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.

​

 

[dave2008]

Exactly. So you change small things, in your apology edition (5e) that was sold as intentionally trying to bring back lapsed customers, to not alienate them (the white dudes) while changing your art style, and marketing emphasis, in an attempt to grow in markets you do not currently have as much of a share in.

Its not that the white dudes who played through the 80's and 90's are gone, but we are not the growth opportunity, so Wizbro tries to thread the needle.

Its been years of folks saying they dont feel they are the target, and I see no reason to change my mind when he (Brink) makes statements like he's made, and I look at the products that have been coming since Tasha's (as my particular line in the sand).

There is a difference, between PF1 and 5e-Post Tashas, beyond just the crunch. I want PF1.

OK, that is not where I thought this was going, but sure. As a middle aged white male I feel D&D is still heading in my direction and posted a year ago that I feel like for the first time it is being marketed to me! Everyone's different, even white males!

 

[Scribe]

not if you want to keep the one you already have. I don’t see a lot of rock bands switching to rap because rap fans are an untapped market they can expand into

No, but Big Tent d&d isn't just a rock band.

 

[Velderan]

You can have only one of two criteria: skill or representation. If you introduce a quote it is very easy that you will be forced to exclude somebody skilled. It is not impossible to build a dream team with representation criteria, since skill are equally distributed. But you can easily risk to be forced to exclude the optimum team. It's a philosophical approach. I prefer skill based criteria and find quota based criteria simply wrong.

So where I work, we have guidance from our top level leadership on working towards hiring more people that better represents the overall community we serve. I have no idea how that is carried out by Human Resources since they're largely the ones responsible for making it happen, but we conduct interviews in multi-person panels and as a team lead I've participated in enough of them to note we definitely are interviewing more and more candidates from different backgrounds. That is where the diversity guidance ends. My direct supervisor who ultimately decides who we will hire has been crystal clear that we need to hire the person who we think will do the best job, period. The diversity efforts to get more people from different backgrounds into the candidate pool have resulted in a greater diversity of people being hired just by virtue of us seeing a wider variety of candidates thus increasing the odds we hire someone from a demographic we might historically not have for whatever reason, but the end result is still who is the most capable person.

And it's 100% made where I work a better place. The process Kyle described in the Alphastream interview sounds very familiar and done right it works quite well.

 

[Iosue]

Devil hide in the details. What happens if, due to the lack of opportunity unfortunately given to poc, it results that white are largely the best candidates? Will the skills win over the fear of being considered a racist company? Unfortunately this very polarized climate sourrounding these issues is very difficult to make choices.

The applicant selection process considers diversity. The actual hiring is blind, with no identification information, so it can be made (as much as possible) on skill alone.

Incidentally, this is not just to remove bias in hiring or not hiring minorities, but to also remove bias in judging skills and quality of work.

 

[ThorinTeague]

yeah, the more I have been thinking about this (basically since this interview), the less I think it is plausible.

It’s not that it cannot be done, but it takes such a large investment over such a long time that you won’t see a return on it for years, if you even succeed in the first place that is. No one is willing to throw that kind of money at it in hopes of finally breaking even 20 years down the line

It already happened. Pathfinder was the top-selling role-playing game in spring 2011, fall 2012, spring 2013, fall 2013, and summer 2014. During that four-year period, Pathfinder was at times able to outsell Dungeons & Dragons itself, which was the best-selling game through various editions between 1974 and 2010.

 

[mamba]

Diversity hiring today is about finding more equitable ways of building the candidate pool. Traditional methods of putting out the job offering generally favor traditional candidates. So, you hire agencies to seek out qualified diverse candidates, and get your job opening in front of them.

yeah, that probably is how it is intended to work, but I have seen companies where one team is all Indian and the other team all black and or gay, and you can guess what the head of each team is

 

[mamba]

Strictly, quotas can have a side effect of excluding skills. If you have 2 positions, the first and second ranked both black and the third white, you would be forced to discard the second ranked.

that is not how it is done though, and the quota if there is one is not for the two new hires that week but for the resulting team, nor is it that inflexible

Umbran said the modern criteria avoid this and I trust him, even if i do not understand how.

he explained it

 

[Irlo]

Yep. It's not that it's scary exactly, but if there's a focused and acknowledged effort to pivot away from my demographic, how can I expect that to be a good thing for me and my demographic?

I get it, man and clouds, but folks, music was better, he'll it was all better, in the 90s.

This could be very good for our demographic.

I used to read a lot of science fiction. I have a wall of "Best Sci-Fi of the Year" collections from the mid-60s through the late 80s. A few years ago, I started reading current anthologies, and I was delighted by what I found. Much wider representation among authors and editors, exciting and fresh stories and characters and perspectives. New takes on old ideas and new ideas. I went back to re-read some of the older stuff. But the new writing, not skewed toward my demographic, is so much better.

Please don’t write off new developments as a sign you won't find gaming materials that are not for you. You might find amazing stuff out there.

 

[Burt Baccara]

Pretty sure it was a solution to a different and more present and dangerous problem than the Meta or Disney concern. They were solving for an immediate crises of a revolt. They're accepting the risk now of a Meta or Disney taking advantage of the IP. It was part of their surrender for the more immediate revolt problem.

Pretty sure the Meta and Disney were never an actual concern.

 

[Mistwell]

Pretty sure the Meta and Disney were never an actual concern.

I just outlined why the Meta concern was very likely real. With graphics and everything!