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


log in or register to remove this ad


Sacrosanct

Legend
Everything I said is 100% accurate.
No, it's not. Your last post there is still visible for everyone to see, so it very much isn't like you portray it. Heck, you're not even permabanned. :rolleyes: So can we please stop with the moderation talk of other forums please? You're just proving my point.
 
Last edited:

Haplo781

Legend
No, it's not. Your last post there is still visible for everyone to see, so it very much isn't like you portray it. Heck, you're not even permabanned. :rolleyes: So can we please stop with the moderation talk of other forums please? You're just proving my point.
Different account friend. I appreciate the cyber stalking though.
 

I caught a permanent for being a "bad fit for the community" - meaning "we can't find an actual banworthy infraction but we don't like you."
I'm not the only one who got that, huh? I feel a bit better about it. They literally said the quoted bit to me lol.

Bonus points that the mod who said that much later got banned himself over being the Beast: The Primordial guy (hoo boy lol).
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
Different account friend. I appreciate the cyber stalking though.
Same account different name. You had your name changed. Didn't make a new account. Then you made a post insulting all the posters and staff at RPG.net and only got a thread ban for it. Not even a regular ban let alone a permaban like you claimed.

1675984895016.png

1675984822727.png


If you weren't lying about your post, I wouldn't have had to look. Now, can we please stop bringing in other site moderation into this? Because like I said, it's generally one-sided and not accurate. As you were so helpful to illustrate.

1675984858099.png
 

Haplo781

Legend
Same account different name. You had your name changed. Didn't make a new account. Then you made a post insulting all the posters and staff at RPG.net and only got a thread ban for it. Not even a regular ban let alone a permaban like you claimed.

View attachment 275108
View attachment 275106

If you weren't lying about your post, I wouldn't have had to look. Now, can we please stop bringing in other site moderation into this? Because like I said, it's generally one-sided and not accurate. As you were so helpful to illustrate.

View attachment 275107
Bro I literally had a different account, with a different name, using a different email, that I used for years. Please stop stalking my old profile trying to prove a point. It's creepy.
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
Bro I literally had a different account, with a different name, using a different email, that I used for years. Please stop stalking my old profile trying to prove a point. It's creepy.
Sure. And you just so happened to say you were "permabanned for not being a good fit for the community", which is the exact same thing you used in that post about other posters, and in both cases there is no evidence to back that particular claim. I'm sure that's just a coincidence. :rolleyes:
 

Haplo781

Legend
Sure. And you just so happened to say you were "permabanned for not being a good fit for the community", which is the exact same thing you used in that post about other posters, and in both cases there is no evidence to back that particular claim. I'm sure that's just a coincidence. :rolleyes:
Drop it now. This is harassment, doxxing, and stalking. Last chance.
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
Drop it now. This is harassment, doxxing, and stalking. Last chance.
You made a claim about moderation and when I cast doubt about it, you doubled down on the claim. It's not doxing to look at a public forum about posts you publicly made. Like I said, I never would have bothered if you hadn't been so adamant to say I was wrong about it (and I had a strong suspicion the actual events weren't like you claimed). All you did was prove my point about one sided claims not being accurate.

*edit. Honestly, I don't care if someone is banned or not, and I don't care what someone says on another forum unless it's directly counter to what they are telling me here. Which is what you did. All I did was ask to stop talking about cross-site moderation because it's one-sided and not typically accurate. You were the one to bring it up your situation over there, not me.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top