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

[mamba]

See above for why you're overstating the technical limitations (though it's worth reiterating that if this becomes too much of a challenge for them, it's not implausible that WotC will simply clamp down on custom content altogether).

I’d say it is more implausible than WotC simply not monitoring the custom content. In fact I consider them monitoring it to be more implausible than them simply not caring what their VTT customers add as custom content

 

[Alzrius]

I’d say it is more implausible than WotC simply not monitoring the custom content. In fact I consider them monitoring it to be more implausible than them simply not caring what their VTT customers add as custom content

That's certainly a possibility; it's just that, given how WotC has gone out of its way to assert more control over things within the last two-ish years (e.g. leaving Random House to be their own distributor, buying DDB instead of continuing to license it, trying to kill the OGL, etc.), that kind of hands-off attitude would be unusual for them.

 

[mamba]

#NotAllVTTs

why would WotC’s do so but not e.g. Roll20? For that matter why would any?

As far as I can tell they are the virtual equivalent to using miniatures

 

[Alzrius]

why would WotC’s do so but not e.g. Roll20? For that matter why would any?

Because there's a difference between a very large company (itself part of a multinational corporation) and a comparatively much, much smaller one. Especially when said very large company also owns the content that's intended to be used with their VTT.

WotC has a much greater ability to capture the attention/mindset of their potential audience. More money, more brand recognition, more control over the content, etc. It's part of the same reason why "D&D" is a metonym for "tabletop RPGs." The size, scope, and scale are all very relevant factors.

As far as I can tell they are the virtual equivalent to using miniatures

I disagree with you on that one, for aforementioned reasons.

 

[Parmandur]

this never was about plotting the demise of D&D, if he had seen it as such he would not have plotted it.

A CEO can make decisions that are supposedly good for the brand / company while being bad for the customer, and he was perfectly ok with that.

The moat likely explanation for what went down was not seeing any downside for the customer: I am quite ready to believe that leadership including Cocks thought they were proposing a win/win for everybody.

 

[Parmandur]

My point is that just because he made one colossal blunder, doesn't mean that he will make another one. Riggs is implying that Chris Cocks will continue to be bad for D&D. Hell, in one of his Facebook posts, Riggs asks the question "Does it really matter at all that the new WotC CEO spot was filled when Chris Cocks is still CEO at Hasbro?"

Yeah, Riggs can be a tad dramatic and has a tendency to think in stark black and white terms, based on his book.

 

[Parmandur]

why would WotC’s do so but not e.g. Roll20? For that matter why would any?

As far as I can tell they are the virtual equivalent to using miniatures

Sigil more than most: they aren't automating rules adjudication at all, it's a mini and terrain simulator.

And I can see it being a huge money maker, if people can splurge like $100 and get the equivalent of $3000 in minis and terrain with no storage issues.

 

[mamba]

My point is that just because he made one colossal blunder, doesn't mean that he will make another one.

it certainly does not decrease the likelihood either, but yes, those will be independent events

Riggs is implying that Chris Cocks will continue to be bad for D&D. Hell, in one of his Facebook posts, Riggs asks the question "Does it really matter at all that the new WotC CEO spot was filled when Chris Cocks is still CEO at Hasbro?"

Not sure where he is implying that, not in the OP as far as I can tell

“Do you know whose idea it was to try to cancel the OGL?

It was Chris Cocks, who was at the time the CEO of Wizards, and is now the CEO of Hasbro.

If you think that's interesting, you should come hear me speak at Gen Con!”

I find that interesting, regardless of how I feel about Cocks… as to the Facebook post, wondering how much say the head of WotC actually has and therefore how relevant it is who that is when Cocks is clearly capable of calling the shots at WotC himself directly is a valid question in itself

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah, Riggs can be a tad dramatic and has a tendency to think in stark black and white terms, based on his book.

That could be it, or it could be that he is being dramatic to sell his position and gain/keep followers. There's a reason why radio shock jocks have been around as long as they have. Drama makes money.

 

[mamba]

Because there's a difference between a very large company (itself part of a multinational corporation) and a comparatively much, much smaller one. Especially when said very large company also owns the content that's intended to be used with their VTT.

how does that difference translate to one stifling imagination while the other does not?

I agree that WotC should be capable of producing the fancier VTT, 3D, animations, etc. but I do not think that the level of sophistication is your concern.

Owning the content or not makes zero difference to me, is your fear that they will tailor content to better fit the VTT? What would that even look like? I’d say a rules-heavy TTRPG with good automation benefits from a VTT, but that does not mean it limits imagination unless you think the existence of the rules themselves already does - and even then 5e is not really rules heavy…