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.

​

 

[Umbran]

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

I am actively working to keep the amount of cynicism in life down to a functional minimum.

 

[OldOwlbear]

I think why people would be concerned about the phrasing on race is that there’s likely a vast gulf between Kyle Brink and the average person trying to get into the industry regardless of their race - though it is certainly even harder if you’re a minority.

Getting into creative jobs is ruthlessly difficult - I watched my brother spiral into a pit of depression because his opportunities in art dried up during the 2008 recession. It wasn’t because of his race or gender, but I can imagine how someone today trying to enter the ttrpg industry can be hurt by Kyle’s statement that people like him can’t leave fast enough. It’s challenge atop of challenge, but it is in no way is mutually exclusive with obstacles put in front of excluded people for so long.

I really respect Kyle for doing the incredibly painful job of being WotC’s voice through this - I wouldn’t want that role. But I don’t think it is unrealistic to assume that his position has granted him the financial stability to leave the industry as he implies. That’s not true for the vast majority of people from all backgrounds, and that’s why it hurts.

 

[billd91]

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 don't think it's worse to call out a statement with problematic assumptions built into it than to make that statement in the first place. And let's be clear - the initial statement that was called out included an (hopefully) unintended assumption that's frequently intentionally used for dog whistling.

 

[Scars Unseen]

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.

You do realize that someone already pointed out that your interpretation of that quote is 100% the opposite of what the text actually says, right? If not, I'll point it out to you again: said person was in one comment claiming that diversity in art wasn't needed (citing old editions that were depicted mostly white people) because you could just role play whatever you want and even draw your own portrait if you need representation. Then in the next comment, they were saying they felt underrepresented in newer books because they didn't have enough white people in them, and consequentially, they would not be playing the game.

To reiterate: it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with someone complaining that old editions don't stand up to modern standards of diversity. That is 100% from your own noggin, not anything you read in this thread.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

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.

So what is your alternative? Force people that you won't want to play with to play a game that they are explicitly saying they don't want to? This is an exceptionally silly hill to fight over.

 

[Vincent55]

Anecdotes are not data, and the world is large, and the number of women, people of colour, and other groups in the hobby has indeed increased over recent decades, even if it hasn't right next to you. Inclusivity is important.

coming from a white male like your self of course, i on the other hand am a mix race person and can say factually that it was never an issue until you people made it one.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

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.

I don't disagree with that sentiment at all. I didn't appreciate the insulting way it was tossed out in the OP is all, so I stood up for the person the comment was directed at. But anyway, I've said all I wanted to say on the matter.

 

[Haplo781]

coming from a white male like your self of course, i on the other hand am a mix race person and can say factually that it was never an issue until you people made it one.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

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.

I understand that privilege is a real thing and why you would want to point it out. No argument there. That doesn't mean one can't exercise courtesy or consideration if one feels the need to point out an example of privilege. In any case, thanks for responding in a civil way, I appreciate it.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

I ain't their daddy. It's not my job to scold them for their sense of entitlement. They don't want to play the game 'cuz they're skeeved out by some old artwork, that's their business, it's between them and their pocketbook.

That applies to Mr "Not Enough White Men," too. I don't need to make him understand the depths of his racist behavior and have a humanitarian change of heart. That ain't my job. My job is to not play D&D with that guy, and hey look at that I don't need to worry.

If the first person wants to explore the hobby and the second person wants to explore their racism, I'm happy to help, but in either case the conversation ain't gonna start with "Your feelings are wrong and you need to fix them." Being judgmental isn't how you start either of those talk tracks.

...and now it's sounding like only the second person really exists anyway? So even MORE reason not to get bent out of shape judging hypothetical entitled virtue signalers.