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.

​

 

[mamba]

I'm going to really attempt a measured response to this:

I don't buy it. I think it's corporate spin and putting out Kyle on a goodwill tour of the community. Instead of apologizing, WotC is gaslighting the community: "We weren't really going to do that. Everything you heard about is lies. This was our plan all along."

that is not what he said though

They sent out 1.1, there is no question about that, but by the time it was leaked they had moved on from it already and what was being discussed internally was closer to the 1.2 we then saw (which also is why that was available so ‘fast’ (in corporate time))

1.1 was a bad version, he acknowledged as much, and he himself never liked it from my understanding, but he is not making those decisions.

Concerning "the community had no impact on our decisions because we were already going to do it" - yeah, I don't believe that either. They had very public half-steps back that they promoted, scrambling for responses a week later. They were obviously trying to respond to the bad publicity and a deteriorating relationship with fans.

I am pretty sure the community is why we ended up getting the release under CC, but even without the community, the 3pps would not have been stuck with 1.1 but with something closer to 1.2 (and closer here can also mean more lenient, this was an ongoing discussion when 1.1 leaked, hard to say where it would have ended up)

If anything, this video makes me more angry about the whole situation. And I would hope content creators shut down this mouthpiece for corporate lies by not putting Kyle on their channel in the future. WotC is using the community to spread obvious misinformation about their underhanded and anti-fan decisions.

I don’t know, to me he came across as sincere. Sure there are some questions he could not answer because he was not involved in the topic, but by and large I can see his version of events happening

Now why 1.1 was ever sent out in that form, I have no idea. Maybe he is correct that in their attempt to shield their SRD from the Disney’s of this world they failed to realize how it would impact the 3pps they were not after, but that seems like a complete failure to understand just how godawful it was (or at least a complete dismissal of those that pointed it out, which presumably included him)

 

[dave2008]

I think it was 3.5 he compared it to. So basically 1D&D will be a half-edition, which means half the community will consider it a new edition, and half will say it's still the same.

Yes and no. Again, IIRC, he was saying it is more like 3-3.5. He also set it isn't written yet so he doesn't know precisely. However, it is clear to me that the intent is that it is compatible.

To be clear, I didn't experience the 3-3.5 transition as I skipped 3e. I did experience the 1-2e and 4-4.5e transition and I expect it to be closer 4-4.5e, which really was the same game.

 

[Alzrius]

And yes if it's dominated by Cis white males at this point, some may have to go in order to make room for others.

Bringing more people into tabletop gaming is in no way predicated on other people leaving it.

 

[Imaro]

Bringing more people into tabletop gaming is in no way predicated on other people leaving it.

That wasn't what he was talking about... There are only so many leadership positions in a company... if you want diversity in that leadership that isn't there, yes... some of the current guard have to step down.

 

[Alzrius]

That wasn't what he was talking about... There are only so many leadership positions in a company... if you want diversity, yes... some of the current guard have to step down.

I wasn't responding to what Brink said; I was talking about what you said, which was in regard to "the hobby" and not employment at a game company.

EDIT: Looking back at the sentence I previously quoted, the use of "it's" is unclear; I'll grant that you might have meant "those designing the game," but it could also be read as your prior reference to "the hobby."

 

[dave2008]

But yeah. Sometime when I have time and I'm not raging, I should watch the video for clarification.

That is a good idea, but to be honest I don't know that it will change your opinion much. It seems to me your well might be a bit poisoned.

Of course you probably agree with this: near the end of the interview Kyle says don't believe WotC words, believer their actions now (CC) and going forward. Also, he agrees with you that you don't need WotC to have fun playing D&D (or other games).

 

[mamba]

Arguing that white men aren’t the face of the hobby and should be leaving is just excluding others and not directly solving the problem of removing bias in your company’s hiring and promotion process.

he was talking about himself, about the fact that the next generation of leaders will be mixed, not all straight white male like the current one. He never said anything about them not being part of that mix or not being allowed to play D&D or something like that

 

[halfling rogue]

I'm also a white male in my 40s and personally not offended.

But that's because, I suspect, you and I are better people than WotC executives.

But regardless whether anyone is offended, that statement, that white men can't leave soon enough, is straight up racist. I guarantee you had he said the same about any other race 1) no one would give him the most generous interpretation to his words, 2) everyone would be screaming for his head to roll.

You can't ostracize and bemoan a group based on race/gender/sex and then claim to be inclusive.

 

[Imaro]

I wasn't responding to what Brink said; I was talking about what you said, which was in regard to "the hobby" and not employment at a game company.

I was commenting on what he said...

 

[billd91]

I wasn't responding to what Brink said; I was talking about what you said, which was in regard to "the hobby" and not employment at a game company.

While I agree Imaro's sentence construction could have made his antecedent clearer when referring to "it's dominated by cis white males", the context tells me he's referring to "those designing the game".