Stance on using D&D Beyond for references?

Question

With the release of dndbeyond, and seeing it used a few times around the site, I wanted to ask if we have (or should have) a policy regarding using direct links to a paywall shielded website, instead of referring to physical books.

Naturally, we encourage pasting in the relevant text in case of link necrosis but for quotations that would come out of physical books--if we're going to cite sources, should we continue to cite the actual physical rulebooks? Or is it acceptable to link off to a creator-controlled site that exists behind a paywall, such as dndbeyond, and may thus be inaccessible to the average user?

On the upside...such sites tend to be completely up to date, and we don't have to worry about errata differences between printings. But it does prevent a typical user, who does not have access to get behind the paywall, from actually pursuing the source.

I, personally, think this is fine...but wanted to toss it up to the rest of you. (You have to buy the book to have access to the physical citations, after all)

Answer 1

Use both whenever possible

There's really no difference between the paywall for a book and the paywall for a site.

Whenever I get the chance I cite both the book and online: (PHB p. 245).

Barriers to entry

To someone that doesn't have a book, (DMG p. 270) is exactly as inaccessible as https://www.dndbeyond.com/compendium/rules/dmg/dungeon-masters-workshop#InitiativeVariants is to someone without access to Beyond.

If we are talking barriers to entry, online is arguably lower: they cost less, they are available instantly from a browser, and they are appealing to a generation of people raised in the digital age.

But this is not a book vs ebook argument. I think the greater barrier to entry would be to take a stance against either source.

Discouraging online sources could be very off putting especially to newcomers to D&D who are coming in excited at the possibility of using official electronic resources. WotC gave us this lovely official online resource. Let those who want to use it, use it. Discouraging books would be off putting to the older experienced users (or those of us that just like books).

Accept either

As long as we keep to official sources, I think the best policy would be to just encourage users to use whatever sources they have access to and to use both if they can. Someone else can always add in whatever source one didn't have if they care that much.

Also a note, but the basic rules are also on Beyond and free and available to all — anyone can see the glyph of warding spell's details. So, I try to use links from the basic rules whenever possible.

Answer 2

Use either for convenience, but prefer the physical book if available at hand

My reasoning is that books have a permanence that digital media (in the format of D&DBeyond) lack. Most of the online material for 3rd and 4th edition is either gone, or requires a trip to the Wayback Machine, resulting in many broken or re-directed links. D&DBeyond or other SRD online sources, either WotC's PDF or the numerous hypertext adaptations, are very convenient for citing, since they are always at hand: if you are writing a post, you are at a device that has Internet access, ipso facto. But you may be nowhere near the physical books. For this reason, requiring book citation is unrealistic.

However, if you do have the books at hand, their page numbers are unlikely to change at any point, barring a major re-write. 20 years from now, the books will still exist. D&DBeyond likely will not, or if it does, will be serving 7th or 9th edition. Many people on our site play editions going back to AD&D 1e. We can assume that in 20 years, some people will still be playing 5e. The books will likely be there, albeit banged up, used, or ins some way digitized. I just don't see D&DBeyond having a comparable "shelf life".

Answer 3

How would you like it if you asked "Can I mount my electrical outlet upside down?" And my answer was

Yes, if and only if you comply with NEC 216.15 Note 3.

(nothing further)

And then you're like "WTH, why should I have to spend $125 on a copy of the Electrical Code?"

And we say "Because it's an essential resource for anyone doing electrical work."

And you say "I am changing a fracking outlet."

You'd be right. Just because someone wants to flip an outlet, doesn't mean they want to design sitewide wiring for a refinery, which is what NEC is mainly for. It's perfectly easy to write answers they don't need the book to understand.

Inclusivity is the biggest reason

These are the meta-messages we would send. "This is a closed club. Pay the club dues, OR GET OUT." There are bona-fide reasons why some people shouldn't do DIY home repairs, but "possession of a secret decoder ring" is not one of them.

Even when ThreePhaseEel and I are having arcane discussions about the fine points of Rapid Shutdown (render-safe for solar panels so firemen don't get shocked, see how I told you what it was instead of excluding you?), we still use our Fair Use rights to quote the relevant snippets for all to see.

So we have the option of making our forum very hostile to folks just entering home repair, or keep people out of the deep insider conversations we are having... and we make a point not to. And nobody told us to do that. Why? Hmm, I suppose because our core drive is to share our passion.

...Although there's also a big problem with obsolescence

That's an SE-wide policy, and it's for two reasons.

First, obviously, is link rot. We too can link the official NEC site, however the site can change their layout anytime they want. And my experience is that webmasters reorganize content at least as often as they change platforms, and only about 5% of them support old links after a reorganization. So there you go, d20 lol. The problem is, if you don't roll a natural 20, every link on the stack breaks at once. It becomes totally impracticable to hand-edit every one, and nobody ever bothers to write an automator. Which you'd have to run everytime, and that's often not even possible even if you do build it.

Second, the rules change. You're going "There is no NEC 216!" Yeah, whoopsadaisy, they removed that rule. Nevvermind! And as you certainly know, in D&D, the rules change a lot.

Recommendation: Quote and cite

Certainly, quote the essential snippets of text. This is allowed under the Fair Use doctrine of copyright law, in fact, it's an open-and-shut case. When you quote a section, definitely attribute it, of course, with a reference to the content (version # and findable reference point ideal, e.g. "NEC 310.15" or "5E MM under displacer beast"; URL to dndbeyond secondary).

Answer 4

Common Sources are the best sources

Since the Wizards site is new and we don't have any known subscription numbers, I don't know if we want to be pushing our knowledge behind that wall. Given that everyone who comes here should have had a legal physical copy (as that's been the only legal copy), it's best to provide citations that the majority have access to.

Online sources are absolutely easier, but citing evidence that is hidden behind a new paywall (even if the source is legitimate) makes life harder for those using the site. It is best to cite something that everyone/anyone have historically had access to.

If there are online legal resources, you can use those as well, but if they are 3rd party you risk errors that might not be there with the originals.

Linking to the paywall resources is totally legitimate, it just sets a higher bar for access than it needs to be in comparison to the physical status quo that was in existence before the recent development of D&DBeyond.

Forward Thinking

I agree with Rubiksmoose in that moving forward we should be using both. But if you are picking one, one should pick the one that more people use and/or have access to.

Answer 5

I would say, definately not - at the time of writing. Its not yet a complete product, being still in beta and its missing a huge amount of key rules.