Kyle Brink Interviewed by Teos Abadia (Alphastream) on OGL, WotC, & D&D

D&D executive producer's Kyle Brink's second hour-long interview OGL/D&D has dropped--this one is with Teos Abadia, otherwise known as Alphastream. The notes below are my attempt to paraphrase the main things Brink said, but as always you should watch the actual video if you want the full context.

Company Structure
  • There's around 30 people on the D&D team, and that many again freelancers.​
  • The hiring process has equity targets to bring in a representative sample of candidates, after which it is who is the best candidate.​
  • There has been increasing diversity in the pool of designers while maintaining quality.​
  • Brink reports to Dan Rawson, senior VP of D&D, who reports to Cynthia Williams, president.​
  • D&D Beyond is the front door to D&D on the web and will be even more so. It is the D&D website, and will become more so.​
  • D&D Game Studio is center for game content. D&D Beyond turns that into a play service. Content gets expressed in ways appropriate to an audiance (ie digital, book, etc.)​
OGL/Creative Commons
  • It was a surprise to some of the D&D team that the OGL might be changed. Partly that was about shielding them from distracting stuff. Brink feels that was too strong a wall and their views might have been beneficial.
  • Some internal feedback from the D&D team reflected the views of external creators.
  • The community's point of view was not the one wining internally, but may have been had people there been able to speak more loudly.
  • The worry was about new technologies and big companies--Brink uses the VR example, with user generated content but poor content controls. They didn't want the term D&D to become 'that video porn game' looking ahead.
  • The position now is that the community is the strongest weapon against that.
  • The royalties were to discourage big companies moving in and redefining D&D. By 'drips and drips' they got to the wrong position. $750K was a ceiling which they felt would not affect most creators, and larger companies would deal directly with WotC.
  • Right now they're looking at protecting D&D via things not now in the Creative Commons. Community protects the open space and WotC protects copyright and trademark.
  • They feel that the community is able to take care of hateful content.
  • They want the creator community. A deal where WotC got more powers to act but lost the creator community was not a good deal.
  • NFTs are not the concern, it's about how people use them for scams.
  • WotC will be publishing a content policy (for representation, hateful content, etc.) and hold themselves to it. They cannot hold others to it.
  • The Creative Commons license chosen's lack of sharealike attribution isn't a problem for WotC. They want people to build stuff they own and don't have to share and build value in their own IP. They've chosen the road which gives creators the choice, and can make any of their content sharealike, but WotC isn't forcing them to.
  • CC means that nobody has to take WotC's word for anything as they don't control that license.
  • The drive to change the OGL was coming from various parts of the organization (legal, business, studio). It was an ongoing effort when Brink arrived.
  • The faster the audience grew the bigger the risk that hateful content or scams would arise, so there was a rising sense of urgency to take action.
  • Did anybody sign the v1.1 version? It was distributed with an NDA, and with some creators a discussion about other arrnagements/licenses they might make separate from the OGL.
  • 'The impression someone could get that I have to sign v1.1 is absotely a believable impression for someone to get'.
  • The design of v1.1. was always going to be an ongoing no-signature process.
  • Feedback from larger creators like Kobold Press, the failing is on WotC for not communicating that they were listening. 'Thanks for the feedback' isn't enough.
  • 'If you're going to write a new OGL to protect yourself from the vulnerabilties of the old OGL, you kinda have to take the old OGL off the table, otherwise you're not protecting yourself at all'. There's no point in changing the OGL if you don't de-authorize the old one.
  • They weren't worried about competitors arising from within the community. They love the creator community, and WotC can't satisfy all appetites. That serves the broad needs of the player community.
  • They wanted to have closer relationships with the most successful creators, talking to them about licenses and going bigger. The tiering structure was meant to identify those creators. 'The way it was executed was very cleary going to be an attenuating destructive structure which we did not want.'
  • The OGL survey results were clear, from a range of people, 15000 responses. The intent was to treat it like a playtest but it became obvious where it was going. The survey feedback supported CC, and there was no reason to drag it out.
  • WotC still has their concerns, but their approach to it has changed (to a combo of copyrght/trademark and community).
  • Putting D&D into CC has made de-authing the OGL unimportant to WotC.
  • The SRD will be updated to continue to be compatible with evolving rules.
  • They're looking at adding the 3.5 SRD to the SRD but they have to review that content to make sure they're not accidentally putting stuff into CC.
Company Culture
  • People being afraid to speak up is a sign of 'immature management' and leading from ego.
  • That's not the kind of leaders WotC has today, but Brink cannot speak about those who were there before he arrived.
  • Brink feels that every month he is there people feel more comfortable speaking up, though that doesn't mean they'll always agree. But they will listen.
  • 'That's not how we operate today but I can certainly believe echoes of that in the past'.
VTTs/Digital/DDB
  • Roll20 and Fantasy Grounds are important to the hobby and WotC.
  • WotC is also making digital playspaces. The goal is to give more choice. The way WotC succeeds is if they make the best stuff. It's a 'virtuos' competition.
  • The license that Roll20 etc. has to sell WotC content still applies. Remains to be seen down the road.
  • It's possible that third party content will be seen inside DDB or the VTT but it takes a fair amount of work to being a piece of content in. It would have to be a pretty important piece of third party content. Brink could see a day when that would happen.
One D&D
  • The OGL issue has not impacted the One D&D strategy. It has maybe helped WotC express their plans publicly.
  • D&D should be a living game which evolves but is familiar.
  • The One D&D timeline is not changed, but the playtest timeline was impacted by the OGL situation. They'll get back on track real soon.
  • A professional research team gathers the survey information.
  • There are also internal playtests with robust feedback.
Other
  • The game team has gained more of a voice.
  • More trust has been built between design leadership and the executive team.
  • Dan Rawson's role is new and is the first time the D&D brand has been represented at that level at the executive level.
  • Cynthia Williams is empathetic and data-oriented, and willing to change direction.
  • It sounds like they'd consider the SRD being placed into French, German, Italian, and Spanish, though Brink did not promise.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

mamba

Hero
I think the "of a similar kind" is a bit weasel words there. Not that you're being a weasel, just conceptually!

Like, is say, a full-price sit-down burger restaurant actually "of a similar kind"? Let alone some Michelin star place.
I googled ‘quality meaning’ and took the first thing it showed.

Yes, you can weasel a bit with it, but you also cannot leave it out. Tell me what you want to measure so you can rank an apple and a car ;)

Definitions need to be broad by necessity, which can also leave in some vagueness.

The point is that they were using two different meanings, so committing an equivocation fallacy
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Parmandur

Book-Friend
you are aware that quality has more than one meaning…

1) the standard of something as measured against other things of a similar kind

2) a distinctive attribute or characteristic

You are using 2) when they are using / we are discussing 1)
unnamed-4.jpg
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
I googled ‘quality meaning’ and took the first thing it showed.

Yes, you can weasel a bit with it, but you also cannot leave it out. Tell me what you want to measure so you can rank an apple and a car ;)

Definitions need to be broad by necessity, which can also leave in some vagueness.

The point is that they were using two different meanings, so committing an equivocation fallacy
So, dictionary definitions can be problematic for clarifying terms, because they are descriptive rather than prescriptive. Do people misuse the term "quality"? Sure. But if we want to use it to mean anything, a more robust understanding is needed.

mutters under breath my word, it's all in Plato, all in Plato! What are they teaching them in schools these days...?
 
Last edited:




MNblockhead

A Title Much Cooler Than Anything on the Old Site
First off, aficionado. :p
Oops.
That is true. In a way. Your statement being true doesn't also necessarily imply that quality and sales are completely unrelated. Things that are good will sell better than things that are bad. That has nothing to do with the degree of good. Saying two things are COMPLETELY unrelated is much, much different than saying they are at least PARTIALLY related. And that's the case here: they are partially connected.
Right. If a product meets the needs/desires of the customers it is a good product for them. For the most part, WotC's rules books are quality books from my perspective. Their settings and adventures vary greatly in terms of what I'm looking for. But I'm also cognizant that what I feel is their highest quality book (Volo's Guide to Monsters) is now out of print, so I am painfully aware that my ideas of quality D&D books is not likely shared by the majority of fans.
 

Oops.

Right. If a product meets the needs/desires of the customers it is a good product for them. For the most part, WotC's rules books are quality books from my perspective. Their settings and adventures vary greatly in terms of what I'm looking for. But I'm also cognizant that what I feel is their highest quality book (Volo's Guide to Monsters) is now out of print, so I am painfully aware that my ideas of quality D&D books is not likely shared by the majority of fans.
Unrelated to the current topic, but worthy of a different discussion for sure. To that end, I thought that Tasha's did a good job of alleviating some of the pain points of 5E.
 




Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
I think the value of the tangent is that quality is not a linear spectrum from "good" to "bad," but thst different people are balancing different values when making purchasing decisions. And in so doing, there is always a connection between some value desired by people and something selling well. So, yea, Tyranny of Dragons has many faults...but it has qualities that have kept it going, too.
I don't completely agree with your point of view or think the metaphor/comparison is very applicable, but I appreciate the well-reasoned and level headedness behind it. This kind of discussion seems to becoming rarer and rarer on the internet lately.
 

Hussar

Legend
I feel pretty confident in saying that McD is nowhere near the 10 best restaurants, by any qualitative measure. What they do definitely have is remarkable consistency, something I agreed WotC does not in a separate post. That is not why I chose McD for this

But again would you say it’s one of the ten worst?
 


Parmandur

Book-Friend
I made that exact same joke last night! I swear, every time I think about The Good Place I want to watch it all over again.
As someone with graduate level academic training in philosophy, I believe this is the smartest TV show ever made.
This is one of the most perfect bits in a very excellent show. I practically died.
It's the scene that hooked me in.
 



Parmandur

Book-Friend
I already answered that when you asked the first time, no I do not, but it does not have to be to show that there is no correlation
Bit there is always, always a direct link between quality and sales. Saying there is no link only works if you go with that philosophically unsound first dictionary definition, and don't recognize the complexity of qualities valued by people.
 

mamba

Hero
Bit there is always, always a direct link between quality and sales.
No, there simply is not. That is the point.

So let me repeat an example I provided earlier. A perfume is not selling well, the manufacturer tries to figure out why, asks people in a study, they like the smell of it, but it turns out the price is lower than the competitions (on purpose) and the public perceives it as 'cheap' without trying it. They increase the price, sales go up. Problem solved. The quality never changed at all.
 

Haplo781

Legend
No, there simply is not. That is the point.

So let me repeat an example I provided earlier. A perfume is not selling well, the manufacturer tries to figure out why, asks people in a study, they like the smell of it, but it turns out the price is lower than the competitions (on purpose) and the public perceives it as 'cheap' without trying it. They increase the price, sales go up. Problem solved. The quality never changed at all.
Let's not even get into the 1/3 pounder being seen as "less meat" than the quarter pounder because 3<4.
 

Epic Threats

Visit Our Sponsor

Epic Threats

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top