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

[Chaosmancer]

I can't speak to 4e, but I wouldn't say 3e for all its complexity was designed assuming that the majority of the player base would be using automation tools, even things like spreadsheets. Whereas now it is clear that some very large % of players are using dnd beyond or a vtt. At a certain point, there's enough a % of the player base using those tools that you can design assuming that, rather than design primarily for a pen-and-paper audience. They would have to know that that was the default method of character creation and/or play however; like, if 80% of people used dnd beyond, then they could start to design around that fact.

Maybe, maybe not. But my copy of the 3.5 PHB came with a CD-ROM with a digital character creator. THe book is in storage, but I think it had a back-page advert for some digital tool as well.

 

[Scribe]

Did that in any way change how the cards played or what the rules were?

Yes. It made it so you no longer had an option on the trigger.

 

[Chaosmancer]

So your entire idea here is that WotC can't write a program which looks at the text of rules which are part of the VTT/DDB and compares that to the "custom content"-tagged portion of user accounts to see if there's anything that's similar to said content on there? In other words, what programs have been doing for some time to detect plagiarism, AI-generated content, etc. Don't get me wrong, they very well might not be able to (I've said before that I'm not impressed with their technical prowess to date), but it won't be because such technology isn't feasible; you don't need AI to do what I've pointed out here.

Of course, the problem with your entire line of thinking here is that it's entirely predicated on the idea that custom content is a panacea to the issue of the VTT's disincentivizing things which it doesn't do very well. This despite my repeatedly saying that's not the point. The point is that custom content is more work to generate, both in terms of technical application and game engine integration, for less payoff under the VTT system (and you can't even claim that the former is too small to bother with, when you yourself have found it too onerous to format links into text or properly paste an emoji in this very thread). That's not going to be much of a draw, and so works to act as a subtle "gravitational" pull away from said content...especially if it goes beyond an easy "substitute X for Y" change in things like spell damage types (which doesn't exactly push the boundaries of imaginative play anyway; it barely scratches the surface of custom spell creation).

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).

False positives are part of any search system, so that's not exactly a fatal issue as you're putting it. Likewise, you've ignored that simply telling people such a system is in place can have a chilling effect, like a sign that says "this property is monitored by video camera."

Which isn't exactly some sort of massive burden; there's a reason why companies outsource entire tech departments to low wage countries, i.e. because they want to have crowds of IT people who do non-critical jobs.

Which is all the more reason why WotC would just throw their hands in the air and scrap the entire custom content aspect altogether.

They could scrap custom content, making their VTT demonstrably worse and removing a current function of the DDB character sheets, or they could ignore it. Also, I want to highlight the bolded. You have continously put forth that the Core Rulebooks will eventually be written to "dovetail" into the VTT, when pressed about that you claimed it would be the removal of the ability to make custom content... and now you are saying that custom content doesn't matter for the problem you are seeing, which has been the ONLY change to the existing rules that you have ever put forth as evidence. You also keep putting forth the claim of it being "onerous" or "too hard" for people to make custom content, which again, seems to completely ignore the vast seas of custom content created by the DnD community. We are not going to stop making custom content for VTTs (a thing we already do) just because that VTT has WoTC's name on it.

They really don't. Remember, this is the same company that sent the Pinkertons to retrieve a single deck of cards that had been legally acquired (since an embargo isn't a matter of criminal law, and would apply to the store owner rather than the customer). Cost-benefit analysis has a habit of not being part of the equation in certain circumstances, and even then their definition of "benefit" isn't the one you're using.

It is also the same company that has given multiple creators with thousands of subscribers [Treantmonk: 86K, D4 Deep Dive159K, Nerd Immersion 109K] full permission to reveal the entirety of the contents of their new product a month before it is released.

They also, again to remind you, ALREADY allow for custom content with no limitations or policing to be put on their DDB character sheets. So they are already doing the thing you claim they will not allow.

Appealing to groupthink is a fairly ugly thing. Is that really the side of this that you want to come down on?

.

It's neither infantilizing nor parody to point out that the focus on what the VTT does well necessarily carries the potential for a not-inconsiderable number of players to focus more on that than on what it doesn't do well, inculcating a shift away from the broader areas of imaginative play. I understand that you think such a thing is impossible, but unfortunately for your sense of certitude in this area, nothing is impossible.

Those things being colors and sounds. On a computer. DO I need to explain how that is not nearly enough to excite anyone in the year 2024?

 

[Chaosmancer]

To be clear, when I'm talking about ownership, I'm talking about WotC's ownership of the game they want people to use the VTT to play. A company like Roll20 doesn't really care what game people play on its platform, but it's self-evident that WotC wants people to play D&D on theirs.

They also have stated they want people to play other TTRPGs on their VTT. Just like Roll20 allows. Because more people using the product is good.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Yes. It made it so you no longer had an option on the trigger.

Okay, I'm not familiar with MtG really, so I'm trying to piece this together.

For a brief period of time, they removed the optional aspect of triggers. You made it sound like this was not limited to just the video game, correct?

Did they state this was for making the video game easier, or were they experimenting with the cards? Because they clearly reversed course and went back to making the optional triggers.

 

[Scribe]

Okay, I'm not familiar with MtG really, so I'm trying to piece this together.

For a brief period of time, they removed the optional aspect of triggers. You made it sound like this was not limited to just the video game, correct?

Did they state this was for making the video game easier, or were they experimenting with the cards? Because they clearly reversed course and went back to making the optional triggers.

It was a change for the ease of using the application and impacted card design going forward.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

I have no idea what the win for anyone but WotC would be in this scenario, at best I see a win / do not lose too much case

I also do not think that he was so naive as to not realize this, in a way that would be worse because then he is incompetent rather than uncaring. He knew it would have a negative impact on 3pps and customers, he just did not anticipate this level of backlash

It seemed like a lot of people were happy that the new license would allow WotC to revoke it for anyone producing "hateful content". WotC probably believed that this would appeal to the modern, inclusive-minded gamers, and that consumers wouldn't care either way about the business aspects of the license.

WotC's biggest blunder was that they thought of the OGL merely as a business agreement that was open to renegotiation, and not as the eternal commitment to a free and open D&D it was intended as. So it took them completely by surprise that a lot of regular gamers were very passionate about the OGL.

The language of the OGL may not be as watertight as we thought, but there was no doubt at the time it was introduced that it was intended to be permanent and irrevocable.

 

[Alzrius]

They could scrap custom content, making their VTT demonstrably worse and removing a current function of the DDB character sheets, or they could ignore it.

Again, the "demonstrably worse" part seems to be operating under the continued assumption that the only point of comparison is one of features, with no other salient factors being taken into account. I'll reiterate that WotC isn't Roll20 or another VTT company, and treating them as being the same means missing out on a number of important points that have been reiterated before in this thread.

Also, I want to highlight the bolded.

I want to take a moment to point something out. The bolded part is in a completely separate paragraph from the large section of the quoted post, so much so that it's actually scrolled out of sight when the full quoted section is collapsed, meaning that without opening the full quote you can't even see that anything has been bolded. It's little things like this, not bothering to do some minor extra step which on paper is no real work at all (e.g. quoting the next paragraph as its own quote, instead of as part of the first) which goes to the heart of what I'm talking about.

You have continously put forth that the Core Rulebooks will eventually be written to "dovetail" into the VTT,

As I recall, it was that the rules would be made to dovetail with the VTT, e.g. WotC would have even less reason to write expanded rules for custom spell creation, etc. Focusing so intently on the Core Rules themselves has been your take on that, even if I've indulged you on it.

when pressed about that you claimed it would be the removal of the ability to make custom content...

No, when "pressed" (which let's be honest here, is a fairly transparent misnomer) I speculated that it was plausible that WotC might decide to not bother with custom content at all.

and now you are saying that custom content doesn't matter for the problem you are seeing,

Incorrect. I'm pointing out that you're hyper-focusing on one aspect of what I pointed out, or did you miss my reference to (among other things) Q Scores before? Because it really looks like you did. I've been quite forthright from the beginning that this isn't solely about technical capabilities (notice that "solely" is the operative word, there), even though you keep coming back to that as being the only relevant point.

which has been the ONLY change to the existing rules that you have ever put forth as evidence.

I'll note again that speculation about the future, where human endeavors are concerned, isn't an evidentiary inquiry.

You also keep putting forth the claim of it being "onerous" or "too hard" for people to make custom content,

Again, you found it too onerous to break up a quoted post so that the bold part would be visible without expanding the quote box.

which again, seems to completely ignore the vast seas of custom content created by the DnD community.

Leaving aside that I also cited the issue of inputting it into the VTT on top of creating it under the framework of the rules (unless you're saying that people have created said content and programmed it for a VTT which doesn't exist yet), your entire presumption here hinges on people having made custom content somehow proving that it's not onerous in any way for anyone to ever do so. Which is another absolutist position, and so is naturally going to fall apart when confronted by nuance.

We are not going to stop making custom content for VTTs (a thing we already do) just because that VTT has WoTC's name on it.

Again, no one said that people would "stop" creating things, just that it would be disincentivized. The overall effect is gradual, like a flower slowly opening, and not whatever stark start/stop you're mistakenly envisioning.

It is also the same company that has given multiple creators with thousands of subscribers [Treantmonk: 86K, D4 Deep Dive159K, Nerd Immersion 109K] full permission to reveal the entirety of the contents of their new product a month before it is released.

Which tells you all that you need to know right there: they're fine with evangelists so long as it happens entirely on their terms. Even if you frame it as some sort of benevolent act, it's still an issue of control with them.

They also, again to remind you, ALREADY allow for custom content with no limitations or policing to be put on their DDB character sheets.

Are the character sheets an aspect of monetization through a recurrent spending environment? Because that part seems to keep slipping your mind.

So they are already doing the thing you claim they will not allow.

See above for why this point has already been shown to be lacking in merit (i.e. it hyper-focuses on one thing, instead of looking at the whole picture).

.

?

Those things being colors and sounds. On a computer. DO I need to explain how that is not nearly enough to excite anyone in the year 2024?

If you think that color and sound (whatever screen it's on) isn't enough to excite anyone, then I suspect that you'll be shocked when you discover the film and television industries.

They also have stated they want people to play other TTRPGs on their VTT.

Sure, and they've stated that the OGL was open and would remain so. Until they stated that it wasn't. I really don't know why you keep putting more emphasis on what WotC says rather than what they do.

Just like Roll20 allows.

I'll direct you above, to why comparing Roll20 to WotC is comparing apples to oranges, even if you keep insisting that both are fruit.

Because more people using the product is good.

In WotC's eyes, it's only good if they can monetize it. Remember, they see us as barriers between them and "their" money.

 

[Staffan]

Okay, I'm not familiar with MtG really, so I'm trying to piece this together.

For a brief period of time, they removed the optional aspect of triggers. You made it sound like this was not limited to just the video game, correct?

Did they state this was for making the video game easier, or were they experimenting with the cards? Because they clearly reversed course and went back to making the optional triggers.

It was a change for the ease of using the application and impacted card design going forward.

I'm pretty sure no cards were actually changed. Wizards are traditionally very resistant to making functional changes to printed Magic cards other than changing creature types. What they did was to design new cards in a way that would make them easier to use on digital platforms, by making certain triggers non-optional.

 

[Scribe]

I'm pretty sure no cards were actually changed. Wizards are traditionally very resistant to making functional changes to printed Magic cards other than changing creature types. What they did was to design new cards in a way that would make them easier to use on digital platforms, by making certain triggers non-optional.

I think there was 1 errata, but yes the intent is.

Was the physical game impacted in a desire to support digital design?

Yes.