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.

​

 

[bedir than]

i expect the concerns about Disney, etc are because there's a major movie on the horizon

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

The interviews asked some tough questions, but I feel if they didn’t believe Kyle’s answers (on some things), they should have said it to him, not say so after the interview was over.

I also think the incredulity came off as a lack of understanding how large corporations work (like most fans).

 

[Parmandur]

If Disney had any interest in WotC's IP, they'd just buy WotC.

I mean, Disney buying Hasbro has been something analysts have expected more than once, for vertical integration purposes. We are used to thinking of Hasbro as a big corporation in this communiry, but their market cap is lower than Marvel or Lucasfilms were.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Or they’d go to the same sources that TSR/WotC…borrowed from…and option those rights. Way cheaper to option the film rights to displacer beasts from the original author or their estate for a few million than to outright buy Hasbro or WotC for a few billion.

I think that a lot of people fundamentally misunderstand how IP works in the legal world. Such misunderstanding can result in serious miscalculations.

Here-

If you aren't familiar with the story, the ending may surprise you.

The idea that just because a company borrowed a concept from somewhere means that you can use it has a long history, and it usually ends badly.

So, for example, if you wanted to option the story and the coeurl from A. E. Vought's estate (unless the story is in the public domain), then more power to you. If, however, you are planning on just dropping in D&D monsters for a D&D adventure into a D&D film by optioning older works ... I wouldn't recommend it.

 

[Imaro]

If Disney had any interest in WotC's IP, they'd just buy WotC.

Yep just like Microsoft can just buy Playstation or Nintendo if they want... wait no, it doesn't work like that.

 

[Parmandur]

Yep just like Microsoft can just buy Playstation or Nintendo if they want... wait no, it doesn't work like that.

Disney can buy Hasbro, and a case has been made for it multiple times over the years by financial analysts: not for D&D or Magic, though Hasbro's extensive IP is no doubt attractive, but because it would make Disney's merchandising empire more in house. They have the money for it, Hasbro is a little fish relatively speaking. Nintendo is like ten times the size of Hasbro, Sony even moreso.

 

[Jer]

I mean, Disney buying Hasbro has been something analysts have expected more than once, for vertical integration purposes. We are used to thinking of Hasbro as a big corporation in this communiry, but their market cap is lower than Marvel or Lucasfilms were.

At various times Disney merging with Apple and Disney buying Hasbro have been suggested by analysts.

Honestly if Disney decided to by Hasbro it wouldn't be for D&D. It would be for Hasbro and the toy company part of their operation. I wouldn't be surprised if Disney just mostly left the rest of the operation alone and kinda forgot it was there - the way they seem to forget that they own one of the two largest comic book publishers in the country (they remember that they own Marvel because the IP sells, but the fact that Marvel still makes comics may barely register on the upper execs radar).

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

The interviews asked some tough questions, but I feel if they didn’t believe Kyle’s answers (on some things), they should have said it him, not say so after the interview was over.

That's kind of a scary thing for amateurs to do. There's a lot of social programming to be agreeable in social situations.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Exactly.

Or they’d go to the same sources that TSR/WotC…borrowed from…and option those rights. Way cheaper to option the film rights to displacer beasts from the original author or their estate for a few million than to outright buy Hasbro or WotC for a few billion.

Disney's got the money and, as we've seen with their Pixar, Star Wars and Marvel purchases, they'd do so with an eye toward monetization over the long term.

 

[Parmandur]

One thing strikes me: if concern over a major corporate Disney or Meta deciding to make TTRPGs on a whim and go big, then it strikes me that the CC move is a decisive blow in Hasbro's favor given corporate decision making processes and the Skaff effect. No major corporation is going to go in, see that rhe moat popular ruleset is strings free Crearice Commons and then decide to do the R&D to make a new ruleset: they'll just make a CC 5E clone. And then Hasbro benefits through the market game theory math that Skaff worked on all those years ago...