WotC D&D Historian Ben Riggs says the OGL fiasco was Chris Cocks idea.

[mamba]

"Not even counting," as a phrase unto itself, means "in addition to, supplementary to something previous enumerated.

no idea where you get that from, it means ‘without considering’ but implies it could also be considered

 

[Alzrius]

no idea where you get that from, it means ‘without considering’ but implies it could also be considered

I'm not at all sure why you're introducing a new phrase here, since "without considering" wasn't used in my post you quoted. That said, the most relevant part is at the end, since it admits that it is being considered.

 

[Parmandur]

I'm not at all sure why you're introducing a new phrase here, since "without considering" wasn't used in my post you quoted. That said, the most relevant part is at the end, since it admits that it is being considered.

But only as an afterthought: if most WotC employees are working on straight uo in their five software studios...that's a video game company.

It isn't comparable to GleeMax, which was one guy overpromising to executives who were clueless on how software development works. WotC as it exists now is a software company, that's just what it is. That is not a threat to the tabletop gaming side of theor business, which is low cost and high profit margin. Nintendo still makes and sells playing cards and other toys, butnit is fair to call them a video game company even though they were not a video game company for their first century and still do other things.

 

[Parmandur]

No, they don't. There might be some points of commonality, but there are more differences than similarities between video games and TTRPGs, and the design principles of one do not transfer to the other.

You seem to be confusing principles woth details. Thw details are different, bit the process of a team designing, testing and iterating are the same across industries.

Someone familiar with the design and development process from the inside is going to be more sympathetic tod esigners in a different medium than someone whose background is all business. Time will tell if it makes any difference, but it might.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I think trying to characterize playing Magic online as "video gaming" is seriously stretching the term; even more so for D&D Beyond and its VTT. Which is the problem, since I think that means that D&D's tabletop status will suffer, as I see WotC making sure that its future is designed with digitalization in mind.

I likely spend 75% of my waking life interacting with a digital process or machine. Everything I do with very rare exceptions is digital or has a digital equivalent.

DnD has ALREADY be digitized, multiple times. I had a DM who used Roll20 to make a macro so that we just had to drag to target the enemy, and the system automatically rolled attacks, damage, and applied them. So what possible harm could come from them keeping in mind... a thing that has literally already happened and already been done?

 

[mamba]

This is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

no it isn’t, not even remotely. Start making your case instead of naming what you consider fallacies in posts of others. Even if you were correct (which again, you aren’t) that would still not make a case for your claim

You're making a fairly common mistake here, in you seem to think that pointing out how someone hasn't met their own burden of proof means that the opposite must then be proven.

no, I am just pointing out that you ask of us what you consistently fail to provide yourself

See above: this comment is a fundamental misunderstanding of how logical reasoning works.

no it isn’t, I point you to both of my comments above in this reply. They both apply here as well

 

[Alzrius]

But only as an afterthought: if most WotC employees are working on straight uo in their five software studios...that's a video game company.

An afterthought is still a thought that's relevant to the point being made. When you're "not even counting" something, it's because you think you already have enough points that have "been" counted, which means that the latter are still relevant, just in a supplementary manner.

It isn't comparable to GleeMax, which was one guy overpromising to executives who were clueless on how software development works. WotC as it exists now is a software company, that's just what it is.

It's really not. WotC as it exists now is a paper company, producing books and cards, that is trying to transition into being a video game company. To that end, it's been dipping its toes in the digital realm (mostly by either outsourcing or acquiring existing studios), but hasn't itself made the jump to being a video game company (as of yet). As it stands now, they've made some digital options to existing content, but being able to buy things on DDB (for example) doesn't make them a video game company.

That is not a threat to the tabletop gaming side of theor business, which is low cost and high profit margin.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "threat" per se, but WotC's deciding that D&D is best monetized via a digital experience, then it means that the tabletop version will necessarily be not only considered ancillary, but will be designed with digitalization in mind. Which strikes me as narrowing creativity, rather than abetting it.

Nintendo still makes and sells playing cards and other toys, butnit is fair to call them a video game company even though they were not a video game company for their first century and still do other things.

When WotC has Nintendo-levels of success with making video games (and not just VTTs or digital databases of tabletop information), then this will be an apt comparison. Otherwise, not so much.

You seem to be confusing principles woth details. Thw details are different, bit the process of a team designing, testing and iterating are the same across industries.

It's more correct to say that you're confusing principles with practicalities. While some of the overarching principles of games in general might be the same, there's a reason why the devil is in the details. Just because something is designed, tested, and iterated doesn't mean that any of the relevant factors that go into those will be transferable.

Someone familiar with the design and development process from the inside is going to be more sympathetic tod esigners in a different medium than someone whose background is all business. Time will tell if it makes any difference, but it might.

Simply being sympathetic to their designers isn't an aspect of learning relevant skills in the process of design, though. I'm hopeful that such sympathy will be shown, but that's not really on-point for the idea that having a background in one thing makes you more knowledgeable in the other.

I likely spend 75% of my waking life interacting with a digital process or machine. Everything I do with very rare exceptions is digital or has a digital equivalent.

Only 75%? I'd say you're playing catch-up in this discussion then.

DnD has ALREADY be digitized, multiple times. I had a DM who used Roll20 to make a macro so that we just had to drag to target the enemy, and the system automatically rolled attacks, damage, and applied them. So what possible harm could come from them keeping in mind... a thing that has literally already happened and already been done?

Because that wasn't a ground-up attempt by the people who design it to turn it into a "recurrent spending environment." I thought it was obvious that "digitized" was shorthand (in this discussion) for designing the game in a manner that it was easily transitioned to a(n interactive) digital environment (which is necessarily more limited in what it can do than what can be done in tabletop play) which has been made to abet micro-transactions ("get a free virtual gold dragon mini!"), subscription fees, other hallmarks of video games.

 

[Alzrius]

no it isn’t, not even remotely. Start making your case instead of naming what you consider fallacies in posts of others. Even if you were correct (which again, you aren’t) that would still not make a case for your claim

I'm afraid it is, completely. As I already explained to you, my "case" (as you've misnamed it) is pointing out the flaw in the idea that's being presented here, which is that Hight having a background in video game design (and an MBA) somehow warrants thinking that he'll be a better steward of D&D in his role as WotC's president.

 

[mamba]

I'm not at all sure why you're introducing a new phrase here, since "without considering" wasn't used in my post you quoted.

it is an explanation for the quote you have trouble understanding, so of course it is a new phrase. I did not expect that repeating it would either be helpful or necessary

 

[Alzrius]

it is an explanation for the quote you have trouble understanding. I did not expect that repeating it would either be helpful or necessary

Your premise is flawed, here, as I'm not the one having trouble understanding the quote in question. As I noted previously "not even counting" something means that the thing in question is being taken into consideration, just in a supplementary manner.