D&D 5E D&D Creator Summit--'D&D Beyond And Beyond'

This presentation is by Dan Rawson and Marjory Laymon, moderated by Sara Chaffee.

I see a live view of what I assume is WotC's offices (the caption says 'Game Room'). Muffled voices talking as people wander around.

• Dan Rawson talks about his start in D&D. Introduces the team present: Dan Rawson (SVP of D&D), Marjorie Laymon (VP D&D Beyond), Pat Backmann (Sr. Product Manager), Jared Wasdin (Product Manager), Elliot Spilk (Associate Product Manager), Sarah Chaffee (Community Manager).
• What is D&D Beyond? The official gateway to D&D for content, news, offerings. The WotC D&D site is being deprecated and DDB is taking over.
• As the official home for D&D, DDB wants to be expansive. Content, tools, VTT. It's an amusement park. A whole ecosystem for the community.
• What have they been up to? Integrating with WotC since being acquired last year. Digital content drops, plus stability and performance work. 4.5 million users creates system challenges.
• What's next? Improving play/prep, mobile play, new player onboarding, open to partners, backend tech stuff.
• Partners and publishers--early stages of what that could look like, welcome feedback.
• (Q&A section begins--It's really hard to make out anything anybody is saying).
• Discussion about global communities, content for different people across the world.
• Homebrew and marketplace features. Make homebrew creation and sharing easy.
• Mobile site and app versions of DDB are different--can functionality be added to the app?
• Digital content in other languages and ASL? Is something they are actively trying to figure out.
• Future of D&D in print is very bright. Millions cherish the books and the tabletop and they want to support that. Digital is as well as not instead of.
• WIll DDB marketplace be monetized? That is absolutely the intention. Creators can offer their products for sale. Accessible, open, and available to creators.
• Will existing settings remain open to DMs Guild/DDB marketplace creators with the launch of OneDnD? "The goal is more not less." I think that was the entire answer to the question.
• Equitability of product pricing globally. Not something they've tackled yet, they appreciate the concern, and something they need to approach.
• Older editions in DDB? That's been discussed, but there are no plans right now. Possibility, not a 'no'.
• Does that include problematic elements of old products? They'd use the mechanical rules, not the 'content'.
• Preserving WotC's DnD website resources as it migrates to DDB? Not sure what the actual question or answer were! Can't make it out!
• How VTTs and content will interact? They want content and access to be as broad as possible. They will continue to partner with great VTTs.
• Will there be any mentorship on content creation for the third party marketplace? (There's a situation where somebody in person asks a really long question, the digital attendees can't hear it, then one of the presenters summarises the question [I think], but it's not always clear what the answer is.)
• Will the VTT be on consoles? Other technical requirements? Intent -- early in development -- is to play on PC, console, and mobile. Sequencing won't be everything on Day 1. Goal is to make it available on as many platforms as possible.
• Back to legacy content being on DDB--any content will go thorugh robust review to ensure it is appropriate and inviting to everybody. Means bringing legacy content over is a lot of work, and they won't bring them over without dong that work.
• Gaming store accounts and events--that's a strategy that is underway.
• Continue to lean into D&D in schools. Working on content for children.
• And that's the session over, and my coverage done! The next one will be the afternoon Virtual Tabletop session, covered by Beth Rimmels, in an hour or two.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

These from Goodman Games. Original Adventures Reincarnated, the ones licensed from WotC
I suspect they dint have the license from WoTC anymore
View attachment 280910

Hey, I didn't know what you were talking about either, and I sell those books all the time! It's just that sometimes acronyms don't compute.

 

[dave2008]

These from Goodman Games. Original Adventures Reincarnated, the ones licensed from WotC
I suspect they dint have the license from WoTC anymore
View attachment 280910

Is there a particular reason you suspect they don't have the license anymore?

 

[Sacrosanct]

Is there a particular reason you suspect they don't have the license anymore?

When I spoke with Joe at Gamestorm (the Goodman Games rep), he had no idea why the license wasn't renewed, and whose decision it was to not renew it (Wotc or GG). If I'm guessing, it might be related to WoTC's attempts to gain control of their IP again (supposedly one of the main reasons why wanted to revoke the OGL in the first place.)

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

When I spoke with Joe at Gamestorm (the Goodman Games rep), he had no idea why the license wasn't renewed, and whose decision it was to not renew it (Wotc or GG). If I'm guessing, it might be related to WoTC's attempts to gain control of their IP again (supposedly one of the main reasons why wanted to revoke the OGL in the first place.)

I have a really hard time seeing WotC doing anything meaningful with the eight TSR adventures published in the five OAR books, but maybe we're due for More Tales from the Yawning Portal.

I'd much rather they give the Ghosts of Saltmarsh treatment to the Pharaoh or Slavers series, myself, and leave the OAR books alone.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I have a really hard time seeing WotC doing anything meaningful with the eight TSR adventures published in the five OAR books, but maybe we're due for More Tales from the Yawning Portal.

I'd much rather they give the Ghosts of Saltmarsh treatment to the Pharaoh or Slavers series, myself, and leave the OAR books alone.

What seems most likely to me: They plan to publish those adventures themselves in some form or another, and don't want to compete with those products. Which would likely mean that WotC didn't offer a renewal on the license.

OR... WotC offered, but they asked for more than GG wanted to pay.
OR... GG chose to let it lapse during the OGL debacle.

 

[The Myopic Sniper]

I have a really hard time seeing WotC doing anything meaningful with the eight TSR adventures published in the five OAR books, but maybe we're due for More Tales from the Yawning Portal.

I'd much rather they give the Ghosts of Saltmarsh treatment to the Pharaoh or Slavers series, myself, and leave the OAR books alone.

One issue going forward or licensing out the old material to folks like Goodman is the new content standards for sensitivity and inclusive content. They seem willing to bury Dark Sun for these issues and it could be that a lot of early TSR content like the Slavers series is considered too toxic or too difficult to revive without making larger changes than the people who are the target demographic for that sort of material would find acceptable. Changing a word or here or there might be fine to reflect modern usages of those words, but there is not a lot of point reviving this material if you need to do wholesale rewrites to remove the Slave Lords from that series.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

What seems most likely to me: They plan to publish those adventures themselves in some form or another, and don't want to compete with those products. Which would likely mean that WotC didn't offer a renewal on the license.

OR... WotC offered, but they asked for more than GG wanted to pay.
OR... GG chose to let it lapse during the OGL debacle.

My guess is WotC decided to "monetize" by upping the license fee.

I honestly don't see them doing much with In Search of the Unknown or The Lost City. They can create new dungeons and lost cities at will and neither adventure has a ton of pent-up goodwill that people are clamoring to capitalize on more than what Goodman did.

Goodman was very muted in their OGL response, which I read as them not wanting to burn any bridges.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

One issue going forward or licensing out the old material to folks like Goodman is the new content standards for sensitivity and inclusive content. They seem willing to bury Dark Sun for these issues and it could be that a lot of early TSR content like the Slavers series is considered too toxic or too difficult to revive without making larger changes than the people who are the target demographic for that sort of material would find acceptable. Changing a word or here or there might be fine to reflect modern usages of those words, but there is not a lot of point reviving this material if you need to do wholesale rewrites to remove the Slave Lords from that series.

I'm not sure why you'd need to change the major beats of the Slavers series. They are unequivocally the bad guys who are there to be killed to death.

The really problematic stuff, like Drums on Thunder Mountain and the Orcs of Thar, aren't likely to get 21st century treatments, problematic content or no.

 

[Parmandur]

"One D&D" was never supposed to be the name of the revised books. It was a placeholder to describe 3 initiatives -- revised rules, DDB and the D*D VTT.

it's not a new edition and never was meant to be.

Well, they want to make this clear

The next UA will be the biggest next, including a look at all six classes.

All 6 remaining Classes!

This is NOT 5th editon or even 5.5. This is very important nuance. We're attempting something that has not been done before in D&D -- revising the game in place.

When Wizards created 3.5, it was built on the bones of 3.0 but you had to replace all of your books. You'll be able to run your copy of Journeys Through the Radiant Citadel with the new 2024 books. You'll be able to make a character with the 2014 core books and use it at the same table with a character made with the 2024 books. So we're revising 5E and giving it a fresh coat of paint but it's the same game. We want people to buy the new books because they're excited, not because they have to.

Hammering the point home

The books will include the old terms in the glossary and will say, "hi, my name changed to this. Everything you read in an old book this term now refers to this term." We don't want any conversion docs. it's all going to be in the book. The new books will say, for example, if your character was made with the 2014 books, you get a feat." We've been working that into the new background because they give a feat. A note says if your backgorund doesnt' give you a feat, take a feat.

Nice. Makes their intention crystal clear.

The book will include the 12 classes from 2014 with 48 subclasses. We wanted to give each class 4 subclasses, which means some classes will get more subclasses than they had in 2014.

One example of this is we're exploring doing a college of dance for a bard. Giving each class 4 subclasses allowes us to explore more options.

it does mean the wizard and cleric will retract to 4 to give everyone else 4 subclasses. Want a subclass from the 2014 PHB that doesn't transfer? No big deal because the 2014 book is fully compatible.

College of Dance, backwards compatibility for all old Subclasses.

A new weapon table will be coming the next UA. They've been play testing the new weapon options internally for awhile.

The weapon chart includes a new column called "weapon mastery."

Mastery properties are special proeprties in a weapon that allow you to have a class feature to unlock them. So if a wizard picks up a dagger, they can't use the 'nick" property. A fighter with the same dagger can unlock that ability. They're a little cantrip-like in their effects.

Each of the warrior classes work wiht the mastery property a little differently. Monks can unlock it in simple weapons because they are the mastter of common objects. So if you unlock the club mastery, you can slow someone in addition to doing damage.

Oh, this is going to be interesting.

 

[Demetrios1453]

Well, they want to make this clear

All 6 remaining Classes!

Hammering the point home

Nice. Makes their intention crystal clear.

College of Dance, backwards compatibility for all old Subclasses.

Oh, this is going to be interesting.

That last bit is interesting. Weapons have been really generic-ized in this edition, with really only damage and damage type being the real differences between them. Having a longsword be able to do something different from a battleaxe despite both being 1d8/slashing weapons will be nice! And maybe they'll drop rapier back to 1d6, but just make it do something different from a shortsword, just so it won't be the end-all of rogue weapons simply because it does more damage...