Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
Publishing Business & Licensing
Ginny Di interviews WotC's Kyle Brink
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Justice and Rule" data-source="post: 8935425" data-attributes="member: 6778210"><p>Sure, but should we <em>really </em>believe that? The idea of Meta suddenly making a D&D VTT clone when they can barely make office call software comes off more as a deflection against a company nobody likes, just like them also being worried about Disney suddenly eating their lunch. Perhaps there is <em>some </em>truth to it, but it comes off as extremely weird given their response.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Nah, I think they should absolutely say that sort of stuff. Sometimes a confrontational-style of interview is necessary, especially when guys are out there trying to spin a story. Their question on Brink regarding minorities at Wizards were also good and his answers were decidedly not great, honestly.</p><p></p><p>To be honest, I'm not sure Brink should be going out there given that I think people are looking at this as the time to ask hard questions, but far be it for me to stop him from doing it.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And to comment on something that I've seen bandied about: I think the idea that 1.1 was just a draft to be weird and likely false given their own announcement of it as well as them sending out contracts and such. That Kickstarter basically admitted that they had negotiated their own smaller royalties cut tells me that it was way further along than just "draft", and that we've heard talk from multiple sources that larger 3PPs were offered a "sweetheart" version tells me that 1.1. OGL was meant to be the thing.</p><p></p><p>Now is Brink right that you can't just write stuff up in a week? Yeah, sure, that makes sense. But that doesn't mean that 1.1 wasn't meant to be Plan A: it just means that they had a Plan B prepared and ready to go.</p><p></p><p>Think about it: let's say that 1.1 just doesn't go over well. Obviously you want to have something ready just in case, with terms that are at least better <em>looking</em> if not necessarily better for everyone. You can take away more controversial stuff, reap the good will of "changing direction", and use this to put out your VTT policy as well. And honestly, that probably wasn't a bad idea: you can just look at these boards to see that 1.2 changed the minds of at least <em>some</em> people, and got others to prematurely declare defeat because it showed that Wizards seemed dedicated to destroying the OGL. But I don't see any real indication save from Wizards themselves that it was</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Justice and Rule, post: 8935425, member: 6778210"] Sure, but should we [I]really [/I]believe that? The idea of Meta suddenly making a D&D VTT clone when they can barely make office call software comes off more as a deflection against a company nobody likes, just like them also being worried about Disney suddenly eating their lunch. Perhaps there is [I]some [/I]truth to it, but it comes off as extremely weird given their response. Nah, I think they should absolutely say that sort of stuff. Sometimes a confrontational-style of interview is necessary, especially when guys are out there trying to spin a story. Their question on Brink regarding minorities at Wizards were also good and his answers were decidedly not great, honestly. To be honest, I'm not sure Brink should be going out there given that I think people are looking at this as the time to ask hard questions, but far be it for me to stop him from doing it. And to comment on something that I've seen bandied about: I think the idea that 1.1 was just a draft to be weird and likely false given their own announcement of it as well as them sending out contracts and such. That Kickstarter basically admitted that they had negotiated their own smaller royalties cut tells me that it was way further along than just "draft", and that we've heard talk from multiple sources that larger 3PPs were offered a "sweetheart" version tells me that 1.1. OGL was meant to be the thing. Now is Brink right that you can't just write stuff up in a week? Yeah, sure, that makes sense. But that doesn't mean that 1.1 wasn't meant to be Plan A: it just means that they had a Plan B prepared and ready to go. Think about it: let's say that 1.1 just doesn't go over well. Obviously you want to have something ready just in case, with terms that are at least better [I]looking[/I] if not necessarily better for everyone. You can take away more controversial stuff, reap the good will of "changing direction", and use this to put out your VTT policy as well. And honestly, that probably wasn't a bad idea: you can just look at these boards to see that 1.2 changed the minds of at least [I]some[/I] people, and got others to prematurely declare defeat because it showed that Wizards seemed dedicated to destroying the OGL. But I don't see any real indication save from Wizards themselves that it was [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
Publishing Business & Licensing
Ginny Di interviews WotC's Kyle Brink
Top