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.

​

 

[darjr]

@mamba @BlueFin Ah. I get it.

Well I gotta say that anyone that read that second articles response and didn't think it was gasoline to a fire may have blinders on.

 

[mamba]

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

The announcement was about the final version, that would no longer be changing. That does not mean the version they had in December and were showing to 20 3pps (i.e. the leaked 1.1) would not.

 

[mamba]

So is this evidence of him/them being disingenuous? In my view it is

So your evidence for them not working on a 1.2 already is that he might have been disingenuous about a different topic? That is not evidence...

 

[darjr]

The announcement was about the final version, that would no longer be changing. That does not mean the version they had in December and were showing to 20 3pps (i.e. the leaked 1.1) would not.

Actually yes it does. That language in the first article matches OGL 1.1. It does not match OGL 1.2. It may not be great evidence for you but it is evidence and leads to their state of mind about the content of OGL 1.1. The ogl 1.1 was done as far as they were concerned when that article went up.

 

[mamba]

Actually yes it does. That language in the first article matches OGL 1.1. It does not match OGL 1.2. It may not be great evidence for you but it is evidence and leads to their state of mind about the content of OGL 1.1. The ogl 1.1 was done as far as they were concerned when that article went up.

I agree with the state of mind, clearly they expected no / little pushback on 1.1 (and I have no idea why, they must have been completely unaware of what a godawful license they managed to cobble together... or overly optimistic about simply being able to dictate whatever terms they wanted)

I said something regarding that in my first reply too

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).

 

[Parmandur]

Actually yes it does. That language in the first article matches OGL 1.1. It does not match OGL 1.2. It may not be great evidence for you but it is evidence and leads to their state of mind about the content of OGL 1.1. The ogl 1.1 was done as far as they were concerned when that article went up.

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.

 

[Hussar]

Heh. If they were so blindingly stupid as to “own” mistakes the very same crowd would weaponize every single thing they said and use it against them forever.

Far better to say nothing.

 

[BlueFin]

So your evidence for them not working on a 1.2 already is that he might have been disingenuous about a different topic? That is not evidence...

Wow, just wow. You've quoted one line from my somewhat long post and then completely misrepresented it. You didn't happen to go to the wotc school of disingenuous BS did you?

I really wish people would start taking their time to actually read and comprehend.

Firstly, I will admit I did not provide an example that directly spoke to your original question regarding 1.2. I was responding to @darjr to clear up with darjr that your request for evidence was in response to me, not a general request for evidence of the whole debacle, which darjr was giving. I was actually trying to save you the need to do that.

I didn't go back and check your initial post, and therefore I was incorrect in my response to darjr that you were asking for "evidence that KB is being completely disingenuous in his responses." Nonetheless, that is what I stated in the response to darjr and that is what my example in that post spoke to.

So the only thing to pull me up on is that I didn't provide the evidence you specifically requested regarding 1.2. But instead, you chose to completely misrepresent what I did write. Hmmmm, nice.

 

[mamba]

Wow, just wow. You've quoted one line from my somewhat long post and then completely misrepresented it. You didn't happen to go to the wotc school of disingenuous BS did you?

I quoted the line I was asking for evidence for, you also understood that this was the evidenced I was seeking in your reply to @darjr

If you are referring to that reply of yours, none of the lines address what I was asking for, so the line I did quote is not misrepresenting the rest of the post.

I really wish people would start taking their time to actually read and comprehend.

Firstly, I will admit I did not provide an example that directly spoke to your original question regarding 1.2. I was responding to @darjr to clear up with darjr that your request for evidence was in response to me, not a general request for evidence of the whole debacle, which darjr was giving. I was actually trying to save you the need to do that.

I didn't go back and check your initial post, and therefore I was incorrect in my response to darjr that you were asking for "evidence that KB is being completely disingenuous in his responses." Nonetheless, that is what I stated in the response to darjr and that is what my example in that post spoke to.

So the only thing to pull me up on is that I didn't provide the evidence you specifically requested regarding 1.2. But instead, you chose to completely misrepresent what I did write. Hmmmm, nice.

How did I misrepresent what you wrote? You said you think he is dishonest about some other topic. I understood this to be your reply to my question concerning 1.2, since that is what you started the post with. Given this I was left with only one conclusion, that you think he is dishonest throughout and have no evidence for the 1.2 part I was asking about.

Admittedly a second option is that your reply was not meant to address my question altogether, in which case I am still waiting for your reply.

 

[BlueFin]

I quoted the line I was asking for evidence for,

Nope, you didn’t.

you also understood that this was the evidenced I was seeking in your reply to @darjr

Nope again. I admitted that I got that wrong.

. I understood this to be your reply to my question concerning 1.2, since that is what you started the post with,

No, I didn’t, see above.

Given this I was left with only one conclusion, that you think he is dishonest throughout and have no evidence for the 1.2 part I was asking about.

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?

Admittedly a second option is that your reply was not meant to address my question altogether, in which case I am still waiting for your reply.

This is pretty close to accurate. (Amazingly) … 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?

How did you misrepresent me you ask? By taking a partial statement and claiming I was using it as evidence for something else, which a proper reading of my post shows that I did not make that statement for that reason. That is misrepresentation. I’m willing to accept is wasn’t deliberate and simply because you failed to fully read and comprehend what I actually wrote. Or maybe it was deliberate?