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.

​

 

[Master Yogurt]

As far as the 3D vtt goes Kyle says

“Creating for the 3D space can get complicated” home brew “will require more work” and “work in our part”

So yea, not for me, probably.

I dunno what else they can do — making third party or homebrew content for any VTT requires technical familiarity with the VTT’s creation tools and associated programs. The more robust the VTT’s automation, the bigger the barrier for development.

The idea for the VTT seems to be to collect virtual dungeon tiles and dressing to build encounters. Which would allow custom scenarios and such, not just playing modules.

 

[darjr]

Yeah, but if literally everybody they ran it by pushed back hard, it'd make sense that it went back to the drawing board. Brink is certainly trying to smooth things out and put them in the best possible light...but I think he is being honest when he says that by the time of the leak 1.2 was already being drafted and debated. The turnaround from leak to 1.2 is just too fast. From late December to 1.2 is about right. And the final solution of CC coming si fast feels like it had champions inside saying "let's do this earlier...hence the proposed partial CC in 1.2.

Ah. So if this article was posted after 3pp saw it it’d sway your opinion?

 

[mamba]

Nope, you didn’t.

I believe we are talking about two different lines / posts. I was referring to the line I quoted from you here

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.e. "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)"

No, I didn’t, see above.

ok, I misunderstood your post then. Sorry about that. So... do you have evidence then or not ?

Well I will say that I did state in the reply to darjr that I have given other examples in my other posts - the forum software makes them pretty easy to find, why not go have a look?

Because you wrote "I have already listed in some of my other posts what I believe to be some of that evidence. But here's another one" and then gave completely unrelated 'evidence', so my hopes of finding anything useful are not that high

But again, I have already addressed the fact that I have admitted that I failed to address your question and that it was my mistake.

I’m not in a position to pull together my examples in this moment purely for your benefit (as I am replying on my phone with my son asleep on me). I’ll do it later. But if you want to use some initiative, you can look back at my earlier posts in this article. Or do you need to wait to be spoon fed?

I'll take a look, if this is limited to this thread (which was not clear before) that should not be hard to find, thanks

EDIT: as expected, nothing. The only post even addressing it at all was

Another important example to me is in the first interview with 3BH where KB stated that -

1. by the time 1.1 was leaked, they had already moved on from it, but,
2. they were afraid (I think that's the word he used) to say any response.

I find these answers to be completely incongruous, because if No 1 was true, then it would be the most obvious thing in the world to come out immediately and say "no, no, please don't worry, we know 1.1 was wrong and we have moved on. We'll have a new version soon".

So you see, to me, pretty much everything he says in relation to "the saga", is complete BS.

and that is just more 'I do not believe anything he says', which was exactly what I was not looking for

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

 

[Vincent55]

I have always liked this woman and have seen many of her videos, I think she was smart and honest in her interview and got to the heart of the matter. From my perspective, WotC is beholden to Hasbro for work and has to do as the boss says. So i don't blame them but the Hasbro company itself. But still am not 100% on WotC side either, and think caution is best in not trusting either one, as both are as she said corporations in it for money. Great video very informative, and game on.

 

[BlueFin]

I believe we are talking about two different lines / posts. I was referring to the line I quoted from you here

i.e. "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)"

But that is not the line you quoted. What you quoted was this -

———————————

you have an interesting way of admitting things then

What I wrote was this - “Firstly, I will admit I did not provide an example that directly spoke to your original question regarding 1.2”.

The only thing “interesting“ about my admission is that you clearly didn’t read it.

What you wrote was "@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." and then proceeded to present what you consider such evidence.

Yes, and I have subsequently admitted that that was not what you asked for - see above.

This is not what I was asking for, and I see no admission here.

That’s only because you are not reading what I have written.

ok, I misunderstood your post then. Sorry about that. So... do you have evidence then or not ?

Actually, what I am going to do is compile all the stuff I think is BS by KB and put it in its own thread. But yeah, that will take a few days.

But for now a point I have made earlier in this thread is in relation to KB’s two statements (I am paraphrasing these)

1. we had already moved on from 1.1 when the news about 1.1 broke.
2. we were afraid to say anything (I’ve already made further comment elsewhere on why this is total BS in and of itself)

I maintain that these two statements are incongruous, and as such, taken together, are evidence that both statements are lies.

Because, quite simply, if No 1 was true, then there would be nothing to be afraid of. But more importantly, IIRC (but I’m not in a position to double-check this at the moment) when they did finally make a response, they didn’t say anything about having already moved on from 1.1 and already having another version in the works. What they did say, in what came across as a threat, was “but there will be a new one” (or words to that effect). They also went about blaming the community for misunderstanding them, and the whole “you won and we won” BS. So you see, what KB has said is completely at odds with what actually happened. Which is evidence that he is lying in the above statements.

 

[Justice and Rule]

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.

Sure, but should we really believe that? The idea of Meta suddenly making a D&D VTT clone when they can barely make office call software comes off more as a deflection against a company nobody likes, just like them also being worried about Disney suddenly eating their lunch. Perhaps there is some truth to it, but it comes off as extremely weird given their response.

I don’t know, I stopped theirs when they immediately started talking about how they do not believe what he said. They lost me then and there, that is just poor form.

At that point I no longer care what you have to say as I do not want you to taint my opinion, I rather draw my own conclusions. It also didn’t help that I perceived them as adversarial throughout the interview already.

Nah, I think they should absolutely say that sort of stuff. Sometimes a confrontational-style of interview is necessary, especially when guys are out there trying to spin a story. Their question on Brink regarding minorities at Wizards were also good and his answers were decidedly not great, honestly.

To be honest, I'm not sure Brink should be going out there given that I think people are looking at this as the time to ask hard questions, but far be it for me to stop him from doing it.




And to comment on something that I've seen bandied about: I think the idea that 1.1 was just a draft to be weird and likely false given their own announcement of it as well as them sending out contracts and such. That Kickstarter basically admitted that they had negotiated their own smaller royalties cut tells me that it was way further along than just "draft", and that we've heard talk from multiple sources that larger 3PPs were offered a "sweetheart" version tells me that 1.1. OGL was meant to be the thing.

Now is Brink right that you can't just write stuff up in a week? Yeah, sure, that makes sense. But that doesn't mean that 1.1 wasn't meant to be Plan A: it just means that they had a Plan B prepared and ready to go.

Think about it: let's say that 1.1 just doesn't go over well. Obviously you want to have something ready just in case, with terms that are at least better looking if not necessarily better for everyone. You can take away more controversial stuff, reap the good will of "changing direction", and use this to put out your VTT policy as well. And honestly, that probably wasn't a bad idea: you can just look at these boards to see that 1.2 changed the minds of at least some people, and got others to prematurely declare defeat because it showed that Wizards seemed dedicated to destroying the OGL. But I don't see any real indication save from Wizards themselves that it was

 

[Myrdin Potter]

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).

I am pretty used to draft documents saying draft or being watermarked draft. It is a sign to people you offer contracts to that you are open to suggestions.

The theory that it is a draft until it is signed is not wrong, but that assumes everyone is on the same page.

I get the sense that the 3PP were thinking it was take it or leave it except for the royalty percentage.

 

[mamba]

But that is not the line you quoted. What you quoted was this -

two different posts by me, two different quotes from you

Yes, and I have subsequently admitted that that was not what you asked for - see above.

yes, I saw that, I edited my post after you quoted it and removed that part. Too many posts to keep track of, was thinking of another

Actually, what I am going to do is compile all the stuff I think is BS by KB and put it in its own thread. But yeah, that will take a few days.

no rush

But for now a point I have made earlier in this thread is in relation to KB’s two statements (I am paraphrasing these)

1. we had already moved on from 1.1 when the news about 1.1 broke.
2. we were afraid to say anything (I’ve already made further comment elsewhere on why this is total BS in and of itself)

I maintain that these two statements are incongruous, and as such, taken together, are evidence that both statements are lies.

yes, that was the one post I also arrived at

Because, quite simply, if No 1 was true, then there would be nothing to be afraid of. But more importantly, IIRC (but I’m not in a position to double-check this at the moment) when they did finally make a response, they didn’t say anything about having already moved on from 1.1 and already having another version in the works. What they did say, in what came across as a threat, was “but there will be a new one” (or words to that effect).

the two are not contradictory. They had already moved on from 1.1 and were working on 1.2, which was not yet available. You can argue that the statement did not contain the whole story, but not that these two statements are a contradiction.

They also went about blaming the community for misunderstanding them, and the whole “you won and we won” BS. So you see, what KB has said is completely at odds with what actually happened. Which is evidence that he is lying in the above statements.

No one is saying they could not have done a much better job, not even Kyle is disagreeing with that

 

[mamba]

Sure, but should we really believe that? The idea of Meta suddenly making a D&D VTT clone when they can barely make office call software comes off more as a deflection against a company nobody likes, just like them also being worried about Disney suddenly eating their lunch. Perhaps there is some truth to it, but it comes off as extremely weird given their response.

which response (there were several) ?

Personally I believe them, because it is the kind of stupid reason that makes just enough sense, when before I never understood why they went raving mad and even considered a 1.1

 

[mamba]

Nah, I think they should absolutely say that sort of stuff.

I guess we disagree. I would have been fine if they had pushed back in the interview, but doing so 'behind his back' was wrong.

Sometimes a confrontational-style of interview is necessary, especially when guys are out there trying to spin a story.

I am fine with a tough interview, but it should not be hostile.

And to comment on something that I've seen bandied about: I think the idea that 1.1 was just a draft to be weird and likely false given their own announcement of it as well as them sending out contracts and such. That Kickstarter basically admitted that they had negotiated their own smaller royalties cut tells me that it was way further along than just "draft", and that we've heard talk from multiple sources that larger 3PPs were offered a "sweetheart" version tells me that 1.1. OGL was meant to be the thing.

Now is Brink right that you can't just write stuff up in a week? Yeah, sure, that makes sense. But that doesn't mean that 1.1 wasn't meant to be Plan A: it just means that they had a Plan B prepared and ready to go.

1.1 was definitely plan A. That does not mean it was not a draft, it was a draft they really wanted to become a full version.