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.
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.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 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),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
that is not a deauthorization though, certainly not the way it was meant hereI 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),
There wasn’t for trying to deauth the OGL either. The license fees would have been a tiny invisible fraction.
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 a deauthorization though, certainly not the way it was meant here
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).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!)
That is why we have to see if they keep to their promises: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)?
I'm not saying any of this is likely, but I feel that the CC of 5.1 is just a start for fans.
- 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.
That just tells license fees were not the reason they wanted to deauthorize the OGL. It was something else.There wasn’t for trying to deauth the OGL either. The license fees would have been a tiny invisible fraction.
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.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.