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.

​

 

[Mournblade94]

What are the selling points of Castles and Crusades, if you don't mind?

It is modern d20 but it seems a true successor to AD&D. Its Siege Engine is really broad and covers most things. They do not have a skill system (and skill systems I have been trained to like for 20 years) but I'm getting over that. They leave skills, to several methods... class based, role play, background, or secondary careers. Secondary careers like AD&D did.

The basics are you have the standard 6 D&D Stats. Depending on race, or class you get primary stat, usually 2 but Humans get 3. The rest are secondary. That sets your DC. 18 for secondary, 12 for primary. But then the DM assigns a difficulty of +1-6 (generally) and adds to DC.

Your bonus is your stat bonus, + your level (If its within your class or you can make a case why you have that skill), and circumstantial modifiers. Really quick and sweet, and organized. Note this applies to Saves, combat, skills, attribute checks. It is rules light.. yet robust.

It took me years to go to that over Pathfinder or 3.5, because of my very simulationist brain. I think it actually did a bounded accuracy before 5e,

 

[teitan]

I don’t think that this is OGL, but the core setting has been controversial since it was first published (Gor)

DriveThruRPG

www.drivethrurpg.com

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.

Open d6 is an OGL 1.0a release yes.

 

[mamba]

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 did not say it was, but it was brought up as an example and you were looking for one

 

[teitan]

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?

It doesn’t apply to any of these. If WOTC were to withdraw the OGL it would only impact their copyrightable material. It would not affect anything copywritten by any other company. None of these use anything from WOTC for their rules content. They only used the OGL, a few don’t use it at all, because it was a convenient model.

Had the OP mentioned something like OSE or maybe Hyperborea sure, possibly an issue but since WOTC has indicated the 3.x SRD will be going into CC-BY, and the OGL is not going anywhere and it is business suicide obviously, it is a moot point but the examples given were… really, really bad examples because they use zero WOTC content.

 

[mamba]

If we're talking about the alternative OGLs that were proposed, then no, they didn't.

[…]
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.

agreed, my point was more that it was not limited to racist material though

 

[teitan]

agreed, my point was more that it was not limited to racist material though

To be fair you did not give a good example at all because while the book was controversial it was not considered “questionable” or offensive etc in the sense that WOTC intended. When it came out they were concerned about it and it was released wirh content warnings but so was the Book of Vile Darkness and the Book of Exalted Deeds. Both of which skirted the edge of modern taste and even then the BoVD was considered offensive by a LOT of people because, and I love the book, it did things like equating BDSM and obesity, overly gross and exaggerated obesity, with “vile” or evil behavior (7 deadly sins style) with piercings and magic spells drawing on sexual fluids. Things you would find in a lot of modern games but D&D shies away from. The BoEF is pretty tame in comparison to some modern content. It just has a legend behind it because WOTC was squeamish about it Dancey putting the D20 System logo on it which was how they controlled content back then, not through the OGL but the D20STL.

 

[mamba]

To be fair you did not give a good example at all because while the book was controversial it was not considered “questionable” or offensive etc in the sense that WOTC intended

give a better one then. At no point did I say I agree that this should be prevented.

I do not know the book, it came up as an example in the OGL 1.1 threads, it is under the OGL unlike most other examples, so it was a good fit from that perspective.

I am not going to defend a point I was never making (ie that books such as this need to be prevented)

 

[Alzrius]

The BoEF is pretty tame in comparison to some modern content. It just has a legend behind it because WOTC was squeamish about it Dancey putting the D20 System logo on it which was how they controlled content back then, not through the OGL but the D20STL.

That was Anthony Valterra, not Ryan Dancey.

 

[teitan]

give a better one then. At no point did I say I agree that this should be prevented.

I do not know the book, it came up as an example in the OGL 1.1 threads, it is under the OGL unlike most other examples, so it was a good fit from that perspective.

I am not going to defend a point I was never making (ie that books such as this need to be prevented)

NuTSR. It’s literally NuTSR and Adventurer, Conqueror, King.

 

[teitan]

That was Anthony Valterra, not Ryan Dancey.

Thank you.