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.

​

 

[mcmillan]

He was answering specifically to the question about leadership of the D&D team at WotC being primarily CIS white males. He wasn't talking about you, or about gamers, he was talking about management at the company,

this is important context. He was specifically asked if there were non-white Non-males in leadership positions and the answer was that the diversity among the design team had expanded and people were beginning to take on design leadership which he expected to lead to more opportunity higher up too.

 

[dave2008]

That's very clearly what Brink means. But when he says "guys like me can't leave soon enough for this hobby," those last three words tend to present the rest of the sentence in a way that's almost begging for misinterpretation.

I agree. That is why we shouldn't take them out of the context of the interview.

 

[dave2008]

It's not racist to desire diversity. But you should not seek to achieve it by being racist.

As I said in my other reply - context is important.

 

[halfling rogue]

that might have something to do with the fact that no other group is as overrepresented…

So it's okay to be racist, just so long as the group you're being racist against is overrepresented?

 

[dave2008]

I'm saying if your decisions to remove people from leadership are based on race, then yes it's racist. Add to that gender and sexual orientation and it's laughable to say it was done in the name of "inclusivity".

But that is not what he said. He was saying a more diverse leadership can't happen until the white males leave. He was explaining why there is not a diverse leadership now.

 

[reelo]

Is it racist to want diversity - that is what he is saying. Not in the best way, but that was the intent.

No, it's not. Though "positive discrimination" is still discrimination.

people working on them within WotC on the other hand… there is only a limited number of positions, and that is what he was talking about

I think whenever there's an open position it should go to the most qualified person. Race, sex, or gender should not factor into the equation. If the most qualified person happens to not be a middle-aged white cishet male, then that's perfectly fine and the position should go to them. But if the most qualified person is a middle-aged white cishet male, it would be bad to give the job to someone else because of "positive discrimination".

 

[Umbran]

but I don't see how his statement is any less racist just because he's talking about leadership at WotC.

Mod Note:
Statements that desire for a diverse corporate makeup is somehow racist are a problem. Please don't suggest that.

To answer your question (in a way that I know does not brook further discussion) is that, like it or not, modern concepts of racism are dependent on socio-economic power disparity. Racism generally requires, "punching down," so to speak. Discrimination, racism, and bigotry then are not equivalent.

That, from a place of privilege, a move towards equity feels like someone is punching down at you doesn't make it so.

 

[Alzrius]

I think whenever there's an open position it should go to the most qualified person. Race, sex, or gender should not factor into the equation. If the most qualified person happens to not be a middle-aged white cishet male, then that's perfectly fine and the position should go to them. But if the most qualified person is a middle-aged white cishet male, it would be bad to give the job to someone else because of "positive discrimination"

On its face, this is an idea that no one should have a problem with. The issue, as I understand it, speaks to the wider effects of inequality and discrimination. If socioeconomic resources have been unfairly distributed across a broad spectrum of society, then people of minority backgrounds have had fewer opportunities to become the most qualified in a given field in the first place. Ergo, proactive corrections in that regard need to be undertaken.

 

[halfling rogue]

Mod Note:
Statements that desire for a diverse corporate makeup is somehow racist are a problem. Please don't suggest that.

To answer your question (in a way that I know does not brook further discussion) is that, like it or not, modern concepts of racism are dependent on socio-economic power disparity. Racism generally requires, "punching down," so to speak.

That, from a place of privilege, a move towards equity feels like someone is punching down at you doesn't make it so.

Modern concepts of racism sounds like a bunch of commie gobbledygook.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Every time I hear someone say something along the lines "the game was always welcoming to everyone because you could play whatever gender or race you want!", I'm reminded of this comment on a video review of Chromatic Dungeons. Chuck said the same thing, and then less than an hour later admitted he wouldn't play it because he didn't feel represented. The cognitive dissonance is strong.