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.

​

 

[This Effin’ GM]

Modern concepts of racism sounds like a bunch of commie gobbledygook.

THERE it is

 

[Retreater]

D&D is very personal to me, but my relationship with it predates WotC or even my understanding what a corporation is. I have never cared what the owners of the company think of me nor what I think of them. They simply do not factor into my thoughts much.

What I do care about is the community that I have grown to enjoy through Enworld and other sites. So I am pained by your pain and morn the division in the community. But what Williams and Cao think - I don't really care. I'm more interested in Demogorgon's mad machinations than corporate CEOs.

They factor into my thoughts because they provide the direction of the business. They are the ones wheeling and dealing. They are the ones hiring the design team who directly influence the game we enjoy. They are the ones who can make all of this terrible - as demonstrated by what "almost" happened over the past month - had they gotten their way. Had we not stopped them.
So, no, I cannot support the Caos and C. Williams of the world. I'm not saying you're wrong for sticking with this brand, but I can't do it on principle.

 

[Retreater]

Come on, everybody. Can't we just get back to hating this corporation and not actively trying to get this thread shut down with claims of racism?

 

[reelo]

On its face, this is an idea that no one should have a problem with. The issue, as I understand it, speaks to the wider effects of inequality and discrimination. If socioeconomic resources have been unfairly distributed across a broad spectrum of society, then people of minority backgrounds have had less opportunities to become the most qualified in a given field in the first place. Ergo, proactive corrections in that regard need to be undertaken.

I can absolutely see that pov, but the end-result is still that someone is being discriminated against. Wouldn't it be better to tackle that problem at the root by ensuring a fairer distribution of socioeconomic power and education first?

 

[Umbran]

Modern concepts of racism sounds like a bunch of commie gobbledygook.

Mod Note:
You should know by now that moderation posts are not invitations for further commentary. Even if you forgot that is in the rules, I mentioned it explicitly in the post.

So, you are done in this discussion.

 

[Thourne]

They factor into my thoughts because they provide the direction of the business. They are the ones wheeling and dealing. They are the ones hiring the design team who directly influence the game we enjoy. They are the ones who can make all of this terrible - as demonstrated by what "almost" happened over the past month - had they gotten their way. Had we not stopped them.
So, no, I cannot support the Caos and C. Williams of the world. I'm not saying you're wrong for sticking with this brand, but I can't do it on principle.

There are a multitude of other games out there.
If you need a change, just embrace that and go for it.
D&D may be the largest fish in the ocean but there are a ton of species to choose from.
Make it an opportunity to learn a new system and grow.
Bad naughty word happens but sometimes it becomes the inspiration for us to grow.
I hope you and your group find a way to move forward and have fun.

 

[reelo]

THERE it is

Yeah, please don't lump me in with the likes of them.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

Wow, this thread went downhill quickly! I guess the OGL 1.1 wasn't the only controversial thing in this hobby.

 

[Retreater]

There are a multitude of other games out there.
If you need a change, just embrace that and go for it.
D&D may be the largest fish in the ocean but there are a ton of species to choose from.
Make it an opportunity to learn a new system and grow.
Bad naughty word happens but sometimes it becomes the inspiration for us to grow.
I hope you and your group find a way to move forward and have fun.

The bad thing is that the groups are having plenty of fun with 5e and aren't interested in trying anything new. For me, I was already getting tired of the system before all this happened.
So do I ostracize myself from the game? Do I stop coming to these boards and miss out on our conversations?
Pulling oneself away from a community you've enjoyed for decades is a hard decision to make. And I hate that I'm being put in this position, real or imagined.

 

[Thourne]

The bad thing is that the groups are having plenty of fun with 5e and aren't interested in trying anything new. For me, I was already getting tired of the system before all this happened.
So do I ostracize myself from the game? Do I stop coming to these boards and miss out on our conversations?
Pulling oneself away from a community you've enjoyed for decades is a hard decision to make. And I hate that I'm being put in this position, real or imagined.

You can always continue the game without purchasing a single thing from wotc until/if they earn it.
They don't own your table or your group mate. They don't own your game or your fun. They just make books.
Don't give them more power than they deserve.
Carry on with the game but let them fall to the side for a bit/or forever.