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.

​

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Denying Nazis platforms and attention is not ignoring thier motivations. No need for the concern trolling.

I don't know what concern trolling is. Please stop accusing people who disagree with you with the internet phrase of the day.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

I don't know what concern trolling is. Please stop accusing people who disagree with you with the internet phrase of the day.

Look... I was debating with you in a reasonable manner. Your response was not reasonable. Stop that.

 

[Alzrius]

That begs the question, "Do you hold someone equally accountable for working at a company because that's the job they could get to pay the bills (we all know it's harder for women to rise up in the corporate ladder than men, so her options were/are more limited) as you do for someone who directly holds abhorrent beliefs?"

I find that to be less compelling of a question than "do you think it's more odious to have worked for someone who espouses views you don't agree with, or to have worked for a company that killed many people in order to turn a profit?"

As for Williams just trying to "pay the bills" and her options being "more limited because she's a woman," no. Just no. Those are generalities that, based on what we know of Williams' work history, are a poor fit for her as an individual. Associate Finance Director (Williams' job title during the latter portion of her twelve years at Altria) is not a position you take because you're worried about putting food on the table. Her being a woman does not absolve her of her role in promoting tobacco use among the general population for her company's enrichment.

I don't know Willliams' personal beliefs, but I know Macris's

I'm of the opinion that beliefs matter less than actions. Insofar as I'm aware, Macris hasn't knowingly worked for an organization that deliberately sold products that they were aware would injure and kill people. Williams has.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I find that to be less compelling of a question than "do you think it's more odious to have worked for someone who espouses views you don't agree with, or to have worked for a company that killed many people in order to turn a profit?"

As for Williams just trying to "pay the bills" and her options being "more limited because she's a woman," no. Just no. Those are generalities that, based on what we know of Williams' work history, are a poor fit for her as an individual. Associate Finance Director (Williams' job title during the latter portion of her twelve years at Altria) is not a position you take because you're worried about putting food on the table. Her being a woman does not absolve her of her role in promoting tobacco use among the general population for her company's enrichment.



I'm of the opinion that beliefs matter less than actions. Insofar as I'm aware, Macris hasn't knowingly worked for an organization that deliberately sold products that they were aware would injure and kill people. Williams has.

Clearly you feel comfortable telling a member of a marginalized group what jobs are OK for them to take and which they shouldn't. I don't feel so emboldened. That isn't absolving her from things she had power over. (edit: which isn't clear what she actually had control of. She was an associate finance director, which isn't a top decision making position, not even in her own area as she reported to the actual finance director and/or VP).

Either way, not the point I was making. I don't know if she personally supports "killing people to turn a profit." I do know what Macris has said and done directly.

 

[Alzrius]

Clearly you feel comfortable telling a member of a marginalized group what jobs are OK for them to take and which they shouldn't. I don't feel so emboldened. That isn't absolving her from things she had power over.

You've mischaracterized my position, and as such I'll correct you now: I feel comfortable telling anyone that it's wrong for them to work for organizations that hurt and kill people in order to turn a profit, and that remains true even if the person I'm telling is from a marginalized group.

Either way, not the point I was making. I don't know if she personally supports "killing people to turn a profit." I do know what Macris has said and done directly.

Working for a company that does that constitutes support.

 

[Staffan]

I mean he could "honestly" not know, if he was "honestly" not told and never asked. Plausible deniability.

There is literally zero, zero, chance, he could not find out or be told who it was.

"Then what kind of head of security would I be if I let people like me know things that I'm not supposed to know? I know what I know because I have to know it. And if I don't have to know it, I don't tell me, and I don't let anyone else tell me either." —Michael Garibaldi, Babylon 5 Chief Security Officer

Not that there's anything particularly toxic in Barrowmaze - though my female players did lament the absence of handsome male bar staff, or really any sexy male NPCs, when Helix's inn has three attractive barmaids.

Bad move. Handsome male bar staff is essential.

 

[Willie the Duck]

I buy a book if it is a good book. No question for me. I don't believe in opinion crimes. Every man deserves the right to eat and if his work is good he deserves to be paid. Maybe he is a very bad man but since he act legally all the rest is only untolerant witch-hunting and moral lynching. One thing is to avoid buying something, another is to lock a person preventing him to sell something or doing his job.

Interesting. My perspective is that the the free market works best as the situation approaches infinitely informed individuals make infinitely rational decisions with their purchases, and that includes whatever judgment about who most deserves their financial remuneration. That can include my judgement on the words and actions of the producers of the product, as the value of a purchase to the purchaser can include how good they feel about financially rewarding the producer. That is simply people being held accountable (and hopefully taking responsibility) to, for, and of themselves. Likewise, autonomy suggests we have the right to share with the public free market of ideas why we make our purchasing decisions. If others agree and decide likewise, then the person isn't 'locked' or prevented from doing their job, they have failed in their job of convincing us to bequeath to them our hard-earned money. I agree that everyone deserves the right to eat (and there ought by systems in place to allow people who cannot convince others to give them money to learn how), but not that everyone has the right to expect money from any given endeavor. If you become a publisher and no one wants to buy books from you, you've failed at that career and should consider either 1) how better to do that career (and that includes engagement with why people wouldn't want to purchase from you), or 2) examining which other skills you have are fungible (and if you have no other, turn to the resources which provider job-skill training).

 

[Sacrosanct]

You've mischaracterized my position, and as such I'll correct you now: I feel comfortable telling anyone that it's wrong for them to work for organizations that hurt and kill people in order to turn a profit, and that remains true even if the person I'm telling is from a marginalized group.

Working for a company that does that constitutes support.

That's your prerogative, sure. But do you realize the implication of that? It means you're telling "anyone" it's wrong for them to work for any corporation and most large businesses*. Must be nice to pass judgement on millions of people, most of whom are just trying to make a living and aren't in any control over what the board does. Working for a company does not mean you support all decisions made by the companies leadership. That's...not realistic.

*Many large businesses are owned by even larger businesses and corporate megacompanies.

 

[Scribe]

"Then what kind of head of security would I be if I let people like me know things that I'm not supposed to know? I know what I know because I have to know it. And if I don't have to know it, I don't tell me, and I don't let anyone else tell me either." —Michael Garibaldi, Babylon 5 Chief Security Officer

Pretty much, as again its laughable to suggest a public statement would not be traced to someone.

 

[Alzrius]

That's your prerogative, sure. But do you realize the implication of that? It means you're telling "anyone" it's wrong for them to work for any corporation and most large businesses*.

No, it doesn't. Again, you've mischaracterized my position, and I believe that you've done so deliberately. I am not saying it's wrong for them to work for "any corporation and most large businesses." I'm saying it's wrong for them to work for an organization that makes its money by inflicting suffering and death on people.

Your implication that Big Tobacco can be equated to any other corporation or area of large-scale business is highly disingenuous in that regard; while corporate malfeasance and irresponsibility are areas where such entities (and the people who work at their upper levels) should be condemned, the actual product or service that they offer does not directly cause sickness and death the way tobacco products do.

At this point, I fully expect you to start drawing comparisons between tobacco companies and other companies that offer products which are unhealthy (e.g. fast food chains), to which I'll preemptively say that's a self-evidently false comparison when held up against cigarettes and other such products which are chemically-addictive carcinogens.