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]

It's not unrealistic to assume the first draft was probably handed down by someone at or above Kyle's level, or perhaps just an outside source that lacks a full understanding of TTRPGs. The way the response is structured, when it reached WoTC's hands and they had the power to say no to it to some extent, which is what led to them even being able to walk things back in the end.

he pretty much said so, that there were different parties with different priorities, like the lawyer side trying to do their best to protect the IP and the D&D team pointing out the problems with that, but for the longest time they did not have the standing to change anything, they only got more ‘respect’ once the community stepped in

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Not racism... privilege.. and yes it is a privilege to dictate when and how someone else should or shouldn't get equality.

Either way, it was an unnecessary and somewhat ugly thing to say to another person. If you feel justified in making a comment like that to someone, that's your prerogative. I'm just telling you what an onlooker sees when you do that.

 

[I'm A Banana]

. . .so someone refuses to play D&D because art in earlier editions don't meet 2020's standards of inclusiveness and diversity?

Art made for a game built on fantasy worlds that are normally based on a quasi-Medieval-European model, done decades ago, don't fit the current corporate-driven standard of including all races, genders, sexual orientations, disabilities and everything else. . .so he refuses to play?

It sounds like virtue signaling and performative outrage.

People don't have to play D&D and can not do it for literally any reason, up to and including "old artwork gives me weird vibes." Not playing D&D doesn't mean that one's reason for not doing so is manufactured, insincere, or otherwise failing to pass some purity test for being a "good enough" reason to do it. D&D is not entitled to be played.

Maybe if they think they'd like the hobby, they'd be happier with some indie game, or Pathfinder, or something else without the history.

They started off with saying you didn't need diverse representation in D&D because you could always play a different race or gender. Then followed that up with how they won't play this game because there aren't enough white males in the art (there are actually quite a few, but unless a white male is front and center as the focus, then he doesn't feel like he's being represented). Notice the flaw in his logic, and contradiction with his first statement?

What I said above also applies to Mr "not enough white men in the art" from upthread, of course. The difference for me personally is that maybe I'd like to find a game to play with the first person, and I do not personally care what the second person does with his life unless it involves a deep personal change and a sincere contrition.

But both of them would be bad fits for my D&D game, because D&D would make both of them uncomfortable (for entirely different reasons).

 

[dave2008]

I'm not saying that the way I see it is the right/only way. In fact, I likely have a minority opinion. But "for me" - purchasing things with the ampersand logo, encouraging newer players to purchase the books, even down to watching the upcoming movie - those things just leave a sour taste in my mouth. It's all a lifestyle brand, so everything is connected now.
I feel like I've been had. I feel like I've been championing a hobby that is nothing more than some rich executive's bottom line. It's not a club of nerds and outcasts, artisans and fans - it's a handful of people actively taking advantage of me, laughing their way to the bank.
To me, I'm having a hard time seeing "designers and artists" at WotC. Everything I can see is mass-produced, heartless and soulless. Do any of them care at all? And am I stupid for caring? Am I fool for investing heart and soul in my campaigns?

I still see tons of heart and soul in the designers and artist of everything WotC produces. Not sure how you can't, but it is hitting you differently. Is it all to my taste? No, but I wouldn't expect that either. Heck, I feel there is more heart and soul in the art than what I felt from 3e.

Now, none of that means you have to accept the corporation that is WotC/Hasbro. However, if you think the situation has substantially changed since TSR days, well I think you are wrong. I will remind you it was WotC that gave use OGL in the first place and WotC that release 5e to CC. Those are both things TSR would never have done.

If I may, a quote from Miyazak that I think is appropriate: "You must see with eyes unclouded by hate. See the good in that which is evil, and the evil in that which is good."

 

[Umbran]

"We were afraid of a metaverse VTT" sounds like an excuse...

An interpretation based on the maxim, "Do not ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by ignorance - this fear is understandable, if one does not understand tech and its development.

Given WotC's overall lackluster performance with software offerings, that sounds just about right.

 

[Imaro]

Either way, it was an unnecessary and somewhat ugly thing to say to another person. If you feel justified in making a comment like that to someone, that's your prerogative. I'm just telling you what an onlooker sees when you do that.

Well I guess we disagree on that point... I think calling privilege like that out is very necessary... especially for those negatively affected by it. So we can agree to disagree.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

An interpretation based on the maxim, "Do not ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by ignorance - this fear is understandable, if one does not understand tech and its development.

That is a much more charitable version of the maxim than I'm familiar with.

 

[wingsandsword]

People don't have to play D&D and can not do it for literally any reason, up to and including "old artwork gives me weird vibes." Not playing D&D doesn't mean that one's reason for not doing so is manufactured, insincere, or otherwise failing to pass some purity test for being a "good enough" reason to do it. D&D is not entitled to be played.

Someone demanding that their hobby pass a purity test that's retroactive, wanting something that has existed for decades to fit up-to-the-moment standards however, is acting outrageously entitled.

Someone who is being offended that books published 20, 30 or 40 years ago don't meet 2022's ideal standards of diversity, equity and inclusion IS being absurdly, comically entitled.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Either way, it was an unnecessary and somewhat ugly thing to say to another person. If you feel justified in making a comment like that to someone, that's your prerogative. I'm just telling you what an onlooker sees when you do that.

As someone who has literally given presentations on privilege, I think the big problem is that people seem to assume it's a bad thing about them personally. Most of us have privilege in some form or other, and some more than others. It doesn't mean we're inherently bad people, or that we want to do bad things, or that we haven't also have struggles in our lives.

It simply means that we have inherent advantages that others don't, and it's a good thing to become aware of them.

 

[Haplo781]

An interpretation based on the maxim, "Do not ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by ignorance - this fear is understandable, if one does not understand tech and its development.

Given WotC's overall lackluster performance with software offerings, that sounds just about right.

I can absolutely believe that upper management at WizBro is ignorant enough to think Mark Zuckerberg cares about their IP.