Ginny Di interviews WotC's Kyle Brink

Continuing the D&D executive producer's interview tour, gaming influencer Ginny Di asks a WotC's Kyle Brink about the OGL and other things.

​

 

[Erdric Dragin]

Is Kyle doing interviews with everyone or something? WotC really be trying. I would like to interview him, maybe convince him to push for the DMsGuild to allow creators to publish content for ALL editions using their IP material and not them gatekeeping it to 5th Edition (I want my Complete Incarnum and Fiendish Codex III: Yugoloths books!)

 

[dave2008]

I liked this interview and I liked her commentary. First time seeing this youtuber. It's probably my favourite out of the three I've watched.

I liked it too, but it was weird to see the interview was so edited down. I mean the other two interviews were an hour, I assume this one was too. That means she cut out about 75%+ of the interview. Regardless, I like her commentary and the video got to the meat of the questions and much more manageable time frame.

 

[dave2008]

I would say trying to deauthorize the OGL is what did the maximum damage. I don't think the issue was third party publishers or even publicists (though whoever did PR in the days after didn't help). This was a policy issue, not a messaging issue. That is why the backlash spanned across all sectors of the hobby and cut across divides

I disagree a bit. If they wanted to deauthorize the OGL and offered a new OGL that was the same, but included irrevocability and some acceptable harm terms (and better legal language), I think people could have gotten behind that (I know I could),

However, everything was just to terrible. It was death of OGL 1.0(a), royalties, death of VTT support, use of creator content, etc., etc. I know @darjr agrees with you that the OGL was the only issue, but I don't see it that way at all. I think if they had gotten everything else correct, people could have gotten behind a deauthorization of the OGL.

 

[mamba]

I disagree a bit. If they wanted to deauthorize the OGL and offered a new OGL that was the same, but included irrevocability and some acceptable harm terms (and better legal language), I think people could have gotten behind that (I know I could),

that is not a deauthorization though, certainly not the way it was meant here

 

[Umbran]

There wasn’t for trying to deauth the OGL either. The license fees would have been a tiny invisible fraction.

If you take their fear of things like Meta eating their lunch as at least sincere, if poorly considered, then there was a bottom line for that.

 

[dave2008]

that is not a deauthorization though, certainly not the way it was meant here

Maybe I am not be describing well, but it would be as I am imagining it. Currently the OGL 1.0(a) let you use any version. However, if it was deauthorized, then only the new one, OGL 1.3 let's say, and any after that would be the only "authorized" version to use. You couldn't publish anything new under the OGL 1.0(a) as it is no longer "authorized." However, the OGL 1.3 would be just as good or better.

That is not what we got. But if they had offered that, I think the whole deauthorization issue wouldn't be that big of deal. I mean, if you take away a good thing and replace it with crap - people will not like it. If you take away a good thing and replace it with a great thing - people are likely to get on board.

So to me, the issue is not that they wanted to de-authorize the OGL 1.0(a), but what they wanted to replace it with was crap.

@darjr , sorry to summon you darjr, but I thought my statement above explains what I was trying to say in our conversation yesterday better. Sorry, yesterday I hadn't slept in about 36 hrs and I got a good 11 hrs last night!

 

[bedir than]

Is Kyle doing interviews with everyone or something? WotC really be trying. I would like to interview him, maybe convince him to push for the DMsGuild to allow creators to publish content for ALL editions using their IP material and not them gatekeeping it to 5th Edition (I want my Complete Incarnum and Fiendish Codex III: Yugoloths books!)

They reached out through their influencer connections, using those metrics. It's major well-watched vlog and podcasts, not blogs, getting this service. It is not the same group at Wizards that does the book preview program (as Newbie DM wasn't on the email list).

It's also not purely a metrics decision as to who they are talking to. They're trying to hit a variety of different audiences. Look at the first three to have gone live -- social issue vlog/AP with Three Black Halflings, mechanics and old school meets modern with Alphastream, story first with Gini D.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

If you like 5e, it's true there's not a lot they can go back on. And that's great for fans.
What can they still go back on (even if it's not likely at this time)?

• Compatibility with OneD&D.
• Messing with the original OGL - which would potentially impact many systems including DCC, OSE, Pathfinder, & Level Up.
• Could charge big subscription fees for Beyond and their VTT.
• Could pull the licenses to official content for Roll20, Fantasy Grounds, and other VTTs.

I'm not saying any of this is likely, but I feel that the CC of 5.1 is just a start for fans.

That is why we have to see if they keep to their promises:
Release the 3.5 SRD to CC
Update the 5e SRD to maintain compatibility w/ 1D&D
Leave the OGL alone

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

There wasn’t for trying to deauth the OGL either. The license fees would have been a tiny invisible fraction.

That just tells license fees were not the reason they wanted to deauthorize the OGL. It was something else.

 

[mamba]

Maybe I am not be describing well, but it would be as I am imagining it. Currently the OGL 1.0(a) let you use any version. However, if it was deauthorized, then only the new one, OGL 1.3 let's say, and any after that would be the only "authorized" version to use. You couldn't publish anything new under the OGL 1.0(a) as it is no longer "authorized." However, the OGL 1.3 would be just as good or better.

That is not what we got. But if they had offered that, I think the whole deauthorization issue wouldn't be that big of deal. I mean, if you take away a good thing and replace it with crap - people will not like it. If you take away a good thing and replace it with a great thing - people are likely to get on board.

So to me, the issue is not that they wanted to de-authorize the OGL 1.0(a), but what they wanted to replace it with was crap.

yes, but then why would anyone complain when you replace it with something better. I agree that makes you technically correct that it was not the revocation of 1.0a that was the issue, but you could also say 1.1 would not have been an issue if 1.0a had not been revoked at the same time, as everyone would just have ignored it.

In the end it takes both to become an issue and here the revocation was definitely used in the context of being replaced with 1.1 or 1.2, not with being replaced by a better 1.0b or whatever number you want to choose.