An IP lawyer just broke down the new OGL draft (v1.2)

[pemerton]

So, do you think the amount of time/effort needed to learn or run a TTRPG is remotely comparable to the time/effort required to learn Monopoly, Call of Duty or Assassin’s Creed? Because if so, I would have to strongly disagree.

I've never played Call of Duty or Assassin's Creed.

In my experience, the time required to learn to play Cthulhu Dark or Wuthering Heights or Prince Valiant is less than that required to learn to play Seven Wonders (assuming, respectively, familiarity with the idea of character-driven RPGing and with the idea of resource-based board games).

 

[Olrox17]

I've never played Call of Duty or Assassin's Creed.

Ok, that explains it.
Take it from someone who is both an avid video gamer and a TTRPG gamer and GM: not the same ballpark. At all.

 

[pemerton]

Ok, that explains it.
Take it from someone who is both an avid video gamer and a TTRPG gamer and GM: not the same ballpark. At all.

The three RPGs I mentioned take about 10 minutes each to learn to play (assuming familiarity with character-driven RPGing).

 

[Olrox17]

The three RPGs I mentioned take about 10 minutes each to learn to play (assuming familiarity with character-driven RPGing).

I am, of course, using averages.
Do dirt-simple TTRPGs exist? Sure.
Do highly complex video game exist? Yup (Paradox Interactive’s strategy games, for example).
On average? Especially if we compare representatives of the mainstream market (which for TTRPGs, is sadly just D&D and derivatives)? No comparison.

 

[pemerton]

I am, of course, using averages.
Do dirt-simple TTRPGs exist? Sure.
Do highly complex video game exist? Yup (Paradox Interactive’s strategy games, for example).
On average? Especially if we compare representatives of the mainstream market (which for TTRPGs, is sadly just D&D and derivatives)? No comparison.

I took @Minigiant to be calling for a wider range of RPGs including non-D&D ones. So I don't feel it refutes their suggestion to point out that D&D derivatives are mechanically very complicated!

 

[Olrox17]

I took @Minigiant to be calling for a wider range of RPGs including non-D&D ones. So I don't feel it refutes their suggestion to point out that D&D derivatives are mechanically very complicated!

And I would like nothing more than to see Minigiant’s wish come to fruition. I just think the comparison used (videogames) isn’t apt.
Videogames are, on average, massively easier to get into than TTRPGs. Learning a new tabletop rpg will often require more time and effort than the average casual fan is willing to invest, which doesn’t happen with 95% of videogames.

 

[mamba]

But they've taken the opposite point of view when some people accepted the license in the first place. Indeed, those assurances may have induced those parties to accept the terms. So WotC is either lying now, or they were lying then.

that was 23 years ago, you can hardly argue that was the plan all along

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

that was 23 years ago, you can hardly argue that was the plan all along

I'm not. I'm saying they are lying now if it wasn't. It would be negligent of them to be unaware of the representations they made at the time.

 

[mamba]

Perhaps. They could have changed their mind, whatever. But there's this thing called estoppel. And that might be relevant here, wouldn't it? They've made public assurances that they considered the license to be irrevocable (and indeed not at all "de-authorizable", quite the opposite!). And they've been quiet for 23 years, acting as if this was the case. They even put out 4e under the GSL instead of the OGL 1.0a because they didn't want it to go viral in some copyleft license they couldn't control.

sure, go to court over it and find out. Same principle as with the 1.0a revocability. Yet almost all preferred to scurry away.

 

[mamba]

I'm not. I'm saying they are lying now if it wasn't. It would be negligent of them to be unaware of the representations they made at the time.

they are aware, and they disagree about the statements made then being legally correct