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.

​

 

[mamba]

There is a lot of evidence that the statement they had already moved on from 1.1 is a lie corporate BS (in the various incongruent statements KB has made in the three interviews so far)

can you tell me that evidence, I am not aware of any - and just to be clear, speculation and not trusting what he says does not count as evidence, I am aware of plenty of that

 

[Hussar]

. No-one, for example, would want to take ownership of that first response on D&D beyond, but someone should. Whatever executive authorised that piece of dross should come out and say so, and say they messed up. Should they lose their job? I don't know. I can say that I personally don't need or expect them to lose their job. But I want to see real honesty, and so far, I don't believe we are.

.

Why? What value is there in putting that person in the spotlight? So people can throw feces at him or her and feel better?

It serves no purpose other than fueling witch hunts.

 

[darjr]

can you tell me that evidence, I am not aware of any - and just to be clear, speculation and not trusting what he says does not count as evidence, I am aware of plenty of that

I dunno about any of what you quoted.

But there is this.

The first document about the OGL changing called it the OGL 1.1, published Dec 21st 2022.

OGLs, SRDs, & One D&D

We love the interest and passion the community has for D&D. We love D&D, too. So, when we see the D&D community concerned by rumors and misu...

www.dndbeyond.com

2. Will the OGL terms change?

Yes. We will release version 1.1 of the OGL in early 2023.

The OGL needs an update to ensure that it keeps doing what it was intended to do—allow the D&D community’s independent creators to build and play and grow the game we all love—without allowing things like third-parties to mint D&D NFTs and large businesses to exploit our intellectual property.

Linda Codega's article about the OGL 1.1 leak came out Jan 5th 2023 and matches what the article says, no changes I can see.

Dungeons & Dragons’ New License Tightens Its Grip on Competition

An exclusive look at Wizards of the Coast's new open gaming license shows efforts to curtail competitors and and tighten control on creators of all sizes.

gizmodo.com

Now it does seem odd for WotC to announce it as the OGL 1.1 like it was a done deal, if it was a draft. It doesn't sound like it was a work in progress from that first announcement.

In fact I don't see any indication in that article that the OGL 1.1 was negotiable at all. Do any of y'all even see the word "draft" in there?

 

[Xethreau]

Can we get a summary in the OP?

 

[BlueFin]

Why? What value is there in putting that person in the spotlight? So people can throw feces at him or her and feel better?

It serves no purpose other than fueling witch hunts.

The value is in being honest, in being willing to own one’s mistakes, warts and all. I haven’t watched every moment of the interviews so far but I haven’t seen or read anything that deals with that horrendous first response. But I accept I may have missed something and would be very happy to be corrected.

It doesn’t have to be the person who actually wrote/posted it. Particularly because it was most likely more than person involved. I am not calling for a single person to be scapegoated - indeed I would find that offensive as well.

But I think it is fair to presume that an executive higher up than Kyle Brink authorised that post, and they should come out and directly own it and apologise for it, and it should probably be Cynthia Williams - her absence in all of this is telling, IMO. wotc’s initial statement was adversarial and offensive to the entire community and in my view should be explicitly ackno and apologised for. Being willing to be honest is what builds trust. Sweeping it under the carpet does not.

 

[mamba]

I dunno about any of what you quoted.

But there is this.

The first document about the OGL changing called it the OGL 1.1, published Dec 21st 2022.

Yes. We will release version 1.1 of the OGL in early 2023.

[...]

Linda Codega's article about the OGL 1.1 leak came out Jan 5th 2023 and matches what the article says, no changes I can see.

Now it does seem odd for WotC to announce it as the OGL 1.1 like it was a done deal. It doesn't sound like it was a work in progress from that first announcement.

In fact I don't see any indication in that article that the OGL 1.1 was negotiable at all. Do any of y'all even see the word "draft" in there?

I see no evidence here, the OGL 1.1 can keep changing without the version number being affected, as all the changes are being done to the drafts. WotC moved on from the number once that was solidly burned to the ground by the leak. The version number used is entirely arbitrary.

As to not containing the word draft, this was explained. Any draft they send out is a draft because no one / not everyone has agreed to it yet. Once everyone would have agreed, that draft gets published, making it the final version. So there is no real difference in the document between a draft and a final version, the difference is that it has not been agreed to yet.

I'd say the timeline suggested they expected a smooth path or faster turnaround on changes, that plan was then turned upside down by the leak (if it wasn't derailed by then already).

 

[darjr]

I see no evidence here, the OGL 1.1 can keep changing without the version number being affected, as all the changes are being done to the drafts. WotC moved on from the number once that was solidly burned to the ground by the leak. The version number used is entirely arbitrary.

As to not containing the word draft, this was explained. Any draft they send out is a draft because no one / not everyone has agreed to it yet. Once everyone would have agreed, that draft gets published, making it the final version. So there is no real difference in the document between a draft and a final version, the difference is that it has not been agreed to yet.

It's not just the number. The actual TERMS of the contract mentioned were assumed to be the final terms in that article.

 

[mamba]

It's not just the number. The actual TERMS of the contract mentioned were assumed to be the final terms in that article.

I just explained that a draft looks no different from a final version, the difference is that no one has agreed to it yet. So yeah, it does look final, because you do not make changes to it once it has been agreed to, you simply publish it and make it official. That does not mean it is final.

 

[darjr]

I just explained that a draft looks no different from a final version, the difference is that no one has agreed to it yet. So yeah, it does look final, because you do not make changes to it once it has been agreed to, you simply publish it and make it official. That does not mean it is final.

Except you don't make an announcement to the world about a draft and not say one word about it possibly changing.

That article was talking about a deal that was done. Fully cooked. Go read it again.

 

[BlueFin]

I dunno about any of what you quoted.

But there is this.

The first document about the OGL changing called it the OGL 1.1, published Dec 21st 2022.

OGLs, SRDs, & One D&D

We love the interest and passion the community has for D&D. We love D&D, too. So, when we see the D&D community concerned by rumors and misu...

www.dndbeyond.com

2. Will the OGL terms change?

Yes. We will release version 1.1 of the OGL in early 2023.

The OGL needs an update to ensure that it keeps doing what it was intended to do—allow the D&D community’s independent creators to build and play and grow the game we all love—without allowing things like third-parties to mint D&D NFTs and large businesses to exploit our intellectual property.

Linda Codega's article about the OGL 1.1 leak came out Jan 5th 2023 and matches what the article says, no changes I can see.

Dungeons & Dragons’ New License Tightens Its Grip on Competition

An exclusive look at Wizards of the Coast's new open gaming license shows efforts to curtail competitors and and tighten control on creators of all sizes.

gizmodo.com

Now it does seem odd for WotC to announce it as the OGL 1.1 like it was a done deal, if it was a draft. It doesn't sound like it was a work in progress from that first announcement.

In fact I don't see any indication in that article that the OGL 1.1 was negotiable at all. Do any of y'all even see the word "draft" in there?

@mamba was asking for evidence from me in regard to my assertion that there is ample evidence that KB is being completely disingenuous in his responses.

I have already listed in some of my other posts what I believe to be some of that evidence. But here's another one from a portion of the 3BH's interview -

Kyle Brink: "Did no one say we should say something? Yes, yes we did. However, in that environment where there is already such a lack of trust and already such concern over our motives, every word we knew would be scrutinised and could be radioactive and honestly there was a fear of making it worse, honestly a fear of saying the wrong thing and throwing gas on the fire."

So is this evidence of him/them being disingenuous? In my view it is, because the three things he lists as their concerns over responding too quickly, are the very things they ended up doing - what they said was radioactive, they did make it worse, and they did throw gas on the fire.

So providing that answer to the question of why wotc didn't provide an initial response sooner makes no sense in light of what they actually did say when they finally did provide a response ... and therefore, it is easily interpreted as complete and utter BS aimed at trying to say whatever he can now to gloss over the situation and rewrite history. I call that dishonest and disingenuous. And frankly, some folks seem to be willing to accept that, and that's there choice I guess, but that's giving them exactly what they want.