saying this:
The character builder should only work with 2024 content.
It is obvious they still want people to be able to use options from Tasha's and Xanathar's and other prior publications, and they want folks to be able to use their homebrew built off the old rules. Obvious because they are trying to figure out how to make that happen, and they did not, in fact, just shut down all the 2014 content.
the same argument for keeping 2014 around is the basic argument that says they should add every edition of the game into the website. Want to play 3.5 on DDB? Cool! Yay! Want to play 0e? Cool, yay. Want to play the completely dropped and kicked to the side Basic series? Sure, fine, go for it.
Notice how that isn't in the works, how no one is really calling for that? Where are the threats to boycott because you can't play 4e on DDB?
I don't mean in the past, I mean now.
If you don't think they should do that, should put in the effort to support old versions of D&D, then it seems to me that folks should feel the same way about the 2014 version. It is the Old Version of the game. It did its time, it served its role.
Just me. But I prefer my saltiness mixed with sweetness, i guess.
I would 100% support doing it that way if this were a new edition and if the marketing for the 2024 core rulebooks hadn't hammered home that they work with 5E because they are 5E. Would some sliders and checkboxes to keep the two different PHB versions separated be nice? Sure, I guess. I'm not getting bent out of shape about it either way though.
ya know, after 45 years and all the assorted edition was, my feelings on the whole thing can best be summed up by saying this:
The character builder should only work with 2024 content.
It is obvious they still want people to be able to use options from Tasha's and Xanathar's and other prior publications, and they want folks to be able to use their homebrew built off the old rules. Obvious because they are trying to figure out how to make that happen, and they did not, in fact, just shut down all the 2014 content.
the same argument for keeping 2014 around is the basic argument that says they should add every edition of the game into the website. Want to play 3.5 on DDB? Cool! Yay! Want to play 0e? Cool, yay. Want to play the completely dropped and kicked to the side Basic series? Sure, fine, go for it.
Notice how that isn't in the works, how no one is really calling for that? Where are the threats to boycott because you can't play 4e on DDB?
I don't mean in the past, I mean now.
If you don't think they should do that, should put in the effort to support old versions of D&D, then it seems to me that folks should feel the same way about the 2014 version. It is the Old Version of the game. It did its time, it served its role.
Just me. But I prefer my saltiness mixed with sweetness, i guess.
Then there is no reason to buy in to the DDB platform if any rule changes will negate prior purchases. Your opinion on how the site should work is objectively worse than what wizbro has done that many are unhappy with and /or leaving the site over. This is gatekeeping plain and simple. You will play the game the way we say or don't use our toys, is a proven way to chase people off, I am glad people with these thoughts towards customers are not in charge of water power and gas.
I never said anything about negating prior purchases.
I certainly did not say anything about people only being able to play a particular version of the game.
People who purchased other older versions of the game, 0e or 1e or 2e or 2eR, or 3e, or 3.5e, or 4e , etc are not being allowed to use their material here.
Now, as a final bit, I never gave my opinion on how the site should work. So how you can make a statemen about my opinion without knowing it is somewhat troublesome.
I said my feelings about things are that the character builder should only work with 2024 material. I never even explained why.
The character builder is not the entire site, it isn't even the entire game. I said nothing about access to previously purchased materials other than that it would be reasonable to ask for inclusion of older rule sets in the site if someone is asking for a free function that one does not need to spend money on to use is going to include an older rule set.
So, questions:
Are you saying that not allowing older editions the same thing you are asking for is gatekeeping as well?
Is there are reason you opted to invent something I said in order to have a position to speak from?
Why aren't you hollering for DDB to include 1e, 2e, 3e, etc?
How is that gatekeeping if it doesn't affect access to the materials?
Are you suggesting that older rulesets should not be included in DDB?
Please do not lie about what I say. If you suspect that I mean something other than what I say, ask for clarification before making an assumption.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000 Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Having the rules combined in the character generator is an annoyance to me, but not a major one.
Once I learned that there might be two different versions of a feat,, spell, whatever and that I need to be sure to select the right one, I had no big issue with it.
The only thing that crossed a line for me was discovering that DnDB’s position is that, even after I buy an item, they reserve the right to take it away from me without notification, justification, or compensation.
But, as is usually the case, there’s a simple solution 1.) spread the word that that is DnDB’s position and will stay their position until a court rules it a violation of contract law and 2.) let it be known that, as a result of this position, I will purchase no more digital content and encourage other players to take the same stance.
Having the rules combined in the character generator is an annoyance to me, but not a major one.
Once I learned that there might be two different versions of a feat,, spell, whatever and that I need to be sure to select the right one, I had no big issue with it.
The only thing that crossed a line for me was discovering that DnDB’s position is that, even after I buy an item, they reserve the right to take it away from me without notification, justification, or compensation.
But, as is usually the case, there’s a simple solution 1.) spread the word that that is DnDB’s position and will stay their position until a court rules it a violation of contract law and 2.) let it be known that, as a result of this position, I will purchase no more digital content and encourage other players to take the same stance.
Beyond that, there’s no hard feelings.
It's not a violation of contract law. Being able to modify the content or restrict access to it is boilerplate EULA and TOS language for digital goods and has been for close to thirty years now. The default with most digital purchases is that you don't own what you're buying; you're essentially just paying for a license to use it within certain parameters. Maybe you've been incredibly lucky to not previously have run into this kind of situation where access to a digital good or service changes. But if you find this irksome I strongly suggest you either swear off buying any and all digital goods or read every purchase agreement more carefully than you did here with D&D Beyond, because it's bog standard.
[Redacted] I was saying that my feelings on this are that they should just make the character builder only work with 2024 rules.\
They won't, of course; as I noted they demonstrate ample evidence of having no desire or intent to do so.
Nevertheless, since they are trying to make it work with one older ruleset, why not make it work with all the older rulesets?
At the very least, it would enable me to continue my undying passion for talking smack about 3.x.
2014 and 2024 are both 5th Edition, and are therefore both "current". WotC has been very clear on that. Therefore, could you explain why you feel part of the current edition should be removed/depreciated from the site (which includes the Compendium *and* the character builder)?
Older editions are a completely different subject as they have never been on the site and would have to be programmed from scratch. 2014 on the other hand is already here (mostly), but is actively being removed/downgraded.
All that is needed is a functional way to segregate the two rulesets and/or filter the sources you want to use, including turning off 2024 if you aren'tusing it. Not just in the compendium and builder though, but also on the sheet itself. That way everyone can use exactly what they want.
I did not say that I felt part of the current edition should be removed or deprecated from the site.
please do not lie about what I said. It is a bad faith argument. Since I did not say that, I cannot respond to your question, since it has nothing to do with what I did say.
i disagree that older editions are a different subject.
ya know, after 45 years and all the assorted edition was, my feelings on the whole thing can best be summed up by saying this:
The character builder should only work with 2024 content.
Is this not what you said earlier? How do you propose the character builder "only work with 2024 content" without removing the 2014 content that is already there?
i disagree that older editions are a different subject.
Do you not think there's a difference between asking to keepsomething that already exists, and asking to addsomething that doesn''t exist and would need to be made from scratch?
I did not say that I felt part of the current edition should be removed or deprecated from the site.
please do not lie about what I said. It is a bad faith argument. Since I did not say that, I cannot respond to your question, since it has nothing to do with what I did say.
i disagree that older editions are a different subject.
ya know, after 45 years and all the assorted edition was, my feelings on the whole thing can best be summed up by saying this:
The character builder should only work with 2024 content.
Is this not what you said earlier? How do you propose the character builder "only work with 2024 content" without removing the 2014 content that is already there?
i disagree that older editions are a different subject.
Do you not think there's a difference between asking to keepsomething that already exists, and asking to addsomething that doesn''t exist and would need to be made from scratch?
hmmm…
The quoted part is what I said earlier. It makes no mention of methodology or process.
How do you propose the character builder "only work with 2024 content" without removing the 2014 content that is already there?
I am not a programmer. How they do it is not something I am speaking to. So I make no proposal on how they do it now, nor did I do so then. I did note they are obviously trying to accommodate people, however.
This does not seem to be a mea culpa for having lied about what I said.
Do you not think there's a difference between asking to keepsomething that already exists, and asking to addsomething that doesn''t exist and would need to be made from scratch?
If I disagreed, then it seems to me to be obvious that I do not think there is a difference, since they are adding the new rules anyway, and they did not exist in the site earlier, and were, we are told, made from scratch.
Addition is happening either way. Retention of outdated rulesets seems to be the goal, so it is not an unreasonable query in regards older rulesets being retained as well. The same underlying concerns exist — the desire of people to persist in playing with older rulesets to use a free service that is available without cost, to be able to have that service perform the same tracking, updating, etc features as it does for the current ruleset, and the fact that their not doing so is offensive to customers of theirs, an example of bad business planning, and so forth.
The 2014 PHB is an old ruleset, just like any other ruleset produced previously. The treatment and retention of players who enjoy any of the rulesets should be of equal import and value, and the arguments given in this thread so far are all equally supportive and proffer the same reasoning to retain the older ones.
with not one iota less anger and frustration than in previous years of change, I will add.
so, if they are interested in preserving 2014 rules, they should be demanding other outdated, old rulesets — to build up solidarity, boost the strength of their argument, and increase the number of customers supportive of including old, superseded rulesets in the current free service who just want to play with the rules they like and not the latest rules.
lest you think I am being supercilious, note that I played 2e for 25 years, and consider 3.x the most useless trash of a version ever created. I would love for them to completely ignore 3.x — but that would be hypocritical if I sought retention of outdated, replaced rulesets, since it is an outdated, replaced ruleset. Singling one out for retention is equally hypocritical, and comes across as overly entitled and bitter about changes, but unconcerned with others in a similar situation. It is, then, selfish and juvenile.
so, no, I do not see a difference, since those other outdated, replaced, old, superseded, that already exist, just like the 2014 PHB (for now), would be added into the service that is provided without cost.
i do not care about excuses, either — how they achieve that is neither a problem I have to solve, nor one I am genuinely capable of addressing with a degree of competence I find acceptable. That the site already has one old ruleset no longer current is merely a point in favor of bringing on other old rulesets.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000 Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
“How could WotC possibly make the tools on this site work only with the 2024 rules without disabling and by doing that negating the purchase of the 2014 rules? I do not mean how would it be coded or implemented, I am asking how you see that working at all even in the abstract. I genuinely would like to understand how you think this would work.”
Before I became disabled, I worked professionally as a software engineer and a cybersecurity engineer. In all the years that I spent doing this work, I came across only one instance which might provide insight into this being difficult to implement.
Before I started working for the company in question, they had attempted to save money by having a foreign company write the next gen of their software. There was a language and a culture barrier and I’m pretty sure this foreign company hired a bunch of lowest-wage programmers. The result was an application that worked, but whose architecture was a total spaghetti bowl. My company’s cost to maintain this monstrosity was quadrupled or more.
But that particular code was also far more complex than this character creation software. I would be shocked if what happened in that case has any relevance to this one.
“How could WotC possibly make the tools on this site work only with the 2024 rules without disabling and by doing that negating the purchase of the 2014 rules? I do not mean how would it be coded or implemented, I am asking how you see that working at all even in the abstract. I genuinely would like to understand how you think this would work.”
Before I became disabled, I worked professionally as a software engineer and a cybersecurity engineer. In all the years that I spent doing this work, I came across only one instance which might provide insight into this being difficult to implement.
Before I started working for the company in question, they had attempted to save money by having a foreign company write the next gen of their software. There was a language and a culture barrier and I’m pretty sure this foreign company hired a bunch of lowest-wage programmers. The result was an application that worked, but whose architecture was a total spaghetti bowl. My company’s cost to maintain this monstrosity was quadrupled or more.
But that particular code was also far more complex than this character creation software. I would be shocked if what happened in that case has any relevance to this one.
I am not following your post, I am interested in understanding how this could work would you mind elaborating?
“How could WotC possibly make the tools on this site work only with the 2024 rules without disabling and by doing that negating the purchase of the 2014 rules? I do not mean how would it be coded or implemented, I am asking how you see that working at all even in the abstract. I genuinely would like to understand how you think this would work.”
Before I became disabled, I worked professionally as a software engineer and a cybersecurity engineer. In all the years that I spent doing this work, I came across only one instance which might provide insight into this being difficult to implement.
Before I started working for the company in question, they had attempted to save money by having a foreign company write the next gen of their software. There was a language and a culture barrier and I’m pretty sure this foreign company hired a bunch of lowest-wage programmers. The result was an application that worked, but whose architecture was a total spaghetti bowl. My company’s cost to maintain this monstrosity was quadrupled or more.
But that particular code was also far more complex than this character creation software. I would be shocked if what happened in that case has any relevance to this one.
I am not following your post, I am interested in understanding how this could work would you mind elaborating?
Well, it isn’t exactly easy to explain to someone who doesn’t understand programming. Consider, a surgeon could tell you how to do corrective surgery for carpal tunnel. If he went into full detail, you probably wouldn’t understand it and if he didn’t go into full detail, well, a little bit of knowledge is poison.
I realize that probably sounds really arrogant and a dodge. *shrug* I can’t help that.
There are a lot of different ways to do it. Which architecture you use will depend on what -ilities you value (e.g. reliability, affordability, maintainability, etc.) and, to a lesser extent, whether there are any particular technologies which you are or are not allowed to be used (for example, being restricted to certain programming languages will impact your decision to use functional or imperative programming).
Until I sat down and began breaking the problem down from technological, architectural, business cultural, project management, etc. perspectives, (and that would require a lot more information than I currently have), I’d just be blindly guessing anyway.
Remember that we do not allow any solicitation or offering of legal advice, nor is that on topic for the thread at hand.
This thread is to discuss what content is automatically included in character creation and rules, and the pros and cons of how to include those changes. Further digression will result in the thread being locked.
I don't think going straight to the nuclear option is the best route to produce helpful results for getting the site sorted to separate 2014 and 2024 content.
Admittedly I'm not riled up about this because most of the content is already separated and the bits that aren't register as mild inconvenience to me.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Same.
So the marketing inspired you to make the purchase?
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
I was inspired to purchase the 2024 rules by the playtest material and the follow up videos going over the changes. I feel that most the changes to the rules have been for the better. DnDBeyond may be owned by WotC, but it is a product and I can be perfectly happy with one product and unhappy with another from the same company. In this particular case, I would love a toggle for this product to make sorting through other the products easier. If that doesn't happen, then this product has less value to me than it would otherwise.
My dad taught me to play with pen and paper character sheets, and I am perfectly content to use that method. I can and do live without the character builder and as the site becomes more cluttered I may or may not invest more into this product. I am not angry about it though.
She/Her College Student Player and Dungeon Master
So the spamming of the 2014 rules with the new stuff had no influence on you purchasing the '24 PHB?
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
Sorry but no.
Edit: I can see how it might be frustrating to those that are finishing up 2014 campaigns that DnDBeyond mixed the rules together. They really should have left the 2014 builder version intact for people playing 2014 games and used a copy as the base for the 2024 version. Kind of like how you can have Windows 10 and 11 versions that are available at the same time. However that doesn't have an impact on me personally. I just don't want to have 2 of everything to dig through when I do searches.
She/Her College Student Player and Dungeon Master
ya know, after 45 years and all the assorted edition was, my feelings on the whole thing can best be summed up by saying this:
The character builder should only work with 2024 content.
It is obvious they still want people to be able to use options from Tasha's and Xanathar's and other prior publications, and they want folks to be able to use their homebrew built off the old rules. Obvious because they are trying to figure out how to make that happen, and they did not, in fact, just shut down all the 2014 content.
the same argument for keeping 2014 around is the basic argument that says they should add every edition of the game into the website. Want to play 3.5 on DDB? Cool! Yay! Want to play 0e? Cool, yay. Want to play the completely dropped and kicked to the side Basic series? Sure, fine, go for it.
Notice how that isn't in the works, how no one is really calling for that? Where are the threats to boycott because you can't play 4e on DDB?
I don't mean in the past, I mean now.
If you don't think they should do that, should put in the effort to support old versions of D&D, then it seems to me that folks should feel the same way about the 2014 version. It is the Old Version of the game. It did its time, it served its role.
Just me. But I prefer my saltiness mixed with sweetness, i guess.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000 Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde.com
.-=] Lore Book | Ruleset | PC Creation [=-.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I would 100% support doing it that way if this were a new edition and if the marketing for the 2024 core rulebooks hadn't hammered home that they work with 5E because they are 5E. Would some sliders and checkboxes to keep the two different PHB versions separated be nice? Sure, I guess. I'm not getting bent out of shape about it either way though.
Then there is no reason to buy in to the DDB platform if any rule changes will negate prior purchases. Your opinion on how the site should work is objectively worse than what wizbro has done that many are unhappy with and /or leaving the site over. This is gatekeeping plain and simple. You will play the game the way we say or don't use our toys, is a proven way to chase people off, I am glad people with these thoughts towards customers are not in charge of water power and gas.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
That a mighty large leap of yours.
So, questions:
Please do not lie about what I say. If you suspect that I mean something other than what I say, ask for clarification before making an assumption.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000 Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde.com
.-=] Lore Book | Ruleset | PC Creation [=-.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Having the rules combined in the character generator is an annoyance to me, but not a major one.
Once I learned that there might be two different versions of a feat,, spell, whatever and that I need to be sure to select the right one, I had no big issue with it.
The only thing that crossed a line for me was discovering that DnDB’s position is that, even after I buy an item, they reserve the right to take it away from me without notification, justification, or compensation.
But, as is usually the case, there’s a simple solution 1.) spread the word that that is DnDB’s position and will stay their position until a court rules it a violation of contract law and 2.) let it be known that, as a result of this position, I will purchase no more digital content and encourage other players to take the same stance.
Beyond that, there’s no hard feelings.
It's not a violation of contract law. Being able to modify the content or restrict access to it is boilerplate EULA and TOS language for digital goods and has been for close to thirty years now. The default with most digital purchases is that you don't own what you're buying; you're essentially just paying for a license to use it within certain parameters. Maybe you've been incredibly lucky to not previously have run into this kind of situation where access to a digital good or service changes. But if you find this irksome I strongly suggest you either swear off buying any and all digital goods or read every purchase agreement more carefully than you did here with D&D Beyond, because it's bog standard.
2014 and 2024 are both 5th Edition, and are therefore both "current". WotC has been very clear on that. Therefore, could you explain why you feel part of the current edition should be removed/depreciated from the site (which includes the Compendium *and* the character builder)?
Older editions are a completely different subject as they have never been on the site and would have to be programmed from scratch. 2014 on the other hand is already here (mostly), but is actively being removed/downgraded.
All that is needed is a functional way to segregate the two rulesets and/or filter the sources you want to use, including turning off 2024 if you aren'tusing it. Not just in the compendium and builder though, but also on the sheet itself. That way everyone can use exactly what they want.
Don’t forget that among the things they can do is revoke a license for banning, or even for closing a membership account.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000 Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde.com
.-=] Lore Book | Ruleset | PC Creation [=-.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Is this not what you said earlier? How do you propose the character builder "only work with 2024 content" without removing the 2014 content that is already there?
Do you not think there's a difference between asking to keep something that already exists, and asking to add something that doesn''t exist and would need to be made from scratch?
hmmm…
The quoted part is what I said earlier. It makes no mention of methodology or process.
I am not a programmer. How they do it is not something I am speaking to. So I make no proposal on how they do it now, nor did I do so then. I did note they are obviously trying to accommodate people, however.
This does not seem to be a mea culpa for having lied about what I said.
If I disagreed, then it seems to me to be obvious that I do not think there is a difference, since they are adding the new rules anyway, and they did not exist in the site earlier, and were, we are told, made from scratch.
Addition is happening either way. Retention of outdated rulesets seems to be the goal, so it is not an unreasonable query in regards older rulesets being retained as well. The same underlying concerns exist — the desire of people to persist in playing with older rulesets to use a free service that is available without cost, to be able to have that service perform the same tracking, updating, etc features as it does for the current ruleset, and the fact that their not doing so is offensive to customers of theirs, an example of bad business planning, and so forth.
The 2014 PHB is an old ruleset, just like any other ruleset produced previously. The treatment and retention of players who enjoy any of the rulesets should be of equal import and value, and the arguments given in this thread so far are all equally supportive and proffer the same reasoning to retain the older ones.
with not one iota less anger and frustration than in previous years of change, I will add.
so, if they are interested in preserving 2014 rules, they should be demanding other outdated, old rulesets — to build up solidarity, boost the strength of their argument, and increase the number of customers supportive of including old, superseded rulesets in the current free service who just want to play with the rules they like and not the latest rules.
lest you think I am being supercilious, note that I played 2e for 25 years, and consider 3.x the most useless trash of a version ever created. I would love for them to completely ignore 3.x — but that would be hypocritical if I sought retention of outdated, replaced rulesets, since it is an outdated, replaced ruleset. Singling one out for retention is equally hypocritical, and comes across as overly entitled and bitter about changes, but unconcerned with others in a similar situation. It is, then, selfish and juvenile.
so, no, I do not see a difference, since those other outdated, replaced, old, superseded, that already exist, just like the 2014 PHB (for now), would be added into the service that is provided without cost.
i do not care about excuses, either — how they achieve that is neither a problem I have to solve, nor one I am genuinely capable of addressing with a degree of competence I find acceptable. That the site already has one old ruleset no longer current is merely a point in favor of bringing on other old rulesets.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000 Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde.com
.-=] Lore Book | Ruleset | PC Creation [=-.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
“How could WotC possibly make the tools on this site work only with the 2024 rules without disabling and by doing that negating the purchase of the 2014 rules? I do not mean how would it be coded or implemented, I am asking how you see that working at all even in the abstract. I genuinely would like to understand how you think this would work.”
Before I became disabled, I worked professionally as a software engineer and a cybersecurity engineer. In all the years that I spent doing this work, I came across only one instance which might provide insight into this being difficult to implement.
Before I started working for the company in question, they had attempted to save money by having a foreign company write the next gen of their software. There was a language and a culture barrier and I’m pretty sure this foreign company hired a bunch of lowest-wage programmers. The result was an application that worked, but whose architecture was a total spaghetti bowl. My company’s cost to maintain this monstrosity was quadrupled or more.
But that particular code was also far more complex than this character creation software. I would be shocked if what happened in that case has any relevance to this one.
I am not following your post, I am interested in understanding how this could work would you mind elaborating?
Well, it isn’t exactly easy to explain to someone who doesn’t understand programming. Consider, a surgeon could tell you how to do corrective surgery for carpal tunnel. If he went into full detail, you probably wouldn’t understand it and if he didn’t go into full detail, well, a little bit of knowledge is poison.
I realize that probably sounds really arrogant and a dodge. *shrug* I can’t help that.
There are a lot of different ways to do it. Which architecture you use will depend on what -ilities you value (e.g. reliability, affordability, maintainability, etc.) and, to a lesser extent, whether there are any particular technologies which you are or are not allowed to be used (for example, being restricted to certain programming languages will impact your decision to use functional or imperative programming).
Until I sat down and began breaking the problem down from technological, architectural, business cultural, project management, etc. perspectives, (and that would require a lot more information than I currently have), I’d just be blindly guessing anyway.
Remember that we do not allow any solicitation or offering of legal advice, nor is that on topic for the thread at hand.
This thread is to discuss what content is automatically included in character creation and rules, and the pros and cons of how to include those changes. Further digression will result in the thread being locked.
I don't think going straight to the nuclear option is the best route to produce helpful results for getting the site sorted to separate 2014 and 2024 content.
Admittedly I'm not riled up about this because most of the content is already separated and the bits that aren't register as mild inconvenience to me.