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.

 

[Clint_L]

Sooo. Same situation as yesterday if you want to make D&D content. Under CC: Can't make subclasses as the classes themselves aren't covered, can't make settings that mention the licensed content (even the content name). So no adventures that say have a monster name in encounters, or item names for treasure.

I don't think this is super different from the current situation is it? You were never able to use WotC trademarked IP without a special license.

 

[kenada]

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.

I agree, but I also think releasing the core mechanics under a CC-BY license is a signal that WotC’s not interested in going after people like TSR did.

 

[Michael Linke]

Much of that SRD, may be in fault, having used the 3.5 SRD though? Not sure.

As we said elsewhere, the actual rules aren't protected by copyright. The point of Pathfinder's SRD is to be a uniqe expression of those rules. As far as I know, the Pathfinder SRD isn't a product relying on WotC's SRD, it's a product that REPLACES WotC's SRD.

Edit: I previously thought much the same way as you suggest, but after looking through PF's SRD, i don't think any issue with the deauthorization affects PF's SRD.

#notalawyertho

 

[Bosen]

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).

Just as long as you don't want an Ancient Red Dragon in your game... there used to be a list of monsters that were specifically WotC and those that were more generic... surely they could not nerf a simple description of a legendary creature...

 

[Vaalingrade]

But they specified the OGL 1.0a is still valid for products that DON'T use a WotC SRD. So you could still release your work under OGL 1.0a, using the Pathfinder SRD, as far as I can understand. Am I reading that wrong?

Existing products.

Once it goes into effect, you can't make or supplement new ones.

 

[Michael Linke]

Just as long as you don't want an Ancient Red Dragon in your game... there used to be a list of monsters that were specifically WotC and those that were more generic... surely they could not nerf a simple description of a legendary creature...

Ancient Red Dragon? No. But an "ancient, red dragon"? A "crimson-scaled dragon of unfathomable age"?

 

[Scribe]

As we said elsewhere, the actual rules aren't protected by copyright. The point of Pathfinder's SRD is to be a uniqe expression of those rules. As far as I know, the Pathfinder SRD isn't a product relying on WotC's SRD, it's a product that REPLACES WotC's SRD.

Edit: I previously thought much the same way as you suggest, but after looking through PF's SRD, i don't think any issue with the deauthorization affects PF's SRD.

#notalawyertho

This is the crux of it I guess.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Scarlet Boomer Dragon

 

[guachi]

So this was really about the owlbear all along?

Given an owlbear is in the new movie I think think the answer is "yes". It's all about $$$.

 

[Xyxox]

This license is worse than the not-draft, IMO/.