WotC Third party, DNDBeyond and potential bad side effects.

[DEFCON 1]

WotC made (or rather, bought out and now own) an easy and convenient product. That is only one metric, and not the most important for everyone. DDB still has a lot of holes (as evidenced by people's complaints above), and furthermore represents a kind of corporate monolith not everyone wants to support.

Then don't support it. No one cares if you do or don't. The only person whom that matters is yourself. And if you want to say "I don't think it's good that D&D 5E is so popular"... that's fine. Go right ahead! Again... your beliefs are your own and none of our responses to that matter one way or another.

But if you don't want to see someone disagree with your beliefs... posting them here is probably not the way to avoid them.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I am assuming a non hostile relationship between the Dm and the player and that the player will be polite enough to accept the DM forbidding the thing. For that matter, I find it somewhat incredible that a player would be so rude to not clear an optional thing with the DM before adding it to the character sheet.
That said, that the DM (or the players) cannot filter the content is a flaw in the web sites service. It is something that will have to be addressed over anyway as it will become major pain point to the users if they continue with the current system where everything presented to the user whether they own it or not.
It is a pain point to those that want a more curated experience and it will turn off many potential users.

I sometimes wonder if WotC is wanting to push their customers away from a more curated experience. It would certainly be easier for them.

 

[Scribe]

not releasing anything else into the CC so no one can use the 2024 new D&D tech outside of Beyond

I sure hope the people with a voice push for a SRD here.

 

[cranberry]

Anyone who trusts WoTC is rolling the dice...

Who knows what they may try to sneak into a contract with a smaller publisher.

Hedging your downside often comes at the expense of limiting your upside.

 

[DEFCON 1]

You're the one who said "Level Up is not D&D". I was correcting you. And unless the hidden context of that statement is "in a legal sense", I am right to do so. Is that what you meant?

If you truly did not understand the context... then I'll spell it out even more plainly...

SlyFlourish wants to play Level Up.
SlyFlourish's friends want to play the D&D that is available to them on D&D Beyond.
SlyFlourish does not want to play the D&D that is available to them on D&D Beyond.
Level Up is not available on D&D Beyond, because it is not the "D&D" that is available to be on D&D Beyond.
SlyFlourish therefore will not play Level Up UNLESS they convince their friends to play a part of "D&D" that is not available on D&D Beyond.

Hopefully that has cleared things up for you.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If you truly did not understand the context... then I'll spell it out even more plainly...

SlyFlourish wants to play Level Up.
SlyFlourish's friends want to play the D&D that is available to them on D&D Beyond.
SlyFlourish does not want to play the D&D that is available to them on D&D Beyond.
Level Up is not available on D&D Beyond, because it is not the "D&D" that is available to be on D&D Beyond.
SlyFlourish therefore will not play Level Up UNLESS they convince their friends to play a part of "D&D" that is not available on D&D Beyond.

Hopefully that has cleared things up for you.

I understand all that. I have an issue with objective, declarative statements like "Level Up is not D&D". As you said, you can't expect to post something and not have anyone disagree with you.

 

[eayres33]

It definitely does let the DM filter options, and I do.

I had the top tier and it was not an option I saw, but I may have missed it, or is this a newer feature? (If it is there that's a plus for DnD beyond and DMs who use it

 

[bedir than]

If I suggest to my group that I want to play the D&D variant set in modern times, space fantasy or even gothic horror light with Ravenloft and my group isn't interested, that's not DDB's fault if the group disagrees. Even if it is all D&D.

If you think that's the only thing SlyFlourish brought up I suggest you re-read his extensive statements.

He's asked for several quality of life items that help everyone who wants to play WotC 5e D&D that have nothing to do with your reductionist statement.

 

[SlyFlourish]

It definitely does let the DM filter options, and I do.

If a player has access to an option on their own, your filters don't stop it from showing up in the character builder. The filters only let you prevent players from viewing particular books – the options are still available in the character builder.

 

[Oofta]

If you think that's the only thing SlyFlourish brought up I suggest you re-read his extensive statements.

He's asked for several quality of life items that help everyone who wants to play WotC 5e D&D that have nothing to do with your reductionist statement.

I wasn't addressing those other items with my comment.

As far as quality of life items, I have no idea how easy or difficult they would be to implement. There are many potential technical debt issues they're likely dealing with just to get their house in order for the 2024 edition. Once that's all in place we may see more, for example they have added content from Darrington Press and a few others.

I don't think we know enough about what would need to be done to implement some of the changes to know if it would be fiscally responsible to implement them or if it's an issue of not prioritizing those changes with all of the conflicting demands they have on their design.