Here you go

Could we have a summary of the video for those who can't/don't want to watch an hour and 15 minutes long video?

The halflings ask some tough questions.  Kyle reacts like the meat thrown to the wolves....he did the best he could considering it looks like he was on a script.   I imagine he'll get a ton of undeserved hate for it.  

Still, tons of kudos for the halflings, they asked some great questions and forced answers outside of the comfort zone.

Quote from BoringBard >>

Could we have a summary of the video for those who can't/don't want to watch an hour and 15 minutes long video?

 I won't break down everything, but some of the important stuff that seems to be still causing issues with people here are as follows:

OneDnD is still on track to be backwards compatible.

OneDnD will not be a Digital VTT centric product

There will be no new OGL for OneDnD

They plan to update the SRD once OneDnD is finished

I am sure I missed some stuff.

Quote from Golaryn >>

Quote from BoringBard >>

Could we have a summary of the video for those who can't/don't want to watch an hour and 15 minutes long video?

 I won't break down everything, but some of the important stuff that seems to be still causing issues with people here are as follows:

OneDnD is still on track to be backwards compatible.

OneDnD will not be a Digital VTT centric product

There will be no new OGL for OneDnD

They plan to update the SRD once OneDnD is finished

I am sure I missed some stuff.

the last two caught me by surprise... in a good way.   

Quote from BoringBard>>

Could we have a summary of the video for those who can't/don't want to watch an hour and 15 minutes long video?

 There's a transcript on the channel but I just cranked the speed up. I'm working on a summary of my thoughts but I think Kyle did a solid job. Apparently WotC asked 3BH for the questions ahead of time, but they didn't send them, and he addressed some pretty hard hitters anyway.

Thanks for the news link, Golaryn.  Watching now, but I will say I can actually sympathize pretty keenly with one of the concerns Kyle raised early on from a Wizards standpoint.  Companies like Meta or Disney or Amazon can, with the OGL, make "D&D Products" that run completely counter to what Wizards is trying to do to make D&D better for its players and the company would have absolutely no recourse to do a single damn thing.  As Kyle put it, "we wouldn't even be at the table to talk to them about what D&D means".  Considering the track record on some of these companies, I can understand how the notion that Meta could more-or-less straight up steal your IP and do something awful with it that you just don't have the mass to get out in front of because Meta shits more money than Wizards makes could keep someone up at night.

Also for those who despise Wizards and want D&D to fail: this is your interview, because this 3 Black Halflings guy is super hostile to Kyle.  Like, he's stayinmg on the right side of professionalism, but kinna only just from what I've seen.  He's excoriating the man and Wizards' decisions during the whole mess, so if you're on the "WIZARDS MUST DIE" train this one could be cathartic to you.

Hell, 3BH hates pretty much everyone at Wizards. And anyone who homebrews. And anyone who does anythign he doesn't like.

Wait, that reminds me of someone I saw in a mirror, but different...

HMM.

Interesting note: Kyle just said (to me, anyways) that Wizards is currently working on a Content Policy that would set down (in broad terms) what Wizards considers to be Hateful Content.  The document/policy is specifically noted as being adaptable "as society wakes up and opens its eyes", and I know a lot of people will hate that, but it's also an interesting step.  I wouldn't have expected it from Wizards, since that sort of document generally just empowers haters rather than protects the hated.  We'll have to see if Wotsee manages to be the exception this time.

Quote from Yurei1453 >>

HMM.

Interesting note: Kyle just said (to me, anyways) that Wizards is currently working on a Content Policy that would set down (in broad terms) what Wizards considers to be Hateful Content.  The document/policy is specifically noted as being adaptable "as society wakes up and opens its eyes", and I know a lot of people will hate that, but it's also an interesting step.  I wouldn't have expected it from Wizards, since that sort of document generally just empowers haters rather than protects the hated.  We'll have to see if Wotsee manages to be the exception this time.

 
this should be, for me, an entertaining read.

I will do my best to not laugh about it. Identifying what constitutes hateful conduct without using a foundational, systemic approach has a long history of getting folks in trouble.

I am WHOLLY in favor of a policy, but odds are good they will use legal definitions and the protected classes method, which will immediately be set upon by all the ASI folks — and a few will be aware enough to start using current mainstream misinformation to break those.

the goal, of course, will be to protect them in a lawsuit, so yes it makes some sense, but they will run into the “**** is known when seen” issue of individual perception.

I would suggest the 4 A’s methodology, but that is based on what people actually do, and while it escapes the defensiveness, it is poorly grasped outside of law criticism.

I found it interesting that the talk about the OGL and wizard's plans for the future lasted all of 10 minutes and essentially amounted to "I wasn't there, but now I am..." and the rest of the video was spent talking about things that have absolutely nothing to do with the OGL, like WotC's internal use of 3rd party consultants and Chris Cao being a reported jerk. Like, yeah, WotC aired a bunch of dirty laundry this past month, but I don't think most people are basing their buying decisions on Chris Cao.

I do agree, Kyle did a good job, but I doubt it will shift the needle for many/most. I did, for what it's worth, appreciate his voicing a reasonable explanation for the "batton down the hatches" approach they took towards communication. It does, indeed, make sense to me, and I consider his answer to be plausible. He was a good sport and rolled at least a 15 on his charisma check. 0.02

Quote from Yurei1453 >>

"Companies like Meta or Disney or Amazon can, with the OGL, make "D&D Products""

I can understand how the notion that Meta could more-or-less straight up steal your IP...

False, and False.

(d)"Open Game Content" means the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity and is an enhancement over the prior art and any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor, and means any work covered by this License, including translations and derivative works under copyright law, but specifically excludes Product Identity. (e) "Product Identity" means product and product line names, logos and identifying marks including trade dress; artifacts; creatures characters; stories, storylines, plots, thematic elements, dialogue, incidents, language, artwork, symbols, designs, depictions, likenesses, formats, poses, concepts, themes and graphic, photographic and other visual or audio representations; names and descriptions of characters, spells, enchantments, personalities, teams, personas, likenesses and special abilities; places, locations, environments, creatures, equipment, magical or supernatural abilities or effects, logos, symbols, or graphic designs; and any other trademark or registered trademark clearly identified as Product identity by the owner of the Product Identity, and which specifically excludes the Open Game Content;

If Meta, or anyone else wants to produce "D&D" anything, Wizards/Hasbro will ABSOLUTELY be at that table.

Okay I finished digging through the transcript, here are all the questions and timestamps for those who want to jump to a specific query. I was writing the answers too but that got too long; just let me know if you want a particular answer paraphrased (or again, jump to the timestamp to hear Kyle's answer verbatim).

• (2:13) Why did management feel the need to change the OGL? 
• (4:19) OGL 1.1's reach stretched far beyond megacorps like Disney. Can you give us insight into the decision-making process behind the original leaked version? 
• (5:42) So you guys were developing the document for a year but lost sight of who it might affect? 
• (6:24) You didn't have anyone in place to oversee this before it was released? 
• (7:00) Can you comment on the rumors of closed-door meetings with large creators? 
• (8:42) Did anybody at Wizards later inform you of who was being spoken to and what was discussed? 
• (10:00) As someone on the outside it didn't feel quick at all, the initial response took over a week. If 1.2 was already being worked on why was there such a long delay? 
• (12:00) So why not have a smaller announcement during that time, "we're working on something" to try and calm the community? We had insider sources saying that you all were  delaying to see if there would be a financial impact or if this would all blow over, were those true?
• (13:01) It seemed like that was the case, from our perspective nothing changed until the DnDBeyond subscriptions began getting cancelled, surely that can't be coincidence. 
• (14:44) If you all were so worried about saying the wrong thing, who put out the "you won and so did we" statement and signed off on that? 
• (16:12) How did you feel when you read that / what did you think of it? 
• (16:55) Putting the phrasing aside, that statement also referred to the 1.1 leak as a "draft" and said WotC always intended to ask for community feedback. If it was really a draft, couldn't that have been stated immediately? Why did it have specific dates, places to sign etc? 
• (19:23) And the other part of that? If it was a draft why was that not stated immediately? 
• (21:00) Were there dissenting voices about OGL 1.1 prior to the leaks? Were those voices in WotC, outside, or both? 
• (22:48) Does that mean the dissenting voices are the minority in WotC? 
• (23:55) How are you giving them more of a voice going forward?
• (24:45) So you're saying you have more authority to influence these decisions?
• (25:39) Can you give more specifics on who was being met with and what those meetings were about?
• (26:41) Is WotC's intention to add OneD&D content to the Creative Commons license now?
• (28:01) Are there plans to introduce a new OGL that's specific to OneD&D?
• (28:30) To be clear, there's no chance of OneD&D becoming a "closed system"  where you say "everything 5e and earlier is covered by 1.0a, now we're making our own thing?"
• (29:23) Now that the new OGL is no longer happening, what plans does WotC have to try and address the megacorp and morality issues mentioned before?
• (30:57) The community had concerns that with a "morality clause:" of some kind, that could be turned against LGBT+ creators if leadership at WotC became more conservative. Is that still a possibility and if so, what protections are being put in place to prevent that from happening?
• (33:15) Relying on the community is all well and good, but do you have plans to improve your reflection on these things internally before they're put out for the community? (Hadozee example.)
• (35:35) If D&D has cultural consultants now, why were they not being used sooner?
• (36:54) {Talk a little bit  lot more about how the Hadozee thing slipped through the cracks}
• (40:07) DnDShorts had insider information about how WotC isn't considered a safe work environment, particularly regarding Chris Cao. What are executives like you doing to help ensure a safe work environment?
• (43:34) You mentioned that different teams can have different cultures, but aren't there overarching systems in place to prevent mistreatment?
• (45:06) Could the failure to pick up on the Hadozee issue point to a lack of diversity within WotC itself? What are you all doing about that?
• (47:02) Touching on Orion Black's statements from 2020, what is WotC doing to have more diversity in positions of leadership or power?
• (50:08) One fear people have about OneD&D is that it's going to move to a primarily digital focus and the books will become secondary collector's items. Is that the case?
• (52:30) How do D&D and WotC plan on rebuilding trust with the community?

Aside from the Hadozee rehash I thought the questions were tough but fair. More importantly, I think Kyle's answers show a commitment to openness and honesty (within the constraints of major corporation) that leave me confident D&D is in good hands. 

The answer that surprised me most was OneD&D being unlikely to have its own new OGL, rather the frontrunner option seems to be "existing SRD with bridging language."

Quote from PsyrenXY >>

Okay I finished digging through the transcript, here are all the questions and timestamps for those who want to jump to a specific query. I was writing the answers too but that got too long; just let me know if you want a particular answer paraphrased (or again, jump to the timestamp to hear Kyle's answer verbatim).

oh snap, thanks Psyren!

Thanks PsyrenXY

by Gallae’s great gazongas, can we have one thread where people who do not understand racism do not pop in to share how their hinds are wounded?

wont someone think of the deer?!?

So, I think that is great news about the ogl staying, in part because it means smaller creators can keep creating under it. I still fully expect a completely separate SRD for 6e, but this suggests maybe not.

I am pleased they made it CC because now I can copy and paste chunks into my Rule Book about spells instead of having to write all of them from scratch…

Quote from Diplomacy >>

False, and False.

 Only it isn't. It's true, and true. Without ironclad legalwork, IP's are tricky, and it's very easy to exploit loopholes and make something that the courts cannot actually force you to pay license fees or royalties for. My example is the VTT's, but that's just a simple illustration: Make a game like Baldur's Gate 3 co-op with a GM, call it a VTT, and you've just produced a major D&D title license free. Yay.

This is the very crux of the issue: Without the hammered down legal work, WoTC/Hasbro cannot protect their IP, which is why the new OGL in the first place. Only the language of such work is extremely harsh by nature, and sent the community into a panic - understandably, but the OGL was never aimed at them. Could be applied to them, sure, but was really only aimed at keeping major corporations from simply leeching D&D for free. 

Don't take my word for it, tho. Take Kyle's.

One answer I didn't buy is they have no idea who made that first "you won and so did we" post. If that's true their OpSec needs serious work, every public-facing corporate account needs to have access logs and accountability, especially if that access is shared. And somebody definitely approved that post too.

Now with that said, he probably didn't want to throw the culprit(s) under the bus publicly.

Quote from Acromos >>

Quote from Diplomacy >>

False, and False.

 Only it isn't. It's true, and true. Without ironclad legalwork, IP's are tricky, and it's very easy to exploit loopholes and make something that the courts cannot actually force you to pay license fees or royalties for. My example is the VTT's, but that's just a simple illustration: Make a game like Baldur's Gate 3 co-op with a GM, call it a VTT, and you've just produced a major D&D title license free. Yay.

This is the very crux of the issue: Without the hammered down legal work, WoTC/Hasbro cannot protect their IP, which is why the new OGL in the first place. Only the language of such work is extremely harsh by nature, and sent the community into a panic - understandably, but the OGL was never aimed at them. Could be applied to them, sure, but was really only aimed at keeping major corporations from simply leeching D&D for free. 

Don't take my word for it, tho. Take Kyle's.

 
so, poor example, since Baldur’s Gate contains a significant amount of material they can control and hold onto. The published settings, art (including derivatives), software, trademarks and service marks are all easily and readily protected under existing law, so that specific example would get the person burned. Especially if they said just copy Baldur’s Gate.

game mechanics are not IP — content and settings are, and settings have trade mark, service mark, and trade dress protections, in addition to copyright. While the rules to make a Warforged aren’t IP, the Warforged *is*, as is the setting (the lore), and the big issue Hasbro has is they realized they don’t have effective grasp of what they actually have for IP.

and few companies have more experience and legal muscle around IP than Hasbro, whose entire business is based in either licensed IP or in house IP (they have MLP and GI Joe, for cryin out loud).

they may have wanted to challenge the mechanics bit, but really what they need to do is lock down identifiable IP like FR, Eberron, etc in the same way they have locked down Magic Cards, and ensure they have dominance over trade dress especially, which means limiting the things that say “for forgotten realms” or use setting specific material.

this is part of why they have to yank setting specific aspects of monster listings (other than art): they cannot put core game rules side by side with the IP ( no orcs of the silvery coast, just Orc rules in the mm, then orc cultures in FR).

Because how to make a blood mage or sorcerer can’t be locked down, but the beings they serve in different settings can be.

After having considered what I heard, I have 2 primary points of contention and 2 questions that weren't asked, that really should have been.

The questions that should have been asked are 1) Is WotC going to be partnering with 3rd parties going forward? And 2) why have they been so cagey about all the other things released under 1.0a?
On point 1) it seems obvious to me that cooperating with the ORCs and VTTs and hammering out actual agreements of some kind is the only way forward if WotC wants to rebuild the trust they've lost. Kyle said it himself, multiple times. Action, not words. Signing onto the ORC initiative and building a VTT policy that doesn't point a gun at their heads would be actions that people could get behind. His words have already said that it's not his intention to threaten VTTs, so where is the action?
On point 2) It's just incredibly obvious to most people that the 5.1 SRD is, by far their most valuable system reference document (that's why the move to CC was so surprising). People still use the others, though. I'm curious about that thought process and what the goal is by withholding the other SRDs from the CC.

As to my points of contention:
1) The biggest point he made, imo, is that we have been considering their response to the OGL fiasco in 3 parts. a) Shopping FINAL DRAFT 1.1 with dates and non-disclosures with no active negotiation process; then there was the leak, the wall of silence, gaslighting the community, and the release of a new 1.2 with a marketing survey looking for "feedback" while they kicked the can down the road, weathered the storm and watched the damage roll in; followed by slamming the Undo button with CC - BY.
Kyle says "There was not enough time to prepare 1.2 if we weren't already working on it." and that presumably 1.2 was ALWAYS intended to be closer to the final draft of the new OGL. ("you can't turn on a dime, a week is far too short of time for a corporation of our size to pull that off") Kyle says that this proves that they were always aware of, and working towards a more 'fair' OGL that most people agreed wasn't too bad (excepting the weasel word loopholes big enough to drive a truck through)
I think it's fair to conclude, after this statement, that 1.1 and 1.2 were developed in parallel, however, I DO NOT think that I believe that 1.2 was always intended to be the new OGL. and 1.1 just somehow got leaked at the worst possible time, after wizards was already working on it's replacement. I think that both documents existed, and that either they always intended to pursue both paths secretly, under the cover of NDA, or they knew that people would flip over 1.1 and 1.2 was always intended to be their back pocket "compromise." Either way it strongly undermines the narrative he's pushing of a "long delay built out of many small good decisions." and "perfect got in the way of good, perfect got in the way of done."  Mostly because, if we take Kyle at his word and 1.2 could not have been rushed out the door do to the number of stakeholders, the glaring omissions that everyone has seen were put there intentionally. People were CONSTANTLY looking at and tweaking 1.2 which was already "on track," second guessing the word choice, responding to community criticism (which at the time was very much rawr revokable, irrevokable, they want to take my homebrews! rawr) and yet they didn't think to add language that made 1.2 irrevocable? They didn't think to use language in 1.2 that didn't allow them to unilaterally terminate ANY ogl license with 30 days notice? REAAAAAALY now?

2) My largest take away from Kyle's interview was "don't be mad at ME/MY team." HE just started working there, what 3-4 months ago? HIS TEAM was not "in the room/given a voice" in respect to 1.1/1.2, transitioning to the new OGL was a decision that was made 6(?) months ago? 2 years ago? The Disney/Meta "problem" has been a "major concern" for a while... and to be clear here, I'm not even really sure who Kyle is. He's the project manager for D&D in charge of books and modules? Is he also in charge of D&D Beyond? ish? Don't really know. What I do know is that kyle is on my side. Hes a cuddly teddy bear who was "not happy" when he read Wizards official response (he doesn't know who contributed to that) so he "took control" of something. It definitely wasn't thrown at him like a tub of radioactive waste with a note that says "figure it out." So anyway he rushed 1.2 out in a controlled iterative process that somehow failed to pick up glaring holes in the legal language that made 1.2 just as worthless as 1.1 from any sane business perspective to show us he/they/his team was being sincere and that, when 1.2 was also met with fire and fury it was somehow, now his call to toss the OGL stuff into the biggest hole he could (CC BY) (?). It's all so... good cop... so my question is, Cynthia is a doll, Kyle doesn't know Chris Cao. Who, what, when, where is the bad cop? Was it the nasty lawyers? Was it Hasbro proper? Is Alta Fox playing 7d chess? Someone, somewhere heard a pitch that involved "meta and VTT" and somehow concluded that they could use non-copyrightable game mechanics as a cudgle to force anyone they saw as a threat, be it meta or roll 20 or Matt Mercer in 5 years or whomever, out of the space. I want to know who that person is. Then we can talk about these weird enormous blind spots your company seems to have when it comes to wildly self-serving contracts, mr guy who wasn't in charge and yet still had the pull to both push 1.2 out the door and then can it.