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.

 

[Dreamscape]

Could an OSR base be built off if a CC 5e?

Well, there wouldn't be any point. They already write all the mechanics from scratch, they just use the SRDs for the names of spells, creatures, magic items, etc.

Equally, there's no point in any of these mechanics being CC, they are the most un-copyrightable part of D&D. I mean, the SRDs were already fairly limited in their utility to anything but retroclones, but I really struggle to see why anyone would need these CC-mechanics.

 

[Ondath]

If they are "Deauthorizing" ogl 1.0a....i have no idea how that works.

Simple.

A TTRPG can be licensed using multiple open game licenses. FATE's SRD is released both in OGL v1.0a and Creative Commons. If OGL v1.0a gets deauthorised, you can still make FATE content using CC.

Extrapolating from that, if D&D's core mechanics get released under CC-BY but OGL v1.0a is deauthorised (meaning past work stays but no new works can be added to the corpus), then new books from Paizo and EN Publishing could reference the CC'd 5E content and release their new works under the CC-BY license.

At least, that's my layman understanding of the situation.

 

[Michael Linke]

Ok. So, based on what’s in the draft, it looks like what they would be releasing under Creative Commons is very literally the core rules. It includes all the rules for adventuring, combat, spellcasting, downtime, etc. in the SRD. What it does not include is any races, any classes, any monsters or NPCs, the rules for magic items (weird…), or any magic items.

This looks like a good-faith gesture, but saying it doesn’t include “quintessentially D&D stuff like owlbears and magic missile” is misleading. It doesn’t include any specific expressions of the rules at all. I genuinely don’t think anything in the portions of the SRD being released under Creative Commons is copyrightable material anyway. In that light, this looks like a really sneaky PR stunt.

Not only that, this would only be the core rules in the SRD 5.1. It doesn’t include the 3e SRD at all, which OGL 1.0a does.

Sorry, WotC, but this isn’t going to cut it.

Many OGL games are satisfied by what's included, though. If I was going to make an RPG based on HBO's The Wire, or Netflix's Stranger Things, or any rando-property, most, or at least A LOT, of the excluded content is irrelevant to me.

I think going forward, products that want to reproduce a lot of D&D tropes in a different setting will either abide by the new OGL terms, or just re-imagine their products as classic campaign setting products, and not standalone games. I was already team-hasbro obviously, but I wonder if the other side of the debate feels a change like that is a deal breaker?

 

[FallenRX]

Ok. So, based on what’s in the draft, it looks like what they would be releasing under Creative Commons is very literally the core rules. It includes all the rules for adventuring, combat, spellcasting, downtime, etc. in the SRD. What it does not include is any races, any classes, any monsters or NPCs, the rules for magic items (weird…), or any magic items.

This looks like a good-faith gesture, but saying it doesn’t include “quintessentially D&D stuff like owlbears and magic missile” is misleading. It doesn’t include any specific expressions of the rules at all. I genuinely don’t think anything in the portions of the SRD being released under Creative Commons is copyrightable material anyway. In that light, this looks like a really sneaky PR stunt.

Not only that, this would only be the core rules in the SRD 5.1. It doesn’t include the 3e SRD at all, which OGL 1.0a does.

Sorry, WotC, but this isn’t going to cut it.

No the trick is the expressions of these rules that are coming out for free.

The issue was they could around the specific expressions of having the 6 stats and their names, the name Profiecency bonus, skills, those other things were specific dnd things, and would have to rigorously be renamed, and even then it would be a muddy gray area, of what is artistic expression of the mechanics vs the mechanics itself.

Under CCBY, this basically is them arming down on pursuing that route in that muddy gray area, which is legit good in a sense.

It means Level up, Black flag, and PF2e, wouldnt have to completely reinvent/rename basic dnd things, or expressions of some mechanics, to make a DnD-like game without risk of Hasbro trying to gun for them, removes even the slightest threat of it. The most they have to change now is some spell(maybe class names) and they can just keep on going on as is.

Genuinely the only good thing in this announcement

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If they're willing to throw baseline PHB classes (and the mechanics for subclasses), races (particularly dragonborn), ultra-basic magic items, and Backgrounds into the Creative Commons material, that would go a long, long way toward fixing the problems. It would mean that you could use the CC license for retroclones (especially of 4e, hence my emphasis on dragonborn) and other ultra-generic stuff, but if you want the convenience of things like spell lists and the like, you need the OGL. I'd still want the "we can terminate the license if we think you've been a bad person" part radically changed, but...releasing enough of the fundamental rules into the Creative Commons so that someone could genuinely rebuild D&D even if WotC went belly-up and the rights became a living nightmare to parse? That would be actually tempting as an offer.

 

[Michael Linke]

Well, there wouldn't be any point. They already write all the mechanics from scratch, they just use the SRDs for the names of spells, creatures, magic items, etc.

Equally, there's no point in any of these mechanics being CC, they are the most un-copyrightable part of D&D. I mean, the SRDs were already fairly limited in their utility to anything but retroclones, but I really struggle to see why anyone would need these CC-mechanics.

But the actual words are CC now.

You always had the right to use mechanics/rules/processes in your own work. You also had the right to explain them poorly such that your product can be played incorrectly, or inconsistenly. The advantage of the SRD, and now the CC content, is that you actually have rights to use the exact wordings to ensure that your description of the rule doesn't accidentally introduce an incorrect interpretation of that rule, and thus a different play experience.

 

[Dreamscape]

Many OGL games are satisfied by what's included, though. If I was going to make an RPG based on HBO's The Wire, or Netflix's Stranger Things, or any rando-property, most, or at least A LOT, of the excluded content is irrelevant to me.

But so are the specific expressions of the mechanics included under CC. So, again, why would you use those instead of just writing your own versions?

 

[Storyteller Hero]

If I'm not mistaken, this looks like somebody at WotC has been keeping up with the discussions on forums and social media.

Although game mechanics can't be copyrighted, the expression of them CAN be copyrighted. If I'm not mistaken, the CC for WotC's expression of DND core mechanics is to make the wording they use to describe the mechanics available via Creative Commons.

Since the CC thing is separate from the OGL, it seems like the main points of negotiation are being narrowed to discussion over use of WotC's DnD settings-specific stuff.

 

[Michael Linke]

If they're willing to throw baseline PHB classes (and the mechanics for subclasses), races (particularly dragonborn), ultra-basic magic items, and Backgrounds into the Creative Commons material, that would go a long, long way toward fixing the problems. It would mean that you could use the CC license for retroclones (especially of 4e, hence my emphasis on dragonborn) and other ultra-generic stuff, but if you want the convenience of things like spell lists and the like, you need the OGL. I'd still want the "we can terminate the license if we think you've been a bad person" part radically changed, but...releasing enough of the fundamental rules into the Creative Commons so that someone could genuinely rebuild D&D even if WotC went belly-up and the rights became a living nightmare to parse? That would be actually tempting as an offer.

I think it's fair to say if you want to use even baseline classes, races and magic-items, you should have to opt in to the OGL. If you're making up literally everything about the setting, down to its peoples and how the heroes function, then you no longer need the OGL.

 

[Michael Linke]

But so are the specific expressions of the mechanics included under CC. So, again, why would you use those instead of just writing your own versions?

I addressed that in another post, which I'm sure you'll stumble over in a moment, but just wanted to praise your work on Blueholme. I had already bought the books long before the OGL debacle.