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.

​

 

[Haplo781]

Now that so much has passed, for good, ill, or (most likely) in between, this is why I keep coming back to these threads on Kyle's interviews. I want 4e D&D put into CC so much I can taste it.

Ginny: People are asking if other things will be put into the Creative Commons like previous editions.

Brink: Were looking at it... We need to make sure we don't release things we don't intend or that aren't necessary for playing 3.0 or 3.5...

 Me:

 

[darjr]

I'm not optimistic about that happening (but I wish they would). It's not like they can flip a switch and it be done. There is no basis of an SRD for 4e. Their IP is littered throughout every power and feat.

But they did for the SRD 5.1.

Granted they were in panic at the time.

 

[darjr]

Ginny: People are asking if other things will be put into the Creative Commons like previous editions.

Brink: Were looking at it... We need to make sure we don't release things we don't intend or that aren't necessary for playing 3.0 or 3.5...

 Me:
View attachment 275189

Please note that previously he said his instinct is to just do it.

But yea.

 

[Jer]

But they did for the SRD 5.1.

Granted they were in panic at the time.

But 5.1 is actually an SRD. For 4e they'd either need to create an SRD or say "Hey we're opening up the PHB, the MM, and these pages of the DMG as open content under a CC-BY license. Have fun folks!"

I mean, I'd love for them to do that, but expecting it is another matter entirely...

 

[Haplo781]

Please note that previously he said his instinct is to just do it.

But yea.

I was more keying I'm on the fact that the question was about previous editions in general and he answered specifically about 3.x.

 

[Sacrosanct]

On the flip side, he had to say its about the future, because there are little to no examples, as evidenced by the various times people have said 'show me'.

I think that's much less likely of a scenario. They are currently in litigation with one of these horrible people. And there are examples (BoEF) and 3PP who have said they are intentionally creating toxic material to get back at "SJWS", and there are more and more people recently who have spoken out with extreme vitriol about WoTC's "wokeness". It seems entirely more plausible that they did in fact want to take a preventative measure here.

IMO, I don't think it was even on their radar all that much until LaNasa brought attention to it with his lawsuit and horribly racist SFNG leak. It seems the most likely scenario was that he forced their hand.

 

[Alzrius]

Ginny: People are asking if other things will be put into the Creative Commons like previous editions.

Brink: Were looking at it... We need to make sure we don't release things we don't intend or that aren't necessary for playing 3.0 or 3.5...

 Me:
View attachment 275189

From what I can tell, the 3.0 and 3.5 SRDs are far and away more IP-free than the 5.1 SRD was.

Essentially, the earlier SRDs went out of their way to contain nothing but Open Game Content, whereas the 5.1 SRD was much more lax in that regard, relying on their declaration of Product Identity to keep various bits of D&D's intellectual property from being used by others. When they stripped out the OGL and the OGC/PI declarations in favor of inserting the CC-BY-4.0 license (in what honestly seems like a fit of panic on their end), they erred in that regard. Now they're being very careful to go over SRDs that were already much more carefully constructed.

(Admittedly, there are a few things I can see them backing off on releasing, but very little...mostly the various organizations and NPCs from Unearthed Arcana that ended up in the Modern SRD.)

 

[Haplo781]

But 5.1 is actually an SRD. For 4e they'd either need to create an SRD or say "Hey we're opening up the PHB, the MM, and these pages of the DMG as open content under a CC-BY license. Have fun folks!"

I mean, I'd love for them to do that, but expecting it is another matter entirely...

There is an existing SRD. It's essentially useless, but it exists.

Making even that available under CC would be a huge boon to the 4e community, however. It would allow community resources to be developed and shared openly instead of passed around furtively on Discord channels. We could have an official Foundry system, a proper character builder that isn't a hacked-together mess, and so on.

 

[Voidmoji]

I'm not optimistic about that happening (but I wish they would). It's not like they can flip a switch and it be done. There is no basis of an SRD for 4e. Their IP is littered throughout every power and feat.

Oh, I know. All too well. In writing a 4e inspired RPG, I am rewriting sections of rules in order to avoid WotC's legal eye falling upon me. It can be quite the mental gymnastics, and could be avoided if I had a real SRD. I have a lot of respect to those who write true retroclones from scratch.

 

[darjr]

I think that's much less likely of a scenario. They are currently in litigation with one of these horrible people. And there are examples (BoEF) and 3PP who have said they are intentionally creating toxic material to get back at "SJWS", and there are more and more people recently who have spoken out with extreme vitriol about WoTC's "wokeness". It seems entirely more plausible that they did in fact want to take a preventative measure here.

I am more and more if the opinion that this is true. And also the cynical view is, I think, partially true, maybe, but I hate to say it actually.
Also I think they had another target in mind too.

 

[Retreater]

But they did for the SRD 5.1.

Granted they were in panic at the time.

Yes, but they didn't have to do anything for that but hit a button. To do 4e they would have to create an SRD from scratch. That would take a lot of staff hours.
In the words of Johnny Lawrence from Cobra Kai, all they had to do with SRD 5.1 was to "send it to the Internet."

 

[Jer]

I was more keying I'm on the fact that the question was about previous editions in general and he answered specifically about 3.x.

3.x is the one that is currently OGL and so I expect that the discussions are all about making sure folks who publish using the 3.x SRD are covered/placated whatever your POV on what they're doing is.

I doubt 4e is even on their minds. They've memory holed it as hard as anyone else has.

 

[Haplo781]

Yes, but they didn't have to do anything for that but hit a button. To do 4e they would have to create an SRD from scratch. That would take a lot of staff hours.
In the words of Johnny Lawrence from Cobra Kai, all they had to do with SRD 5.1 was to "send it to the Internet."

Literally just publishing the extant 4e SRD, useless as it is, under a CC license would be a huge improvement.

 

[Alzrius]

There is an existing SRD. It's essentially useless, but it exists.

Which SRD are you referring to (3.0? 3.5? d20 Modern?) and how is it useless?

EDIT: Ah, you meant the 4E SRD. It's easy to forget that thing even exists (and that there are two of them).

 

[Haplo781]

For reference, so I hopefully don't have to keep saying it:

It exists. It's 85 pages. It's mostly worthless.

But "mostly worthless" is a step up from the status quo.

 

[Alzrius]

For reference, so I hopefully don't have to keep saying it:

That's the revised 4E SRD. For those who are interested, here's the original (shorter, at sixty-five pages) and the revised version (longer, at eighty-five pages).

 

[Scribe]

Before this thread devolves into a 4e (and its virtues/sins) thread, is there anything new coming out of the interview?

 

[Malmuria]

"Homebrew is essential to the game. We know that. It will always be supported in any version of the game."

...immediately followed by him saying hombrewing in 3d is complicated and time consuming and will require purchased assets. So it will supported in a "you can certainly try" sort of way. Which is fine, people can just not use the vtt, but the contrast was funny to me

 

[Malmuria]

Before this thread devolves into a 4e (and its virtues/sins) thread, is there anything new coming out of the interview?

Not really, but GD provides her gloss on his answers which is interesting (and makes for a shorter video)

 

[darjr]

Yes, folks can we keep it more focused? For a bit anyway.

I know I’m a culprit too.