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: 9411040" data-attributes="member: 8461">I'll point out that this question is predicated on the idea of you thinking that what I've been saying is that the VTT is necessarily either "sinister" or "dangerous," to use your own words. Why you'd interpret it that way is a question only you can answer. I'm simply saying that I think that there's unintended consequences to what WotC is trying to do, and one of those is the potential for the community to move away from what I consider to be the greatest strength of TTRPGs.Missed the part where I said "also" did you? For that matter, as the person talking about how easy it is to format things in a digital environment, I'd expect you to make that link less onerous to look at. Or was truncating it via linking it to some text too inconvenient, despite how simple it is? Because if so, that's my point in action.You not seeing it doesn't mean that it's not there.So to be clear, you think that Magic: the Gathering is a role-playing game where "anything can be attempted" is a central credo of play? Because if not, this example serves no purpose in the context of the current discussion.See my previous posts on the subject, since the mention of M:tG doesn't advance your point in this regard.I'm not sure why you'd want to make it a question of capability, since it seems self-evident that it'd be a question of priorities. The VTT is the dog, and the D&D game is the tail. The tail doesn't wag the dog. And that's leaving aside the issue of every other VTT "matching" (whatever that means) the D&D rules, since they're not the ones who make those rules, and so have little choice except to try and alter their digital storefront. WotC isn't in that same position.Again, the emphasis on "must" seems odd, since it's not a question of some unknown imperative. It's a question of WotC prioritizing their cash cow, which is the digital interface and its associated costs, rather than the books that people buy once (if at all) and then don't need more of in order to play.A declaration of a personal opinion does not make it an established fact. Particularly when the position that WotC holds as the one making both the game and the interface puts it in a markedly different position than other entities who can only make the interface.I'm pretty sure you can; it's called an EULA.It's the most obvious example, given that WotC showed their hand in that regard after trying to deliberately exclude third-parties from making those in the leaked draft of the OGL v1.2 that we saw.Again, I don't believe that your declaration of how things are is reflective of how things are. While those might play some role, the issue of technical know-how is also a factor, and I suspect that it's a not-insignificant one.But technical know-how with regard to generating custom content does apply, and is going to be an issue wherein a considerable number of people are likely to not want to put in extra work to make something half as impressive as the pre-set options.That's not its only selling point; brand recognition is also a thing which cannot be easily discounted. Plenty of people will use the WotC VTT simply because it's the "official" one, regardless of any theories of utility maximization regarding the comparative differences between that and other VTTs.The fact that WotC offered a virtual gold dragon mini as a pre-order perk for buying the new Core Rules as a bundle says otherwise. Otherwise, why bother offering it (and highlighting how it was free)?Because, as I said above, it's the most obvious example of how the VTT puts bells and whistles on certain options, leading to less presence of options that don't receive such glamorous presentation in the minds of the users.Which suggests that when the shiny new thing(s) come out, they'll capture people's attention a great deal (which is exactly what WotC is hoping will happen).I think it would be more likely to be released if it didn't represent an option that flew in the face of what the VTT could (easily) present (or at least present well). I'd prefer it if WotC didn't have even less reason to be innovative in what they offer.You do realize we were just talking about "what" right? For instance, a sourcebook with expanded rules for custom spell creation, for one.And if that's the extent to which you want to extend imaginative play beyond the range of what the VTT can do, you'll probably be fine. But I'm going to venture that other groups will be more imaginative in what they'd like to do, and the VTT will have trouble accommodating them.The very best kind of true.Because, as you noted, this isn't about you. It's about the effect on the hobby as a whole.That's literally what I don't want. I just think there's a not-inconsiderable chance that it happens anyway. That even if they remember their cool ideas, they suddenly seem less cool when the pre-programmed stuff showcases better graphics than their imagination, and trying to work around that becomes a technical chore that looks less impressive than what's already there. There's no way for a digital environment to present all of the ranges that imaginative play is capable of, and I don't think that it's beyond the pale to suggest that more than a few users will want the VTT to do what it's best at, and pay less attention to what it's not.</blockquote>

Verification