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.

​

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I just rewatched this and it is not what he said. Maybe if folks reacted to the context of what he said instead of creating a strawman to be upset about, less people would be upset.

Right before he said "more people like me that leave the better" he said the creators should reflect the gaming community. He's clearly talking about how moving from everyone in leadership being a white male to being people of diverse groups is a good thing. He is not saying white men aren't welcome in the game at all. He's not saying white men need to leave the hobby.

That is exactly what I got out of it. Seems I am just to stupid to convey my thoughts.

 

[Myrdin Potter]

I just rewatched this and it is not what he said. Maybe if folks reacted to the context of what he said instead of creating a strawman to be upset about, less people would be upset.

Right before he said "more people like me that leave the better" he said the creators should reflect the gaming community. He's clearly talking about how moving from everyone in leadership being a white male to being people of diverse groups is a good thing. He is not saying white men aren't welcome in the game at all. He's not saying white men need to leave the hobby.

And I did not say that he said they should leave the hobby. If you are going to build a straw person about what I said, maybe read what I said. And don’t assume that I did not watch the video, it was too long an answer and the statement being argued about was really late in the answer, but I think he meant leadership , not the hobby.

Hence my answer that growing and creating opportunity for more people is just as good as having to have people of one group leave.

 

[Sacrosanct]

And I did not say that he said they should leave the hobby.

You literally did

The whole assumption that one group has to leave (and that it is so good that they do that he cannot wait until they do) is bad...

That's an assumption you're making about his position. One that isn't true because he never said that.

it was too long an answer and the statement being argued about was really late in the answer, but I think he meant leadership , not the hobby.

that seemed like it was a different paragraph and thus unrelated to the first part. If that wasn't the case, then I apologize.

 

[pukunui]

Nope, not individually. I do remember the marketing video where a Senior Drsigner was giddy about a Planet of the Apes reference that he snuck in, though, and wondered if people would notice...THEY DID.

That's what I thought. I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt that it was all unconscious bias on his part and that he has learned from it, but I've never been a particularly huge fan of his anyway, so I'm not sure why I care all that much really.

 

[billd91]

I am not based in US, so I may be not sensitive enough here.

It's really not just an issue in the US. I do think we've got some pretty advanced methods for talking about it, though, compared to a number of other places across the globe. Of course, we've got pretty powerful ways of suppressing the discussion as well which you can see play out in our domestic politics.

I love how saying... you have to give up a few of the seats only your group occupies so others can have a seat at the table translates into telling a group of people they are not wanted.

People with privilege hate to share. It waters down the whole sense of privilege. So, of course, the rhetorical hammers and claims of "reverse racism/discrimination" come out.
Yet, in a world with limited resources, something has to be done - not everyone who wants to be on the D&D design team can be. So you make choices and one of those choices is to look at what different viewpoints, knowledges, and backgrounds a person can bring to the mix of employees and accept that too is a factor in assessing whether someone has the qualifications for the job or not.

 

[Sacrosanct]

People with privilege hate to share. It waters down the whole sense of privilege. So, of course, the rhetorical hammers and claims of "reverse racism/discrimination" come out.

As I mentioned to someone who put out a video complaining about this:

 

[UngeheuerLich]

It's really not just an issue in the US. I do think we've got some pretty advanced methods for talking about it, though, compared to a number of other places across the globe. Of course, we've got pretty powerful ways of suppressing the discussion as well which you can see play out in our domestic politics.

It is an issue in Germany too. For. Long it is acknowledged that women in higher up positions are underrepresented.

There are solutions in place, which are still controversial in parts.

 

[Myrdin Potter]

You literally did



That's an assumption you're making about his position. One that isn't true because he never said that.


that seemed like it was a different paragraph and thus unrelated to the first part. If that wasn't the case, then I apologize.

Is the word hobby in my response anywhere?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

As I mentioned to someone who put out a video complaining about this:

View attachment 274945

It is not only that. For once, you need to reach equality first. On that way, you need to actively work for it. That means hiring lesser priviledged people over priviledged ones, if both are otherwise equally qualified.
This is a necessary process, but it is not exactly fair for the priviledged individual.*

* maybe it is, because the lesser priviledged one had to work twice as hard (or even harder) to get the same qualification. But it does certainly feel unfair.

 

[Parmandur]

That's what I thought. I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt that it was all unconscious bias on his part and that he has learned from it, but I've never been a particularly huge fan of his anyway, so I'm not sure why I care all that much really.

I think it's probably unintentional blindspots and not malice, but holy cow at least four books he has worked on had huge problems on this score...and I'm saying that as someone who likes his usual style, I just wouldn't trust him without a sensitivity consultation if I were his boss.