maybe they went right into the Lions den right off the bat. Get the interview with the most notoriously hostile group done, get a guage of what to expect at it's worse. unless someone else brings that type of hostile energy, the remaining interviews are going to feel a lot easier.
I think that's a really good point - it had real potential to be a car crash interview & he did as well as could be expected, I think. WotC will be happy with it, people like me will forget about it when "softer" interviews come along. Whilst I think they will bring some better insight, they have far less potential for being total train wrecks.
I thought this interview was ok. The questions were somewhat aggressive, but were questions that the more angry portions of the community wanted to hear. Personally I expect Ginny Di's version of the interview to be more in line with what I want to know. I could be wrong of course, I don't have any fore knowledge, but as a content creator, she is more my style.
I'm always a bit leery when pointed questions asked by POC interviewers are framed as "aggressive." Like yeah, they were upset about things like the lack of diversity within WotC leadership and the potential for abuse (intentional or not) that a new policy could aim towards minority fans... but of course they are, that's a topic that any POC content creator or fan would be particularly concerned about.
The important thing for me was that they were respectful. They gave Kyle the chance to answer every question without interruption, none of Kyle's answers were scoffed at, and they didn't repeat the same talking points ad nauseam (like "draft!!!!") like we've seen here, for the most part they asked the question once and moved on when they got an answer. When they didn't immediately move on it was because there was something there to probe on and get additional detail. Again, I thought it was a good showing from both sides, even if it is picking at the scab to a degree.
I felt the aggressive questions were centered around who WotC was talking too and why it took so long for a response. The other stuff seemed pretty standard fare.
I'm always a bit leery when pointed questions asked by POC interviewers are framed as "aggressive." Like yeah, they were upset about things like the lack of diversity within WotC leadership and the potential for abuse (intentional or not) that a new policy could aim towards minority fans... but of course they are, that's a topic that any POC content creator or fan would be particularly concerned about.
Ok, I'm a POC/minority myself - it's perfectly possible for POC to be aggressive. I'd add that they were actually less aggressive when asking about POC content creators than when asking about OGL issues. If they'd shown passion for promoting a diverse workforce at WotC and pushed hard there, I'd have had no problems at all. But they didn't - they just accepted Kyle's answers. They were getting angry & pushing for names of companies that saw OGL 1.1 early instead of pushing for more books from more diverse set of writers and getting angry that WotC is so behind other TTRPG companies (something I discovered in a very big way when recently looking into the lore of Paizo's Golarion setting.
The important thing for me was that they were respectful. They gave Kyle the chance to answer every question without interruption, none of Kyle's answers were scoffed at, and they didn't repeat the same talking points ad nauseam (like "draft!!!!") like we've seen here, for the most part they asked the question once and moved on when they got an answer. When they didn't immediately move on it was because there was something there to probe on and get additional detail. Again, I thought it was a good showing from both sides, even if it is picking at the scab to a degree.
They were barely respectful, did repeat weird questions to prove for odd things and actually, they scoff at his answers as soon as he left. I've no plans to resub to DDB yet, but it was an appalling showing from 3BH where I feel I'm left knowing less because of their attitude.
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.
Then why hasn't anyone done this?? The OGL wasn't written yesterday, it's nearly 25 years old.
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.
Then why hasn't anyone done this?? The OGL wasn't written yesterday, it's nearly 25 years old.
I would guess because that it has only recently gone "main stream". There is money to be made now.
Then why hasn't anyone done this?? The OGL wasn't written yesterday, it's nearly 25 years old.
D&D wasn't important enough for anyone to care back then. And also nobody had announced to the entire world in bright screaming neon that the property is essentially defenseless against theft of IP and bad actors. Security through anonymity sucks, but it's better than no security at all.
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.
Then why hasn't anyone done this?? The OGL wasn't written yesterday, it's nearly 25 years old.
I would guess because that it has only recently gone "main stream". There is money to be made now.
It's been mainstream long enough for other companies to jump on board... if they were able
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.
Then why hasn't anyone done this?? The OGL wasn't written yesterday, it's nearly 25 years old.
I would guess because that it has only recently gone "main stream". There is money to be made now.
It's been mainstream long enough for other companies to jump on board... if they were able
I really don't think that is true. Before Critical Role made 11 million for a cartoon, I don't think D&D was on anyone's radar. That was 3 years ago, but those 3 years were really bad years for developing much of anything. I could be wrong though.
It's been mainstream long enough for other companies to jump on board... if they were able
It's only really exploded in popularity in the last few years, which isn't terribly long in the realm of major properties-- it's much much bigger today than it was when the original OGL was written, or even the last time the SRD was updated, and the bigger the property the better the contracts you need.
While I am getting a whiff of whitewash to what Kyle's saying (there's almost certainly some behind the scenes politics going on -- you don't accidentally wind up with something like OGL 1.1, someone was pushing for it, though it may not have been his team) I don't really expect a corporation to wash its dirty linen in public unless there's legal action involved.
I'm always a bit leery when pointed questions asked by POC interviewers are framed as "aggressive." Like yeah, they were upset about things like the lack of diversity within WotC leadership and the potential for abuse (intentional or not) that a new policy could aim towards minority fans... but of course they are, that's a topic that any POC content creator or fan would be particularly concerned about.
Ok, I'm a POC/minority myself - it's perfectly possible for POC to be aggressive. I'd add that they were actually less aggressive when asking about POC content creators than when asking about OGL issues. If they'd shown passion for promoting a diverse workforce at WotC and pushed hard there, I'd have had no problems at all. But they didn't - they just accepted Kyle's answers. They were getting angry & pushing for names of companies that saw OGL 1.1 early instead of pushing for more books from more diverse set of writers and getting angry that WotC is so behind other TTRPG companies (something I discovered in a very big way when recently looking into the lore of Paizo's Golarion setting.
The important thing for me was that they were respectful. They gave Kyle the chance to answer every question without interruption, none of Kyle's answers were scoffed at, and they didn't repeat the same talking points ad nauseam (like "draft!!!!") like we've seen here, for the most part they asked the question once and moved on when they got an answer. When they didn't immediately move on it was because there was something there to probe on and get additional detail. Again, I thought it was a good showing from both sides, even if it is picking at the scab to a degree.
They were barely respectful, did repeat weird questions to prove for odd things and actually, they scoff at his answers as soon as he left. I've no plans to resub to DDB yet, but it was an appalling showing from 3BH where I feel I'm left knowing less because of their attitude.
1) I am too, not that it matters. And I never said that it wasn't possible to be aggressive, just that I'm wary when that kind of language is reached for immediately, similar to "shrill" being a go-to critique for assertive women.
2) I didn't stick around after the interview ended (had my fill documenting the rest of it) but rewatching that portion, I don't think their lingering skepticism was particularly damning, nor that it much matters. During the interview itself they didn't get in Kyle's way and he was able to say his piece. Do I think the questions about who the deals were with were weird, sure, but I think it was a good-faith attempt to gain context rather than hunting for a smoking gun of some kind. In fact, that segment better helped me understand the NDAs - after all, if they were even meeting with licensees like Paizo, it makes sense that they wouldn't want anyone leaking draft language with a bunch of unpopular provisions in it before they could remove them. (Ironic now, I know.)
What gets me is that people were convinced - ironclad, down-to-their-toes CONVINCED - that Wizards would use Section 6f of 1.2 as a blunt object to wreck anyone and everyone they felt like wrecking, blowing up third-party properties left and right for no other earthly reason than they theoretically could...and yet those exact same people are equally convinced that there's absolutely zero chance whatsoever of literally anyone else even dreaming of doing something remotely off-kilter with the raw, unprotected hunk of Profit Steak that is D&D 5e right now.
It boggles my mind where that bizarre and illogical dichotomy comes from.
What gets me is that people were convinced - ironclad, down-to-their-toes CONVINCED - that Wizards would use Section 6f of 1.2 as a blunt object to wreck anyone and everyone they felt like wrecking, blowing up third-party properties left and right for no other earthly reason than they theoretically could...and yet those exact same people are equally convinced that there's absolutely zero chance whatsoever of literally anyone else even dreaming of doing something remotely off-kilter with the raw, unprotected hunk of Profit Steak that is D&D 5e right now.
It boggles my mind where that bizarre and illogical dichotomy comes from.
I guess people just want to find things to get mad at ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
This thread seems to have missed Kyle Brinks belief that white men should leave the hobby. Go to approximately 46:57, the commenter asked about WotC's policies around hiring racially diverse individuals in "positions of power." As part of his (rather rambling) response, he touches on how "guys like me" (note: Brink is white) are "leaving the workforce," before saying (at 49:25) "in my viewpoint, honestly, guys like me can't leave soon enough for this hobby."
Perhaps Kyle or WotC should clear this up, it seems like a very bigoted and divisive remark.
it wasnt missed. it's been debunked and those posts spreading misinformation were removed.
I have to confess to being curious as to why this bit of misinformation was removed, while other bits of misinformation in this thread and others are allowed to stay. Perhaps, the moderators are just overwhelmed. I don't blame them. Misinformation is everywhere these days.
If it has been debunked, it sadly hasn't been in this thread (the thread about the interview in which the statement was made) that I've seen. If it is so clearly debunked that the debunking posts themselves have also been removed, then perhaps they can be restored as to have a clear and unambiguous retort to the remarks and ease everyone's conscience.
If you'll notice that the post count in this thread goes from 12 to 25 with no posts in between, you'll have discovered that's where all the previous posts spouting this nonsense went. Davyd's mod post reminding people not to post misinformation was about this, though I think some more clearly spelled out mod posting is warranted since it seems to be cropping up again.
I do think it goes to show that Kyle probably isn't the guy they want to be the front face. He's obviously not media trained and it's showing.
When you view the clip as a whole, in the 4 minute span, it's still a bit sketchy because the comment itself of "guys like me can't leave fast enough". You can tell the intent wasn't negative. You can tell the intent was to be inclusive, but it's a pretty rough clip and the fact is sound bytes make the rounds and this is not a good one.
The media-trained folks aren't the Guys In Charge that people are demanding to hear from though. Kyle's in a shit position playing Apocalypse Janitor and doing what he can. People can do him the favor of not twisting his words back on themselves if they want any answers from the Guys In Charge.
The media-trained folks aren't the Guys In Charge that people are demanding to hear from though. Kyle's in a shit position playing Apocalypse Janitor and doing what he can. People can do him the favor of not twisting his words back on themselves if they want any answers from the Guys In Charge.
You can media train people though, is the thing. Hell, I'm sure they did give him some guidelines, but again its still rough.
It would have been very easy to put Crawford in front of the camera. Dude is media trained.
"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.
This is a particularly long post for something that completely missed the point of what was being responded to. As used in the post you responded, “D&D Products” was very clearly in quotation marks. Based on contextual clues, it is clear Yeuri was referring to “products that use D&D’s OGL intellectual property but not any of their protected content, and build something that is a D&D product in all but name, so we would use quotes to indicate it is a pseudo-product.”
Now, under 1.0, it is true that Meta doesn’t have to steal Wizards’ IP - but that’s only because Wizards put the content on the curb with a sign reading “Free to anyone who wants it.” But, again, contextual reading is important - steal, as used in the post you’re responding to, clearly is intended to read “a big company who follows the strict meaning of OGL, but not OGL as it was intended—to help actual fans and independent third-party producers, not the multi billion dollar conglomerations Kyle said they were concerned about.”
And, despite what your armchair lawyer analysis might say, there is plenty of protected IP in OGL 1.0 (mechanics are not the only thing OGL 1.0 provides access to). Specific spells, like Cloudkill (something made up by D&D for this specific context), or species like Tieflings (also a D&D creation) would be something Wizards could probably protect if no OGL existed - a lot of the recognisable things that are uniquely D&D are licensed out under 1.0, and those are all things Wizards could otherwise try to protect.
Well, at least you tried to make something of a point out of the messes that I've been responding to. Again, though, something that is something else in "all but name" is always going to be a LEGAL form of copying regardless of what wizards chooses to give away or not. People don't really associate "cloudkill" with D&D products with to the point that it's going to make a significant difference. As to whether Cloudkill is legitimate IP, that's a grey area. The name cloudkill is probably copyrightable, but then there's fogkill, smogcloud, toxic cloud, vaporkill, poisonlung, etc etc. Cloudkill is also fairly generic itself. Something like Force Wall from the SRD isn't even copyrightable because it's too generic. Cloudkill is pretty close, really.
Either way, if that's what yuri's point is, that wizards needed to trick people into using the OGL so that they could yank it out from under them when they did LEGAL copying because the law isn't good enough, then that's anti-trust behavior, just like when they went after the sparkles on the VTTs. They don't own generic fantasy and don't have the right to keep meta out. They don't own generic fantasy and aren't allowed to keep Roll20 out. They don't own generic fantasy and aren't allowed to keep tinder (?) out. I'm sure that absolutely keeps them up at night, but it's the truth.
It's absolutely bizarre to me that people seem to consider the OGL/CC license to be arbitrarily selective.
"The OGL/CC license means anybody can make awesome D&D products and Wizards can't sue them!" "So...you're saying Meta could make a D&D virtual dating service and Wizards couldn't do shit about it?" "What? No! Wizards would absolutely sue the shit out of Meta if they did that!" "But you just said - " "I meant Wizards can't sue anybody I don't want sued! If it's somebody I don't care about, they can sue all they like."
Make up your minds - can Wizards use legal recourse to protect D&D from shit nobody wants in D&D or can't they?
No, the OGL does not allow anyone to make D&D products. Not awesome ones, not crap ones. D&D is 1) specifically excluded from the OGL so you can't use it, OGL or not and 2) protected under trademark law. If someone tried to make a D&D dating Sim using the OGL as cover, they'd likely get slapped.
They can make a "Dudes and Dates" dating app with a generic fantasy theme, though. Presumably something, something VR with something something cool magic sparkles? That's not dungeons and dragons, though. Don't really care if it has wizards in it, or tieflings for that matter.
The media-trained folks aren't the Guys In Charge that people are demanding to hear from though. Kyle's in a shit position playing Apocalypse Janitor and doing what he can. People can do him the favor of not twisting his words back on themselves if they want any answers from the Guys In Charge.
You can media train people though, is the thing. Hell, I'm sure they did give him some guidelines, but again its still rough.
It would have been very easy to put Crawford in front of the camera. Dude is media trained.
No amount of media training will save an exec from people who want to Professionally Be Mad.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I thought this interview was ok. The questions were somewhat aggressive, but were questions that the more angry portions of the community wanted to hear. Personally I expect Ginny Di's version of the interview to be more in line with what I want to know. I could be wrong of course, I don't have any fore knowledge, but as a content creator, she is more my style.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I'm always a bit leery when pointed questions asked by POC interviewers are framed as "aggressive." Like yeah, they were upset about things like the lack of diversity within WotC leadership and the potential for abuse (intentional or not) that a new policy could aim towards minority fans... but of course they are, that's a topic that any POC content creator or fan would be particularly concerned about.
The important thing for me was that they were respectful. They gave Kyle the chance to answer every question without interruption, none of Kyle's answers were scoffed at, and they didn't repeat the same talking points ad nauseam (like "draft!!!!") like we've seen here, for the most part they asked the question once and moved on when they got an answer. When they didn't immediately move on it was because there was something there to probe on and get additional detail. Again, I thought it was a good showing from both sides, even if it is picking at the scab to a degree.
I felt the aggressive questions were centered around who WotC was talking too and why it took so long for a response. The other stuff seemed pretty standard fare.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Ok, I'm a POC/minority myself - it's perfectly possible for POC to be aggressive. I'd add that they were actually less aggressive when asking about POC content creators than when asking about OGL issues. If they'd shown passion for promoting a diverse workforce at WotC and pushed hard there, I'd have had no problems at all. But they didn't - they just accepted Kyle's answers. They were getting angry & pushing for names of companies that saw OGL 1.1 early instead of pushing for more books from more diverse set of writers and getting angry that WotC is so behind other TTRPG companies (something I discovered in a very big way when recently looking into the lore of Paizo's Golarion setting.
They were barely respectful, did repeat weird questions to prove for odd things and actually, they scoff at his answers as soon as he left. I've no plans to resub to DDB yet, but it was an appalling showing from 3BH where I feel I'm left knowing less because of their attitude.
Then why hasn't anyone done this?? The OGL wasn't written yesterday, it's nearly 25 years old.
I would guess because that it has only recently gone "main stream". There is money to be made now.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
D&D wasn't important enough for anyone to care back then. And also nobody had announced to the entire world in bright screaming neon that the property is essentially defenseless against theft of IP and bad actors. Security through anonymity sucks, but it's better than no security at all.
Please do not contact or message me.
It's been mainstream long enough for other companies to jump on board... if they were able
I really don't think that is true. Before Critical Role made 11 million for a cartoon, I don't think D&D was on anyone's radar. That was 3 years ago, but those 3 years were really bad years for developing much of anything. I could be wrong though.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
It's only really exploded in popularity in the last few years, which isn't terribly long in the realm of major properties-- it's much much bigger today than it was when the original OGL was written, or even the last time the SRD was updated, and the bigger the property the better the contracts you need.
While I am getting a whiff of whitewash to what Kyle's saying (there's almost certainly some behind the scenes politics going on -- you don't accidentally wind up with something like OGL 1.1, someone was pushing for it, though it may not have been his team) I don't really expect a corporation to wash its dirty linen in public unless there's legal action involved.
1) I am too, not that it matters. And I never said that it wasn't possible to be aggressive, just that I'm wary when that kind of language is reached for immediately, similar to "shrill" being a go-to critique for assertive women.
2) I didn't stick around after the interview ended (had my fill documenting the rest of it) but rewatching that portion, I don't think their lingering skepticism was particularly damning, nor that it much matters. During the interview itself they didn't get in Kyle's way and he was able to say his piece. Do I think the questions about who the deals were with were weird, sure, but I think it was a good-faith attempt to gain context rather than hunting for a smoking gun of some kind. In fact, that segment better helped me understand the NDAs - after all, if they were even meeting with licensees like Paizo, it makes sense that they wouldn't want anyone leaking draft language with a bunch of unpopular provisions in it before they could remove them. (Ironic now, I know.)
Neat. Now I'm just waiting for people to find *yet another* thing to complain about regarding 1DD.
[REDACTED]
What gets me is that people were convinced - ironclad, down-to-their-toes CONVINCED - that Wizards would use Section 6f of 1.2 as a blunt object to wreck anyone and everyone they felt like wrecking, blowing up third-party properties left and right for no other earthly reason than they theoretically could...and yet those exact same people are equally convinced that there's absolutely zero chance whatsoever of literally anyone else even dreaming of doing something remotely off-kilter with the raw, unprotected hunk of Profit Steak that is D&D 5e right now.
It boggles my mind where that bizarre and illogical dichotomy comes from.
Please do not contact or message me.
I guess people just want to find things to get mad at ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
[REDACTED]
I do think it goes to show that Kyle probably isn't the guy they want to be the front face. He's obviously not media trained and it's showing.
When you view the clip as a whole, in the 4 minute span, it's still a bit sketchy because the comment itself of "guys like me can't leave fast enough". You can tell the intent wasn't negative. You can tell the intent was to be inclusive, but it's a pretty rough clip and the fact is sound bytes make the rounds and this is not a good one.
The media-trained folks aren't the Guys In Charge that people are demanding to hear from though. Kyle's in a shit position playing Apocalypse Janitor and doing what he can. People can do him the favor of not twisting his words back on themselves if they want any answers from the Guys In Charge.
Please do not contact or message me.
You can media train people though, is the thing. Hell, I'm sure they did give him some guidelines, but again its still rough.
It would have been very easy to put Crawford in front of the camera. Dude is media trained.
Well, at least you tried to make something of a point out of the messes that I've been responding to. Again, though, something that is something else in "all but name" is always going to be a LEGAL form of copying regardless of what wizards chooses to give away or not. People don't really associate "cloudkill" with D&D products with to the point that it's going to make a significant difference. As to whether Cloudkill is legitimate IP, that's a grey area. The name cloudkill is probably copyrightable, but then there's fogkill, smogcloud, toxic cloud, vaporkill, poisonlung, etc etc. Cloudkill is also fairly generic itself. Something like Force Wall from the SRD isn't even copyrightable because it's too generic. Cloudkill is pretty close, really.
Either way, if that's what yuri's point is, that wizards needed to trick people into using the OGL so that they could yank it out from under them when they did LEGAL copying because the law isn't good enough, then that's anti-trust behavior, just like when they went after the sparkles on the VTTs. They don't own generic fantasy and don't have the right to keep meta out. They don't own generic fantasy and aren't allowed to keep Roll20 out. They don't own generic fantasy and aren't allowed to keep tinder (?) out. I'm sure that absolutely keeps them up at night, but it's the truth.
No, the OGL does not allow anyone to make D&D products. Not awesome ones, not crap ones. D&D is 1) specifically excluded from the OGL so you can't use it, OGL or not and 2) protected under trademark law. If someone tried to make a D&D dating Sim using the OGL as cover, they'd likely get slapped.
They can make a "Dudes and Dates" dating app with a generic fantasy theme, though. Presumably something, something VR with something something cool magic sparkles? That's not dungeons and dragons, though. Don't really care if it has wizards in it, or tieflings for that matter.
This is not how succession planning or talent development work at all, but good job demonstrating why you won't be a F5 executive anytime soon.
No amount of media training will save an exec from people who want to Professionally Be Mad.