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

[Tales and Chronicles]

Of course, the trick still is, no one is explaining exactly how it limits creativity. It's just taken as a given that it will somehow, in some fashion, make people less creative.

Because it's a given, duh!

Just like rock n roll forces people to have premarital sex and Dungeon and Dragon makes people the vessel for Satan.

Its not reactive fear mongering from the usual suspect, it's statistical science! VTTs cause the atrophy of the brain.

 

[Alzrius]

Its not reactive fear mongering from the usual suspect, it's statistical science!

Well, I don't know what "the usual suspect" means, but talking about a concern isn't "mongering" anything. (Ironically, the continued misrepresentation meets that definition far better than anything I've said.)

VTTs cause the atrophy of the brain.

#NotAllVTTs.

 

[Oofta]

Of course, the trick still is, no one is explaining exactly how it limits creativity. It's just taken as a given that it will somehow, in some fashion, make people less creative.

Exactly. Also saying that WotC's VTT is somehow different from other VTTs and "has the potential unintended consequence of disincentivizing imaginative play" is completely different from saying "But it [WotC's VTT] could [make them less creative]". I mean, I just said the same thing using less words but somehow I'm the one that's totally wrong. Why? Reasons. Good reasons, apparently, that needs no explanation.

That, and completely ignore everyone who has used a VTT saying it won't happen ... and the response being but it could. Oh wait, the proper response is that it has the potential unintended consequence of disincentivizing imaginative play. Gotta say it the proper way. Even though I predict I'll be told I'm saying it wrong.

 

[Alzrius]

Exactly. Also saying that WotC's VTT is somehow different from other VTTs and "has the potential unintended consequence of disincentivizing imaginative play" is completely different from saying "But it [WotC's VTT] could [make them less creative]".

I'm glad we're at least recognizing the difference is there, since WotC isn't other companies, and so what they do can't be analyzed in the context of looking at similar products. You don't compare an 800 lb. gorilla to a chimpanzee (if you're trying to talk seriously about something). Likewise, specific concerns about a specific thing are, in fact, different from making sweeping generalizations.

I mean, I just said the same thing using less words but somehow I'm the one that's totally wrong.

Again, kudos to you for being able to recognize that and admit it. It's a very encouraging sign.

Why? Reasons. Good reasons, apparently, that needs no explanation.

They're good reasons, true, but if you think there's been no explanation you should review the thread.

That, and completely ignore everyone who has used a VTT saying it won't happen ...

Because groupthink from five or six people who are misstating the point is supposed to be convincing?

and the response being but it could.

So you're saying there's a problem with not making a declarative, "it must be this way" prediction about the future? That's a rather odd stance to take.

Oh wait, the proper response is that it has the potential unintended consequence of disincentivizing imaginative play.

Correct, since that's quite different from the "all VTTs destroy creativity" line other people have wrongly put forward.

Gotta say it the proper way.

Since otherwise it's a different statement altogether.

Even though I predict I'll be told I'm saying it wrong.

Hey, one of your predictions actually came true! How about that?

 

[Umbran]

Its not reactive fear mongering from the usual suspect...

Mod note:
Please do not make it personal. You should be able to show the weakness of the position without relying on who said it to get folks to dismiss it out of hand.

 

[Scribe]

How do you mean? They changed how the cards looked?

No, they stopped adding certain conditions in the language.

"You may" was removed to make it so the user didnt have to click Accept/Decline for certain triggers.

 

[Umbran]

You don't compare an 800 lb. gorilla to a chimpanzee (if you're trying to talk seriously...

When you are trying to figure things out about what it means to be an ape, you include all apes, not just gorillas.

Indeed, the VTT that you seem concerned about doesn't exist yet! By excluding other VTTs from discussion, you restrict discussion to speculative fiction. If you want to talk seriously, that isn't appropriate.

 

[mamba]

just because a CEO made one monumentally bad decision, doesn't mean that he's sitting in the shadows twirling his mustache and laughing maniacally while plotting the demise of D&D.

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.

 

[Alzrius]

When you are trying to figure things out about what it means to be an ape, you include all apes, not just gorillas.

True, but if we extend the metaphor I'm not sure what other company would qualify as an ape in this regard.

Indeed, the VTT that you seem concerned about doesn't exist yet! By excluding other VTTs from discussion, you restrict discussion to speculative fiction.

That's the nature (at least to some degree) of all speculation about future enterprises. Other VTTs are being excluded because this isn't a discussion about the technical aspects and impacts of VTTs in isolation; I mentioned things like WotC's Q Score and their ownership of D&D (the game their VTT is meant to be used in conjunction with) for a reason.

If you want to talk seriously, that isn't appropriate.

Neither is deliberately twisting of someone else's point and snarking on them for having a different opinion, but that seems to be fine with pretty much everyone else involved.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

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?"