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.

​

 

[doctorbadwolf]

4) Cynthia Williams is "as cute as a country button" (or some similar expression. She's shown her colors as a money-grabbing suit.)

This comment still bothers me. Why are you intentionally misrepresenting what he said about CW like this? It comes across as something you wouldn’t say if it were someone else he had described as empathetic and willing to change thier mind based on feedback.

Blocking someone is an online phenomenon. Imagine interacting with someone in the real world in this way. What do you think the reaction would be from those you interact with?

walking away from someone IRL is a healthy thing to do. However, it isn’t necessary as often IRL because it is much easier to exert social pressure to not behave in a way to cause others to need to walk away or ask you to leave.

The ideal thought is that you have a conversation.

No. The ideal is to walk away from a toxic “debate”.

Anecdotally I think it's still overwhelming white males, but I don't have access to the survey results. He does, I would think.

My anecdotal xp is very different. However, most of the people I know who are outside the white straight manosphere don’t spend nearly as much time at game stores, because so many game stores are still hostile toward them. And conventions? Same thing. There’s just no way for my black non-binary afab friend to be sure that they will be safe at any convention. Sadly, especially because they’re exceptionally attractive, but even if they weren’t, there are still too many guys who gatekeep in racist and sexist ways.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Maybe. Still - you'd think initially more popular podcasters would have been selected for a wider audience base. And it would be in the interest of the podcasters to release their interview first before others.

The folks who have been picked all have a lot of followers and represent important and diverse groups within the community. I can't think of many people I would have picked that haven't said they're conducting these interviews, other than @SlyFlourish, who may well have turned them down, for all I know.

 

[AnotherGuy]

The folks who have been picked all have a lot of followers and represent important and diverse groups within the community. I can't think of many people I would have picked that haven't said they're conducting these interviews, other than @SlyFlourish, who may well have turned them down, for all I know.

Yeah I can't say I am familiar with many podcasters myself. I just looked at the amount of the subscriber numbers of the interviewers for this particular interview.

Don't get me wrong - I'm happy they reach out to many and all groups. There is a lot of damage to undo.

 

[Jer]

Maybe. Still - you'd think initially more popular podcasters would have been selected for a wider audience base. And it would be in the interest of the podcasters to release their interview first before others.

Actually I'd think there's more incentive for the folks with smaller audiences to interrupt their normal release schedule to get theirs out first because the audience growth they might see is larger than the growth the big guys will potentially get. Also there are usually fewer people between recording and release in a small operation - many of the smallest ones are just a single person with a camera or GarageBand on their mac. The larger ones have less incentive to break their release schedule and also generally have more "pro" organization around their operations and so have more people who have to deal with the files from recording to release.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Maybe. Still - you'd think initially more popular podcasters would have been selected for a wider audience base. And it would be in the interest of the podcasters to release their interview first before others.

My argument is optics matter - and to assume they don't (to WotC) because Kyle was selected to be the face of WotC at this time - doesn't flow.

I agree, optics matter. My point was when the interviews were set up, Kyle left it up to the interviewer to post or not post or even to edit it. They (wotc) weren’t going to control the content.

They relinquish control of the optics when they did that.

 

[AnotherGuy]

then come up with a better explanation, I do not have one.

To me they voluntarily shot themselves in the foot, you do not do that unless something startled you, even if it turns out it was just you jumping at shadows

General competition as 3pp and VTT systems are growing.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Maybe not but I'm hoping Kyle Brinks resigns his position real soon after this interview. No reason to stick with WOTC when the much friendlier Castles and Crusades is available. Troll Lord appreciate all players and creators.

I hope not. Seems like he has a good situation at WotC and it seems like he can do good there. And he is probably paid more too!

 

[AnotherGuy]

I agree, optics matter. My point was when the interviews were set up, Kyle left it up to the interviewer to post or not post or even to edit it. They (wotc) weren’t going to control the content.

They relinquish control of the optics when they did that.

Yeah. The 800-pound gorilla has no choice in the matter given the current situation. It's play ball or find yourself ostracized by a sizeable portion of the community.

 

[dave2008]

It's binary, it goes nowhere. It's not an argument in good faith. The media does stuff like this all the time. If you cannot see it, then I don't know what more to say.

I've not followed your discussion enough to respond.

 

[Burt Baccara]

then come up with a better explanation, I do not have one.

To me they voluntarily shot themselves in the foot, you do not do that unless something startled you, even if it turns out it was just you jumping at shadows

Paizo or the next Pathfinder was the threat they wanted to prevent, as they planned to redefine the OGL into a license without the copyleft part. They got caught and since Meta is at best tolerated and disliked by many, it was a good strawman. That is my take anyway.