NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 9410748" data-attributes="member: 8461">I agree, but it's your choice to die on it as you wish.And you say that you're not. Okay.Likewise, the presence of more important things to be concerned about doesn't, unto itself, mean that there's no reason to be concerned about this, since concern is not a finite resource.You're wrong on this one, as I've explained extensively why there is in fact a there there, as I've spent the previous responses to you outlining in notable detail.Leaving aside that predicting the future is not, in this context, a question of logic (since it's essentially a guessing game about people's attitudes and choices), none of the points you've made have been dismissed, and all have had their reasons explained at great length. I'm not sure why you'd say otherwise, except to engage in the very same dismissal that you're decrying here.I'm not sure why you'd reiterate something that was implicitly stipulated to from the get-go, but sure.Again, this was part of the shared premise.Which, again, has all been agreed on by everyone involved in the discussion, and so doesn't really need to be repeated, again, here.And that's your interpretation, which I disagree with. While I'm not sure what meaning you're assigning to "mean anything" here, I've been very clear in that I'm talking about the perceptions of players with regard to the expanse of imaginative play as it's shaped by the limitations (and areas of strength) of WotC's VTT.Putting aside the question of what constitutes an "overwhelming" majority in this context, I've previously noted that this line of discussion is necessarily one of guessing what might happen. So yes, the majority of the player base might not bother to use it at all. Or a majority of them might. Possibly even an overwhelming majority. This isn't an area that can be accurately forecasted ahead of time, particularly not by a loose application of heuristics.And WotC is aiming at something much more expansive than a "decent" VTT, between the DDB integration, the physical/digital bundling, the visual spectacle they're promoting, etc.I think your choice of language here is mischaracterizing my point, as I'm not "pushing" the idea so much as saying that I find it to be distinctly possible as a consequence of what WotC is doing (though I'm not sure I'd call it a "downward spiral" per se).The claim is in no way extraordinary, and I've already explained to you that this is not a question of burdens of proof, because no one is asserting that something is so or must be so or even definitely will be so. It's a possibility, one which I think has a not-inconsiderable chance of turning out to be true.See above, with regard to the VTT making certain things easier/more convenient than others, and this encouraging people to use those features while necessarily discouraging the use of things it doesn't do well (or at all).No, I think a VTT is very different in that regard, to the point of finding this to be a very odd claim to make. A miniature set will not animate anything, and won't necessarily integrate a DDB account with only certain first-party content being available in said integration.Sure, that's not being debated, unless you mean that filling in details will be them electing to do things manually that the VTT doesn't go out of its way to make easier for them.I disagree, in that WotC seems to be doing their best to make it more than that, and touting that as the primary reason(s) to use their VTT."Soft" limits are a thing, insofar as making something less easy/convenient can discourage use, particularly when a given alternative is much simpler and more impressive in its result (even if only visually).I agree, which is why I brought up the issue of things such as custom spell creation; the idea that this was always about combat was never something which I put forward.I'm not sure why that's an issue, but I think that we'd be better off in general sticking to the subject at hand, since at this point we're just discussing a VTT based on what WotC has said/demonstrated, and comparisons between it and the sort of "full-dive" state of play that you're talking about seems to be lacking in justification.I agree, though again this leaves aside what constitutes a "significant" percentage. There will always be some holdouts, but it might be like finding someone who doesn't use iPhones (a decent number of Android users) or it might be like finding someone who doesn't use a cell phone at all (a much smaller number). We'll see how it turns out in due time.Sure, no one is saying otherwise. But the discussion we're having is in the context of imaginative play in and of itself, i.e. what makes D&D different from other such pastimes that involve a person-to-person connection.I'm not sure why you're talking about replication of that human element, since I'm not saying that the VTT will remove other people from the equation entirely; just that it will discourage interaction with the central premise of what makes TTRPGs different from other games.And while that's certainly a good thing, it's not really an aspect of what we're discussing here. People will still be interacting over the VTT (though I personally think face-to-face interaction, in terms of being in the same physical place at the same time, as opposed to video calls or anything like that, is better than connecting virtually; while it's entirely possible to make lasting personal connections over a virtual space, physical proximity tends to abet that better, to my mind), that's not being debated, so I'm not sure why you're mentioning this.Which seems to say that your position is that you're not concerned because you won't be using it, and because so long as people are having fun together then everything else is immaterial. Creativity, which you cited as being something you're looking for, can be affected by the medium in which one creates, which means that a digital environment cannot be judged by the same metrics as the tabletop for how it abets or hinders imaginative play. My concern is that I think it does the latter more than the former.Which is fine for you. I'm speaking with regard to the state of the wider hobby. If the VTT becomes the point of entry for a new generation of players, then the benefits of the tabletop mode of engagement potentially run the risk of being minimized, perhaps even to the point of being forgotten.No one is saying that it will. The DM is just as vulnerable to the issues I've raised as the players are (which I suppose goes back to the perennial question of "is the DM a player or not?").And I truly hope that you're correct, but as I said, we're being told that D&D's audience is repeatedly skewing younger and younger, and it's a truism that the younger generation is more "plugged in" than their predecessors, seemingly to the point of treating that as the expected default state for a lot of game-play.The difference being that the digital medium, in my opinion, lends itself to further supporting this mode of engagement to a greater degree than the tabletop one does.I disagree that "nothing changes that," insofar as the VTT is a different medium with different strengths and weaknesses to it, which necessarily introduce elements of change.Again, I'd take issue with the wording here, but I suppose this basically gets the gist of it correct.Again, no alternative is necessary when it comes to pointing out the flaws in a conclusion that is being put forward. I'm still not sure why you think it would be.The number of posts spent on this suggests otherwise.Again, I'm not "clinging" to anything with regard to the topic you brought up, as I explicitly stated (in response to your repeatedly asking) that I'm simply saying that your conclusion has problems, rather than suggesting an alternative of my own.This idea is still predicated on the idea that you can't find fault with someone else's conclusion without necessarily offering one of your own, which we know isn't the case.</blockquote>

Verification