Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer Creatures
Frozen Sick
D&D Beyond Basic Rules
Basic Rules (2014)
Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in- Marketplace
Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer CreaturesFrozen SickD&D Beyond Basic RulesBasic Rules (2014)Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in
Again for a company selling books they'd be shooting themselves in the foot if they chose "You must subscribe to buy this book or content" as a model
Personally, my concern is less about any single monetization feature and more about the growing complexity of the ecosystem surrounding D&D Beyond.
Even under the current model, newer players are often confused by the relationship between free accounts, purchased digital books, Hero and Master Tier subscriptions, campaign content sharing, and character creation limitations. While content sharing can solve many of these problems when properly configured, it also requires someone in the group to maintain a Master Tier subscription and manage campaigns correctly.
In practice, this can create friction at the table. Some players own content individually, others rely on shared access, and newer players frequently struggle to understand why certain races, subclasses, spells, or feats are available in one context but locked in another. The system works, but it is not always intuitive.
"Onboarding" and retaining players is already one of my biggest challenges and is for many DMs. Any increase in perceived complexity, subscription dependency, or fragmented access risks discouraging newer players before they become invested in the hobby.
Whether every rumored change ends up being significant is almost secondary to the broader perception issue. If players begin to feel that participation requires navigating multiple subscriptions, ownership layers, or gated content systems, some will inevitably decide that another RPG ecosystem is easier to enter and maintain or forgo getting into the hobby at all.
Mr. Transcended
~DM~
A good rule of thumb for when you hear that Hasbro or WotC are have made an announcement etc:
If Google doesn't return an article from them, then it didn't happen.
There is a valid concern here, that DDB might well be edging towards a live service model or a primarily subscription based one. It's pretty undeniable at this stage they're wanting everyone to be a Subber, with the decisions gating of content decisions that's been going on for a while now. The question is how far they're going to go. Right now,. it's pretty soft, but as I've said, they've been slowly pushing more and more. If you use Maps, but then want to let someone else flex their wings for a couple of sessions, they either have to get a Master Sub or go somewhere else like Roll20.
However, all that is a far cry from the claim that DDB requires a subscription, though. It doesn't. We have one person at the table who has a Master Tier, which does make sharing the rules much easier. However, at this point, we could easily get by without it. We all know the rules and the few that some are unsure of can be answered by the hive mind. Nothing major has changed.
Unfortunately, while there is validity in pushing back against more pressure to sub (and ironically, if it succeeds, it'll be used as an example of how they were wrong because they predicted the sky would fall which it never did), there's a lot of exaggeration in articles in order to create clickbait.
Having sincere and honest discussion is depressingly impossible at this point.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I can understand people being worried but I think most of those people are missing a very simple fact: They can't lock D&D away from us. Someone earlier put a big list of companies that had switched to a subscription only model and as a reply pointed out they're almost all tech or software companies which D&D isn't. Stop paying Adobe and they can simply stop access to their software, stop paying D&D Beyond and while you might lose access to what's on here the books are still on your shelf, hell the SRD is still on Creative Commons. Hasbro literally no longer controls access to their own product and they can never revoke that. With that in mind even if you totally ignore that WotC are a hardcopy publishing company at heart the absolute worst case is we go back to playing D&D on pen and paper exactly like players did for almost all of it's 50 year history and like at least 75% of the player base still do judging by various online polls. I like DDB, as a DM it allows me easy access to my player's character sheets to add stuff or check features, but if they turned it off tomorrow I'd be briefly pissed off about the sunk costs but then I'd switch to paper and third party products and it would barely slow down my games. Very few other companies are dealing with customers who have so much power over the product and that alone means WotC will have to think twice before making some of the decisions the sky is falling believers think they're about to make.
Considering the head of D&D Beyond posted on this thread saying they have no intention of changing their model, common sense, and the overwhelming evidence to the contrary (and complete lack of evidence to suggest they want to be “a primarily subscription based” model), I think it is a tad silly to say there are “valid concerns.” Suggesting such seems rather irresponsible in light of the overwhelming evidence these concerns are not valid.
Now, would Wizards like more people to sub? Sure. Obviously any company is going to want more people to pay. Wizards also has not been opaque about how they want to go about doing this - they have regularly said “hey, we do not offer products of value to 80% of our players. We should figure out how to target those players with things they want, rather than force more money from our existing paying customers.”
And that is how they are trying to do this. They are not trying to force folks into subbing or anything else insidious - they are trying to improve subscriptions so they are more attractive to more people. That is a good thing for pretty much everyone. Those who already have subs get more value for the same price. Those without who find a sufficient value add for cost will get something they want and otherwise would not exist. Wizards gets more subs. And those who do not find a sufficient value add are not really out anything - after all, the only thing you need to play D&D is the basic rules.
Honestly, if people are that worried about D&D Beyond and the future of D&D online, there's two steps to take.
D&D Beyond can't "dive down the slippery slope" because the friction to leave is lower than people think, if they spend 5 minutes looking at alternatives.
Yeah. If Hasbro decides "let's make 6E a fully-online, subscription-only service," do you think that'll sell gangbusters, or bomb terribly as everyone sticks with 5e/5.5e or moves to other systems entirely? My gut tells me an fully-online subscription service would bomb. If nothing else, it can be hard to find a group which meshes well personality and schedule-wise, and people will be reluctant to keep shelling money out if they can't even find a group.
Hell, they all but admitted they're going to fix the problematic element of Drops!
Brian Perry HIMSELF made a post in that regard. That's pretty dang official.
DM, player & homebrewer(Current homebrew project is an unofficial conversion of SBURB/SGRUB from Homestuck into DND 5e)
Once made Maxwell's Silver Hammer come down upon Strahd's head to make sure he was dead.
Always study & sharpen philosophical razors. They save a lot of trouble.
If I may, this sounds good, but the truth is that 'Drops' are a big mis-step that will have people worried. Content that some players with a subscription can access, but those without can't? My solution has been to outright ban any character options that come from 'drops'. I know other DMs are considering the same. Thin end of the wedge, slippery slope. However one chooses to define 'drops' they do seem to fit into the category of warning signs that will ultimately hurt the bottom line not improve it.
The OP should by now be reassured that subscriptions won't be required.
However, Drops does create a FOMO type lure that strongly suggests that a player might miss out on some cool spell or character option if they don't subscribe. At best that's a manipulative practice that does carry a reasonable cause to be concerned.
DM session planning template - My version of maps for 'Lost Mine of Phandelver' - Send your party to The Circus - Other DM Resources - Maps, Tokens, Quests - 'Better' Player Character Injury Tables?
Actor, Writer, Director & Teacher by day - GM/DM in my off hours.
A.) Arbitrarily punishing your players makes it sound like you're not a fun DM to play with.
2.) Slippery slope is an argumentative fallacy.
It's not arbitrary. Either everyone has access to the source, or no-one does. It's about being fair and even handed. Money does not buy you privilege at my tables. Bought the book and want to share it? Great, that source is allowed for everyone. Bought the book and won't share it? Well then you don't get to use it at the table. Everyone or no-one.
I agree it's a fallacy, but it's this type of behaviour that often gets called out as such. And when it is, that's when companies tend to run into increased dissatisfaction that can be self-defeating.
DM session planning template - My version of maps for 'Lost Mine of Phandelver' - Send your party to The Circus - Other DM Resources - Maps, Tokens, Quests - 'Better' Player Character Injury Tables?
Actor, Writer, Director & Teacher by day - GM/DM in my off hours.
What gating? It's undeniable that they would like people to give them money every month; they'd a for profit business, they like money. In order to get people to do that, they're adding value to the subscription. However, I'm not sure what you're talking about with "gating of content"; Drops are going to be the level of content that you'd expect from bonus content intended to get you to buy a subscription that is primarily used for other purposes, and there isn't any other content that is actually gated behind being a subscriber. There's some DDB-only content, but it doesn't require you to subscribe, they're not going to gateway "give them money" behind a subscription.
I'm actually really curious to hear what those who dislike how Drops have been introduced think would make a subscription "worth it". Like the goal is to get more subscribers, right? WotC wants more subscribers. So what would they need to add to subscriptions to increase the value enough for those of you who don't subscribe to actually do so, in your view? Because it really feels like they couldn't add anything the way some of these detractors are speaking about it. And a few (not many, mind) comments really sound incredibly entitled; along the lines of "My DM pays the sub but we players shouldn't have to." I hope those of you reading this and think that way do something for your DM from time to time to "pay" for the privilege of not having to get your own sub...
As to the aspect of not being able to share drops, It is breaking an older but widespread aspect of the Tabletop culture. If the DM had access to player options, the whole table would.
I used to teach people the game a lot, especially during 4E, and I was the one that had all the books, and more importantly, i had the money to have all the books.
The homeless student living out of his car didn't, but he was welcome at my table, because I shared what I had. The people who didn't want to drop a big chunk of change just to try the game also was welcome at my table, and often if they dug it, they would get the books themselves. A gaming store wasn't far from the bus stop we met up at.
It was kinda rare for a DM to say "You can only use what you paid for" when someone at the table had it. This went for books, dragon magazine, printed spell books etc. If someone at the table had it, it was shared for those in that game.
The thing that irks people about the current drops implementation, at least from what i can gather is not "Someone else has already paid i should get it" it is the inverse "I paid for it, my players should be able to use it."
And before anyone thinks that it was just a bunch of moochers back in the day, I got pretty fat off of free pizza, soda and beer that my player bought me, even if it wasn't at the table during game time. After games if we bought lunch I usually wasn't expected to spend a dime.
i know that doesn't translate well to DNDBeyond, but it sets up a "Haves and Have nots" that rubs some of the older players like me really wrong.
All that is on top of the whole "ownership vs Licensing/renting and consumer rights" aspect.
He/Him. Loooooooooong time Player.
The Dark days of the THAC0 system are behind us.
"Hope is a fire that burns in us all If only an ember, awaiting your call
To rise up in triumph should we all unite
The spark for change is yours to ignite."
Kalandra - The State of the World
This is not aimed at any particular commenter or comment, but it is really frustrating that virtually every time WotC makes a change or tries something new that players/DMs might like, the pitchforks come out. WotC is still a private, for profit company, and despite all of our love for the game, they are going to make decisions that they believe will increase their bottom line. Will they make mistakes? Of course, as all big companies do and they will either course-correct or lose some customers (then it becomes, in part, a case of opportunity cost moving forward). Drops are an addition to subscriptions, an extra feature for subscribers, similar to the way virtually every digital content and service company offers additional perks and benefits for subscribers.
It does feel like the WotC folks have been making a conscientious effort to be more open and transparent about what they are doing and why than they have been in a long time. Perhaps we could trust that those efforts are good-faith and be happy about that instead of instantly assuming the worst.
If they make "mistakes" & they're not called out, they get away with "mistakes".
DM, player & homebrewer(Current homebrew project is an unofficial conversion of SBURB/SGRUB from Homestuck into DND 5e)
Once made Maxwell's Silver Hammer come down upon Strahd's head to make sure he was dead.
Always study & sharpen philosophical razors. They save a lot of trouble.
Calling out mistakes does not mean immediately declaring that they are the devil incarnate.
The scare quotes around the word mistakes are unnecessary.
To BigHeartedGuy's point, this community gets all stirred up with the wailing and gnashing of teeth anytime WotC tries anything new with D&D or D&D Beyond. And it's not just when they try new things: There was a print quality problem with the book for the Deck of Many Things release, so they released digital early and fulfilled books later and people got hopping mad about the staged release. Then later there was a print quality problem with the book for the latest Eberron release, so they took the feedback to heart and delayed the digital release and people got hopping mad about it. There's genuinely no pleasing people whose primary motivation is to be mad at WotC. Consider the Drops - not only has WotC acknowledged the feedback they received but they've also sent out a survey for more feedback on the Drops, but several responses here are insisting WotC is just starting on a slippery slope (which again, is a fallacy to begin with).
The toxic attitudes anytime WotC tries to make a change or admit something didn't work out are likely to make them less transparent and less communicative. Basically every time they announce they're doing something new or different that scares people they get yelled at for it and then when they announce they're following feedback from the people yelling they still get yelled at for it. They're stuck in a "damned if they do, damned if they don't" position when it comes to community engagement. Eventually the toxicity is going to encourage them to not engage the community before making changes, because why bother.
I'm just critical of deliberately bad decisions being excused as "mistakes"
AI usage in M:TG ads, OGLgate, hiring the Pinkertons to harass a guy who got cards early by an actual mistake, letting the contract w/Paizo expire w/no notice, mass seasonal layoffs to protect executive & investor payouts, shitty Uberfied employment, AI customer service, not firing Mike Mearls quicker for what he & Zeb did, having an illegal monopoly & this were NOT "mistakes". They were genuine & deliberate bad moves.
But I draw the line at being forever mad at these things to the point of obsession & deliberate lies.
Criticism & calling bad, greedy &/or reactionary moves bad, greedy &/or reactionary moves by a megacorp is fine.
Devoting time out of your day to troll and/or call everyone who likes or makes content for a popular thing as some flavor of Satan(ESPECIALLY if they, for instance, TRIED EVERY SINGLE "more ethical" alternative & didn't HAVE FUN, which is the POINT of playing a game), is too far. & Ao knows there are WAY too many people out for profit via torches & pitchforks rather than to criticize & inform, despite wearing the skin of the latter & acting nice.
DM, player & homebrewer(Current homebrew project is an unofficial conversion of SBURB/SGRUB from Homestuck into DND 5e)
Once made Maxwell's Silver Hammer come down upon Strahd's head to make sure he was dead.
Always study & sharpen philosophical razors. They save a lot of trouble.
I think it's pretty clear from the context of my previous post that the (theoretical) mistakes I was referring to were those that involve goods and services offered to customers/users. Listing a bunch of examples of unrelated decisions or incidents (that have already been tried to death in the court of public opinion) pretty clearly has nothing to do with my point about whether things like the Drops perk and its subscriber-only status is a mistake.