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.

​

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

I literally already responded to that point.

As for aphorisms, you don’t need to give Nazis oxygen in order to know their tactics and such.

Hmm. There is no case in history where deliberately ignoring your opponent's motivations lead to a good outcome. It might feel good in the moment, but it creates hell in the future.

 

[Alzrius]

He literally worked for Milo Yianopolis after he left Breitbart. He was the CEO of MILO Inc , Yianopolis’ company, and maintains interests in Milo Worldwide.

I can understand associating someone with odious beliefs because of where they chose to work; I'm still upset that Cynthia Williams, now president of WotC, spent over a decade as a finance executive at one of the world's largest tobacco companies, i.e. she was making sure it stayed profitable to traffic in human suffering and death.

 

[Stefano Rinaldelli]

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.

The idea of retire the material because the author express undesiderable ideas or act in a bad way find me very doubtful about the level of civilization. Being able to see the difference between an artistic work and its author would be a very easy task for rational people. Hope that in Italy this madness do not lead us to destroy Cappella Sistina because Caravaggio was a bad*ss and an assassin.

 

[mamba]

The idea of retire the material because the author express undesiderable ideas or act in a bad way find me very doubtful about the level of civilization. Being able to see the difference between an artistic work and its author would be a very easy task for rational people.

it is, the question then becomes whether you want to support such an individual

 

[Myrdin Potter]

it is, the question then becomes whether you want to support such an individual

That is a personal decision. The question is more - do you enforce your personal decision on all others by banning the work?

And, in this case, do I give WoTC that right over all others who produce content? Do I believe that the y were so strongly motivated by the perceived need to police the space?

So far the most racially troubled example discussed in this thread predates the OGL and was published by then, not the community. Because, to be clear, that policing of content motivation remains front and center even in the interviews and is put forward as an unfortunate virtue that needed to be let aside once the other OGL changes were scrapped.

 

[Stefano Rinaldelli]

it is, the question then becomes whether you want to support such an individual

I buy a book if it is a good book. No question for me. I don't believe in opinion crimes. Every man deserves the right to eat and if his work is good he deserves to be paid. Maybe he is a very bad man but since he act legally all the rest is only untolerant witch-hunting and moral lynching. One thing is to avoid buying something, another is to lock a person preventing him to sell something or doing his job.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I do my best to separate the creator and what they may or may not believe from the creative works with which they are associated. But there are of course other schools of thought, and I'm not going to give people who believe differently a hard time about it.

 

[mamba]

That is a personal decision. The question is more - do you enforce your personal decision on all others by banning the work?

to me this depends on the work more than the author, and I am pretty sure that whatever in the work it is that leads to me wanting it banned makes me not the only one wanting to

And, in this case, do I give WoTC that right over all others who produce content? Do I believe that the y were so strongly motivated by the perceived need to police the space?

no, we do not give WotC that right, this has been answered already

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Hmm. There is no case in history where deliberately ignoring your opponent's motivations lead to a good outcome. It might feel good in the moment, but it creates hell in the future.

Denying Nazis platforms and attention is not ignoring thier motivations. No need for the concern trolling.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I can understand associating someone with odious beliefs because of where they chose to work; I'm still upset that Cynthia Williams, now president of WotC, spent over a decade as a finance executive at one of the world's largest tobacco companies, i.e. she was making sure it stayed profitable to traffic in human suffering and death.

That begs the question, "Do you hold someone equally accountable for working at a company because that's the job they could get to pay the bills (we all know it's harder for women to rise up in the corporate ladder than men, so her options were/are more limited) as you do for someone who directly holds abhorrent beliefs?"

I don't know Willliams' personal beliefs, but I know Macris's (now, after looking into the subject). I disdain Williams for her actions with Hasbro/WotC, but that's due to her impact to the hobby I love rather than her as a person. Macris didn't just end up working for Milo because it was a job. That case seems to be clearly two birds of a feather, especially looking at the history and relationships of them going back to Gamergate. (and other relationships he fostered, like supporting James Desborough).