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

[TiQuinn]

Not to be argumentative here - al of the examples I have seen ( and a few I knew of who haven't been listed) are people I know of as going from TTRPGs to Digital space. Do we have any examples of the opposite?

Colville is probably the big one. Sean Reynolds went from TTRPGs to video games and then back again. So did Jaquays. I think there’s a good amount of back and forth rather than one direction.

 

[dbolack]

I don't think so. Games are often simplified and (to my mind) made less fun in an attempt to appeal to a wider and wider swath of potential customers.

Not less fun.

Differently fun.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Not less fun.

Differently fun.

Read my post. I said to my mind for a reason. Fun is subjective, and innovation and creativity take a back seat to more money on a regular basis.

 

[dbolack]

Colville is probably the big one. Sean Reynolds went from TTRPGs to video games and then back again. So did Jaquays. I think there’s a good amount of back and forth rather than one direction.

Back and forth is not quite the same thing as my ask - but it is also a useful case.

 

[dbolack]

Read my post. I said to my mind for a reason. Fun is subjective, and innovation and creativity take a back seat to more money on a regular basis.

Not every product needs to be Newly Innovative or Creatively Distinct. Some industries (or rather, their purchasing channels ) require what should be an evergreen to be refreshed.

Every "Module" is a new Module to someone. etc. It is harder as a consumer when you've been around forever and a day.

 

[mamba]

Which means that they're still being taken into account as part of your case, albeit as a supplement (e.g. you're pointing out that you could cite them, but don't think you need to).

no, they are not part of the case that is being made, the could cite them is true, but they are specifically not cited / included in the argument, and the ‘not even’ is pointing that out

Which means that they're relevant in terms of what's under discussion.

define relevant, they are excluded from the case that is being made, even though they support it. To me that makes them not relevant

 

[Micah Sweet]

Not every product needs to be Newly Innovative or Creatively Distinct. Some industries (or rather, their purchasing channels ) require what should be an evergreen to be refreshed.

Every "Module" is a new Module to someone. etc. It is harder as a consumer when you've been around forever and a day.

I don't understand your last sentence. Otherwise, it is clear to me that WotC has been steadily changing the game to make it what they believe is more appealing to a broader and broader audience, and what has been lost sling the way was valuable to me. It is a less interesting, less engaging, and less fun game to me because of these changes in recent years (mostly since Tasha's). Furthermore, the newest "refresh" adds very little of value to me and is thus wholly not worth paying for in my opinion.

 

[mamba]

It’s important to note that it’s estimated that D&D brings in somewhere around $28 to $38 million in revenues annually.

where is that from? It should be more than 100M, it should even be more profit than 40M

 

[mamba]

Not to be argumentative here - al of the examples I have seen ( and a few I knew of who haven't been listed) are people I know of as going from TTRPGs to Digital space. Do we have any examples of the opposite?

Matt Colville, used to be in video game design and runs MCDM now, which made 5e supplements and is now working on their own TTRPG

As was pointed out there is more money in computer games, so most will transition that way, but transferable skills are going both directions.

 

[Alzrius]

no, they are not part of the case that is being made, the could cite them is true, but they are specifically not cited / included in the argument, and the ‘not even’ is pointing that out

That's not correct; they're being cited as supporting the point, just acknowledged as supplementary under the idea that the point is already strongly supported.

define relevant, they are excluded from the case that is being made, even though they support it. To me that makes them not relevant

They're not being excluded, though. They're being called out as being relevant, just that there's already a great deal of relevant material, in that they're closely connected or appropriate to what's being considered/discussed.