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.

​

 

[Myrdin Potter]

Are you an AI that just goes around sealioning people?

Google "racist TSR D&D content" for yourself.

Should I report the seal lion insults?

The only long discussion (the one that lead to the disclaimer) was around Oriental Adventures. Is that what you are claiming to be no doubt examples of clearly racist content? Or maybe the Romani people (travelers, not sure the safe way to say them) using the common name and some stereotypes?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That link goes to an unflattering review of the book, not a sales page.

I’m firmly of the “don’t give oxygen to Nazis” school of thought, but whatever.

 

[Myrdin Potter]

To be clear, I have seen people defending the morality clause because of the danger of bad (hate / racist) RPG materials doing damage to the business.

If you use the standards applied to Oriental Adventures (which lead to WoTC slapping a disclaimer on their older materials even though not OGL), then there is a claim of racism that probably exists for quite a few products from the same time.

I don’t think those are examples of deliberate and premeditated racism. In the case of Oriental Adventures, Japanese RPG players were even consulted.

So I am still looking for these bad products that make the claims in the interview of how the morality clause really was an important driver of the OGL.

This is not Sealioning. I am looking for examples because there are people that are attached to the need for this and feel that it is a valid justification for the attempt to deauthorize the OGL.

 

[mamba]

I am looking for examples because there are people that are attached to the need for this and feel that it is a valid justification for the attempt to deauthorize the OGL.

Shouldn't you then be asking the guys who think there is a need,? Alternatively, follow the suggestion that was given and google it. Heck, or read the threads where people said there is a need, they contained some examples

 

[teitan]

The 3.5 SRD hs something like 2x the content of the 5.1 SRD and many 3PP products rely on it. It would be good gesture to the community to release it to CC. If they don’t care about the 3.5 SRD, that makes it all the easier to do.

So people keep saying but at the same time nothing prevents re-creating those either. So again, meh, it's a non-issue. Most of those 3pp content that people talk about will not be reprinted with a new OGL if they did one and most of the ones who would have already said they would find another avenue to explore publishing their content outside of the OGL so... it's again... meh.

 

[mamba]

So people keep saying but at the same time nothing prevents re-creating those either. So again, meh, it's a non-issue. Most of those 3pp content that people talk about will not be reprinted with a new OGL if they did one and most of the ones who would have already said they would find another avenue to explore publishing their content outside of the OGL so... it's again... meh.

I am not even sure how it helps at all. The concern was always that if 1.0a is revoked, the chain would be broken and the content could not be used under a different license. If that was a concern with a new OGL, how is this not also an issue with CC? I get that you can create new content, but the concern was about the 20 years of existing content becoming unusable.

So if all this does is ensure that the OGL will not be revoked (because it is still needed to create 3e content), then the fact that the 5e content is available under CC already ensures that, as the revocation is now pointless.

I am not saying WotC should not release it, I just do not see an actual need.

 

[Myrdin Potter]

Shouldn't you then be asking the guys who think there is a need,? Alternatively, follow the suggestion that was given and google it. Heck, or read the threads where people said there is a need, they contained some examples

I am asking in an open forum. I also participated in many of the OGL discussion threads as the news was breaking. Plus the many OA threads that cropped up (I lived in China and have close Chinese family / friends that don’t see the same issue that others do).

I always hope that someone can point me at that bad OGL material. So far nothing.

Google finds nothing as well. So saying “google it” does not help.

 

[mamba]

I am asking in an open forum. I also participated in many of the OGL discussion threads as the news was breaking. Plus the many OA threads that cropped up (I lived in China and have close Chinese family / friends that don’t see the same issue that others do).

I always hope that someone can point me at that bad OGL material. So far nothing.

Google finds nothing as well. So saying “google it” does not help.

My Google-foo is better then

DriveThruRPG

www.drivethrurpg.com

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

So people keep saying but at the same time nothing prevents re-creating those either. So again, meh, it's a non-issue. Most of those 3pp content that people talk about will not be reprinted with a new OGL if they did one and most of the ones who would have already said they would find another avenue to explore publishing their content outside of the OGL so... it's again... meh.

People are asking, so why not provide?

Of course Kyle said the plan is to release it, so I guess WotC sees some value in the move too

 

[Retreater]

People are asking, so why not provide?

Of course Kyle said the plan is to release it, so I guess WotC sees some value in the move too

I would imagine that a 4e SRD won't be coming because it's not a simple matter of editing an older one (because it never existed). Same thing as pre-WotC editions.
The main concern I have is that other OGL game systems get the same protections as the 5.1 SRD derived ones. I don't want WotC taking down Pathfinder, OSE, DCC, Castles and Crusades, etc.