WotC Third party, DNDBeyond and potential bad side effects.

[FitzTheRuke]

I don't think you a picking up on the issue, or maybe not seeing it in the same light. The issue is the friends would happily play the game if Hasbro allowed it to be on DnD beyond, but Hasbro doesn't allow it on DnD beyond, so they hesitate to play. So it's not a lack of wanting to play the game but an additional hurdle they see themselves as having to hope through to play.
Is it's Hasbro 's problem, no it's not. Would it be better for the industry if Hasbro made it easier for more people to access more products they don't own. I believe so, but that's my opinion other's may very.
Should Hasbro even care about what's best for the industry, again my opinion but I think they should, I think all companies should care about the health of their industry and not just their profit margin (not saying they shouldn't care about being profitable) but I'm kind of a Pollyanna when it comes to how I think companies should run.

I'm entirely with you. I honestly believe that more "generosity" on the part of a business is good for business. Obviously there are points and places where that isn't so, but those points, IMO, are not hard to spot and avoid. The rest is just covetousness.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I know one person with a voice who will.

I thought they already "promised" to add the new content to CC and SRDs? (I put those quotes in because it was obviously not binding, and you could always mistrust it, but at least I'm pretty sure that they said so!)

 

[Remathilis]

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 call me up and say "I'm starting a D&D game" and I come over and you slap down Pathfinder 2e or DCC or the Oe white box, don't yell at me "I thought you liked D&D?" when I walk out the door.

I get there is a desire make D&D a generic trademark (like Kleenex or Jello) to remove the last value WotC can leverage from it (brand name) but I don't agree that every game with six ability scores and a d20 is "D&D". Much the same way that I give you a Samsung Galaxy S3, I did not give you an iPhone.

 

[SlyFlourish]

I thought they already "promised" to add the new content to CC and SRDs? (I put those quotes in because it was obviously not binding, and you could always mistrust it, but at least I'm pretty sure that they said so!)

here's what they now say:

"Ensure the 2024 Core Rulebook Updates Are Compatible with Fifth Edition D&D and the SRD: We remain committed to keeping the rules updates compatible with the current fifth edition content and SRD, either by bringing the rules updates into the SRD, or by providing language that keeps them compatible."

I could drive a truck through the wiggle room those words. I believe this gives them the license to just say "yep, its compatible!" and not do anything.

They also said they'd have the older SRDs in the CC by the end of the year. We're just a few weeks away...

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

Let's remember 3PPs don't need to publish all their titles in DDB but only a little number, and after awaiting players to search their webs.

DDB has to offer something better than other web stores.

 

[Kurotowa]

My job isn't to help WOTC run their business. My job is to help GMs run great games. WOTC could do a better job at that but they're letting their business needs get in the way and it can definitely get worse.

It isn't your job to help WotC run their business, but it isn't WotC's business to help you run your games either. They're not a public trust, acting as impartial caretakers of the founding legacy of TTRPGs, there to cultivate the success of the entire hobby without seeking their own success. They are a business, and their business is making and selling D&D books.

This gives them some strong incentives towards the growth and health of the D&D community as a whole, and (though some of the outside MBA idiots inserted into management may sometimes forget) they have a symbiotic relationship with the 3PP who produce the books that WotC can't or won't. But still, they have no duty either fiduciary or moral to support the "great games" you want to run that aren't D&D. They are the D&D company, and they are making and supporting D&D. If you don't want to run D&D, then it's not their business, in either sense of the word.

 

[eayres33]

If you call me up and say "I'm starting a D&D game" and I come over and you slap down Pathfinder 2e or DCC or the Oe white box, don't yell at me "I thought you liked D&D?" when I walk out the door.

I get there is a desire make D&D a generic trademark (like Kleenex or Jello) to remove the last value WotC can leverage from it (brand name) but I don't agree that every game with six ability scores and a d20 is "D&D". Much the same way that I give you a Samsung Galaxy S3, I did not give you an iPhone.

I get what you are saying but I would view 5E variants differently than say Pathfinder. But everyone is going to have to be more descriptive in what they are playing if they don't actually call the new books something distinct, as you can't even say 5E DnD, you will have to specify the year.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

here's what they now say:

"Ensure the 2024 Core Rulebook Updates Are Compatible with Fifth Edition D&D and the SRD: We remain committed to keeping the rules updates compatible with the current fifth edition content and SRD, either by bringing the rules updates into the SRD, or by providing language that keeps them compatible."

I'm inclined to consider this in good faith until we see otherwise, YMMV.

I could drive a truck through the wiggle room those words. I believe this gives them the license to just say "yep, its compatible!" and not do anything.

I suppose. Sometimes wiggle-room is there just because they can't foresee what SNAFUs might come up, not so much out of intended exit plans.

They also said they'd have the older SRDs in the CC by the end of the year. We're just a few weeks away...

That's probably also down to best-intentions overshadowed by reality SNAFUs. Don't get me wrong, I don't ever expect anything like altruism from corporations. I just generally think that it's far more complicated than malice.

For example, I bet that the OGL-fiasco was caused by a few short-sighted suits who ordered that they do something because they could without considering whether they should. (And was then "corrected" by those with clearer heads on the subject). Those with clearer heads almost certainly intended all the above, but either have found it more difficult to fit-in than expected, or have been outmaneuvered by the short-sighted again.

At any rate, I'm wary of any implication that a company like WotC has immutable "plans" (in particular either altruistic or malicious ones). It's more like a tug-of-war between the two.

...Played out by a tug-of-war between sensible employees and insensible ones on either side of any debate.

 

[Parmandur]

In terms of both the update for the SRD and releasing older Edition SRDs...the employees qualified to do that are all currently writing the PHB, the MM, and the DMG. They can't release a new SRD for unfinished rules, and they probavly don't have a lot of spare tike to parse and edit the 3.5 SRD or what ot.

Doesn't mean it isn't coming. The 5E SRD and older Edition Conversion documents took a long time to come, but they came.

 

[bedir than]

it isn't WotC's business to help you run your games either.

It is absolutely WotC's job to help people run their games. They say this all the time. They talk about making onboarding and learning easier constantly. They release things to educators for this very purpose. They hold "new to D&D" nights at FLGS for this reason.

They have advice columns on DnD Beyond for this reason. They have a whole playlist on YouTube dedicated to learning and advice as well.