Kyle Brink (D&D Exec Producer) On OGL Controversy & One D&D (Summary)

The YouTube channel 3 Black Halflings spoke to WotC's Kyle Brink (executive producer, D&D) about the recent Open Game License events, amongst other things. It's an hour-plus long interview (which you can watch below) but here are some of the highlights of what Brink said. Note these are my paraphrases, so I encourage you to listen to the actual interview for full context if you have time.

OGL v1.1 Events

• There was a concern that the OGL allowed Facebook to make a D&D Metaverse without WotC involvement.
• Re. the OGL decisions, WotC had gotten themselves into a 'terrible place' and are grateful for the feedback that allowed them to see that.
• The royalties in OGL v1.1 were there as a giant deterrent to mega corporations.
• Kyle Brink is not familiar with what happened in the private meetings with certain publishers in December, although was aware that meetings were taking place.
• When the OGL v1.1 document became public, WotC had already abandoned much of it.
• The response from WotC coinciding with D&D Beyond subscription cancellations was a coincidence as it takes longer than that to modify a legal document.
• The atmosphere in WotC during the delay before making an announcement after the OGL v1.1 went public was 'bad' -- fear of making it worse if they said anything. The feeling was that they should not talk, just deliver the new version.
• Brink does not know who wrote the unpopular 'you won but we won too' announcement and saw it the same time we did. He was not happy with it.
• 'Draft' contracts can have dates and boxes for signatures. Despite the leaked version going to some publishers, it was not final or published.
• There were dissenting voices within WotC regarding the OGL v1.1, but once the company had agreed how to proceed, everybody did the best they could to deliver.
• The dissenting voices were not given enough weight to effect change. Brinks' team is now involved in the process and can influence decisions.
• The SRD release into Creative Commmons is a one-way door; there can be no takeback.

One D&D

• The intention is that all of the new [One D&D] updates they are doing, "the SRD will be updated to remain compatible with all of that". This might be with updted rules or with bridging language like 'change the word race to species'.
• Anything built with the current SRD will be 100% compatible with the new rules.
• Brink does not think there is a plan to, and does not see the value, in creating a new OGL just for One D&D. When/if they put more stuff into the public space, they'd do it through Creative Commons.
• WotC doesn't think of One D&D as a new edition. He feels it's more like what happened with 3.5. They think 5E is great, but coud be better and play faster and easier with more room for roleplay, so there is stuff they can do to improve it but not replace it.

Inclusivity

• WotC is leaning on the community to discourage bad actors and hateful content, rather than counting on a legal document.
• They are working on an adaptable content policy describing what they consider to be hateful content which will apply to WotC's work (no legal structure to apply it to anybody else).
• They now have external inclusivity reviewers (as of last fall) who look over every word and report back. They are putting old content through the same process before reprints.
• Previously cultural consultances were used for spot reviews on things they thought might be problematic, but not everything (e.g. Hadozee).
• The problematic Hadozee content was written by a trusted senior person at WotC, and very few people saw it before publication.
• 'DnDShorts' video on the internal workings and management culture of WotC is not something Brinks can talk on, but it is not reflective of his team. Each team has its own culture.
• In the last couple of years the D&D team hiring process has made the team more inclusive.
• When asked about non white-CIS-men in leadership positions at WotC, Brinks referred to some designers and authors. He said 'guys like me, we're leaving the workforce, to be blunt' and 'I'm not the face of the hobby any more'. It is important that the creators at WotC look like the players. 'Guys like me can't leave soon enough'.

Virtual Tabletops (VTTs)/Digital Gaming

• Goal is to make more ways to play ('and' not 'instead') including a cool looking 3D space.
• Digital gaming is not meant to replace books etc., but to be additive.
• The strategy is to give players a choice, and WotC will go where the player interests lie.

​

 

[TerraDave]

He said that oneD&D is 5e, and vice versa.

This does not seem ambiguous. They have used the evolution analogy since the first reveal of OneD&D. It means that 5e will get tweaks and updates over time, but no break as with previous editions. This has already been happening for nine years; it's why you can now play a Tortle Artificer.

Actually, you are saying all this. He certainly did not say it was just a "tweak". What a waste of time if it was. But people can listen to the interview and draw their own conclusions.

 

[AntiStateQuixote]

Kyle Brink comes across to me as a real D&D fan and a senior leader at a biggish corporation doing his best to dance around and say, "We ****ed up," without using those exact words. I heard contrition and embarrassment.

And I believed him.

After the interview the hosts raised the concern that Kyle was "coached" and "prepped" for all of the questions. Of course he was prepared. This is his job. I don't believe his preparation indicates lack of sincerity. It's just smart. I prepare for most business meetings I participate in, and I've never spoken to the media. I'd not just prepare, but rehearse for something like that.

Hot Take: I heard a sincere D&D fan who is also a savvy business leader that knows how to respond to media queries answering questions in the best way he could. WotC made some stupid mistakes, but I don't believe there was malicious intent against the D&D community of creators. They lost sight of what they were trying to do (protect D&D against a perceived threat from mega media companies), and in the process they destroyed trust with their fans. This interview is one of many steps on the way to regaining trust.

 

[TheAlkaizer]

I believe that many individuals at WotC probably warned others that this was a bad idea. I'm sure many felt the same way we did.

I even believe that some individuals may now have realized how they were on a bad path and might have changed their minds.

In the interview, Kyle seemed mostly genuine and I agree that I felt personal contrition and disappointment.

They lost sight of what they were trying to do (protect D&D against a perceived threat from mega media companies), and in the process they destroyed trust with their fans.

But I don't believe this. It's 101 corporate naughty word. They fully knew what they were doing. The second words of the plans would have been communicated (apparently up to two years ago?) the people in charge would have been informed that they were possibly about to create something bad. They just didn't care. They wanted the movie, the lifestyle brand, the plushies, the VTT, the subscriptions, the tie-in with their video games, the microtransactions and all of that.

They did not lost sight of what they were trying to do. It's a multinational hyper-capitalist entity, its number one objective is to generate value for its shareholders. They did exactly that and only reversed course when they realized it was going to decrease value. If there was a way for them to snap their fingers and to enforce what they wanted to without the uproar, it would already be done.

 

[lkj]

Actually, you are saying all this. He certainly did not say it was just a "tweak". What a waste of time if it was. But people can listen to the interview and draw their own conclusions.

Kyle did say "One thing I can guarantee right now is that it will be 100% compatible. Anything you build with the SRD will work with the new rules"

And all the discussion is about modifying or bridging to the existing SRD. Not writing something brand new.

He also said: "We don't even think of it as a different edition. We think of it as an evolution of fifth edition . . . We think fifth edition is great . . . there stuff . . . that we want to do to improve it. But we're not trying to replace it."

I agree it is more than minor 'tweaks'. (And I am so not interested in having a debate about some arbitrary definition of what defines an edition or half edition). But-- in house-- they definitely don't seem to be thinking of this as an edition change. They are improving a chassis and engine they already like.

Proof will be in the pudding of course. As always.

AD

 

[Thourne]

Does anyone happen to have any info on who else will be releasing interviews in the short term or if any others have yet been done?

 

[Jadeite]

If I create a subclass based on the 5.1 SRD it won't work seamlessly with the way 1D&D subclasses are currently supposed to work, so "100% compatible" wouldn't be my words of choice.

 

[Parmandur]

If I create a subclass based on the 5.1 SRD it won't work seamlessly with the way 1D&D subclasses are currently supposed to work, so "100% compatible" wouldn't be my words of choice.

It will work as is currently, and theblast playtest explicitly says that there will be guidance on how to use base 5E Subclasses with the new Classes in the final product. So, what he is saying is that there is no new plan from what they have put into thebplayemtest packets: the final Core will include guidelines to use any 5E Sbclass option, and we have enough to say that this shouldn't be a major blocker.

 

[Jadeite]

It will work as is currently, and theblast playtest explicitly says that there will be guidance on how to use base 5E Subclasses with the new Classes in the final product. So, what he is saying is that there is no new plan from what they have put into thebplayemtest packets: the final Core will include guidelines to use any 5E Sbclass option, and we have enough to say that this shouldn't be a major blocker.

3.5 had guidance on how to use 3.0 material. It wasn't hard. But it was not what I would call 100% compatibility. And it was a huge issue for many d20 publishers.
And guidance is different from rules. It's more art than science. 3.0 had a conversion manual for AD&D 2nd. Does that mean that those systems were 100% compatible?

 

[dave2008]

As to 3e, that no longer is important, maybe WotC will, maybe they won’t, either way they are safe as there no longer is any incentive to revoke the OGL

I meant 3e, modern, etc. I also understood that OneD&D would be added to the CC SRD

 

[mamba]

Kyle did say "One thing I can guarantee right now is that it will be 100% compatible. Anything you build with the SRD will work with the new rules

that is about the 1DD SRD and 1DD, it does not tell us about 5e and 1DD compatibility