D&D General Is D&D Beyond Exclusivity Bad for D&D?

[saviirkad]

But if something is labeled pre-release then it's kind of right there in the label. It's kind of like saying I don't have the book I originally purchased because errata was applied - technically true but not really a bad thing.

Without a single example I'm not going to speculate on whether or not I'd change my mind because it feels like a trick question just setting up a gotcha.

The quotations was because initially it was not labeled as such. Initially it was that we were receiving the digital product early, physical to be released later.

The fact that mechanics would be updated, that this was essentially a "UA book," was told to us shortly after. But the fact that the entire book got replaced, not just mechanics updated or errata'd, but swapped out, was months later, near the final release date.

 

[SlyFlourish]

The quotations was because initially it was not labeled as such. Initially it was that we were receiving the digital product early, physical to be released later.

The fact that mechanics would be updated, that this was essentially a "UA book," was told to us shortly after. But the fact that the entire book got replaced, not just mechanics updated or errata'd, but swapped out, was months later, near the final release date.

Unlike other UAs, people paid for it, right?

It's also worth mentioning that this was still when DDB was owned by another company, but it does show how a centralized service with a Darth Vader EULA can change what they want whenever they want.

 

[saviirkad]

Ha! I forgot about that one! That wasn't the one I was thinking of.

Ok, I know it's not changing minds here but that's ok. It's not your minds I need to change.

They errata'd a bunch of lore out of Volo's Guide and updated DDB, taking it out of the one people paid for. Sure, maybe some folks didn't care, but it's a clear case of them removing material people paid for.

Ahhh, yes. Volo's and the first Mordenkainen's. Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes was an especially good book for me, I really liked the lore in there.

I can understand why someone would be upset by those, but yes, to be fair I am not one. I don't begrudge them the ability to apply minor errata ("minor" being subjective and debatable I'm sure), particularly when it's well documented why.

The Eberron thing itself I'm upset about because it's a whole book, told a different way. But I'm upset I hadnt taken the time to record the original, or buy the PDF when it was available on the DMs Guild. I'm upset that they didn't adequately state what they were going to do upfront, or give clear notice when their plans changed. But I'm not upset that they have the power to do that. Ultimately I had, for a year, an early draft of a book that got replaced by the final release. I do wish I still had it.

Ultimately I think this is coming down to a controversial practice that one camp labels a bug, but another camp calls it a feature

 

[saviirkad]

Unlike other UAs, people paid for it, right?

It's also worth mentioning that this was still when DDB was owned by another company, but it does show how a centralized service with a Darth Vader EULA can change what they want whenever they want.

I do at least know that it was because of that separate ownership that the miscommunication happened. Whether it would happen under Wizards' direct ownership of DDB, I couldn't say anymore, but at that time it was explicitly because of the separation.

 

[John Lloyd1]

I think it depends on whether you consider something a 'consumable' item or a 'permanent' item. To give you an example, I mostly by second-hand books when I can and most of them get donated back when I've finished with them. Or, I get them from the library. I consume them once and then they are gone. There are some books I do want to keep for a long time, but that is a rarity.

I haven't bought anything from Dnd Beyond since they got rid of 'a la carte' purchases. But I can see treating 5e as an edition length purchase that will lose value when the next edition comes out because it will no longer be played.

I wouldn't be worried about reasonable 'errata' or changes to the content. I'm probably not paying that close attention anyway. Most would be an improvement or a 'don't care' issue. If I don't like a particular bit of lore, I can just change it.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I'm hardly the only person who thinks this lol.

Sure, and you're all NUTS!

I mean, call me back in 2030 when we've either got 6E in our hands or more likely have extensive 6E previews. If you think 2024 is going another 10 years well buddy I dunno what to tell you but the ain't the way the world works. Sheesh by 2030, 2024 would have been out for 6 years, which is basically as long as 4E lasted. You really think 2024 will go longer than that?

Not by a lot, but your assertion starts at ONE year, which is patently ridiculous.

I'd not have argued if you'd started at your high-end of four and moved upward. 4-6 seems possible to me.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I think 2030 is kind of the lower end for when we could possibly see a 6e, or at least another refresh. There is no chance we get anything 6e related in 2027, and I would not be surprised if that were true for 2030 as well

I would be surprised by 2030, but utterly unsurprised by it being announced around then, and coming in 2032. Or not. Not would also not surprise me.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

It'll be 2034 for the 60th anniversary, although it'll be like 5.5 and a tweaked chassis, rather than a whole new edition.

 

[saviirkad]

I think it's safe to say we'll see a 5.75 and probably more increments beyond before we see a 6e.

 

[AlViking]

Ahhh, yes. Volo's and the first Mordenkainen's. Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes was an especially good book for me, I really liked the lore in there.

I can understand why someone would be upset by those, but yes, to be fair I am not one. I don't begrudge them the ability to apply minor errata ("minor" being subjective and debatable I'm sure), particularly when it's well documented why.

The Eberron thing itself I'm upset about because it's a whole book, told a different way. But I'm upset I hadnt taken the time to record the original, or buy the PDF when it was available on the DMs Guild. I'm upset that they didn't adequately state what they were going to do upfront, or give clear notice when their plans changed. But I'm not upset that they have the power to do that. Ultimately I had, for a year, an early draft of a book that got replaced by the final release. I do wish I still had it.

Ultimately I think this is coming down to a controversial practice that one camp labels a bug, but another camp calls it a feature

How much errata should change is open to debate - but some people found parts of the original version of the books offensive. If I really cared that they might change something I'd buy the book. I never looked at the Eberron book since while I find the setting interesting I run a homebrew campaign so I didn't need it. But yeah, it would have been better to give you a heads up.

You can see what they changed if you look up the errata. They did remove a whole 2 paragraphs from Volo's on half-orcs. I don't see anything to get particularly upset about. If I happened to buy a printing of the book after the errata you would also be missing the original text. Should they have left the text and imagery for the Hadozee in the book as well?