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.

​

 

[Velderan]

So let me get this straight..

WotC asked 3BH to send them the questions ahead of time saying they wanted to make sure Kyle had the info he needed to answer the questions, they chose not to send him the questions because reasons and then criticize the quality of the answers he gave? I'm definitely not on Team WotC in this whole situation, but anyone who has worked in an organization anywhere near the size of WotC will tell you members of management won't be able to tell you specific details of what other areas are working on. I don't blame Kyle for being unable to speak to the level of detail they hoped for on issues he wasn't directly involved in.

 

[darjr]

That quotation is specifically about the Holocaust, not a corporation flirting with playing hardball with its IP. I get your point, but I feel we could turn the rhetoric down a bit.

OOf. good point. Will change it, do me a favor and update my comment quote?

apologies.

 

[overgeeked]

I think that a lot of people fundamentally misunderstand how IP works in the legal world. Such misunderstanding can result in serious miscalculations.

Here-

If you aren't familiar with the story, the ending may surprise you.

The idea that just because a company borrowed a concept from somewhere means that you can use it has a long history, and it usually ends badly.

So, for example, if you wanted to option the story and the coeurl from A. E. Vought's estate (unless the story is in the public domain), then more power to you. If, however, you are planning on just dropping in D&D monsters for a D&D adventure into a D&D film by optioning older works ... I wouldn't recommend it.

Right. What I’m saying is there’s maybe ten truly unique to D&D monsters or ideas. The rest are “borrowed” from earlier sources. I’m not saying make a D&D movie based on D&D IP because they “borrowed” it. I’m saying if Disney wanted the displacer beast specifically, they could option the rights to that from the original creator…who is decidedly not TSR/WotC. The overwhelmingly vast majority of D&D is generic fantasy from myths, legends, and other public domain works. Like Disney and fairy tales. Cinderella is public domain. So anyone can make Cinderella stuff. But if you copy Disney’s version, you’re screwed. So go back to the source and avoid copying the slightly altered version that Disney does.

 

[darjr]

Well, that will definitely put an end to all the "OneD&D is definitely a new edition" threads once and for all!

(it won't)

Well no. And i don't think it should really. "new edition" or "not compatible" isn't an objective thing, I'm learning.

Arguably compatible is what I'm looking for, or was, and I think so far it's met that criteria.

 

[Clint_L]

OOf. good point. Will change it, do me a favor and update my comment quote?

apologies.

Fixed and I really appreciate you changing it.

 

[This Effin’ GM]

I wonder what the purpose of pressing so hard for sweet heart identities was.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I wonder what the purpose of pressing so hard for sweet heart identities was.

We're running low on witches to burn around here.

 

[Dausuul]

Yes, I want to know what this means for the future, not what happened and why.

Agreed.

I mean, I'd love to know what happened and why, but I don't expect to get that information for a long time. Anything WotC tells us today about how we got here is going to be, at the very least, carefully spun; and it may well be total fiction. We have no way to fact-check it except through anonymous leaks (and the book full of tell-all interviews that will come out in 10 years or so).

They are less likely to shade the truth when asked about their future plans (at least for the next couple of years), because they'll be held to account for what they say.

Edit: Also, Wizards is still in damage control mode, coming off what had to be a couple of weeks of screaming panic. They may be willing to make promises right now that they would not make three months from now. So this is a great time to press them on their future plans, and get those promises made in public.

 

[John Lloyd1]

I think that a lot of people fundamentally misunderstand how IP works in the legal world. Such misunderstanding can result in serious miscalculations.

Here-

If you aren't familiar with the story, the ending may surprise you.

The idea that just because a company borrowed a concept from somewhere means that you can use it has a long history, and it usually ends badly.

So, for example, if you wanted to option the story and the coeurl from A. E. Vought's estate (unless the story is in the public domain), then more power to you. If, however, you are planning on just dropping in D&D monsters for a D&D adventure into a D&D film by optioning older works ... I wouldn't recommend it.

That case always gets me hot under the collar.

 

[Parmandur]

Literally what happened with Twitter, which I think everyone on Earth is aware of, willingly or otherwise.

Yeah, I think that Dianey buying Hasbro makes much more sense on paper for everyone involved than...all of that.