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.

 

log in or register to remove this ad

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Or they’d go to the same sources that TSR/WotC…borrowed from…and option those rights. Way cheaper to option the film rights to displacer beasts from the original author or their estate for a few million than to outright buy Hasbro or WotC for a few billion.
Cheaper for displacer beasts, but there are other reasons to buy Hasbro. Hasbro makes Disney toys. Bringing it all in-house and cementing that relationship for all time might be enough.....................................if Disney wanted to do D&D, which it probably doesn't. Disney has a specific image and D&D doesn't fit it.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Seriously. Besides the NuTSR debacle what hate/racist issues do we have to worry about with the OGL? If by chance someone did make a hateful project they'd be called on it and the product would sink.

Really this "concern" by WotC was a gimmick. Again all my opinion but I'm not alone in this thinking.
Well, I was commenting more on the histrionic and unnecessary "another blatant lie" layer of your post, but here you might have a point.
 

S'mon

Legend
He did not say "hobby". His meaning was very clearly about the management of WotC.

While that's not what he said - I did listen to the interview - I do think his conflation of white WoTC staff with white RPG players - 'white guys in basements' - may have been unintentional, at least somewhat. It was kind of a mess, but it certainly didn't give off an 'everyone's welcome' vibe. Certainly the interviewers were only talking about wanting more diverse WoTC senior staff, it was Brink who brought up players.
 

S'mon

Legend
Seriously. Besides the NuTSR debacle what hate/racist issues do we have to worry about with the OGL? If by chance someone did make a hateful project they'd be called on it and the product would sink.

An author friend of mine who's in with the WoTC crowd told me that there actually was some very nasty OGL thing that was attempted Kickstarted that caused a furore. However she didn't name it.
 


teitan

Legend
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.
All of those companies have already said that they are good. It has been my point with the "why do we need WOTC to put the 1.0a as irrevocable" when almost literally every publisher has said "we are fine as is even if they were to deauthorize the OGL". WHat would be the whole point? All of them are moving to ORC, all of them have said they don't need the 1.0a so why are people still beating this drum like Kong beating his chest? Anyone else is either not in business anymore or has no interest in re-releasing 3.x related content to "conform" with a new OGL release. It would only be future products and.... ta da... CC-BY 5.1 or ORC will be there for that.
 

teitan

Legend
An author friend of mine who's in with the WoTC crowd told me that there actually was some very nasty OGL thing that was attempted Kickstarted that caused a furore. However she didn't name it.
Yes, quite a few. I can't remember because they never last long.
 

teitan

Legend
Seriously. Besides the NuTSR debacle what hate/racist issues do we have to worry about with the OGL? If by chance someone did make a hateful project they'd be called on it and the product would sink.

Really this "concern" by WotC was a gimmick. Again all my opinion but I'm not alone in this thinking.
There is a popular OSR game put out by a very alt-right, fascist author, deep, deep down in the hole and it's not NuTSR. About to kickstart a 2e for it too.
 

teitan

Legend
While that's not what he said - I did listen to the interview - I do think his conflation of white WoTC staff with white RPG players - 'white guys in basements' - may have been unintentional, at least somewhat. It was kind of a mess, but it certainly didn't give off an 'everyone's welcome' vibe. Certainly the interviewers were only talking about wanting more diverse WoTC senior staff, it was Brink who brought up players.
He also said that the stereotype was long held and not true which I am actually surprised he isn't also getting raked over the coals for saying. Twitter is an ugly, scary place.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top