Smaller publishers' take on OGL on Shane Plays podcast

[bedir than]

The confusion comes from when Brink says that the OGL change has been years in the making and comes from a time before Hasbro paid much attention to WotC or D&D. That would seem reasonable that the start of the process might've come from WotC itself.

But almost certainly not from the creative team, as those are the people more in-tune with the community than anyone else there

 

[Iosue]

Kyle Brink said he shielded the creative team from the discussions, which tracks with other reports that WotC rank and file were unaware of what was in OGL 1.1 and were caught by surprise. I also don’t know why he would lie about that.

If the idea came from creative, I find it hard to believe that it was Kyle’s idea some two months at the most from when he became executive producer. Not too mention that he’s been willing to be the public face of this after the crap hit the fan, so I don’t know why he wouldn’t be willing to do that when they expected it to go well. That would then make it Ray Winninger’s idea, but I doubt he would initiate such a big undertaking, leave just before it got underway, and then denounce the move. If that were the case, it would suggest that the direction WotC went was a far cry from any idea he had.

I could more readily believe that it was Dan Rawson’s idea, but that’s getting pretty high in the hierarchy, and not really D&D “creative,” as it were.

 

[Waller]

The confusion comes from when Brink says that the OGL change has been years in the making and comes from a time before Hasbro paid much attention to WotC or D&D. That would seem reasonable that the start of the process might've come from WotC itself.

I'm curious why you were happy to listen to this, but as far as I could tell, refused to listen to Brink's interviews? You said about other interviews:

Right now I'm trying to determine if I should watch this, if I can be swayed into trusting them.
I'm thinking not, unless I hear there are some big revelations.

 

[darjr]

Kyle Brink said he shielded the creative team from the discussions, which tracks with other reports that WotC rank and file were unaware of what was in OGL 1.1 and were caught by surprise. I also don’t know why he would lie about that.

If the idea came from creative, I find it hard to believe that it was Kyle’s idea some two months at the most from when he became executive producer. Not too mention that he’s been willing to be the public face of this after the crap hit the fan, so I don’t know why he wouldn’t be willing to do that when they expected it to go well. That would then make it Ray Winninger’s idea, but I doubt he would initiate such a big undertaking, leave just before it got underway, and then denounce the move. If that were the case, it would suggest that the direction WotC went was a far cry from any idea he had.

I could more readily believe that it was Dan Rawson’s idea, but that’s getting pretty high in the hierarchy, and not really D&D “creative,” as it were.

WotC isn’t just the creative team.

This could have all been done from within WotC and yet not include anyone from the creative team.

Witch is close to what Kyle say’s actually happened.

 

[Retreater]

I'm curious why you were happy to listen to this, but as far as I could tell, refused to listen to Brink's interviews? You said about other interviews:

I have listened to the three that I'm aware of: Three Black Halflings, Mastering Dungeons, and Ginny Di. I'm kinda getting tired of the PR spin, so I'm wanting to hear new ground covered in future interviews with Brink.
As far as why listen to this one, it's a different perspective than the official line. Also, I consider one of the guys interviewed in the podcast a friend, and another one has a project I wrote in his production schedule.

 

[Burt Baccara]

I am not sure what value that speculation has.

I do not value speculation on its own. Here what matters is what the small publisher community is thinking and how that will affect their actions.

 

[Burt Baccara]

Still, in the absence of further story, I personally would not not mull on the speculation that members of the Creative Team were among the "bad guys"--initiators and supporters of the OGL backstab. At this point, I still like to cherish the thought that they were allies behind enemy lines.

The creative team is not the Borg, and most do not have the clout to be involved strategy. They are content creators. If creatives were involved it would have to be the higher-level one, or those working on longer range planning for both editorial for publications and that of the rules direction for release of OneD&D.

 

[Myrdin Potter]

I think that the focus in the morality clause and the double down on it points to the creative team. I base this on many of their long term social media postings.

I also think the $750K start of royalties and the $50K reporting threshold is thinking so small that it comes from people thinking about 3PP and the competition they provide, not Meta or Disney.

Brinks also made it clear that there was a division of opinion in the creative team in one of the interviews, that many/most were against the OGL change but not all.

The creative team are the good guys has been a consistent PR slant and I don’t really buy it.

 

[wingsandsword]

The confusion comes from when Brink says that the OGL change has been years in the making and comes from a time before Hasbro paid much attention to WotC or D&D. That would seem reasonable that the start of the process might've come from WotC itself.

Could have been both.

Could have been some management folks at WotC who didn't like the OGL and thought it was a bad idea, but their pushing for it wasn't getting very far because most of WotC supported the OGL because they had experience of what D&D was like before/without it and the entire 4e debacle, until the idea of eliminating the OGL caught on with upper Hasbro management and it became something the C-suite execs were wanting to happen.

 

[Burt Baccara]

Could have been both.

Could have been some management folks at WotC who didn't like the OGL and thought it was a bad idea, but their pushing for it wasn't getting very far because most of WotC supported the OGL because they had experience of what D&D was like before/without it and the entire 4e debacle, until the idea of eliminating the OGL caught on with upper Hasbro management and it became something the C-suite execs were wanting to happen.

My take is that "Brink says that the OGL change has been years in the making and comes from a time before Hasbro paid much attention to WotC or D&D" (more of a reply to Retreater): well sure, that could go all the way back to 4e, and some of the people responsible for the Game System License. This could be the remnant of that contingent trying again, and incorporating what they believe they learned from the first time.

Either way, it was Alta Fox Capital that brought attention to Wizards and forced some changes, possibly including the promotion of Chris Cocks from Wizards to Hasbro. Even though, we do not know how much Hasbro is involved, outside of high-level hires like Cynthia Williams and perhaps approving high-level strategy and direction to meet Habro goals. In general, when a corporation wants to put a subsidiary on a leash, they place someone from the corporation in the CEO or COO role, not hire outsiders. Though who they hire from external can tip their hands on direction and goals.

Both is exactly what the small publishers are saying. High-level direction, e.g.,
we need to better monetize this brand" (paraphrasing), and someone lower-down with enough clout push their weight around and tried to make a name for themself.

Lastly, we have to think about the demands (er...terms of 1.1 and 1.2) and then think about which departments within WotC benefit from each or have a stake in each. The VTT team clearly as 1.1 clearly targeted the competition, legal as licensing and royalties is one of the few ways for a legal team to magically become a profit center, the business side the publishing operation seemed to have a stake, and yeah, someone had it out for Paizo and wanted to build a moat against another Pathfinder—so publishing business side print and digital.

Publishing is not all creatives, if you think of old-school magazines, there were always two camps within those organizations, those on the editorial side of the house (here the creatives) and those on the publisher side (the business, including the circulation, ad sales, etc.). D&D is a publishing operation mostly, there is a business side, that is Dan Rawson, though we are told Dan is liked and not part of it. And this is where I start to have doubts. For something this big, the Senior Vice President of Dungeons & Dragons should have been in the know—that is the correct level to be in the know as it affects the business, and directly ties to overall strategy and direction. Not saying Dan would be hands-on, but not knowing seems a stretch, and who on Dan's team had the ball or failed to report this plan up the chain?