WotC D&D Historian Ben Riggs says the OGL fiasco was Chris Cocks idea.

[Alzrius]

so show your point and your foundation for it, because I have certainly not seen the latter, all I have seen is you wanting better evidence and dismissing everything without actually providing anything yourself

I'll refer you to this post.

 

[mamba]

I'll refer you to this post.

I had seen that, it had nothing at all to do with what we were discussing though

 

[Oofta]

Before anything else, I want to congratulate you on actually asking me what my position is. That's been pretty rare in this thread, and I'm hoping it will lead to a point where we can accurately talk about the issue in question, without snark or belittling comments which invite responses along similar lines.

My issue is that I think WotC will, in accordance with statements that they've made (less than two years ago now) about wanting to monetize the game more via a recurrent spending environment, attempt to present their VTT as being the optimal way to play D&D. To that end, I think they'll play up aspects of the game which the VTT is not only capable of supporting, but which it will (for lack of a better term) highlight with various bells and whistles. Spell animations are an obvious example here, since the OGL v1.2 tried to explicitly disallow them.

Presuming that they're successful in bringing more of their customer base around to using the VTT in this way, my concern is that this will lead to a slow constriction among said base with regard to the boundless nature of imaginative play. Spell animations for existing spells will, for instance, focus attention on those spells, making things like custom spell research by PC spellcasters less frequent; I suspect that custom magic items will be the same, custom monsters, etc.

Now, I don't think that WotC necessarily wants to narrow the range of the game. It's just what what they do want is more money, and digital bells and whistles that make the VTT "sexier" (again, for lack of a better term) do that, which can distract from more imaginative options being in play. If the VTT allows for an interactive dungeon environment, for instance, then it (unintentionally or not) discourages ways of play that aren't supported by that interactivity. Even if DMs can manually make up for that, doing so is still presented as the less impressive mode of engagement.

Now, you might say that won't happen. That's your opinion and I respect that; but I don't think what I've outlined here is in any sense outrageous or beyond the pale, and I do think it leads down a path that moves away from what makes TTRPGs different from other kinds of games.

While I appreciate the response, I still don't see an issue. Yes the VTT will have bells and whistles. They will compete with other VTTs for users, primarily by offering a tool that distinguishes itself from other offerings. Business as usual, gives people other options. I think competition is a good thing. Will they present it in a positive light? Of course! Just like every other company that sells anything.

But all you seem to be saying is that they'll build a tool people want to use. I'm saying that I, as with a significant portion of the player base, will never use a VTT. A significant percentage of people that use a VTT won't switch over. Let's be generous and say 60% of people play D&D online. Of that 60%, of course none of them currently use the WotC VTT today. Nobody knows how well accepted their tool will be, but lets say eventually the majority of people that play online are now using the WotC version ... so 50% of people playing D&D are using WotC's VTT and the other 10% use something else (and I think I'm being quite generous here).

So my best case scenario, we get to the point where half the players of D&D use WotC's VTT. Hopefully we can agree they aren't going to just eliminate half their player base just because VTT is more profitable, right?

So what could entice people to use the VTT? Let's say they release Otto's Obviously Fantastic Academy (OOFTA). Now OOFTA is really, really good. People like it. What happens if they only target online? Initially anyway, they're missing out on 50% of their target. But even then, no matter how incredible OOFTA is, and it really truly is trust me, how is it really any different from any other supplement? There's a significant percentage of the people that never bought XGtE. Swashbuckler is my favorite rogue class, but if I didn't have Sword Coast's Adventurers Guide, I'd just play something else like an Arcane Trickster.

Would some people miss out on some cool content? Sure. Just like some people missed out on cool content when we had Dungeon and Dragon magazines. Just like I've never seen Game of Thrones because I've never bothered subscribing to Max. GoT simply isn't enough motivation for me to spend money on another streaming service. OOFTA, no matter how handsome he is how amazing a supplement it is, will never convince me to use a VTT.

Somehow you go from "they want the VTT to be successful" to "a slow constriction among said base with regard to the boundless nature of imaginative play". Phew. First of all, I see no evidence that will ever happen. Second if it does, it will only happen to people using the VTT. Third even if I did use the VTT there's nothing wrong with me using some substitute functionality (e.g. use a fog cloud animation to indicate a swarm of screaming souls), I'll just tell people what's going on and that I don't have the proper animation. If there's damage or associated conditions, we'll handle it manually. Done. It's no different from how we play the game now. I like to use minis at the table and if I have the proper mini I use it but if not I just put down an approximation and describe what they see. A VTT is not a video game, there's still a DM running everything and they've stated there will be ways to manually apply damage and conditions.

All I can say is that I see no way to connect the dots between "VTT" and "VTT taking over the world to the detriment of the game" and you haven't really provided anything convincing. They're selling a new product they hope will be successful. Just like they're licensing or building video games they hope to make a profit on. But those things don't have any significant impact on the core game.

 

[mamba]

It's no different from how we play the game now. I like to use minis at the table and if I have the proper mini I use it but if not I just put down an approximation and describe what they see.

this, whatever limits to the imagination the VTT will have, minis come with it too

 

[Alzrius]

I had seen that, it had nothing at all to do with what we were discussing though

You asked me where I was making "my point," though, and that's it.

While I appreciate the response, I still don't see an issue.

Well, I do, so there we are.

Yes the VTT will have bells and whistles. They will compete with other VTTs for users, primarily by offering a tool that distinguishes itself from other offerings. Business as usual, gives people other options. I think competition is a good thing. Will they present it in a positive light? Of course! Just like every other company that sells anything.

This viewpoint seems to conflate the economic aspects of what's under discussion with the creative aspects, in that if something is good for the former then the latter doesn't really enter into things. "Business as usual" is often bad for artistry, innovation, and imagination. Which is really my point; if those other options end up distracting from the options which haven't (or cannot be) given bells and whistles, then it's not unthinkable to say that the creative aspects of the hobby as a whole suffer for it, even if there's more money to be made.

But all you seem to be saying is that they'll build a tool people want to use.

I'm still not clear as to why you think that means that there's no problem. Yes, engaging with standardization is something that the consumer has to voluntarily enter into as a consumer; that doesn't negate the potential for the constriction of imagination that I outlined, voluntary though it may be.

I'm saying that I, as with a significant portion of the player base, will never use a VTT.

I question how significant that is, as well as the surety of your assertion that it will remain significant. We keep hearing how D&D's player base is getting younger all the time, even as more people play the game, while grognards and older players in general are a shrinking minority. To declare "a significant portion of the base will never use the VTT" strikes me as aspirational. I certainly hope you're right, of course (I don't use a VTT either), but I think that what we've glimpsed paints a different picture.

A significant percentage of people that use a VTT won't switch over.

This is also something I'm less certain of. The entire point of creating so many bells and whistles is to encourage people to use their platform, which includes bringing in users of other platforms, and in this regard WotC has a much greater capacity to act than other VTTs. Integrating character sheets from DDB, for instance, as well as rulebooks and supplements, makes for an attractive package alongside interactive features and physical/digital bundling. WotC is, in other words, well-positioned to make themselves the market leader in this regard.

Let's be generous and say 60% of people play D&D online. Of that 60%, of course none of them currently use the WotC VTT today. Nobody knows how well accepted their tool will be, but lets say eventually the majority of people that play online are now using the WotC version ... so 50% of people playing D&D are using WotC's VTT and the other 10% use something else (and I think I'm being quite generous here).

To be honest, this strikes me as an example of why using statistics in hypotheticals tends to be a bad idea. While it's one thing to discuss what may or may not happen, putting quantifiable metrics to areas that are necessarily uncertain (i.e. the future) encourages concrete thinking where I think abstractions work better. Obviously there are some areas where this is contextually routine, but this discussion isn't one of them.

So my best case scenario, we get to the point where half the players of D&D use WotC's VTT. Hopefully we can agree they aren't going to just eliminate half their player base just because VTT is more profitable, right?

And again, this draws a conclusion from numbers that are essentially pulled out of the ether. It might be half of the total D&D player base, it might be more or less, but we don't know. My concern is that if it's any sort of significant percentage (or grows into one over time), then the issues I articulated above could become more likely; none of this would happen instantaneously, after all, as it's a matter of inculcating a particular outlook, where the boundaries of play are implicitly accepted as being inviolable to the point of not being questioned (very much, since none of this is an absolute).

So what could entice people to use the VTT? Let's say they release Otto's Obviously Fantastic Academy (OOFTA). Now OOFTA is really, really good. People like it. What happens if they only target online? Initially anyway, they're missing out on 50% of their target. But even then, no matter how incredible OOFTA is, and it really truly is trust me, how is it really any different from any other supplement? There's a significant percentage of the people that never bought XGtE. Swashbuckler is my favorite rogue class, but if I didn't have Sword Coast's Adventurers Guide, I'd just play something else like an Arcane Trickster.

If the issue here is why people would use the VTT in the first place, that one's going to be up to every individual user, and so speculating as to the viability (or other areas of efficacy) in trying to lure people in likewise doesn't strike me as being a particularly germane way of saying the issues I'm concerned about won't happen. It's entirely possible that a large number of users won't particularly care about the VTT, but will sign up anyway simply because the rest of their group is, and they don't want to be left behind. Or perhaps because they're just that eager to play (i.e. "looking for group") and that's where the most potential players are. Or because they were gifted a physical/digital bundle for their birthday and are giving the VTT a try completely blind, etc. The point is that WotC is going to be bending over backwards to try and lure people in, and however they do it, there's a decent chance that they'll succeed in drawing in some non-negligible portion of the player base over time and retain them for a not-inconsiderable period, during which time the constraints of the digital medium, combined with how engaging it makes the areas where it functions best, serve to slowly discourage moving beyond what the VTT does well.

Would some people miss out on some cool content? Sure. Just like some people missed out on cool content when we had Dungeon and Dragon magazines. Just like I've never seen Game of Thrones because I've never bothered subscribing to Max. GoT simply isn't enough motivation for me to spend money on another streaming service. OOFTA, no matter how handsome he is how amazing a supplement it is, will never convince me to use a VTT.

I'll certainly agree that WotC will never have 100% of the player base, if for no other reason than them not having you and me. But they can still capture a large enough portion of it to essentially sway how the hobby as a whole thinks about the course of play, specifically via what their VTT does well versus what it doesn't.

Somehow you go from "they want the VTT to be successful" to "a slow constriction among said base with regard to the boundless nature of imaginative play".

There's no "somehow" to it, as I outlined quite extensively the issues wherein players are encourages to stick to what the VTT does well simply because that's what it does well, and stay away from what it doesn't go out of its way to facilitate because those are areas that it doesn't go out of its way to facilitate. People who engage with a product tend to use it for what it's designed for, and don't use it for things which it isn't designed for (I'd say all the more so when it's a curated digital product, but that might just be because I'm not tech-savvy).

Phew. First of all, I see no evidence that will ever happen.

Again, this is a realm of speculation, so questions of evidence are misplaced here. We're essentially playing a guessing game, which isn't evidentiary.

Second if it does, it will only happen to people using the VTT.

Which might very well be a large portion of the player base, as that's what WotC is going to be striving for, using all of the muscle than an 800-pound gorilla can bring to bear.

Third even if I did use the VTT there's nothing wrong with me using some substitute functionality (e.g. use a fog cloud animation to indicate a swarm of screaming souls), I'll just tell people what's going on and that I don't have the proper animation.

And you're right in that some people who use the VTT will push back against the restrictions that it necessarily entails. But as its functionality becomes more expansive and more integrated with DDB, I suspect that this will simply occur to fewer and fewer people as a matter of course. If you have to take three or four steps to accomplish a particular thing, and something judged to be roughly as good can be done in one step, then I foresee a lot of people choosing the latter over the former as a matter of course. (Recently a friend of mine, almost twenty years younger than me, laughingly told me that nobody bothers to text with their thumbs anymore; nowadays they apparently all use "swipe texting," which I'd never heard of.)

If there's damage or associated conditions, we'll handle it manually. Done. It's no different from how we play the game now.

See above. I agree that such a thing isn't particularly onerous, but even mild inconveniences are quick to be abandoned when a less-burdensome alternative is presented, and I think that a lot of VTT users will fall into that mindset over time.

I like to use minis at the table and if I have the proper mini I use it but if not I just put down an approximation and describe what they see. A VTT is not a video game, there's still a DM running everything and they've stated there will be ways to manually apply damage and conditions.

There will, but manual options strike me as being less popular than automatic ones (I still don't understand the appeal of video games which play themselves, for example, but my friends all have them on their phones). And this is just for minor things like substituting a given damaging effect for something else. If you want to create a custom spell, for instance, that's even more difficult, to say nothing of creating/using a new sub-system for some aspect of play that the VTT doesn't support.

All I can say is that I see no way to connect the dots between "VTT" and "VTT taking over the world to the detriment of the game" and you haven't really provided anything convincing.

Well, that's your opinion and you're welcome to it. Furthermore, I hope that you're right and I'm wrong; it's not a future I'd like to see. I just think it's a consequence of the future WotC wants to see, and which they're trying very hard to make happen.

They're selling a new product they hope will be successful. Just like they're licensing or building video games they hope to make a profit on. But those things don't have any significant impact on the core game.

I disagree; I think even minor changes can have unexpectedly large impacts on the nature of play with respect to the core game, at least in terms of how it'll function in a digital environment that's highly interactive in nature.

 

[mamba]

You asked me where I was making "my point," though, and that's it.

I was asking for your point in the discussion we were having, not just any point of yours that is entirely unrelated to our discussion…

 

[Alzrius]

I was asking for your point in the discussion we were having, not a point of yours that is entirely unrelated to our discussion…

And I explained that in that regard my point was entirely that I found fault with how you arrived at your conclusion.

 

[Umbran]

Or the places we looked didn't carry it.

A web search will find it wherever it is, though.

Could just be a unique experience, that's fine, but DVDs have been dying for a long time.

Well, it is technically obsolete - other formats hold more data in the same space. But, just as I still have vinyl records hanging around, DVDs last a good long while, so the tech doesn't die out.

 

[mamba]

And I explained that in that regard my point was entirely that I found fault with how you arrived at your conclusion.

yeah, I was wondering if you actually had an argument and point of your own you were trying to make, or if you only wanted to express your being unconvinced by my evidence / reasoning without actually providing any evidence to for your beliefs and towards a point of your own.

It very much clearly seems to be the latter. I am not interested in that, if you cannot even show anything to make an actual point and only bring up some generic fortune cookie level wisdom without showing how it relates to anything in an effort to express that you are not convinced, then I have no interest in this discussion. Unless you have a point that you can back up with evidence that is better supported by the available data, there really is nothing to discuss

 

[Alzrius]

yeah, I was wondering if you actually had an argument and point of your own you were trying to make, or if you only wanted to express your being unconvinced by my evidence / reasoning without actually providing any evidence to for your beliefs and towards a point of your own.

I'm not at all sure why you'd be wondering that, as I've previously explained that with regards to the point you were putting forward, my take was entirely why I found it to not be as ironclad as you were asserting. If a point someone is making looks to be built on premises that don't stand up to scrutiny, it's entirely legitimate to examine them and point out why.

It very much clearly seems to be the latter. I am not interested in that, if you cannot even show anything to make an actual point and only bring up some generic fortune cookie level wisdom without showing how it relates to anything in an effort to express that you are not convinced, then I have no interest in this discussion. Unless you have a point that you can back up with evidence that is better supported by the available data, there really is nothing to discuss

Again, I'm not sure why you think that someone examining your own point needs to also be asserting one of theirs in the process. Simply examining your own points of data and finding them to be selectively cited and just as selectively interpreted, and so finding your conclusion to be questionable, is an entirely legitimate line of inquiry. There's really no reason to suggest otherwise.