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.

​

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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.

I disagree. I think at that point, anything WotC would have said would not have mattered. After the first leak, they lost the opportunity to tell their story, no matter how true. They would have been called liars and so on.
People want to believe that the corporations are the bad players.

My personal opinion: I think the 3pp who were under NDA and leaked everything did it in a way to deal maximum damage. They could probably have either came out earlier or later or actually try to do it without going public.
For all we know they could have told WotC that they are on board and then stabbing them in the back, because they smelled a lot of profit.
I don't say this is how it actually was, but if it had been that way, I bet it had backfired even more if WotC tried to tell that truth. Because 3pp are always the good ones and the big corp is evil.

 

[AnotherGuy]

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.

 

[Jadeite]

My personal opinion: I think the 3pp who were under NDA and leaked everything did it in a way to deal maximum damage. They could probably have either came out earlier or later or actually try to do it without going public.
For all we know they could have told WotC that they are on board and then stabbing them in the back, because they smelled a lot of profit.
I don't say this is how it actually was, but if it had been that way, I bet it had backfired even more if WotC tried to tell that truth. Because 3pp are always the good ones and the big corp is evil.

WotC's clumsiness was what maximized damage. They tried to shock and awe the publishers over the holidays and weren't prepared for the backlash they got. You can't blame their PR department botching their "apology" on some leaker. They continued to use highly ambiguous language while the community was already questioning their intent. Their VTT policies were rather hostile towards existing VTTs, making Kyle Brink's recent statements rather questionable.
And Ginny Di did a good job with her interview and commentary.

 

[Bedrockgames]

WotC's clumsiness was what maximized damage. They tried to shock and awe the publishers over the holidays and weren't prepared for the backlash they got. You can't blame their PR department botching their "apology" on some leaker. They continued to use highly ambiguous language while the community was already questioning their intent. Their VTT policies were rather hostile towards existing VTTs, making Kyle Brink's recent statements rather questionable.
And Ginny Di did a good job with her interview and commentary.

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

 

[mamba]

In this interview for example he states "1.2 was a significant departure from 1.1" - that is a total lie.

no registration, no fees over 750k, no sublicensing of the content, that is a significant departure. 1.2 was closer to 1.0 than to 1.1

What remained over 1.0 is mostly something you think they might abuse if you do not trust them, which at that point no one did, and of course VTT and games.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

WotC's clumsiness was what maximized damage. They tried to shock and awe the publishers over the holidays and weren't prepared for the backlash they got. You can't blame their PR department botching their "apology" on some leaker. They continued to use highly ambiguous language while the community was already questioning their intent. Their VTT policies were rather hostile towards existing VTTs, making Kyle Brink's recent statements rather questionable.
And Ginny Di did a good job with her interview and commentary.

See, it is you who puts blame on anyone. I don't blame 3pp for what they did. I just say: big 3pp are totally helpless people. They are also profit oriented and know when to strike back. It is good that the community helped them not fall victim to the big bully.

 

[mamba]

It is good that the community helped them not fall victim to the big bully.

and this too is narrative, maybe true or maybe the most insidious part.

What if this had always been intended as an open discussion, it just started with a really awful proposal. What if what they did was ask for feedback and were open to listening and changing the terms and in fact were already in the middle of the 1.2 draft when 1.1 leaked, and planning to release the new proposed OGL to wider review once it had been polished enough that the ‘big 20 3pps’ were ok with it?

That they were bullies throwing their weight around is an assumption, they could also have been in a discussion among equals (despite being the one making the most money).

We have no idea what was actually said in the meetings, how much pressure there was. We assume WotC went evil based on the terms of 1.1 (hard not to…), but what if this really was just them being paranoid and missing the forest for the trees?

I am not saying this is what definitely happened, but I am not ruling it out either at this point.

I am not sure where I stand on this, or rather I guess I am, I just am not in either the ‘we must abandon WotC’, nor in the ‘everything is forgiven, let’s just move on’ camp.

I guess one thing we can all agree on is that actions speak louder than words and that the CC is a good first step. Certainly better than any of us were expecting after the leaked 1.1 and the 1.2 draft.
So as far as I am concerned that bought them some goodwill. Enough for me to listen (but still drawing my own conclusions).

If they keep moving in that direction (release a new SRD for 1DD, keep licensing it to other VTTs, etc.) then that starts rebuilding trust / goodwill. If they don’t, well then we have 5.1 under the CC and are free to move on with that or without it.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

and this too is narrative, maybe true or maybe the most insidious part.

Exactly my point.

I should have said "bully" or better "800lb gorilla"

 

[mcmillan]

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".

I actually think this is probably one of the comments that is more honest and less in need of spin if true. If they really were already revising things and thinking a new version was almost ready to release I can totally understand thinking it better to wait a bit and release it along with an initial statement. But the longer it took to get everyone on board to release it the more important they might have felt that whatever they put out be closer to an acceptable version, meaning even more changes to go through getting approval on. And then they get stuck in a cycle of continuuously delaying and wanting to make more changes. Yeah it ended up delayed a long time but it's not unreasonable for them to think at the time it might have been the right initial decisions and Kyle acknowledged that in hindsight made things worse

 

[Dungeonosophy]

Great interview!

 

[Erdric Dragin]

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!)

 

[dave2008]

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 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.

 

[dave2008]

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

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),

However, everything was just to terrible. It was death of OGL 1.0(a), royalties, death of VTT support, use of creator content, etc., etc. I know @darjr agrees with you that the OGL was the only issue, but I don't see it that way at all. I think if they had gotten everything else correct, people could have gotten behind a deauthorization of the OGL.

 

[mamba]

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),

that is not a deauthorization though, certainly not the way it was meant here

 

[Umbran]

There wasn’t for trying to deauth the OGL either. The license fees would have been a tiny invisible fraction.

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.

 

[dave2008]

that is not a deauthorization though, certainly not the way it was meant here

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.

@darjr , sorry to summon you darjr, but I thought my statement above explains what I was trying to say in our conversation yesterday better. Sorry, yesterday I hadn't slept in about 36 hrs and I got a good 11 hrs last night!

 

[bedir than]

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!)

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).

It's also not purely a metrics decision as to who they are talking to. They're trying to hit a variety of different audiences. Look at the first three to have gone live -- social issue vlog/AP with Three Black Halflings, mechanics and old school meets modern with Alphastream, story first with Gini D.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

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)?

• 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.

I'm not saying any of this is likely, but I feel that the CC of 5.1 is just a start for fans.

That is why we have to see if they keep to their promises:
Release the 3.5 SRD to CC
Update the 5e SRD to maintain compatibility w/ 1D&D
Leave the OGL alone

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

There wasn’t for trying to deauth the OGL either. The license fees would have been a tiny invisible fraction.

That just tells license fees were not the reason they wanted to deauthorize the OGL. It was something else.

 

[mamba]

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.

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.

In the end it takes both to become an issue and here the revocation was definitely used in the context of being replaced with 1.1 or 1.2, not with being replaced by a better 1.0b or whatever number you want to choose.