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."

 

[Morrus]

Can't you just copy the text and of the feat or spell and show it to your friends? How is this any different from showing text in a book?

I don’t know how it interacts with the character sheet and Maps VTT and stuff. Can you click on it and it do stuff? I assume that’s what you’re paying for, not the raw text. But I don’t actually know.

 

[Deset Gled]

The reason is that if you look out a year from now, there could be hundreds of spells and feats that are only available with the subscription, while at the same time no way to buy and permanently add them to your account. Essentially, there will be two versions of the game, one that you purchase and one that you subscribe to.

Another possible solution would be to simply accept and lean into the idea that there are two separate versions of D&D: the digital version and tabletop version. This isn't entirely without precedent, either. D&D Miniatures was a D&D game separate from the main game. And you could argue that video games like BG3 are similar steps, too.

Obviously, any such official idea would garner a good amount of negative feedback. But IMNSHO it has decent odds of longs term player satisfaction. The plan of "include every D&D player in the same D&D game" has been stretched really far over the past decade, and is showing a lot of cracks.

 

[Zaukrie]

Another possible solution would be to simply accept and lean into the idea that there are two separate versions of D&D: the digital version and tabletop version. This isn't entirely without precedent, either. D&D Miniatures was a D&D game separate from the main game. And you could argue that video games like BG3 are similar steps, too.

Obviously, any such official idea would garner a good amount of negative feedback. But IMNSHO it has decent odds of longs term player satisfaction. The plan of "include every D&D player in the same D&D game" has been stretched really far over the past decade, and is showing a lot of cracks.

This. The angriest people don't even seem to use beyond....

 

[Basic Expert]

I have no interest in D&D Beyond, but I can't see getting angry at WotC for adding content to possibly improve the benefits of a subscription service people are already paying for. Are they taking anything away? Are they making a subscription mandatory?

The world is full of subscription models. If I watch a movie on Netflix, it is not mine to watch in perpetuity. If I cancel my account, it's no more movie for me. If Netflix goes away for whatever reason, it's no more movie for me. Some streaming movies aren't even available in another, purchasable, format so they might be gone forever. If you don't like the way that works, don't pay for it.

Getting mad at a company for providing content that doesn't appeal to you or in a format you don't like doesn't seem justified. "WotC is the worst--they released a Dark Sun book instead of an Eberron book! I hope they rot in Hades!"

And to call it a scam is a bit overwrought as they seem to be clearly outlining the situation.

I get the WotC hate, but a lot of it seems unjustified. Why fault them for trying to make a profit on producing game materials, staying in business and paying their employees and adequate wage? Should we fault the latest indie darling charging money for their books or making hundreds of thousands on their Kickstarter?

 

[jolt]

I think the problem is something that's going to come down the road. In five years time, that's a lot of material gated behind a paywall. This is supposed to be a player facing service (by their own admission), having the DM print stuff out isn't player facing. Not to mention that as a DM I don't want to have to print out 1 year, 5 years, 10 plus years of material to run a game. That's a huge additional cost to a DM for what's supposed to be player facing service. Sure, if it's just a single spell or magic item, it's no big deal, but this service goes well beyond a single spell or magic item.

The comparison to things like Amazon is completely flawed. If I buy something through Amazon Prime, I'll still have it even if I cancel my Prime membership. Even if that weren't true, the comparison still doesn't work. I already have no need to share my Prime content, but for gaming, it's more critical that everyone be on the same page; especially as time goes on and more content is released.

 

[OB1]

Another possible solution would be to simply accept and lean into the idea that there are two separate versions of D&D: the digital version and tabletop version. This isn't entirely without precedent, either. D&D Miniatures was a D&D game separate from the main game. And you could argue that video games like BG3 are similar steps, too.

Obviously, any such official idea would garner a good amount of negative feedback. But IMNSHO it has decent odds of longs term player satisfaction. The plan of "include every D&D player in the same D&D game" has been stretched really far over the past decade, and is showing a lot of cracks.

I’m okay with different digital and tabletop versions. My concern is two different digital versions, especially at the same table. That’s what Master tier used to ensure didn’t happen. But that puts all the financial responsibility on DMs.

If they keep the player options and make them DM shareable, then you’ve removed the incentive for PCs to subscribe to Hero again. Thats why I say it’s a bad product.

 

[Selas]

I think the problem is something that's going to come down the road. In five years time, that's a lot of material gated behind a paywall. This is supposed to be a player facing service (by their own admission), having the DM print stuff out isn't player facing. Not to mention that as a DM I don't want to have to print out 1 year, 5 years, 10 plus years of material to run a game. That's a huge additional cost to a DM for what's supposed to be player facing service. Sure, if it's just a single spell or magic item, it's no big deal, but this service goes well beyond a single spell or magic item.

The comparison to things like Amazon is completely flawed. If I buy something through Amazon Prime, I'll still have it even if I cancel my Prime membership. Even if that weren't true, the comparison still doesn't work. I already have no need to share my Prime content, but for gaming, it's more critical that everyone be on the same page; especially as time goes on and more content is released.

I get what you're saying, but let's see what they come up in response to the concerns raised in the AMA. They've already acknowledged the elephant in the room, and have said they will look at alternatives. Personally, I liked the suggestion of one-time bundles for those items that don't make it to books, or making the player options shareable by Master subscription. They have also said they don't care if people share the player options as Homebrew within a campaign and encouraged us to do so while they decide how to move forward.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

IMO, that's what this is all about. WotC burned some bridges last year, and a lot of people are still bitter. I don't necessarily blame them for being bitter, but everyone needs to understand and accept that WotC is a business. They're trying to make the maximum amount of money for their product, and they feel this is a way to do that. For people that want this serivce, this is a good thing; for the rest of us, it doesn't really impact us at all.

Last year?

 

[mearls]

Another possible solution would be to simply accept and lean into the idea that there are two separate versions of D&D: the digital version and tabletop version. This isn't entirely without precedent, either. D&D Miniatures was a D&D game separate from the main game. And you could argue that video games like BG3 are similar steps, too.

Obviously, any such official idea would garner a good amount of negative feedback. But IMNSHO it has decent odds of longs term player satisfaction. The plan of "include every D&D player in the same D&D game" has been stretched really far over the past decade, and is showing a lot of cracks.

I think there's something important here. I play a lot of D&D online these days. While the rules are the same as when I play in person, it's a different game. I need different stuff for it.

As an obvious example, the Thursday drop is fantastic for me because it comes with so many maps. For my online games, I like to prepopulate the maps with tokens, use stickers to add terrain or tweak the map, and so on. When I run, I am constantly moving around monsters "off screen" in response to what the PCs do. A golem might walk a patrol route. Flipping a switch here might remove a portcullis there. The digital interface means I lean into the physical environment a lot more in my adventures.

I don't do that in person. It's too much work! My in-person games are more traditional, for lack of a better word, while my online ones look more like a vintage 1980s dungeon crawl. Both are great, but I need different content for both.

 

[Deset Gled]

While the rules are the same as when I play in person, it's a different game. I need different stuff for it.

Absolutely! I was just talking about this in the mooks thread. It's another area where the needs of a full tabletop game diverge from a VTT. I think there are a lot of opportunities to really improve gameplay from a specifically VTT standpoint. But in order to capitalize on that, WotC would first have to address it and deal with the community response.

Who knows. Maybe this current ploy is a weird way of working up to that.