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]

He said there will be new language and that it will be 100% compatible with SRD 5.1. New language, changed definitions, and changed rules like we've seen from the playtest can't be 100% compatible with the old rules without some sort of CC conversion document or new SRD.

The existing document cannot be updated by them. It's in CC so they can't change it.

You can easily release a second document that is clearly marked as newer.
I think changing a few words here and there won't make it not 100% compatible. Actually if you don't change some words here and there, it will make it identical.

 

[Sacrosanct]

they aren’t using the OGL though from my understanding, so this goes back to ‘how does the revoking the OGL help with that’

That goes back to what I've been saying though. Just because they should be using the OGL and aren't (because they don't understand how it works and think copyright doesn't apply to them) doesn't mean it shouldn't still count.

What I mean, is that currently those products (which use things from the various SRDs) that don't include the OGL could be shut down for copyright violation if Hasbro so choose. But if they did include the OGL like they are supposed to, Hasbro couldn't shut it down currently.

 

[bedir than]

That goes back to what I've been saying though. Just because they should be using the OGL and aren't (because they don't understand how it works and think copyright doesn't apply to them) doesn't mean it shouldn't still count.

What I mean, is that currently those products (which use things from the various SRDs) that don't include the OGL could be shut down for copyright violation if Hasbro so choose. But if they did include the OGL like they are supposed to, Hasbro couldn't shut it down currently.

And, the NuTSR court case was likely the first exposure to hate-speech in D&D adjacent products that Hasbro's senior legal team had. It was also about a month before the OGL 1.1 was sent out to privileged partners that two of the senior legal team left the NuTSR court case to do something unannounced.

I remain convinced that much of the OGL debacle was driven by a court case involving Nazi and Nazi adjacent language using Wizards IP forcing lawyers unfamiliar with the OGL to read up on the legalese of intertwined IP, open gaming and the business disaster that was late era TSR.

 

[Retreater]

What I put in my v1.2 survey regarding the hateful content is that I wanted an independent panel to have the authorization to determine what is "hateful." That way it couldn't be used to single out specific competitors and the clause would be independent of Hasbro management in case they became problematic.

 

[Maxperson]

You can easily release a second document that is clearly marked as newer.

Yes. I'm not saying that it couldn't be. I was pointing out that he refused to commit to that document, but committed to 100% compatibility.

I think changing a few words here and there won't make it not 100% compatible. Actually if you don't change some words here and there, it will make it identical.

Nothing we've seen in ANY playtest document amounted to "changing a few words here and there." We've seen wholesale definition changes, many rules changes, changes to spells, changes to classes and subclasses, etc. This isn't a case where they changed the fighter to warrior or something and left the rest of the class the same.

If you don't change any words then 5.5e doesn't exist and there's nothing new being released in 2024.

 

[Alzrius]

That goes back to what I've been saying though. Just because they should be using the OGL and aren't (because they don't understand how it works and think copyright doesn't apply to them) doesn't mean it shouldn't still count.

What I mean, is that currently those products (which use things from the various SRDs) that don't include the OGL could be shut down for copyright violation if Hasbro so choose. But if they did include the OGL like they are supposed to, Hasbro couldn't shut it down currently.

Assuming you're still talking about ACKS, here (I'm not sure at this point), it does use the OGL, but I'm not sure what content in the actual books would violate any sort of morality clause. Based on what I've read online, that would only apply if you included that proviso about "conduct" as well, which I don't think anyone wants since it puts your entire life under a microscope in perpetuity.

 

[Alzrius]

If anything, this serves just as well as a case of something that should not be suppressed.

There's also an issue of it being an adaptation of an existing series as well. As it is, my understanding is that the RPG books are fairly tame in their presentation, acknowledging the parts of the setting that people object to while focusing more on the adventuring aspects involved. It's a pretty clear-cut case of niche products that only have a limited appeal, which from what I can tell isn't enough to support any sort of "hateful content" charge.

 

[Loren the GM]

Yes. I'm not saying that it couldn't be. I was pointing out that he refused to commit to that document, but committed to 100% compatibility.

Nothing we've seen in ANY playtest document amounted to "changing a few words here and there." We've seen wholesale definition changes, many rules changes, changes to spells, changes to classes and subclasses, etc. This isn't a case where they changed the fighter to warrior or something and left the rest of the class the same.

If you don't change any words then 5.5e doesn't exist and there's nothing new being released in 2024.

He specifically committed to releasing a new SRD, probably as 5.2 or an equivalent update. He says the SRD will be fully compatible with the upcoming rules updates. It will be 5th edition, but improvements to 5th edition.

Edit to fix link, as it was embedding the video weird:

This video should play directly to where this is asked and answered.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I think most of us agree that trying to police what is acceptable or not is problematic in implementation at best, and downright scary at worst. But I also think it's reasonable to think that the primary reason Hasbro came up with that clause in the first place was in large part due to LaNasa and Dave, even if they weren't using the OGL for those products. 1. because they should, and 2. because they could easily going forward.

In addition to that, I have to think WotC is aware of other creators who use the OGL who have come out and said "We're not putting any of that woke nonsense in OUR products!"* and were looking down the barrel of creators intentionally and purposefully putting out as much toxic stuff as they could (in their products which need to use the OGL) in response to "WotC going woke".

*Like Greg Gillespie, creator of Barrowmaze.

 

[Maxperson]

He specifically committed to releasing a new SRD, probably as 5.2 or an equivalent update. He says the SRD will be fully compatible with the upcoming rules updates. It will be 5th edition, but improvements to 5th edition.

Edit to fix link, as it was embedding the video weird: This link goes directly to where this is asked and answered.

Okay. Thanks. I went back to the first post and checked what I read and I misremembered no new OGL as no new SRD.