I actually thought D&D Shorts was a burner account for like Todd K or Crawford, who I sometimes thing are the same person after an interview where they tried to do the mirror thing but kinda overdid it, but that's getting way inside baseball.
Why on earth would you think that? You are aware that the DnD Shorts guy is an independent content creator who has no ties to WOTC? Honestly your take doesn't make any sense.
True. Because if they said that, it would be an obvious lie.
Seriously? D&D Shorts mostly was spreading rumors that made no sense and Wizards of the Coast denied them. There is little reason to believe that a mega corporation is going to publicly spread lies in order to cover up secret plans to get themselves bankrupt and then not follow through.
Regardless of whether or not a statement is accurate or correct, Pantagruel is right that many of those who believe Wizards is a malicious liar will not admit that their beliefs could be mistaken.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
I actually thought D&D Shorts was a burner account for like Todd K or Crawford, who I sometimes thing are the same person after an interview where they tried to do the mirror thing but kinda overdid it, but that's getting way inside baseball.
Why on earth would you think that? You are aware that the DnD Shorts guy is an independent content creator who has no ties to WOTC? Honestly your take doesn't make any sense.
I think it was meant to be a joke.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
If Kyle went on DnD Shorts and clarified that some of the rumors were based on proposals that were not taken seriously or even just discussions about what they could do that would go a long way to earning trust.
No, it would just not be believed.
True. Because if they said that, it would be an obvious lie.
I actually thought D&D Shorts was a burner account for like Todd K or Crawford, who I sometimes thing are the same person after an interview where they tried to do the mirror thing but kinda overdid it, but that's getting way inside baseball.
Why on earth would you think that? You are aware that the DnD Shorts guy is an independent content creator who has no ties to WOTC? Honestly your take doesn't make any sense.
I think it was meant to be a joke.
Thank you, I'll show myself out and let the serious counseling of Brink continue, don't forget to tip your servers.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
If Kyle went on DnD Shorts and clarified that some of the rumors were based on proposals that were not taken seriously or even just discussions about what they could do that would go a long way to earning trust.
No, it would just not be believed.
True. Because if they said that, it would be an obvious lie.
Thank you for proving my point.
Was your point to apologise for a billion dollar company who *literally* tried to hijack the hobby only a few weeks ago? Again... we all lived through this, and there's no misinterpreting it.
Yes, so instead he goes on to a channel at the time had 778 subs, as opposed to going on one that has literally over 300,000 subs. Or how about Nerd Immersion, with 105,000 subs, who is an neutral as it gets. Or Matt Colville, with his 424,000 subs. But no, I am sure they are all totally unreliable, right?
If those had been your first suggestions, I would have responded differently. They weren't.
It is very telling that Brink did 3 interviews, and only one was with someone with a large following. He could have done D&D Shorts (334K) for starters.
Doing D&D shorts would be stupid -- when you're trying to put out a fire, don't go to the gasoline factory.
Yes, so instead he goes on to a channel at the time had 778 subs, as opposed to going on one that has literally over 300,000 subs. Or how about Nerd Immersion, with 105,000 subs, who is an neutral as it gets. Or Matt Colville, with his 424,000 subs. But no, I am sure they are all totally unreliable, right?
As a matter of fact Nerd Immersion has done an interview with Brinks. When he did a vid on the Demiplane announcement he said he was in the process of editing the video when the Demiplane news broke. I want to say Bob Worldbuilder was getting questions from his followers too, but can't confirm.
I've never seen Matt Colville interview anyone, and why would they go with a guy who said, "You know wha?, April is the last issue of my 5e magazine, and Flea Mortals is going to be MCDM's last 5e product. Me and James and and Hannah are going to make our own game, and it's gonna kick butt." I mean why would you ask him to help you out? He's clearly stated he's going to use WotC's error as a catalyst to grow his own business. I mean you might as well have Paizo interview them with that logic.
WotC asked _many_ folks to sit down and do an interview with Brinks (I don't know if they ever confirmed it, but I think Codega got one of the first asks), some of those interviews, at least the release of them, are still in process.
The questions I would ask are "what is exactly the chain on command at wotc?" "Who do you directly report to?" "How can you not know who wrote "we both win"?" Who was in the room when the decisions for the 1.1 contents were made?
And after the "white men can't leave fast enough" statement, the NEXT interview question would "Can you clarify exactly what you mean by that?" But I guess asking pointed questions, and not letting go until the question is answered makes me a gasoline factory.....
Brinks' job is definitely not generating more "[Executive or employee name] needs to get fired" on DDB or elsewhere on social media. Heads on pikes just aren't a majority demand, or at least a demand most company's are just not going to accommodate. Maybe you'll hear about turnover, maybe it'll be related to performance of D&D over a period of time, maybe it'll be for entirely different reasons.
Have you ever worked in a lead creative or high level corporate environment? Outward facing language that isn't specifically signed is the corporation's language, often written over a number of rooms with a number of hands. That's sort of the point. If there isn't a signature on the document, it's under the corporation's accountability, not an individual. Publicly pillorying or introducing consequences to specific individuals for a specific act like word choice to a press release just isn't done. Attributing a given employee or executives departure to a specific act is the speculative work of gossip journalism, not PR.
You try to rile for red meat, but it's just windmill tilting.
Yes, so instead he goes on to a channel at the time had 778 subs, as opposed to going on one that has literally over 300,000 subs. Or how about Nerd Immersion, with 105,000 subs, who is an neutral as it gets. Or Matt Colville, with his 424,000 subs. But no, I am sure they are all totally unreliable, right?
Firstly, Kyle went on a channel that has more than 450 thousand subs, so the claim that he was only talking with small creators just seems a bit nonsensical.
Honestly, the Dungeons and Dragons community is made up of big creators and small creators. Though some D&D players may not garner as many views, they can still be committed to the game just as much as those who convey a similar level of passion and interest and get far more clicks. To me at least, I think it's great that Kyle has recognized that these people are still community member too, and that is interviewing channels with different scopes of audiences. Also, there will likely be more interviews to come if you feel like the ones he has done so far are insufficient.
Thirdly, Nerd Immersion is very much not "as neutral as it gets". He has been involved in this debacle for longer than almost all other creators, and he would be heavily invested in pushing his narrative of the story (which is understandable, but doesn't actually make for a good and friendly interview). Other users have already responded to your comments about Matt Colville, so I wont bother to comment on that.
Kyle using his profile to massively boost the platforms of not just small creators, but small creators of color, was a very positive side effect of this mess.
Was your point to apologise for a billion dollar company who *literally* tried to hijack the hobby only a few weeks ago? Again... we all lived through this, and there's no misinterpreting it.
May I ask what your endgame is then? The question has been asked. WotC has answered. Whether you believe them or not, that answer isn't changing. Demanding they repeat the same answer over hill and dale and on channels big and small makes no difference. So what then is your goal?
The reality of finding a neutral interview is, people on YouTube get money based on views and subscribers, and that's an incentive to tell whatever story your viewers and subscribers want to hear, not be neutral. A smaller channel at least has a smaller incentive. The best bet for neutral would be someone outside the hobby entirely, but that person would (a) have no real idea what questions to ask, and (b) not have much incentive to do the interview in the first place.
The simple reality is that Kyle’s PR tour is working. Sure, there are some folks still looking to stir up trouble for one reason or another, but the overwhelming response to Kyle has been positive.
Ummmm???? Have you looked anywhere other than this forum??? Like maybe the comment sections of the interviews or any other video discussing the issue??
The simple reality is that Kyle’s PR tour is working. Sure, there are some folks still looking to stir up trouble for one reason or another, but the overwhelming response to Kyle has been positive.
Ummmm???? Have you looked anywhere other than this forum??? Like maybe the comment sections of the interviews or any other video discussing the issue??
Yes. Across many areas of news media and social media, the outrage engine is running out of stream—sure, there are some folks still trying to shovel coal into the burners, but they’re running out of high quality material and increasingly trying to add more and more impure fuel to the fires.
Yes. Across many areas of news media and social media, the outrage engine is running out of stream—sure, there are some folks still trying to shovel coal into the burners, but they’re running out of high quality material and increasingly trying to add more and more impure fuel to the fires.
How much of that is Brinks giving interviews, and how much is just the SRD under CC, isn't really identifiable.
If Kyle went on DnD Shorts and clarified that some of the rumors were based on proposals that were not taken seriously or even just discussions about what they could do that would go a long way to earning trust.
No, it would just not be believed.
True. Because if they said that, it would be an obvious lie.
Thank you for proving my point.
Was your point to apologize for a billion dollar company who *literally* tried to hijack the hobby only a few weeks ago? Again... we all lived through this, and there's no misinterpreting it.
I think what you said right there shows how much it has been and is still being misinterpreted.
*Literally* tried to "highjack" the hobby? One, I know I'm old-school, and now "literal" can mean literal or figurative, but c'mon.
I think it is very clear what Wizards was trying to do, and it was not going to "hijack" the hobby.
Wizards was:
1. Attempting to get in on some of the profits from the largest 3rd party players in the 5e space. Were the rates outrageous? Yes. Would it impact anywhere near the majority of creators? No. I'm not defending the practice, but in no way was getting a percentage on annual sales of OGL-inclusive products going to "hijack" the hobby.
2. Attempting to use the larger 3rd party community as a data mine. The reason they wanted anything over $50,000 reported to Wizards was because those were obviously things that were doing well, of interest to the D&D community. Can you blame them for wanting an easy way to do market research? In general this provision was mostly harmless to 3rd party creators, however it would cause more time spent doing paperwork. Not great or useful for creators, but not anything that would shut down their productions.
3. Attempting to limit bad-faith actors in using the OGL for publishing racist, homophobic, transphobic, misogynistic, etc materials that could tarnish their brand. In the world of hyper-partisan, over-reactionary politics and such that we live in today, this would probably have been a real concern for them. Anything linking their brand to something like "Hitler's Reich: A 5e Adventure! Help your players carry out the Final Solution and ensure the purity of the human race!" could have huge impacts for Hasbro and Wizards. While so far they don't have any evidence of anyone doing something like this, it would only take one or two well-publicised things like this to create a major headache, boycotts, etc for Hasbro and WotC. I believe Kyle when he says they were trying to future-proof the brand, because if you don't think what I described above is possible, you need to wake up and see what's happening in the world.
4. Attempting to stave off unnecessary lawsuits. There was a provision in the OGL 1.1 that seemed very much like it was going to allow WotC to take anything you published under the OGL as their own and use it any way they wanted, without having to credit you or cut you in on any profits. And while technically legally it could have done that, that was not the primary intent. Similar language is already used on D&D Beyond for homebrewed content, and in many other places throughout the web. I actually saw a lawyer discussing this point. The true intent of this statement was to ensure that no one who published anything under the OGL could just sue WotC because they had created something and WotC came out with something that seemed similar. Whether it be a new subclass, monster, whatever, there would be people who would say "Hey, I published this thing under the OGL and now WotC came out with something very like that thing! I'm suing!!" This could potentially cost hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars in lawsuits, which most WotC would probably win but it would still cost them a lot. Instead, they included this provision so that if you published under the OGL 1.1 even if you thought they stole your idea you wouldn't be able to sue. At face value it seems bad, and in reality it is far from ideal, however many companies that host any kind of 3rd party content have similar stipulations so as to not get endlessly sued because someone thinks they stole their idea.
4. There is a lot of misinformation going out about whether the "leaked" version was a "draft" or not. Some people stated that they had received contracts with the "draft", and thus called WotC liars and said "No, it came with a contract, ready to sign!" I think that somewhere along the line a few people were confused or misrepresented in their exclamations. What we saw in the leaked OGL 1.1 was clearly a draft. It had placeholder text for images, names, even entire processes. It would say things like [process to be determined]. The dates in the leaked version were such that no one could have cleared those dates anyway. If anyone thought they were going to sign an actual contract with things like "To be determined" in it, that's insane. NO ONE would sign that. What's more likely is it came with an NDA or something similar that they were asked to sign. The OGL is not and never has been a "contract" that you need to sign to use. It has always been that you follow the instructions of posting it in the material that you are using SRD things in and then basically WotC agrees not to sue. It has NEVER been a contract to sign, and OGL 1.1 was no different. It makes no sense. So that part of the story was hugely misinterpreted and a lot of misinformation went out about that.
In the end, was the OGL 1.1 bad? Yeah. Did it need to be reworked? Absolutely. Am I happy with the direction WotC went with putting the SRD in Creative Commons and rolling back pretty much all of their provisions? Very! Except honestly the part in OGL 1.1 about WotC being able to rescind your use of the OGL in materials that were deemed offensive, racist, homophobic, etc I honestly liked. I think it makes sense 1. to protect their brand and 2. I don't care for racist, homophobic, etc things, so a win-win.
Why on earth would you think that? You are aware that the DnD Shorts guy is an independent content creator who has no ties to WOTC? Honestly your take doesn't make any sense.
Seriously? D&D Shorts mostly was spreading rumors that made no sense and Wizards of the Coast denied them. There is little reason to believe that a mega corporation is going to publicly spread lies in order to cover up secret plans to get themselves bankrupt and then not follow through.
Regardless of whether or not a statement is accurate or correct, Pantagruel is right that many of those who believe Wizards is a malicious liar will not admit that their beliefs could be mistaken.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.I think it was meant to be a joke.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Thank you for proving my point.
Thank you, I'll show myself out and let the serious counseling of Brink continue, don't forget to tip your servers.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Was your point to apologise for a billion dollar company who *literally* tried to hijack the hobby only a few weeks ago? Again... we all lived through this, and there's no misinterpreting it.
If those had been your first suggestions, I would have responded differently. They weren't.
As a matter of fact Nerd Immersion has done an interview with Brinks. When he did a vid on the Demiplane announcement he said he was in the process of editing the video when the Demiplane news broke. I want to say Bob Worldbuilder was getting questions from his followers too, but can't confirm.
I've never seen Matt Colville interview anyone, and why would they go with a guy who said, "You know wha?, April is the last issue of my 5e magazine, and Flea Mortals is going to be MCDM's last 5e product. Me and James and and Hannah are going to make our own game, and it's gonna kick butt." I mean why would you ask him to help you out? He's clearly stated he's going to use WotC's error as a catalyst to grow his own business. I mean you might as well have Paizo interview them with that logic.
WotC asked _many_ folks to sit down and do an interview with Brinks (I don't know if they ever confirmed it, but I think Codega got one of the first asks), some of those interviews, at least the release of them, are still in process.
Brinks' job is definitely not generating more "[Executive or employee name] needs to get fired" on DDB or elsewhere on social media. Heads on pikes just aren't a majority demand, or at least a demand most company's are just not going to accommodate. Maybe you'll hear about turnover, maybe it'll be related to performance of D&D over a period of time, maybe it'll be for entirely different reasons.
Have you ever worked in a lead creative or high level corporate environment? Outward facing language that isn't specifically signed is the corporation's language, often written over a number of rooms with a number of hands. That's sort of the point. If there isn't a signature on the document, it's under the corporation's accountability, not an individual. Publicly pillorying or introducing consequences to specific individuals for a specific act like word choice to a press release just isn't done. Attributing a given employee or executives departure to a specific act is the speculative work of gossip journalism, not PR.
You try to rile for red meat, but it's just windmill tilting.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Firstly, Kyle went on a channel that has more than 450 thousand subs, so the claim that he was only talking with small creators just seems a bit nonsensical.
Honestly, the Dungeons and Dragons community is made up of big creators and small creators. Though some D&D players may not garner as many views, they can still be committed to the game just as much as those who convey a similar level of passion and interest and get far more clicks. To me at least, I think it's great that Kyle has recognized that these people are still community member too, and that is interviewing channels with different scopes of audiences. Also, there will likely be more interviews to come if you feel like the ones he has done so far are insufficient.
Thirdly, Nerd Immersion is very much not "as neutral as it gets". He has been involved in this debacle for longer than almost all other creators, and he would be heavily invested in pushing his narrative of the story (which is understandable, but doesn't actually make for a good and friendly interview). Other users have already responded to your comments about Matt Colville, so I wont bother to comment on that.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Kyle using his profile to massively boost the platforms of not just small creators, but small creators of color, was a very positive side effect of this mess.
May I ask what your endgame is then? The question has been asked. WotC has answered. Whether you believe them or not, that answer isn't changing. Demanding they repeat the same answer over hill and dale and on channels big and small makes no difference. So what then is your goal?
The reality of finding a neutral interview is, people on YouTube get money based on views and subscribers, and that's an incentive to tell whatever story your viewers and subscribers want to hear, not be neutral. A smaller channel at least has a smaller incentive. The best bet for neutral would be someone outside the hobby entirely, but that person would (a) have no real idea what questions to ask, and (b) not have much incentive to do the interview in the first place.
Ummmm???? Have you looked anywhere other than this forum??? Like maybe the comment sections of the interviews or any other video discussing the issue??
Yes. Across many areas of news media and social media, the outrage engine is running out of stream—sure, there are some folks still trying to shovel coal into the burners, but they’re running out of high quality material and increasingly trying to add more and more impure fuel to the fires.
How much of that is Brinks giving interviews, and how much is just the SRD under CC, isn't really identifiable.
I think what you said right there shows how much it has been and is still being misinterpreted.
*Literally* tried to "highjack" the hobby? One, I know I'm old-school, and now "literal" can mean literal or figurative, but c'mon.
I think it is very clear what Wizards was trying to do, and it was not going to "hijack" the hobby.
Wizards was:
1. Attempting to get in on some of the profits from the largest 3rd party players in the 5e space. Were the rates outrageous? Yes. Would it impact anywhere near the majority of creators? No. I'm not defending the practice, but in no way was getting a percentage on annual sales of OGL-inclusive products going to "hijack" the hobby.
2. Attempting to use the larger 3rd party community as a data mine. The reason they wanted anything over $50,000 reported to Wizards was because those were obviously things that were doing well, of interest to the D&D community. Can you blame them for wanting an easy way to do market research? In general this provision was mostly harmless to 3rd party creators, however it would cause more time spent doing paperwork. Not great or useful for creators, but not anything that would shut down their productions.
3. Attempting to limit bad-faith actors in using the OGL for publishing racist, homophobic, transphobic, misogynistic, etc materials that could tarnish their brand. In the world of hyper-partisan, over-reactionary politics and such that we live in today, this would probably have been a real concern for them. Anything linking their brand to something like "Hitler's Reich: A 5e Adventure! Help your players carry out the Final Solution and ensure the purity of the human race!" could have huge impacts for Hasbro and Wizards. While so far they don't have any evidence of anyone doing something like this, it would only take one or two well-publicised things like this to create a major headache, boycotts, etc for Hasbro and WotC. I believe Kyle when he says they were trying to future-proof the brand, because if you don't think what I described above is possible, you need to wake up and see what's happening in the world.
4. Attempting to stave off unnecessary lawsuits. There was a provision in the OGL 1.1 that seemed very much like it was going to allow WotC to take anything you published under the OGL as their own and use it any way they wanted, without having to credit you or cut you in on any profits. And while technically legally it could have done that, that was not the primary intent. Similar language is already used on D&D Beyond for homebrewed content, and in many other places throughout the web. I actually saw a lawyer discussing this point. The true intent of this statement was to ensure that no one who published anything under the OGL could just sue WotC because they had created something and WotC came out with something that seemed similar. Whether it be a new subclass, monster, whatever, there would be people who would say "Hey, I published this thing under the OGL and now WotC came out with something very like that thing! I'm suing!!" This could potentially cost hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars in lawsuits, which most WotC would probably win but it would still cost them a lot. Instead, they included this provision so that if you published under the OGL 1.1 even if you thought they stole your idea you wouldn't be able to sue. At face value it seems bad, and in reality it is far from ideal, however many companies that host any kind of 3rd party content have similar stipulations so as to not get endlessly sued because someone thinks they stole their idea.
4. There is a lot of misinformation going out about whether the "leaked" version was a "draft" or not. Some people stated that they had received contracts with the "draft", and thus called WotC liars and said "No, it came with a contract, ready to sign!" I think that somewhere along the line a few people were confused or misrepresented in their exclamations. What we saw in the leaked OGL 1.1 was clearly a draft. It had placeholder text for images, names, even entire processes. It would say things like [process to be determined]. The dates in the leaked version were such that no one could have cleared those dates anyway. If anyone thought they were going to sign an actual contract with things like "To be determined" in it, that's insane. NO ONE would sign that. What's more likely is it came with an NDA or something similar that they were asked to sign. The OGL is not and never has been a "contract" that you need to sign to use. It has always been that you follow the instructions of posting it in the material that you are using SRD things in and then basically WotC agrees not to sue. It has NEVER been a contract to sign, and OGL 1.1 was no different. It makes no sense. So that part of the story was hugely misinterpreted and a lot of misinformation went out about that.
In the end, was the OGL 1.1 bad? Yeah. Did it need to be reworked? Absolutely. Am I happy with the direction WotC went with putting the SRD in Creative Commons and rolling back pretty much all of their provisions? Very! Except honestly the part in OGL 1.1 about WotC being able to rescind your use of the OGL in materials that were deemed offensive, racist, homophobic, etc I honestly liked. I think it makes sense 1. to protect their brand and 2. I don't care for racist, homophobic, etc things, so a win-win.
Incidentally, the nerd invasion interview appears to be out.