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.

​

 

[AstroCat]

As long as you don't alienate your substantially larger base. You can't do one or the other, you need both.

Absolutely, you need to grow market share, not lose some to gain some. This is a losing battle, it's the TAM for a reason.

 

[dave2008]

This conversation will go nowhere because everyone goes binary. It is not fruitful to have conversations like these. Why is this always the only way the internet sees us having conversations?

Absolutely Sacrosanct, it's the bum off the street people are posting about, the dude with zero skills, who struggles to read and spell their name and sexually harasses, votes for the wrong party, and traffics children on weekends.

@Sacrosanct is correct, at least in part. I have seen that very argument made on these forums.

 

[Umbran]

This conversation will go nowhere because everyone goes binary. It is not fruitful to have conversations like these. Why is this always the only way the internet sees us having conversations?

Absolutely Sacrosanct, it's the bum off the street people are posting about, the dude with zero skills, who struggles to read and spell their name and sexually harasses, votes for the wrong party, and traffics children on weekends.

So, yes, such things tend to drive to binaries, and that's not helpful.

But the snark is not helpful either. It also makes the discussion go nowhere. So maybe don't do that in the future?

 

[Scribe]

As long as you don't alienate your substantially larger base. You can't do one or the other, you need both.

Exactly. So you change small things, in your apology edition (5e) that was sold as intentionally trying to bring back lapsed customers, to not alienate them (the white dudes) while changing your art style, and marketing emphasis, in an attempt to grow in markets you do not currently have as much of a share in.

Its not that the white dudes who played through the 80's and 90's are gone, but we are not the growth opportunity, so Wizbro tries to thread the needle.

Its been years of folks saying they dont feel they are the target, and I see no reason to change my mind when he (Brink) makes statements like he's made, and I look at the products that have been coming since Tasha's (as my particular line in the sand).

There is a difference, between PF1 and 5e-Post Tashas, beyond just the crunch. I want PF1.

 

[ThorinTeague]

It feels to me like Kyle was just shoved out into the limelight in the hopes that he could "speak the language" and essentially put a face on recent events, hopefully to act as a lightning rod and keep those responsible out of the line of fire.

So far I have not heard the architects of the OGL disaster answer any hard questions or make any attempt to explain themselves, unless you count that initial... "apology..." communique... whatever you want to call it.

 

[Umbran]

I did not block them because I disagreed with them...

To me, the correct way of handling this...

Mod Note:
Folks, you are no longer talking about Mr. Brink's interview. Please take this to PM or something.

 

[Riley]

I'm not sure "my conversation with them went well [because we have a lot of social life things in common]" is a particularly good one - but I'm betting it is used a lot.

“a really good fit”, “shares our values,” “enthusiastic,” “very positive,” “up-and-coming,” “strong reputation,” “well-connected,” “strongly endorsed,” “personable,”….

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It feels to me like Kyle was just shoved out into the limelight in the hopes that he could "speak the language" and essentially put a face on recent events, hopefully to act as a lightning rod and keep those responsible out of the line of fire.

So far I have not heard the architects of the OGL disaster answer any hard questions or make any attempt to explain themselves, unless you count that initial... "apology..." communique... whatever you want to call it.

I mean Kyle's comments pretty clearly indicate that the OGL 1.1 was developed largely or entirely behind a "wall" from the actual D&D team, so yeah, if that's true there was another team responsible for basically the whole disaster, who are presumably not feeling particularly great right now.

 

[AstroCat]

This is my assumption. It's not that their current majority (50.1%) is not 'white dudes' it's their target demographic is not, as that's the growth opportunity.

Which again means, I (the white dude) am not the target.

I think you might be surprised. But that is not even how it works, say white males are 38% of the market, and the other groups share smaller segments but still don't individually pass 38%. Why in the world would you want to lose market share is your biggest target group?
Again this is not an anti diversity take, it's a "who will buy our products while we expand our market share" take. Also there is RoI on all of this, if we invest X to get X share do these margins work for our business?

 

[Sacrosanct]

Its not that the white dudes who played through the 80's and 90's are gone, but we are not the growth opportunity, so Wizbro tries to thread the needle.

Yeah, we are a dying (no pun intended) market. Why would they focus on us? Looking at my son who plays, he's also a white male, but his generation seems much less...worried? Fearful? Knee-jerky? about them no longer being the primary demographic being marketed to. His generation seems much more accepting of diversity and inclusivity than my generation. He and his other cis white friends don't feel threatened by marketing towards other demographics. I have to think WoTC knows this, and they are the generation to grow the hobby, not us.