You know what's going to turn me away from D&D, it's not the OGL, it's that certain D&D fans are still having this, very old & very stale argument from cis white men who think it's controversial to get diversity in the workforce, leading to WotC being ultra conservative in it's official settings like the Forgotten Realms ending up with them being just so dull. I don't want to play there any more.
Meanwhile over at Paizo the core rule book has a discussion on how to play disabled characters, ethnicities for human characters, with ethnicities for other heritages/races explored in supplements. Not to mention one of the books released with shops/items includes assistive items & mobility items quietly inside it. And it's all very queer from potions that allow you to change gender to NB & gay/lesbian characters just quietly existing. If WotC tried any of that in the Forgotten Realms, can you imagine the reaction on here given the mildest mention made of a more diverse workforce?
There's a reason why radiant citadel is WotC's most diverse offering - it's the only book to date written entirely by POC drawing on their own experiences. You really think that doesn't also have an impact in other fields, including management?
Even if I come back to play in 5e/OneD&D, I'll be running my game over in Golarion until WotC catch up & make their settings actually feel lived in.
^ See, even the folks out for blood on this issue can't agree on what, if anything, might appease them. If I were them I wouldn't answer a single further question related to 1.1.
Because if we were you, we'd think that agreeing with everything our friends say means we've won the argument?
There is no "winning." As AntonSirius rightly stated, it's just an endless crusade that lets the enraged punt the goalposts ad nauseam no matter what WotC does.
I just watched the interview from the first post. Statements like the one in 49:25 are in my view inappropriate and frankly offend me. Especially that they come from company's CEO. Is there any WotC e-mail address of costumer support or something like that to file a complain?
3) If you are offended by his statements there is a very high chance you misinterpreted what he said.
How would you interpret, "guys like me can't leave soon enough"?
Every post where I did interpret it, along with the posts of the folks I was responding to appear to have been nuked from orbit, so I'm going to take that as a very clear sign from the mods that we don't need to be discussing that quote any further. I'd rather the thread not get locked.
I think that everybody is tired of the "OGL 1.1 was just a draft" issue. Come on Kyle, this would be SO easy to put to bed, why don't you end this? Just answer these yes or no questions, we don't need additional detail and we know you don't want to provide details. That's okay, just a simple "Yes" or "No" will suffice.
1. Did anyone (individual or organization) sign the "draft" OGL 1.1? (Yes or No)
If the answer is "No" then we are done. If nobody signed, then no harm, no foul. I'll let you call it a draft. I won't ask if anyone felt pressured to sign but did not sign. You win Kyle, it was a draft.
If the answer is "Yes", someone signed the document, then sorry Kyle, you lose. OGL 1.1 was not a draft if someone signed it. They signed it because they were pressured to sign the "not a draft" document and they were afraid of getting an even worse agreement. So followup question:
2. Have you offered to release anyone who signed OGL 1.1 from the agreement?
Sorry, they don't get a pass for that. It was not a draft no matter what Kyle says, even if no one "signed it" they were about to release the new OGL without feedback. Copies were circulated with NDAs so that people could not talk about it before the release.
I'm quite happy with Wizards' apology and their change of plans, but continued lying around 1.1 is a big mistake. Come clean, Kyle. That is what wins back trust.
^ See, even the folks out for blood on this issue can't agree on what, if anything, might appease them. If I were them I wouldn't answer a single further question related to 1.1.
I gotta be honest, I find the whole "they have to win back my trust!" rigamarole to be both hilarious and sad
WotC/Hasbro is a corporation. I don't trust them to do anything but try to make money. I also don't need to trust them to buy their products, if those products contain material I'll find useful in my TTRPG pursuits. Trying to turn their internal negotiations with business partners into some sort of moral/ethical crusade is ludicrous at best, and things that would get this post moderated if I typed them out loud at worst
"They have to win back my trust!" is just an empty slogan with no real meaning, and one that very easily allows the sloganeer in question to move the goal posts no matter what WotC does to respond to it
Let me take a wild stab. You aren't a 5e content creator, are you? Trust is actually what creators rely on to make their living. Is that sad and hilarious to you? Empty, meaningless sloganeering?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron Satie
What would it actually accomplish, in a theoretical universe where Wizards admits they were trying to pound 1.1 through as written?
People keep harping and harping and harping and harping on that stupid irrelevant pointless issue, demanding "TRUE HONESTY" from Wizards. Like I said, real question: why does it matter? Whatever they were trying to do, good or bad, they failed. Draft or not draft, the document is dead and gone. Gnawing on the issue like a bulldog on a thighbone and refusing to move on to more relevant concerns accomplishes nothing. Nobody cares if 1.1 was a draft or not anymore. All y'all seem to be doing is demanding that Wizards demean themselves and their people in public, throw everyone who worked on 1.1 for whatever reason to the wolves, and accomplish...nothing of substantive use. Forcing them to admit that 1.1 was or was not "A Draft" CHANGES NOTHING.
I just watched the interview from the first post. Statements like the one in 49:25 are in my view inappropriate and frankly offend me. Especially that they come from company's CEO. Is there any WotC e-mail address of costumer support or something like that to file a complain?
3) If you are offended by his statements there is a very high chance you misinterpreted what he said.
How would you interpret, "guys like me can't leave soon enough"?
Every post where I did interpret it, along with the posts of the folks I was responding to appear to have been nuked from orbit, so I'm going to take that as a very clear sign from the mods that we don't need to be discussing that quote any further. I'd rather the thread not get locked.
You know what's going to turn me away from D&D, it's not the OGL, it's that certain D&D fans are still having this, very old & very stale argument from cis white men who think it's controversial to get diversity in the workforce, leading to WotC being ultra conservative in it's official settings like the Forgotten Realms ending up with them being just so dull. I don't want to play there any more.
Meanwhile over at Paizo the core rule book has a discussion on how to play disabled characters, ethnicities for human characters, with ethnicities for other heritages/races explored in supplements. Not to mention one of the books released with shops/items includes assistive items & mobility items quietly inside it. And it's all very queer from potions that allow you to change gender to NB & gay/lesbian characters just quietly existing. If WotC tried any of that in the Forgotten Realms, can you imagine the reaction on here given the mildest mention made of a more diverse workforce?
There's a reason why radiant citadel is WotC's most diverse offering - it's the only book to date written entirely by POC drawing on their own experiences. You really think that doesn't also have an impact in other fields, including management?
Even if I come back to play in 5e/OneD&D, I'll be running my game over in Golarion until WotC catch up & make their settings actually feel lived in.
One half of my day job (that I should be doing right now, lol) is DEI. That is, Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity.
A lot of the comments derived from something the mods here have already said was misinformation (THREE TIMES!) would not do well -- and I would never be involved. Because I just set policy and outline how to identify behaviors.
I have never used a published offering because I am pretty much all the things that folks rail against in these posts, lol. But, really, I am just super tired of all the wildlife running around and making loud noises.
THey are disrupting the ability to talk about stuff like this.
I have heard several times that PF is much more "friendly", but also that it is a pain in the ass to DM because it is a Player's Game, and I keep looking for more of a balance there. 5e is also a lot more of a Player's Game. It is what it is, lol, and I am a DM only. Forty freaking years.
I think there is a lot of color there, and while the corporate "fence treading" is expected, it won't last all that long -- sadly the same kind of sounds being barked here are the ones heard in just about every place where there has been a long history of only a few notables who are not of a particular heritage and sociocultural basis.
It works better for me that I stepped away from the original sources that inspired the game in the first place as well -- all of them have the same issues, lol. may be why it appeals there -- or at least, did to the particular folks whose perspectives later proved to be troublesome.
It is amazing what using sources from women, from different genres, from PoC and LGBTQ+ folks, from long before and well after the original sources can do to a game. In a few different threads I talk about how this really shifts everything out of the Eurocentric model.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I just watched the interview from the first post. Statements like the one in 49:25 are in my view inappropriate and frankly offend me. Especially that they come from company's CEO. Is there any WotC e-mail address of costumer support or something like that to file a complain?
3) If you are offended by his statements there is a very high chance you misinterpreted what he said.
How would you interpret, "guys like me can't leave soon enough"?
Every post where I did interpret it, along with the posts of the folks I was responding to appear to have been nuked from orbit, so I'm going to take that as a very clear sign from the mods that we don't need to be discussing that quote any further. I'd rather the thread not get locked.
They didn't lock the thread last time you said it. Was what you said really so incendiary that it can't be repeated? You are claiming that someone is likely wrong in being offended by a statement made by a WotC spokesperson. On what basis?
It's a statement made in a public forum.
Ahem. Three Warnings so far.
Three.
If someone reports your stuff -- and they have, I guarantee it -- we have already reached the point where three strikes and you are out is done.
Yet instead of reading the thread, you hopped in and added the same thing for what I count is the fifth time.
Please let it go and take it somewhere else. It is, per the people who have control over the boards, misinformation, is a disruption, and is not adding anything to the discussion.
Not that this post is either, and I figure that the mods will remove it as well when they come in and burn out the rest.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I just watched the interview from the first post. Statements like the one in 49:25 are in my view inappropriate and frankly offend me. Especially that they come from company's CEO. Is there any WotC e-mail address of costumer support or something like that to file a complain?
3) If you are offended by his statements there is a very high chance you misinterpreted what he said.
How would you interpret, "guys like me can't leave soon enough"?
Every post where I did interpret it, along with the posts of the folks I was responding to appear to have been nuked from orbit, so I'm going to take that as a very clear sign from the mods that we don't need to be discussing that quote any further. I'd rather the thread not get locked.
...
Ahem. Three Warnings so far.
Three.
If someone reports your stuff -- and they have, I guarantee it -- we have already reached the point where three strikes and you are out is done.
Yet instead of reading the thread, you hopped in and added the same thing for what I count is the fifth time.
Please let it go and take it somewhere else. It is, per the people who have control over the boards, misinformation, is a disruption, and is not adding anything to the discussion.
Not that this post is either, and I figure that the mods will remove it as well when they come in and burn out the rest.
^ See, even the folks out for blood on this issue can't agree on what, if anything, might appease them. If I were them I wouldn't answer a single further question related to 1.1.
Because if we were you, we'd think that agreeing with everything our friends say means we've won the argument?
There is no "winning." As AntonSirius rightly stated, it's just an endless crusade that lets the enraged punt the goalposts ad nauseam no matter what WotC does.
Tell that to the 3PPs.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron Satie
Reminder; making objectively false claims about things said (seriously, the video is right there) in order to illicit negative responses is trolling and against site rules.
Reminder; making objectively false claims about things said (seriously, the video is right there) in order to illicit negative responses is trolling and against site rules.
I am just going to quote this here again for visibility and as a final reminder.
Also a reminder to be civil in your discussion, even if you disagree.
Individuals are attempt to derail, inflame, and troll this thread with misinformation, false claims, and other such disruptive behaviour. This will not be tolerated as it is a violation of site rules. Those who choose to engage in this behaviour will find themselves on the receiving end of infractions, also detailed in the site rules & guidelines.
How would you interpret, "guys like me can't leave soon enough"?
Hi. (Biologically) white male here. I interpretted his statement as "Kyle is being attacked by PoC interviewer actively fishing for racism to skewer him with, he's on the spot and knows his words will be seen by thousands if not millions, he wants to try and show support for a diverse workplace and the benefits it brings, and said something in the uncomfortable moment he doubtless now wishes he'd phrased any other way because people are being stupid about it."
It's a nothingburger, and people who treat it as anything else are being actively and intentionally obtuse in a deliberate attempt to drum up outrage and hostility, apparently in a bid to oppose diversity and inclusionism. Again, because people who are insecure in their whiteness see any attempt to broaden the perspective of any entity, organization, or culture to accomodate viewpoints, experiences, and ideas beyond their own as somehow being "anti-white" and racist-the-other-direction.
News for all y'all: black people are not "white people with darker skin". They have different experiences from us, they have different lives from us. Same with female people - women are not "men, just with boobs and better hair." Same with LGBTQ+ - they're not "Cis people with funky orientations/identities". They are all different people with different prespectives, experiences, and ideas. And drawing from just the perspectives, experiences, and ideas of White Cis Males means that D&D is smaller and duller than it could otherwise be.
I'd rather have a larger, more vibrant and real D&D. Wouldn't you?
What would it actually accomplish, in a theoretical universe where Wizards admits they were trying to pound 1.1 through as written?
People keep harping and harping and harping and harping on that stupid irrelevant pointless issue, demanding "TRUE HONESTY" from Wizards. Like I said, real question: why does it matter? Whatever they were trying to do, good or bad, they failed. Draft or not draft, the document is dead and gone. Gnawing on the issue like a bulldog on a thighbone and refusing to move on to more relevant concerns accomplishes nothing. Nobody cares if 1.1 was a draft or not anymore. All y'all seem to be doing is demanding that Wizards demean themselves and their people in public, throw everyone who worked on 1.1 for whatever reason to the wolves, and accomplish...nothing of substantive use. Forcing them to admit that 1.1 was or was not "A Draft" CHANGES NOTHING.
Why keep nagging on it?
Dungeon Dudes and Bob the Builder have made it crystal clear that they still care about 1.1 being a draft or not. The emotions caused by the "draft" issue are still very raw for them. Many, many content creators and others think that getting to the bottom of the issue is important to building future trust within the community. Why do you reject their clearly expressed feelings? As we always hear, those who forget history are condemned to repeat it. Isn't refusing to acknowledge history in the first place even worse than forgetting it?
I watched the first half of the video, and I didn't feel that the interviewers were being aggressive or attacking during that part. I believe that Kyle was sincere in his answers. He very probably doesn't know everything that was going on above him, and may never know. Having worked in a corporate environment for for over 20 years I can tell you that the big wigs like VPs, presidents, and CEOs rarely even consider whether or not people below them should know something that is being decided. Sometimes it's intentional, but most of the time they just assume they know best, and the rest of us are on a need-to-know basis only.
I feel like we are trying to divine things with only partial information so far. As we see more of his interviews coming out, I would hope that it gets a lot clearer.
Re: Trusting WotC and "Punishing" them: Some people keep asking the "What will it take/what do you want" questions in response to others who "can't let it go" (like the draft or not draft question), and my guess is that it seems like what some people want, and why they don't like the idea of "letting it go", may be rooted in a sense of justice? It's like these corporate big wigs, who don't even play the game, who aren't part of our "in group" tried to hurt our in-group, and some want them punished as a deterrent to them and others not to try something like that again. I guess the idea is, if they suffer no consequences, the lesson they will learn is that they can keep trying to do the "bad" thing, like a child who doesn't get in trouble for trying to steal cookies.
Personally I'm moving on from the anger part, because it is unrealistic to think we will ever see those people held to account, and I don't want to feel the stress from it any more.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing) You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
We're at the point now where any 3PP genuinely still on the fence has been given enough information to make a decision; stay or don't. And they have the freedom to pick one now and the other one later if they wish. The endless congressional hearings have nothing further to add.
To clarify my position, I'm not looking to punish anyone at WotC or harm WotC in any manner. I'm looking for a "truth and reconciliation commission" that will restore trust and bring everyone together.
Re: Trusting WotC and "Punishing" them: Some people keep asking the "What will it take/what do you want" questions in response to others who "can't let it go" (like the draft or not draft question), and my guess is that it seems like what some people want, and why they don't like the idea of "letting it go", may be rooted in a sense of justice? It's like these corporate big wigs, who don't even play the game, who aren't part of our "in group" tried to hurt our in-group, and some want them punished as a deterrent to them and others not to try something like that again. I guess the idea is, if they suffer no consequences, the lesson they will learn is that they can keep trying to do the "bad" thing, like a child who doesn't get in trouble for trying to steal cookies.
They can't try this again. That was the entire point of the Creative Commons release.
Dungeon Dudes and Bob the Builder have made it crystal clear that they still care about 1.1 being a draft or not. The emotions caused by the "draft" issue are still very raw for them. Many, many content creators and others think that getting to the bottom of the issue is important to building future trust within the community. Why do you reject their clearly expressed feelings? As we always hear, those who forget history are condemned to repeat it. Isn't refusing to acknowledge history in the first place even worse than forgetting it?
That's my question. What's the actionable plan that hinges on this information? What do content creators intend to do with the information? Like, okay - they get the answer they're fishing for. "We intended this to be the plan and were pushing for signatures." Cool. Gotcha. What do you do with that information? Other than, y'know, excoriate the C-Suite and decide to never do D&D content again oh wait all the content creators who've decided to do that are doing it already. What new game plan does knowing this information allow for? All I've ever seen people say is that they wanna know for vengeful reasons, i.e. "they need to wallow in shit and die before anyone will ever work with them again!" It makes no goddamn sense. I understand feeling burned and not wanting to trust Wizards, but knowing whether or not they were pushing for signatures doesn't change that. The people who won't ever trust Wizards again won't trust Wizards no matter what the company says, and everybody else has already moved on.
As for the whole "WE GOTTA PUNISH THE BAD PEOPLE" thing...don't you think the massive financial losses and the brutal loss of face and public trust the current crop just got handed are a punishment? You want to get rid of the executives who've gotten their hands burned and bloody know better and replace them with execs who've never gotten their hands burned and think "hey, the other guys are just ****ups, I can do this just fine, watch me!" right before trying the same garbage again? We just spent this last month training the Wizards exec team that they can't do this shit. Why would you want to flush all the people who've been so trained and replace them with people who have no qualms about trying it all over again?
What would it actually accomplish, in a theoretical universe where Wizards admits they were trying to pound 1.1 through as written?
People keep harping and harping and harping and harping on that stupid irrelevant pointless issue, demanding "TRUE HONESTY" from Wizards. Like I said, real question: why does it matter? Whatever they were trying to do, good or bad, they failed. Draft or not draft, the document is dead and gone. Gnawing on the issue like a bulldog on a thighbone and refusing to move on to more relevant concerns accomplishes nothing. Nobody cares if 1.1 was a draft or not anymore. All y'all seem to be doing is demanding that Wizards demean themselves and their people in public, throw everyone who worked on 1.1 for whatever reason to the wolves, and accomplish...nothing of substantive use. Forcing them to admit that 1.1 was or was not "A Draft" CHANGES NOTHING.
Why keep nagging on it?
Transparency is good. Honesty is good. Owning up to your mistakes is good. The ability to humble yourself and your corporation to the point of giving an actual mea culpa means that the community can believe, whether it's true or not, that you've identified the core issue and are going to fix it. The inability to do such just shows a lack of respect for the consumers and creators. It would've been really easy to say we ****ed up, we went in a direction that was counter to what our community wanted, and we've removed the people whose suggestions and approvals lead us to this place. We're reorienting our team to focus on enabling the customers and creators to do what's helped grow this game to the cultural status it has today. Ezpz lemon squeezy.
I'd rather have a non-racist gaming community where, with zero regard to the colour of a person's skin, the best candidates get the job. Wouldn't you?
No. No I would not. Because that path is the "everybody is the same-ass person with the same-ass experiences, perspectives, and ideas and I'm just gonna treat everybody like a generic White Cis Het Male regardless of their actual race/identity/orientation/gender and ignore their perspectives on things" method, and that is a shitty method.
Obviously people who get a job need to be qualified to do the job. But let's not pretend that every last single human being is the same exact identical clone of every other human being and there's no point in having different viewpoints in the workplace, shall we?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please do not contact or message me.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You know what's going to turn me away from D&D, it's not the OGL, it's that certain D&D fans are still having this, very old & very stale argument from cis white men who think it's controversial to get diversity in the workforce, leading to WotC being ultra conservative in it's official settings like the Forgotten Realms ending up with them being just so dull. I don't want to play there any more.
Meanwhile over at Paizo the core rule book has a discussion on how to play disabled characters, ethnicities for human characters, with ethnicities for other heritages/races explored in supplements. Not to mention one of the books released with shops/items includes assistive items & mobility items quietly inside it. And it's all very queer from potions that allow you to change gender to NB & gay/lesbian characters just quietly existing. If WotC tried any of that in the Forgotten Realms, can you imagine the reaction on here given the mildest mention made of a more diverse workforce?
You know why Golarion is so much more diverse? It started when they got women writers on board according to their chief creative officer earlier today (or at least them confirming someone else saying that): https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/10weemx/why_was_early_pathfinder_materiallore_1e_and/j7nweh5?context=3
There's a reason why radiant citadel is WotC's most diverse offering - it's the only book to date written entirely by POC drawing on their own experiences. You really think that doesn't also have an impact in other fields, including management?
Even if I come back to play in 5e/OneD&D, I'll be running my game over in Golarion until WotC catch up & make their settings actually feel lived in.
No, you're saying: white people have no diversity and black people have no diversity ...
Every post where I did interpret it, along with the posts of the folks I was responding to appear to have been nuked from orbit, so I'm going to take that as a very clear sign from the mods that we don't need to be discussing that quote any further. I'd rather the thread not get locked.
Let me take a wild stab. You aren't a 5e content creator, are you? Trust is actually what creators rely on to make their living. Is that sad and hilarious to you? Empty, meaningless sloganeering?
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron Satie
Real question, here.
What would it actually accomplish, in a theoretical universe where Wizards admits they were trying to pound 1.1 through as written?
People keep harping and harping and harping and harping on that stupid irrelevant pointless issue, demanding "TRUE HONESTY" from Wizards. Like I said, real question: why does it matter? Whatever they were trying to do, good or bad, they failed. Draft or not draft, the document is dead and gone. Gnawing on the issue like a bulldog on a thighbone and refusing to move on to more relevant concerns accomplishes nothing. Nobody cares if 1.1 was a draft or not anymore. All y'all seem to be doing is demanding that Wizards demean themselves and their people in public, throw everyone who worked on 1.1 for whatever reason to the wolves, and accomplish...nothing of substantive use. Forcing them to admit that 1.1 was or was not "A Draft" CHANGES NOTHING.
Why keep nagging on it?
Please do not contact or message me.
cancelled
One half of my day job (that I should be doing right now, lol) is DEI. That is, Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity.
A lot of the comments derived from something the mods here have already said was misinformation (THREE TIMES!) would not do well -- and I would never be involved. Because I just set policy and outline how to identify behaviors.
I have never used a published offering because I am pretty much all the things that folks rail against in these posts, lol. But, really, I am just super tired of all the wildlife running around and making loud noises.
THey are disrupting the ability to talk about stuff like this.
I have heard several times that PF is much more "friendly", but also that it is a pain in the ass to DM because it is a Player's Game, and I keep looking for more of a balance there. 5e is also a lot more of a Player's Game. It is what it is, lol, and I am a DM only. Forty freaking years.
I think there is a lot of color there, and while the corporate "fence treading" is expected, it won't last all that long -- sadly the same kind of sounds being barked here are the ones heard in just about every place where there has been a long history of only a few notables who are not of a particular heritage and sociocultural basis.
It works better for me that I stepped away from the original sources that inspired the game in the first place as well -- all of them have the same issues, lol. may be why it appeals there -- or at least, did to the particular folks whose perspectives later proved to be troublesome.
It is amazing what using sources from women, from different genres, from PoC and LGBTQ+ folks, from long before and well after the original sources can do to a game. In a few different threads I talk about how this really shifts everything out of the Eurocentric model.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Ahem. Three Warnings so far.
Three.
If someone reports your stuff -- and they have, I guarantee it -- we have already reached the point where three strikes and you are out is done.
Yet instead of reading the thread, you hopped in and added the same thing for what I count is the fifth time.
Please let it go and take it somewhere else. It is, per the people who have control over the boards, misinformation, is a disruption, and is not adding anything to the discussion.
Not that this post is either, and I figure that the mods will remove it as well when they come in and burn out the rest.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Yes, my bad.
But here's the disparity.
Can't comment on the quote.
Can comment on the quote.
Can't give a rationale as to why it's been misinterpreted.
Tell that to the 3PPs.
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron Satie
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Hi. (Biologically) white male here. I interpretted his statement as "Kyle is being attacked by PoC interviewer actively fishing for racism to skewer him with, he's on the spot and knows his words will be seen by thousands if not millions, he wants to try and show support for a diverse workplace and the benefits it brings, and said something in the uncomfortable moment he doubtless now wishes he'd phrased any other way because people are being stupid about it."
It's a nothingburger, and people who treat it as anything else are being actively and intentionally obtuse in a deliberate attempt to drum up outrage and hostility, apparently in a bid to oppose diversity and inclusionism. Again, because people who are insecure in their whiteness see any attempt to broaden the perspective of any entity, organization, or culture to accomodate viewpoints, experiences, and ideas beyond their own as somehow being "anti-white" and racist-the-other-direction.
News for all y'all: black people are not "white people with darker skin". They have different experiences from us, they have different lives from us. Same with female people - women are not "men, just with boobs and better hair." Same with LGBTQ+ - they're not "Cis people with funky orientations/identities". They are all different people with different prespectives, experiences, and ideas. And drawing from just the perspectives, experiences, and ideas of White Cis Males means that D&D is smaller and duller than it could otherwise be.
I'd rather have a larger, more vibrant and real D&D. Wouldn't you?
Please do not contact or message me.
Dungeon Dudes and Bob the Builder have made it crystal clear that they still care about 1.1 being a draft or not. The emotions caused by the "draft" issue are still very raw for them. Many, many content creators and others think that getting to the bottom of the issue is important to building future trust within the community. Why do you reject their clearly expressed feelings? As we always hear, those who forget history are condemned to repeat it. Isn't refusing to acknowledge history in the first place even worse than forgetting it?
Nathair Sgiathach is my co-pilot
I watched the first half of the video, and I didn't feel that the interviewers were being aggressive or attacking during that part. I believe that Kyle was sincere in his answers. He very probably doesn't know everything that was going on above him, and may never know. Having worked in a corporate environment for for over 20 years I can tell you that the big wigs like VPs, presidents, and CEOs rarely even consider whether or not people below them should know something that is being decided. Sometimes it's intentional, but most of the time they just assume they know best, and the rest of us are on a need-to-know basis only.
I feel like we are trying to divine things with only partial information so far. As we see more of his interviews coming out, I would hope that it gets a lot clearer.
Re: Trusting WotC and "Punishing" them: Some people keep asking the "What will it take/what do you want" questions in response to others who "can't let it go" (like the draft or not draft question), and my guess is that it seems like what some people want, and why they don't like the idea of "letting it go", may be rooted in a sense of justice? It's like these corporate big wigs, who don't even play the game, who aren't part of our "in group" tried to hurt our in-group, and some want them punished as a deterrent to them and others not to try something like that again. I guess the idea is, if they suffer no consequences, the lesson they will learn is that they can keep trying to do the "bad" thing, like a child who doesn't get in trouble for trying to steal cookies.
Personally I'm moving on from the anger part, because it is unrealistic to think we will ever see those people held to account, and I don't want to feel the stress from it any more.
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing)
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
Well said. I'm leaving it alone.
We're at the point now where any 3PP genuinely still on the fence has been given enough information to make a decision; stay or don't. And they have the freedom to pick one now and the other one later if they wish. The endless congressional hearings have nothing further to add.
To clarify my position, I'm not looking to punish anyone at WotC or harm WotC in any manner. I'm looking for a "truth and reconciliation commission" that will restore trust and bring everyone together.
Nathair Sgiathach is my co-pilot
@GergKyae: I suggest you PM Davyd if you want the rationale for it being misinformation then. That was their judgment.
They can't try this again. That was the entire point of the Creative Commons release.
That's my question. What's the actionable plan that hinges on this information? What do content creators intend to do with the information? Like, okay - they get the answer they're fishing for. "We intended this to be the plan and were pushing for signatures." Cool. Gotcha. What do you do with that information? Other than, y'know, excoriate the C-Suite and decide to never do D&D content again oh wait all the content creators who've decided to do that are doing it already. What new game plan does knowing this information allow for? All I've ever seen people say is that they wanna know for vengeful reasons, i.e. "they need to wallow in shit and die before anyone will ever work with them again!" It makes no goddamn sense. I understand feeling burned and not wanting to trust Wizards, but knowing whether or not they were pushing for signatures doesn't change that. The people who won't ever trust Wizards again won't trust Wizards no matter what the company says, and everybody else has already moved on.
As for the whole "WE GOTTA PUNISH THE BAD PEOPLE" thing...don't you think the massive financial losses and the brutal loss of face and public trust the current crop just got handed are a punishment? You want to get rid of the executives who've gotten their hands burned and bloody know better and replace them with execs who've never gotten their hands burned and think "hey, the other guys are just ****ups, I can do this just fine, watch me!" right before trying the same garbage again? We just spent this last month training the Wizards exec team that they can't do this shit. Why would you want to flush all the people who've been so trained and replace them with people who have no qualms about trying it all over again?
Please do not contact or message me.
Transparency is good. Honesty is good. Owning up to your mistakes is good. The ability to humble yourself and your corporation to the point of giving an actual mea culpa means that the community can believe, whether it's true or not, that you've identified the core issue and are going to fix it. The inability to do such just shows a lack of respect for the consumers and creators. It would've been really easy to say we ****ed up, we went in a direction that was counter to what our community wanted, and we've removed the people whose suggestions and approvals lead us to this place. We're reorienting our team to focus on enabling the customers and creators to do what's helped grow this game to the cultural status it has today. Ezpz lemon squeezy.
No. No I would not. Because that path is the "everybody is the same-ass person with the same-ass experiences, perspectives, and ideas and I'm just gonna treat everybody like a generic White Cis Het Male regardless of their actual race/identity/orientation/gender and ignore their perspectives on things" method, and that is a shitty method.
Obviously people who get a job need to be qualified to do the job. But let's not pretend that every last single human being is the same exact identical clone of every other human being and there's no point in having different viewpoints in the workplace, shall we?
Please do not contact or message me.