D&D General NFTs Are Here To Ruin Dungeons & Dragons

[Bill Zebub]

Its a bigger fool scheme.

Now that I will accept.

And I'm not (just) being pedantic: "bigger fool schemes" may be manipulative, but they are not fraudulent.

And a vital part of that is that the people pushing others to buy in don't actually have any privileged information that their targets don't have. They don't have any better idea when the house of cards will collapse.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

And a vital part of that is that the people pushing others to buy in don't actually have any privileged information that their targets don't have. They don't have any better idea when the house of cards will collapse.

That’s not an essential component of a “bigger fool“ situation. In fact in several I’ve seen up close and personally, that’s the opposite of the truth. It’s perfectly possible that someone recognizes the trap and tries to extract themselves by finding someone to buy them out before the deadly blow falls.

One in particular, the “mark” never looked at the books of the organization. If he had, he would have seen that the partners inviting him into the group were all deeply in the red. His buy-in price was the only meaningful asset that could be reached by creditors.

 

[Bill Zebub]

That’s not an essential component of a “bigger fool“ situation. In fact in several I’ve seen up close and personally, that’s the opposite of the truth. It’s perfectly possible that someone recognizes the trap and tries to extract themselves by finding someone to buy them out before the deadly blow falls.

One in particular, the “mark” never looked at the books of the organization. If he had, he would have seen that the partners inviting him into the group were all deeply in the red. His buy-in price was the only meaningful asset that could be reached by creditors.

But the information was available if he asked for it, right?

EDIT: Yes, I should have been more precise in what I originally wrote. Instead of "have" I should have said, "has access to".

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

But the information was available if he asked for it, right?

EDIT: Yes, I should have been more precise in what I originally wrote. Instead of "have" I should have said, "has access to".

He didn’t ask, so we’ll never know.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

So, I've looked at some of the art revealed for this project: And it's REALLY good - right in line with the style I like and the artist (artists?) is hella talented!

I've liked what Stephen has worked on in the past - heck If we weren't so wrapped up in some other stuff, I'd run Abomination Vaults for my group right now (since they're planning a 5e version I'll definitely pick that up whether I run it or not).

BUT

I just can't get past the NFT, crypto model that this is structured with. Not only do I not see it as adding anything, I think It's actively harmful to the way any shared world could/should be run.

And then on top of that are the regular NFT/crypto issues, all of which have been hashed out here plenty.

So it's a bit sad for me, I like to support new, innovative gaming ventures - but I just can't see it for this one!

Totally agree with this, having to pay "gas" every time one updates the character sheet.

 

[Fanaelialae]

It's directly analogous. Party A does bad thing, Party B, who only deals with Party A in a limited respect, defends Party A because Party A has always been nice to them. Party B has never seen the bad behaviour, because it's not within the purview of their relationship with Party A. Very common human foible. Party B should realize that their perspective is limited, and as such stepping in to defend someone when you don't have all the information is itself potentially quite harmful.

It is not analogous at all.

In the case of #MeToo, numerous parties were bravely coming forward about sexual violence that has been committed against them. Those who were defending the rapists were literally causing harm to the victims in doing so.

In this case, a company plans to sell NFTs. They haven't even sold a single NFT yet. In fact, none of us is privy to the entirety of the business plan. Now if there were people dropping into this thread telling us about how this company promised 1000% returns on their NFTs, causing them to lose their retirement, I would agree with you. That isn't the case, however.

In this case Party A hasn't done anything bad yet. Unless you're a precog, and have proof of their future crime that you haven't shared with the rest of the class, you don't know that they actually will. The fact is, we all have more information than we had before thanks to party B. Personally, I think party C needs to realize their own limited perspective and slow their roll, because this is starting to feel a bit like the internet equivalent of a lynch-mob.

 

[BrokenTwin]

Authenticity can easily be had with a cryptographic signature, no blockchain needed. If you wanted to make a digital version of the RPGA where a participant in an event was authenticated, they can have their character "signed" by the GM at the conclusion of the event. The GM's signature can be signed by the organized play organization.

So a player can have a full chain of signatures verifying they participated in an event. If their entry was edited after the fact it would need to be re-signed and counter signed. The digital character sheet can be used in subsequent events and get signatures from those.

This is all boring stuff done a million times a minute on the Internet when people access an SSL/TLS site. Your phone can do the operations in a millionth of a second. There's no blockchain needed.

All very true. I should have been clearer that the authenticity blockchain provides is the promise being made to the end-user, not that blockchain is necessarily the only way to provide it. Or even the best way.

 

[Staffan]

In this case, a company plans to sell NFTs.

In this case Party A hasn't done anything bad yet.

Except NFTs are inherently bad, because of the energy waste. That's without taking their near-inherent scamminess into account.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

All very true. I should have been clearer that the authenticity blockchain provides is the promise being made to the end-user, not that blockchain is necessarily the only way to provide it. Or even the best way.

Authenticity of what?

 

[Fanaelialae]

Except NFTs are inherently bad, because of the energy waste. That's without taking their near-inherent scamminess into account.

There are ways to mitigate and even eliminate the energy waste by using renewables. It's been done, though admittedly most don't (because it cuts into short term profits).

And near inherent scamminess is not the same thing as as actual scamminess. Selling Amway is practically a scam, but I'm not going to call the police on an Amway salesman because, at the end of the day, it isn't an actual scam.

I don't agree that NFTs are inherently bad, or at least not moreso than many other things out there. M:TG cards have an inherent speculative aspect (if I buy a booster, it might or might not contain a card that is worth more than the booster itself, and the cards may appreciate or depreciate in value over time, in response to a variety of factors including the meta). They're also arguably not good for the environment (how many trees do you think they've cut down over the years for all those cardboard cards, not to mention the factories making those cards that could be powered by renewables, but probably aren't). That said, I don't think that M:TG is inherently bad.

Frankly, if you're seriously concerned about the environmental impact of NFTs, I think that your energy would be far more wisely spent on the promotion and implementation of renewables, which would render any concerns regarding the environmental impact of NFTs moot. They're bad for the environment because they're usually generated with dirty energy. The same dirty energy that likely powers the phones/computers of many of the posters here.

From my perspective, it seems that NFTs are just the flavor of the week of bad, akin to the satanic panic that vilified D&D back in the day. I think that they're a bad idea without a lot of redeeming value, and I'm instantly wary of any project that uses them. Despite that, I disagree that they are inherently bad. NFTs simply are new. It's what you do with them that is good, bad, or neutral. Based on the evidence presented so far, I think that this business plan seems more inherently neutral than bad (my opinion that it's a bad idea notwithstanding).