D&D 5E Creative Commons and D&D


log in or register to remove this ad

overgeeked

B/X Known World
You usually can't copyright mechanics, which is why when WotC proposed in 1.2 putting their mechanics into CC a lot of attorneys were like, "They're giving us what we already had."
Ish. It's the specific expression that's now under CC. We always had the right to use the game mechanics if, and only if we rewrote them into our own words. Now we don't have to bother unless we want to.
Rephrasing and/or reformatting mechanics seems painful though if there are a lot. CC-BY things (or parts that are clearly OGL 1.0a) don't need any rephrasing or reformatting, right?
Exactly.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Rephrasing and/or reformatting mechanics seems painful though if there are a lot. CC-BY things (or parts that are clearly OGL 1.0a) don't need any rephrasing or reformatting, right?
The stuff that is in the SRD wouldn't need to be changed at all. The OGC stuff released under 1.0a probably wouldn't, either. As I noted in the other thread, 1.0a requires products released to include a license to use their OGC content. The stuff released under 1.0a that is PI would not be usable without permission.
 

You usually can't copyright mechanics, which is why when WotC proposed in 1.2 putting their mechanics into CC a lot of attorneys were like, "They're giving us what we already had."
Which is why my counter-proposal (which they significantly exceeded) was "Please put all PHB races and classes into the CC."

We now can use terms like "dragonborn," "tiefling," "Tiamat" (as the Queen of Dragons), "beholder," etc., etc. effectively freely so long as we give attribution. That is the big deal here. The mechanics side is mostly just a relief that there's a clear legal statement one could point to if anyone ever got litigious about it.
 

Reynard

Legend
There are already a few hundred threads to talk about how the OGL works.

This thread is meant to be about Creative Commons.

If someone wants to open a compare and contrast thread, please do.
Fair enough.

The problem remains that if the only thing released under CC is the SRD,Open Gaming suffers by everything being derivative of the same source rather than expanding and mingling. It's almost as if WotC is trying to weaponize potential "pathfinders" against one another.

Out of curiosity, what TTRPGs have been released under CC? Fate, I am pretty sure. I'm not so sure about Apocalypse World-- I know they encourage folks to experiment with the form, but I don't know if it is actually released CC. Are there any others?
 

Cadence

Legend
Supporter
Fair enough.

The problem remains that if the only thing released under CC is the SRD,Open Gaming suffers by everything being derivative of the same source rather than expanding and mingling. It's almost as if WotC is trying to weaponize potential "pathfinders" against one another.

Out of curiosity, what TTRPGs have been released under CC? Fate, I am pretty sure. I'm not so sure about Apocalypse World-- I know they encourage folks to experiment with the form, but I don't know if it is actually released CC. Are there any others?

It feels like a lot of companies wouldn't have bothered with CC back when they thought 1.0a was secure.

If WotC puts the 3.5 SRD out under CC-BY, I wonder how hard it would be to convince Paizo to put the PF 1e SRD under it (maybe minus the few things that rely on other 1.0a stuff).
 

Fair enough.

The problem remains that if the only thing released under CC is the SRD,Open Gaming suffers by everything being derivative of the same source rather than expanding and mingling. It's almost as if WotC is trying to weaponize potential "pathfinders" against one another.

Out of curiosity, what TTRPGs have been released under CC? Fate, I am pretty sure. I'm not so sure about Apocalypse World-- I know they encourage folks to experiment with the form, but I don't know if it is actually released CC. Are there any others?
Apocalypse World is not CC (though the actual thing they've set up is similar to an informal CC-BY, if I'm understanding correctly), but Dungeon World is CC, to the point that there's a fully legal online version of the book if you wish to consult it.
 

Ondath

Hero
Out of curiosity, what TTRPGs have been released under CC? Fate, I am pretty sure. I'm not so sure about Apocalypse World-- I know they encourage folks to experiment with the form, but I don't know if it is actually released CC. Are there any others?
Here's what I could find with a quick google:
  • FATE, as you said
  • I couldn't find Apocalypse World itself being under CC, but a lot of PbtA games seem to be!
  • Eclipse Phase
  • Thirsty Sword Lesbians
And a dishonourable mention goes to Zweihander, which acts all like they support open gaming, while Zweihander is released under a CC-BY-Noncommercial license, and you can only take a 60% cut of any Zweihander content published under DriveThruRPG.
 

overgeeked

B/X Known World
The problem remains that if the only thing released under CC is the SRD, Open Gaming suffers by everything being derivative of the same source rather than expanding and mingling.
If publishers refuse to release their original content under the CC-BY license, then others don't get to play with their toys. Again, this isn't really a change from the OGL. The line of what's derivative and what's not isn't stark and clear. And it's all down to how one reads the OGL...which isn't the topic of this thread.
It's almost as if WotC is trying to weaponize potential "pathfinders" against one another.
No more than not-5E versions are weaponized against each other.
Out of curiosity, what TTRPGs have been released under CC? Fate, I am pretty sure. I'm not so sure about Apocalypse World-- I know they encourage folks to experiment with the form, but I don't know if it is actually released CC. Are there any others?
The only thing I could find with a quick Google search is a short list from 2013.
 

I couldn't find Apocalypse World itself being under CC, but a lot of PbtA games seem to be!
I found a reddit post from April 2021 that indicates the following PbtA games are CC licensed (doesn't specify which CC license though), quoted verbatim:
  • Dungeon World and the vast majority of its supplements/hacks
  • Fellowship
  • The Happiest Apocalypse on Earth
  • Impulse Drive
  • Ironsworn
  • Masks
  • Thirsty Sword Lesbians
  • Uncharted Worlds
  • Undying
  • Worlds in Peril
 

Supplements are going to be much, much, much easier to release under the cc-by 4.0 than the OGL. I'm excited about that since one reason my Backgrounds project didn't see the light of day is hesitancy to go to DMsGuild and the care needed to avoid non-OGC
 

Reynard

Legend
Supplements are going to be much, much, much easier to release under the cc-by 4.0 than the OGL. I'm excited about that since one reason my Backgrounds project didn't see the light of day is hesitancy to go to DMsGuild and the care needed to avoid non-OGC
Can you explain why you feel this way. Your source under CC is the same as it would have been under OGL 1.0a, no?
 

Can you explain why you feel this way. Your source under CC is the same as it would have been under OGL 1.0a, no?
Under the OGL I have to scrub all non-Open Gaming Content and product identity in order to comply with the OGL.

That's no longer necessary.

If I want to make a Background that says "You escaped a Mind Flayer holding pen" that's perfectly allowed under CC-BY 4.0. It is not under OGL 1.0a.

edit: removed a word that could be considered passive-aggressive
 
Last edited:


For what I understand.
More or easier third party content.
More or easier clone game using the same core mechanics.
If the follow up is handle properly, the overall public image of DnD will be better.
We can guess that OneDnd will be Include into an update of the SRD and also on CC licence.
I guess I will see a unicorn in park sometime before the end of the year!
 

Dreamscape

Crafter of fine role-playing games
I expect to see publishers (both 3PPs using the WotC 5.1 SRD and indies producing their own games) to create their own SRDs to release under CC BY 4.0. This gives downstream publishers the option to keep their content closed or CC, whereas an SA licence would require share-alike.

I'm still not clear on some elements.

If I use CC BY 4.0 content in a product, can I then release that product under a different CC licence such as CC BY-SA or CC BY-NC?

What exactly does "indicate if they made modifications to the licensed material" mean? The example given is, "This section is an excerpt of the original." Does one have to do that everywhere there is a modification? That would probably double the word count of most clones, and make them unusable in practice. Or is it sufficient to say, "Chapters 3-6, 8, and 12 use portions of the original text."?
 


overgeeked

B/X Known World
I expect to see publishers (both 3PPs using the WotC 5.1 SRD and indies producing their own games) to create their own SRDs to release under CC BY 4.0. This gives downstream publishers the option to keep their content closed or CC, whereas an SA licence would require share-alike.

I'm still not clear on some elements.

If I use CC BY 4.0 content in a product, can I then release that product under a different CC licence such as CC BY-SA or CC BY-NC?

What exactly does "indicate if they made modifications to the licensed material" mean? The example given is, "This section is an excerpt of the original." Does one have to do that everywhere there is a modification? That would probably double the word count of most clones, and make them unusable in practice. Or is it sufficient to say, "Chapters 3-6, 8, and 12 use portions of the original text."?
There’s a link in the OP a out this. It might not answer all your questions, but it covers some. Especially the adaptation section. Note you don’t have to license your new work under the CC unless you want to, but you still have to attribute the CC.

 

If I use CC BY 4.0 content in a product, can I then release that product under a different CC licence such as CC BY-SA or CC BY-NC?
Yes. The content you licensed from WotC would still be available direct from WotC under CC-BY, but whatever content you personally released under CC-BY-SA or CC-BY-NC (or CC-BY-NC-SA) could be used under that license. Exactly how it works for "combined" works I'm not sure, and from what I've been reading there are some questions even in the copyleft community as to whether the different kinds of licenses can play nicely with one another. But I think because CC-BY is less restrictive than any of the other licenses you've mentioned here, it should hold? Probably?

What exactly does "indicate if they made modifications to the licensed material" mean? The example given is, "This section is an excerpt of the original." Does one have to do that everywhere there is a modification? That would probably double the word count of most clones, and make them unusable in practice. Or is it sufficient to say, "Chapters 3-6, 8, and 12 use portions of the original text."?
This one, I have no idea. My suspicion is that it would suffice to have it included in the license portion, which must be included in every work licensed under the Creative Commons. But I don't know enough to answer and haven't seen anything specific on this front.
 

Alzrius

The EN World kitten
Does releasing the 5.1 SRD under CC-BY undermine the Open Gaming movement?
I hate to say it, but I fear that the answer is yes.

I foresee a balkanization coming, where products are released under the OGL, ORC, and CC, and it becomes harder for publishers to reuse each other's content, as products published under one license can't have their material (easily) reused under another.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top