D&D (2024) Wizards of the Coast Backtracks on D&D Beyond and 2014 Content

Wizards of the Coast posted an overnight update stating that they are not going forward with previously released plans to require those wishing to use some 2014 content on D&D Beyond to use the Homebrew function to manually enter it. Instead, all the content including spells and magic items will be included. From the update:

D&D (2024) - How D&D Beyond Will Handle Access To 2014 Rules

D&D Beyond has announced how the transition to the new 2024 edition will work on the platform, and how legacy access to the 2014 version of D&D will be implemented. You will still be able to access the 2014 Basic Rules and core rulebooks. You will still be able to make characters using the 2014...

www.enworld.org

Last week we released a Changelog detailing how players would experience the 2024 Core Rulebooks on D&D Beyond. We heard your feedback loud and clear and thank you for speaking up.

Our excitement around the 2024 Core Rulebooks led us to view these planned updates as welcome improvements and free upgrades to existing content. We misjudged the impact of this change, and we agree that you should be free to choose your own way to play. Taking your feedback to heart, here’s what we’re going to do:

Players who only have access to the 2014 Player’s Handbook will maintain their character options, spells, and magical items in their character sheets. Players with access to the 2024 and 2014 digital Player’s Handbooks can select from both sources when creating new characters. Players will not need to rely on Homebrew to use their 2014 player options, including spells and magic items, as recommended in previous changelogs.

Please Note:

Players will continue to have access to their free, shared, and purchased items on D&D Beyond, with the ability to use previously acquired player options when creating characters and using character sheets.

We are not changing players’ current character sheets, except for relabeling and renaming. Examples include Races to Species, Inspiration to Heroic Inspiration, and Cast Spell to Magic.

We’re dedicated to making D&D Beyond the ultimate digital toolset for Dungeons & Dragons, continuously enhancing the platform to ensure you can create, customize, and play your game just as you envision it. From your first one-shot to multi-year campaigns and everything in between, we're grateful to be on this journey with you.

- The D&D Studio

 

[mamba]

That's the number that was given to me by the posters who linked to that article about the number of D&D players. If you think the amount is different, take it up with them.

that sounds like an older number of DDB users more than anything…

apparently you took it from ‘A quick google search gives numbers like 13.7 million, and 50 million D&D players.’ so yeah, not based on anything halfway reliable

 

[DEFCON 1]

that sounds like an older number of DDB users more than anything…

apparently you took it from ‘A quick google search gives numbers like 13.7 million, and 50 million D&D players.’ so yeah, not based on anything halfway reliable

Beats me. But it doesn't really matter the exact numbers anyway. All of my points still stand about taking whatever the current playerbase is and then weeding out each and every group I mentioned until we got down to the total number of people who actually boycotted the movie and how much revenue that might have cost Paramount.

If some people want to believe that it's those boycotting fans who caused the box office to only reach $93 million domestic and that's why the film "bombed"... they are free to do so. Me personally? I believe you need a film to reach every potential quadrant of the filmgoing public to make a hit, and it's because not enough "non-D&D" people went to see it that it didn't get over $100 million. That's why it "bombed", not because they couldn't get every D&D player to see it. The film was never going to succeed or fail on just the D&D players spending money on it.

 

[mamba]

The film was never going to succeed or fail on just the D&D players spending money on it.

this film more than any other though

It most likely was not the only cause for the result, it certainly did not help and had some impact however

 

[DEFCON 1]

this film more than any other though

It most likely was not the only cause for the result, it certainly did not help and had some impact however

Sure. Some people choosing to not see the film lowered its box office-- can't argue with that. Just like some people not choosing to see the film twice in the theater lowered its box office. Or any other of the innumerable reasons why people didn't see the film. But there's no single group we can point to and say that they were the "real" cause of it only making $93 million. And it's silly to try and insinuate that.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Sure. Some people choosing to not see the film lowered its box office-- can't argue with that. Just like some people not choosing to see the film twice in the theater lowered its box office. Or any other of the innumerable reasons why people didn't see the film. But there's no single group we can point to and say that they were the "real" cause of it only making $93 million. And it's silly to try and insinuate that.

And I'm not sure anyone here said that it did. I certainly didn't.

My question was wondering how management views those two chronologically proximate events. Do they see causation there that has impacted their approach to PR issues.

You were the one who decided to try and make a quantitative point, and chose to use numbers with, near as I can tell, zero sourcing. Like you may be right in your conclusion, but your process was garbage and hasn't really improved.

 

[Oofta]

Sure. Some people choosing to not see the film lowered its box office-- can't argue with that. Just like some people not choosing to see the film twice in the theater lowered its box office. Or any other of the innumerable reasons why people didn't see the film. But there's no single group we can point to and say that they were the "real" cause of it only making $93 million. And it's silly to try and insinuate that.

Other reasons? Bad timing for the release meaning there was no time for word of mouth to gain traction. A bloated budget. Advertising that made it seem like another superhero CGI extravaganza that people are tired of. Ongoing hesitation to go to a theater for a movie. Streaming and better TVs making people less likely to

The number of people that play or have played D&D that knew about and still cared about the OGL issue? A drop in the bucket.

 

[Echohawk]

We don't know why DDB hasn't made some of the changes, why the encounter builder is still in beta or any number of things haven't been fixed.

While it certainly isn't an explanation of why the Encounter Builder has remained in beta for so very long, I am dearly hoping that the reason the status hasn't changed since WotC took over DDB is because they are preparing to launch a revised version that uses the updated encounter building rules from the new DMG.

I can hope, right?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

While it certainly isn't an explanation of why the Encounter Builder has remained in beta for so very long, I am dearly hoping that the reason the status hasn't changed since WotC took over DDB is because they are preparing to launch a revised version that uses the updated encounter building rules from the new DMG.

I can hope, right?

One certainly can hope for this, and I do.

I doubt it's the case, I suspect they've just deprioritized that to focus on upgrades and moved people doing work on that to stuff de facto more required due to WotC's release schedule (rather than y'know, slowly growing the team over the 4+ years they've clearly needed to, and the 2+ they've been owned by WotC for).

Nonetheless, I hope it's the case!

Or at the very least once the PHB/DMG/MM are out, and thus the rush on updating/changing Beyond for them is over that the Encounter Builder can actually be completed. Likewise work on the basic VTT, the map thing, seems to have pretty much stalled, with only the very lowest-hanging fruits being actually completed, and "in progress" signs being put on a bunch of stuff that is needed to make it actually usable (which is meaningless - Beyond has had stuff "in progress" for 4+ years and counting). Hopefully they can get people back on that, despite Sigil (which I hope WotC has the foresight to see doesn't really compete with it).

 

[Umbran]

It most likely was not the only cause for the result, it certainly did not help and had some impact however

The word "some" is doing the heavy lifting there. This is like a diaper salesman saying saying their product protects from "up to 100% of leaks". It sounds notable if you aren't paying attention, but actually means nothing.

 

[Minigiant]

and? Why would that be harder for DDB. You have the ‘math and game assumptions’ in the system per core book.

Heck, if they internally do that by some edition number field rather than by book ID (very doubtful), then just call it 6e internally, no one will know - if you even called 5e that internally and not simply ‘1’.

For that matter Tasha’s already changed some stuff around (floating ASIs), so if we had an edition field it would already not sync up with WotC’s idea of an edition

You are just trying to find a technical limitation as an excuse for a decision that most likely was a business one, which is why they could reverse it a week before release

My guess is

DNDB is so stupid it can't tell the difference between Sleep (2014) and Sleep (2024) when both are available to pick.

Remember the sole problem is the Char builder. The 2014 spells would still be in the compendium.

The sole issue was the Character Builder.

The Char Builder likely has spaghetti code that can't handle 2 spells of the same exact name.