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]

Finding that someone who worked at an executive-level position with one of the world's largest tobacco companies is at greater moral fault than someone who worked for Milo Yiannopoulos is ground I find quite steady.

I will not invest in tobacco companies and have turned down several offers to interview there over the years.

I have some indirect investment via index funds, but I cannot avoid that.

Any claim that somehow a woman finance analysts gets a pass because of their gender does not understand the market for finance analysts at all. There is no real additional burden (and perhaps even a slight benefit) there.

My accounting and organizations have been vastly women dominated my whole career. FP&A has been more 30-50% women.

If someone chose to work at a tobacco company with a professional position then they chose to ignore the product.

I actually struggle to make the connection between gadfly words on social media and the number of people made ill and who die because of tobacco.

I don’t think I am 100% over to your position, but it certainly resonates with me.

 

[Alzrius]

I'm sorry you feel that way, but the science says it is.

I'm sorry that you feel that working for Milo Yiannopoulos is somehow worse than making money selling tobacco products to people, but it is. You obviously feel differently, but I strongly suspect that you're alone on that one.

If you're not surprised I went in this direction, it's because I'm following the science

There is no science-based argument that Macris is somehow more morally culpable than Williams, which has consistently been your position. Hence why you can't seem to speak up in defense of it, and are instead trying to introduce a digression about how Big Tobacco isn't really that bad.

 

[Alzrius]

You do you, but let's just say I disagree that someone who was an associate finance director is at greater moral fault based on that job title than someone who literally has espoused pro-nazi and pro-pedophilia views.

And I disagree that simply espousing a viewpoint, no matter how awful, is worse than releasing products which addict, sicken, and kill people who use them. But clearly you think that illness and death aren't as bad as someone saying something you don't like.

 

[Alzrius]

You're going to need to put a stop to the insinuations and personal attacks.

Easily done, since what you quoted was neither of those things.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I'm sorry that you feel that working for Milo Yiannopoulos is somehow worse than making money selling tobacco products to people, but it is. You obviously feel differently, but I strongly suspect that you're alone on that one.

Not remotely alone.

Yiannopoulos is a neo-nazi who has actively promoted nazi ideology to the public, seeking the largest platforms he could get to do so. The ideology he supports radicalizes people to goals, biases, and agenda, that get people killed, and contribute to the breakdown of the modern civil democracy.

 

[Alzrius]

Not remotely alone.

Yiannopoulos is a neo-nazi who has actively promoted nazi ideology to the public, seeking the largest platforms he could get to do so. The ideology he supports radicalizes people to goals, biases, and agenda, that get people killed, and contribute to the breakdown of the modern civil democracy.

You're losing sight of the issue, which is whether or not working for Yiannopoulos is worse than working for Big Tobacco. I'm of the opinion that the former is nowhere near as bad as the latter, as one person's airing their personal viewpoints doesn't directly injure or kill people, whereas the latter makes products that do.

If you think otherwise, well, you and the small number of people who agree with you on that one can be alone together.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I'm sorry that you feel that working for Milo Yiannopoulos is somehow worse than making money selling tobacco products to people, but it is. You obviously feel differently, but I strongly suspect that you're alone on that one.

I think Milo as a person is more morally reprehensible than a person working for a corporation solely based on the fact they are working there. I don't think I'm as alone as you think.

There is no science-based argument that Macris is somehow more morally culpable than Williams, which has consistently been your position.

No it hasn't. My science based argument was that fast food is just as addicting as tobacco (or other drugs). Something you have claimed repeatedly isn't true, when the science clearly states it is.

 

[Sacrosanct]

You're losing sight of the issue, which is whether or not working for Yiannopoulos is worse than working for Big Tobacco.

That's not the issue. Not the one we're all talking about. We aren't just talking about Macris as being bad just because he worked for Milo, but because there's a long history of him in tight with Milo and ascribing to the same abhorrent views as Milo. That's more than just "worked for Milo".

 

[Alzrius]

I think Milo as a person is more morally reprehensible than a person working for a corporation solely based on the fact they are working there. I don't think I'm as alone as you think.

So you think that working for someone who says things you disagree with is worse than working for a company that releases products that sickens and kills people?

Maybe you're not alone in that position, but I wish that you were.

No it hasn't. My science based argument was that fast food is just as addicting as tobacco (or other drugs). Something you have claimed repeatedly isn't true, when the science clearly states it is.

Your digression was nothing more than a case of whataboutism ("You think tobacco is harmful?! Well what about fast food, huh?! Isn't that harmful too?!"), which ignored the point in question, which is whether helping to sell tobacco is worse than working for someone who says things you dislike.

 

[Alzrius]

That's not the issue. Not the one we're all talking about. We aren't just talking about Macris as being bad just because he worked for Milo, but because there's a long history of him in tight with Milo and ascribing to the same abhorrent views as Milo. That's more than just "worked for Milo".

That's a minor distinction which makes little difference in the overall debate, which is who has committed the greater moral failing. To that end, I reiterate that knowingly working as an executive for Big Tobacco, with all the harm they've inflicted (and continue to inflict), is worse than associating with someone who believes and proclaims things you find reprehensible.