# How will WOTC monetize One D&D?



## FrogReaver (Dec 21, 2022)

I believe they offer a monthly subscription for all D&D One / 5e content.  This will be low 5-10 dollars and works out monetarily because they are getting every member of the group to pay instead of just the DM buying the new books.  Approximately 1 60 dollar book per year for a group of 5 vs 25/m (assuming 5/m price point) -> 300/y for a group of 5.  They would offer a 1 month free trial.  This gives new players ease of entry as they have limited investment to start playing with access to all the same content as everyone else.  This hopefully helps grow the player base while also increasing revenue per player.

They can still keep their physical book business as the VTT subscription works great as a supplement instead of straight competition/replacement to physical book sales.  Some groups may use it as that but they make more off the subscription model than the print model in this scenario so that likely isn't a concern.  Also, if the character building and leveling tools work well I can see some players from in person groups subscribing just for the character building options - especially if they make it easy to print a physical character sheet from Beyond.

They can also do microtransactions for skins/mini's/tokens/possibly VTT enhancements/etc.

In short I think this is more likely to be their monetization model rather than what we see on current VTT's where the DM buys the book and shares it with the group.


----------



## Retreater (Dec 21, 2022)

If it's like the 4e model, they'd want it per player - but honestly we all shared a DDI account (or at least had the DM print our character sheets). 
And just like 4e DDI, it will end as soon as Wizards drops the game, games worthless, and it becomes a dead system.


----------



## FrogReaver (Dec 21, 2022)

Retreater said:


> If it's like the 4e model, they'd want it per player - but honestly we all shared a DDI account (or at least had the DM print our character sheets).
> And just like 4e DDI, it will end as soon as Wizards drops the game, games worthless, and it becomes a dead system.



Wasn't 4e mostly just character creation tools.  D&D One VTT will allow to play the game online, likely fairly streamlined.

Honestly, if they already created all the content for that edition no need to remove it, just keep access to it with the subscription and add the new game edition to the subscription model.  ez pz.  Or charge a higher tier subscription that includes both old and new stuff.  Either way, likely no real reason to get rid of it.


----------



## Minigiant (Dec 21, 2022)

The VTT will just charge you for outside the base aspects for models.

Your Tabaxi glaive echo knight fighter will cost 5 bucks each for the tabaxi head, snow leapard skin, glaive weapon, cape, and echo effect.
Then if you want to import that to the MMO and tactics game, that $25 dollars each unless you have DNDB Premium.

*No one will laugh at human longsword fighters ever again.*


----------



## mellored (Dec 21, 2022)

Sounded to me like if you bought the book, you get the digital version as well.

The cost of running a VTT server not as high as it was when 4e was out.  All the graphics are probably client side, and based on minis that already have models for.  So your not looking at much to keep it running.

Thus I imagine you get the basic game for free (i.e. 4 classes with 1 sub-class each), including VTT with very limited assets.  "Free to play" as it is.  But then you need to buy the books (and minis?) to get the rest.  If you want to play the storm cleric, you need to buy the PHB.  If you want Strahd stats block and maps, you need to but Strahd.

As for how that is shared amongst players, harder to say.  But I expect an option where anyone in a campaign can share their assets with anyone else in the same campaign.  Same as anyone can physically share books at the same table.

Not really any different from now.

Though expect more options, sub classes, magic items, spread out in different books though.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 21, 2022)

They'll be monetising the brand. Toys, t-shirts, lunch boxes, cartoons, books, that sort of thing.


----------



## Lojaan (Dec 21, 2022)

Merchandise


----------



## Retreater (Dec 21, 2022)

It's not just merchandise. Their CEO said she wants "the type of recurrent spending you see in digital games."
That quote is not referencing lunch boxes and t-shirts. It's things like new avatar skins, subscribing to a season pass to access new maps and tracks. It's Playstation Plus or a WoW subscription. It could be microtransactions for random loot boxes. 
When I hear their goal to make players (not just DMs) pay more that suggests that they will end DM's sharing content on DND Beyond. 
I know I tend towards being pessimistic, but you have to look at what was said. These theories have been posited by some big outlets. To date WotC has said nothing to ease these concerns - which is risking enthusiasm for the brand. Based on my prior experience with other companies - these concerns are probably true. WotC hasn't made another statement because they haven't prepared another financial model to back away from this plan (or they don't plan to). 
If it were as simple as "no, no, we're just selling merchandise" we'd have already heard that clarification officially.


----------



## aco175 (Dec 21, 2022)

I would pay a $10.00/month fee if the DDB site had a Dragon and Dungeon magazine-type-thing come with it.  Right now, we would not be playing anything digital unless I wanted to play away from my home game.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Dec 21, 2022)

Retreater said:


> It's not just merchandise. Their CEO said she wants "the type of recurrent spending you see in digital games."
> That quote is not referencing lunch boxes and t-shirts. It's things like new avatar skins, subscribing to a season pass to access new maps and tracks. It's Playstation Plus or a WoW subscription. It could be microtransactions for random loot boxes.
> When I hear their goal to make players (not just DMs) pay more that suggests that they will end DM's sharing content on DND Beyond.
> I know I tend towards being pessimistic, but you have to look at what was said. These theories have been posited by some big outlets. To date WotC has said nothing to ease these concerns - which is risking enthusiasm for the brand. Based on my prior experience with other companies - these concerns are probably true. WotC hasn't made another statement because they haven't prepared another financial model to back away from this plan (or they don't plan to).
> If it were as simple as "no, no, we're just selling merchandise" we'd have already heard that clarification officially.




Marked as pure speculation.


----------



## Zardnaar (Dec 21, 2022)

Beyond would be the big thing. I don't think there's to much of market for merchandise.


----------



## Loren the GM (Dec 21, 2022)

My guesses, from years of working in marketing?

Merchandise and licensing is the big one. Movies, tv, streaming, video games, toys, ancillary products, partnerships, licensing - these are huge untapped or underserved markets that can expand the brand and revenue.

Books will continue being books and sold in traditional ways. There will likely be options (such as the test they did recently with Dragonlance) to purchase a digital version on D&D Beyond at the same time as the book. This might even extend to the VTT when it launches.

D&D Beyond will be the online hub for the brand. This is where the most current version of the rules will live. Errata, free releases (such as the free monster expansions released recently), play tests, and a lot of communication will funnel through this channel. From a functional standpoint, the platform will likely continue pretty much as is - subscriptions that allow you to share content you have purchased with your players and providing expanded access to portions of the site (number of character you can build, number of campaigns you can have, how much homebrew you can build, etc.). They may continue to add new features and refine existing features, but it will likely stay the digital way to read and interact with D&D that is closest to and enhances the book experience. D&D Beyond will expand to allow invited third party publishers to sell their content as well (see rumors about NDA's and all the hullabaloo about the OGL and SRD).

As far the new VTT, I'm guessing there will be some intersection with D&D Beyond, but my best guess is there will be an additional purchase necessary to unlock adventure modules and compendium content. It _might_ be discounted for D&D Beyond owners, but I doubt it will be complete free parity between the platforms. There will likely be a free tier of use that gets you basic functionality, and subscriptions that increase what is available, similar to D&D Beyond (and these subscriptions may tie directly or be extensions to your D&D Beyond subscription). Purchasing official books will unlock the fully built out adventure, plus add all book content to your VTT compendium, allowing you to use it for custom campaign. This will extend to things like skins (Ravenloft theme character skins, Spelljammer character skins, etc), monster stats, tile sets (use all the new tiles built specifically for the adventure - hey, here is jungle stuff from this Chult adventure!), environmental effects (Ravenloft provides lots of fog effects, for instance), dice, UI skins, etc. There will probably be a marketplace where you can buy items à la carte, and the marketplace could potentially allow for third party developers to sell their own items (possibly only invited third party publishers in a more gated environment, or a more open marketplace similar to DM's Guild).

Across books, D&D Beyond, and VTT, I don't expect huge sweeping changes, just adjustments/enhancements to what already exists and expanded offerings that build on the framework already in place. I think for VTT we can already see lots of business models for what works from companies like Roll20, Fantasy Grounds, and Foundry, and I don't expect huge departures from the WotC VTT other than extensive polish and product integration that can't be achieved by smaller groups who don't own the property.

I'm pretty hopeful, and think this is almost all good for the game and will provide more options and ways to play than ever before.


----------



## payn (Dec 21, 2022)

Remember D&D? It's back in Pog form.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Dec 21, 2022)

FrogReaver said:


> I believe they offer a monthly subscription for all D&D One / 5e content.  This will be low 5-10 dollars and works out monetarily because they are getting every member of the group to pay instead of just the DM buying the new books.  Approximately 1 60 dollar book per year for a group of 5 vs 25/m (assuming 5/m price point) -> 300/y for a group of 5.  They would offer a 1 month free trial.  This gives new players ease of entry as they have limited investment to start playing with access to all the same content as everyone else.  This hopefully helps grow the player base while also increasing revenue per player.
> 
> They can still keep their physical book business as the VTT subscription works great as a supplement instead of straight competition/replacement to physical book sales.  Some groups may use it as that but they make more off the subscription model than the print model in this scenario so that likely isn't a concern.  Also, if the character building and leveling tools work well I can see some players from in person groups subscribing just for the character building options - especially if they make it easy to print a physical character sheet from Beyond.
> 
> ...



Not sure that they will as it would encourage account sharing.


Retreater said:


> If it's like the 4e model, they'd want it per player - but honestly we all shared a DDI account (or at least had the DM print our character sheets).
> And just like 4e DDI, it will end as soon as Wizards drops the game, games worthless, and it becomes a dead system.



This account sharing makes the system less valuable for data harvesting. I suspect that there is more value in encouraging all players and DM to register (even for free) to use the system and to encourage player registration by allowing DMs to share accounts that to see a rise of shared accounts by multiple players.

I think this data is very important. A lot of people complain about the survey structure in the UA surveys but I think these complains are only looking at these surveys as if their were the only information available to WoTC. I think they are only used to corroborate or sanity check information they already have.

As for further monetization; there will be merch but I would also expect to see models, skins and may be even 2d customisable portraits and avatars for export to table top or other VTTs.
Personalised character sheets with custom portraits. We already have dice.


----------



## Retreater (Dec 21, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Marked as pure speculation.



I quoted the CEO's direct line from the investors' meeting. But I guess call it speculation if you want.
Those running Hasbro and WotC are video game people - from that industry. The examples I provided are what video game companies do to achieve "recurrent spending:" subscriptions, microtransactions, etc. Williams stated that this is the plan for achieving monetization. I literally copied and pasted it into this thread.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Dec 21, 2022)

Retreater said:


> I quoted the CEO's direct line from the investors' meeting. But I guess call it speculation if you want.
> Those running Hasbro and WotC are video game people - from that industry. The examples I provided are what video game companies do to achieve "recurrent spending:" subscriptions, microtransactions, etc. Williams stated that this is the plan for achieving monetization. I literally copied and pasted it into this thread.




Noone said, they take away DM's subscription to share books.

So. Even of you think it is not speculation, you have at least one step where you jump to a conclusion:

That, where you say "it suggests".

No: you make an assumption based on nothing.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Dec 21, 2022)

WotC has always monetized D&D since they purchased it from TSR.  And TSR monetized D&D since they created it.

So the future will be no different than the past-- they will make stuff and I will either spend money to get it or I won't.  Worrying about what they may or may not make is a waste of my time.


----------



## FrogReaver (Dec 21, 2022)

UngainlyTitan said:


> Not sure that they will as it would encourage account sharing.



Ummm… cannot play on the VTT together and account share.  Everyone would need an account for that. 

For those solely interested in offline play account sharing could be a thing.  But even if one in the group subscribes and buys no physical books the 5/m price equates to one 60 dollar book a year which would is the same price a group would have to spend to get all books on the 1 per year production speed. Add on that margins per user are likely higher for online and I don’t see the problem.


----------



## FrogReaver (Dec 21, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Noone said, they take away DM's subscription to share books.
> 
> So. Even of you think it is not speculation, you have at least one step where you jump to a conclusion:
> 
> ...



I said they take away Sharing.

Part of this is as he reminded - they want to monetize D&D One like a video game with reoccurring spending.

The other part is they talked about 80% of the player base not being monetized or being under monetized. So they will do something to try to monetize that segment.  Eliminating sharing or requiring a paid subscription from players for it and micro transactions are the only real paths to monetize these players.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Dec 21, 2022)

FrogReaver said:


> Ummm… cannot play on the VTT together and account share.  Everyone would need an account for that.
> 
> For those solely interested in offline play account sharing could be a thing.  But even if one in the group subscribes and buys no physical books the 5/m price equates to one 60 dollar book a year which would is the same price a group would have to spend to get all books on the 1 per year production speed. Add on that margins per user are likely higher for online and I don’t see the problem.



True that but not everyone that is using D&DBeyond will be playing on the VTT. Many are tabletop players.


----------



## FrogReaver (Dec 21, 2022)

UngainlyTitan said:


> True that but not everyone that is using D&DBeyond will be playing on the VTT. Many are tabletop players.



Sure. But IMO there’s nothing they can do to further monetize tabletop non online tables other than hoping they use/subscribe to beyond and buy the physical books.

So imo The focus will be on monetizing beyond.


----------



## Reynard (Dec 21, 2022)

If I had to go out on a limb and guess, I'd say they would sell things people want to buy. Books for one. Maybe some minis and maps or map tiles. Dice, too. They will sell these things in physical and digital form.

Just like they have been.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Dec 21, 2022)

FrogReaver said:


> I said they take away Sharing.
> 
> Part of this is as he reminded - they want to monetize D&D One like a video game with reoccurring spending.
> 
> The other part is they talked about 80% of the player base not being monetized or being under monetized. So they will do something to try to monetize that segment.  Eliminating sharing or requiring a paid subscription from players for it and micro transactions are the only real paths to monetize these players.



Not the only path. They may for instance offer a basic version of the VTT for free but with a time of  premium access up front. (Sort of like World of Tanks does things), to give you a taste for the shiny. You can then buy certain elements of the shiny for microtransactions but some stuff is only available to subscribers. Or the Subscribers get some of the shiny for less money.
Every couple of months they give you a reminder that there is more shiny in the form of some limited time access to shiny (pay up if you want to keep it).


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Dec 21, 2022)

They can also sell more toys and have Hasbro make them not just licence to third parties.


----------



## FrogReaver (Dec 21, 2022)

UngainlyTitan said:


> Not the only path. They may for instance offer a basic version of the VTT for free but with a time of  premium access up front. (Sort of like World of Tanks does things), to give you a taste for the shiny. You can then buy certain elements of the shiny for microtransactions but some stuff is only available to subscribers. Or the Subscribers get some of the shiny for less money.
> Every couple of months they give you a reminder that there is more shiny in the form of some limited time access to shiny (pay up if you want to keep it).



World of tanks it micro transactions with pay to win. And I said micro transactions were one path - though I see them trying both paths they could potentially just do that one.


----------



## FrogReaver (Dec 21, 2022)

UngainlyTitan said:


> They can also sell more toys and have Hasbro make them not just licence to third parties.



They will do that too but most likely in addition to monetizing the online platform.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Dec 21, 2022)

FrogReaver said:


> World of tanks it micro transactions with pay to win. And I said micro transactions were one path - though I see them trying both paths they could potentially just do that one.



Actually I would argue that WoT is pay to reduce grind. The most effective way to spend money in Wot is to subscribe. 

I think there are some very strong limits to how aggressive WoTC can be in monetisation. The game is relatively cloneable and by people other than WoTC. WoTC depends a lot on the brand image. This is a difference with video game. You can kill a game in the video game world by aggressive monetisation but come back with a near identical tile and start the process again with a different studio. 
If WoTC does too much damage to the brand image it is pretty much dead.


----------



## Oofta (Dec 21, 2022)

They will try to sell things that people want.  The horror.

They're still going to sell books and swag just like they do now.  DndBeyond is already a subscription model with so-called microtransactions in the form of buying new content and customized dice or cool looking character sheets.  I could potentially see some more options there, things like a customized character portrait generated by an AI or other things we haven't thought of yet.  I don't see dramatic changes there though.

The VTT will be where they see the most opportunity to sell people small shiny bits.  There will probably a free version, a subscription version, visual add-ons and map packs.  Just like every other VTT out there.  They've already stated that there will be map packs with assets (that you can reuse) for published modules.  You'll likely be able to just purchase the map packs and assets without purchasing the module just like you can buy just parts of books on DDB now.

Most of the new revenue is going to be game adjacent with movies, toys, other related products.  When it comes to the physical game product, I could see them giving people DDB with the physical product although how that would work is still open to speculation.


----------



## FrogReaver (Dec 21, 2022)

UngainlyTitan said:


> Actually I would argue that WoT is pay to reduce grind. The most effective way to spend money in Wot is to subscribe.
> 
> I think there are some very strong limits to how aggressive WoTC can be in monetisation. The game is relatively cloneable and by people other than WoTC. WoTC depends a lot on the brand image. This is a difference with video game. You can kill a game in the video game world by aggressive monetisation but come back with a near identical tile and start the process again with a different studio.
> If WoTC does too much damage to the brand image it is pretty much dead.



It’s also pay for less grind. Then there’s the paid ammo that is pay to win.


----------



## BookTenTiger (Dec 21, 2022)

Pay 99 cents for a +1 on that d20 roll, or $2.00 for a natural 20.


----------



## FrogReaver (Dec 21, 2022)

UngainlyTitan said:


> I think there are some very strong limits to how aggressive WoTC can be in monetisation. The game is relatively cloneable and by people other than WoTC. WoTC depends a lot on the brand image. This is a difference with video game. You can kill a game in the video game world by aggressive monetisation but come back with a near identical tile and start the process again with a different studio.
> If WoTC does too much damage to the brand image it is pretty much dead.



I agree here. I just don’t think all content and our vtt play for 5 dollars per month is aggressive monetization - and such a model has a lot of customer value and spreads the monetization around.  Is that the one they go with. Not sure but I think it’s likely a top contender and more importantly it shows a way they can drastically increase monetization with increasing the amount the dm spends and for a fairly minor buy in on the player side.


----------



## MGibster (Dec 21, 2022)

Retreater said:


> It's not just merchandise. Their CEO said she wants "the type of recurrent spending you see in digital games."




When I think of the type of recurrent spending we see in digital games the words abusive and exploitative immediately pop into my head.  When a CEO tells me they want to emulate an industry with exploitive and abusive practices it sets off alarm bells for me.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Dec 21, 2022)

Exchanging books, media and merchandise for legal tender.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Dec 21, 2022)

FrogReaver said:


> It’s also pay for less grind. Then there’s the paid ammo that is pay to win.



I never paid for the paid ammo, I do not know if anyone does. (Expect by accident once or twice). You can buy it for silver.


----------



## renbot (Dec 21, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> The VTT will just charge you for outside the base aspects for models.
> 
> Your Tabaxi glaive echo knight fighter will cost 5 bucks each for the tabaxi head, snow leapard skin, glaive weapon, cape, and echo effect.
> Then if you want to import that to the MMO and tactics game, that $25 dollars each unless you have DNDB Premium.
> ...



Sure they will. They will mock them for being cheap.


----------



## Reynard (Dec 21, 2022)

BookTenTiger said:


> Pay 99 cents for a +1 on that d20 roll, or $2.00 for a natural 20.



Some friends and I run a competitive multi-table charity event every year at a regional con and basically use microtransactions like this to raise money for sick kids. It's highly effective in that context, but I doubt it is broadly applicable.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Dec 21, 2022)

FrogReaver said:


> I said they take away Sharing.




Ok. I clarify. Who with anything resmebling knowledge of wotc insider information or the furure does say that.
What you say is completely irrelevant to my answer to @Retreater.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Dec 21, 2022)

FrogReaver said:


> Part of this is as he reminded - they want to monetize D&D One like a video game with reoccurring spending.
> 
> The other part is they talked about 80% of the player base not being monetized or being under monetized. So they will do something to try to monetize that segment.  Eliminating sharing or requiring a paid subscription from players for it and micro transactions are the only real paths to monetize these players.




So this is still jumping to a conclusion. 

It is not the only path. And maybe not even the best. It is one of many possibilities. 

It is quite possible that you can still share all the books you own. 
But maybe you can also chose an option to not buy books, but just pay a monthly fee to gain access to certain books, which is not sharable.


----------



## FrogReaver (Dec 21, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> So this is still jumping to a conclusion.
> 
> It is not the only path. And maybe not even the best. It is one of many possibilities.
> 
> ...



I’m game. Name another possibility that aligns with those statements.

What other ways can d&d one monetize the 80% other than micro transactions or paid subscription or some combination of the 2?


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Dec 21, 2022)

FrogReaver said:


> I’m game. Name another possibility that aligns with those statements.
> 
> What other ways can d&d one monetize the 80% other than micro transactions or paid subscription or some combination of the 2?




Sorry. I don't take that bait.
Jump to any conclusion you like. You might be right in the end. But it is not the only option.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Dec 21, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Sorry. I don't take that bait.
> Jump to any conclusion you like. You might be right in the end. But it is not the only option.



Anything on this thread is pure speculation. I agree that much of the speculation is unfounded and overblown and but this thread is specifically for speculation.


----------



## mellored (Dec 21, 2022)

Morrus said:


> They'll be monetising the brand. Toys, t-shirts, lunch boxes, cartoons, books, that sort of thing.



Flame throwers?


----------



## John R Davis (Dec 21, 2022)

Much more digital
Fiddle with ogl so it's via GMsguild only.
That sort of thing


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Dec 21, 2022)

mellored said:


> Flame throwers?



Fireball generators.


----------



## Oofta (Dec 21, 2022)

mellored said:


> Flame throwers?



Hey now, this isn't the Elon Musk thread.  Hmm, that one's locked now.  I guess it was boring.


----------



## FrogReaver (Dec 21, 2022)

MGibster said:


> When I think of the type of recurrent spending we see in digital games the words abusive and exploitative immediately pop into my head.  When a CEO tells me they want to emulate an industry with exploitive and abusive practices it sets off alarm bells for me.



Agreed but micro transactions and subscriptions need not be exploitative. They can be designed such that they add value to the customer and also produce the company money.

But I do believe they bought d&d beyond and want to create their own vtt to make money.


----------



## FrogReaver (Dec 21, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Sorry. I don't take that bait.
> Jump to any conclusion you like. You might be right in the end. But it is not the only option.



Okay. If Asking for your thoughts on another model is bait then I guess we are done.


----------



## FrogReaver (Dec 21, 2022)

Morrus said:


> They'll be monetising the brand. Toys, t-shirts, lunch boxes, cartoons, books, that sort of thing.



They should sale 10ft poles.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Dec 21, 2022)

UngainlyTitan said:


> Anything on this thread is pure speculation. I agree that much of the speculation is unfounded and overblown and but this thread is specifically for speculation.




Yes. I just pointed out that it is, while they speak of "the only logical conclusion" or something alike.


----------



## Clint_L (Dec 21, 2022)

They've pretty much stated how they want to monetize the game:

1. Make more products aimed at players, rather than Dungeon Masters. Per WotC, DMs are on 20% of D&D players but pay the vast majority of stuff. So they will be looking for ways to sell to regular players. I believe they mentioned more merchandise, and I imagine that we will see more branded products in general aimed at casual fans. But I think this category is relatively small potatoes.

2. Monetize the IP much more effectively. This is really what they were talking about: movies, TV shows, advertising, theme parks even. They have this thing with a massive cultural footprint (a "10/10"they called it in this regard) that doesn't make nearly the money off ancillary products as something like Marvel or Lucasfilm, etc.. That's what they want as the future for D&D.


----------



## Clint_L (Dec 21, 2022)

MGibster said:


> When I think of the type of recurrent spending we see in digital games the words abusive and exploitative immediately pop into my head.  When a CEO tells me they want to emulate an industry with exploitive and abusive practices it sets off alarm bells for me.



Good thing WotC expressly said that they _don't_ want the VTT to become like a digital game. That's one of the first things they stated in the reveal, is that they need it to keep the focus on the live gameplay of D&D and not feel like a video game.

The VTT obviously is intended to make money by giving players something that they want. I don't see a problem with that. I _like_ when companies make something that I want to buy. I have a ton of terrain from Dwarven Forge and miniatures from Wizkids, Reaper, and many others. Were they exploiting me? WotC wants to make a digital version of that stuff and if I am interested I will buy some of it (I might be; depends on cost, ease of use, and how much virtual play I see myself doing).

Maybe I am misreading it, but your post seems to suggest a sort of conspiratorial mind-set on the part of WotC. I haven't really encountered much from WotC over the years that has made me view them in that way. I equate them with great value for my entertainment dollar.


----------



## FrogReaver (Dec 21, 2022)

Clint_L said:


> Good thing WotC expressly said that they _don't_ want the VTT to become like a digital game. That's one of the first things they stated in the reveal, is that they need it to keep the focus on the live gameplay of D&D and not feel like a video game.



The spin on this is mind blowing. Saying they don’t want the vtt to ‘play’ like a video game doesn’t mean they don’t want to monetize the vtt like video games with subs and micro transactions. 


Clint_L said:


> The VTT obviously is intended to make money by giving players something that they want. I don't see a problem with that. I _like_ when companies make something that I want to buy. I have a ton of terrain from Dwarven Forge and miniatures from Wizkids, Reaper, and many others. Were they exploiting me? WotC wants to make a digital version of that stuff and if I am interested I will buy some of it (I might be; depends on cost, ease of use, and how much virtual play I see myself doing).



There’s two ways to monetize things - at your customers expense or by adding value to the customer. As long as it’s the later all is good. It’s just a lot of video game companies do the former and that isn’t good. So the concern makes sense even though I agree they won’t go heavily in that direction. 


Clint_L said:


> Maybe I am misreading it, but your post seems to suggest a sort of conspiratorial mind-set on the part of WotC. I haven't really encountered much from WotC over the years that has made me view them in that way. I equate them with great value for my entertainment dollar.



Like the Wotc Magic the gathering fiasco?


----------



## Reynard (Dec 21, 2022)

John R Davis said:


> Fiddle with ogl so it's via GMsguild only.



They.
Can't.


----------



## John R Davis (Dec 21, 2022)

Reynard said:


> They.
> Can't.



I bet they would like too 
Time will tell.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Dec 21, 2022)

John R Davis said:


> I bet they would like too
> Time will tell.



Not in that regard.


----------



## Reynard (Dec 21, 2022)

John R Davis said:


> I bet they would like too
> Time will tell.



No, they literally can't.


----------



## MGibster (Dec 21, 2022)

Clint_L said:


> Good thing WotC expressly said that they _don't_ want the VTT to become like a digital game. That's one of the first things they stated in the reveal, is that they need it to keep the focus on the live gameplay of D&D and not feel like a video game.



Not wanting it to become a digital game doesn't mean they don't want to monetize it in a similar fashion as seen in the video game industry.  



Clint_L said:


> Maybe I am misreading it, but your post seems to suggest a sort of conspiratorial mind-set on the part of WotC. I haven't really encountered much from WotC over the years that has made me view them in that way. I equate them with great value for my entertainment dollar.



I don't know what that means.  All I know is that the practice of turning customers into recurrent spenders is rife with abuse.  Anyone looking to them as an example of how to go about monetizing their product is, what's the word Gen Z uses?  Ah yes, sus.  It's very, very sus.


----------



## John R Davis (Dec 21, 2022)

Reynard said:


> No, they literally can't.



well, they kinda sorta have, sort off


----------



## Reynard (Dec 21, 2022)

John R Davis said:


> well, they kinda sorta have, sort off



No. If the final version of OGL 1.1 looks like the describe, if they release the 1D&D SRD by way of it, that SRD is still valid with OGL 1.0 and 1.0a because of the structure of those licenses. The speculation happening now, and it feels solid enough but who knows, is that WotC will require compliance with OGL 1.1 in order to put stuff up on the Beyond markeplace and/or for the VTT. This will be the incentive to get people to agree to the unpalatable bits of 1.1 (reporting and paying royalties). Again, we don't have the full document yet and we only have the details they chose to share, but it seems like the vast majority of 3PP will be safe just continuing on.


----------



## ART! (Dec 21, 2022)

mellored said:


> Thus I imagine you get the basic game for free (i.e. 4 classes with 1 sub-class each), including VTT with very limited assets.  "Free to play" as it is.  But then you need to buy the books (and minis?) to get the rest.  If you want to play the storm cleric, you need to buy the PHB.  If you want Strahd stats block and maps, you need to but Strahd.
> 
> As for how that is shared amongst players, harder to say.  But I expect an option where anyone in a campaign can share their assets with anyone else in the same campaign.  Same as anyone can physically share books at the same table.
> 
> Though expect more options, sub classes, magic items, spread out in different books though.



This all sounds very likely. On DDB you can buy individual bits of any given book: subclasses, races, individual spells and magic items, etc. If the VTT is totally integrated with that, then they charge one fee for just digital access for those not using the VTT, and another for whatever the VTT aspects of that item are. They can price that difference just right, so investing in the VTT seems like a small price to pay.


----------



## MonsterEnvy (Dec 22, 2022)

FrogReaver said:


> I’m game. Name another possibility that aligns with those statements.
> 
> What other ways can d&d one monetize the 80% other than micro transactions or paid subscription or some combination of the 2?



A subscription for the VTT is probably what will happen. I don’t really have any issues with that.


----------



## Zardnaar (Dec 22, 2022)

UngainlyTitan said:


> I never paid for the paid ammo, I do not know if anyone does. (Expect by accident once or twice). You can buy it for silver.




 I was playing the first time in years the other day on a free account. I know the tricks to make the most of it. 

 It's always neen pay to reduce grind but they have gone into pay to win and loot boxes. Used to pay monthly subscription. 

 Gotta be very careful on free account with gold shells and consumables. 

 The only thing that makes it tolerable is the Christmas special. The game is kinda fun then.

 They also nerfed srtu which was s poor man's go to. The gold shells deal more damage and the power creep on the armor is insane combined with tunnel maps.

 WoT is less a game vs pay to have fun.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Dec 22, 2022)

Zardnaar said:


> I was playing the first time in years the other day on a free account. I know the tricks to make the most of it.
> 
> It's always neen pay to reduce grind but they have gone into pay to win and loot boxes. Used to pay monthly subscription.
> 
> ...



I did fire up the game on console ( I was a console player and that game drifted from the PC version a lot) recently but did not play for long enough to figure out the changes. 
Loot boxes were a thing before I stopped but I never considered them worth it. But is is "SRTU"?


----------



## Velderan (Dec 22, 2022)

Clint_L said:


> Good thing WotC expressly said that they _don't_ want the VTT to become like a digital game. That's one of the first things they stated in the reveal, is that they need it to keep the focus on the live gameplay of D&D and not feel like a video game.
> 
> The VTT obviously is intended to make money by giving players something that they want. I don't see a problem with that. I _like_ when companies make something that I want to buy. I have a ton of terrain from Dwarven Forge and miniatures from Wizkids, Reaper, and many others. Were they exploiting me? WotC wants to make a digital version of that stuff and if I am interested I will buy some of it (I might be; depends on cost, ease of use, and how much virtual play I see myself doing).
> 
> Maybe I am misreading it, but your post seems to suggest a sort of conspiratorial mind-set on the part of WotC. I haven't really encountered much from WotC over the years that has made me view them in that way. I equate them with great value for my entertainment dollar.



I think the comparison you could make for the new VTT to a video game is the large sums of money video game companies have made selling optional cosmetic stuff as microtransactions. They're 100% optional so I don't see them as problematic. They're easy to avoid if you don't like them.

As others have mentioned in this and other threads, I'm sure the new VTT will have a few subscription levels from a free tier that I'd guess would allow you access to the stuff contained in the free core rule set that's currently available to a player focused tier and a more expensive DM focused tier. The current pricing model for DDB seems about right if you want to keep it priced low enough to encourage usage ($3/month for a player, $6/month for a DM). Buying an adventure likely gives you the associated maps and monsters you'd need to play them. Making the subscriptions seem like a good value to encourage more players to pay and offering a lot of cosmetic items for players to make their 3D model look like they want are all good reasonable ways to monetize the new VTT and fit the recurring spending they're looking to achieve IMO.

The fearmongering about WotC selling advantage rolls and unlocking feats through microtransactions is pretty ridiculous from my perspective.


----------



## Clint_L (Dec 22, 2022)

So, my worry about the VTT isn't that it will force deceptive micro-transactions like Fortnite or anything like that. And I think the "pay to win" alarm is ridiculous; D&D just doesn't work like that and if they implemented something like "pay $$$ so your fireball does extra damage" they would be destroying their own game. WotC are not idiots, nor have they ever been malevolent. So the fear them suddenly becoming malevolent idiots does not keep me awake at night.

My one concern, and it may not even be a concern, is that the VTT is likely to put more of the financial burden on DMs who, as WotC acknowledge, already provide the overwhelming majority of purchases for the game. Take, well, me for example. I spend a freaking fortune on terrain and miniatures. And I am not complaining - it's a hobby that I am passionate about, and I love painting the stuff, building sets, etc. But the VTT has the potential to create a lot more "me-s."

Imagine being able to purchase all the maps in digital form and populate them with digital characters and monsters, similar to what we saw in the preview. And imagine that it was easy to use, and you could then use those resources to make your own maps. Maybe you've always wanted to do that the old school way, like many of us did, but the cost was prohibitive. But for, say, $50, you can get all the digital terrain tiles and creatures to run Tomb of Annihilation, or anything else you want to build with those resources. And then adding all the Rime of the Frostmaiden stuff for another $50 starts to look pretty good...

And that is exactly what WotC is proposing, though they haven't come close to announcing any price schemes yet.

This actually sounds pretty great to me. But my concern is that this does not remotely address the issue that WotC raised: that the game primarily monetizes DMs. I think the VTT is another thing that DMs will mostly pay for - cosmetic upgrades to character avatars will be a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of digital terrain and miniatures collections.


----------



## MockingBird (Dec 22, 2022)

I might have already said this but ima say it again. I'd happily pay a subscription for official D&D STL files for 3d printing. I'm already doing it with Loot Studios.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Dec 22, 2022)

To be honest I would make a paid subscription to D&DBeyond to get info from D&DBeyond into other VTTs. If they were doing that.


----------



## Zardnaar (Dec 22, 2022)

UngainlyTitan said:


> I did fire up the game on console ( I was a console player and that game drifted from the PC version a lot) recently but did not play for long enough to figure out the changes.
> Loot boxes were a thing before I stopped but I never considered them worth it. But is is "SRTU"?




 That's my fat thumbs on phones. I meant arty. Arty was decent to play on a free account.


----------



## MNblockhead (Dec 23, 2022)

FrogReaver said:


> Ummm… cannot play on the VTT together and account share.  Everyone would need an account for that.



Why?

I can't remember a VTT I've used that required my players to pay for their own accounts. I'm sure that WotC's VTT with have a DM's tier that allows content sharing for at least a certain number of players for a certain number of campaigns.


----------



## MNblockhead (Dec 23, 2022)

It is hard to get more money out of players. If they got rid of the generous content sharing they currently offer in DDB, I think it would harm their efforts to make DDB the hub for all things D&D. 

Where they really seem to be leaving money on the table in terms of player spend is with for-pay games. If they build into their VTT to make it possible for DMs to advertise and charge for games, with WotC taking a small cut, that would be the best way to get money from players. I know that there would be howls of sacrilege from many in the community, but the existence of sites like startplaying.games and Roll20's Find a Game feature show that their is demand for this. 

They could also create services for streamers. Not sure it makes sense to try to compete with Twitch, but perhaps they could offer a tier that would more seamlessly integrate their VTT with Twitch and would help market and boost streams on DnD Beyonds site, WotC's YouTube sites, etc. 

There is a very limited amount of custom dice, character skins, character sheet backgrounds, and other eye candy that players are going to buy.


----------



## Benjamin Olson (Dec 24, 2022)

My prediction is that one way or another they're going to try to make both a monthly subscription and microtransactions happen. What it will look like, how aggressively they push it, to what degree they will abandon existing business models, how far they will be willing to test customers' loyalty to official content to try to make them pay a monthly fee and microtransact in some capacity, and how committed the actual relevant design teams are to making it happen in an effective way are all very up in the air, but it's coming. There is a fundamental element in this whole OneD&D project of not just doing what they think is good for the game but of doing what will let the people in charge of the game make claims about its future that will look good in a Powerpoint presentation to Hasbro executives who don't really understand these book games of ours but at least think they understand videogames. And monthly subscriptions and microtransactions are the things that will put little executive smiles on those stony executive faces.

But I suspect some of the people actually implementing these things would be even happier if subscriptions and microtransactions mostly failed and banner sales of books meant that nobody really cared, so it may well be attempted in a rather limited and perfunctory manner.


----------



## Mistwell (Dec 24, 2022)

Movies, AAA video games, toys, board games, branded household products, miniatures for the new VTT, subscription to the new VTT.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Dec 28, 2022)

my guess (and what I would do if I had to do it) is lobster boiling in a pot.

Start with "Oh the book is $50, but you can get it on our stream service electronically for $25" lead to "Oh you can get a subscription for ALL the books this year... there will be 3-5 at $40-$50 each but the subscription is $119.99 for the year or $13.99 per month" then go with "You can add the VTT with all these 2D minis and import monsters right from our books its $4.99 a month of $49.99 a year OR if you already have the $119.99 book sub you can add a year of this at half price and it's only $142.99 per year." then add "Oh we have these rare special monsters not in any book you can only buy online set 1 is $9.99, sets 2 and 3 will both be out later this year OR you can just add all the special monster packs for $19.99 a year"

People who start off with "Hey save half to get it online instead of physical" get turned into $170 a year customers... people who would say "I don't know I don't need all 3 books out this year for $150" will be saying "I got a deal I got my Vtt all my add ons and all those books for ONLY $170"

(Warning all numbers made up and in no way reflect what will or will not happen just kept using them as example)


----------



## Scribe (Dec 28, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> Your Tabaxi glaive echo knight fighter will cost 5 bucks each for the tabaxi head, snow leapard skin, glaive weapon, cape, and echo effect.
> Then if you want to import that to the MMO and tactics game, that $25 dollars each unless you have DNDB Premium.




See now, a fully featured MMO, would get me to subscribe to something, assuming it was actually good. Then fill the cash shop with options like you say here, and your on to something.


----------



## Clint_L (Dec 29, 2022)

MNblockhead said:


> It is hard to get more money out of players.



Tell me about it! Amirite, fellow DMs?


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Dec 29, 2022)

Clint_L said:


> Tell me about it! Amirite, fellow DMs?



I keep being told there are Dms that get paid for it... I am just not that guy


----------



## Clint_L (Dec 29, 2022)

I get paid for running a D&D summer camp, which includes a lot of DMing, but the pay is not great considering the hours that go into it, and I don't want to ask my school to pay me for all the prep time or I'm afraid the camp will become unaffordable. (I got paid $40/hour but I only charged for my hours literally running games with the kids).

But I really like that I can call myself a professional Dungeon Master!


----------



## corwyn77 (Dec 30, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> my guess (and what I would do if I had to do it) is lobster boiling in a pot.



If it's anything like this, 5.0 will be the last edition I buy.


----------



## Clint_L (Dec 30, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> my guess (and what I would do if I had to do it) is lobster boiling in a pot.
> 
> Start with "Oh the book is $50, but you can get it on our stream service electronically for $25" lead to "Oh you can get a subscription for ALL the books this year... there will be 3-5 at $40-$50 each but the subscription is $119.99 for the year or $13.99 per month" then go with "You can add the VTT with all these 2D minis and import monsters right from our books its $4.99 a month of $49.99 a year OR if you already have the $119.99 book sub you can add a year of this at half price and it's only $142.99 per year." then add "Oh we have these rare special monsters not in any book you can only buy online set 1 is $9.99, sets 2 and 3 will both be out later this year OR you can just add all the special monster packs for $19.99 a year"
> 
> ...



The thing is...that would be an _incredible deal_ compared to buying physical miniatures and terrain. I have spent upwards of 2k this year (maybe way upwards; I've lost track). So what you described would be all the books PLUS all the terrain and miniatures to run them at a fraction, less than 10%, of what I currently spend.

I enjoy painting and collecting terrain, so I'm not complaining. But if I was younger and more tech savvy, a plan like the one you describe would be an incredible bargain.



corwyn77 said:


> If it's anything like this, 5.0 will be the last edition I buy.




That's the whole idea of OneD&D.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Dec 30, 2022)

corwyn77 said:


> If it's anything like this, 5.0 will be the last edition I buy.



Oh I agree... I in no way was saying it was what i wanted or was what i would go with as a customer... My group is torn right now as to weather to go to 1D&D or not


----------



## Clint_L (Dec 30, 2022)

_You're already playing it._


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Dec 30, 2022)

Clint_L said:


> _You're already playing it._



sort of... we are play testing bits... 

We are REALLY trying to do the whole insperation thing but it is not working
We liked the ranger hated the minor changes to rogue and so far are not a fan of the cleric... we like having daze back and like the IDEA of the new race/species rules but so far not the actual implementation.  If things continue this way we WONT be playing 1D*D in 2024... but who knows we are holding out hope.


----------



## Clint_L (Dec 30, 2022)

What I mean is that it's still 5e. There will be minor changes, like with Tasha's and so on, but it's not going to be a significant change. In fact, Tasha's will still be a valid sourcebook. If you don't want the updated PHB, you can just keep using the 2014 one. That's what I might do, unless I see some compelling thing I really want from the new one, and even then I might just buy the bits that I like off DnDBeyond.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Dec 30, 2022)

Clint_L said:


> What I mean is that it's still 5e.



not really


Clint_L said:


> There will be minor changes, like with Tasha's and so on, but it's not going to be a significant change.



unless you are saying the playtest is a lie, I can't agree. We already have more then enough changes that it will be atleast equal to 1e2e change and looks more like 3e to 3.5 and it's just not something I can agree with. This is different . 


Clint_L said:


> In fact, Tasha's will still be a valid sourcebook. If you don't want the updated PHB, you can just keep using the 2014 one.



if I do that I will NOT be playing 1D&D because regardless of wording 1D&D is a different version of the game then the 2014 game


Clint_L said:


> That's what I might do, unless I see some compelling thing I really want from the new one, and even then I might just buy the bits that I like off DnDBeyond.



TBH I may just walk about from D&D


----------



## Greg Benage (Dec 30, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> unless you are saying the playtest is a lie, I can't agree. We already have more then enough changes that it will be atleast equal to 1e2e change and looks more like 3e to 3.5 and it's just not something I can agree with. This is different .



I'd be interested in hearing more about this. Based on what you've seen, what does 5e do that OneD&D doesn't? What does 5e do better?

So far, it seems to me they're changing a lot of details, but they don't add up to a whole lot (good or bad, IMO). What have you seen that makes you think, "This isn't 5e anymore"?


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Dec 30, 2022)

Greg Benage said:


> I'd be interested in hearing more about this. Based on what you've seen, what does 5e do that OneD&D doesn't? What does 5e do better?



so far the biggest thing that is different is the spell prep. I can in 5e prep more higher or lower level spells with prep casters, and the very idea of the 'known' casters.  


Greg Benage said:


> So far, it seems to me they're changing a lot of details, but they don't add up to a whole lot (good or bad, IMO).



that's the thing, these seem to me to be change for change sake... very few of the changes are major quality of life changes.


Greg Benage said:


> What have you seen that makes you think, "This isn't 5e anymore"?



the fact that we have changes to spells, changes to classes redoing all races, making feats at 1st level, changing the idea of how spells are handled.


----------



## corwyn77 (Dec 30, 2022)

Clint_L said:


> The thing is...that would be an _incredible deal_ compared to buying physical miniatures and terrain. I have spent upwards of 2k this year (maybe way upwards; I've lost track). So what you described would be all the books PLUS all the terrain and miniatures to run them at a fraction, less than 10%, of what I currently spend.
> 
> I enjoy painting and collecting terrain, so I'm not complaining. But if I was younger and more tech savvy, a plan like the one you describe would be an incredible bargain.
> 
> ...



One edition too late.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Dec 30, 2022)

corwyn77 said:


> One edition too late.



everyone goes to war with an army for the last one


----------



## Clint_L (Dec 30, 2022)

Yeah, I mean I'm never gonna give up on physical miniatures and terrain. I have thousands upon thousands of hours and effort invested, aside from the cost. And for me, there is just something about making the physical sets and moving the miniatures around that is satisfying. And I enjoy painting.

I might _also_ use a VTT in certain circumstances, if it is both affordable and intuitive for an idiot like me. But I am definitely not their primary market.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Dec 31, 2022)

Clint_L said:


> Yeah, I mean I'm never gonna give up on physical miniatures and terrain. I have thousands upon thousands of hours and effort invested, aside from the cost. And for me, there is just something about making the physical sets and moving the miniatures around that is satisfying. And I enjoy painting.
> 
> I might _also_ use a VTT in certain circumstances, if it is both affordable and intuitive for an idiot like me. But I am definitely not their primary market.



before covid I NEVER would have seen us going VTT. However with a year and a half of us all 'playing from home' having more time with family the ability to say 'hold on my wife is having an issue with our son' or 'hold on BRB my fiancé is crying on the phone' when if we had been at someone else house we would not have known...

Then there is the fact that people move. We lost players years ago when they moved for work... now they can play again. We can then meet NEW players through them that can be half a world away... or we had someone in the group for a bit that we met at a con. 

I don't know what to do with my tiles, my dwarven forge, my boxes and boxes of minis and terrain.


----------



## HaroldTheHobbit (Dec 31, 2022)

Every which way they can.


----------



## MGibster (Dec 31, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I don't know what to do with my tiles, my dwarven forge, my boxes and boxes of minis and terrain.



Send them to me and I'll give them a good home.  I hope they've been vaccinated and are house broken.


----------



## Warpiglet-7 (Dec 31, 2022)

I realize as I get older that being negative about things others are excited about is a drag.  I slip up occasionally, but I am trying.

This model being proposed is interesting and one I will not participate in.

I am a “whale” in that I have 1000s in minis, hundreds in books.  I really like 5e but it’s not perfect.  But I have a blueprint to follow here!

In the late 80s and still young, I loved 1e.  I was turned off by renaming of fiends among other changes.  So we stuck with 1e—-happily!

At times a book came out that my DM had to have and incorporate.  But 1e of course was not perfect…what to do?

We made spell slots for casters.  We used more liberal multiclassing from unearthed arcana.  We got max hit points at first level.  We homebrewed a few races.  And played the hell out of it.  Years more!  Right up until 2000.

So…for the current 5e….I think we will make a few houserules stick.  Peruse new 5.5 books for backwards compatible content.  And as for micro transactions and subscriptions?  Give me two of each.

One to take a crap on and one to wipe with 

Let the suits take that feedback and incorporate it.  I am not getting suckered into an online pay to play loot crate having situation.


----------



## ART! (Jan 1, 2023)

GMforPowergamers said:


> sort of... we are play testing bits...
> 
> We are REALLY trying to do the whole insperation thing but it is not working



We're trying the new Inspiration rules, and some little variants we've come up with, and nothing seems to change the fact that Inspiration is a functional little rule, but is the flimsiest imaginable attempt to mechanically support drama. It's almost insulting how flimsy it is.

 That's too strong a way to put it, and I'm not all worked up about it or anything, but I just feel like there's a lack of conviction or commitment at work there, like its a nod toward mechanically working Backgrounds into the narrative, but not in a way that really works. And it seems like to make such a thing possible in D&D would require changes they're not going to make, in the interest of keeping as much like the D&D that people know as they can.


----------



## Warpiglet-7 (Jan 1, 2023)

ART! said:


> We're trying the new Inspiration rules, and some little variants we've come up with, and nothing seems to change the fact that Inspiration is a functional little rule, but is the flimsiest imaginable attempt to mechanically support drama. It's almost insulting how flimsy it is.
> 
> That's too strong a way to put it, and I'm not all worked up about it or anything, but I just feel like there's a lack of conviction or commitment at work there, like its a nod toward mechanically working Backgrounds into the narrative, but not in a way that really works. And it seems like to make such a thing possible in D&D would require changes they're not going to make, in the interest of keeping as much like the D&D that people know as they can.



This may be the only core rule that my group has never used.  I have no strong feelings about it either—-it’s just kind of there.

As a side note I don’t think you can really push immersion and roleplaying.  It’s always there every rule set if you choose to engage.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 2, 2023)

ART! said:


> We're trying the new Inspiration rules, and some little variants we've come up with, and nothing seems to change the fact that Inspiration is a functional little rule, but is the flimsiest imaginable attempt to mechanically support drama. It's almost insulting how flimsy it is.



I agree... it's book keeping and extra work for so little use. I wish we were getting more RP stuff less track this little bonus


----------

