Introducing D&D Beyond Drops: A Growing Content Library to Expand Your Game

Quote from Odande >>

 the drop content ISNT shareable for Master Tier subscribing, if I am reading that right?

That's pretty stupid. I as the DM dont need the Player Options, I need my players to have those *player* options. Super greedy, WOTC. 

 Agreed. I’m all for adding benefits to subscribers, but this is not the way to go about it. Would much rather have content sharing for more campaigns or easier means of making homebrew items. Do better

Quote from KCoutoVA >>

Quote from Odande >>

 the drop content ISNT shareable for Master Tier subscribing, if I am reading that right?

That's pretty stupid. I as the DM dont need the Player Options, I need my players to have those *player* options. Super greedy, WOTC. 

 Agreed. I’m all for adding benefits to subscribers, but this is not the way to go about it. Would much rather have content sharing for more campaigns or easier means of making homebrew items. Do better

 Then tell off the subs who pushed for the vaguery of more "value" for their sub by complaining that it was Just Cosmetic.

I’m aware they’re rebuilding the backend and working on the roadmap features. I’ve read it.

That honestly makes this feel worse to me, not better.

Because while they’re rebuilding the platform, they’ve also clearly chosen a monetisation direction built around subscriptions, recurring engagement, and gated digital ecosystems instead of focusing on ownership and long-term consumer value.

“Drops” isn’t just extra content. It’s a live-service content model.

Weekly engagement cycles. Subscription-dependent access. Rotating digital incentives. Fragmented modular content. Platform lock-in.

That’s the exact direction modern gaming has gone over the last decade, and a lot of people are exhausted by it.

And the concern isn’t “they added extra content.” The concern is that D&D increasingly feels designed around retaining subscribers rather than simply selling great tabletop products.

The old model was: “Buy a book, own the content.”

The newer direction increasingly feels like: “Stay subscribed to remain connected to the ecosystem.”

Even if the roadmap improvements are real, that underlying philosophy is still what many people are reacting to.

Quote from AnonDraugr >>

I’m aware they’re rebuilding the backend and working on the roadmap features. I’ve read it.

That honestly makes this feel worse to me, not better.

Because while they’re rebuilding the platform, they’ve also clearly chosen a monetisation direction built around subscriptions, recurring engagement, and gated digital ecosystems instead of focusing on ownership and long-term consumer value.

“Drops” isn’t just extra content. It’s a live-service content model.

Weekly engagement cycles. Subscription-dependent access. Rotating digital incentives. Fragmented modular content. Platform lock-in.

That’s the exact direction modern gaming has gone over the last decade, and a lot of people are exhausted by it.

And the concern isn’t “they added extra content.” The concern is that D&D increasingly feels designed around retaining subscribers rather than simply selling great tabletop products.

The old model was: “Buy a book, own the content.”

The newer direction increasingly feels like: “Stay subscribed to remain connected to the ecosystem.”

Even if the roadmap improvements are real, that underlying philosophy is still what many people are reacting to.

Technically under capitalism, you rent literally everything.
Unless you own the means of production.
But seeing how the Dungeons And Discourse video is going around, I'd like to remind people that she claimed Critical Role was in dire trouble in some form or another...how many times at this point? & nothing came of it..

Quote from AnonDraugr >>

 

“Drops” isn’t just extra content. It’s a live-service content model.

Weekly engagement cycles. Subscription-dependent access. Rotating digital incentives. Fragmented modular content. Platform lock-in.

 

The problem with this argument: it's just "slipper slope" nonsense that ignores two things:

1. People were *already* paying into this service, and now those people, at no additional cost, get old digital character sheet benefits, previously locked behind the preordering of select books, and now additional benefits for DM *using* D&D beyond (the encounters) and player options (which, people asked them to include according their polling). We're literally getting mad *people* are getting what they asked for here, lol.

This is in every sense of the concept of *extra* just *extra content.*

2. D&DB makes anything given here something you can keep forever, by adding it to a character sheet (custom character sheet options) *and* via the site's own homebrew feature (whether clicking COPY or just remaking it from scratch). Or a notebook. Etc.

Your effort here to proclaim Atlas has dropped the sky on your head is exhausting to even try rationalizing.

It's just a bad sign. They've already proven that they will take away things the players enjoy to make more money. Remember when we could buy specific spells or just player content from books? The community loved that option, and way more tables were able to afford all the options. 

This is more than just adding additional content to a subscription. This site is a storefront for a corporation, and every move has to have a likelihood of making them more money. I'm sure by this time next year the price will increase.

Quote from VulcanMushroom >>

It's just a bad sign. They've already proven that they will take away things the players enjoy to make more money. Remember when we could buy specific spells or just player content from books? The community loved that option, and way more tables were able to afford all the options. 

This is more than just adding additional content to a subscription. This site is a storefront for a corporation, and every move has to have a likelihood of making them more money. I'm sure by this time next year the price will increase.

 From the Head of DND Beyond himself, in a thread here:

Quote from MaedraDawnkeeper >>

Quote from VulcanMushroom >>

It's just a bad sign. They've already proven that they will take away things the players enjoy to make more money. Remember when we could buy specific spells or just player content from books? The community loved that option, and way more tables were able to afford all the options. 

This is more than just adding additional content to a subscription. This site is a storefront for a corporation, and every move has to have a likelihood of making them more money. I'm sure by this time next year the price will increase.

 From the Head of DND Beyond himself, in a thread here:

"Hello! Brian Perry, executive producer on D&D Beyond here. I just wanted to jump in to say we have no plans to change the way in which you access your D&D Beyond content.

In fact, the team has really taken to heart all of the great feedback on how to improve D&D Beyond Drops. Primarily, how people without a subscription can get it and how Master Tier subscribers can share it with their tables. We are actively working on solutions to these now. More to come soon! "

That BODIES all of the panic.

 Except it required the exact pushback you're criticizing as pointless panic to make them consider allowing sharing via master tier subscribers. The reality is that Hasbro has been pushing to further profitize from WotC digital, and that is on record.

Quoted from an interview with Chris Cocks himself:

"But we see what's happening – almost everyone who plays D&D uses D&D Beyond, like a super high percentage uses it. A very high percentage use Foundry VTT or Roll20, and so it just makes sense that you should start to migrate your thinking about the way you play to more of a live service where you don't have to wait 18 months for us to build a book. We can start to release components or aspects of that book over time, and you don't have to buy everything all at once. You can buy chapters or segments of it over time. That makes a ton of sense to me."

I will never subscribe to a D&D payment plan no matter how they dress it up. 
Lot of posts in these comments white knighting and defending the Hasbro C-Suite, it's a bad look folks. Just call it like it is; D&D and MtG are about to get milked for the last time and sent to the slaughterhouse. 

Quote from DeathMetalMilkMan >>

Quoted from an interview with Chris Cocks himself:

"But we see what's happening – almost everyone who plays D&D uses D&D Beyond, like a super high percentage uses it. A very high percentage use Foundry VTT or Roll20, and so it just makes sense that you should start to migrate your thinking about the way you play to more of a live service where you don't have to wait 18 months for us to build a book. We can start to release components or aspects of that book over time, and you don't have to buy everything all at once. You can buy chapters or segments of it over time. That makes a ton of sense to me."

I will never subscribe to a D&D payment plan no matter how they dress it up. 
Lot of posts in these comments white knighting and defending the Hasbro C-Suite, it's a bad look folks. Just call it like it is; D&D and MtG are about to get milked for the last time and sent to the slaughterhouse. 

 Ah yes, Chris Cocks, who has NEVER lied before...so where are the all-AI books he claimed before? All we had was 2 pieces in Bigby's that were rightfully called out & then suddenly nothing turned out to be such, DND-wise?

The man is a serial liar. People got what they wanted after protesting, as the head of Beyond himself said they're going to make things available outside of Drops. & that STILL isn't good enough

(Note:I mean liar in the most derogatory way possible. He should have been removed ages ago, as he lies to EVERYONE & doesn't know how to run a toy company. If you think I'd white-knight this black-hearted shareholder puppet, you're delusional)

Quote from DeathMetalMilkMan >>

Quoted from an interview with Chris Cocks himself:

"But we see what's happening – almost everyone who plays D&D uses D&D Beyond, like a super high percentage uses it. A very high percentage use Foundry VTT or Roll20, and so it just makes sense that you should start to migrate your thinking about the way you play to more of a live service where you don't have to wait 18 months for us to build a book. We can start to release components or aspects of that book over time, and you don't have to buy everything all at once. You can buy chapters or segments of it over time. That makes a ton of sense to me."

I will never subscribe to a D&D payment plan no matter how they dress it up. 
Lot of posts in these comments white knighting and defending the Hasbro C-Suite, it's a bad look folks. Just call it like it is; D&D and MtG are about to get milked for the last time and sent to the slaughterhouse. 

 I would take everything Chris Cocks says with a grain of salt. The man is in charge of Hasbro--not WotC--and is completely out of touch with the community and inner workings of WotC itself. The only thing that came out from all of his "promises" was Sigil, and we know how that turned out

Quote from MaedraDawnkeeper >>

 Ah yes, Chris Cocks, who has NEVER lied before...so where are the all-AI books he claimed before? All we had was 2 pieces in Bigby's that were rightfully called out & then suddenly nothing turned out to be such, DND-wise?

 On the AI thing, this is how accurate Chris Cocks is:

WOTC_Zac: This has been our AI use policy since December 2023. It is very clear and direct, copied here in its entirety:

For 50 years, D&D has been built on the innovation, ingenuity, and hard work of talented people who sculpt a beautiful, creative game. That isn't changing. Our internal guidelines remain the same with regards to artificial intelligence tools: We require artists, writers, and creatives contributing to the D&D TTRPG to refrain from using AI generative tools to create final D&D products. We work with some of the most talented artists and creatives in the world, and we believe those people are what makes D&D great.

While that doesn't explicitly cover this feature, it indicates the attitude of the organization, which is very much "we're not using AI in creative work." The few times it's been brought to our attention, we've acted swiftly to address it.

Additionally, and I say this with the utmost love, but based on my own Journal notes I think most Journal entries would be trash training data. 😅 It would be full of fragments, inside jokes, notes to self, etc. And we'd be missing the context of what was actually said at the table if it wasn't written down. Even if I wanted to do something with the contents of Journal entries (and I don't), I don't know what useful data one would be able to get out of it.

https://www.reddit.com/r/onednd/comments/1tpdif0/comment/ooqc1r2/

The comment is regarding data-mining the Journal data for AI training, but the general policy is directly the case.

Quote from Perringaiden >>

Quote from MaedraDawnkeeper >>

 Ah yes, Chris Cocks, who has NEVER lied before...so where are the all-AI books he claimed before? All we had was 2 pieces in Bigby's that were rightfully called out & then suddenly nothing turned out to be such, DND-wise?

 On the AI thing, this is how accurate Chris Cocks is:

WOTC_Zac: This has been our AI use policy since December 2023. It is very clear and direct, copied here in its entirety:

For 50 years, D&D has been built on the innovation, ingenuity, and hard work of talented people who sculpt a beautiful, creative game. That isn't changing. Our internal guidelines remain the same with regards to artificial intelligence tools: We require artists, writers, and creatives contributing to the D&D TTRPG to refrain from using AI generative tools to create final D&D products. We work with some of the most talented artists and creatives in the world, and we believe those people are what makes D&D great.

While that doesn't explicitly cover this feature, it indicates the attitude of the organization, which is very much "we're not using AI in creative work." The few times it's been brought to our attention, we've acted swiftly to address it.

Additionally, and I say this with the utmost love, but based on my own Journal notes I think most Journal entries would be trash training data. 😅 It would be full of fragments, inside jokes, notes to self, etc. And we'd be missing the context of what was actually said at the table if it wasn't written down. Even if I wanted to do something with the contents of Journal entries (and I don't), I don't know what useful data one would be able to get out of it.

https://www.reddit.com/r/onednd/comments/1tpdif0/comment/ooqc1r2/

The comment is regarding data-mining the Journal data for AI training, but the general policy is directly the case.

 Yeah, but that's not good enough for those far more critical than I.

The most angry of them want recompense & penalty that will dump DND into the public domain, dissolve Hasbro entirely, & compensate them as victims for life...securing a victory for their preferred things(That may or may not be compensating them for their efforts to destroy the competition) in the process, of course.

Quote from DeathMetalMilkMan >>

Quoted from an interview with Chris Cocks himself:

"But we see what's happening – almost everyone who plays D&D uses D&D Beyond, like a super high percentage uses it. A very high percentage use Foundry VTT or Roll20, and so it just makes sense that you should start to migrate your thinking about the way you play to more of a live service where you don't have to wait 18 months for us to build a book. We can start to release components or aspects of that book over time, and you don't have to buy everything all at once. You can buy chapters or segments of it over time. That makes a ton of sense to me."

I will never subscribe to a D&D payment plan no matter how they dress it up. 
Lot of posts in these comments white knighting and defending the Hasbro C-Suite, it's a bad look folks. Just call it like it is; D&D and MtG are about to get milked for the last time and sent to the slaughterhouse. 

 If the bold text were applicable they wouldn't have ripped piece meal out of DDB. There was a lot of backlash when that took place. The bold text is contrary to it's removal. Piece meal is exactly what "you don't have to buy everything all at once" was.

Quote from Perringaiden >>

None of this was required on their part, nor was it something the player base was demanding.

It was a nice to have that they chose to add.  

So yeah, this is "good behaviour" that the community decided was secretly an evil plan to destroy the game.

And if D&D "goes badly" because they stop listening, that hurts us.  I was there in the late 90s when. TSR was more concerned with infighting and ignored the community.

 You're purposefully misrepresenting something you've been corrected on and ignoring criticisms to fit the strawman you want to build.

People want to keep to the -sharing culture-

It is not free if players must subscribe to add ir to their character. It is not an upgrade if DMs cannot share it via their master tiers.

The feedback is, as a DM, I would rather pay extra for this content and be able to share it than have my players, who are mostly free tier and rely on content sharing because only two (now three) of us DM, and for my other group I am the only DM, will never need to subscribe. 

By not making if shareable, it reads as trying to make someone subscribe to be able to access content their DM would normally have bought and shared or that they would have been able to buy on their own. 

I dont understand why you continually ignore the actual context of the criticism to just pretend it's pointless and overblown. 

Quote from FlynnBuservakt >>

 You're purposefully misrepresenting something you've been corrected on and ignoring criticisms to fit the strawman you want to build.

People want to keep to the -sharing culture-

It is not free if players must subscribe to add ir to their character. It is not an upgrade if DMs cannot share it via their master tiers.

The feedback is, as a DM, I would rather pay extra for this content and be able to share it than have my players, who are mostly free tier and rely on content sharing because only two (now three) of us DM, and for my other group I am the only DM, will never need to subscribe. 

By not making if shareable, it reads as trying to make someone subscribe to be able to access content their DM would normally have bought and shared or that they would have been able to buy on their own. 

I dont understand why you continually ignore the actual context of the criticism to just pretend it's pointless and overblown. 

 "The feedback" is definitely not "We'd like to pay more to share it".  It's a demand that what was given be shareable for the same existing unchanged price.

You're misrepresenting the majority of posts by claiming people are willing to pay more to share it. You might be willing, but that's not the feedback. If they announced a higher tier that allowed sharing the outrage would be higher (and more legitimate).

And for the most part, it's DM's buying into the "DM's pay for everything" culture that players demand.