Retrocloning or duplicating D&D from the materials WotC is releasing under Creative Commons

[overgeeked]

The fun thing about going this route is that you could then slap "Compatible with Dungeons and Dragons" on the cover and Wizards would have no way to stop you.

Aside from the benefit to creators of being able to openly advertise this, it would be deeply satisfying to see Wizards ending up with less control of their brand.

You can do that anyway. There are a lot of people producing compatible materials for various games and no one gets sued over it. Unless you make stuff compatible with GW games.

 

[Faolyn]

I hate to say this, but the one good thing that might come out of WotC not allowing their non-mechanic stuff to be used, except possibly under a special and currently undisclosed license, is that this might force creators to be actually creative about their D&D clones.

As I said in another thread, we hardly need to have the same old series of giants and dragons and the like get statted out again and again. And the same goes with classes and races and the like.

 

[Morrus]

I sincerely hope they add previous editions to the license. It'll make a "roll your own D&D" with everything you like from the history of the game a lot easier.

You mean take previous editions out of the permissive license they are currently available under and reducing the content to a tenth the amount?

 

[Haplo781]

You mean take previous editions out of the permissive license they are currently available under and reducing the content to a tenth the amount?

Which editions other than 3.x and 5e are under a more permissive license currently?

Here's a handy chart in case you need a refresher on the ones you might be forgetting about:

 

[Morrus]

Which editions other than 3.x and 5e are under a more permissive license currently?

Here's a handy chart in case you need a refresher on the ones you might be forgetting about:
View attachment 273332

I was referring to the clawback of the 3.5, SRD as I’m sure you know.

 

[Dausuul]

You can do that anyway. There are a lot of people producing compatible materials for various games and no one gets sued over it. Unless you make stuff compatible with GW games.

In principle, yes, but the CC license would make it significantly easier and cheaper to avoid infringement. Less stuff to rewrite, less stuff to double-check with counsel, smaller potential for mistakes.

It was even easier using the OGL and accepting the restrictions, which was why it was a savvy move by Wizards -- it gave 3PPs a real benefit in exchange for keeping distance between them and WotC's trademarks. Blowing it up takes away that incentive; and releasing a bunch of stuff under CC reduces the cost of making a clone that doesn't have to play nice.

 

[Haplo781]

I was referring to the clawback of the 3.5, SRD as I’m sure you know.

Yes, and I'm opposed to that clawback - but I'd sure like 4e liberated from the awful GSL, and the various Basic variations would be fun to mess with. All the 2e Player's Options books too.

 

[Voadam]

I believe WotC's tweet was that they were looking at putting the older OGL SRDs (so d20 Modern, 3.5, 3e) into SRDs under 1.2. I wouldn't count on a lot of that making it into CC or any non OGL SRD stuff making it in.

 

[Hriston]

I believe WotC's tweet was that they were looking at putting the older OGL SRDs (so d20 Modern, 3.5, 3e) into SRDs under 1.2. I wouldn't count on a lot of that making it into CC or any non OGL SRD stuff making it in.

They said they "are actively looking at adding previous edition content to both the CC and OGL 1.2."

 

[Haplo781]

They said they "are actively looking at adding previous edition content to both the CC and OGL 1.2."

Yep - and this is something that likely doesn't matter to like 90% of the current player base so I doubt it's an empty promise.