D&D (2024) 2024 is out...and yet.....where are the threads?

[mamba]

I wanted to check something specific (how many languages a character creation grants), so went to SlyFlourish's YouTube to see if maybe, perhaps, he happened to have a page on screen that mentioned it.

there is a 'I have the PHB, AMA' thread, sounds like something to ask there...

 

[Reynard]

I wanted to check something specific (how many languages a character creation grants), so went to SlyFlourish's YouTube to see if maybe, perhaps, he happened to have a page on screen that mentioned it.

Unfortunately, all the screens of his video were now blurred out. In his comments he wrote: "Hasbro's D&D Creator Team Relations emailed me with new rules saying we weren't able to show more than 75% of the page on a two-page spread because they're worried people will take screenshots and stitch them together into a book."

It is these "new rules" from Hasbro that were forcing the influencers to block the access to the 2024 Players Handbook. Earlier in this thread I was blaming some of the influencers for the gatekeeping. I apologize for my unfair assumption, and to DnD Shorts in particular who I mentioned by name.


Heh, now my assumption is, Hasbros historical aversion to digital documents is becoming self-defeating again.

WotC is the authorship of the 2024 Players Handbook, and it is their right to restrict access to their content to only "fair use". But obviously in context this is awkward, and people involved surprised by the lockdown.

Showing 75% of a two-page spread in screenshot seems clumsy but still useful.

Interesting. Now, I'm not an influencer that relies on WotC's good will for my livelihood so take this with a grain of salt, but: Eff Them.

They released the book into the wild. They have no right to try and control how it is presented. They get to deal with reality, which is that the book it out there. They sold 3000 copies at GenCon. One of those (at least) is going to get scanned and end up online.

More importantly: what are you trying to suppress? You released the book. Stop trying to control the narrative.

Gawd I hate this company.

 

[mellored]

Who said it was? I'm just pointing out that, contrary to what was claimed, at least one video was indeed taken down.

The ones that showed the actual pages did, yes.
Or this one. Which got blurred.

It's one thing to show a sample picture, it's another to copy the whole book.

 

[Reynard]

Stop white knighting WotC. They aren't your friend.

 

[SlyFlourish]

WotC is fine. I assume WotC intended for the influencers to make the Players Handbook content known.

It is the influencers who seem to "hide the ball" when talking "about" the Players Handbook. They force D&D players to rely on them personally and only access partially what they happen to care about. There are exceptions, such as @SlyFlourish. And negotiable considerations: such as Treantmonk who has laser focus on the 2024 mechanics, and who does quote the mechanics verbatim and comprehensively when analyzing them.

But, if D&D Shorts would forgive me: If WotC was doing what he is doing, namely turning the D&D tradition into a walled garden behind a paywall ... would he really not critique WotC for this behavior? And yes, it is for a limited time, until the book is widely available − even a CC SRD! But still.


[Edit]:

Apparently, Hasbros D&D Creator Team Relations sent out emails to the influences with new rules asking them to not show more than 75% of a two-page spread at a time. This is why some of their videos "went private". I was blaming the influencers for the "gatekeeping", but it was Hasbros concerns about stitching a digital book together that was causing this gatekeeping. Not the influencers.

This is correct. When they gave out review copies the only limitation was holding off on posting content from inside the book until 1 August. Then today, days after many of us shot, edited, and posted videos, they suddenly had much higher restrictions on what should be posted. It’s a total pain in the ass. It makes our videos look terrible and makes them look like corporate jerks.

One other clarification, I wasn't under any NDA. Those who got the PDF of the book in late May signed an NDA that limited certain pages they couldn't show. I wasn't interested in an early review like that so I passed on it. If I had known all this drama was going to ruin my Saturday, I'd have passed on the review copy too.

 

[SlyFlourish]

They laid down some ground rules, which were basically you can show rules content but no direct screenshots from the book. Watch Treantmonk's videos and he has the relevant rules broken out into black-on-white text shots, retyped word-for-word. Since he already had a whole batch of videos queued up for when the NDA dropped, he clearly understood the rules well in advance, so there's no real excuse for others in the same position not to.

This may have been in the NDA for those who got the PDF but no such limitations were given to me when I received a review copy. Until today.

 

[Azzy]

This is correct. When they gave out review copies the only limitation was holding off on posting content from inside the book until 1 August. Then today, days after many of us shot, edited, and posted videos, they suddenly had much higher restrictions on what should be posted. It’s a total pain in the ass. It makes our videos look like naughty word and makes them look like corporate jerks.

Boy, I've got news for you!

Corporations will never be anything but self-serving. It's a shame because I think the design team are nice enough (even if that make some boneheaded decisions), but corporate will corporate.

 

[Yaarel]

Boy, I've got news for you!

Corporations will never be anything but self-serving. It's a shame because I think the design team are nice enough (even if that make some boneheaded decisions), but corporate will corporate.

But there are decent corporations who treat their employees and customers respectfully.

 

[steeldragons]

There are...um....plenty? More than enough. What did you think would happen?

 

[Reynard]

But there are decent corporations who treat their employees and customers respectfully.

Name one.