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...

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


log in or register to remove this ad

My Google-foo is better then ;)

4 star review and still on sale and not pulled. No disclaimer on the site? Negative reviews are more that it is poorly put together with bad photography instead of art?

That is the dangerous material that needs suppression?

I can understand why a brand manager at a toy company would cringe, but is that hate speech or just more on the puerile side?

The only examples of items being pulled from sale in recent times are around Zach S. and a few DMs Guild products (non-OGL) with over sexed gay vampires and some anti-capitalist screed. Zach S. ar least published OGL material but the reasons for being pulled from sale were more around allegation of his behavior, not directly the material itself.
 

teitan

Legend
To maintain the continued availability 22½ years of Open Game Content, a non-insignificant amount of it is not derived from any pre-existing D&D material nor otherwise has anything to do with D&D. Multiple non-D&D RPGs have used the Open Gaming License such as Gumshoe, FATE, MG Traveller, MG RuneQuest & the Year Zero Engine.
And how would the OGL becoming unavailable affect those games? Nada. Not at all. They can all republish under ORC or another license if they chose.

In fact, with Year Zero, Free League has plans to do just that. Free League Publishing Announces Plans to Make Year Zero Open Gaming License After Dungeons & Dragons OGL Controversy


FATE is available via Creative Commons, CC-BY. Licensing Fate

Mongoose on Legend in this link: Legend and Proposed OGL Changes

Mongoose on Traveller Traveller Open Content - New Programme on the Way!

Gunshoe has been Creative Commons since 2017. https://gumshoe-srd.com/8-GUMSHOESRD CREATIVE COMMONS VERSION/

So again… why are we worried about OGL 1.0a if these systems are all already covered by other licenses or will be shortly?
 

teitan

Legend
4 star review and still on sale and not pulled. No disclaimer on the site? Negative reviews are more that it is poorly put together with bad photography instead of art?

That is the dangerous material that needs suppression?

I can understand why a brand manager at a toy company would cringe, but is that hate speech or just more on the puerile side?

The only examples of items being pulled from sale in recent times are around Zach S. and a few DMs Guild products (non-OGL) with over sexed gay vampires and some anti-capitalist screed. Zach S. ar least published OGL material but the reasons for being pulled from sale were more around allegation of his behavior, not directly the material itself.
We should note that the Zach S. Material isn’t even “bad” in the sense discussed so much as people have issues with his character and he is extremely controversial than any problems with the content itself. His work was actually very good and not out of line with anything you might see in a grimdark fantasy setting. Edgy, sure but not fascist, alt-right, racist garbage. Vornheim is a really good city book for example. Were it not for the accusations he would just be an edge lord troll smirking at the LOFP booth hocking his books.
 

We should note that the Zach S. Material isn’t even “bad” in the sense discussed so much as people have issues with his character and he is extremely controversial than any problems with the content itself. His work was actually very good and not out of line with anything you might see in a grimdark fantasy setting. Edgy, sure but not fascist, alt-right, racist garbage. Vornheim is a really good city book for example. Were it not for the accusations he would just be an edge lord troll smirking at the LOFP booth hocking his books.
I don’t think that this is OGL, but the core setting has been controversial since it was first published (Gor)


When I was growing up, the books were printed by a major fantasy publishing house and Montreal’s main SF bookshop had them on prominent display (I bought and read the first 10 in the series when I was like 13 or 14).

But still on sale, 5 star rating, not OGL I believe, and a clear disclaimer on it.

I can find examples like these, but the only type of problem stories that seem to pop up via google is GMs being tossed from cons and that is usually over rape in their materials.

Maybe Tekumel whose author was outed as a probable Nazi is the closest? But the books themselves have nothing like that in them.

I just don’t think any mainstream publisher site like One Bookshelf carries anything for sale.
 

Cadence

Legend
Supporter
And how would the OGL becoming unavailable affect those games? Nada. Not at all. They can all republish under ORC or another license if they chose.

In fact, with Year Zero, Free League has plans to do just that. Free League Publishing Announces Plans to Make Year Zero Open Gaming License After Dungeons & Dragons OGL Controversy


FATE is available via Creative Commons, CC-BY. Licensing Fate

Mongoose on Legend in this link: Legend and Proposed OGL Changes

Mongoose on Traveller Traveller Open Content - New Programme on the Way!

Gunshoe has been Creative Commons since 2017. https://gumshoe-srd.com/8-GUMSHOESRD CREATIVE COMMONS VERSION/

So again… why are we worried about OGL 1.0a if these systems are all already covered by other licenses or will be shortly?

Call a core book of one of those that doesn't need the OGL but used it A. say B used A under the OGL, and C used B under the OGL.

Clearly A is fine if they want to be. B is fine as soon as A uses the other license. C can't do anything about switching licenses until B does, right?
 

mamba

Legend
Is that or Sisters of Rapture one of those so-called "racist", "anti-inclusive" OGL products that Wizbro was claiming that they needed to "de-authorize" OGL 1.0a to protect everyone?
they said ‘offensive’ I believe, that is not limited to racist.

We can also argue what is offensive or not, but this was one of the books brought up in this context, as was book of vile darkness, but that is their own.
 


Alzrius

The EN World kitten
Does that matter?
I'm fairly confident that it does matter, yes.
They're doing what they can to prevent hateful content that doesn't use the OGL (Star Frontiers: New Genesis). The fact that there are people making/trying to make hateful content in the hobby could be motivation enough to try and future-proof the OGL so that they could more easily remove hateful content from the community.
Well no, they're doing what they can to prevent that particular product's release, for several reasons, one being that it's their intellectual property (which I think comes down to a trademark issue as much as hateful content, which unto itself isn't legally actionable as I understand it).

And as for "future-proofing the OGL," no...WotC lost that particular fight, even after leaning on that as a reason, since there was broad agreement across the community that lack of a morality clause wasn't a good enough reason for toss out the existing OGL for a new one which had such a restriction. WotC eventually agreed and backed down.
 

Alzrius

The EN World kitten
they said ‘offensive’ I believe, that is not limited to racist.
If we're talking about the alternative OGLs that were proposed, then no, they didn't.

The OGL v1.1 said:

If You attempt to use the OGL as a basis to release blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, trans-phobic, bigoted or otherwise discriminatory content, or do anything We think triggers these provisions, Your content is no longer licensed.

And the OGL v1.2 said:

You will not include content in Your Licensed Works that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing, or engage in conduct that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing.

So maybe they could have said something was "obscene," but simply being "offensive" wasn't something they wanted to be prohibited, for what that's worth.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top