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.
Last edited by a moderator:
Another important example to me is in the first interview with 3BH where KB stated that -
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".
- by the time 1.1 was leaked, they had already moved on from it, but,
- they were afraid (I think that's the word he used) to say any response.
So you see, to me, pretty much everything he says in relation to "the saga", is complete BS.
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.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.
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 1.1In this interview for example he states "1.2 was a significant departure from 1.1" - that is a total lie.
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.
and this too is narrative, maybe true or maybe the most insidious part.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.
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 worseAnother important example to me is in the first interview with 3BH where KB stated that -
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".
- by the time 1.1 was leaked, they had already moved on from it, but,
- they were afraid (I think that's the word he used) to say any response.
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.