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

[Hussar]

Isn't it funny how the only people who apparently cannot understand what you're saying @Alzrius are the people who disagree with what you're saying? Yet, despite the fact that you keep repeatedly claiming that no one is addressing your point, you refuse to actually clearly state you point and any request to clarify your point is met with hostility and ridicule. I mean, I actually tried to summarize, but then you claim that I'm trying to make you summarize?

Look, if no one actually understands the point you are trying to make, then perhaps the issue isn't everyone else? Apparently no one actually knows the point you are trying to make. You have repeatedly berated every single person in this thread for misunderstanding your point.

It might be more helpful if you could clearly, concisely and without any quotes of other people or breaking up your posts or fisking, state what you are claiming.

 

[Alzrius]

Isn't it funny how the only people who apparently cannot understand what you're saying @Alzrius are the people who disagree with what you're saying?

Oh, it's hilarious. Of course, if you've gone back and read the thread, you'd see how I've pointed out each and every time they've managed to somehow misrepresent what I've said, repeatedly and in great detail. Laugh riot, there.

Yet, despite the fact that you keep repeatedly claiming that no one is addressing your point, you refuse to actually clearly state you point

Except for all of the times that I've done that in the course of this thread, which for some reason you seem to have overlooked.

and any request to clarify your point is met with hostility and ridicule.

Says the person who just yesterday made a post full of hostility and ridicule, not to mention is curiously unable to find any of the posts I made where my point was clarified. Seriously, do you not understand that if you want to complain about a standard not being met, you have to meet it yourself? I just thought that was understood.

I mean, I actually tried to summarize, but then you claim that I'm trying to make you summarize?

And yet it somehow slipped your mind that you wouldn't need to summarize if you had just gone back and read what I actually wrote. Why is it that clicking back just a few pages was too much work for you, I wonder? Why is it that despite your questions having been answered before you asked them, you managed to post a restatement that just so happened to get everything wrong?

Look, if no one actually understands the point you are trying to make, then perhaps the issue isn't everyone else?

People have said, on this page of this thread, that they understand, they just disagree. To the point of having to come in and say how their favorite multinational corporation can do no wrong.

Apparently no one actually knows the point you are trying to make.

Again, statements like this make it clear that you haven't read the thread.

You have repeatedly berated every single person in this thread for misunderstanding your point.

Says the guy who joined this particular conversation with a snarky comment about "I don't need to provide evidence. I don't have to," and then tried to insist that no, really, it wasn't facetiousness.

It might be more helpful if you could clearly, concisely and without any quotes of other people or breaking up your posts or fisking, state what you are claiming.

Presuming that you're being serious here, which is giving you a great deal of credit after this post of yours, go read post #331, and then maybe post an explanation for how you so conveniently missed it the first time around.

 

[Hussar]

Ok, so, no you are not capable of stating your point without fisking.

 

[Alzrius]

Upon review, I no longer any cause to believe that the people replying to the points I've raised are acting in good faith. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Given that the conversation has been stifled, I'm done with this thread.

 

[mamba]

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.

that is not not what I said though… I said I see no reason why WotC’s VTT has you so concerned, but the others do not

And that I see no difference to using miniatures

 

[Oofta]

Ok, so, no you are not capable of stating your point without fisking.

Since the referenced post was a response to me I thought I'd summarize.

...

My issue is that I think WotC will, in accordance with statements that they've made (less than two years ago now) about wanting to monetize the game more via a recurrent spending environment, attempt to present their VTT as being the optimal way to play D&D.

Summary: They want to make a profit.
Response: They're a company, of course they want to make a profit.
NOTE: if they do something like start buying out every other VTT product and shutting them down (similar to what other companies have done) then it's an issue. There's also no reason to believe other VTTs won't just pop up.
My opinion: Not an issue.

To that end, I think they'll play up aspects of the game which the VTT is not only capable of supporting, but which it will (for lack of a better term) highlight with various bells and whistles. Spell animations are an obvious example here, since the OGL v1.2 tried to explicitly disallow them.

Summary: They want to make the VTT look cool.
Response: Yep, they proposed a limit on spell effect visuals. It was never and never will be. No reason to think cool visuals dramatically changes engagement.
My opinion: Not an issue.

Presuming that they're successful in bringing more of their customer base around to using the VTT in this way, my concern is that this will lead to a slow constriction among said base with regard to the boundless nature of imaginative play. Spell animations for existing spells will, for instance, focus attention on those spells, making things like custom spell research by PC spellcasters less frequent; I suspect that custom magic items will be the same, custom monsters, etc.

Summary: reduction of imaginative play. Limits on custom items and spells.
Response: No evidence, doesn't happen now with other VTT. They currently allow custom items in DDB, if they can't implement custom spells they've stated you can apply damage and status manually. They want to support house rules.
My opinion: Not an issue.

Now, I don't think that WotC necessarily wants to narrow the range of the game. It's just what what they do want is more money, and digital bells and whistles that make the VTT "sexier" (again, for lack of a better term) do that, which can distract from more imaginative options being in play. If the VTT allows for an interactive dungeon environment, for instance, then it (unintentionally or not) discourages ways of play that aren't supported by that interactivity. Even if DMs can manually make up for that, doing so is still presented as the less impressive mode of engagement.

Summary: this VTT will somehow be a less interactive.
Response: No evidence or reason given why this is different from other VTTs.
My opinion: Not an issue.

 

[Bedrockgames]

WOTC definitely lost me with the OGL fiasco

 

[Chaosmancer]

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?

Also micro-transactions.

And it is all speculation on the future, based on WoTC seeing consumers as only obstacles to money that is rightfully theirs and the fact that it will be a brand name VTT with fancy sounds and animations.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

Really? You entirely trust WotC?

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."

Sorry, I don't consider "Crawford is literally the devil here to devour the souls of your children" to be a criticism.

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.

See above. You misread my statement, but I'll say that one was my fault for not making it obvious as was absolutely possible.

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

"You have no proof...except for everything they've ever done!" Not the strongest argument there.

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.

Among many, many other things, yes. The real question is why so many people insist on looking past those.

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.

See above. Not even WotC can defend their OGL debacle, so they had to walk that one back.

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.

Moving 5e and the 2024 rules update to the creative commons was not a "conciliatory gesture" it was a massive concession. I don't remember a single person who I followed during that news who was not shocked by them doing so, because it was a massive 180. Is "all" forgiven? I don't know what you mean by all. The OGL problem is largely forgiven because they did the most extreme reversal of that they could. Yet for some people it seems anything less than the complete dissolution of WoTC will never be enough for them, because they are a corporation that makes money.

You're the one who brought them up in the first place, and now you're saying they're not relevant?

That they will sell premium character sheets is not relevant, no. The free ones exist, they will continue to exist, and removing long-standing functionality from those sheets makes no sense.

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.

Which is meaningless. WoTC releases character sheets for people to print for free. I don't use those, I use another set I stitched together. When WoTC revealed their new character sheets, a lot of people went "ooh neat" and a bunch of people went "that sucks, I'll be making my own."

It is incentivized and easier to play pre-made adventures in pre-made worlds. The majority of DnD is still homebrew adventures many in homebrew worlds per the polling.

This whole conception that somehow incentivizing one way of play is going to shift everything so that at some point in the future creative play is constrained by digital tools just doesn't make sense. It either has to happen on such a long time scale that there is literally nothing that can be done about it, or people have to behave in a manner similar to everyone going to buy the new iphone, and immediately change everything about how they run and interact with DnD. And yes, I said everyone, because you need a large plurality of people to change how the culture of the game functions. If it is only 100 people then that is no different than the guy who homebrewed Equestria for DnD 5e and claimed everyone would play my little pony DnD in the future.

You don't think the window to buy RvB from Rooster Teeth is closing quickly?

I don't think it matters that Rooster Teeth is closing. You don't need to buy them to do what I said.

 

[Iosue]

… as to the Facebook post, wondering how much say the head of WotC actually has and therefore how relevant it is who that is when Cocks is clearly capable of calling the shots at WotC himself directly is a valid question in itself

Eh, from a D&D perspective? I don't think that Chris Cocks is going to be spending a whole lotta time micromanaging D&D.

Chris Cocks became CEO of Hasbro in February, 2022. Prior to that, he was President and COO of WotC. As I recall, Kyle Brink said changes to the OGL were already in the works when he joined that company in February 2021. So in as much as changing the OGL was the brainchild of Chris Cocks (if what Riggs says is true), it was during his tenure as President and COO of WotC, not as CEO of Hasbro.