D&D 5E I still want D&D and Beyond, but...

[pukunui]

The main reason I got a DDB master tier subscription was so I could share the content I've purchased with my players via the campaign function.

 

[The Scythian]

You can have a free subscription to DND Beyond (I do), which has no recurrent fees. This gives you access to the basic rules and SRD, articles, free monsters (like spelljammer and dragonlance), other free goodies, and a ton of homebrew content. I don't know if it includes the encounter builder as I have never used that tool. You can of course buy stuff too if you want (which I do), but that is no more recurrent than buying the physical books (which I haven't until the DL bundle).

I think there might be a misunderstanding about the terminology here. In the world of digital games, recurrent spending refers not only to subscriptions that recur periodically, but also to things like microtransactions, purchasing add-on content, and selling virtual currency. So, when you say, "You can of course buy stuff too," you're referring to recurrent spending. Like, if people are buying feats, classes, or bundles of spells or whatever? That's recurrent spending.

I don't think you're necessarily wrong when you say that such purchases are no more recurrent than buying the physical books. I mean, it would be possible to argue that roleplaying games are built on a primitive precursor to the recurrent spending model, in that the business is sustained not only by selling the base game, but by selling add-ons, such as supplements, adventures, and miniatures.

While that might be an interesting discussion, I think it would miss the point. When Cynthia Williams talks about the potential of digital tools to "unlock the type of recurrent spending you see in digital games," she's not talking about buying a couple of books over the course of a game's lifecycle. Things like D&D Beyond subscriptions or paying $0.99 for a background or a spell (or however much they cost) are merely the first baby steps toward a massive transformation.

That's sort of beside my point, though, which is that it's inaccurate to say that WotC is blocked from making money off of recurrent spending by the OGL.

 

[Steel_Wind]

First of all, I feel for everybody in this thread -- and across the hobby over the past week. It's made a thing which is supposed to fun -- and which is a hobby which is not only a pleasant escape but something that most of are deeply attached to emotionally and have been for most of our lives. They changed that into a source of aggravation and anxiety. This past week, our hobby has made us sad, to a lesser or greater degree.

That sucks; that sucks a lot.

Secondly, I'm particularly depressed reading the statements here that DMs can't feel the passion to work on their game, think about their campaigns, or start a new campaign just after buying a new book (like SotDQ, say). That resonates. Like the worst case of burn out? It will come back. Give it some time.

As a lawyer (and former podcaster) I have a lot of FB friends in the industry and I have seen their expressions of legal anxiety this week, too. That bothers me a LOT to see small business people and creative writers wonder what the hell they are going to do about all of this 1.1 OGL. It's worse, as almost all of them are not able to afford a lawyer to provide them with solid advice. That's upsetting on both a personal and professional basis. They deserve BETTER than this. So that sucks a lot, too.

As for where this is all going? I don't know what's coming later this week, or month. I do think it is possible that WotC retreats from some of this, because the law is not on their side here. So there is some practical reason for hope on that score.

I do think one thing will NOT change: there will only be one, count em, ONE VTT for 6th ed that will fully support that system - and that's the new WotC VTT. Roll 20 won't work with it, FG won't, Foundry won't, Talespire or whatever else won't either. It will be a closed subscription only system via DDB. Okay. Fine.

And it may be awesome in the final result, too. That also, would be fine. I won't swear I will never use it - as I might. But I sure as hell don't plan to and will likely move away from WotC published D&D. shrug I've done that TWO times before. A third time? No Big Deal.

The management at WotC want to earn WoW money from this game and this is their plan to do it. To be fair? That is okay and a legitimate business plan. If they can do that? God bless em. They spent $146 million on DDB towards that end. That bullet has left the chamber, it's not coming back. That aspect of their plan will NOT change. Fine. Take as much as you can; stuff your pockets and fill your boots.

Now it is possible, entirely possible, that WotC may rethink its approach on the 1.1 OGL. That would not surprise me in the least, because I think their plan to get rid of the OGL 1.0a from those who have already exercised those rights is legally dubious and unsound. This is a real problem for WotC, as VTTs are out there under 5.1 and the OGL 1.0a -- and WotC's business plan calls for them to ensure that compatibility ends with 6e so that the subscription plan for VTTs does not have any "leaks".

If WotC backs off of 1.1 OGL, that would mean that WotC would need to make some adjustments to 6e so that is more different and less compatible with 5e than they would prefer, just so that it will be certain to break Foundry, Roll 20, FG, and anybody else from kludging support for 6e. That is probably a pain in the ass for the designers at WotC, but they can live with that, too, if they must. I expect their marketing people don't want to mess with the current success -- hence the 1.1 OGL plan to ensure VTT exclusivity. meh

___________________

 

[Steel_Wind]

For my own part, I am not all that attached to 5e. I just jumped in from PF2 9 months ago. I just changed systems, dropped a bunch of money on DDB, and have a couple of campaigns to run and finish. I'm going to do that and I'm still keen on it, thankfully. They haven't killed that joy (yet).

I will pay for a DDB Master subscription, as my players need that for Foundry use. The moment that breaks? The DDB sub ends.

I would have bought some more 5e books over the next 12-24 months from DDB. That is not something I will do now. They aren't getting more of my money for that.

I do expect that a version of 5e will arise out of the existing 3pp a la Pathfinder 1 in the next while, whether that comes out just before 6e or at the same time? That seems all but certain to happen now. At the least, there is A5e, right? Whatever the case, some products, somehow will manage to fulfill that role.

Whatever the case, my guess is that those larger 3pp whose businesses are attached to 5e who will go that route and it will be 2008 & PF1 all over again. That's okay. I think that may be a good thing. I will support that, and VTTs will be able to support it, too. Pathfinder was a great thing for the hobby and it was the right game at the right time. It materially contributed to the hobby and Adv Paths remain my favorite form of play.

If something similar emerges from the next D&D clone? Awesome. That is not the time for a funeral dirge, but an optimistic bit of wondrous discovery. Great!

I am not optimistic that this, too, shall pass, in terms of feelings towards WotC and their branded game. It might not folks. Still, Pathfinder 1 was D&D to me, and the next one will likely be, too. I'm good. It's just a trade-mark in the end.

Bottom Line: Screw these guys. They own a trademark and some IP. But the heart of the game? It's not in a book, it's not in the Registrar of Trade-marks, or the Copyright office, or any of that crap. The game lives in your head, in your hearts, in the friendships you have with your fellow gamers at the table, over Zoom, Discord, Skype -- and on forums like this. They don't own that. They will NEVER own that. That belongs to you.

It will be ugly and disruptive, but in the end? It will be fine.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I never really used D&DBeyond for my personal campaign, my weapon of choice is FantasyGrounds. However, I spent money on D&DBeyond in the last year to enable my nephew to run a campaign.
I love 5e and on balance like the proposed changes that make up the core of OneD&D, though I am not sure if my players like it. So we might have been sticking to core 5e anyway.
I have no recent experience with Roll20 but when I used it, it had a pretty robust macro language so I think that it can provide sufficient support for official D&D going forward and there is always the option of ignoring the automation.
I also think that it may be impossible to retain the functionality and usability of a site like D&DBeyond and prevent browser extensions from doing their thing.
Not with out going back to silverlight .
FantasyGrounds is on more difficult territory as their rules engine relies on parsing the statblocks. It does have a good dice macro language already but only implemented in the chat window and not in the character sheet.
Dunno about other VTTs.
I do not see myself changing from 5e for the foreseeable future.

 

[dave2008]

I think there might be a misunderstanding about the terminology here.

I understood the terminology. However,...

That's sort of beside my point, though, which is that it's inaccurate to say that WotC is blocked from making money off of recurrent spending by the OGL.

...I never got that this was what you were trying to argue. If anyone said this was the case, I missed it.

 

[Velderan]

I think there might be a misunderstanding about the terminology here. In the world of digital games, recurrent spending refers not only to subscriptions that recur periodically, but also to things like microtransactions, purchasing add-on content, and selling virtual currency. So, when you say, "You can of course buy stuff too," you're referring to recurrent spending. Like, if people are buying feats, classes, or bundles of spells or whatever? That's recurrent spending.

I don't think you're necessarily wrong when you say that such purchases are no more recurrent than buying the physical books. I mean, it would be possible to argue that roleplaying games are built on a primitive precursor to the recurrent spending model, in that the business is sustained not only by selling the base game, but by selling add-ons, such as supplements, adventures, and miniatures.

While that might be an interesting discussion, I think it would miss the point. When Cynthia Williams talks about the potential of digital tools to "unlock the type of recurrent spending you see in digital games," she's not talking about buying a couple of books over the course of a game's lifecycle. Things like D&D Beyond subscriptions or paying $0.99 for a background or a spell (or however much they cost) are merely the first baby steps toward a massive transformation.

That's sort of beside my point, though, which is that it's inaccurate to say that WotC is blocked from making money off of recurrent spending by the OGL.

The 3D VTT, if it proves popular, is a gold mine for recurring spending. Just look around at software that you can make battle maps with; many of them sell asset packs to expand your options. Want a new set of tavern furniture? $4.99 please. A single new model for your PC or NPC? 99 cents please. New packs of monsters with stat blocks to go with them? That'll be $9.99. There won't be the same spending opportunity for players as DMs, but giving players the ability to buy cosmetics is a start towards closing the gap between player and DM spending IMO.

 

[The Scythian]

...I never got that this was what you were trying to argue. If anyone said this was the case, I missed it.

In the post you initially responded to, I wrote:

All of that is recurrent spending, and since WotC spent blockbuster movie money (~$150 million) to buy D&D Beyond, all of that recurrent spending goes to them now. So, while it may be true that none of your recurrent spending goes to WotC, plenty of recurrent spending does. That is despite the existence of the OGL.

And that was in response to TheSword, who wrote, "There is plenty of recurrent spending none of it goes to WoTC though because of the OGL." (The block quote was in my response, but I can't quote a block quote here.)

I was responding to the inaccurate claim that WotC is unable to take advantage of recurrent spending because of the OGL by pointing out that they own what is almost certainly the largest platform for D&D-related recurrent spending, and that they are developing a platform that will offer additional extremely lucrative opportunities for recurrent spending, and none of that is hindered by the OGL in any meaningful way.

Hopefully that clears things up.

 

[Steel_Wind]

In the post you initially responded to, I wrote:

And that was in response to TheSword, who wrote, "There is plenty of recurrent spending none of it goes to WoTC though because of the OGL." (The block quote was in my response, but I can't quote a block quote here.)

I was responding to the inaccurate claim that WotC is unable to take advantage of recurrent spending because of the OGL by pointing out that they own what is almost certainly the largest platform for D&D-related recurrent spending, and that they are developing a platform that will offer additional extremely lucrative opportunities for recurrent spending, and none of that is hindered by the OGL in any meaningful way.

Hopefully that clears things up.

I think it's simpler than that: when you want to charge somebody a monthly subscription price to play via VTT, you want to be sure that your VTT is great AND that you are the only VTT option available. Hasbro appreciates the concept of "Monopoly"!

From that central commercial objective, all else follows. Other changes to the OGL become a shopping list of druthers and add-ons. Important, sure, but not THE REASON.

 

[The Scythian]

The 3D VTT, if it proves popular, is a gold mine for recurring spending. Just look around at software that you can make battle maps with; many of them sell asset packs to expand your options. Want a new set of tavern furniture? $4.99 please. A single new model for your PC or NPC? 99 cents please. New packs of monsters with stat blocks to go with them? That'll be $9.99. There won't be the same spending opportunity for players as DMs, but giving players the ability to buy cosmetics is a start towards closing the gap between player and DM spending IMO.

Absolutely.

And that's the destination for 6e. WotC spent $150 million on D&D Beyond. They're spending who knows how much to develop a proprietary state-of-the-art VTT. The end result will probably be some combination of a D&D bookshelf (although what we think of as D&D books will change), character builder, DM toolkit, VTT, social network, and maybe other things besides. Each of those subcomponents will offer pretty much limitless opportunities for recurrent spending. People are currently thinking in terms of $0.99 feats or virtual miniatures, and they're certainly going to sell those things, but there are also going to be things like limited edition stickers for your public-facing profile, special virtual character sheet themes (which may already be offered on D&D Beyond for all I know), skins for your virtual dice, and things like that.

When all is said and done, they're going to be spending Marvel movie budget money on this project. Maybe even more. They're not making that investment so that people can continue to buy a couple of books and play around the dining room table. (They will still offer books, but if the project is successful, they will eventually be more in the vein of limited-edition collectibles.) They're not going to recoup that investment through a percentage of the profits from a mid-budget action movie, licensing fees from Funko Pop figures, t-shirt sales, or even traditional D&D book sales. The only way that they make money is if they dramatically and permanently transform the way D&D is played.

I think it's simpler than that: when you want to charge somebody a monthly subscription price to play via VTT, you want to be sure that your VTT is great AND that you are the only VTT option available. Hasbro appreciates the concept of "Monopoly"!

From that central commercial objective, all else follows. Other changes to the OGL become a shopping list of druthers and add-ons. Important, sure, but not THE REASON.

I suspect we agree more than we disagree.

When I entered this thread, it was to say that I am disappointed by the recurrent spending model WotC will be adopting for D&D, but that I am incensed that part of this transformation involves taking a wrecking ball to a big chunk of the rest of the industry. I explained that people like me are not cheering for the downfall of D&D, but for the downfall of that project and the people behind it.

I agree with you that WotC wants to make sure that their new platform is not only great (or at least decent) but is also the only game in town. However, I also believe that they would have made a ludicrous amount of money even if they hadn't gone after the OGL.