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

[Alzrius]

Wise words, no doubt.

Indeed, more so than any veiled "pot calling the kettle black" allegations.

then show where it is misinterpreted,

Again, pointing out how your position doesn't stand up to scrutiny doesn't require asserting a contrary position. It's enough to show that your position doesn't satisfy the burden of proof.

as usual you have absolutely nothing,

Even if that premise could be granted, that would still make it the same as your own.

you just make pointless generic statements

It's because they're generic that they have a point. Logic is generic by nature; it applies to any sort of discourse about the merit of ideas.

This is your entire MO, reject what is presented on no basis whatsoever

That you don't have a credible basis is, in and of itself, a basis for rejecting it. If your argument isn't sound, then it's not sound regardless of what anyone else's argument is.

except for a hypothetical that you in no way show even applies

See above for where it applies, i.e. to the faults of your own argument.

 

[jayoungr]

Riggs is sticking with his "Golden Age of RPGs is over" thesis even after the people who make and sell games have put out the opposite position

He did title it a "contrarian" opinion.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Which means that you're admitting that some titles hold more weight than others, e.g. that WotC isn't a video game company nearly as much as it's an TTRPG company. Glad to see you agree with me after all.

Again, you said that I was talking about "True Artificial Intelligence" and "The Matrix." Maybe live up to the standards that you demand of others? Otherwise you get back what you put out.

Remember what you just said about not putting words in other people's mouths? Seriously, I expected you to try and be consistent for more than a single paragraph, and I was already disappointed.

Ah, so now you're admitting that it's expected that your interpretation will be intuited, rather than looking at what you actually wrote. Will you abide by this same standard, I wonder?

I'll point out that the standard is not "you can do anything," since your characters can't literally do anything. They can try to do anything. Which is why the core processes (it's actually a more of a premise) is "anything can be attempted."

So you think that anything can be attempted within the context of Champions of Krynn? Because if so, I have to ask if you ever actually played the game.

And how many of those offered a free virtual mini for a VTT that doesn't exist yet?

Did they also create a "recurrent spending environment"? No? Then maybe take your own advice re: you know what I meant.

Context matters. You have to look at the entirety of what WotC is doing. Or, you know, just listen to what they've said they want to do.

So now you're saying that comic books are trying to create a recurrent spending environment the way WotC is? Or maybe you're going to put forward that any sort of existing product line is a recurrent spending environment, and so there's no difference between a micro-transaction-filled VTT and buying comic books. Of course, you've already said that Shell can be called a cosmetics company and that any company that makes their own webpage is a web design company, so I don't find what you're saying here particularly persuasive.

Why am I not surprised. Did you pay attention to the OGL scandal at all? Go over here and scroll down to the "Thou Shalt Not Animate" section.

Read the link I posted above, and educate yourself.

You can't create a lot of graphics in a tabletop setting, sure; that's not relevant. What's relevant is the evidence of how WotC is trying to monetize the digital version of the game in a way beyond anything Champions of Krynn ever did.

Other than quoting WotC flat-out saying that they want to do what I'm saying they want to do. Funny how that part keeps getting ignored by you.

Leaving aside that you ignored the fact that it's a question of them not making as much money as they think they could (whether or not they can remains an open question), I'm of the opinion that trying to digitize a game where "anything can be attempted" is the central process is going to necessarily limit it. Which you yourself already admitted. So again, I'm glad you agree with me on this point.

Which as part of their "recurrent spending environment" plan is indeed proof. But I look forward to you twisting that to not being "actual" proof, and that McDonald's is actually a real estate company.

Which, again, is what WotC has said they want to do. But why should you listen to the company you're defending's own words?

Ah, so now you're saying that there's no difference between the industry WotC works in and any other industry? I suppose that makes sense, since you think that designing your own website makes a company part of the web design industry. Apparently all industries are the same, in your world.

Right, because sitting alone in your room playing a single-player DOS game is the same experience as sitting around a table playing D&D 5E. Good luck putting that idea forward.

And yet you went with the idea of "you know what I meant" above. I'll repeat that if you set a standard, it helps to live up to it.

You do realize that hyperbole doesn't actually negate the point in question, right? "The medium becomes the message" is a truism for a reason, and if the VTT's much-vaunted interactivity doesn't allow for a possibility, then that possibility is less likely to be acted upon by a group, encouraging the range of play to be narrowed. Of course, you think that Champions of Krynn's "digital experience" is representative of D&D, so your games must already be pretty narrow, which I suppose explains why you can't see the difference.

Like I said, if Champions of Krynn is the standard by which you judge "the D&D experience," then it's easy to understand why you don't see the narrowing of the possibilities of play. But your standard, in that regard, is pretty idiosyncratic.

And here comes the comparison between Champions of Krynn and the VTT...wait for it...

And there it is! Yes, clearly because TSR couldn't create a recurrent spending environment in a single-player DOS-based game that someone else developed and published, WotC won't be able to with their subscription-based micro-transaction-filled VTT! The two are clearly comparable! (To be clear, that last part is sarcasm; I point that out so you won't be able to say you didn't know what I meant later.)

See above. If you don't think WotC is trying to do what they said they want to do, that one's on you for thinking they're liars.

Which are clearly technologically identical to what WotC is trying to make now. Good comparison there! (Again, sarcasm; this is not actually a good comparison.)

Good, good, now ask yourself why that was, and how that's different from WotC's recurrent spending environment paradigm. Here's a hint: neither offered a virtual gold dragon mini to incentivize a purchase.

If that's what you want, go back and read the thread. Of course, given that you've ignored WotC's own statements in this matter, I'm not sure what else could convince you.

Which is the hope. If we can force their hand with the OGL debacle, we can do so again now. But if they follow your line of reasoning, and see the VTT as functionally identical to Champions of Krynn, well, things might be much more bleak.

It must be nice to have so much trust in multinational corporations that, according to leaks from the OGL scandal, see you as a barrier between them and their money. But I'm sure you don't trust those leaks either, because they make WotC look bad.

It's actually several months less than that. Details matter.

This statement doesn't really mean anything, save to tar you with an apt "pot calling the kettle black" sentiment.

Except for the part where they've said that they want to design it for maximum monetization. Or did you think that "under-monetized" comment had some sort of expiration date? If so, what was that specific expiration date?

"It seems like"? So now you're saying you know the future?

"Twelve years"? You think they made that comment in a vacuum, from the president of the company to the CEO of the parent company, and that it was indicative of some vague future plan? Seriously?

Again, you've said that any company which designs their own website is a web design company. Things like that erode faith in your declarations of what is and isn't sensical.

Digitizing the game is inherently limited. You might see no different between any D&D game that ever has or ever will happen and Champions of Krynn, but for the rest of us, there's a huge difference.

Which they didn't.

Correct. You cannot digitize a game where "anything can be attempted" without limiting that central premise.

See above.

Wait...you actually think that WotC can potentially design a holodeck-like environment where anything can be attempted in a digital realm? You seriously think that's a possibility of theirs, as opposed to what I've said about the inherent limits of a digitized space? Wow, just...wow.

It's not; that's the point. Again, you might not see a difference between playing the game around a table with friends as being any different from playing Champions of Krynn, as far as "the D&D experience" goes, but everyone else can see major differences, in that the latter is highly limited and the former isn't.

Which is correct.

WotC hasn't made any video games, rather. They can, and have, slapped the label on all sorts of things.

Hey, now you're catching on!

Which is correct. Of course, you left out the part about the difference between a subscription-based, micro-transaction-filled, recurrent spending environment. But clearly there's no difference between an interactive VTT that integrates with DDB and the old DOS games, amirite? (Note the sarcasm again, there; they are, in fact, very different.)

Good for you. Seriously, good on you for that one.

And I hope more people follow your example in that regard. Truly, I do. But I'm not very hopeful, insofar as digital engagement goes.

For what it's worth, I'm not either.

That a lot of people will use that service, that they'll use it not only as their introduction to the game, but as the primary mode of engagement with it. That future books will be written so as to dovetail with what that digital service offers, rather than presenting the tabletop version in all of its limitless potential, further narrowing appreciation of what you can do around a tabletop that a digital environment can't recreate.

If you're only focused on yourself, then it's no wonder you're not concerned. I prefer to take a less self-centered view, but I guess that's just me.

Good for you, but I'm more concerned for the hobby as a whole. I don't think it's good when the industry leader encourages the community to engage with a form of play that's necessarily more limited than the current form. The results can be subtle, and can take time to manifest, but that doesn't make them less bad.

It's really not. It's more of an awful thing, as it locks them into the WotC digital environment much like how people become locked into the Apple Store, to the point where leaving it becomes an issue of what's lost in terms of saved character sheets, purchased items that are effectively deleted, etc. It becomes a sunk costs issue as much as an enjoyment one.

Not when the trade-off is limiting a game type that's limitless.

No one ever said "unusable" any more than anyone said anything about "True Artificial Intelligence" or "The Matrix."

Because they don't need them in Champions of Krynn, sure. And neither do people playing around a tabletop. But that doesn't mean that Champions of Krynn is the same D&D experience as playing around a tabletop.

Which is clearly never going to happen, hence why WotC will never be able to create a digital iteration of D&D that offers the same range of possibilities as the tabletop version. Hence why video games aren't D&D, regardless of slapping the brand name on the box cover.

Well that's obviously not true.

You'll notice that I've previously stated multiple times in this thread that a VTT isn't a video game, hence why I keep saying "digital" or "digitized" rather than video game. But I'm not surprised you've overlooked this, since otherwise it would destroy your central point.

So once again, you're saying that WotC's VTT will be indistinguishable from Champions of Krynn? Yeah, that's really not going to pass muster to anyone.

Just out of curiosity, do you capitalize all of your monster names and add excessive punctuation to them? Is your style of play to tell the PCs, "here comes a Goblin Shaman!!!!"

Wait, you're going to complain about snark? Really? You? Did you forget the part about living up to the standard you set for others?

Hang on, are you under the impression that WotC is going through all of this effort just to capture you, personally, in their recurrent spending environment? That it was always about you, from the beginning, and that if they couldn't get you to sign in, that was the entire thing failing? Because I thought it was about the hobby as a whole.

I mean, I would have thought that they'd go for luring in, you know...other people. But if it was always about you personally, then clearly WotC must be going back to the drawing board. Expect a new announcement from them in the next few days that they're scrapping the VTT.

You do realize that this describes your posting style more than mine, right? If you're concerned about the tenor of the discourse, live up to the expectations you have of others.

Your point here being that you think WotC will fail in their efforts to digitize D&D? I certainly hope so. But if so, they seem intent on trying again and again, since we've been down this road before. Again, Gleemax was a thing.

Okay, glad we can agree on this premise.

Leaving aside the robots thing, since they've said they're backing off of AI DMs (though it's questionable if they'll really leave that alone), it's fairly obvious that WotC won't speak about the drawbacks of their plan in terms of the effect on the community. Though after the OGL debacle, there's no reason to think that they care about the community at all.

So now your point is that Roll20 is no different from WotC? Not in any regard, in terms of what they own, how much money they have, what their goals are, etc.? No difference at all?

Which should be telling.

And you're going to say that this means that the digital medium is just as open as the tabletop medium? That there are no technical restrictions whatsoever?

Remember how you were complaining about potshots? Seriously, try and be consistent about this. It won't make your points more coherent, but it will at least keep the tone elevated.

Declaring that they want to create a recurrent spending environment isn't vague, it's a statement of purpose. Or did you want the technical specifications upfront?

So you think that it needs to be demonstrated that digital environments are less open than imaginative play? And here I thought it was self-evident.

Says the "flailing around in a panic" guy. How is it that the people who so easily engage in rudeness are also the first to complain about it.

You do realize that after "True Artificial Intelligence" and "The Matrix," you don't really have a leg to stand on where egregious examples are concerned, right?

So, your fear is that WoTC will write rulebooks with rules intentionally limited to only what can be accomplished on a Virtual Tabletop, making their product worse and less appealing, in an attempt to make more money and get more people to subscribe to their VTT.

No. That will not happen. It doesn't matter that the company wants to make a subscription service VTT to make money, because there is absolutely no reason to limit the rules in the rulebooks as part of that. It is an irrational fear.

 

[Alzrius]

So, your fear is that WoTC will write rulebooks with rules intentionally limited to only what can be accomplished on a Virtual Tabletop, making their product worse and less appealing, in an attempt to make more money and get more people to subscribe to their VTT.

I think this is overstating it, but that's essentially the gist of it. If the VTT is their money-maker, then it strikes me as axiomatic that the rules will be developed so as to dovetail with that. It won't happen all at once (particularly since the VTT doesn't exist yet), but slowly over time.

No. That will not happen. It doesn't matter that the company wants to make a subscription service VTT to make money, because there is absolutely no reason to limit the rules in the rulebooks as part of that. It is an irrational fear.

I disagree. I think it's entirely rational to expect WotC to do what makes them the most money, and that they'll see no issue in making the rulebooks into an on-ramp for the VTT if that becomes their bread-and-butter the way they're hoping it will. To that extent, it won't be anything blatant, but we will see a dedicated push to get people onto the VTT, and part of that push will be what's in the rulebooks (we've seen previous editions dip their toes into similar areas, e.g. how much more important miniatures became in 3.X and 4E).

 

[Parmandur]

So, your fear is that WoTC will write rulebooks with rules intentionally limited to only what can be accomplished on a Virtual Tabletop, making their product worse and less appealing, in an attempt to make more money and get more people to subscribe to their VTT.

No. That will not happen. It doesn't matter that the company wants to make a subscription service VTT to make money, because there is absolutely no reason to limit the rules in the rulebooks as part of that. It is an irrational fear.

I mean, it is worth noting that the VTT isn't doing rules integration, like, at all: it's less directly like Roll20 and more like digital minis, counters and terrain.

 

[TiQuinn]

No. That will not happen. It doesn't matter that the company wants to make a subscription service VTT to make money, because there is absolutely no reason to limit the rules in the rulebooks as part of that. It is an irrational fear.

Sony is already talking about eliminating DVD production for games and movies. It’s not an irrational fear. You’d think that as long as companies can make money with a format they would (for instance, vinyl records) but companies make decisions that don’t always follow with what we may consider to be logical.

 

[Oofta]

Conspiracy theories work best when there's a grain of truthiness to them. That doesn't mean they aren't conspiracy theories.

Even if WotC somehow forced everyone online, they can't erase the books we already have on the shelf and other TTRPGs still haven't gone away. I'm sure the people over at PF would like another chance to take some of D&D's lunch money, along with several others.

This is one theory that will never, ever, happen. Or if it does, I'll go back to whatever version of the books I have and go back to playing offline.

 

[Alzrius]

I should note that it's fairly irresponsible, in the current climate, to equate voicing concerns about WotC doing what they said they plan on doing with a conspiracy theory. We just got the dialogue in this thread back to a semi-pleasant level, and rhetoric like that not only runs the risk of bringing things back down, but is also grossly misapplied.

 

[Oofta]

I should note that it's fairly irresponsible, in the current climate, to equate voicing concerns about WotC doing what they said they plan on doing with a conspiracy theory. We just got the dialogue in this thread back to a semi-pleasant level, and rhetoric like that not only runs the risk of bringing things back down, but is also grossly misapplied.

They plan on providing digital tools for those that want it, either licensing or publishing games, creating a VTT while still supporting competing VTTs in addition to publishing books.

Of course they want to do all that while making a profit and they will charge money for the services they provide. Not at all shocking. But they will never force people online, purchasing anything will always be a decision made by the consumer, games are still a luxury free time activity that compared to the cost of other activities is relatively cheap.

They will not and cannot force people into a subscription model, nor will they ever force people to use their VTT. It would make no sense from a business perspective. Oh, and something something, walled garden and microtransactions are a nonissue.

I see nothing wrong with their plans. There's no way they can transform D&D into the kind of cash cow that MtG is, but if they make tools that people enjoy using and find useful they are welcome to make a profit. Just like every other company.

They are still selling books. The books have more content, more page count and, after being adjusted for inflation, are cheaper than the 2014 books. The monsters.

 

[Alzrius]

They plan on providing digital tools for those that want it, either licensing or publishing games, creating a VTT while still supporting competing VTTs in addition to publishing books.

While also admitting that the game is "under-monetized" and that they want to create a recurring spending environment, utilizing assets that are specific to their VTT (e.g. a virtual gold dragon mini) all in an effort to move people over to the digitized play area they're making, rather than the tabletop. That we know they want people to not only play digitally, but to do so using their platform, isn't in question; I really don't understand why people think they're going to try and encourage people to do that. Are you under the impression that WotC will finish designing the VTT and then sit back and not do anything to entice people into using it?

Of course they want to do all that while making a profit and they will charge money for the services they provide. Not at all shocking.

No one said it was "shocking." I'm not at all sure why you think there's some element of surprise to this (if there was, that was pretty much blown when they told us what they were planning to do).

But they will never force people online,

I shouldn't have to point out that this is a strawman, since I'm not talking about "forcing" anything, and haven't throughout the course of this thread. Please try and answer the issues that I've raised, and not the caricature raised by some other posters.

purchasing anything will always be a decision made by the consumer,

No one has suggested otherwise.

games are still a luxury free time activity that compared to the cost of other activities is relatively cheap.

Leaving aside the "relatively" cheap aspect, you're just reiterating things which aren't in contention, for reasons I'm not clear on.

They will not and cannot force people into a subscription model,

See above. "Forcing" isn't an issue under discussion.

nor will they ever force people to use their VTT.

You're already closing in on using "force" a half-dozen times. How many times have I used that in previous posts? Because it's less than this.

It would make no sense from a business perspective.

Or a debate perspective, since "forcing" people isn't what's being discussed.

Oh, and something something, walled garden and microtransactions are a nonissue.

As long as we're unilaterally deciding what is and isn't an issue, I'll go ahead and say that something something naming what industry a company is part of is a non-issue.

I see nothing wrong with their plans.

Well, if you don't see it, then it clearly must be fine.

There's no way they can transform D&D into the kind of cash cow that MtG is, but if they make tools that people enjoy using and find useful they are welcome to make a profit. Just like every other company.

Especially if they try to make supplementary aspects of the game funnel people toward those tools, despite those tools not having the same scope of interface as imaginative play. Of course, not every other company deals in imaginative play, so that makes comparing it to every other company kind of pointless, but I suppose we can declare that a non-issue also.

They are still selling books.

No one suggested they wouldn't, the same way no one suggested anyone would be "forced" online. Given how you're replying to so many points I never raised, I'm curious if you meant to reply to someone else?

The books have more content, more page count and, after being adjusted for inflation, are cheaper than the 2014 books. The monsters.

And I'm given to understand the acid in the paper is less than before, or so I heard, so clearly that drives a stake through the heart of their attempts to further monetize the game digitally. Because if we list a bunch of stuff WotC is doing that we like, it means that the stuff we don't is negated.