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: 9412538" data-attributes="member: 8461">You seem to be applying some idealized version of moderation (apparently on all digital platforms) to how WotC is will treat theirs, rather than letting their past actions serve as an indicator.Yeah, they can. I'm not sure what makes you think they can't go into someone's account and alter permissions, remove content, etc., but that's something which can be safely taken as a given.No, that's not the only way to do what I said, since I flat-out said that they wouldn't be able to prevent an action being undertaken as it was happening. I said that they'd be able to go in and delete custom content that they decided they didn't like.Well to hear you say it, that will happen anyway if they don't make the entire thing just like every other VTT except better.No, it really doesn't; it comes from pure guesswork and an idealized view of how both WotC and their user base as a whole will operate.No, in fact that's literally not what I've said; I've literally said that doing so will be disincentivized because they won't be animated, and because there's now a two-fold issue with creating and balancing them under the game rules and inputting them into the VTT's interface.No, I'm pretty sure WotC can animate a simple status buff/debuff, which is how I'm guessing they'll handle skills if they decide to bother with them at all in terms of incentivization via animating them.And to think it only took a few dozen posts to get you to correctly reiterate one aspect of one point of what I was talking about.And there goes the correct understanding, since you're back to absolutes of "stop people" rather than "make less incentivized."You're wrong on this one, for reasons I've explained before.The correct answer here is that you don't, but go on.Which is another appeal to absolutism which I never stated. I'm talking about a gradual reduction in the course of imaginative play over time, by virtue of WotC's VTT becoming the primary mode of engagement for many (new) players.And here again we have the bizarre insistence that the disincentivizing of imaginative play can be equated to a loss of imagination/creativity in other venues, such as writing songs or skits. It's quite the odd tangent to fixate on, but there you go.See above for why this isn't relevant, unless you think that VTTs are designed to specifically enable songwriting, etc.I'll reiterate once more that no one is saying that VTTs limit people's ability to be creative, just that WotC's VTT looks like it has the potential unintended consequence of disincentivizing imaginative play. The comparison you're making is inherently flawed therein.I'll note here that posting a flood of tangential content and saying "watch this and then reply" is a variation of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop" target="_blank">gish gallop</a> fallacy, where you give someone a "bogus" homework assignment in hope that they'll give up the debate. In point of fact, besides being itself a flawed manner of debate, it's particularly irrelevant here, as it's arguing against a point I never made, as this is not only presenting VTTs which aren't WotC's (and so can't be judged as being the same not only from a technical perspective, but also because they lack the same circumstances of consideration in not having the brand recognition, purchasing considerations, ownership/promotion of content, etc.), but pushes forward with the idea that I said "VTTs destroy creativity," which is wrong.Not only did I never say that, but you're actually using a made-up quote inside of your quotation marks. The first person to start talking about "creative and unlimited play" was you, <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/d-d-historian-ben-riggs-says-the-ogl-fiasco-was-chris-cocks-idea.705526/post-9412316" target="_blank">over here</a>.Insofar as responding to the point I actually brought up, that's correct: you do not have that.That makes you the very first person in this thread to say such a thing.</blockquote>

Verification