Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 9409560" data-attributes="member: 8461">Let's try this another way: by your logic, Shell isn't an oil company. See, they own the Mally Beauty makeup company as a subsidiary, which makes cosmetics. So according to you, someone could say that Shell is actually a cosmetics company, and they'd be right. No matter that that's just one division of theirs, or that they produce more oil products than makeup. So be sure to correct anyone who refers to Shell as part of Big Oil from now on.You've gotten this backwards. The fact of the matter is that the only reason for you to argue with me is that if WotC isn't already a video game company, then there's no reason to be concerned over the direction D&D is going in. After all, by your logic, there's no difference between Critical Role and Champions of Krynn, so what does it matter if D&D is primarily engaged with via a VTT that limits options (which you also admitted would be what happened).You tell me; you're one of the people who seems to think that it's very important that we recognize that WotC as a video game company, and that it has been for years, and that doing so will make all concerns about what they do to D&D non-issues. Apparently because it's fine if the game plays like Champions of Krynn.You must have a very different definition of "closely" than most people. Likewise, I'm not sure why you think that licensing out their brand makes them a video game company.No, it's a complete concession of my central point, which is that digitizing the game limits it. I suppose you could argue that's not at all bad for the game in terms of what makes TTRPGs different from other kinds of games, i.e. that anything can be attempted, but that's a separate discussion.We've only known it since 1994? Here I thought we knew it for decades before that.Misstating the premise doesn't make the point invalid. If D&D's primary method of interface becomes digital, a limited format as you yourself admitted, then it's not unreasonable to assume that the TTRPG would be designed with digitization in mind, enshrining those limitations on the limitless form of imaginative play. But I guess if you're happy with Champions of Krynn, you wouldn't care about that.No, that's not in the least what I'm saying. Exactly the opposite; D&D will never get that expansive in what its digital incarnation offers, and so will become necessarily more limited, as you noted. And once that becomes the default mode of engagement, the imaginative play aspect loses out.You're the one who introduced "True Artificial Intelligence" and "The Matrix" into the conversation, so you're going to have to own that one.No kidding. What it will create is probably going to look like a knock-off of World of Warcraft crossed with a knock-off of Minecraft, and treat that as the standard.See above.WotC has yet to make any video games, which is why no one has been able to so much as name one that they've actually produced. They've published games made by other people, acquired studios other people built, and lent their brand to other studios designing games. But making them themselves? Yet to happen. So the next step is that they design their VTT, give it video game-esque interactions, along with video game industry-style pricing, and then encourage everyone to engage with the game that way, writing the books so that they lend themselves to that style of limited play.You said that I said that WotC was creating "True Artificial Intelligence" and "The Matrix." Maybe don't throw stones if you live in a glass house.So now you don't think that a format which you admitted was limited is limited?So you think that publishing a video game that someone else made makes them a video game company? I suppose you also think that a book publisher that makes their own webpage is a web design company?And yet you're replying to it anyway, albeit in the aggregate, which is rather odd."Need" is a mischaracterization, which I suspect you know. I get that you don't care for it when points are addressed individually, but that's the best way to carry on a discussion when multiple aspects of something are under examination.So the fact that each quotation says who it's from isn't polite enough for you? Precisely what "netiquette" guide are you subscribing to that says that? Because it's far more polite not to spam a thread with multiple reply posts when you can aggregate them into one.</blockquote>

Verification