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.

​

 

[billd91]

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?

Fairer distribution of socioeconomic power? And how do you do that without doing the all things that lead to that - such as putting more diversity at the top where the power is?
Granted, there may not be a lot of socioeconomic power at the top of D&D design. But lack of visibility of non-cis white guys in these positions leads to fewer non-cis white guys even vying for those positions because there's no evidence that achieving them is even possible.

 

[Cadence]

The fact they took down the OGL FAQ that said that they couldn't rescind the license in November 2021 (going by Internet Archive records of the WotC site) definitely shows the OGL moves had been brewing for at least a year by the time they dropped the failed 1.1.

Did they intentionally take down the OGL FAQ, or did it evaporate in a moving-stuff-around-web-reorganization that hit a bunch of MtG stuff too? (Are there a lot of other missing D&D articles on random things?)

 

[Parmandur]

So, was able to listen this morbing: Kyle Brink came across as very sincere and transparent [insofar as he could be]. This confirmed what I thought had happened, and how I've always assumed WotC operates.

Things I took away as new from listening:

- the context explaining how the OGL 1.1 was a draft that had been abandoned the time it actually leaked. It sounds like the pushback from third parties was pretty immediate and negative, so they were already back at the drawing board before there was a public outcry.

- Basically my worst conclusions about a squeaky stair being responsible for the Hadozee situation last year were accurate, and basically confirmed who did it: apparently a "very senior designer who was trusted" bypassed rheir then-current internal process to put in that Planet of the Apes reference. So now there is a mandatory external review of every published word by two sensitivity consultants, which is good.

 

[jerryrice4949]

One takeaway I hope people note is the story told about how this happened in the first place.

And while the SRD is now CC and this specific case can’t happen again the people that advocated it are all still there. And while his group now has a greater say in things like this they got shut down before.

I appreciate Kyle but he’s not even in charge of the group who pushed this through.

While the good guys eventually won the day they are still but a faction within WotC.

So you know the majority of people at WoTC are ‘bad’ guys? I think getting into good vs bad is not a productive discussion.

 

[lkj]

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

Actually, given the context of the conversation, I'm pretty confident he was referring to material made with the existing SRD being compatible with upcoming One D&D adjustments. But of course it's an interpretation, and it would probably be good to have someone follow up more explicitly. But that's definitely what I got from it.

AD

 

[mamba]

THERE it is

was waiting for that shoe to drop

 

[DarkCrisis]

I don't think I can post a big enough surejan.gif meme image in response to the video

 

[This Effin’ GM]

So no walled garden. That’s exciting to hear! Whether or not the intention was to have one, moving forward we now have him on record so that’s pretty darn cool.

 

[mamba]

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?

what do you think those actions are meant to ensure?

 

[mamba]

Actually, given the context of the conversation, I'm pretty confident he was referring to material made with the existing SRD being compatible with upcoming One D&D adjustments. But of course it's an interpretation, and it would probably be good to have someone follow up more explicitly. But that's definitely what I got from it.

listen to it again, they were asking about an SRD for 1DD and that was the context it was in.

He said he was not sure how they would do it, as a new text or as a series of guidelines (use species wherever we previously used race) or a mix, but that whatever it ends up being would be 100% compatible with 1DD

I agree it can easily be misunderstood the other way, but to me it clearly was about a future SRD