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...

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

dave2008

Legend
As far as Ai am concerned WITC showed it’s true face with the OGL fiasco. This all looks like spin and an effort to put a gamer/designer face on things. Up to people what they want to do but I won’t be buying anything more from WOTC when there are better options from companies run by gamers
I will repeat what I said to Retreater:

You never should have trusted them. Nor should you trust Paizo, or KP, or any other corporation. If you trust another RPG company to the apparent extent you trusted WotC, then you will eventually be in for another shock.

Step away from the company, but keep the community. I think that is the best option for your mental health (not that I should be making mental health recommendations).

That being said: I think the wat Kyle explains what happened, could indeed have happened from a non-malicious space. Not saying it is true, just that it is plausible (particularly from my experience with corporations).
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

I had no idea who the interviewer was prior to this, but the initial "ground rules" of keeping things positive per usual makes me want to check out their other content if that's indeed their approach to content creation.

Better interview overall IMO. I know people like to say this is Kyle trying to spin things or just there for damage control, but I believe what he's saying is more or less true from his perspective. His role in the company would not make him privy to all of the full details on what happened. That being said, what he said doesn't make me feel better or worse about WotC; I just felt like it connects some of the dots a little better on why the things happened the way they did.
 

Bedrockgames

I post in the voice of Christopher Walken
I will repeat what I said to Retreater:

You never should have trusted them. Nor should you trust Paizo, or KP, or any other corporation. If you trust another RPG company to the apparent extent you trusted WotC, then you will eventually be in for another shock.

Step away from the company, but keep the community. I think that is the best option for your mental health (not that I should be making mental health recommendations).

That being said: I think Kyle explains how what happened, could have happened from a non-malicious space. Not saying it is true, just that it is plausible (particularly from my experience with corporations).

The point is I have more faith in companies run by gamers. Do I trust Paizo entirely? I do not. Do I trust them more than WOTC? Absolutely. It isn’t trust or no trust, it’s degrees with various companies. I have zero trust in WOTC at this point. I have greater trust in other companies. And in terms of spending money, I am going to spend it on RPG companies other than WOTC (including limiting my purchase of older edition material to used books)
 
Last edited:

Alzrius

The EN World kitten
I knew about Dan Rawson being a D&D player himself, which is encouraging, but as for stuff about Cynthia Williams...she, Chris Cocks, and Chris Cao are people I find myself unable to have any faith in. Cocks has managed to alienate the fanbases of both M:tG and D&D during his short tenure as the person in the driver's seat of Hasbro, Cao is apparently the architect of the disastrous VTT plans that were behind the entire OGL fiasco, and Williams' reputed push to turn D&D into a billion-dollar brand (which dovetails with her infamous "under-monetized" quote) carries bad implications for what they'll do to try and reach that goal (and what will happen to the game if it can't be achieved).

I appreciate that the game team is being listened to more, and Brink seems like a decent guy, but it still sounds to me like there's a lot of swimming upstream going on.
 



Bedrockgames

I post in the voice of Christopher Walken
Step away from the company, but keep the community. I think that is the best option for your mental health (not that I should be making mental health recommendations).

For me this isn’t a mental health issue. It’s about where I would like to spend my money and what games I want to devote time playing to. I am not emotionally invested in WOTC or other companies. But I think it’s fair to have a strong opinion on what they did, and to form future purchasing decisions from that

That being said: I think Kyle explains how what happened, could have happened from a non-malicious space. Not saying it is true, just that it is plausible (particularly from my experience with corporations).

This is obviously going to come down to personal judgement. Personally, I remain extremely skeptical and think this is an attempt to spin it. But people are going to read the interview and interpret it different ways
 

darjr

I crit!
Trust? Yes it absolutely plays a part.

I run this game for friends and introduce new people to it. People go in to buy things like DnDBeyond subs and books because I ran the game for them.

If I dint trust them I definitely don’t want that for my friends and people I’ve run the game for.

Do I mean trust like the trust I have for close friends and family, of coarse not, that’s ridiculous.
 

ilgatto

How inconvenient
Kyle Brink strikes me as a nice, level-headed, open-minded guy (as are the vast majority of the D&D players I know). His answers are pleasantly devoid of PR speak and seem honest and true. Of course, he wouldn't be where he is if he wouldn't be smart enough to skirt around questions on mildly sensitive subjects on occasion, while I can also see why he sometimes actively avoids direct answers to such elephants in the room as the how-and-why of OGL 1.1, us-winning-and-they-winning, and situations and people within the company - especially if they can be expected to lead to twitter explosions that hardly serve any other purpose than being twitter explosions.

As far as I'm concerned, both interviews with Mr. Brink have provided an excellent insight in how large companies work, which fits in nicely with my own experiences with them. And yes, people will be people and they will say things in companies others or their clients (I believe they are called "supporters" these days) won't like; they will make mistakes; express opinions; departments will work without knowing what others do; bosses will yell at their underlings; reactions to changing opinions will be slow; and crude remarks will be made - just like in real life. Perhaps superfluously, that doesn't necessarily mean that any of these equate to company policy, so I'm not (or perhaps no longer) that concerned that WotC is evil in this respect.

So there remains the question as to what Hasbro-WotC will do with D&D in the future. It seems clear that the company is putting big money into a "virtual space" and that may or may not "destroy" D&D as we know it, if perhaps only in the long run as far as the first is concerned. Personally, I think that, whatever happens, people with an interest in the development of the game will find a way of dealing with even profound changes. Generations come and go, discover, forget, rediscover D&D, and forget about it again - it's what happens with all things in life.

As far as I'm concerned I can only say that I have been playing the game for a long time and I will continue to do so forever, since I do not plan on dying - ever.

edit: correction
 
Last edited:

AstroCat

Adventurer
  • There has been increasing diversity in the pool of designers while maintaining quality.
There might have been increasing diversity in the pool of designers, no issues there, but the quality of products over the last couple years has been the worst I've seen in over 20 years. Totally not saying it is diversity's fault but the quality has been just terrible.
 

Split the Hoard


Split the Hoard
Negotiate, demand, or steal the loot you desire!

A competitive card game for 2-5 players
Remove ads

Split the Hoard


Split the Hoard
Negotiate, demand, or steal the loot you desire!

A competitive card game for 2-5 players
Remove ads

Top