UPDATE 01/20: On the Dev stream, DDB confirmed that the new content of MMM will NOT replace our existing content. YAY!!!
There is a difference between errata, which should be for actual errors that need correcting, (like typos, bad math, wrong attributions, incorrect stats, etc) and actually changing something that had no errors into something different.
I understand the policies for digital content, and that I am paying for access to a product, but I disagree with the notion that I shouldn't have a right to access the content I originally paid for.
When WotC makes major changes to anything in previous books that goes beyond errata, we should have the option of keeping/using those previous versions we paid for. The precedent has now been set that when WotC makes a change it will be forced upon everyone. I know a lot of people will say that I need to get with the times and accept the changes because they are "good" no matter what, but just wait until they make a change you don't like. It will be too late then, because you will have tacitly agreed to this new process.
Maybe I'm a drop in the bucket, but in case DDB cares, I won't be buying any more digital content on DDB until/unless they find a way to let us keep/use older versions of the content we paid for.
EDIT: For some reason when I view my post the poll options show as "Yes" or "Lol". I have no idea how that happened, but the second option should show as "No", which it does when you view the results. I can't edit the poll, nor can I delete this post to fix the error?
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing) You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
I conceptually am not a fan, just for the trouble of managing that between players/DM. I like to have a one source of truth for RAW.
But let's say that the solution would be better for everyone, still, when people ask this, they don't realize the cost structure and development effort to keep that up, something that would translate into a more expensive product and, probably, even less new features developed on the future.
Every piece of data requires storage, development and maintaining and that costs money.
Beyond structure is already pretty tight, it would be very challenging to get the already delayed expected features out.
I conceptually am not a fan, just for the trouble of managing that between players/DM. I like to have a one source of truth for RAW.
But let's say that the solution would be better for everyone, still, when people ask this, they don't realize the cost structure and development effort to keep that up, something that would translate into a more expensive product and, probably, even less new features developed on the future.
Every piece of data requires storage, development and maintaining and that costs money.
Beyond structure is already pretty tight, it would be very challenging to get the already delayed expected features out.
When it comes to things like monsters, they've never been late. Ever. The framework and structures for things like monsters, magic items that confer standard bonuses etc is there. 250 "new" monster blocks could be done by a team in a week. Probably faster if they really understood the tool.
Same thing with character races. None of the races being presented do anything odd EXCEPT allow the spells on their list to be cast with other spell slots. I do see that piece being a limitation that they will not have an answer to, but other than that I expect everything else live.
I conceptually am not a fan, just for the trouble of managing that between players/DM. I like to have a one source of truth for RAW.
But let's say that the solution would be better for everyone, still, when people ask this, they don't realize the cost structure and development effort to keep that up, something that would translate into a more expensive product and, probably, even less new features developed on the future.
Every piece of data requires storage, development and maintaining and that costs money.
Beyond structure is already pretty tight, it would be very challenging to get the already delayed expected features out.
When it comes to things like monsters, they've never been late. Ever. The framework and structures for things like monsters, magic items that confer standard bonuses etc is there. 250 "new" monster blocks could be done by a team in a week. Probably faster if they really understood the tool.
Same thing with character races. None of the races being presented do anything odd EXCEPT allow the spells on their list to be cast with other spell slots. I do see that piece being a limitation that they will not have an answer to, but other than that I expect everything else live.
I may not have been clear, and for that I apologize. I meant additional features - things like the Sidekick builder from Tasha's or anything that further enables online play exclusively through Beyond... etc...
The general content of books is always on time, bc that is what the deve are focusing on.
But let's say that the solution would be better for everyone, still, when people ask this, they don't realize the cost structure and development effort to keep that up, something that would translate into a more expensive product and, probably, even less new features developed on the future.
Every piece of data requires storage, development and maintaining and that costs money.
Beyond structure is already pretty tight, it would be very challenging to get the already delayed expected features out.
I mean as far as storage goes a lot of us make copies of things before they get changed by copying them into our own homebrew collections. I feel removing a single source that everyone accesses and replacing it with many many copies probably takes more storage. At least for the things you can make homebrew copies of. I can't speak for the amount of people that do this but I'd wager it outweighs the saved storage space.
As to the original question I would prefer having the old and new content both accessible. Include small expanding boxes in the source books that are closed by default with the original content pre eratta. Include filters for the tools. Do these things and it remains functionally the same without cluttering things. Yes development time etc. agreed. The one big problem is DNDBeyond doesn't control this and even if they wanted to do it they can't. It's WotC's call. They've mucked up M3 by allowing their partners to offer it on preorder without informing them how it will work on their platforms. I don't think WotC gives a damn about digital customers. I see a lot of advice about not buying something if you don't know what it is. How about not selling it?
I am constantly surprised by the people who vote against having both versions of something available. I mean, if it's technically possible, and doesn't change the cost, then why do some people want to stop other people from having something that doesn't affect the former?
You want your new race versions or monster stats? Great, have fun! But why say no to letting me have the old versions while you enjoy the new versions? It literally doesn't affect you for me to use the old version!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing) You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
I am constantly surprised by the people who vote against having both versions of something available. I mean, if it's technically possible, and doesn't change the cost, then why do some people want to stop other people from having something that doesn't affect the former?
You want your new race versions or monster stats? Great, have fun! But why say no to letting me have the old versions while you enjoy the new versions? It literally doesn't affect you for me to use the old version!
A lot of those people like the changes, and therefore don't want to pay for them. That's why.
I agree that we should have both versions, and I'm certainly not buying this book and likely not anymore WotC content going forward.
There is a difference between errata, which should be for actual errors that need correcting, (like typos, bad math, wrong attributions, incorrect stats, etc) and actually changing something that had no errors into something different.
I understand the policies for digital content, and that I am paying for access to a product, but I disagree with the notion that I shouldn't have a right to access the content I originally paid for.
When WotC makes major changes to anything in previous books that goes beyond errata, we should have the option of keeping/using those previous versions we paid for. The precedent has now been set that when WotC makes a change it will be forced upon everyone. I know a lot of people will say that I need to get with the times and accept the changes because they are "good" no matter what, but just wait until they make a change you don't like. It will be too late then, because you will have tacitly agreed to this new process.
Maybe I'm a drop in the bucket, but in case DDB cares, I won't be buying any more digital content on DDB until/unless they find a way to let us keep/use older versions of the content we paid for.
EDIT: For some reason when I view my post the poll options show as "Yes" or "Lol". I have no idea how that happened, but the second option should show as "No", which it does when you view the results. I can't edit the poll, nor can I delete this post to fix the error?
It has Yes and No for me on the poll issue you mentioned
Provided there's not a contractual issue with them keeping the old stuff, there could be a toggle in the character creation tools or somewhere to enable "Legacy" rules and such. Similar to how we can toggle CR or Homebrew content, a toggle to enable "Legacy" would put all the races and such to where they are today. I am starting to get confused as to why everything needs to be retooled yet again though, honestly. Tasha's let everyone assign points where they wanted and then a lot of the lore was updated to make it more encompassing of all the different realms and thus, the different paths some of the races took there. I thought these adjustments had finally settled the inclusive and non-hurty bits of D&D. Redoing the races just seems like a "buy something new that shows what we already did" to me.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
Provided there's not a contractual issue with them keeping the old stuff...
There most likely is. Franchise controls are typically...particular, to say the least.
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.
I am constantly surprised by the people who vote against having both versions of something available. I mean, if it's technically possible, and doesn't change the cost, then why do some people want to stop other people from having something that doesn't affect the former?
That's not what the poll asks. The poll asks what we think DDB should do.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Provided there's not a contractual issue with them keeping the old stuff, there could be a toggle in the character creation tools or somewhere to enable "Legacy" rules and such. Similar to how we can toggle CR or Homebrew content, a toggle to enable "Legacy" would put all the races and such to where they are today. I am starting to get confused as to why everything needs to be retooled yet again though, honestly. Tasha's let everyone assign points where they wanted and then a lot of the lore was updated to make it more encompassing of all the different realms and thus, the different paths some of the races took there. I thought these adjustments had finally settled the inclusive and non-hurty bits of D&D. Redoing the races just seems like a "buy something new that shows what we already did" to me.
What would you deem as Legacy? The text in the original edition of each book? The original edition + the "errata" which you agree with? etc.
I am constantly surprised by the people who vote against having both versions of something available. I mean, if it's technically possible, and doesn't change the cost, then why do some people want to stop other people from having something that doesn't affect the former?
That's not what the poll asks. The poll asks what we think DDB should do.
It sounds like you're saying that you think DDB should not keep both versions (if they were allowed to, and it was feasible) which seems the same as saying you want to deny others something that wouldn't affect you.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing) You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
I am constantly surprised by the people who vote against having both versions of something available. I mean, if it's technically possible, and doesn't change the cost, then why do some people want to stop other people from having something that doesn't affect the former?
That's not what the poll asks. The poll asks what we think DDB should do.
It sounds like you're saying that you think DDB should not keep both versions (if they were allowed to, and it was feasible) which seems the same as saying you want to deny others something that wouldn't affect you.
You keep saying "both versions", but there are more than two versions of each book to consider (see post #12)
I vote yes they "should"; but I've been told more than once they contractually cannot.
The real question would be "Should WoTC allow DDB (and other clients?) to host Archived content in addition to the most resent versions."
To which I would also vote "yes".
In fact, what I would really love to see as a way to look at entry like "Human Commoner" and see every version ever of it from 0e-6e side by side so I can easily compare them then homebrew a version that has everything I like and nothing I don't.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
The precedent has now been set that when WotC makes a change it will be forced upon everyone. I know a lot of people will say that I need to get with the times and accept the changes because they are "good" no matter what, but just wait until they make a change you don't like. It will be too late then, because you will have tacitly agreed to this new process.
It is not a new process and a precedent has not been recently set. It has been this way for the entire history of D&D on all digital hosting sites.
It sounds like you're saying that you think DDB should not keep both versions (if they were allowed to, and it was feasible) which seems the same as saying you want to deny others something that wouldn't affect you.
Thinking DDB should or should not do something is not the same as wanting to deny anyone anything. I'm all for the people in my team getting a raise, but that doesn't mean I think it's a good idea for the company to make that happen. Similarly I have no problem with giving people access to stuff on DDB, but even if it's feasible it's inane to have dozens of near-identical versions of the rules and as many toggles, switches or pulldown menus on the site to make them accessible.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
It sounds like you're saying that you think DDB should not keep both versions (if they were allowed to, and it was feasible) which seems the same as saying you want to deny others something that wouldn't affect you.
Thinking DDB should or should not do something is not the same as wanting to deny anyone anything. I'm all for the people in my team getting a raise, but that doesn't mean I think it's a good idea for the company to make that happen. Similarly I have no problem with giving people access to stuff on DDB, but even if it's feasible it's inane to have dozens of near-identical versions of the rules and as many toggles, switches or pulldown menus on the site to make them accessible.
So because you think there would be too many "toggles, switches or pull down menus" you'd rather deny a user base access to the content the originally paid for, instead of giving both groups what they want? I get the feeling you and I are never going to agree. I want everyone to be happy, and you don't care if some of us are unhappy.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing) You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
It sounds like you're saying that you think DDB should not keep both versions (if they were allowed to, and it was feasible) which seems the same as saying you want to deny others something that wouldn't affect you.
Thinking DDB should or should not do something is not the same as wanting to deny anyone anything. I'm all for the people in my team getting a raise, but that doesn't mean I think it's a good idea for the company to make that happen. Similarly I have no problem with giving people access to stuff on DDB, but even if it's feasible it's inane to have dozens of near-identical versions of the rules and as many toggles, switches or pulldown menus on the site to make them accessible.
So because you think there would be too many "toggles, switches or pull down menus" you'd rather deny a user base access to the content the originally paid for, instead of giving both groups what they want? I get the feeling you and I are never going to agree. I want everyone to be happy, and you don't care if some of us are unhappy.
I don't think you'd need all those toggles and stuff anyway. All were talking about I think is being able to read the original version of each published book. vs. the most current version of each published book. I don't think we are talking about each intermediate version.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
The problem I have with allowing access to non-errata'ed content is simply organizing things. While most errata is pretty minor, and there are some errata changes I don't like, consistency is important for me as a DM. I don't want players to be unclear about the version of the rules I'm using, and I'm going to be using the most recent errata almost all the time. I have no problem with errata getting rid of the "original" version of content because it usually fixes things, and if I don't like errata, I still prefer the consistency most of the time.
However, when content is available in different sources, it should be treated appropriately- so, for example, when Monsters of the Multiverse releases, unless they errata all the PHB and other races to match any changes in MotM, I would like to have access to the originals as well for reference and options- I might want the setting specific variant of a race, and I'm not entirely sold on some of the fey goblinoids in MotM. There's no reason why I shouldn't be able to access shifters from the Eberron books or goblinoid races from Volo's even after MotM releases. If I have to avoid buying MotM to continue to use earlier content, that puts me in a bad situation where as a DM I want my players to have more options but I don't want to lose access to earlier content. Unless the original book is errata'ed, it should be available as an option separately.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
UPDATE 01/20: On the Dev stream, DDB confirmed that the new content of MMM will NOT replace our existing content. YAY!!!
There is a difference between errata, which should be for actual errors that need correcting, (like typos, bad math, wrong attributions, incorrect stats, etc) and actually changing something that had no errors into something different.
I understand the policies for digital content, and that I am paying for access to a product, but I disagree with the notion that I shouldn't have a right to access the content I originally paid for.
When WotC makes major changes to anything in previous books that goes beyond errata, we should have the option of keeping/using those previous versions we paid for. The precedent has now been set that when WotC makes a change it will be forced upon everyone. I know a lot of people will say that I need to get with the times and accept the changes because they are "good" no matter what, but just wait until they make a change you don't like. It will be too late then, because you will have tacitly agreed to this new process.
Maybe I'm a drop in the bucket, but in case DDB cares, I won't be buying any more digital content on DDB until/unless they find a way to let us keep/use older versions of the content we paid for.
EDIT: For some reason when I view my post the poll options show as "Yes" or "Lol". I have no idea how that happened, but the second option should show as "No", which it does when you view the results. I can't edit the poll, nor can I delete this post to fix the error?
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing)
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
I conceptually am not a fan, just for the trouble of managing that between players/DM. I like to have a one source of truth for RAW.
But let's say that the solution would be better for everyone, still, when people ask this, they don't realize the cost structure and development effort to keep that up, something that would translate into a more expensive product and, probably, even less new features developed on the future.
Every piece of data requires storage, development and maintaining and that costs money.
Beyond structure is already pretty tight, it would be very challenging to get the already delayed expected features out.
When it comes to things like monsters, they've never been late. Ever. The framework and structures for things like monsters, magic items that confer standard bonuses etc is there. 250 "new" monster blocks could be done by a team in a week. Probably faster if they really understood the tool.
Same thing with character races. None of the races being presented do anything odd EXCEPT allow the spells on their list to be cast with other spell slots. I do see that piece being a limitation that they will not have an answer to, but other than that I expect everything else live.
I may not have been clear, and for that I apologize. I meant additional features - things like the Sidekick builder from Tasha's or anything that further enables online play exclusively through Beyond... etc...
The general content of books is always on time, bc that is what the deve are focusing on.
I mean as far as storage goes a lot of us make copies of things before they get changed by copying them into our own homebrew collections. I feel removing a single source that everyone accesses and replacing it with many many copies probably takes more storage. At least for the things you can make homebrew copies of. I can't speak for the amount of people that do this but I'd wager it outweighs the saved storage space.
As to the original question I would prefer having the old and new content both accessible. Include small expanding boxes in the source books that are closed by default with the original content pre eratta. Include filters for the tools. Do these things and it remains functionally the same without cluttering things. Yes development time etc. agreed. The one big problem is DNDBeyond doesn't control this and even if they wanted to do it they can't. It's WotC's call. They've mucked up M3 by allowing their partners to offer it on preorder without informing them how it will work on their platforms. I don't think WotC gives a damn about digital customers. I see a lot of advice about not buying something if you don't know what it is. How about not selling it?
I am constantly surprised by the people who vote against having both versions of something available. I mean, if it's technically possible, and doesn't change the cost, then why do some people want to stop other people from having something that doesn't affect the former?
You want your new race versions or monster stats? Great, have fun! But why say no to letting me have the old versions while you enjoy the new versions? It literally doesn't affect you for me to use the old version!
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing)
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
A lot of those people like the changes, and therefore don't want to pay for them. That's why.
I agree that we should have both versions, and I'm certainly not buying this book and likely not anymore WotC content going forward.
Er ek geng, þat er í þeim skóm er ek valda.
UwU
It has Yes and No for me on the poll issue you mentioned
Provided there's not a contractual issue with them keeping the old stuff, there could be a toggle in the character creation tools or somewhere to enable "Legacy" rules and such. Similar to how we can toggle CR or Homebrew content, a toggle to enable "Legacy" would put all the races and such to where they are today. I am starting to get confused as to why everything needs to be retooled yet again though, honestly. Tasha's let everyone assign points where they wanted and then a lot of the lore was updated to make it more encompassing of all the different realms and thus, the different paths some of the races took there. I thought these adjustments had finally settled the inclusive and non-hurty bits of D&D. Redoing the races just seems like a "buy something new that shows what we already did" to me.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
There most likely is. Franchise controls are typically...particular, to say the least.
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.
That's not what the poll asks. The poll asks what we think DDB should do.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
What would you deem as Legacy? The text in the original edition of each book? The original edition + the "errata" which you agree with? etc.
It sounds like you're saying that you think DDB should not keep both versions (if they were allowed to, and it was feasible) which seems the same as saying you want to deny others something that wouldn't affect you.
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing)
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
You keep saying "both versions", but there are more than two versions of each book to consider (see post #12)
I vote yes they "should"; but I've been told more than once they contractually cannot.
The real question would be "Should WoTC allow DDB (and other clients?) to host Archived content in addition to the most resent versions."
To which I would also vote "yes".
In fact, what I would really love to see as a way to look at entry like "Human Commoner" and see every version ever of it from 0e-6e side by side so I can easily compare them then homebrew a version that has everything I like and nothing I don't.
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
It is not a new process and a precedent has not been recently set. It has been this way for the entire history of D&D on all digital hosting sites.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
Thinking DDB should or should not do something is not the same as wanting to deny anyone anything. I'm all for the people in my team getting a raise, but that doesn't mean I think it's a good idea for the company to make that happen. Similarly I have no problem with giving people access to stuff on DDB, but even if it's feasible it's inane to have dozens of near-identical versions of the rules and as many toggles, switches or pulldown menus on the site to make them accessible.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
So because you think there would be too many "toggles, switches or pull down menus" you'd rather deny a user base access to the content the originally paid for, instead of giving both groups what they want? I get the feeling you and I are never going to agree. I want everyone to be happy, and you don't care if some of us are unhappy.
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing)
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
I don't think you'd need all those toggles and stuff anyway. All were talking about I think is being able to read the original version of each published book. vs. the most current version of each published book. I don't think we are talking about each intermediate version.
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
The problem I have with allowing access to non-errata'ed content is simply organizing things. While most errata is pretty minor, and there are some errata changes I don't like, consistency is important for me as a DM. I don't want players to be unclear about the version of the rules I'm using, and I'm going to be using the most recent errata almost all the time. I have no problem with errata getting rid of the "original" version of content because it usually fixes things, and if I don't like errata, I still prefer the consistency most of the time.
However, when content is available in different sources, it should be treated appropriately- so, for example, when Monsters of the Multiverse releases, unless they errata all the PHB and other races to match any changes in MotM, I would like to have access to the originals as well for reference and options- I might want the setting specific variant of a race, and I'm not entirely sold on some of the fey goblinoids in MotM. There's no reason why I shouldn't be able to access shifters from the Eberron books or goblinoid races from Volo's even after MotM releases. If I have to avoid buying MotM to continue to use earlier content, that puts me in a bad situation where as a DM I want my players to have more options but I don't want to lose access to earlier content. Unless the original book is errata'ed, it should be available as an option separately.