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.

​

 

[Stefano Rinaldelli]

he wants the D&D creators to reflect the D&D players in diversity, that does mean some white guys will have to make room for / be succeeded by someone different

I keep on prefer when people are not choosen by their color but by their skills...

 

[billd91]

I keep on prefer when people are not choosen by their color but by their skills...

I keep thinking we've been over this assumption. But people keep making it.

 

[AstroCat]

I'd like to see their analytics that back up the claim that "white" males are still not the largest consumer group for their products. Has he been to any game stores or conventions lately, anecdotally it is still mostly white males of varying ages. For sure a more diverse crowd and a bit closer gender mix than say 20 years ago but not on the scale that is eluded to or represented in their current products or comments. It's a case of reality vs desire of the creators, which happens a lot these days.

Of course game stores and cons are not representative of the total main populous but it is legit metric. And to be clear I am all for welcoming any and all into the hobby as I've tried to do in over 40 years of playing the game. But to say they don't really know who their target market is being disingenuous. On that note, I am a firm believer that to welcome new people into the hobby older faithful members don't need to be ostracized or rejected, we can all play and have fun together.

 

[Stefano Rinaldelli]

Reversing the color (race) would make the statement nonsensical...

I'm confident you have understood well what I mean.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I keep on prefer when people are not choosen by their color but by their skills...

So does everyone. Or are you implying they would hire a minority who doesn't have the skills to do the job?

 

[Sacrosanct]

I'd like to see their analytics that back up the claim that "white" males are still not the largest consumer group for their products. Has he been to any game stores or conventions lately, anecdotally still mostly white males of varying ages. A much more diverse of a crowd and a closer gender mix than say 20 years ago but not on the scale is eluded to or represented in their current products. It's a case of reality vs desire of the creators, which happens a lot these days.
Of course game stores and cons are not representative of the total main populous but it is legit metric. And to be clear I am all for welcoming any and all into the hobby as I've tried to do in over 40 years of playing the game. But to say they don't really know who their target market is being disingenuous.

Anecdotally I think it's still overwhelming white males, but I don't have access to the survey results. He does, I would think.

 

[Imaro]

I'm confident you have understood well what I mean.

Yeah and I think you totally glossed over the complexities of why a statement like that directed at black people would be taken with more offense than when directed at white people. Hint: Only one race has a history of systemic racism implemented by the other... so stop trying to compare and make equivalent apples to oranges.

 

[AnotherGuy]

So does everyone. Or are you implying they would hire a minority who doesn't have the skills to do the job?

You trust WotC not to use optics?
I mean the interviewers in this interview didn't even trust what Kyle was telling them on certain topics why are you so confident in WotC not utilising the benefit of optics? I mean hiring could be run by a different department.

 

[Stefano Rinaldelli]

I keep thinking we've been over this assumption. But people keep making it.

You can have only one of two criteria: skill or representation. If you introduce a quote it is very easy that you will be forced to exclude somebody skilled. It is not impossible to build a dream team with representation criteria, since skill are equally distributed. But you can easily risk to be forced to exclude the optimum team. It's a philosophical approach. I prefer skill based criteria and find quota based criteria simply wrong.

 

[billd91]

I'd like to see their analytics that back up the claim that "white" males are still not the largest consumer group for their products. Has he been to any game stores or conventions lately, anecdotally it is still mostly white males of varying ages. For sure a more diverse crowd and a bit closer gender mix than say 20 years ago but not on the scale that is eluded to or represented in their current products or comments. It's a case of reality vs desire of the creators, which happens a lot these days.

If the population in their market is still mostly white male gamers, and they aren't the majority of the population in general, then it looks like there are certain other areas that offer some pretty good growth potential. Hence, the deliberate efforts at inclusion.

And to be clear I am all for welcoming any and all into the hobby as I've tried to do in over 40 years of playing the game. But

Yeah, we see that a lot, following up the claim with a but. But nothing. You want to welcome any and all into the hobby, you have to do the work to do so.