DnD Shorts final video

[Staffan]

Oh, god, Gleemax. I forgot all about that! Did that actually do any damage? I always just saw it as kind of a joke that fell apart. I didn't HATE it the way I do this.

I don't think it did any direct damage, but the indirect damage by siphoning off resources into what due to unfortunate events became a black hole certainly didn't help.

 

[DarkCrisis]

Blueprint 2.0

And it's interesting that a similar decision in 2007 is what spurred the creation of 4E and shaped the direction it took (only back then the goal was much lower - $50m/year).

Yes and we've been discussing this possibility for months, perhaps over a year, albeit usually the terminology was "coffee table books" or the like. The weird awkwardness of "treasured collectibles" has a disturbing ring of truth to it lol.

I think this issue speaks to divisions at WotC and Cao's apparently lack of understanding of D&D/TTRPGs. Clearly not everyone is with him given D&D Beyond was acquired against his advice. Might want to include that as it seems significant (buying Beyond against advice).

Anyway, yeah that's a helpful summary.

Making the books secondary means damage to the local mom and pop gaming stores. Though Ive always heard MtG (and Pokemon?) are the bread and butter of a gaming store.

Mine has a large section of it for D&D products and it would be interesting to see what books minis maps paints etc are for "real collectors" would actually do to those stores.

 

[Greg Benage]

'Want to cast Fireball? That will be $2 to add to your spellbook!'

Legit?!

Nah. If you want to make your fireball green, that will be $2.00.

 

[Clint_L]

I have subscribed to D&D Shorts for a long time. I really enjoy it; Will makes fun videos and is super charismatic.

That said, he's not a journalist, and this is not good reporting. There is a story here, and I want to know what it is, but he is not responsibly assessing his sources or digging for verification the way any reputable reporter would. For example, he is heavily relying on sources that have already been shown to have misrepresented facts (i.e. by insisting that survey responses were never read, etc.). The way those facts were misrepresented, and the confidence with which they were misrepresented suggests an agenda. A journalist would be (rightly) much more cautious about those sources going forward, whereas his response has been to simply drop those allegations but otherwise rely on those same sources' other claims.

So are their other allegations accurate? Maybe. It's impossible to know from this reporting. Much verification is needed, though the broad strokes (D&D moving to a much more digital platform) seem pretty uncontroversial. This video seems more about DnDShorts trying to salvage his own reputation than it is responsible journalism, which is understandable: he's a YouTube content provider not a journalist.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

Why are people treating this video as fact?

 

[Dustin Cooper]

I have subscribed to D&D Shorts for a long time. I really enjoy it; Will makes fun videos and is super charismatic.

That said, he's not a journalist, and this is not good reporting. There is a story here, and I want to know what it is, but he is not responsibly assessing his sources or digging for verification the way any reputable reporter would. For example, he is heavily relying on sources that have already been shown to have misrepresented facts (i.e. by insisting that survey responses were never read, etc.). The way those facts were misrepresented, and the confidence with which they were misrepresented suggests an agenda. A journalist would be (rightly) much more cautious about those sources going forward, whereas his response has been to simply drop those allegations but otherwise rely on those same sources' other claims.

So are their other allegations accurate? Maybe. It's impossible to know from this reporting. Much verification is needed, though the broad strokes (D&D moving to a much more digital platform) seem pretty uncontroversial. This video seems more about DnDShorts trying to salvage his own reputation than it is responsible journalism, which is understandable: he's a YouTube content provider not a journalist.

Yeah, this. And I keep wondering why anyone would risk their job to get some of this info out. Like the OGL 1.1 was something that threatened the hobby, the core game, and people's jobs if it passed as it was. I could see an employee or someone under an NDA thinking it was important enough to take the risk to stop it from happening. But exact price points of a VTT? The AI DM/DMless adventure thing? Who thinks to themselves "I think that's a tad high for a subscription, and some people won't like this optional feature. I better risk my job to tell some random Youtuber about this?"

 

[The Stray]

Why are people treating this video as fact?

Perhaps because there are multiple sources quoted, along with the verifiable information of our own two eyes with regards to what WotC has done over the last few years?

Why? Do YOU have any contrary sources? Or are you just here to bash on DnD Shorts again?

 

[MonsterEnvy]

Perhaps because there are multiple sources quoted, along with the verifiable information of our own two eyes with regards to what WotC has done over the last few years?

Why? Do YOU have any contrary sources? Or are you just here to bash on DnD Shorts again?

D&D Shorts has been wrong several times. So I don't put stock in what he puts out.

 

[The Stray]

D&D Shorts has been wrong several times. So I don't put stock in what he puts out.

He was wrong once. And not even completely wrong, just wrong because his information came from someone with a skewed perspective of the internal situation.

Or are you talking about his prior content, which is just harmless white-room theorycrafting?

 

[Reynard]

D&D Shorts has been wrong several times. So I don't put stock in what he puts out.

Just to be clear: are you saying none of the information presented in the video is likely true?