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.

 

[Umbran]

If they want more interviews with creators, then why invite a lot of people to the "Creator Summit" who are personalities, and not game content creators?

I expect (or at least hope) there is a longer term plan at work here, of which this event is merely the first step.

I'd think they'd want to speak to creators of actual game material.

Eventually, yes. Given the OGL debacle, taking small steps first seems reasonable.

 

[bedir than]

I expect (or at least hope) there is a longer term plan at work here, of which this event is merely the first step.

At least a third of the people that I know are there have produced playable game content that I own

 

[Umbran]

At least a third of the people that I know are there have produced playable game content that I own

That's good. But I don't think that kind of content creation was the intended focus of this event, and that's okay.

I think they'd want to approach the publishing sorts when the 2024 books and D&DB plans are closer to fruition, because the publishing folks may want to design for those resources.

 

[darjr]

Part of this effort was the DnDBeyond live stream they did with the Forge of Foes creators. The first of a planned series.

Also purportedly there is going to be a GenCon summit.

 

[Parmandur]

For the four subclasses for each class goal and the eight schools of magic, well it is a playtest and could easily change. And 8 goes into 4 pretty easily – I can see matching up Enchantment and Illusion into one subclass, with Abjuration and Divination being another subclass, or Conjuration and Evocation. That leaves Necromancy and Transmutation, but a 'cycle of life' means 'change, change, everything changes' justification could work.

Given that Bladesinger and War Wizard are actually more popular on Beyond than the PHB Subclasses...I half expect them to ditch School as Subclass for the PHB entirely.

 

[Erdric Dragin]

Can we publish 3.5e content yes or no? That's all I wanna know. I'm considering writing a Fiendish Codex III: Yugoloths one day

 

[bedir than]

Can we publish 3.5e content yes or no? That's all I wanna know. I'm considering writing a Fiendish Codex III: Yugoloths one day

The OGL 1.0 still exists. You are as capable of producing 3.5 content as you eve were.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

For the four subclasses for each class goal and the eight schools of magic, well it is a playtest and could easily change. And 8 goes into 4 pretty easily – I can see matching up Enchantment and Illusion into one subclass, with Abjuration and Divination being another subclass, or Conjuration and Evocation. That leaves Necromancy and Transmutation, but a 'cycle of life' means 'change, change, everything changes' justification could work.

The school specializations can be slammed together into one subclass pretty easily. I would assume the other four for wizard would be stuff like the warmage and bladesinger, which are wildly popular.

 

[Yaarel]

Can we publish 3.5e content yes or no? That's all I wanna know. I'm considering writing a Fiendish Codex III: Yugoloths one day

There is a blurry area between yes-or-no.

Yugoloths officially exist in 5e, and are part of the Forgotten Realms setting (extending to the Astral Plane and Dominions that are part of this setting).

So, if you write content expanding on Yugoloths while drawing from earlier editions, and publish it in the DMsGuild with the intention of including it within Forgotten Realms, probably no one will have a problem with it.

 

[JEB]

The OGL 1.0 still exists. You are as capable of producing 3.5 content as you eve were.

Sure, as long as you're fine with calling them daemons instead of yugoloths, and basing them on the Tome of Horrors versions or other unofficial material, and making zero reference to anything lore-wise that's not OGL.

So, if you write content expanding on Yugoloths while drawing from earlier editions, and publish it in the DMsGuild with the intention of including it within Forgotten Realms, probably no one will have a problem with it.

The DM Guild doesn't permit creators to produce 3.5 material, though. Which I assume is what @Erdric Dragin was asking about.