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.

​

 

[Velderan]

the bad press was much worse than the actual financial impact. Getting mainstream business news talking about angry players is horrible.

Having 10k-50k people stop spending less than $10 a month each out of 10 million is nothing

You do realize they don't have 10 million paying subscribers, right?

 

[Parmandur]

The source of this is DnD Shorts, an admitted liar who also claims that he and his sources exchanged over a million words in conversations in less than two weeks (basically impossible).

This doesn't mean Cao is good, or bad. It just means that the source of his destructive nature should be doubted.

It is worth noting how assiduously Brink avoided saying a single thing about Cao when asked, though he was clearly trying to avoid throwing anyone individually under the bus

 

[Sacrosanct]

You do realize they don't have 10 million paying subscribers, right?

Sure. Just like I’m sure a lot of those 40,000 weren’t paying subscribers either

 

[Velderan]

Sure. Just like I’m sure a lot of those 40,000 weren’t paying subscribers either

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, you seem to be responding to something I didn't say.

 

[mamba]

the bad press was much worse than the actual financial impact. Getting mainstream business news talking about angry players is horrible.

Having 10k-50k people stop spending less than $10 a month each out of 10 million is nothing

they do not have 10M paying subscribers, maybe 2M, if that

As to bad press, where do you think that comes from…

 

[Myrdin Potter]

You (general you) can’t really call something an outright lie and immediately follow up with “well, might not b true”.

Sure you can. You can say that someone literally said leave the hobby when the word hobby is not in the reply you quoted as the start to a straw person argument.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Sure you can. You can say that someone literally said leave the hobby when the word hobby is not in the reply you quoted as the start to a straw person argument.

Your post seemed to be parroting the same thing others had claimed in this thread (acting like he said white men should leave the game). Your comment about leadership was later on and seemed unrelated to the first part. I already apologized if I misinterpreted that, so I don’t know what your issue is in making a snide comment like this is.

Either way, it has nothing to do with what I said. That being, you can’t call something an “outright lie” while admitting it may or may not be true. That’s not what “outright lie” means. If someone is going to make that claim, they should be able to prove how it’s a lie. “I think it might be” isn’t exactly proof.

 

[Myrdin Potter]

Your post seemed to be parroting the same thing others had claimed in this thread (acting like he said white men should leave the game). Your comment about leadership was later on and seemed unrelated to the first part. I already apologized if I misinterpreted that, so I don’t know what your issue is in making a snide comment like this is.

Either way, it has nothing to do with what I said. That being, you can’t call something an “outright lie” while admitting it may or may not be true. That’s not what “outright lie” means. If someone is going to make that claim, they should be able to prove how it’s a lie. “I think it might be” isn’t exactly proof.

You did it again. You did not apologize to me. Look up in this thread. Nothing. I received zero notifications that you replied to me other than your outright lie that I literally said leave the hobby when I did not even use the word hobby which breaks literally.

I did not say leave the hobby. I made an alternate point away from a win/lose situation where you build the business and industry and make more room for everyone. You wrote a screed telling me that I was misinterpreting him when I obviously I agreed with the interpretation that he meant make room in the leadership.

And, as the poster said, he originally said Probably outright lies. Once again, straw person points you are making. It is certainly acceptable to say they are probably outright lies, that does leave some possibility that you are wrong even if you think you are not. And I agreed with the reasoning on the three probable lies. Seems like either lies or hal-truths meant to deceive which is a lie.

 

[Mistwell]

Disney can buy Hasbro, and a case has been made for it multiple times over the years by financial analysts: not for D&D or Magic, though Hasbro's extensive IP is no doubt attractive, but because it would make Disney's merchandising empire more in house. They have the money for it, Hasbro is a little fish relatively speaking. Nintendo is like ten times the size of Hasbro, Sony even moreso.

Moving their merchandising back in house, after they just outsourced it and closed down their existing in-house merchandising and closed an empire of retail stores, seems extremely unlikely.

 

[Blue]

Honestly, the whole thing was dumb because Disney or Meta or whoever could always put out a fantasy Heartbreakers easily enough (of they wanted to). But only WotC can put out a Castle Greyhawk product. That's their real IP.

Heck, Wendy's put out one. And while it was tongue-in-cheek about the setting and content, the system was more than serviceable.