I do not have to misread things to disagree with you...
No, you don't. But when I say that there's a concern about the potential of WotC's VTT (if it's as successful as they want it to be) to disincentivize the wider range of imaginative play, and the replies are predicated on "you're saying that (all) VTTs discourage creativity," then your disagreement is premised on something I never said.
I have not seen a good argument why the WotC VTT is so much different from all the others that you are uniquely concerned about it but not the others.
Which is entirely your opinion, and that's fine. I think that they are good arguments, but at this point almost no one is actually replying to them as I've presented them.
I am sure you made those arguments, I just find them entirely unconvincing
At this point, the fact that the arguments I made are being acknowledged at all is head and shoulders above most of the responses I've received.
Really, cause I've seen a lot of posters who seem like they wouldn't trust WoTC if they handed them a check for $10,000 in this thread as well.
In this thread? I have to disagree with your there. The vast majority have put forward a stance that comes across as being not only entirely trusting of WotC, but also protective of them to the point of thinking there's no legitimate cause of ill-will toward them.
Yes, I am very aware of how you break up everything I say into small chunks. No, I will not be taking cues from that.
Then you can't really complain with regard to how a point you're calling attention to in a quoted post is hidden by how the quote box defaults to a collapsed state.
So giving a copy to one of their most vocal critics (who at least never delved into full on hate-filled rants against them)
The parenthetical part undercuts the rest of what you're saying here. The cited influencer is far,
far from being "one of their most vocal critics."
is showing how they don't maintain relationships with people who "don't care for them" but they are also quite willing to work with the community to push their goals despite what those people have said about them in the past?
Do I need to actively point out that my previous mention of "WotC is known for maintaining relationships with people who don't care for them" was meant to be read ironically? I mean, I can understand Poe's Law being a thing, so I suppose I should have posted an emoji there to make that clear. Mea culpa.
They can't both be cutting off anyone who says anything bad about them, and also working with people who have said bad things about them.
See above. You misread my statement, but I'll say that one was my fault for not making it obvious as was absolutely possible.
You keep saying these things, that WoTC sees their customers as barriers, that they are desperate for control, and yet you lack proof,
The single best part of this is what comes after. I mean, maybe this is meant to be facetious on your part, but it really doesn't read like it
beyond gesturing widely to everything they have ever done
"You have no proof...except for everything they've ever done!" Not the strongest argument there.
(except the parts that show they don't do or think those things)
And exactly what parts do you think that is? Because so far you've only pointed to marketing-approved public statements and them sending products a month early to an influencer who's not
completely beholden to them.
and saying "But see! The Pinkertons that one time for Magic the Gathering! and Undermonetization!"
Among many, many other things, yes. The real question is why so many people insist on looking past those.
Yet every major creator they have worked with, has been critical of them and their actions.
You left out the important context about how that was during the OGL crisis. I'm not sure why your criteria is "cutting off anyone who ever said a bad word about them," but that's not the standard.
And they still work with them.
See above. Not even WotC can defend their OGL debacle, so they had to walk that one back.
And that means nothing to you, because you are convinced that they are evil.
Because it was their own actions that convinced me of that. You seem to think that because they lost the OGL fight, and made conciliatory gestures, that means all is forgiven. The real question is why.
Ah yes, the completely free character sheets, how could I forget them making money off of them.
You're the one who brought them up in the first place, and now you're saying they're not relevant?
I never denied that they would be capable of using both, just that it wouldn't be required to get the VTT to continue using DDB
Which is an absolutist position, again, since now you're talking about things being required instead of what's being incentivized. That's a mindset that's not conducive to anything we're talking about, since there's no aspect of this which is a measure of "forcing" or "requiring" anyone to do anything. The entire point revolves around some things being made more enticing, which distracts from things which are not so enticed.
You don't think the window to buy RvB from Rooster Teeth is closing quickly?
So if I understand correctly - we’re concerned that a WotC vtt, which no one has seen yet and we really have no idea what the final form will be, will somehow impact creative play despite the fact that no other vtt in the past twenty years has done so. We have no evidence to back up this assertion and no actual reason to be concerned other than the fact that WotC is producing this vtt.
Is that about right?
Wait, so now you're literally asking me to summarize the last few pages of the thread for you, even though it's not only right there for you to peruse but you've even been posting in it this entire time, and yet haven't bothered to actually read what's been posted? As in, the text there has already been passing in front of your eyes, yet you haven't actually taken any of it in? Because literally every single thing you've said here, every incorrect assumption, misstatement, and fallacy, has already been brought up and addressed.
No, what you've said isn't right. It's a Billy Madison quote waiting to happen.