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
This is a WotC-owned website. It's only natural that critics avoid platforms controlled by the entities they critique; we tend to gravitate toward independent spaces where our voices won't be ignored or reflexively shouted down. If you set aside the noise and histrionics, you'll find that the most reasoned criticism and analysis of WotC happens elsewhere. I encourage you to seek those voices.
Those tools offer genuine value for players who prioritize convenience over ownership. But for those of us who view game materials as permanent assets, the lack of true ownership is a dealbreaker. My stance is simple: when a platform like D&D Beyond inevitably shuts down or changes its terms, my pdfs will remain accessible. I have a library of thousands of RPG pdfs, many from games long out of print.
Furthermore, as someone who moves frequently, carrying a full physical library of 5e books is impractical. Pdfs solve this dilemma perfectly, offering the portability of digital files with the permanence of owned property. Convenience need not come at the cost of long-term security.
Maybe, but many other RPG outlets offer hyperlinked pdfs with bookmarking capabilities. But that misses the core point: this isn't about format quality--it's about control. You may be fine renting access through Beyond, and I respect that choice. However, I am not willing to tie my gameplay to a corporation's server uptime or licensing terms.
I want the autonomy to print specific sections, play in areas without wifi, and guarantee my books remain usable for decades--regardless of what any digital storefront decides to do. That is the fundamental difference between owning a resource and licensing a service.
Crucially, none of these arguments rely on painting Hasbro or WotC as evil. It ultimately doesn't matter whether they are virtuous, nefarious, or anything in between; companies rise, fall, and pivot. My concern is structural: even a well-intentioned company can discontinue a service, leaving renters with nothing while owners keep their assets intact.
A case in point: I don't think WotC was "evil" for discontinuing D&D Insider. But all subscribers lost access anyway--and that's precisely my worry about platforms like Beyond today. History shows it's not about intent... it's about what happens when services end.
It would require a lot of oversight, or people would "put on tournaments" for the sole purpose of getting access to everything for free then sharing it. "Public Campaigns" where the slots are all filled with their friends already, same thing. That sort of thing would by it's nature need to be managed by WOTC tightly to avoid it becoming a wild free-for-all where people get all their content for free and reduce sale.
So either they spend a lot of money and people to manage it and retain legitimacy, or it becomes a free-for-all where they don't profit. Either way costs them significantly, which is why it's not worth it.
I mean, I have a bunch of RPG books sitting around... that I haven't opened in more than ten years. Yes, a D&D Beyond purchase doesn't give me that, but I don't actually mind, and it's not like physical books are actually permanent if you actually use them.
No, it's not. What you suggested would require completely starting from scratch on elements like the marketplace and subscriptions and building out non-scalable, cost-prohibitive new features (providing player character premium artwork). What is happening now is that WotC is rebuilding the infrastructure that underlies the site. After years of accrued technical debt, they need to do it to keep growing the site and it's features. That is growth, not reinvention. Building something entirely new adds long periods of alpha and beta testing, almost certainly a limited or gated initial release for public beta testing (oh the gnashing of teeth that would cause), lots of new bugs and a much higher cost to WotC. Guess who would likely absorb that cost.
I'm genuinely puzzled because you seem to have missed my actual argument. Let me be crystal clear:
I don't object to D&D Beyond. I've stated repeatedly that it offers genuine value for players who prioritize convenience. I respect that choice and don't want anyone to stop using it.
My concern isn't about you--it's about me. This is entirely personal risk management. I'm building a library I intend to keep accessible for decades, regardless of corporate decisions. That has zero impact on your subscription or your access.
The physical book solution you suggest is impractical for me. With 60+ official 5e books now in circulation, carrying that library isn't feasible--especially when moving frequently. Pdfs solve both portability and permanence.
No one needs to agree with my preference. A pdf marketplace wouldn't take anything away from subscribers. My stance is simply that I want ownership, while acknowledging that subscription models work well for others.
So if the question is "do I want WotC to change their model?" the answer is no. They're free to offer whichever options work for them. If the question is "do I want permanent access to what I purchase?" then yes, absolutely. Those positions aren't mutually exclusive.
I'm not trying to force my preferences on anyone. I'm explaining why my choices differ from yours. Can we acknowledge both approaches have merit without attributing motives to each other?
Unused books reflect personal habits, not a flaw in ownership. If physical copies sit untouched, that's a usage issue--not a format one.
More importantly, pdfs are arguably more durable than paper. Pages tear, spines crack, and water or moving damage is almost inevitable for travelers. A properly backed-up pdf doesn't degrade with use and survives catastrophes that could destroy a physical library.
You're optimizing for convenience and I'm optimizing for permanence. Your preference to accept licensing risks doesn't invalidate my wish for files I actually control. Both approaches work--for different priorities
Apologies, I thought the italics conveyed the tone that I find it utterly unbelievable that critics are underrepresented here because of all the frantic, overblown criticism that goes on here constantly. There's a reason I often say no online community seems to hate D&D and WotC as much as this one here on D&D Beyond. The idea that that critics here are being ignored or shouted down is absurd prima facie given that WotC has made changes specifically because of criticism expressed here and the mods here are johnny on the spot with deleting or redacting posts that go over lines, including when posters are being rude to critics.
Bit naive to assume I don't dabble in any other online D&D communities and I'm not aware of rational, well-founded criticisms of D&D and WotC, bee tee dubs.
I understood your point regarding the italics, and I disagree. However, I don't care to pursue this line of argument further. It's becoming pointless and off-topic.
I was attempting to brainstorm ways to make DDB more profitable for WoTC. What are your ideas to improve WoTC profitability of DDB?
I would like to see the Greyhawk campaign setting, as it was created, added to DDB, full map and adventure setting guide with pinned adventure locations, as well as all the 1e & 2e adventure modules, converted for 5e, made available again. I would enjoy playing those adventures again. Same for Forgotten Realms setting, convert those adventures to 5e and publish for us to buy.
That's not actually what this thread is about -- it's about what they can do to make money that won't make people mad.
Keeping in mind that some people have chosen to make a whole career path out of being mad at Wizards of the Coast and D&D Beyond.
Sorry, but what "reasoned criticism and analysis" about WotC wasn't revealed in this forum that it had already been revealed in other forums?
I don't have a good solution for WoTC.
It's understood that they need to make money somehow, but everything is going to upset people.
It doesn't help that EVERYONE is getting subscription fatigue. I can just imagine the groan at my table if I ask my players to SUBSCRIBE to another thing.
The problem with drops is that the player perks have questionable value at best.
It's not the same as a video game cosmetic. The drops are only as valuable as your DM is good enough to describe.
It's hard to monetize a game that, at the end of the day, is just pretending with math.
I subscribe for the Quality of Life things.
I have never sold a friend on something quicker than when I was able to show how much of an improvement the paid version of something is over a free version.
For instance, if D&D beyond added some extremely nice note taking capability to the character sheets available only to paid members, many of my players would snap it up.
He means if D&D Beyond added something *really* important that could only be used if you subscribed, not that he's telling his players to subscribe now
I'm truly at a loss.
My original point was an observation of a recurring pattern on this platform (and many others), not an accusation of bad faith toward any individual. And further, when I mentioned "noise and histrionics," it was a description of the general atmosphere from every side, not a personal jab at you or any one individual. If that wasn't clear, I apologize.
On the other hand, you've interpret my observation of a pattern as a motive-assignment, while simultaneously arguing that those who disagree with you are motivated by a desire to control your playstyle. That is precisely the kind of attributing motives I'm trying to step away from.
I have made a deliberate and concerted effort to address arguments charitably and avoid sarcasm in this thread. However, since your responses have consistently ignored the substantive arguments I've laid out, and instead focused on perceived intent and personal snipes, I won't be replying to you further in this thread. I'm happy to discuss actual issues with others.
My point isn't about what has been said here, but where the most prominent critical voices choose to speak.
Consider the new D&D Community Advisory Group. Members like Teos Abadía and Mike Shea have frequently balanced working with WotC while acting as harsh critics. Noticeably, neither they nor most other heavy-hitters in the TTRPG space maintain an active presence on these specific forums.
One reason is likely structural: independent platforms allow them to publish analysis without needing corporate consent or fearing arbitrary rule changes. While there is certainly valid discussion here, the fact that the advisory group and key community leaders gravitate toward spaces like ENWorld or their own channels suggests they find those environments more conducive to genuine, unfiltered dialogue. Indeed, I haven't seen much evidence that WotC themselves pay more attention to these forums than any other platform.
To be clear, this is not a statement about any of you.
Your point is that criticism of the WtoC is underrepresented here, but that's not what you're responding to here. It doesn't matter if the primary sources making these criticisms aren't present in this forum, what matters is if these criticisms ARE expressed here in this forum, and they are constantly being released here.
To say that these criticisms would only be present here if these people were present here is a Red Herring on the issue.
Okay look, I simply don't care enough to continue bickering about this. My experience has been that relative to the number of critics elsewhere, the share is less on D&D Beyond. Yours is different. Can we, collectively, get back to discussing something relevant? I'm more than happy to surrender on this point so we don't waste another iota of thought on it.
For what it's worth, I'm still happy to discuss productive ways for WotC to engage with otherwise disaffected D&D fans.
The point of the thread is literally to talk about WotC navigating how to do their thing and deal with criticism. It is relevant because the fact that criticism is expressed, listened to, and taken seriously here on the DDB forums is proven by the fact that WotC and the DDB team are changing the drops based on that criticism. So as I expressed earlier, the idea that criticism is underrepresented here is ridiculous.
As for making money without making people mad... I dunno. The general vibes of the world right now kinda suggest that someone's always going to be mad about something. I think in general the best strategy for Wizards is to stay the course with trying new things and listening to feedback and being willing to make changes when things don't go well. I could list a few things that would be appealing specifically to me and would make me go all *Fry shaking a fistful of dollars and saying "shut up and take my money"* but I don't think appealing to an audience of one is going to be the profitable, crowd-pleasing play. Although if they really for reals are working on Dark Sun, I will happily buy that up in a heartbeat, and I based on vibes I'm getting here and elsewhere I think a lot of other people would very happily do the same. But there are going to be some folks getting absolutely hopping mad that some of the gross, toxic elements of vintage Dark Sun are going to be left behind. And you know what? They can stay mad. WotC can make bank on new Dark Sun content and they don't need to appease the crowd that wants to stay stuck in the problematic past.
Similarly, there's nothing they can do with the D&D Beyond platform that's going to make everyone happy. I like that they took a chance with Drops (I genuinely, thoroughly enjoy the spells). And even though I didn't have a problem with Drops requiring a subscription I think it's neato keen that they're listening to folks who didn't like that. I like the idea of being able to buy the Drops content down the road sounds good to me. Taking that a step further, I'd love to eventually buy physical versions of the current digital-only content.
I also didn't have a problem with them being subscriber only, and I am also happy they are letting it go to sharing. But, my first thought when they announced they were going to allow sharing with drops was: I wonder how long are people going to continue to be angry about the initial rollout? They weren't going to give me something for free, and now they are, but I'm still mad there was a few weeks when they didn't!!
Well the first hot take has been:
See our yelling and frothing at the mouth is the only thing keeping these villains in check, we must do more.