WotC Third party, DNDBeyond and potential bad side effects.

[Micah Sweet]

I love 5e. I also like A5e.
I understand your issues. I would probably play more A5e if it was on dndbeyond.

I weaned my players off DDB by extolling the virtues of A5e. Now even the other DM in our group runs it.

 

[mamba]

The putative D&DBeyond API is opening out the information and automation engine within D&DBeyond to third parties. Smiteworks and Roll20 derive some revenue from exactly this. They bundle the information in the D&D books and add automation and sell that on to the end users. This source of value added is now killed by that API.

if Roll20 offers no value on top of it, yes

In fact, that is what Beyond20 does to Roll20. It takes D&Dbeyond's information and automation, serves tehm out to Roll20 and one can use the free Roll20 as a map handler.

yes, it might affect the free version in some form, or Roll20 does not support that API in the free version, their choice

As you write below, they need to think about how they provide value in a changing world (Maps on DDB) regardless.

It is not WotC’s responsibility to keep them afloat and protect their current business model. As long as WotC competes in a way that benefits players, like an API would, I see nothing wrong with that. Offering a good service is not anti-competitive, even if it means you gain new customers from your competition.

So, the question for VTT builders becomes how do I make some money to my application? This is actually a pertinent question right now with the D&DBeyond maps applet.
Right now, the only thing preventing the D&DBeyond map tool from becoming a lightweight no frills VTT for any game is that the monsters are linked to the D&DBeyond monster database, and the characters are linked to D&DBeyond character sheets.
Provide the ability to curate a custom token collection and it can be used for any game. Provide a system agnostic turn(initiative) tracker and it works as a bare bones VTT for any system.
Add in a robust campaign management tool - which amounts to hyperlinked text files: a modified blog system could do it - and some threaded messaging or discord support and you can run anything within D&DBeyond.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

This is like saying that Amazon, which has its own tablet/e-reader line, is anti-competitive for also having an app to access Amazon content on other tablets. Like, if I can buy a Samsung tablet, and read both Amazon and Barnes & Noble content on it, that's "anti-competitive"?

It is, ask local bookshops or other types of stores. Amazon has beaically killed department stores.

Having that API means that the end user is free to use their information on whatever platform they want. That opens up the market to others, rather than closing it off.

Information is probably more siloed today that it ever was. It is not that I cannot see the attraction here for us as end users. I am sceptical that it would benefit third party sellers in the D&D market but I think it would kill VTT development, it might yet without even making such a thing. Time will tell.

 

[mamba]

I will quibble over this. It may not be anti competitive in the legal (competition and monopiles) sense, but it has very strong network effects. Sort of like YouTube, or Facebook or Google in search. Or Steam in games.

yes, it can have these network effects, but as long as it opens up access and benefits customers, you will have a hard time making a case that it is anti-competitive rather than just offering a superior solution for buyers.

It is not WotC’s job to hobble themselves so Roll20 can stay in business. Nor is this the only way in which WotC can make competition harder for Roll20, but at least this way it is beneficial to the users rather than detrimental. As long as it benefits the users, I am mostly for it, even if I can see the potential issues lurking in the back.

Aside from the fact that these putative modules will be bought from D&DBeyond there is no way I can see them allowing any local storage in any open format. The Hasbro ip management people would have a fit. It is going to be accessed live from D&DBeyond servers to an authenticated user or encrypted locally with the decrypt management via themselves or a trusted third party.

yes, they probably would not want local storage, even though there could be security measures in the file (ie bound to a DDB account, with ownership being verified if you want to import it in another VTT), so it cannot be freely shared. I said this one is the harder sell

 

[UngainlyTitan]

if Roll20 offers no value on top of it, yes


yes, it might affect the free version in some form, or Roll20 does not support that API in the free version, their choice

As you write below, they need to think about how they provide value in a changing world (Maps on DDB) regardless.

It is not WotC’s responsibility to keep them afloat and protect their current business model. As long as WotC competes in a way that benefits players, like an API would, I see nothing wrong with that. Offering a good service is not anti-competitive, even if it means you gain new customers from your competition.

All your points are valid, I do not think that they invalidate mine. I don't have a dog in the race, but I do thing that this is a be careful about what you wish for.

 

[Morrus]

But people certainly seem to be saying that DDB should support any and every 3PP that wants their product on DDB. People sound like they are saying WOTC is responsible for supporting 3PP, even if that is not their intent.

I can't speak to what people "seem" to be saying or "sound like they are saying", only what they are saying.

Certainly that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the situation is a lot more nuanced than that, and that reducing the argument to that is dismissive and simplistic. Market power, monopolies, walled gardens, all that stuff is not a simplistic issue, which is why there's so much debate around it and so much legislation going on with the big tech companies, and it is a debate we should have, or at least not be shut down if we try to have it. Even if just because this is a discussion forum and that's what it's for.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

yes, it can have these network effects, but as long as it opens up access and benefits customers, you will have a hard time making a case that it is anti-competitive rather than just offering a superior solution for buyers.

It is not WotC’s job to hobble themselves so Roll20 can stay in business. Nor is this the only way in which WotC can make competition harder for Roll20, but at least this way it is beneficial to the users rather than detrimental. As long as it benefits the users, I am mostly for it, even if I can see the potential issues lurking in the back.


yes, they probably would not want local storage, even though there could be security measures in the file (ie bound to a DDB account, with ownership being verified if you want to import it in another VTT), so it cannot be freely shared. I said this one is the harder sell

Again you have valid points. I will state that I believe that if the network effects in a market are strong enough the business can be an effective monopoly and the urge to rent seek become irresistible. There is little point, though in taking this much farther. We are not there yet, and it would fall afoul of the politics rules.

 

[Oofta]

I can't speak to what people "seem" to be saying or "sound like they are saying", only what they are saying.

Certainly that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the situation is a lot more nuanced than that, and that reducing the argument to that is dismissive and simplistic. Market power, monopolies, walled gardens, all that stuff is not a simplistic issue, which is why there's so much debate around it and so much legislation going on with the big tech companies, and it is a debate we should have, or at least not be shut down if we try to have it. Even if just because this is a discussion forum and that's what it's for.

I agree it's a complex and shifting issue. We've seen a lot of change over the past few decades in all areas of business and commerce. I wasn't trying to oversimplify things, sometimes communication, especially on a forum simply isn't clear. However, what you seem to take issue with was a single sentence in a longer post; that sentence may have been poorly worded but overall I agree this is a complex issue.

 

[mamba]

All your points are valid, I do not think that they invalidate mine. I don't have a dog in the race, but I do thing that this is a be careful about what you wish for.

oh, I am with you, this is not all just sunshine, there is a risk there, but there is a risk regardless. Your main concern seems to be that they cannot compete with WotC, but that is true regardless of the API

Once the WotC VTT becomes available, they cannot compete with that by outspending WotC on their VTT development. They have to find a niche, whether that is supporting all the other games WotC isn’t, being sufficiently cheaper while offering a compelling experience for that price range, being highly customizable, offering a much wider range of 3pp D&D material, …

 

[Morrus]

oh, I am with you, this is not all just sunshine, there is a risk there, but there is a risk regardless. Your main concern seems to be that they cannot compete with WotC, but that is true regardless of the API

Once the WotC VTT becomes available, they cannot compete with that by outspending WotC on their VTT development. They have to find a niche, whether that is supporting all the other games WotC isn’t, being sufficiently cheaper while offering a compelling experience for that price range, being highly customizable, offering a much wider range of 3pp D&D material, …

It's certainly true that the barriers to entry came down dramatically over the last 20 years--open licensing, DTRPG, Kickstarter, etc., all made the industry more accessible to more people.

As the hobby shifts towards VTTs and online tools suites like DDB, the barriers to entry are rising again. They can make a book, but no small 3PP has the resources to make something even approximating a $160M platform like DDB.

Something like Demiplane is the closest, but they also are selective about who they include on the platform.

What that means long-term, I don't know. Certainly books and PDFs still have their place, so 3PPs as they currently exist are still very viable. But the barriers to entry look set to increase, and making a DDB is a LOT harder and more expensive than making a book.

So we'll see I guess. I stand by my stance that a robust 3PP market is very much in the hobby's interests, and if the hobby's interests and WotC's interests conflict (and I'm not saying they do--I feel those stridently declaring that WotC doesn't or shouldn't care about 3PPs are incorrect, for many of the reasons I've espoused already), I think we'd find ourselves in an awkwardly fitting situation.