WotC Third party, DNDBeyond and potential bad side effects.

[Nikosandros]

If that's true (I haven't looked)

No, it is not. I just made that up to argue on the Internet.

then it's as simple as editing the PC and checking the limits on the "Home".

No, it is not simple, as I explained above.

 

[DEFCON 1]

This seems bizarrely aggressive.

Why is it bizarre? Someone says it's another person's responsibility for their own happiness rather than their own, and they get told "No it's not". That should be a standard response. And anyone who says it's an "aggressive" response is because they're on the other side and were hoping for people to agree with them.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

@SlyFlourish, I understand your concerns and I like your list of "ought-to-do"s.

OTOH, I overall think that them offering 3PP on DDB is a Good Thing for the market.

It's not that I think you're wrong. It's that I think that it's BOTH beneficial AND has the downsides that you mention. The only difference between me and you is that I think that it's ultimately BETTER to do it than it is to not do it.

I just think that they should offer a LOT MORE publishers on DDB (and some top-rated DMsGuild stuff too.

AND, I think that DDB needs a UA overhaul. Specifically, it needs some of its incomplete areas completed, and it need the Content Toggles that you've described (among many other QoL improvements). If they can make some of your other suggestions work when they do that, that would be good too.

As far as WotC being good shepherds for the industry goes, well, that's also mixed. They could be worse than they are, and they could be better. I think that they're trying to do it well, but the nature of corporate BS makes it so that they sometimes fail (and fail hard) due to those sorts of pressures. That's a bigger problem in the world (IMO) than it is in our industry. WotC is relatively benevolent by world-corporation standards. Heck, they're better business partners for my Comic and Game store than Marvel is, for example!

 

[DEFCON 1]

So, "too bad, get good or let it go", basically? TTRPGs are social games, ones that are often played with people you already know, not just random strangers. It's not unreasonable to want to play a game you like with your actual friends and family, and to be annoyed that part of the industry is discouraging your friends and family from engaging with a particular thing you enjoy by making something else more convenient. It's not easy or enjoyable to disengage with your social group and play with strangers on the internet to do what you want.

I am glad the people who make things "convenient" for all of the rest us do not listen to responses like this because some people don't like or appreciate the convenience.

SlyFlourish wants to play a game that their friends don't want to play. And that's WOTC'S fault?!? No. It's theirs. They have not made a convincing argument to their friends as to why playing this new game might be fun (even if it is "less convenient"). That's their problem to work around... not WotC's.

 

[bedir than]

SlyFlourish wants to play a game that their friends don't want to play.

Slyflourish wants to play D&D. Everything in this conversation is about D&D.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Slyflourish wants to play D&D. Everything in this conversation is about D&D.

No they don't. They want to play Level Up. Level Up is not D&D. It is it's own game based on and adapted from D&D made by someone who is not the owner or publisher of D&D. SlyFlourish's friends want to play D&D-- the D&D that they can find on D&D Beyond. SlyFlourish does not want to play that. Thus they need to convince their friends why playing this other game could be fun. It's not WotC's job or responsibility to help them do that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I am glad the people who make things "convenient" for all of the rest us do not listen to responses like this because some people don't like or appreciate the convenience.

SlyFlourish wants to play a game that their friends don't want to play. And that's WOTC'S fault?!? No. It's theirs. They have not made a convincing argument to their friends as to why playing this new game might be fun (even if it is "less convenient"). That's their problem to work around... not WotC's.

I suppose I'm looking at it from a more compassionate and less pragmatic angle. This is a person with a real problem, and I don't think telling them "it's a skill issue" is helpful or kind.

 

[bedir than]

No they don't. They want to play Level Up. Level Up is not D&D. It is it's own game based on and adapted from D&D made by someone who is not the owner or publisher of D&D. SlyFlourish's friends want to play D&D-- the D&D that they can find on D&D Beyond. SlyFlourish does not want to play that. They thus need to convince their friends why playing this other game could be fun. It's not WotC's job or responsibility to help them do that.

This assigned absolutism grossly misrepresents his actual words used in this conversation.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I've seen people quit making stuff for less.

To be fair, some people quit when faced with adversity, and some people have it drive them to challenge. We'll always have people willing to go up against the big guy, and people willing to support them in doing it.

Heck, don't tell me that if YOU were never invited to the DDB "party" and you had to do it on your own, you wouldn't probably wind up a leader of La Resistance. They'd have to somehow make it financially ruinous to stop you, and you'd have a LOT of support. The more they tried, the more support you'd probably get!

I know I'd be with you!

 

[Oofta]

My world only has 9 playable races. It would be wonderful if DnD Beyond allowed me to set the playable races for a campaign. Maybe I don't like a certain class -- toggle it off (like not everyone should be required to allow Artificer). What if Spelljammer Backgrounds don't make sense? Currently they're allowed if you allow D&D content.

I also limit races so I simply tell people to limit to those specific races and any other restrictions I have. Just like I always have. I don't see why that would be a high priority for a system.