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

I'm pretty sure no cards were actually changed.

This was the one I was thinking about.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

It seemed like a lot of people were happy that the new license would allow WotC to revoke it for anyone producing "hateful content".
that sounded more like a mixed bag, while some thought it was good, others pointed out that most material does not fall in that category anyway and that the ability could easily be abused, so at best I see this as a neutral point. Personally I see this as one of the negatives

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.
agreed
 


Of course since we’re all about speculation I going to declare that VTT play will INCREASE creativity.
And can you describe precisely how you believe it will do that? Or can you just snark that adds nothing to the thread? I know the answer to that latter question, and I think you do too.
I will not provide any evidence.
The implication being that you have evidentiary-based method of predicting the future? And you're using it on D&D instead of world affairs or the lottery? Wow, talk about restrained ambition!
I do not need to.
This sentence eschews contractions for Maximum Dramatic EffectTM.
It is possible therefore it must be true.
The irony here is that you're not mocking the person you think you are. :P
 

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.

Most of which have been the brand name, which in the current climate is as much of a detriment to them as a boon.

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 mean keeping the context of the discussion instead of slicing out only a thin line of text which can be easily misconstrued?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Yeah it will happen so slowly and so gradually that no one will be able to see it happening at all, even over multiple decades of gameplay.

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.

ROFLMAO! Evangelists? Yeah, hardly. I stopped watching Nerd Immersion because he was coming across as more bitterly blind about the OGL fiasco than I was comfortable with, still raking them over the coals months after the whole issue was dead and buried. I was actually shocked that they sent him a preview copy.

No, this isn't an issue of control. This is them understanding how the community works. Free previews of their material will get them more sales than cutting off the community.

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

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).

You think they are not going to allow their character sheets from their subscription service and digital sales platform to cross-pollinate with their OTHER subscription service? If you don't think DDB character sheets are going to be the importable, in full, to the VTT, then you are once more showing you do not understand this industry or the products.

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.

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.

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.

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

It is funny to me that the guy who keep quoting "recurrent spending environment" and "under-monetized" takes issue with me putting any emphasis on what WoTC has said. Also, yeah, if flashing lights and pretty colors were enough to get my money? I'd have a youtube premium membership. And instead of text books, I'd only watch Television and Movies.
 

I think it makes sense that a new medium/interface (ToM vs 2d map vs 3d environment) would have some affect on how players approach the game, though not in any one direction. That is, it might enhance creativity in some ways and inhibit it in others. For example, for me, there are aspects of BG3 that expanded tactical creativity (things like distances and verticality), while in other ways it was quite limited because you only had a set number of buttons to push to do something. Similarly, a top-down 2d map provides a lot of clarity; but a top down map is not the way the characters are engaging with the environment, and so ToM descriptions of spaces maybe force players to adopt a 1st person pov, if that makes sense.
 

And can you describe precisely how you believe it will do that? Or can you just snark that adds nothing to the thread? I know the answer to that latter question, and I think you do too.

It opens up potential content like Red vs Blue, but for DnD depending on the level of fidelity and tools provided in the VTT.
 

I think it makes sense that a new medium/interface (ToM vs 2d map vs 3d environment) would have some affect on how players approach the game, though not in any one direction. That is, it might enhance creativity in some ways and inhibit it in others. For example, for me, there are aspects of BG3 that expanded tactical creativity (things like distances and verticality), while in other ways it was quite limited because you only had a set number of buttons to push to do something. Similarly, a top-down 2d map provides a lot of clarity; but a top down map is not the way the characters are engaging with the environment, and so ToM descriptions of spaces maybe force players to adopt a 1st person pov, if that makes sense.

I won't disagree with this, but I think it is important to note that the limited buttons issue does not seem to carry over into the game at the table. My current IRL group plays a LOT of BG3 and there has been no difference between them and how they play than any other group I have ever played with.

And even if it DOES exist, it is something easily fixed through play.
 

Most of which have been the brand name, which in the current climate is as much of a detriment to them as a boon.
Not based on what several other posters in this thread have put forward, with regards to the level of faith/trust shown to WotC (and, I should note, there's a difference between the company name and the brand name).
You mean keeping the context of the discussion instead of slicing out only a thin line of text which can be easily misconstrued?
No one is saying quote only that line of text; just put that line in its own quote box. You've noted before how I break up quotes into several different boxes; take a cue from that.
Yeah it will happen so slowly and so gradually that no one will be able to see it happening at all, even over multiple decades of gameplay.
While others will have spoken out about the possibility of it happening before it even begins, mostly over a bunch of people who supposedly guaranteed us with their precognitive powers that it never would.
Truly the height of discourse right here. You've come a long way from complaining about potshots.
Evangelists? Yeah, hardly.
Because WotC is known for maintaining relationships with people who don't care for them.
I stopped watching Nerd Immersion because he was coming across as more bitterly blind about the OGL fiasco than I was comfortable with, still raking them over the coals months after the whole issue was dead and buried.
Which just goes to show you that the issue is neither dead nor buried, since the effects of that fiasco on the industry continue to be felt to this day.
I was actually shocked that they sent him a preview copy.
See above; WotC is quite willing to work with "influencers" who they think will influence things in the way they (WotC) wants.
No, this isn't an issue of control.
That's literally the heart of the issue.
This is them understanding how the community works.
So that they can better control it. Seriously, how is that in contention in your mind? We know they want to monetize things, and see customers as a barrier to that. Not to mention all of the things they've done to try and bring the industry further under their sway. Control is everything to WotC right now.
Free previews of their material will get them more sales than cutting off the community.
"Getting more sales" is how they want to exercise the control they're looking for.
You think they are not going to allow their character sheets from their subscription service and digital sales platform to cross-pollinate with their OTHER subscription service?
Ah, so now you're granting my earlier point about the consolidation of services (which is another aspect which differentiates WotC's VTT from others). Of course, you dodged the issue of the character sheets themselves being an aspect of monetization, so there's that too.
If you don't think DDB character sheets are going to be the importable, in full, to the VTT, then you are once more showing you do not understand this industry or the products.
Of course they're going to be importable (notice again that you misunderstood what I said; funny how that keeps happening), it's just that they're not going to be using those as a tent pole around which to monetize things...at least, not that they've said. It's entirely possible that we'll see micro-transactions for pointless things like decorations on your virtual character sheet.
It is funny to me that the guy who keep quoting "recurrent spending environment" and "under-monetized" takes issue with me putting any emphasis on what WoTC has said.
There's a difference between marketing-speak directed at the customers whom they think of as barriers between them and their money and things which they say to investors (and, for that matter, leaked comments that came out during the OGL scandal). But please, tell us more why corporate-approved puff pieces to the customers whom they seem to hold in disdain are trustworthy.
Also, yeah, if flashing lights and pretty colors were enough to get my money? I'd have a youtube premium membership. And instead of text books, I'd only watch Television and Movies.
Nice job patting yourself on the back for being more savvy than everyone else. But otherwise, it's already been pointed out that not everyone will use the VTT. The question is if enough will for its presentation to start shaping expectations.
It opens up potential content like Red vs Blue, but for DnD depending on the level of fidelity and tools provided in the VTT.
As an aside, do you mean the actual RvB (as in, buy it from the now-defunct Rooster Teeth)? Because if they want to do that, the window seems like it's closing fast (if it hasn't already).
 

N.

As an aside, do you mean the actual RvB (as in, buy it from the now-defunct Rooster Teeth)? Because if they want to do that, the window seems like it's closing fast (if it hasn't already).

No.

Use a bells and whistles vtt to create a DnD Machinima like Red vs Blue.

But the irony machine is thick. You just claimed that speculation doesn’t need evidence. But when I do it, I’m adding snark?

After all there is exactly the same amount of evidence that Vtt’s will impair creativity as boost.
 

Trending content

Remove ads

Top