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.

 

[wingsandsword]

A smarter move by WoTC would be to revoke the OGL v.1.0a for works derived from D&D but allow its continued use by third-parties operating outside of the D&D ecosystem.

Yeah, but WotC doesn't care about any of that.

To them, especially to current WotC leadership, the OGL is nothing but a license related to making D&D-derived works.

The fact that it was used elsewhere in the industry for roles completely unrelated to D&D is something they absolutely don't care about.

 

[wingsandsword]

The supposed need to revoke OGL 1.0a by WOTC for fear of being associated with hateful material may be a smokescreen. Questions for any lawyers out there (I’m not one) : Couldn’t a racist parody or satire of the game be created at any time in the US? Maybe someone could take WOTC’s public missteps in that area and super exaggerate it?

Parody is protected free speech. If something was made as a parody of D&D it would have at least a little more protection than just a copy of D&D.

I agree that the hateful content thing is a smokescreen, I think it's just a way for them to block publication of any work they don't want published, for any token reason they can come up with. There have literally been editorials about how the whole fantasy genre is inherently racist, you could come up with a token excuse (in bad faith) that virtually any product on the market is some form of bigotry. They will claim the license is irrevocable. . .while having a backdoor clause that lets them revoke the use of it for anyone they want for any product they want, for any reason they want as long as it can tangentially be tied to any form of hate speech.

 

[Voadam]

The OGL 1.0 was a safe harbor intended to be irrevocable and ensure D&D and the whole of OGC would be open and available regardless of what happened with WotC in the future.

WotC is claiming the ability to stop that entirely with a revision and turn it into something in their revised one that can be cancelled in their sole discretion that you cannot challenge.

"You will not include content in Your Licensed Works that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing, or engage in conduct that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing. We have the sole right to decide what conduct or content is hateful, and you covenant that you will not contest any such determination via any suit or other legal action."

Also that will be terminated if you infringe on or challenge any of their claims of IP of any of their licensed content which means challenging things like elf or fighter or goblin.

"We may immediately terminate your license if you infringe any of our intellectual property; bring an action challenging our ownership of Our Licensed Content, trademarks, or patents; violate any law in relation to your activities under this license; or violate Section 6(f)."

If they claim all of the licensed content as IP then any use of any of it in a non OGL product can arguably be considered infringing and be cause for termination.

 

[Bagpuss]

How is what we see a step forward from what already exists?

I assume you mean the OGL1.0a compared to this 1.2. Clearly 1.2 is an improvement on 1.1.

So compared to 1.0a What has improved for users of the OGL.

It patches the hole in OGL 1.0a about not being irrevocable.

It's now right there in section 2. They cannot modify it except in the part about who you attribute and who you notify (I assume in case those details change). They can only terminate if you breach it (7b), or if the license if found not to be enforceable (9d).

The CC BY 4, license itself is irrevocable, so the stuff they put in there can't be touched. That's an improvement even if you don't go with the OGL.

I mean it still has some issues but that patches the hole in OGL1.0a about "irrevocable".

______________________________________________________________

You don't have to include a copy of the OGL (section 10 on 1.0) in your published document, just putting the badge on is enough (5a in 1.2). Which is going to save a on paper if you do print runs of your book.
_______________________________________________________________

So there's that, I mean really not much is an improvement on OGL1.0a for publishers, but if that is going away this one isn't remotely as onerous as the 1.1 leak we saw.

__________________________________________________________

However I think you should be concerned if you are in the VTT game or someone that uses an existing VTT. The clause in the Virtual Tabletop Policy of VTT to only "replicate the experience of sitting around the table playing D&D with your friends" is worrisome.

It will stifle development, as additional features might not fall into this remit, second a lot of the features existing VTT have already breach this. Dynamic lighting isn't something you get in normal play, you might be able to claim fog of war is okay as the GM reveals the map as you go. Roll20 can already do animated spell effects and that is clearly called out as something that isn't allowed. Are they going to have to remove features to become compliant? You can bet if so those are features D&DBeyond's own VTT will have (when it appears).

___________________________________________________________

Seems to me the leaked OGL was written by lawyers and execs that wanted all the pie. This second one has realised how much ill will that has caused for so little gain, but they still want to get control over VTT for their plans for monetization.

 

[Voadam]

There is no OGC under OGL 1.2 as proposed.

You could not use Kobold Press monster book monsters in your adventures under the license. You would need to get a separate agreement with KP to do so.

Even if they put in old edition SRDs, you cannot make OSE, Swords & Wizardry, Pathfinder, OSRIC stuff, etc. You would need a separate license from anyone you wanted to use stuff from.

 

[Velderan]

I'm way behind on this conversation, so this may have been asked but does anything in the Creative Commons licensing prevent a creator from making a product containing racist or bigoted material?

If NuTSR leveraged the content in CC, could they make "Racial Slur and other Racial Slur" a war game to prove which race is superior? Could WotC do anything to stop that?

 

[Bagpuss]

The OGL 1.0 was a safe harbor intended to be irrevocable and ensure D&D and the whole of OGC would be open and available regardless of what happened with WotC in the future.

WotC is claiming the ability to stop that entirely with a revision and turn it into something in their revised one that can be cancelled in their sole discretion that you cannot challenge.

"You will not include content in Your Licensed Works that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing, or engage in conduct that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing. We have the sole right to decide what conduct or content is hateful, and you covenant that you will not contest any such determination via any suit or other legal action."

Agreed and I think since "harmful" is something so unclear. I suspect it is so they could cut off certain publishers that continue to work with artists/writers that are problematic or are problematic themselves (I can think of an example in each case). I really don't like it as a clause but I see why they have put it in. It's probably the main reason this isn't truly an open license.

Also that will be terminated if you infringe on or challenge any of their claims of IP of any of their licensed content which means challenging things like elf or fighter or goblin.

No it doesn't that stuff is allowed in the OGL, but aren't in the Creative Commons bit, if you didn't use the OGL then you would have to come up with your own Elves. Use the OGL and you can use WotC ones. If you come up with your own Elves then you aren't infringing and don't need to use the OGL so it couldn't be terminated anyway. If you use their Elves then you are under the OGL and wouldn't infringe either because you are using it under license.

"We may immediately terminate your license if you infringe any of our intellectual property; bring an action challenging our ownership of Our Licensed Content, trademarks, or patents; violate any law in relation to your activities under this license; or violate Section 6(f)."

If they claim all of the licensed content as IP then any use of any of it in a non OGL product can arguably be considered infringing and be cause for termination.

This is more so they can stop people using Beholders or Eberron as a setting. I think the main concern that this clause is in to protect, is the "bring an action challenging our ownership" say you produce a feat or several feats, and later WotC produce a book that has similar feats. There have been writers in the past that have claimed WotC is copying their content. I don't think any have gone to court, but they have certainly claimed so on twitter (which is enough to damage their reputation (although not as much as OGL1.1)). They want to protect against that.

 

[Xyxox]

I assume you mean the OGL1.0a compared to this 1.2. Clearly 1.2 is an improvement on 1.1.

So compared to 1.0a What has improved for users of the OGL.

It patches the hole in OGL 1.0a about not being irrevocable.

Except they make it revocable in Section 9 (b).

 

[Bagpuss]

I'm way behind on this conversation, so this may have been asked but does anything in the Creative Commons licensing prevent a creator from making a product containing racist or bigoted material?

If NuTSR leveraged the content in CC, could they make "Racial Slur and other Racial Slur" a war game to prove which race is superior? Could WotC do anything to stop that?

No, I don't think it does, so it seems odd that they really want to keep that clause in 1.2 but at the same time use a completely open license like CC BY.

 

[Bagpuss]

Except they make it revocable in Section 9 (b).

Do you mean (d) as I did mention that (b) doesn't seem to mention anything about being revoked. I did mention 9d.

The point of section 9d is (quoted below) is that if the license is unenforceable then there is no point in having the license. The whole point of a license is so it has some legal standing, if it is shown not to have any then it makes sense to void it, because it will have effectively been voided anyway.

"9 (d) Severability. If any part of this license is held to be unenforceable or invalid for any reason, 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."

It is a pretty common clause to have. Severability Clause Sample Clauses: 6k Samples | Law Insider

The old OGL also had a bit about it being unenforceable.

14. Reformation: If any provision of this License is held to be unenforceable, such provision shall be reformed only to the extent necessary to make it enforceable.

If anything that's worse, that's say we can change the license you've already agreed to if we find it can't be enforced to make it enforceable. At least with the new license they can't change it on you without you getting out of it.