D&D Beyond executives explain why subscribers can't share Drops content

D&D Beyond executives claim that content sharing isn't enabled for their new Drops material because they want to make sure designers get paid. On Friday, D&D Beyond's executive producer Brian Perry and new head of Drops content Jay Jani answered questions on Reddit about D&D Beyond Drops, a new compendium of maps, images, and rules exclusive to D&D Beyond subscribers. Unsurprisingly, the biggest question on many users' minds were why Drops content wasn't sharable via the Master tier subscription like other material. In several posts, Perry stated that the reason was monetary in nature.

"We need to pay the great designers, artists, and developers working on D&D Beyond Drops," Perry said in a comment. "We also really think it's important to make the entire subscriber content library accessible to Hero Tier subscribers (as well as Master Tier). Not making Drops content eligible for content sharing was a necessary tradeoff to hit these goals."

However, given the amount of feedback among fans about making Drops content sharable among players, Perry said they were actively looking at alternative solutions. "With that said, I hear and really appreciate the feedback on being able to share Drops content with players in your group that don't have the disposable income for a Hero Tier subscription," Perry said. "The team is taking another look at the tradeoffs and considering other solutions."

 

[mamba]

If that were the case, then DnD has been on the path to enshittification since 1976 with Dragon Magazine subscriptions

hence 'further'

 

[Deset Gled]

This is the reason so many complained about Silvery Barbs. It wasn’t because the spell itself is busted. It’s because anyone who had it didn’t even remember what book it was from and DDB didn’t have (and doesn’t have I don’t think) a good way for a DM to filter material at the book level.

Going on a tangent here...

The 3.0 equivalent of this was the Peerless Archer. It was found in "Silver Marches", a Forgotten Realms supplement. As a relatively low-printed splatbook that focused on only one specific region of a specific setting, it should have been a fairly obscure thing. Story wise, it simply didn't belong in most campaigns. But the Peerless Archer was the Prestige Class that introduced Power Shot (aka Power Attack for ranged weapons). To powergamers, that ability was an irresistible bauble to play with. It had so many possibilities and synergies to exploit. It popped up in so many discussions and builds. You can search it here on ENWorld and see just how inordinately popular it was.

At the time, the PrC was often called out for this. And a common rebuttal was that the Peerless Archer's popularity was just an internet thing. Sure, it popped up a lot in discussions on optimization boards and discussions, but because it was so limited in it's applicability, it didn't matter that much in real play. Because once people got off the internet and played real, in person games, it just wasn't a problem even worth thinking about.

Or course, D&D Beyond means that D&D itself is now the interet thing.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I also question how unpopular Silver Marches was. I'm pretty sure I owned it, after I was dazzled by how good the 3E Forgotten Realms setting book was. And I've never run any FR stuff other than Lost Mine, which I slid over into Praemal, the world of Ptolus.

 

[FrogReaver]

Going on a tangent here...

The 3.0 equivalent of this was the Peerless Archer. It was found in "Silver Marches", a Forgotten Realms supplement. As a relatively low-printed splatbook that focused on only one specific region of a specific setting, it should have been a fairly obscure thing. Story wise, it simply didn't belong in most campaigns. But the Peerless Archer was the Prestige Class that introduced Power Shot (aka Power Attack for ranged weapons). To powergamers, that ability was an irresistible bauble to play with. It had so many possibilities and synergies to exploit. It popped up in so many discussions and builds. You can search it here on ENWorld and see just how inordinately popular it was.

At the time, the PrC was often called out for this. And a common rebuttal was that the Peerless Archer's popularity was just an internet thing. Sure, it popped up a lot in discussions on optimization boards and discussions, but because it was so limited in it's applicability, it didn't matter that much in real play. Because once people got off the internet and played real, in person games, it just wasn't a problem even worth thinking about.

Or course, D&D Beyond means that D&D itself is now the interet thing.

IIRC Power gamers at that time were exceptionally bad for only looking at max level builds. In practice the first 5-8 levels really mattered the most. I’m not sure how behind the curve the combo was before it came online but that often explained the difference in practice vs theory back then.

 

[Clint_L]

Of course you shouldn't be worried about every hypothetical. However, that doesn't mean that every hypothetical is equal in risk nor chance of happening. Risk management is literally determining what hypotheticals to pay attention to, and if the cost of mitigation is worth it. Not all hypotheticals are equal in terms of risk, in terms of chance of occurance, nor in cost of mitigation. There definitely are scenarios you want to consider.

Obviously. And the hypothetical that DDB is going to suddenly go away is not a reasonable one. It is the backbone of WotC's business model. Even so, I politely responded that, while unhappy, I would still be ahead given the value I've already gotten out of it.

Trying to handwave that just because something is a hypothetical that no hypotheticals are worth considering isn't a true statement. Do you have smoke alarms where you live?

I'll just point out that at no point have I ever said that no hypotheticals are worth considering and leave you to your straw man. I do not think that the hypothetical YOU RAISED, all my D&D books (all of which are on DDB) vanishing tomorrow, is a reasonable hypothesis.

WotC has a track record of abandoning every edition when a new one comes out. We've even seen them on DnDBeyond try to push 2024 material into campaigns marked 2014. The idea that it's "not remotely likely" is not one that is supported by facts. Quite the opposite. Not saying there weren't mitigating factors in some cases, like dropping the 4e online character creation because that part of their offering was in Silverlight. But they also did scorched earth on forums when switching to 4e. Saying it's not "remotely likely" isn't a supportable statement. If you think it is, please support it with more than just your own words.

Not a remotely comparable example, so why would I waste my time on it? That was an experiment with a niche market, not the cornerstone of their business. DDB is their main source of income and used by most of their player base, in the most popular version D&D has ever seen. WotC has hundreds of millions into it, and it is entrenched and very successful.

Will it be replaced or evolve into something else in the fullness of time? Sure. Is that a problem for me and millions of other users? Apparently we have assessed the value proposition and decided that no, it is not. In fact, I am glad that it will eventually be replaced or evolve into something else. That's healthy.

Okay, trying to reduce "we know they have shut down digital options every single time when they changed editions" to "what if they shut it down tomorrow?" is a logical fallacy, reductio ad absurdum. No one has claimed it's going down tomorrow, please stop the rhetoric.

You literally asked me, and I quote, "would you be okay if all of your D&D books went away tomorrow?" So I did you the courtesy of responding to YOUR HYPOTHETICAL, and suddenly you're coming at me with straw man arguments and claiming that no has claimed it's going away tomorrow, so I should stop being hyperbolic. You're clearly not arguing in good faith. Please leave me out of it, in future.

Edit: by the way, that's not a reductio fallacy. It would be another example of a straw man fallacy, like the one I point out above. The reductio fallacy is when your argument is self-contradictory. But, of course, I did not commit the fallacy you identify because I was responding to your hypothetical, not my own.

 

[Plageman]

DDB will be around longer than that, but yeah, I give this drops program two or three years at most, before it's decided that it didn't meaningfully move the needle and the cost associated with it (which shouldn't be much, so long as it's just material cut for space or because it wasn't the focus of the upcoming book) outweighed the profit it's estimated to generate.

Still, better than all of this stuff ending up on the cutting room floor.

Damn, am I the only one who remembers the days when WotC was offering content for free on their website every week ? Not just preview of stuff to come but actual new content ?
I miss that time when I had a reason to go their website to check news and content, nowadays I just check these boards...

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Has this ever been an issue for you? Because I'm every game I've been in, if the DM says no, it's no. For fifty years. I've asked my players, some of whom have played for decades, never an issue for them. I feel like ninety percent of the complaints about digital are theoretical.

I'm not stating things won't eventually change, that's inevitable. I'm suggesting that I feel like there is a lot of doom casting about every move this company makes.

Yes over here, too. It’s one reason why I stopped using DnDB as a DM. A player (who also DMed) had the master account and another player shared other books with the group. We had a very simple Discord with the rules for our West Marches Ravenloft campaign and went over what was on the table in session 0. Yet, species, feats, and spells - including two custom spells the player had made - popped up as selectable. And some of that wasn’t discovered until we were in the middle of playing.

 

[sum1els]

I legit don’t understand any upset right now related to this.

Some people have paid extra for a DM subscription so that they can share any content they buy with their players. This content is available to that DM but not to the players, unless they also upgrade their accounts. That's why people are upset. Whether they have legitimate complaints or are just being whiny depends on your point-of-view.