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 am used to that too. Kyle said what they were doing is basically the norm in the publishing industry, I have no experience with thatI am pretty used to draft documents saying draft or being watermarked draft. It is a sign to people you offer contracts to that you are open to suggestions.
as I said somewhere else, we have no idea what was said in those negotiations or how much pressure was applied. Would be great if we did, as it would resolve a lot of uncertaintyThe theory that it is a draft until it is signed is not wrong, but thar assumes everyone is on the same page.
I get the sense that the 3PP were thinking it was take it or leave it except for the royalty percentage.
which response *there were several) ?
Personally I believe them, because it is the kind of stupid reason that makes just enough sense, when before I never understood why they went raving mad and even considered a 1.1
I guess we disagree. I would have been fine if they had pushed back in the interview, but doing so 'behind his back' was wrong.
I am fine with a tough interview, but it should not be hostile.
1.1 was definitely plan A. That does not mean it was not a draft, it was a draft they really wanted to become a full version.
Somewhat, bit probavly not fully: when they put that FAQ up, they thought there would be a new OGL soon. Doesn't mean they thought it was finalized...or that everyone at WotC was on the same page. The FAQ may have been scheduled to post automatically weeks earlier and the stakeholders may have decides to start retooling it before they went on Holiday break. I don't see any reason to doubt the bones of Brink's account, though I thi k he is underplaying how acrimonious things were between stakeholders inside WotC for diplomacy sake (he is careful to not throw anyone under the bus, but he must know somewhat who did certain things).Ah. So if this article was posted after 3pp saw it it’d sway your opinion?
not to me, they never needed to hobble the competition to be in a good position. The risk (upsetting the community) vs reward (making a few bucks more) never felt like this was justified to me. Maybe I am giving them too much credit here and it was just greed and stupidity, but paranoia and stupidity is the one that explains it better to me.Personally, I don't because it comes off trying to say "There is a greater villain here!" and choosing one of the most popular ones (Meta) as it. Like, their actions make more sense in trying to use their position in the market to push out competitors for their future VTT as well as salt the ground behind them compared to a random tech giant suddenly making a dedicated RPG VTT.
It definitely was the plan, the solid front of pushback definitely came as a surprise to them. I am not sure the community pushback made much of a difference, in the sense that all 3pps walking had already resulted in 1.1 being scrapped. It certainly helped with getting the SRD released under CC and also 1.2 kicked to the curb.Again, I feel like much of the evidence was that it wasn't a draft, especially given how Kickstarter chimed in on the matter. Feels like that was the plan, and they had a fallback in case there was extreme pushback against it. I just don't think they planned on having a sustained negative reaction against them, which is why we didn't see OGL 1.3.
not to me, they never needed to hobble the competition to be in a good position. The risk (upsetting the community) vs reward (making a few bucks more) never felt like this was justified to me. Maybe I am giving them too much credit here and it was just greed and stupidity, but paranoia and stupidity is the one that explains it better to me.
It definitely was the plan, the solid front of pushback definitely came as a surprise to them. I am not sure the community pushback made much of a difference, in the sense that all 3pps walking had already resulted in 1.1 being scrapped. It certainly helped with getting the SRD released under CC and also 1.2 kicked to the curb.
Kyle is not really from the publishing industry and D&D is tiny in Hasbro. So I have doubts that they have publishing centric lawyers and that he knows what is “usual”.I am used to that too. Kyle said what they were doing is basically the norm in the publishing industry, I have no experience with that
as I said somewhere else, we have no idea what was said in those negotiations or how much pressure was applied. Would be great if we did, as it would resolve a lot of uncertainty
D&D is tiny? When WOTC is literally half of Hasbro profit I don’t think D&D is tiny.Kyle is not really from the publishing industry and D&D is tiny in Hasbro. So I have doubts that they have publishing centric lawyers and that he knows what is “usual”.
I marked that down as a probable lie.
Cannot be proven, of course. But rings false.
They came forward with a starting plan, that yes was because of the protest against a leaked draft, that honestly didn’t line up with their comments the week or so before about the changes to the OGL, but they very quickly said ok this won’t fly so let’s scrap the whole thing and release it to CC and quit trying to revise the OGL.
D&D is tiny? When WOTC is literally half of Hasbro profit I don’t think D&D is tiny.