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

[mamba]

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.

we are not far apart, to me they are excluded from the case that is being made since the case without them is strong enough already.

They are acknowledged as further evidence for making the case, but one that is not (even) part of the case being made as that case is strong enough on its own already.

So yes, they support the case, but are not used in making the case. If that is what you consider ‘supplementary’, fine. My point is that they are not part of the argument that is being made, they are explicitly carved out, so any counter to the argument will have to address the other stuff, countering the carved out part is pointless

 

[Alzrius]

we are not far apart, to me they are excluded from the case that is being made since the case without them is strong enough already.

They are acknowledged as further evidence for making the case, but one that is not (even) part of the case being made as that case is strong enough on its own already.

So yes, they support the case, but are not used in making the case. If that is what you consider ‘supplementary’, fine. My point is that they are not part of the argument that is being made, they are explicitly carved out, so any counter to the argument will have to address the other stuff, countering the carved out part is pointless

I agree that we're not far apart in terms of this particular tangent, though I disagree about some of the finer points re: those supplementary points being part of the argument being made (and so can, and should, be acknowledged and responded to in the course of a debate).

 

[Parmandur]

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.

As it stands now, the people working at WotC are primarily video game design teams, by volume, and has been for years. They haven't had any big releases since Arena (since you seem to want to insist on using that), but Arena is wildly successful and ia funding a lot of video game development which we will start seeing something from in the next couple years. Juat because they haven't brouhaha those products, like the G.I Joe video game, to make yet doesn't negate that it is most of what WotC has been doing for half a decade now.

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.

I am not sure either, yet you seem to articulate an imagined threat.

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.

Big difference between being a good or successful video game company and simply being a video game company. The basis for the latter, I would posit, is spending most resources in a company on building video games.

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.

From an executive point of view, those practicalities are further down the food chain: managing one team who design and another who also designs are going to be using the same principles. He is not a designer T this time, he manages design studios.

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.

Irrelevant in this case, since we are discussing an executive who is rhe boss of designers, not someone doing the design work. And yes, I think a TTTPG design team will probsvly find a more sympathetic ear from someone who had gone through long, complex design processes for a different type of product versus an accountant (no insult to accountants).

I thought it was obvious that "digitized" was shorthand

No, nobody is using it that way.

 

[Alzrius]

As it stands now, the people working at WotC are primarily video game design teams, by volume, and has been for years. They haven't had any big releases since Arena (since you seem to want to insist on using that), but Arena is wildly successful and ia funding a lot of video game development which we will start seeing something from in the next couple years. Juat because they haven't brouhaha those products, like the G.I Joe video game, to make yet doesn't negate that it is most of what WotC has been doing for half a decade now.

By volume is a rather poor metric for this discussion, since we're talking about D&D, which is very much the little brother of WotC's two largest properties (i.e. D&D and M:tG). That said, WotC's staffing video game design teams is largely an aspect of them acquiring existing studios that do that, and their desire to turn themselves into a video game company. Even then, calling Arena a "video game" strikes me as something of a stretch, similar to calling a VTT a video game. As it is, if they've been trying to make video games for that long and are still relying on licenses and struggling with a VTT, that seems to be evidence that they're not (yet) a video game company.

I am not sure either, yet you seem to articulate an imagined threat.

"Threat" is a term that you introduced into the discussion, not me. I am concerned about the impact of WotC trying to place a digitized version of D&D as the first-and-foremost method of interface for their customer base, but "threat" strikes me as an exaggerated term to use in that regard.

Big difference between being a good or successful video game company and simply being a video game company. The basis for the latter, I would posit, is spending most resources in a company on building video games.

I disagree. Making an attempt to do something doesn't mean you can characterize an entity as that thing. Someone who keeps trying and failing to pass the bar exam isn't a lawyer, for instance (notwithstanding reading for the law or something similar).

From an executive point of view, those practicalities are further down the food chain: managing one team who design and another who also designs are going to be using the same principles. He is not a designer T this time, he manages design studios.

This suggests that even if those skills were transferable (which hasn't been established), then they're not really relevant to his current position anyway, since he's not going to be in a position where he's doing any designing. So that seems to make the issue of his background, in that regard, even less salient. Sure, he might be more "sympathetic," but it's a stretch to say that translates into anything specific and tangible.

Irrelevant in this case, since we are discussing an executive who is rhe boss of designers, not someone doing the design work.

Which makes me wonder why you brought it up in the first place, then.

And yes, I think a TTTPG design team will probsvly find a more sympathetic ear from someone who had gone through long, complex design processes for a different type of product versus an accountant (no insult to accountants).

This strikes me as a hope more than anything, since given that sympathy not only can't be quantified (and can't be correlated directly to this specific area of background experience) but, as noted, has no obvious translation into concrete results.

No, nobody is using it that way.

One person comparing the forthcoming interactive VTT to an externally-developed DOS-based single-player game doesn't support the assertion you're making here.

 

[Parmandur]

By volume is a rather poor metric for this discussion, since we're talking about D&D, which is very much the little brother of WotC's two largest properties (i.e. D&D and M:tG). That said, WotC's staffing video game design teams is largely an aspect of them acquiring existing studios that do that, and their desire to turn themselves into a video game company. Even then, calling Arena a "video game" strikes me as something of a stretch, similar to calling a VTT a video game. As it is, if they've been trying to make video games for that long and are still relying on licenses and struggling with a VTT, that seems to be evidence that they're not (yet) a video game company.

If WotC spent all their money on manufacturing beans and paying people who manufacture beans, they would be a bean manufacturer, even before thr beans hit the store shelves.

This suggests that even if those skills were transferable (which hasn't been established), then they're not really relevant to his current position anyway, since he's not going to be in a position where he's doing any designing. So that seems to make the issue of his background, in that regard, even less salient. Sure, he might be more "sympathetic," but it's a stretch to say that translates into anything specific and tangible.

Who knows, what I said is that it is interesting. I fail to see how anything you have said has made it less interesting.

 

[Alzrius]

If WotC spent all their money on manufacturing beans and paying people who manufacture beans, they would be a bean manufacturer.

They'd have to actually manufacture them first, instead of having beans in development while they grow corn.

Who knows, what I said is that it is interesting. I fail to see how anything you have said has made it less interesting.

I wasn't suggesting that it was "less interesting," just that having rosy expectations for Hight's tenure due to his background doesn't look to be based on anything substantive.

 

[Parmandur]

They'd have to actually manufacture them first, instead of having beans in development while they grow corn.

The design process is more like the canning factory than a farm.

Archetype Entertainment was atarted by WtC four years ago, amd Exodus is comong towards release. Seems downright silly to .e ti say that WotC is not a video game company now, employing hundreds of people makimg video games, but the moment Exodus hits Steam they will be.

I wasn't suggesting that it was "less interesting," just that having rosy expectations for Hight's tenure due to his background doesn't look to be based on anything substantive.

I see no reason not to be rosy about D&D's future right now, and I don't even use digital tools.

 

[Alzrius]

The design process is more like the canning factory than a farm.

I'd wondered why you referred to beans as something that you "manufacture" rather than grow.

Archetype Entertainment was atarted by WtC four years ago, amd Exodus is comong towards release. Seems downright silly to .e ti say that WotC is not a video game company now, employing hundreds of people makimg video games, but the moment Exodus hits Steam they will be.

Closer to five years ago, actually, and when their game finally releases then there'll be a stronger case for them being a video game company (though really then we'll have to have a discussion as to whether one game versus decades of paper products really makes that moniker apt). But at this point that's a premature appellation.

I see no reason not to be rosy about D&D's future right now, and I don't even use digital tools.

That's a separate discussion from whether or not Hight's background gives just cause to the idea that said background is reason to think he'll be better than his predecessors.

 

[Parmandur]

Closer to five years ago, actually, and when their game finally releases then there'll be a stronger case for them being a video game company (though really then we'll have to have a discussion as to whether one game versus decades of paper products really makes that moniker apt). But at this point that's a premature appellation.

I thought you said "by volume" didn't make sense...?

If a company spends most of it.oney on employees who make video games, that's a video game company. Doesn't matter if they are good, or even released. Your catigorization would sugfest a five year old up start-up spending all of their money on makign video games are not a video game company, since they haven't released anything...which is not how people use words.

That's a separate discussion from whether or not Hight's background gives just cause to the idea that said background is reason to think he'll be better than his predecessors.

Better, worse, who knows. Different? Yes, because he is different in background. In what way? Who knows.

 

[Alzrius]

I thought you said "by volume" didn't make sense...?

It doesn't make sense; hence the idea that a single video game release turning them into a video game company is something I look askance on, even though that's been a major point of yours.

If a company spends most of it.oney on employees who make video games, that's a video game company.

So your determination of what kind of company something is hinges on the majority of where their money goes, in terms of what department requires the largest amount of salary paid out to personnel? That's rather idiosyncratic.

Doesn't matter if they are good, or even released.

There's a strong argument to be made video game company that's never released a video game is just a company.

Your catigorization would sugfest a five year old up start-up spending all of their money on makign video games are not a video game company, since they haven't released anything...which is not how people use words.

Trying to do something doesn't mean you can actually do it. By your definition, simply making the attempt puts you on equal footing with someone who's done something many times over. "Not how people use words" is, in that regard, an understatement.

Better, worse, who knows. Different? Yes, because he is different in background. In what way? Who knows.

We weren't talking about "different," we were discussing the presumption that he would be better.