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.

 

[Faolyn]

I can understand that, but when it gets to be "all bark - no bite" that's when players begin to not trust the GM and ignore even the most flavorful descriptions.

You need players who are willing to buy into the horror.

And again, description is the key. The attack may only inflict 3 points of damage, but describe the wound as bubbling or the blood as discolored. The opponent may be weak but describe their actions in creepy ways.

OK, true story of a past Ravenloft game. I will admit I was running in GURPS at the time (this was during 3.5, which I didn't want to run in), but the creatures involved were very weak and defenseless. The party came across a clearing in which there were "thousands" of ravens (not really), all staring at something. That something, unbeknownst to the players, was a human corpse which was infested with carrion stalkers, a creature which, in 3.5, was CR 2 against a party that was the equivalent of 8th or 9th level (although when I had converted to 5e, the stalkers actually came out as CR 1/2 or so). Stalkers in 3x had one attack--total. If they missed (and they had a low BAB), they were basically helpless. Ravens in Ravenloft are generally fairly intelligent, can talk a bit, and are good-aligned (at least that's how I think of them; the players, of course, don't know that), although they were still carrion birds and wanted to eat the corpse--but couldn't because of the carrion stalkers.

The ravens saw the party and basically thought, "hey, it's a bunch of humans and their weapons and opposable thumbs; they can help us kill the monster so we can eat the nummy nummy dead thing!"

What the ravens did was turn as one to look at the PCs and say, in very broken Common, "hungry, humans, food? humans, food!"

What the players did was look at each other and decide to run.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

he also said this is standard practice in the industry, so the confusion is more about most people not being familiar with contract / license negotiations

Yeah unless we hear that from someone who isn't WotC I would file that under "I have a bridge to sell you".

 

[Azzy]

Nostalgia is a huge factor there but there are often real changes too.

Giving a specific example, you could look at the entry of Papa Johns into the UK. From 1999 to about 2010-ish, when they were expanding and gaining market share, they were importing ingredients from the US, and this made them drastically, noticeably superior to UK versions of other US pizza chains (principally Pizza Hut and Dominos, the latter of which was truly "cardboard pizza" in that era). However, in like 2010 or thereabouts, they decided to stop doing this, and it caused a very distinct drop in quality. It made sense, because if your competitors are 5/10, why do you need to be 8.5/10? (UK pizza grades here, I know a UK 8.5 for a pizza is like a US 5 at best) But there was a real change in quality, and it's not just nostalgia. And a lot of businesses eventually do something similar.

As a USian and a pizza enthusiast, I am struck with horror about the state of affairs of US pizza chains in your country. Here, Papa John's is marginally better than no pizza (but not by much), with Domino's being fairly good (with their pan pizzas being better than the non-pan types—I think they use a different sauce), and Pizza Hut putting them both of them to shame (and my regular go-to for all my pizza needs). However, Uno's, with their thicc pizzas, towers above them all (unfortunately, there are no Uno's in my area). As a special mention, Lil Caesar's used to be really good and better than Domino's, but, unfortunately, their quality has dropped (but is still better than Papa John's). Of course this is all my opinion, but I will die on this hill.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I mean, I feel like this is a very dodgy definition of the word draft (from a lawyerly perspective anyway). That doesn't make it a lie, but still. Also Kyle acknowledged it was potentially confusing.

Weren't they asking people to sign this draft?

I don't know, even if they weren't asking people to sign, it doesn't pass the smell test for me. The whole way they rolled that out and how they backtracked by inches....this just seems like their most sophisticated PR spin to date, but still PR spin. Anyone working for WOTC is going to tow the company line. I'd be interested in what the other companies involved think of his assessment though

 

[Scribe]

I mean, I feel like this is a very dodgy definition of the word draft (from a lawyerly perspective anyway). That doesn't make it a lie, but still. Also Kyle acknowledged it was potentially confusing.

When my company provides a contract, its 'draft' until signed. The idea being there is always negotiation or updates to the language, up till its signed.

Seems 'lawyerly' as you say.

 

[mamba]

Yeah unless we hear that from someone who isn't WotC I would file that under "I have a bridge to sell you".

we just did

When my company provides a contract, its 'draft' until signed. The idea being there is always negotiation or updates to the language, up till its signed.

 

[mamba]

I think probably most of this stuff has ceased to matter as it appears that the majority of third-party publishers have set course for a future without D&D and the open gaming license. I think everybody feels that the open gaming license that the community has trusted for a quarter of a century almost can no longer be trusted, and I think that's completely valid.

I don't think the OGL ceased to matter, or rather not for the reason you are implying. D&D will still be the largest market by far, which means it remains attractive for 3pps. The OGL is no longer important though as they can, should, and probably will move to CC instead.

 

[Mark CMG]

Thanks for the interview! Kyle Brink makes it plain WotC is not done attempting to de-authorize the OGL v1.0a by the way he discusses copyright and trademark law, as well as the shift to using the CC-BY4 for SRD material at about the 26 minute mark onward.

They are trying very hard to downplay the importance of the OGL v1.0a to the community but it's breach-and-cure protections are vital to working in the SRD space.

It is further discussed at the 39:30 mark under the guise of protecting against things better dealt with under other legal mechanisms -

The protections provided by the OGL v1.0a are irreplaceable and necessary, and the license is being used far beyond the involvement of WotC (Fudge, for example). Brink and WotC are trying to create a narrative whereby the outrage at de-authorizing the OGL v1.0a is simply addressed by releasing the SRD material under the CC-BY4 when it is decidedly NOT. Here he is directly asked about de-authorization and sidesteps his way around it. Check also here at the 45:30 mark.

Specifically he says, "So, in terms of deauthorizing 1.0a, we don't have any plans to go anywhere near the OGL . . . right now. That was the whole point of going to Creative Commons, to make it all moot."

Do NOT fall for it! Stay vigilant! Protect the OGL v1.0a!

 

[mamba]

Thanks for the interview! Kyle Brink makes it plain WotC is not done attempting to de-authorize the OGL v1.0a by the way he discusses copyright and trademark law, as well as the shift to using the CC-BY4 for SRD material at about the 26 minute mark onward.

what are you even talking about, maybe don’t let your outrage blind you.

He clearly says he has no interest in doing anything about the OGL and you can use CC-BY if you do not trust WotC to actually do nothing

They are trying very hard to downplay the importance of the OGL v1.0a to the community but it's breach-and-cure protections are vital to working in the SRD space.

yeah, no, it is not that important, we have CC now, so as far as WotC is concerned that was it, the OGL is no longer important to them and a revocation is now pointless

The protections provided by the OGL v1.0a are irreplaceable and necessary,

no, they literally just released the SRD under a better license that everyone should switch to, that is the very opposite of irreplaceable, or even of necessary

and the license is being used far beyond the involvement of WotC (Fudge, for example). Brink and WotC are trying to create a narrative whereby the outrage at de-authorizing the OGL v1.0a is simply addressed by releasing the SRD material under the CC-BY4 when it is decidedly NOT. Here he is directly asked about de-authorization and sidesteps his way around it. Check also here at the 45:30 mark.

I just did, he says their concerns have not changed but their strategy and response to them has, so yeah the OGL is safe

Specifically he says, "So, in terms of deauthorizing 1.0a, we don't have any plans to go anywhere near the OGL . . . right now. That was the whole point of going to Creative Commons, to make it all moot."

yes, to make the fears and discussions about deauthorizing the OGL moot

Do NOT fall for it! Stay vigilant! Protect the OGL v1.0a!

I didn’t fall for anything, but you sure have not paid attention to was said and are twisting it in the worst way

You know what this nonsense does? Make me feel sympathetic towards him. Did not expect to feel sympathy towards anything Hasbro/WotC for a long time, but here we are.

 

[Parmandur]

I mean, I feel like this is a very dodgy definition of the word draft (from a lawyerly perspective anyway). That doesn't make it a lie, but still. Also Kyle acknowledged it was potentially confusing.

Yeah, Brink is diplomatically putting a positive spin on it (because the Victor's get to write history), but pretty clearly this was a comedy of errors and mishandling.

The "discussions" were probably less than sanguine, and I wouldn't be strife someone inside very loudly explained what would happen if they proceeded down the dumbass path.