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...

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.

 

log in or register to remove this ad

mamba

Legend
At least three (likely) outright lies:

1. "the document was made public we had already abandoned a lot of the things that were problematic because the feedback we were getting we just hadn't published that update yet"

Given the very short timeframe from the date the document was leaked, until the planned deadline for 3PP publishers to sign on (or have their villages razed to the ground), this does not ring true.
not a lie, the timeframe changes with the updates, he explained that. Basically any draft can be the final version if the other side agrees to it, hence it includes such dates. If they go back to the drawing board, the dates will be updated along with the rest.

2. "from [...] a fan perspective [it may seem] that nothing actually changed until the decline in D&D Beyond subscriptions; like "that can't be a coincidence surely!"; well it it also can [be a coincidence] because it takes a long time to actually modify a legal document when you have a lot of stakeholders it you can't turn on a dime and so it can't it actually couldn't have been turned around in response to the decline in subscriptions because that would have been too fast it would have been too short a time period for a corporation our size to pull that off with a legal document with a bunch of stakeholders um and so we were already working on that document before the folks who decided to stop subscribing decided to stop doing that it's the main reason that we weren't ready."

This is likely to be an outright lie.
or it could be true. You are not going to get a new license out in a day with everyone having to sign off. I believe him here, what was undoubtedly a reaction to the community was the release under CC however

3. "I honestly don't know who contributed to the unsigned statement before I started posting[.]"

That is unlikely. Picture the WOTC office environment, and the news-making repercussions of that announcement. It is not easy to imagine that he does not know. Even if the rest of his statement is true (that he didn't know of the announcement until it was posted), it is very likely that he and others in WOTC management (at all levels) asked around, to find out what the heck was going on, and who wrote these news-making words. He may be defining "know" in the casuistic sense of "officially know", and in the pragmatic sense of: "know and be able to tell you without losing my job." Which, in the everyday sense, would be a lie.
probably true as well, WotC is big, he is/was not in charge of this license thing and the reponse to it, that much is clear. He has no need to lie here, he could simply say 'yes I know, but I am not going to name names here, this is not about putting blame on one person'.
If I knew, something along those lines is what I would have said.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad



bedir than

Full Moon Storyteller
Look: His and their salaries depend on stopping the D&D Begone movement.
Do you really think a cancellation by less than .001% of peoples forced a change?
Is chris cao (ceo at hasbro) and autocorrect or intentional misspelling of his name or is there another guy with the Cao last name? I’ve seen that cao through out the last few OGL threads and was curious,
Nah. That's the right guy. The architect behind WotC Digital and wanting to video gamify D&D. Some sources say he's the real villain behind all this.
Chris Cocks is the CEO of Hasbro, he's the former VP of Wizards of the Coast.

Cao is the Wizards VP of Digital, not Beyond, IIRC
 





bedir than

Full Moon Storyteller
Yeah. And he also wanted to create a new Beyond-like service and vaporize Beyond (even after WotC acquired it) - because apparently it wasn't his idea.
A real gem of a guy from what I can tell.
The source of this is DnD Shorts, an admitted liar who also claims that he and his sources exchanged over a million words in conversations in less than two weeks (basically impossible).

This doesn't mean Cao is good, or bad. It just means that the source of his destructive nature should be doubted.
 

Scribe

Legend
the bad press was much worse than the actual financial impact. Getting mainstream business news talking about angry players is horrible.

Having 10k-50k people stop spending less than $10 a month each out of 10 million is nothing

Yes, as with checks seemingly everything these days, its not about the actuals, its about the perceptions.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top