D&D General Interview with D&D VP Jess Lanzillo on Comicbook.com

[Oofta]

I don't think anyone reasonable is going to see "significant proportion" in this context as like, less than say, 10%. Where I've seen it defined, people usually tend to see it as more like 30%. I've never seen it suggested that below 10% is a "significant proportion". I think the "significant" qualifier is pretty important there. I wrote those words specifically to pre-empt trivial stuff like "I saw one guy say this once years ago!".

As for "well people keep bringing it up", as far as I can see here, the main people who "keep bringing it up" in this case are the people who are claiming "people keep bringing it up", not people, actually y'know, saying they plan to go full-digital.

Going full-digital doesn't even really make sense because WotC still makes money on the books, and they're still a major part of the brand, especially as a lifestyle brand, which WotC have been pretty clear that they want D&D to be. Even if their sales steadily decline, WotC will probably just keep making them more expensive and more "luxury" to ensure they remain profitable.

The bigger short-to-mid-term concerns re: digital, are well stated in @Shardstone's post. Enshittification is not certain but it is, historically, quite close to certain.


There's definitely some truth to this, but it very much depends on how WotC does it.

If WotC say, released a big product with a heavy mechanical element, like strong/interesting/cool new subclasses, races, spells etc. and made it digital only, I do think the community backlash would be immediate and severe, and potentially force them to backpedal and not do it again anytime soon.

However, if WotC start releasing the odd mechanical bit here and there, like a subclass here, a race there, digital only, particularly if they don't charge for the first ones, I think they may well be able to get a "boiled frog" scenario going. Enough people will tolerate and defend it that it won't get the brakes thrown. D&D Influences will probably critique it and warn people that this could be a dangerous trend, but they'll likely get ignored or shouted down.

And if WotC then just collect a year or two of previously digital-only mechanical content in a Tasha's-style book which they do print, people will say "See, what were you worried about?".

Then WotC can go increasingly heavy on this, because they've basically normalized it, and are shifting customers to digital subscriptions because really, an awful lot of groups don't want to wait 1-2 years to use new races/subclasses/spells, etc. Maybe errata will start becoming more regular and being applied to the digital game directly and immediately, and I'm sure they'll also list the errata on a website anyone can browse, but by moving to more frequent ones, they're again making it more convenient to go digital.

There's a lot more that could happen too, but I'll leave it at that for now. I think that given recent shocks, the community is pretty well-protected against major, sudden, obvious bad decisions from WotC, but more subtle acclimatization and slow change over a few years? I think that's a lot less likely to be opposed, and much more likely to be defended.

So your big fear is that they'll start releasing things that they charge for like subclasses online only? So what? From SCAG on, DMs have had to decide what subclasses and options they want to allow in their game. It's really no different from what we had for a while where I could buy just parts of a book that interested me. Delivery method of a subset of rules doesn't really matter, people always have to decide if a supplement is worth the cost. How is it any different from buy some 3PP set of subclasses from a different company or DmsGuild?

I also don't see it happening any time soon, if it's worth publishing it will likely end up in a book as well.

 

[SlyFlourish]

D&D Influences will probably critique it and warn people that this could be a dangerous trend, but they'll likely get ignored or shouted down.

I feel attacked!

It's happening right now in this forum! A lot of people seem more than happy to fall back into the warm embrace of Hasbro saying "they're not going to do anything bad!" while ignoring the things they've done to change the deal.

I think you're right. A turning point will be when they start selling subclasses or other player-focused crunchy mechanics only on D&D Beyond. For me, that would be one of my flickering candles. That would be a clear sign, and probably not an unexpected one, that they want to draw players further into Beyond.

It's still not the end of the world. Lots of publishers have released lots of subclasses for D&D and 5e. But what reach will those have if more and more players feel like the only way to play D&D is on D&D Beyond? That's the risk.

 

[SlyFlourish]

From SCAG on, DMs have had to decide what subclasses and options they want to allow in their game.

This is actually really hard to enforce on D&D Beyond. There's no way for DMs to limit what material a player can use in the character builder. I have lots of friends and hear about it all the time in organized play where players show up with a whole ton of weird subclasses and spells and features from every book available on D&D Beyond. Then they feel it's the DM's fault when they say "no, you can't play a loxodon chronomancer from the prsmari school in our Forgotten Realms game".

I have very experienced players, DMs themselves, who still took options outside of those we selected for our campaign because D&D Beyond made it almost impossible to see the sources of the options they were choosing.

 

[Oofta]

This is actually really hard to enforce on D&D Beyond. There's no way for DMs to limit what material a player can use in the character builder. I have lots of friends and hear about it all the time in organized play where players show up with a whole ton of weird subclasses and spells and features from every book available on D&D Beyond. Then they feel it's the DM's fault when they say "no, you can't play a loxodon chronomancer from the prsmari school in our Forgotten Realms game".

I have very experienced players, DMs themselves, who still took options outside of those we selected for our campaign because D&D Beyond made it almost impossible to see the sources of the options they were choosing.

I have options to limit what my players use because I have access to their character sheet. If I don't I can ask, just like I did before DDB was even a concept. I limit a lot of things right now, content on DDB is no different.

If someone feels it's my fault that they can't play [insert one of my limitations like no drow] in my campaign then I'm not the DM for them. Same as it's been for a long time.

 

[mamba]

It's a digital micro-purchase that unlocks specific features or special content which is an add-on to the core content of the game, a small fraction of the whole content, and unnecessary to play the game. It's a microtransaction, people have described it as a microtransaction here and pretty much everywhere else.

people describe a lot of things in a lot of ways, depending on what they want to emphasize. That is not a consensus opinion.

Buying a lettuce at a store is not a MT, just because the price is low, there are more criteria than just the price.

Since you can buy parts of the book that way but get the whole book if you buy enough parts to reach its price, it functions very differently from the usual MT.

Buying an outfit or horse for your char is an MT, even if it costs $20. Buying a race or class from a book separately is not (imo)

I can't verify they took them away because people kept complaining about microtransactions, but I bet those complaints didn't help

I expect they had absolutely nothing to do with it and the VTT will have MTs to prove it

 

[Warpiglet-7]

I feel attacked!

It's happening right now in this forum! A lot of people seem more than happy to fall back into the warm embrace of Hasbro saying "they're not going to do anything bad!" while ignoring the things they've done to change the deal.

I think you're right. A turning point will be when they start selling subclasses or other player-focused crunchy mechanics only on D&D Beyond. For me, that would be one of my flickering candles. That would be a clear sign, and probably not an unexpected one, that they want to draw players further into Beyond.

It's still not the end of the world. Lots of publishers have released lots of subclasses for D&D and 5e. But what reach will those have if more and more players feel like the only way to play D&D is on D&D Beyond? That's the risk.

I think you are absolutely right. There will be online exclusives and they will try to influence expectations such that people will feel the pull to buy online avatars, rule packs or whatever.

Folks have to reject the self imposed pressure for cult of the new/complete. We will see what the player base wants. They could reject this and influence the situation.

I will continue to buy books and minis where I want to; if there are some online exclusive rules, folks will summarize and word of mouth will mean they won’t be out of reach for pure table players. I all but guarantee that—-there won’t be any online only rules packs that won’t be disseminated in some way.

If they try to make the ttrp a video game with opaque action resolution/rules, I don’t think the bulk of the fandom will simply follow.

I think you are right ultimately about the company’s intentions. I don’t like them if that is true. But I will sidestep it all with everyone I play D&D with; I cannot believe we will be alone.

 

[mamba]

So I'll ask again for what feels like the hundredth time. What type of microtransaction could be harmful to the game? They're never going to let you buy magic items, characters levels, special abilities. It's going to be cool minis, special dice, likely special terrain and visual pizzaz. Which is similar to what people have been purchasing forever.

not sure why you are asking me that… I do not expect any to be harmful to the game in the way you describe, all will be cosmetic.

What harm do microtransactions cause and what specific could they sell other than the old standby "Look at what they did to MMOs!"

the harm is financial, to the person buying them, not to D&D the game

 

[Oofta]

not sure why you are asking me that… I do not expect any to be harmful to the game in the way you describe, all will be cosmetic.

Then I don't see a problem.

the harm is financial, to the person buying them, not to D&D the game

How is that different from buying minis, terrain, special dice? Things we've always done? My wife recently bought a special notebook with a cool epoxy dragon cover to take notes because she thought it was cool and we can afford it.

If spending extra money is an issue, it has nothing to do with digital options.

 

[mamba]

How is that different from buying minis, terrain, special dice? Things we've always done?

it isn’t, it’s basically the same thing in digital.

The difference is that now 13 or 15 year olds spend hundreds of dollars on it that they do not have, but other than that it is essentially the same.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

How is it any different from buy some 3PP set of subclasses from a different company or DmsGuild?

Because there's a printable PDF of those? And in many cases you can get POD of them. Also, they're not purporting to be official, which does make a difference.

It's really no different from what we had for a while where I could buy just parts of a book that interested me.

I mean, it is different, because those books physically existed lol.

Delivery method of a subset of rules doesn't really matter

It clearly does to a great number of people or a lot of this discussion wouldn't be occurring. I think if WotC offered printable PDFs this would be a lesser issue. But they don't and appear to have no intention of doing so whilst any form of 5E is "current". They only offer the Beyond website and possibly app (I forget if the current app lets you read books), which means you're essentially locked to digital devices to use this content (you can currently print from the website but it's not great).

More importantly, digital exclusives in the case of something that's both digital and physical are usually stage 1 in enshittification. I know your - quite reasonable - position is "If it gets rubbish, I'll just dump it! Corporations going to corporate!", but I think a lot of people feel like they'd like it to, y'know, not get rubbish. Obviously if it does they can and should abandon it (though some will not of course). Also, some people are interested in warning signs here, because D&D Beyond represents quite a notable financial investment, in both buying individual books and subscribing, so if it start on a "dark path", maybe it's better to stop buying stuff on Beyond at that point, rather than to keep dumping in hundreds of dollars only to realize a year or two from then that it's going somewhere you really don't like.

I feel like, and this is not an attack, I respect that you achieved this, you have more financial flexibility than some people, maybe a lot of people, so you investing hundreds of dollars into Beyond and then potentially at some point going "Idiots, they've ruined it!" and just stopping using it when it does get bad (as I believe you've suggested you would happily do if it did) is less consequential than for some people. This is a hobby where some people are dropping like $100 a year on the game (or less) and others are able to spend literally thousands of dollars. There's quite a diversity there. And for people closer to the $100 end (which I am nearer, despite being on a much higher income than most people in the UK), being able to anticipate or see warning signs this may well be more significantly beneficial.

How is that different from buying minis, terrain, special dice? Things we've always done? My wife recently bought a special notebook with a cool epoxy dragon cover to take notes because she thought it was cool and we can afford it.

If spending extra money is an issue, it has nothing to do with digital options.

I actually largely agree here, though one thing to note is a lot of digital stuff has a tendency to be suddenly snatched away, but that's a whole other can of worms.

I actually disagree with @mamba that the main problem microtransactions create is financial harm. Gambling-style ones do and should be absolutely condemned out of hand, but I think unless WotC completely lose their mind, those are unlikely. That said, if they do that with say, digital minis, and if so, obviously that'd be pretty contemptible (especially as they're almost always non-trade-able unlike physical stuff). But I think regulation/legislation/potential bans in European and Asian countries will probably keep them away from that.

The real harm of microtransaction-heavy platforms is that they tend to, over time, increasingly attempt to funnel users into purchasing microtransactions, to the point of reshaping functionality and systems to encourage that. As this is a novel product it's impossible to say exactly what form this would take, but it might, for example, involve locking mechanical content behind purchasing microtransaction figurines (or force-bundling them or w/e).