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.

 

[BlueFin]

Wow. I don't have time to read all 5 pages of comments, but what I have read so far sounds like most people think wotc have given you what you want? Yes, yes, the word "irrevocable" made it in there, but my question is, where's the trap?

There is simply no way that I can believe that they have walked away from what they truly want to do. I'm no lawyer, but I've run my own business for 20 years and I've learned to look for crap in contracts (and yes I also have a lawyer to do it as well), and I am very cynical about this kind of thing, so here's my non-expert example -

9(d) Severability. If any part of this license is held to be unenforceable or invalid for any reason [emphasis mine], Wizards may declare the entire license void, either as between it and the party that obtained the ruling or in its entirety. Unless Wizards elects to do so, the balance of this license will be enforced as if that part which is unenforceable or invalid did not exist.

This clause gives wotc the ability to terminate the whole license at their discretion - all they have to do is find something that was "unenforceable", which based on form I imagine won't be too hard .... like the VTT Policy perhaps, I wonder how "enforceable" all of that is????

The learning out of all of this, should be - wotc, and especially hasbro, cannot be trusted. The end. I look forward to all the releases by the various 3PPs and I will be supporting as many as I can. The hobby will be much better served by GMs and players everywhere exploring and supporting other and new RPGs, rather than sticking unthinkingly to wotc's vision for D&D.

 

[blakesha]

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.

You couldnt create a Fighter subclass (by way of example). With the CC version you couldn't do that because you couldn't reference the definition of the Fighter (it's level progression, the term Martial Archetype, etc)

 

[BlueFin]

They are making themselves appear so magnanimous by giving you what you already have ie. the non-copywritable mechanics. True, making it explicit is good, but I would prefer they do it honestly.

 

[guachi]

Oh yes it was! It was pretty obvious. I mean, the "What is an Owlbear" is the latest feature article on dnd.wizards.com
They want that mascot bad. It's so much better than the dumb old beholder.

I'm about 114% certain that if owlbear had not been slipped into the SRD 20 years ago, this whole mess would have been avoided.

At some point someone realized they made a movie with an owlbear in it and the owlbear wasn't even Hasbro IP. Whoops.

 

[Xyxox]

This is going to court if they deauthorize OGL 1.0a

 

[Scribe]

This is going to court if they deauthorize OGL 1.0a

I kind of feel it has to.

Question: Would it be possible/acceptable to Wizards to withdraw the 5.1 SRD from 1.0 OGL as a 'half deauthorization' ?

 

[bostonmyk]

They are making themselves appear so magnanimous by giving you what you already have ie. the non-copywritable mechanics. True, making it explicit is good, but I would prefer they do it honestly.

Yeah, my impression was this was kind of a poopey prize. I do think though given there now is a dialog things may work out.

 

[Lakesidefantasy]

I'll see it when I believe it.

 

[BlueFin]

Continuing on from my previous post, how will this function in relation to 9(d) ...

9(g) Waiver of Jury Trial. We and you each waive any right to a jury trial of any dispute, claim or cause of action related to or arising out of this license.

So if no trial is available, who gets to decide if something in "unenforceable" per 9(d). They don't even provide a clause for how disputes are to be resolved.

This wotc post and new "OGL", like everything before, is BS.

 

[Remathilis]

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...

You gotta keep in mind that a monster has multiple elements: mechanics, fluff, appearance/art. The core concept of an orc, elf, or dragon is pretty generic, but D&D has unique expressions of those parts. As a good example, elves being immune to sleep and charm magic is pretty unique to D&D. You could make an elf race, but it wouldn't necessarily have darkvision, trance, fey ancestry/charm immunity, free cantrips, etc. You could pull from all manner of fantasy tropes or mechanic, as long as your final mix isn't a D&D elf.