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

[Chaosmancer]

In point of fact, I've presented it as neither. I'm just saying that I think there's the possibility of (what I presume are, from WotC's point of view) unintended consequences to what they're trying to do, at least in the event that they succeed.

Then why emphasize that they are going to attempt to sell their VTT? Or your constant harping on the gold dragon mini.

That was the case, but now they're also selling the digital interface, as well as everything therein (hence the virtual gold dragon mini).

Amazon.com

No, looks like they are still selling the rules for DnD. I don't see how selling something else changes that. They've been selling Magic the Gathering Arena for years, but they still sell Magic the Gathering physical cards. Why would selling a VTT change the fact that they sell the rules of the game?

Yes, I think it's entirely plausible that WotC will want the game rules to work in conjunction with what the VTT does best as much as possible, with everything else being less important to their consideration.

And they are mentally incapable of making the VTT match the rules, to the same level that every other VTT on the market matches the rules of DnD? They MUST alter the rules to fit the VTT?

You're the one who said that your group hasn't ever created a custom spell that you recall, and that the rules don't have very much in the way of custom spell creation. Are you suggesting that the lack of rules in support of that option have nothing to do with your group's ignoring that option so completely? Now, how prominent do you think that custom spell creation will be under the VTT interface, which prioritizes things like spell animation? Because I suspect it won't be more prominent than it is now. That's just one example of the issue I'm talking about.

Because if the VTT incentivizes certain things and disincentivizes others, then yes that's going to have an impact on how people interface with the game.

No, it's really not; what is bizarre is your insistence that there's nothing to be concerned about when you yourself have provided an example of the issue in action wherein what's presented shapes what's played, i.e. your group following the rules and so not venturing beyond what they present. If that's not an example of the content directing play, what is?

I think you're vastly overestimating the degree to which WotC's VTT will be dependent on them allowing homebrew content, as well as the degree to which such content (if it's allowed at all) will be able to interface with their system. After all, they're not going to want people to make homebrew material that just so happens to near-identically replicate content from a sourcebook that they've recently released, and then let it be freely shared among users. That's the sort of thing which (particularly in light of the OGL fiasco) they'd likely go out of their way to disallow. Likewise, even if that custom content is allowed, it's not going to be nearly as evocative in terms of presentation, unless you think that people are going to be able to upload things like custom spell animations.

If you don't allow custom creation of options, then you aren't going to have a successful VTT. If you do allow it, you can't stop how people use it. PErsonally, I think you are far too focused on this idea of custom spell animations, like being able to make a pretty flame appear on screen is going to be all it takes to charm people into abandoning their own works of creativity.

Which is why WotC will be going for a different approach so as to make sure that their walled garden is still attractive to consumers, even if the walls are higher.

Again, I think you're wrong about this. There are a lot of instances where people will pay for something that they could otherwise get for free elsewhere. Most people subscribe to streaming services at a cost even though pirating movies and TV shows for free is easy to do; the same is true for PDFs of RPG books for that matter. Convenience and ease of use is a far more salient issue than you're making it out to be.

People avoid piracy for two reasons
1) They feel bad about it
2) They fear viruses in an unregulated market.

Neither of those apply using a long standing brand with its own subscription premium version, for free, instead of paying a lot more for a version that just looks prettier. Again, the garden has to be attractive, and so far its only selling point is "pretty".

And some people will still use other VTTs as well, which WotC won't care about so long as one of the ones people pay for is theirs. It's not like those other VTTs are capable of reaching the same degree of imaginative play either, even if they have less restrictive interfaces. Again, convenience and ease-of-use are factors which shouldn't be downplayed; particularly among casual players, having to fiddle with things quickly becomes something they don't want to bother with, no matter how minor an issue it is. Hence the swipe-texting instead of using your thumbs.

Except for the fact that I already have articulated what those are, several times in fact. But one more time: the micro-transaction heavy environment that WotC wants to create, along with their logged data for things which the users have made within the context of the system, disincentivizes people from leaving that environment, since that would mean leaving that all behind. You say "but there's third-party apps that let you recover some of that elsewhere," which is nice and all, but that's like saying that there are DIY videos about how to change the oil in your car; people still go to mechanics to do that for them, even knowing that it costs more.

On the contrary, it's more than enough. Far more. You don't have to look very far to see that there are plenty of devices with greater functionality that people will overlook for myriad reasons, ranging from idiosyncratic preference to simply not knowing what else is out there. Consider someone who wants to play a DVD not even realizing that a blu-ray player can give them what they want.

"Different" is relative. There are a lot of casual players out there who won't know or won't care about that, or simply find it too inconvenient to bother with.

You do realize you're saying this just days after a major computer malfunction that affected myriad systems worldwide, right?

"Probably"? So how many custom spells have you seen on that platform?

Which means that if it's not animating specific instances of things such as particular spells or monsters, then it's probably not the best point of comparison to what WotC is doing.

You keep saying "micro-transaction heavy"... you do realize that most of the miniatures and such are going to be free on this VTT, right? And again, you put such a high value on this idea that they are animating spells and monsters, like it is the only thing that is going to matter to people. People who have played a long, long time without those things.

See above; or do you think that there's going to be an expansive sourcebook about custom spell creation sourcebook released after the VTT goes live?

DO you think it would be made and released if the VTT doesn't come out? Has a product like that EVER been created for DnD in the entire 50 year history of the game?

Again, the digital medium becomes the focus. Expect to see fewer and fewer things that don't interface with that.

Like what? I can make my custom Ogre Fighter/Mage and use an animated ogre mini and an animated cloud of daggers spell, so what rules that currently exist are we going to see "less of"?

Because it isn't; it's just one facet of what I'm talking about, which is the overall contraction of imaginative play. That goes just as much for the rules expanding to cover new possibilities as it does for players to push for ways to play that aren't focused on pure, enumerated crunch.

And is doing so as quick, easy, and convenient as using the existing content? Do 100% of their users make their own materials? Is doing so as easy as what you can do at the tabletop? These are highly salient concerns.

I don't believe that WotC sees their product as being built on that idea, and if they ever did then I don't think they do anymore. They have a curated sales page which they're going to want people using, and the mere idea that people could create custom content of things instead of buying them strikes me as untenable to WotC, at least in light of the OGL debacle.

And this makes it even harder, because now in addition to making sure that things work well with the game unto itself, you also have the added technical aspects to deal with. The more work you make it require, the less people are going to want to bother.

I know plenty of people who love gaming, but don't consider themselves tech-savvy, and they'd disagree. To them, homebrewing material comes very easily, but setting it up to work in a digital environment is intimidating just to think about.

I'll point out again that it doesn't come back to you, and your experience isn't representative of anything beyond yourself.

You keep saying this has nothing to do with me, and while technically true, you also keep dismissing my personal experience dealing with the EXACT scenario you are painting as irrelevant. In fact, you just want a faceless silent majority who are going to be spell-bound by animated effects to the point that they suddenly forget any cool idea they have ever had to limit themselves to only what is animated on the VTT, which isn't even out and you have no idea how it actually will work.

 

[Zardnaar]

Nit enthused about things lije beyond. Not using it is my response.

As to flow on effects meh. More worried about book quality. If that keeps being meh won't be buying much. By book quality mostly APs. Tashas, Xanathars, campaign settings were fine.

 

[Alzrius]

Then why emphasize that they are going to attempt to sell their VTT? Or your constant harping on the gold dragon mini.

I'll point out that this question is predicated on the idea of you thinking that what I've been saying is that the VTT is necessarily either "sinister" or "dangerous," to use your own words. Why you'd interpret it that way is a question only you can answer. I'm simply saying that I think that there's unintended consequences to what WotC is trying to do, and one of those is the potential for the community to move away from what I consider to be the greatest strength of TTRPGs.

Amazon.com

No, looks like they are still selling the rules for DnD.

Missed the part where I said "also" did you? For that matter, as the person talking about how easy it is to format things in a digital environment, I'd expect you to make that link less onerous to look at. Or was truncating it via linking it to some text too inconvenient, despite how simple it is? Because if so, that's my point in action.

I don't see how selling something else changes that.

You not seeing it doesn't mean that it's not there.

They've been selling Magic the Gathering Arena for years, but they still sell Magic the Gathering physical cards.

So to be clear, you think that Magic: the Gathering is a role-playing game where "anything can be attempted" is a central credo of play? Because if not, this example serves no purpose in the context of the current discussion.

Why would selling a VTT change the fact that they sell the rules of the game?

See my previous posts on the subject, since the mention of M:tG doesn't advance your point in this regard.

And they are mentally incapable of making the VTT match the rules, to the same level that every other VTT on the market matches the rules of DnD?

I'm not sure why you'd want to make it a question of capability, since it seems self-evident that it'd be a question of priorities. The VTT is the dog, and the D&D game is the tail. The tail doesn't wag the dog. And that's leaving aside the issue of every other VTT "matching" (whatever that means) the D&D rules, since they're not the ones who make those rules, and so have little choice except to try and alter their digital storefront. WotC isn't in that same position.

They MUST alter the rules to fit the VTT?

Again, the emphasis on "must" seems odd, since it's not a question of some unknown imperative. It's a question of WotC prioritizing their cash cow, which is the digital interface and its associated costs, rather than the books that people buy once (if at all) and then don't need more of in order to play.

If you don't allow custom creation of options, then you aren't going to have a successful VTT.

A declaration of a personal opinion does not make it an established fact. Particularly when the position that WotC holds as the one making both the game and the interface puts it in a markedly different position than other entities who can only make the interface.

If you do allow it, you can't stop how people use it.

I'm pretty sure you can; it's called an EULA.

PErsonally, I think you are far too focused on this idea of custom spell animations, like being able to make a pretty flame appear on screen is going to be all it takes to charm people into abandoning their own works of creativity.

It's the most obvious example, given that WotC showed their hand in that regard after trying to deliberately exclude third-parties from making those in the leaked draft of the OGL v1.2 that we saw.

People avoid piracy for two reasons
1) They feel bad about it
2) They fear viruses in an unregulated market.

Again, I don't believe that your declaration of how things are is reflective of how things are. While those might play some role, the issue of technical know-how is also a factor, and I suspect that it's a not-insignificant one.

Neither of those apply using a long standing brand with its own subscription premium version, for free, instead of paying a lot more for a version that just looks prettier.

But technical know-how with regard to generating custom content does apply, and is going to be an issue wherein a considerable number of people are likely to not want to put in extra work to make something half as impressive as the pre-set options.

Again, the garden has to be attractive, and so far its only selling point is "pretty".

That's not its only selling point; brand recognition is also a thing which cannot be easily discounted. Plenty of people will use the WotC VTT simply because it's the "official" one, regardless of any theories of utility maximization regarding the comparative differences between that and other VTTs.

You keep saying "micro-transaction heavy"... you do realize that most of the miniatures and such are going to be free on this VTT, right?

The fact that WotC offered a virtual gold dragon mini as a pre-order perk for buying the new Core Rules as a bundle says otherwise. Otherwise, why bother offering it (and highlighting how it was free)?

And again, you put such a high value on this idea that they are animating spells and monsters, like it is the only thing that is going to matter to people.

Because, as I said above, it's the most obvious example of how the VTT puts bells and whistles on certain options, leading to less presence of options that don't receive such glamorous presentation in the minds of the users.

People who have played a long, long time without those things.

Which suggests that when the shiny new thing(s) come out, they'll capture people's attention a great deal (which is exactly what WotC is hoping will happen).

DO you think it would be made and released if the VTT doesn't come out? Has a product like that EVER been created for DnD in the entire 50 year history of the game?

I think it would be more likely to be released if it didn't represent an option that flew in the face of what the VTT could (easily) present (or at least present well). I'd prefer it if WotC didn't have even less reason to be innovative in what they offer.

Like what?

You do realize we were just talking about "what" right? For instance, a sourcebook with expanded rules for custom spell creation, for one.

I can make my custom Ogre Fighter/Mage and use an animated ogre mini and an animated cloud of daggers spell, so what rules that currently exist are we going to see "less of"?

And if that's the extent to which you want to extend imaginative play beyond the range of what the VTT can do, you'll probably be fine. But I'm going to venture that other groups will be more imaginative in what they'd like to do, and the VTT will have trouble accommodating them.

You keep saying this has nothing to do with me, and while technically true,

The very best kind of true.

you also keep dismissing my personal experience dealing with the EXACT scenario you are painting as irrelevant.

Because, as you noted, this isn't about you. It's about the effect on the hobby as a whole.

In fact, you just want a faceless silent majority who are going to be spell-bound by animated effects to the point that they suddenly forget any cool idea they have ever had to limit themselves to only what is animated on the VTT, which isn't even out and you have no idea how it actually will work.

That's literally what I don't want. I just think there's a not-inconsiderable chance that it happens anyway. That even if they remember their cool ideas, they suddenly seem less cool when the pre-programmed stuff showcases better graphics than their imagination, and trying to work around that becomes a technical chore that looks less impressive than what's already there. There's no way for a digital environment to present all of the ranges that imaginative play is capable of, and I don't think that it's beyond the pale to suggest that more than a few users will want the VTT to do what it's best at, and pay less attention to what it's not.

 

[Chaosmancer]

So, at this point, you are essentially arguing that because WoTC has the option to change the rules and make them worse, they will do that, instead of making a VTT up to the standards of the market. Because in your mind, the VTT will be more important than literally anything else, so they will endeavor to make it as poorly as possible.

Again, this doesn't come across as a reasonable concern.

 

[Alzrius]

So, at this point, you are essentially arguing that because WoTC has the option to change the rules and make them worse, they will do that, instead of making a VTT up to the standards of the market.

I'm not entirely sure if you're directing this at me, because you weren't responding to my previous post via a quote here, but it strikes me as more accurate to say that WotC is going to try to reframe what "the standards of the market" are, under the idea that they're a big enough player in a small enough pond (both in terms of money and brand recognition) to be able to overwhelm any existing competitors in the area of VTTs.

Because in your mind, the VTT will be more important than literally anything else,

No, because I think that in WotC's mind, they can elevate it to being more important than anything else...or at least, that's the level they'll try to get it to, in conjunction with the fact that they also produce the material used with it.

so they will endeavor to make it as poorly as possible.

No, not "as poorly as possible." As tailored to the VTT's capabilities as possible, which are necessarily more limited than what imaginative play is capable of.

Again, this doesn't come across as a reasonable concern.

I suspect that's largely because you've misunderstood the nature of my concerns. Again.

 

[SteveC]

I don't know if this has been discussed in this rapidly expanding thread, but on the Chris Cocks was behind the OGL fiasco, does Riggs give us any evidence other than making a claim? Or is that one of the things we wait for in the seminar?

It seems like the most obvious thing in the world, that Cocks would be the level necessary to approve this whole fiasco, but that's not the same thing as evidence. Just wondering if I missed that part.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I don't know if this has been discussed in this rapidly expanding thread, but on the Chris Cocks was behind the OGL fiasco, does Riggs give us any evidence other than making a claim? Or is that one of the things we wait for in the seminar?

It seems like the most obvious thing in the world, that Cocks would be the level necessary to approve this whole fiasco, but that's not the same thing as evidence. Just wondering if I missed that part.

He is using it as a teaser for his panel it seems

 

[Chaosmancer]

I'm not entirely sure if you're directing this at me, because you weren't responding to my previous post via a quote here, but it strikes me as more accurate to say that WotC is going to try to reframe what "the standards of the market" are, under the idea that they're a big enough player in a small enough pond (both in terms of money and brand recognition) to be able to overwhelm any existing competitors in the area of VTTs.

"Our product is more expensive, but worse mechanically" isn't going to get anyone rushing to it in droves.

No, because I think that in WotC's mind, they can elevate it to being more important than anything else...or at least, that's the level they'll try to get it to, in conjunction with the fact that they also produce the material used with it.

No, they won't.

No, not "as poorly as possible." As tailored to the VTT's capabilities as possible, which are necessarily more limited than what imaginative play is capable of.

A VTT whose capabilities they are choosing to make sub-standard and poor, just because they can?

I suspect that's largely because you've misunderstood the nature of my concerns. Again.

Your concerns are that WoTC is going to release a VTT that cannot allow for customized content and remove the ability to add customized content to DnD Beyond character sheets. That this VTT will be so mind-blowing because it will have animations and be from WoTC that people will flock to it in droves, even if it is worse than every other VTT on the market for actual gameplay. Then, after an indeterminate amount of time of players doing nothing but playing on the VTT, and never thinking outside of the box because the fancy animations can't support them thinking outside the box, WoTC will go in and "fix" that problem by removing creative thinking and everything that makes DnD not a video game from the core rulebooks of DnD, because the majority of people play on a VTT which limits them creatively to only doing exactly what the rules say and nothing more, and so WoTC will slash the rules from the book that allow creative play.

Also micro-transactions.

And all of this based on... DnD declared they want money, they are making a VTT, and it will have WoTC's name on it and look fancy.

The actual effects of VTTs on the community to date? Doens't matter, those VTTs weren't made by WoTC.
The actual increase in creativity in the community in regards to art, animation, song, videos and more? Doesn't matter, people won't be able to make the table top make the fancy colors if they don't follow the precisely laid out rules of the game.

So, again, your concern is not a serious concern. You don't even know if the VTT will be a flop or not, let alone how it may years down the line when a new set of core rulebooks get announced potentially affect those books, if at all.

 

[Iosue]

I could imagine a (far) future where WotC (or whoever controls D&D) changes the rules of the game to better fit a VTT (ex. making combat or character creation exceedingly complex for OTT play, because everything is automated on the VTT). But I think that would only happen after they made the decision to stop publishing print/static media. And that's only going to happen after print media stops being profitable. And if that's the case, and WotC decides to go 100% digital, more power to them. The RPG publishing business has always been something of a fool's game.

With B/X essentially being open source now, and 5e in the creative commons, a version of D&D will always be in print, as long as there is a market for it.

 

[Alzrius]

"Our product is more expensive, but worse mechanically" isn't going to get anyone rushing to it in droves.

This strikes me as a faith-based statement, one which ignores that such a stance has been taken by corporations in the past, but has even actually worked.

No, they won't.

Yes, they will.

A VTT whose capabilities they are choosing to make sub-standard and poor, just because they can?

A VTT whose capabilities fall in line with their recent actions to try and consolidate the industry around themselves and their product as much as possible, to the extent that they feel is practical. To say that the fanbase (i.e. the consumer market) will judge things purely on quality of what's offered alone strikes me as naive.

Your concerns are that WoTC is going to release a VTT that cannot allow for customized content and remove the ability to add customized content to DnD Beyond character sheets.

I think that you're treating what I said much too much as an absolute. WotC wants to funnel as much of their player-base as they can onto the VTT, so that they can monetize things via a recurrent spending environment. Anything that gets in the way of that goal is something they'll want to either disallow, disincentivize, or at least put under their own oversight.

To that end, if they do allow custom content, I expect they'd necessitate a level of control/oversight on their part regarding what that content is. Remember the bogus "we need to have a unilateral kill switch, so that we can kill bigoted content" clause from the OGL v1.1 and v1.2? Expect something along those lines if custom content is allowed, where they'll appeal to wanting to protect people from offense and, I'd guess, will claim that they need to disallow unauthorized recreations of copyrighted material (of themselves and others) to curate what custom content users are allowed to create. Of course, this almost certainly will be wielded in a manner that will bear only passing resemblance to these goals, allowing them to cripple custom content to the extent that they feel necessary to abet the sale of content on their platform.

That this VTT will be so mind-blowing because it will have animations and be from WoTC that people will flock to it in droves, even if it is worse than every other VTT on the market for actual gameplay.

Yes, that about sums it up. The idea that people will be dazzled by technical glitz and drawn in by a big brand name even when the product itself doesn't beat out a smaller competitor in terms of quality is something we see large corporations subscribe to all the time. And it's not like we lack for instances of that working, either.

Then, after an indeterminate amount of time of players doing nothing but playing on the VTT, and never thinking outside of the box because the fancy animations can't support them thinking outside the box,

Again, it's not a question of players "never thinking outside of the box," but a question of players being encourages not to, because what's inside the box is flashier, quicker, and easier to use. Being presented with the option of working harder to achieve lesser results will see most people not going that route, until it becomes reflexive, and imaginative play becomes constrained as a result.

WoTC will go in and "fix" that problem by removing creative thinking and everything that makes DnD not a video game from the core rulebooks of DnD,

Misstatements and hyperbole do not constitute a form of criticism, you realize? WotC will want to funnel people to their VTT, as it's their money-maker; they themselves would be disincentivized to release new rules that are beyond what their VTT can itself handle (very well).

because the majority of people play on a VTT which limits them creatively to only doing exactly what the rules say and nothing more, and so WoTC will slash the rules from the book that allow creative play.

See above, as this one has been asked and answered already. If playing inside the metaphorical lines is faster, simpler, and more rewarding (in an audiovisual sense), and playing outside of those lines requires you to do more to earn less, I strongly suspect that most people will stick to the former and eschew the latter. And again, you just have to look around to see examples of this in action.

Also micro-transactions.

Yeah, also that.

And all of this based on... DnD declared they want money, they are making a VTT, and it will have WoTC's name on it and look fancy.

Again, stating this in a snarky fashion doesn't make it any less compelling. We know that WotC is trying to consolidate their influence over the industry. We've seen them cancel their partnership with Random House in order to try and be their own distributor. We've seen them buy D&D Beyond outright instead of renewing their licensing deal. And we've seen them try to replace the OGL with something which gave them a kill switch on products they didn't like as well as residuals on the highest-earning products. Call it "vertical integration" if you're fond of buzzwords, but these are not the actions of a company dedicated to openness; even the release of the 5.1 SRD into the CC strikes me as a conciliatory move which cost them little, since they'd already backed off of the OGL (even if they ended up releasing more into the CC than they meant to).

The takeaway here is that WotC is going to do what's good for WotC, which while not unexpected does strike me as meaning that they're more committed to control than to quality, and that the VTT will reflect this ethos.

The actual effects of VTTs on the community to date? Doens't matter, those VTTs weren't made by WoTC.

That seems entirely reasonable with regard to their attitude to date.

The actual increase in creativity in the community in regards to art, animation, song, videos and more?

Songs and videos? Are you suggesting that people are going to want to upload thir TikTok media onto the VTT?

Doesn't matter, people won't be able to make the table top make the fancy colors if they don't follow the precisely laid out rules of the game.

No, they'll be able to buy those fancy colors from WotC for $0.99 each. Obviously that's an example, but it looks like an accurate representation of what WotC wants to do.

So, again, your concern is not a serious concern.

On the contrary, the only thing not serious is your dismissals, which are based entirely around snarkly misstatements and look to be predicated entirely on faith in WotC's goodwill and the market's comparing all products on a completely even keel solely determined by "quality" (as defined by you).

You don't even know if the VTT will be a flop or not,

No one knows what will be a flop ahead of time, making this a puzzling accusation.

let alone how it may years down the line when a new set of core rulebooks get announced potentially affect those books, if at all.

I'm not sure why you think this is entirely based around the idea of new Core Rulebooks, as opposed to an issue with every subsequent book they'll release.