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.

​

 

[Retreater]

I mean that isn’t what he said but okay. Sounds like your mind is already made up.

As I said, I haven't had the opportunity to watch the video. I was just going off the summaries, which sounded pretty unclear and could be taken badly - knowing the track record of WotC for the past few weeks.
I am watching the video now that I'm off work. Will be back.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

Anecdotes are not data, and the world is large, and the number of women, people of colour, and other groups in the hobby has indeed increased over recent decades, even if it hasn't right next to you. Inclusivity is important.

I'm fine with being inclusive, but basically telling white men your not wanted is not inclusive, it's just racist and sexist, and not in a subtle unintended kind of way. If one supports an inclusive tolerant society that can only be achieved with moral consistency, not double standards, working class folks will see right though that.

It's already stirring up a major backlash from folks of all types who found Kyle's comments offensive. This could lead to a whole knew boycott.

Personally this a headarche I didn't need from WotC as I just wanted to focus on One D&D playtests, the DDCU, novels and BG3, not another scandal. My head hurts now.

For those curious my racial make up in white on my mother side and mystery on my fathers side (really most likely native but my Dad didn't bother to tell till I was 38 or 39 when talking about his sister, who I've never met, what am I supposed to do with that info at my age?).

If the goal is inclusion and tolerence then that has to be for everyone, no exceptions in reguards to race, peaceful religion (not violent, suicide Kool-Aid drinking cultists), sex, gender, D&D is supposed to be for everyone.

 

[Imaro]

I did not say what you are accusing me of. I did not mean it that way. I was just relating how I understood what Kyle said in response to someone who told him to just quit.

What exactly did I accuse you of saying that you didn't?

Edit: I know I am priviledged. But am I or Kyle wrong to assume people want to be hired (mainly*) because of their abilities?

I don't think that was ever in question. Kyle specifically addressed this. The thing is some people are so against the status quo actually being equal that the man can literally speak to the skill of the diverse people he is talking about going into these leadership roles and they still somehow still only hear... unqualified hire only for diversity's sake...

*"mainly", because because of the structural racism in place, which needs to be slightly overcorrected.

Slightly overcorrected?? I won't go into this here because I'd probably violate many of the forum rules but if you really believe there is only a slight overcorrection needed maybe you should read and educate yourself on the (long reaching) effects of systemic racism (which isn't even touching on gender discrimination yet).

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Slightly overcorrected?? I won't go into this here because I'd probably violate many of the forum rules but if you really believe there is only a slight overcorrection needed maybe you should read and educate yourself on the (long reaching) effects of systemic racism (which isn't even touching on gender discrimination yet).

Ok. I concede. Needs to be heavily overcorrected. I am not based in US, so I may be not sensitive enough here.

To the rest: We seem to speak past each other. Lets just assume, we are on the same side and I shut up, because I can't and don't want to win anything here.

 

[mamba]

I'm fine with being inclusive, but basically telling white men your not wanted is not inclusive

that also is not what happened

 

[Burt Baccara]

3.5 SRD going into CC??

It seems they now think of the SRD as a living document that is updated, rather than a point-in-time version.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I'm fine with being inclusive, but basically telling white men your not wanted is not inclusive, it's just racist and sexist, and not in a subtle unintended kind of way.

Did they actually say that white men aren't wanted at all? Or did they say/infer they didn't want the entire team white men? Those are vastly two different things.

 

[Scribe]

It seems they now think of the SRD as a living document that is updated, rather than a point-in-time version.

mmmmm not ideal.

 

[Imaro]

I'm fine with being inclusive, but basically telling white men your not wanted is not inclusive, it's just racist and sexist, and not in a subtle unintended kind of way. If one supports an inclusive tolerant society that can only be achieved with moral consistency, not double standards, working class folks will see right though that.

It's already stirring up a major backlash from folks of all types who found Kyle's comments offensive. This could lead to a whole knew boycott.

Personally this a headarche I didn't need from WotC as I just wanted to focus on One D&D playtests, the DDCU, novels and BG3, not another scandal. My head hurts now.

For those curious my racial make up in white on my mother side and mystery on my fathers side (really most likely native but my Dad didn't bother to tell till I was 38 or 39 when talking about his sister, who I've never met, what am I supposed to do with that info at my age?).

If the goal is inclusion and tolerence then that has to be for everyone, no exceptions in reguards to race, peaceful religion (not violent, suicide Kool-Aid drinking cultists), sex, gender, D&D is supposed to be for everyone.

I love how saying... you have to give up a few of the seats only your group occupies so others can have a seat at the table translates into telling a group of people they are not wanted.

 

[Burt Baccara]

It’s a really egotistical position to take. And kinda self-delusional on WotC’s part. If Disney had any interest whatever in their IP, through the incredibly limited and limiting OGL, they have had 23 years to exploit it. And haven’t done so. WotC’s IP released into the OGL just isn’t that unique.

The crazy thing about this whole, "we were worried about Meta or Disney," is that their solution was to release the 5.1 SRD into CC?! Now either can freely use the SRD if they really wanted.