Monty of Dungeon Dudes infuriated at publishers writing own licenses instead of CC – WOTC most permissive

[SlyFlourish]

Monty Martin of Dungeon Dundes:

"Whether or not we do conversions for other systems depends on a lot of variables. Audience size, cost, but also licensing are all issues. I am not enthusiastic about working under viral licenses (such as the ORC) or licenses which are subject to possible changes or revocation. I find it especially galling that after the OGL issue, it turns out Wizards is suddenly the most permissive by releasing their system under Creative Commons. It's absolutely infuriating to me that other publishers are still trying to write their own licenses instead of using the Creative Commons."

 

[overgeeked]

I get it. But it's their IP to control how they want.

I agree it is absolutely wild that WotC is now (one of) the most permissive. But then they can afford to be.

 

[Morrus]

I agree it is absolutely wild that WotC is now the most permissive.

Not the most permissive. We use CC too, but also two other licenses, and have made much more content available. Maybe even an order of magnitude more (I haven’t done a word count).

 

[SlyFlourish]

I get it. But it's their IP to control how they want.

I agree it is absolutely wild that WotC is now the most permissive. But then they can afford to be.

WOTC isn't the only one to release their material in the CC. Evil Hat, EN World Publishing, Jonathan Harper, Shawn Tompkin – lots of publishers, big and small, use the Creative Commons. This isn't a matter of who can afford it and who can't. I don't think there's any evidence that publishers who put their core game material in the CC took a huge business loss by doing so.

I've had this conversation a lot over the past week or so as other creators discussed the Darrington Press license for Daggerheart so I'm going to summarize some important points that keep coming up:

1. No one owes you a gaming license of any kind, CC or not. That doesn't mean we can't be critical of the licenses publishers do put out – or when they choose not to.

2. All of these new bespoke licenses require small publishers to figure them out and decide whether to publish with them. I don't need to figure out the CC – I've used it for 20 years and it's well tested and well used for those 20 years. Some of these new licenses seem fine but I don't know for sure because I'm not a lawyer and they haven't actually been tested.

3. Some publishers are happy to use someone else's CC license but then lock their own material behind more restrictive licenses. That seems hypocritical to me.

4. A publisher doesn't have to release all their material under a CC. Each publisher can choose what they want to release and what to hold back. For me, I'd like to have enough material released that I feel comfortable making my own compatible material off of their base system. I have no expectation that a publisher would release their core world IP in the CC – core mechanics are often enough for me.

 

[overgeeked]

WOTC isn't the only one to release their material in the CC. Evil Hat, EN World Publishing, Jonathan Harper, Shawn Tompkin – lots of publishers, big and small, use the Creative Commons. This isn't a matter of who can afford it and who can't. I don't think there's any evidence that publishers who put their core game material in the CC took a huge business loss by doing so.

I've had this conversation a lot over the past week or so as other creators discussed the Darrington Press license for Daggerheart so I'm going to summarize some important points that keep coming up:

1. No one owes you a gaming license of any kind, CC or not. That doesn't mean we can't be critical of the licenses publishers do put out – or when they choose not to.

2. All of these new bespoke licenses require small publishers to figure them out and decide whether to publish with them. I don't need to figure out the CC – I've used it for 20 years and it's well tested and well used for those 20 years. Some of these new licenses seem fine but I don't know for sure because I'm not a lawyer and they haven't actually been tested.

3. Some publishers are happy to use someone else's CC license but then lock their own material behind more restrictive licenses. That seems hypocritical to me.

4. A publisher doesn't have to release all their material under a CC. Each publisher can choose what they want to release and what to hold back. For me, I'd like to have enough material released that I feel comfortable making my own compatible material off of their base system. I have no expectation that a publisher would release their core world IP in the CC – core mechanics are often enough for me.

Maybe edit some of that in to the original post. That context is relevant.

 

[SlyFlourish]

Maybe edit some of that in to the original post. That context is relevant.

I wanted his quote to stand on its own. The rest is just like my opinion man.

 

[Morrus]

I don't think there's any evidence that publishers who put their core game material in the CC took a huge business loss by doing so.

Speaking for ourselves there’s no evidence we can see that we’ve taken one iota of loss, and plenty (albeit anecdotal) that we have gained from releasing it out there.

 

[SlyFlourish]

Speaking for ourselves there’s no evidence we can see that we’ve taken one iota of loss, and plenty (albeit anecdotal) that we have gained from releasing it out there.

Speaking as a GM, I am far more likely to invest my time, money, energy, and creative pursuits around a system that has a license I know I can trust and trust to be around as long as I want it. I've used the hell out of A5E, bought quite a bit of A5e stuff, as have my players. And I've promoted it a ton on my show. It helps that it's also really good.

 

[Morrus]

Speaking as a GM, I am far more likely to invest my time, money, energy, and creative pursuits around a system that has a license I know I can trust and trust to be around as long as I want it. I've used the hell out of A5E, bought quite a bit of A5e stuff, as have my players. And I've promoted it a ton on my show. It helps that it's also really good.

For us I think we benefit in three ways from open licenses: (1) our game becomes a robustly supported game even beyond the robust support we ourselves give it; (2) people can access our game easily in a whole ton of different ways, making it easier for folks to find players; and (3) having a diverse creator community gives us a direct line to freelance designers who we need in order to continue to make our own products.

(And thanks for the kind words).

 

[TiQuinn]

I hate call outs that aren’t call outs. You’re talking about Darrington Press, right?