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

Sacrosanct

Legend
There are people you will run into in life who will disagree with you. Handling that is part of being an adult. If someone blocks you strictly because you disagree with them... there is something that person needs to work on. (caveat: you are not someone wishing this person physical or psychological harm... that's quite a different scenario)
I did not block them because I disagreed with them. I don't know if you're reading the same exchange I was, but I apologized if I misinterpreted their statement, and they seemed headstrong to keep trying to make it a fight. I (nor anyone) has time to get into a fight with a stranger on the internet. No one else wants to read those posts, and I'm sure the mods don't want to have to deal with the increased hostility. So if someone is bound and determined to keep being hostile, the best tool I can think of is to just separate out of that interaction. It's not "running away" or other nonsense implications of cowardice.
Bull.

People block if you need to. Take ZERO pressure from anyone else about it.
Indeed.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Imaro

Legend
Do you mean the new Marvel RPG that isn't out yet, or do they have another one that I'm forgetting?
They have Quests of Yore (from Onward) , but your post also made me realize that there are 3+ Star Wars rpg's as well... and I honestly forgot about the Marvel rpg coming out. So they've been trying to break into this market for a while.

EDIT: None of which have succeeded in or seemed posed to knock D&D off its pedestal.
 

ThorinTeague

Creative/Father/Professor
As an outsider, I did not have the impression that Kyle Brink really had much if anything to do with the ogl fiasco. We need the org chart and I wish 3bh would've asked for that. Can anyone more in the know than myself educate me on this question please?
 

I did not block them because I disagreed with them. I don't know if you're reading the same exchange I was, but I apologized if I misinterpreted their statement, and they seemed headstrong to keep trying to make it a fight. I (nor anyone) has time to get into a fight with a stranger on the internet. No one else wants to read those posts, and I'm sure the mods don't want to have to deal with the increased hostility. So if someone is bound and determined to keep being hostile, the best tool I can think of is to just separate out of that interaction. It's not "running away" or other nonsense implications of cowardice.

Indeed.
There is no implication of cowardice and there is no need to apologise. To me, the correct way of handling this is just tell the other person it's going nowhere. The ideal though is that you have a conversation.

If I were you I would go back and unblock them. I have read both of your posts in the past. You are both reasonable human beings. There is no need to let an immediate emotional reaction stifle a conversation between the two of you.
 

Jer

Legend
Supporter
They have Quests of Yore (from Onward) , but your post also made me realize that there are 3+ Star Wars rpg's as well... and I honestly forgot about the Marvel rpg coming out. So they've been trying to break into this market for a while.
Well the Star Wars game is actually licensed through Asmodee/Fantasy Flight/Edge rather than being in house. The Marvel game is being published by Marvel itself, so it's an actual-factual tabletop RPG being published by Disney.

I hadn't heard of Quests of Yore but now that I look at it, it looks like it's from The Op (aka USAopoly) so it's a licensed game as well. And it's really just an Onward tie-in. Dang - I was really hoping that there was some lesser known TTRPG that Disney was publishing where Mickey, Princess Jasmine and Buzz Lightyear could all team up to stop the Beagle Boys from robbing Disneyland or something. (Not necessarily to play, mind you, because I could run a game like that in Fate or something if I wanted. More just because I want something like that to exist.)
 

Retreater

Legend
Why, that the generation after me is more diverse never scared me at all.

If anything I see that as a positive when I look at the 50+ year old white folks. Do I agree with everything, no, but it does not scare me
I was not speaking about diversity.
It was about "aging out" of the hobby and a facing of our own mortality, of losing our importance generationally.
To me, that's scary.
 

mamba

Legend
I hear you. I run into people on these boards that it is a lot of work to engage with. My philosophy is that I don't know everything and that anyone has the ability to teach me something. So I endure in those situations... :) But I (often) generally learn something, despite my initial misgivings, so a worthwhile process.
I don’t block them because even if there is no chance I will agree with them in whatever topic we currently discuss and our differences clearly go way beyond that, it does not mean they might not have something to say on another that I would have liked to hear.

Also, their dosage is much easier to regulate online ;)
 


Iosue

Legend
What putting the 3.5 SRD under CC does is create two markets of 3.5-compatible products, operating in parallel. That's an issue, because it bisects what's been (to my mind) the strongest utility of the open gaming community, which is that they can freely reuse and modify everyone else's Open Game Content.
The advantage of putting 3.5 in CC is that it utterly removes any incentive for future WotC execs to try and deauthorize OGL 1.0. That shores up the banks of the OGL’s safe harbor, allowing creators to make use of it if they want access to the older material, or of its inherent share alike provision. The creators using the CC license are likely going to be the ones who keep all or virtually all their stuff behind product identity anyway.
 


Remove ads

Remove ads

Top