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 mking 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.
SpikedSpiegel, Exactly! We don't need to have anyone at WotC lose their job over this. Certainly not Kyle. Much better to have people who have learned their lesson going forward. But I still think WotC needs to come clean on the "draft" OGL and some other issues. Kyle made a good start, he needs to follow through in the other (hopefully upcoming) content creator interview videos. Lastly, although Linda Codega is not a creator, they are definitely the major professional journalist involved in this story. WotC should give Linda an interview if they are serious about putting this to rest. It could be with Kyle, but it could also be someone else at WotC or Hasbro. This is simply not something that should be ignored. It will only fester. If WotC thinks that this will be forgotten, they are sadly mistaken.
It costs Wizards zero to say, "OK, OGL 1.1 was not actually a draft. Sorry about that, too."
Actually, public false statements could be pretty expensive for Wizards. The fact that a lot of people don't understand the meaning of 'draft' in the context of contracts does not mean it's not the correct word.
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?
I am not AntonSirius nor a content creator, but I have a background in accounting. I have no sympathy for businesses who cannot manage their finances and navigate around OGL1.1. Content creators who cannot adapt deserve to fail just like any other business. In my opinion, if OGL1.1 is the reason a third party business fails, that tells me the business's own works and IP is not worth squat, and if there are any sales at all, it is due to the heavy reliance on the SRD; i.e. the business is piggybacking off of another's work and IP with little contrubition of their own.
To me, trust by itself is sloganeering. A business cannot be run solely on trust. A business cannot be so fragile that a leaked draft of a legal contract is going to kill their operations.
They deserve to fail if their own IP cannot stand on its own apart from Wizards' IP. I am less than impressed with the way some reacted, especially Paizo.
It costs Wizards zero to say, "OK, OGL 1.1 was not actually a draft. Sorry about that, too."
Actually, public false statements could be pretty expensive for Wizards. The fact that a lot of people don't understand the meaning of 'draft' in the context of contracts does not mean it's not the correct word.
Sure, that's exactly what Wizards needs to do right now - hide behind legal jargon technicalities and blame it all on the ignorance of an angry public.
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
It costs Wizards zero to say, "OK, OGL 1.1 was not actually a draft. Sorry about that, too."
Actually, public false statements could be pretty expensive for Wizards. The fact that a lot of people don't understand the meaning of 'draft' in the context of contracts does not mean it's not the correct word.
Sure, that's exactly what Wizards needs to do right now - hide behind legal jargon technicalities and blame it all on the ignorance of an angry public.
I have never once had a client be confused by the word “draft” insofar as it relates to contracts. Ever. Countless contracts; endless revisions of drafts. Never been a problem. That “legal jargon” is entirely congruent with the plain meaning of the word draft - “This is a version that is not final yet” - that one almost needs to try to turn off their mind in order to think the “but it was not a draft!” argument has any real merit. That folks somehow are still making this argument - are still following what someone on social media said rather than, say, their grade school understanding of a basic English word - boggles the mind.
"Believe people when they show you who they are the first time."
I have seen a degree of toxicity in this thread from a collection of people who have very much shown me who they are herein.
I am slack jawed at outright displays of overt, utter WS that should have everyone not merely cringing, but ashamed.
there is blunt and bold outright racism being used to defend a remark that was fashioned out of dust and then magically calling that remark racist, when it cannot possibly be such, because of how racism works and operates.
if nothing else, I have some wonderful examples for classes on identifying racist remarks, and will have the opportunity to use them next tuesday. At least I can take something good from this thread.
I hope this thread is locked.
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
SpikedSpiegel, Exactly! We don't need to have anyone at WotC lose their job over this. Certainly not Kyle. Much better to have people who have learned their lesson going forward. But I still think WotC needs to come clean on the "draft" OGL and some other issues. Kyle made a good start, he needs to follow through in the other (hopefully upcoming) content creator interview videos. Lastly, although Linda Codega is not a creator, they are definitely the major professional journalist involved in this story. WotC should give Linda an interview if they are serious about putting this to rest. It could be with Kyle, but it could also be someone else at WotC or Hasbro. This is simply not something that should be ignored. It will only fester. If WotC thinks that this will be forgotten, they are sadly mistaken.
Follow through in the other interviews how? Are you expecting different answers? And you want him to have an interview with Linda Codega where he rehashes all the same questions and answers... why exactly? Where does it end? What are you looking for?
Sure, that's exactly what Wizards needs to do right now - hide behind legal jargon technicalities and blame it all on the ignorance of an angry public.
What the actual banana cream Shatner manhell do you actually want?
It's not "legal jargon technicalities", it's the ******* truth. Many, many, many people have explained this! It doesn't matter if you don't like the definition or don't agree with the definition, that's the definition! Did they expect signatures? Who knows, WHO CARES. Forcing Wizards to constantly eat infinite shit on this subject for the next five years won't make anything better. Whatever they expected at the start of last month, they sure as shit aren't expecting anything of the sort now. Why, why, why keep grinding this point like a mason with a grinding wheel and something to prove?
Let. It. Go. Until it actually becomes relevant again.
Sure, that's exactly what Wizards needs to do right now - hide behind legal jargon technicalities and blame it all on the ignorance of an angry public.
Why, why, why keep grinding this point like a mason with a grinding wheel and something to prove?
Let. It. Go. Until it actually becomes relevant again.
Probably for the same reason some people show up in every thread to continuously rehash their own talking points over and over again.
I didn't really believe him. His answers and explanation did not seem believable to me, in regards to the delays, the draft, and even the rationale. However, it was nice of him to try. Also, my distrust in WotC does not preclude me from enjoying their products (which I intend to continue using).
It costs Wizards zero to say, "OK, OGL 1.1 was not actually a draft. Sorry about that, too."
Actually, public false statements could be pretty expensive for Wizards. The fact that a lot of people don't understand the meaning of 'draft' in the context of contracts does not mean it's not the correct word.
Sure, that's exactly what Wizards needs to do right now - hide behind legal jargon technicalities and blame it all on the ignorance of an angry public.
It's not "legal jargon technicalities", it's the ******* truth. Many, many, many people have explained this! It doesn't matter if you don't like the definition or don't agree with the definition, that's the definition! Did they expect signatures? Who knows, WHO CARES. Forcing Wizards to constantly eat infinite shit on this subject for the next five years won't make anything better. Whatever they expected at the start of last month, they sure as shit aren't expecting anything of the sort now. Why, why, why keep grinding this point like a mason with a grinding wheel and something to prove?.
WotC were not talking to the legal community when they made their statements via D&D Beyond. They were speaking to the general public who have a generalized understanding of the word draft. Legal commentator gamers like Roll of Law (who I've long followed under his guise as Runkle of the Bailey) and The Rules Lawyer have both fairly called this out as blatantly dishonest.
Sure, that's exactly what Wizards needs to do right now - hide behind legal jargon technicalities and blame it all on the ignorance of an angry public.
What the actual banana cream Shatner manhell do you actually want?
It's not "legal jargon technicalities", it's the ******* truth. Many, many, many people have explained this! It doesn't matter if you don't like the definition or don't agree with the definition, that's the definition! Did they expect signatures? Who knows, WHO CARES. Forcing Wizards to constantly eat infinite shit on this subject for the next five years won't make anything better. Whatever they expected at the start of last month, they sure as shit aren't expecting anything of the sort now. Why, why, why keep grinding this point like a mason with a grinding wheel and something to prove?
Let. It. Go. Until it actually becomes relevant again.
When Wizards says it was "only a draft", they know exactly what they are trying to convey: the "final" copy really wouldn't have had all the bad stuff people didn't like it, oh if only people would have waited. Please. They can keep eating this shit until they "let it go" and admit it, and you yourself can "let it go" just as easily by leaving the conversation. No one is forcing you to participate.
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
WotC were not talking to the legal community when they made their statements via D&D Beyond. They were speaking to the general public who have a generalized understanding of the word draft. Legal commentator gamers like Roll of Law (who I've long followed under his guise as Runkle of the Bailey) and The Rules Lawyer have both fairly called this out as blatantly dishonest.
Okay? When a word has more than one definition, people are allowed to disagree on which one they think was meant. Kyle was very clear on what WotC meant by it. What are you looking for?
Ok, that's progress - now did you read it & see how very different the adventures were from normal WotC stuff? That's because we have different life experiences & different cultures to draw on. I'm British but my heritage is Indian; I could write you a unique Punjabi influenced adventure, even set somewhere familiar like Faerun. Most white authors draw on their own European heritages when asked to write a WotC adventure, instead - as we've seen with plenty of past adventures. So you see how it's important to have a diverse range of voices writing adventures if you want to keep them fresh?
WotC were not talking to the legal community when they made their statements via D&D Beyond. They were speaking to the general public who have a generalized understanding of the word draft. Legal commentator gamers like Roll of Law (who I've long followed under his guise as Runkle of the Bailey) and The Rules Lawyer have both fairly called this out as blatantly dishonest.
Okay? When a word has more than one definition, people are allowed to disagree on which one they think was meant. Kyle was very clear on what WotC meant by it. What are you looking for?
Thank you.
Honesty. Straightforwardness. Eagerness to communicate at the level of those communicated with. Kindness and calm among all current contributors.
I was referring to the D&D Beyond statements. Thank you for your question and I'll think more on it.
SpikedSpiegel, Exactly! We don't need to have anyone at WotC lose their job over this. Certainly not Kyle. Much better to have people who have learned their lesson going forward. But I still think WotC needs to come clean on the "draft" OGL and some other issues. Kyle made a good start, he needs to follow through in the other (hopefully upcoming) content creator interview videos. Lastly, although Linda Codega is not a creator, they are definitely the major professional journalist involved in this story. WotC should give Linda an interview if they are serious about putting this to rest. It could be with Kyle, but it could also be someone else at WotC or Hasbro. This is simply not something that should be ignored. It will only fester. If WotC thinks that this will be forgotten, they are sadly mistaken.
Nathair Sgiathach is my co-pilot
Actually, public false statements could be pretty expensive for Wizards. The fact that a lot of people don't understand the meaning of 'draft' in the context of contracts does not mean it's not the correct word.
I am not AntonSirius nor a content creator, but I have a background in accounting. I have no sympathy for businesses who cannot manage their finances and navigate around OGL1.1. Content creators who cannot adapt deserve to fail just like any other business. In my opinion, if OGL1.1 is the reason a third party business fails, that tells me the business's own works and IP is not worth squat, and if there are any sales at all, it is due to the heavy reliance on the SRD; i.e. the business is piggybacking off of another's work and IP with little contrubition of their own.
To me, trust by itself is sloganeering. A business cannot be run solely on trust. A business cannot be so fragile that a leaked draft of a legal contract is going to kill their operations.
They deserve to fail if their own IP cannot stand on its own apart from Wizards' IP. I am less than impressed with the way some reacted, especially Paizo.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
Sure, that's exactly what Wizards needs to do right now - hide behind legal jargon technicalities and blame it all on the ignorance of an angry public.
“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 SatieEmphasized the part you missed.
There it is! We're done here.
I have never once had a client be confused by the word “draft” insofar as it relates to contracts. Ever. Countless contracts; endless revisions of drafts. Never been a problem. That “legal jargon” is entirely congruent with the plain meaning of the word draft - “This is a version that is not final yet” - that one almost needs to try to turn off their mind in order to think the “but it was not a draft!” argument has any real merit. That folks somehow are still making this argument - are still following what someone on social media said rather than, say, their grade school understanding of a basic English word - boggles the mind.
"Believe people when they show you who they are the first time."
I have seen a degree of toxicity in this thread from a collection of people who have very much shown me who they are herein.
I am slack jawed at outright displays of overt, utter WS that should have everyone not merely cringing, but ashamed.
there is blunt and bold outright racism being used to defend a remark that was fashioned out of dust and then magically calling that remark racist, when it cannot possibly be such, because of how racism works and operates.
if nothing else, I have some wonderful examples for classes on identifying racist remarks, and will have the opportunity to use them next tuesday. At least I can take something good from this thread.
I hope this thread is locked.
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
Follow through in the other interviews how? Are you expecting different answers? And you want him to have an interview with Linda Codega where he rehashes all the same questions and answers... why exactly? Where does it end? What are you looking for?
What the actual banana cream Shatner manhell do you actually want?
It's not "legal jargon technicalities", it's the ******* truth. Many, many, many people have explained this! It doesn't matter if you don't like the definition or don't agree with the definition, that's the definition! Did they expect signatures? Who knows, WHO CARES. Forcing Wizards to constantly eat infinite shit on this subject for the next five years won't make anything better. Whatever they expected at the start of last month, they sure as shit aren't expecting anything of the sort now. Why, why, why keep grinding this point like a mason with a grinding wheel and something to prove?
Let. It. Go. Until it actually becomes relevant again.
Please do not contact or message me.
Probably for the same reason some people show up in every thread to continuously rehash their own talking points over and over again.
Because said people cannot let anything go. Ever.
I didn't really believe him. His answers and explanation did not seem believable to me, in regards to the delays, the draft, and even the rationale. However, it was nice of him to try. Also, my distrust in WotC does not preclude me from enjoying their products (which I intend to continue using).
Yes, black & brown - not just black. There's a difference you know. You do know, right?
WotC were not talking to the legal community when they made their statements via D&D Beyond. They were speaking to the general public who have a generalized understanding of the word draft. Legal commentator gamers like Roll of Law (who I've long followed under his guise as Runkle of the Bailey) and The Rules Lawyer have both fairly called this out as blatantly dishonest.
When Wizards says it was "only a draft", they know exactly what they are trying to convey: the "final" copy really wouldn't have had all the bad stuff people didn't like it, oh if only people would have waited. Please. They can keep eating this shit until they "let it go" and admit it, and you yourself can "let it go" just as easily by leaving the conversation. No one is forcing you to participate.
“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 SatieOkay? When a word has more than one definition, people are allowed to disagree on which one they think was meant. Kyle was very clear on what WotC meant by it. What are you looking for?
Ok, that's progress - now did you read it & see how very different the adventures were from normal WotC stuff? That's because we have different life experiences & different cultures to draw on. I'm British but my heritage is Indian; I could write you a unique Punjabi influenced adventure, even set somewhere familiar like Faerun. Most white authors draw on their own European heritages when asked to write a WotC adventure, instead - as we've seen with plenty of past adventures. So you see how it's important to have a diverse range of voices writing adventures if you want to keep them fresh?
Thank you.
Honesty.
Straightforwardness.
Eagerness to communicate at the level of those communicated with.
Kindness and calm among all current contributors.
I was referring to the D&D Beyond statements.
Thank you for your question and I'll think more on it.
Thread is being locked at the request of the original poster
Find my D&D Beyond articles here