WotC To Give Core D&D Mechanics To Community Via Creative Commons

Wizards of the Coast, in a move which surprised everbody, has announced that it will give away the core D&D mechanics to the community via a Creative Commons license.

This won't include 'quintessentially D&D" stuff like owlbears and magic missile, but it wil include the 'core D&D mechanics'.

So what does it include? It's important to note that it's only a fraction of what's currently available as Open Gaming Content under the existing Open Gaming License, so while it's termed as a 'give-away' it's actually a reduction. It doesn't include classes, spells, or magic items. It does include the combat rules, ability scores, and the core mechanic.

 

[Ondath]

Level up has, e.g., Owlbears, as does pathfinder 1e and 2e. I don't know how hard WotC are willing to go after people for "Owlbear" but it's no longer under the "safe haven" of the old OGL.

Well yes, but currently released Level Up and Pathfinder books can be reprinted with OGL v1.0a without any issue, since WotC said they won't be touching past works. Future editions of the game might need to make non-copyright infringing versions of these, but I think this isn't that hard. Wizards is claiming Magic Missile as their content? I mean, WoW has had Arcane Missiles as a spell for the last 18 years and it wasn't based on the OGL. So they can claim the name Magic Missile and maybe the exact flavour (four darts that hit unerringly), but surely you can cook up a non-infringing version pretty easily (Arcane Bolts that creates 3 magical bolts that are guided so always hit their target!).

 

[Clint_L]

Looks like they're scaling back their strategic nuke (by including irrevocably language in 1.2) but building up their tactical nuke arsenal by reserving the right to boot you for engaging in speech (beyond what's in the product) that they deem harmful.

I think they should compromise on that by keeping the morality clause but having it adjudicated by a panel made up of, say, three OGL stakeholders, only one of which would be WotC.

 

[Ondath]

<snipped because no longer needed>

 

[overgeeked]

Never mind. Figured it out.

Which pages: https://www.dndbeyond.com/attachments/39j2li89/OGL1.2_DraftForDiscussionPurpose.pdf

The SRD: https://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/DND/SRD-OGL_V5.1.pdf

 

[Ondath]

I think they should compromise on that by keeping the morality clause but having it adjudicated by a panel made up of, say, three OGL stakeholders, only one of which would be WotC.

I think this would be a fantastic solution (maybe one of the stakeholders can be the Open Gaming Foundation!), but I think it'll be unlikely.

I'm not sure how to feel about that part of the deal, honestly. Yeah, I can't really trust a corporation to decide what conduct is harmful or harrassing (and WotC does have a bad track record with this, for instance by removing the DMsGuild adventure Eat The Rich after initially okaying it). But at the same time, imagine the kind of havoc an actually competent NuTSR could cause if they released 5E-compatible products using the OGL. I can't fault Wizards for wanting to avoid that.

Ultimately, anything that falls outside WotC's vision of what D&D should be can created using the CC anyway, so I'm more okay with this than not.

 

[Alzrius]

I don't know much about CC licenses, but I saw on another thread that this isn't a Share Alike version of the CC license in question, and that this apparently means that if you make a 5E CC product this way, no one else can use new content you create, i.e. there is no "Open Game Content" provision which allows for other people to build off of what you make.

 

[Ondath]

I don't know much about CC licenses, but I saw on another thread that this isn't a Share Alike version of the CC license in question, and that this apparently means that if you make a 5E CC product this way, no one else can use new content you create, i.e. there is no "Open Game Content" provision which allows for other people to build off of what you make.

I think the exact terms of CC-BY are that anyone can use the content released in it (even commercially) as long as they attribute to it, but they don't have to make their own contribution also a part of CC-BY.

Which isn't that different from how OGL v1.0a worked, to be honest. You had games like Dungeon Crawl Classics where almost all of the new additions to the D&D-lingo were closed off and marked as Product Identity, so you always had ways of not making your content share-alike. And if someone who takes up D&D's core mechanics using this license is so inclined, they can also release their own contribution under CC-BY, so it's not like anything is stopping them.

 

[dave2008]

The CC portion is to allow people to make whole new games that are D&D compatible. Your Doctors and Daleks or One Ring stuff.

The OGL 1.2 is for your D&D adjacent stuff. Things like settings or supplements. WotC wants tighter control on those.

And to round out the trilogy, DM's Guild is for when you need their IP directly (ie a Ravenloft product).

Yep, that is it. I really like this strategy personally. Just need to work on that morality clause.

 

[wingsandsword]

I can put in elves, dwarves and gnomes until the cows come home, although I will have to give tieflings a different name, like devilfolk (which is better for new players anyway).

I'd go with Nephilim, the name for humans partly descended from angels and devils from real-world lore.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

So, I actually went through the parts of the SRD that will be released in CC, and it includes:

• The core advancement mechanics of exp, leveling up, multiclassing
• Backgrounds and feats (with one example of each), languages, traits, the two-axes alignment system
• The entire mundane equipment section
• The entire rules on using ability scores (so proficiency, six ability scores, the skill list and saving throws included) and downtime
• The entire rules on combat
• 5E-style Vancian casting, spell components, spell area/duration rules
• Monster stat block principles
• Conditions

This is the better version of the post I made on the other thread (and for all I know several other people, I couldn't keep up with it while also parsing the SRD). Well done.