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.

​

 

[halfling rogue]

He was answering specifically to the question about leadership of the D&D team at WotC being primarily CIS white males. He wasn't talking about you, or about gamers, he was talking about management at the company,

Still racist

 

[Imaro]

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.

So you can't claim that a race has an imbalance of power/representation/etc. in an area and should give some of it up as quickly as possible... without being racist?

 

[dave2008]

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.

To be clear, you know he was not talking about gamers, just the leadership at WotC?

 

[Alzrius]

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".

Re-reading @Imaro's post, I can see that interpretation, and have added an edit to my previous post to that effect.

 

[cranberry]

I just feel bad for all of the non-executive employees who have the most to lose if D&D is financially damaged. It's not uncommon for Execs to cut heads as a quick fix for the bottom line instead of addressing the underlying problem (In this case the execs themselves).

 

[dave2008]

Still racist

Is it racist to want diversity - that is what he is saying. Not in the best way, but that was the intent.

 

[mamba]

WotC expects us to believe that the response of the D&D Beyond cancellations, the bad press in Forbes and other mainstream media, the explosion on social media, the selling out of their competitors' products, the walking away of Kobold Press/MCDM and other publishers, etc., meant nothing to them?

there is a difference between meaning nothing and the 1.2 draft being unrelated to it. The latter is what he said.

Getting a new draft through all the hoops takes time, so its release ended up coinciding with that, but it was not triggered by it, according to him.

We would not have a CC version if the community meant nothing

 

[mamba]

I recognize that I'm not ready to accept WotC's attempt at an apology. Especially when he's digging at people like me for not being the face of the hobby and not looking like what they want their fans to look. "We can't get out soon enough."

he was talking about himself and his position within the D&D team, not about players

 

[halfling rogue]

To be clear, you know he was not talking about gamers, just the leadership at WotC?

My response was to an earlier post that I failed to quote so some of the context is lost, but I don't see how his statement is any less racist just because he's talking about leadership at WotC.

 

[halfling rogue]

So you can't claim that a race has an imbalance of power/representation/etc. in an area and should give some of it up as quickly as possible... without being racist?

I'm saying if your decisions to remove people from leadership are based on race, then yes it's racist. Add to that gender and sexual orientation and it's laughable to say it was done in the name of "inclusivity".