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
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.
They've done everything in this post but the bolded part, and even if that were necessary (it's not, see the sentence right after it), that wouldn't happen publicly anyway.
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.
Good thing for WotC that you aren't their spokesperson. That would be quite a provocative statement if it had come from the mouth of Kyle Brink.
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
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?
As I have already said, I'm not looking to punish WotC executives or anybody else. But I strongly feel that WotC acknowledging the truth is important if we are to move forward. An apology that lacks an admission of guilt is not a real apology. "I'm sorry if I unintentionally hurt your feelings" is not an apology because it implies that the hurt was caused by the victim and not the aggressor. WotC badly hurt the feelings of many content creators. I mean...watching some of the videos about the draft made by some of the content creators makes this just painfully obvious. WotC should acknowledge that, apologize, and then we can all move on. Nobody has to lose their job or be otherwise punished for this to happen. Peace out.
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.
Sometimes people can have same perspective despite different skin colour.
I take it you have never actually been involved in the hiring process? I thought this was obvious, but since you’ve made a number of posts where you seem not to get it, here’s how the real world works:
First, race is more than just skin colour - it is a sociological construction that includes cultural identities which, by definition would result in different perspectives (the folks come from different cultural backgrounds that influence their perspective). Second, race is never the deciding factor in hiring - it is something that is used for initial screening to determine if someone might have a different cultural understanding. But that is not the ultimate deciding factor - the ultimate deciding factor is going to be the interviews, cover letters, etc. - the places where someone does not just say, “I identify as X” but has the opportunity to say “I identify as X, let me tell you how that identity will be a benefit to your corporation based on my different perspectives.”
So, you can say “they’re just looking at race and that is bad!” all you want, that does not make you correct and does not accurately reflect the reality (especially at the high levels of executive hiring where conversations and interviews are going to be extremely in depth).
I'd rather have a larger, more vibrant and real D&D. Wouldn't you?
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?
These two statements are not as much in conflict as you think. Believe it or not, sometimes diversity results in a better product, for the simple reason that the market is diverse and you want people on your team who can combine to understand the entire market, not just one segment.
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.
Thanks for engaging - I use a published setting as I just don't have time to brew my own and don't actually enjoy world building from scratch & it's easier to add flavour to an existing setting/module to make it more diverse than to build from the ground up.
And the thing is, it's a setting, not a system so I can just run 5e there. It's not like WotC has particularly put a lot of work into any of their settings & people still run PF in Ebberon etc. But Paizo as a company seem to be doing the right things, so I'll certainly give them that.
But that wasn't really the point of my post, the point was to highlight the reality of the distance WotC have to go to reach their biggest competitor in terms of diversity to the part of the player base that is so overtly hostile to it - just to point out that they're already playing one of the most conservative games in terms of diversity. Most of the D&D KS I ever backed were settings that were more diverse than WotC ones. If WotC actually wants my money, give me more radiant Citadel lore, explore more of the world than the Sword Coast. Create new characters. Do actually interesting stuff with your IP. The OGL scared me away temporarily - learning how far ahead other settings are will keep me away from anything except pure rules books until they catch up.
Thanks for engaging - I use a published setting as I just don't have time to brew my own and don't actually enjoy world building from scratch & it's easier to add flavour to an existing setting/module to make it more diverse than to build from the ground up.
And the thing is, it's a setting, not a system so I can just run 5e there. It's not like WotC has particularly put a lot of work into any of their settings & people still run PF in Ebberon etc. But Paizo as a company seem to be doing the right things, so I'll certainly give them that.
But that wasn't really the point of my post, the point was to highlight the reality of the distance WotC have to go to reach their biggest competitor in terms of diversity to the part of the player base that is so overtly hostile to it - just to point out that they're already playing one of the most conservative games in terms of diversity. Most of the D&D KS I ever backed were settings that were more diverse than WotC ones. If WotC actually wants my money, give me more radiant Citadel lore, explore more of the world than the Sword Coast. Create new characters. Do actually interesting stuff with your IP. The OGL scared me away temporarily - learning how far ahead other settings are will keep me away from anything except pure rules books until they catch up.
I mean, not to shortchange Paizo's efforts or anything - they've done a great job with Golarion - but going deep on a setting is a lot easier when you only have one.
As aforestated, diversity hiring is not simply about “let’s make the group look as diverse as possible” - it is about “hey, different voices might bring different things to the table. If person A brings their experiences, person B brings something different, etc. then we can examine this product from a lot of different angles.
1)Why do you assume that different skin color = different angles, better product? Sometimes people can have same perspective despite different skin colour.
Radiant Citadel basically proved it - had a bunch of great adventures in diverse new locations. My only issue was not enough lore - which was corrected by the authors putting out a companion pdf on DMs Guild because WotC, for some reason, doesn't want to build lore on one of their best books for a long time. My only gripe is not enough lore on the citadel itself - it feels edited out as there is some. All written by a team of POC only creators.
race is never the deciding factor in hiring - it is something that is used for initial screening to determine if someone might have a different cultural understanding. But that is not the ultimate deciding factor - the ultimate deciding factor is going to be the interviews, cover letters, etc. - the places where someone does not just say, “I identify as X” but has the opportunity to say “I identify as X, let me tell you how that identity will be a benefit to your corporation based on my different perspectives.”
So at first screening WotC ASSUMES who has "different cultural understanding" basing on skin colour!
What about a white person who has PhD in say Sinology? Or white person that identifies as black? Or white that has been adopted and raised among native Americans?
Ok, wow. Stop. Please.
You just walked full on into hardcore WS, and imma gonna lose my blankety blank.
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'd rather have a larger, more vibrant and real D&D. Wouldn't you?
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?
These two statements are not as much in conflict as you think. Believe it or not, sometimes diversity results in a better product, for the simple reason that the market is diverse and you want people on your team who can combine to understand the entire market, not just one segment.
Yup, when a person bringing diversity is also the person whose contributions result in a better product, (which may be better due to their diverse perspectives and which should certainly be free of genuinely problematic content) then we are all agreed. That's great.
Not all the authors in Radiant Citadel were black. They were people of color. There's more than one color of people of color. The fact that I have to explain this actively pains me.
As aforestated, diversity hiring is not simply about “let’s make the group look as diverse as possible” - it is about “hey, different voices might bring different things to the table. If person A brings their experiences, person B brings something different, etc. then we can examine this product from a lot of different angles.
1)Why do you assume that different skin color = different angles, better product? Sometimes people can have same perspective despite different skin colour.
Radiant Citadel basically proved it - had a bunch of great adventures in diverse new locations. My only issue was not enough lore - which was corrected by the authors putting out a companion pdf on DMs Guild because WotC, for some reason, doesn't want to build lore on one of their best books for a long time. My only gripe is not enough lore on the citadel itself - it feels edited out as there is some. All written by a team of POC only creators.
It proved that lack of diversity (all authors ware black) results in better work. Had it been designed by multinational committee the book might came as inferior.
The weren't all black - "POC" doesn't mean "black" - where did you get that idea from?
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.
If an all-POC group can produce a better product or one that otherwise fills a market gap, this is great.
Not all the authors in Radiant Citadel were black. They were people of color. There's more than one color of people of color. The fact that I have to explain this actively pains me.
There's only two races, white & political, dontchaknow
It proved that lack of diversity (all authors ware black) results in better work. Had it been designed by multinational committee the book might came as inferior.
Looking at the list of authors, I count four (of fifteen) who are probably black. If you look at nationality of origin for the traditions used as sources, it appears to be fourteen different sources.
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?
Why is Kyle even doing this interview, then? His job here is to do exactly what you said is pointless, to convince creators and the community that it can trust WotC. They themselves don't believe everyone who will stay is already staying and everyone who will go has already gone. The "actionable information" in the interview is that WotC is making promises right now about 6e - the OGL, the SRD, comparability. Why should creators believe them? Why should they stick their necks out and continue making 5e content (and also start planning for and making 6e content) if WotC can't even be straight about their intent with OGL 1.1, especially since everyone knows they are not being forthright? What if 6e in the end is not backwards compatible? "Sorry guys, our promise was a draft." That would **** over a lot of people making things. It could make a big difference to at least some of those people to see them own up. It costs Wizards zero to say, "OK, OGL 1.1 was not actually a draft. Sorry about that, too." And even if as you say it changes no minds, at least people like me who are otherwise happy have nothing to harp on about.
I don't really care about punishment. I agree with that. Better the devil you know... and who knows you, in turn.
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
Their intent with 1.1 was clear. Kyle gave detailed examples of the kind of abuse from large corporations like Meta, as well as reiterating the morality stuff, that they were attempting to prevent, including via tools like the royalty clause. He went on to say that the individual components of 1.1 were ill-devised, added up to something terrible, and that they were in the process of removing those when it got leaked. Can you be clear about what more you want? His immortal soul? His firstborn child? What?
Their intent with 1.1 was clear. Kyle gave detailed examples of the kind of abuse from large corporations like Meta, as well as reiterating the morality stuff, that they were attempting to prevent, including via tools like the royalty clause. He went on to say that the individual components of 1.1 were ill-devised, added up to something terrible, and that they were in the process of removing those when it got leaked. Can you be clear about what more you want? His immortal soul? His firstborn child? What?
I mean, we know the real answer, Psyren. They've constructed a story based around their favorite version of the facts, and when it was explained multiple times that this version of the facts were not actually factual they decided it was Lying, Gaslighting, and a hundred other Bad Words instead of what it actually was - a giant cluster**** of misunderstandings piled on top of each other. Or, to put it shortly - they want an admission of malice rather than accepting the given explanation of incompetence.
Why they want to believe the company was malicious rather than simply incompetent, I don't know. But that's what they want.
Their intent with 1.1 was clear. Kyle gave detailed examples of the kind of abuse from large corporations like Meta, as well as reiterating the morality stuff, that they were attempting to prevent, including via tools like the royalty clause. He went on to say that the individual components of 1.1 were ill-devised, added up to something terrible, and that they were in the process of removing those when it got leaked. Can you be clear about what more you want? His immortal soul? His firstborn child? What?
I mean, we know the real answer, Psyren. They've constructed a story based around their favorite version of the facts, and when it was explained multiple times that this version of the facts were not actually factual they decided it was Lying, Gaslighting, and a hundred other Bad Words instead of what it actually was - a giant cluster**** of misunderstandings piled on top of each other. Or, to put it shortly - they want an admission of malice rather than accepting the given explanation of incompetence.
Why they want to believe the company was malicious rather than simply incompetent, I don't know. But that's what they want.
People want to assign blame for things to justify why they feel angry about the situation. It’s a lot easier to feel that their anger is justified if they can feel angry about intentional harm. It’s a lot harder to maintain that illusion if they’re only angry about something caused by accumulated stupidity, especially if they have to admit to themselves that they were at least partially responsible for that accumulation.
>completion of devolving accomplished<
such incredible wildlife!
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
They've done everything in this post but the bolded part, and even if that were necessary (it's not, see the sentence right after it), that wouldn't happen publicly anyway.
Good thing for WotC that you aren't their spokesperson. That would be quite a provocative statement if it had come from the mouth of Kyle Brink.
“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 SatieAs I have already said, I'm not looking to punish WotC executives or anybody else. But I strongly feel that WotC acknowledging the truth is important if we are to move forward. An apology that lacks an admission of guilt is not a real apology. "I'm sorry if I unintentionally hurt your feelings" is not an apology because it implies that the hurt was caused by the victim and not the aggressor. WotC badly hurt the feelings of many content creators. I mean...watching some of the videos about the draft made by some of the content creators makes this just painfully obvious. WotC should acknowledge that, apologize, and then we can all move on. Nobody has to lose their job or be otherwise punished for this to happen. Peace out.
Nathair Sgiathach is my co-pilot
I take it you have never actually been involved in the hiring process? I thought this was obvious, but since you’ve made a number of posts where you seem not to get it, here’s how the real world works:
First, race is more than just skin colour - it is a sociological construction that includes cultural identities which, by definition would result in different perspectives (the folks come from different cultural backgrounds that influence their perspective). Second, race is never the deciding factor in hiring - it is something that is used for initial screening to determine if someone might have a different cultural understanding. But that is not the ultimate deciding factor - the ultimate deciding factor is going to be the interviews, cover letters, etc. - the places where someone does not just say, “I identify as X” but has the opportunity to say “I identify as X, let me tell you how that identity will be a benefit to your corporation based on my different perspectives.”
So, you can say “they’re just looking at race and that is bad!” all you want, that does not make you correct and does not accurately reflect the reality (especially at the high levels of executive hiring where conversations and interviews are going to be extremely in depth).
These two statements are not as much in conflict as you think. Believe it or not, sometimes diversity results in a better product, for the simple reason that the market is diverse and you want people on your team who can combine to understand the entire market, not just one segment.
Thanks for engaging - I use a published setting as I just don't have time to brew my own and don't actually enjoy world building from scratch & it's easier to add flavour to an existing setting/module to make it more diverse than to build from the ground up.
And the thing is, it's a setting, not a system so I can just run 5e there. It's not like WotC has particularly put a lot of work into any of their settings & people still run PF in Ebberon etc. But Paizo as a company seem to be doing the right things, so I'll certainly give them that.
But that wasn't really the point of my post, the point was to highlight the reality of the distance WotC have to go to reach their biggest competitor in terms of diversity to the part of the player base that is so overtly hostile to it - just to point out that they're already playing one of the most conservative games in terms of diversity. Most of the D&D KS I ever backed were settings that were more diverse than WotC ones. If WotC actually wants my money, give me more radiant Citadel lore, explore more of the world than the Sword Coast. Create new characters. Do actually interesting stuff with your IP. The OGL scared me away temporarily - learning how far ahead other settings are will keep me away from anything except pure rules books until they catch up.
I have no desire to be their spokesperson; the mob justice is tiresome enough just as a bystander.
I mean, not to shortchange Paizo's efforts or anything - they've done a great job with Golarion - but going deep on a setting is a lot easier when you only have one.
Radiant Citadel basically proved it - had a bunch of great adventures in diverse new locations. My only issue was not enough lore - which was corrected by the authors putting out a companion pdf on DMs Guild because WotC, for some reason, doesn't want to build lore on one of their best books for a long time. My only gripe is not enough lore on the citadel itself - it feels edited out as there is some. All written by a team of POC only creators.
Ok, wow. Stop. Please.
You just walked full on into hardcore WS, and imma gonna lose my blankety blank.
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
Yup, when a person bringing diversity is also the person whose contributions result in a better product, (which may be better due to their diverse perspectives and which should certainly be free of genuinely problematic content) then we are all agreed. That's great.
Siiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigh.
OTL
Not all the authors in Radiant Citadel were black. They were people of color. There's more than one color of people of color. The fact that I have to explain this actively pains me.
Please do not contact or message me.
The weren't all black - "POC" doesn't mean "black" - where did you get that idea from?
as stated by the majority of posters starting with.
If an all-POC group can produce a better product or one that otherwise fills a market gap, this is great.
There's only two races, white & political, dontchaknow
Looking at the list of authors, I count four (of fifteen) who are probably black. If you look at nationality of origin for the traditions used as sources, it appears to be fourteen different sources.
Why is Kyle even doing this interview, then? His job here is to do exactly what you said is pointless, to convince creators and the community that it can trust WotC. They themselves don't believe everyone who will stay is already staying and everyone who will go has already gone. The "actionable information" in the interview is that WotC is making promises right now about 6e - the OGL, the SRD, comparability. Why should creators believe them? Why should they stick their necks out and continue making 5e content (and also start planning for and making 6e content) if WotC can't even be straight about their intent with OGL 1.1, especially since everyone knows they are not being forthright? What if 6e in the end is not backwards compatible? "Sorry guys, our promise was a draft." That would **** over a lot of people making things. It could make a big difference to at least some of those people to see them own up. It costs Wizards zero to say, "OK, OGL 1.1 was not actually a draft. Sorry about that, too." And even if as you say it changes no minds, at least people like me who are otherwise happy have nothing to harp on about.
I don't really care about punishment. I agree with that. Better the devil you know... and who knows you, in turn.
“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 SatieTheir intent with 1.1 was clear. Kyle gave detailed examples of the kind of abuse from large corporations like Meta, as well as reiterating the morality stuff, that they were attempting to prevent, including via tools like the royalty clause. He went on to say that the individual components of 1.1 were ill-devised, added up to something terrible, and that they were in the process of removing those when it got leaked. Can you be clear about what more you want? His immortal soul? His firstborn child? What?
I mean, we know the real answer, Psyren. They've constructed a story based around their favorite version of the facts, and when it was explained multiple times that this version of the facts were not actually factual they decided it was Lying, Gaslighting, and a hundred other Bad Words instead of what it actually was - a giant cluster**** of misunderstandings piled on top of each other. Or, to put it shortly - they want an admission of malice rather than accepting the given explanation of incompetence.
Why they want to believe the company was malicious rather than simply incompetent, I don't know. But that's what they want.
Please do not contact or message me.
People want to assign blame for things to justify why they feel angry about the situation. It’s a lot easier to feel that their anger is justified if they can feel angry about intentional harm. It’s a lot harder to maintain that illusion if they’re only angry about something caused by accumulated stupidity, especially if they have to admit to themselves that they were at least partially responsible for that accumulation.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting