D&D General New OGL survey


log in or register to remove this ad


dave2008

Legend
From the 2nd paragraph:

"
  1. We're giving the core D&D mechanics to the community through a Creative Commons license, which means that they are fully in your hands.
  2. If you want to use quintessentially D&D content from the SRD such as owlbears and magic missile, OGL 1.2 will provide you a perpetual, irrevocable license to do so."
 

teitan

Legend
From the 2nd paragraph:

"
  1. We're giving the core D&D mechanics to the community through a Creative Commons license, which means that they are fully in your hands.
  2. If you want to use quintessentially D&D content from the SRD such as owlbears and magic missile, OGL 1.2 will provide you a perpetual, irrevocable license to do so."
Yeah this thing is a major walk back and almost like 1.0a being deauthorized is a non issue, especially with irrevocable.
 



Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
Yeah this thing is a major walk back and almost like 1.0a being deauthorized is a non issue, especially with irrevocable.
It's technically, in my opinion, BETTER than 1.0a being left alone. Because 1.0a didn't come with the irrevocable clause, and wider industry established practices, of the creative commons license. Creative Commons is an overall license which is better written and more cleanly enforceable than 1.0a.
 

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
There is a already a length thread on it here: WotC Posts OGL Draft

That being said, I still don't like deauthorizing the OGL and I don't buy their justification for doing so. However, this is better than we thought / what was leaked.
You can use 1.0a for existing products, and Creative Commons (which is better than 1.0a) for new products. Why would you want to use 1.0a for new products since it doesn't have the cleanly irrevocable language of the Creative Commons?
 


dave2008

Legend
You can use 1.0a for existing products, and Creative Commons (which is better than 1.0a) for new products. Why would you want to use 1.0a for new products since it doesn't have the cleanly irrevocable language of the Creative Commons?
You are correct. I posted that before I read the actual draft (just Keith's description). The one issue is Product Identity. I don't believe CC allows any Product Identity. That being said, I have very few (and correctable) issues with the OGL 1.2.
 

Nikosandros

Golden Procrastinator
You can use 1.0a for existing products, and Creative Commons (which is better than 1.0a) for new products. Why would you want to use 1.0a for new products since it doesn't have the cleanly irrevocable language of the Creative Commons?
Because the rules released under CC are actually quite few. Just the basic mechanics.
 


Clint_L

Hero
I'm waiting for the lawyers and 3PP providers who use the OGL to tell me what to think, lol. I mean, what I'm seeing looks like it addresses most or all of the big concerns, but I am probably totally wrong about that.
 


Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
Because the rules released under CC are actually quite few. Just the basic mechanics.
IE you want to use WOTC IP, for free, and are angry they won't give it to you without signing a license which...says you can have it for free, and is actually irrevocable and not changeable, for...reasons?

What is it you cannot do with the new license or the CC license which you could do under 1.0a, other than hateful content?
 

I'm waiting for the lawyers and 3PP providers who use the OGL to tell me what to think, lol. I mean, what I'm seeing looks like it addresses most or all of the big concerns, but I am probably totally wrong about that.
It does actually address some of the concerns, and I hope my strident criticism up to this point underscores just how significant that statement is. I had fully expected this to be an outright slap in the face, and they seem to have given a genuine offer.

The two things I know of (there may be more) that are still at issue are: (a) giving WotC unlimited and perpetual sole discretion to pull the plug on ANY content that is "harmful" or "obscene" or "harassing" etc (all super wishy-washy, vague terms that they get to define) while explicitly forbidden the licensee to EVER attempt to appeal or overturn such claims, and (b) making it seem as though the license is exclusively between WotC and each individual creator--that is, if Publisher A puts out a work containing new open game content, the current terms seem to forbid Publisher B from creating a new work that builds on the open game content of Publisher A. That's not great and I'd like that to be explicitly permitted--that's what creates a true open gaming space, sharing underlying core ideas while protecting individual expression.

IE you want to use WOTC IP, for free, and are angry they won't give it to you without signing a license which...says you can have it for free, and is actually irrevocable and not changeable, for...reasons?

What is it you cannot do with the new license or the CC license which you could do under 1.0a, other than hateful content?
Well, for my part?

Dragonborn. I like dragonborn. I would like for people to be able to include them in future work without getting sued into oblivion by WotC (even if that would almost certainly be a winnable case.) Dragonborn are extremely popular, but stripped of their Arkhosia-specific flavoring (which was 4e-only anyway), they're really quite basic.

So, what I'd like to see added to the CC content is the following, which is probably exhaustive, but I haven't slept in 20 hours, so I might be neglecting something super important:
Baseline PHB classes (particularly since the rules for multiclassing ARE in the CC stuff...but classes aren't somehow??)
The mechanics for subclasses
Baseline PHB races (human, elf, dwarf, halfling, half-elf, half-orc, dragonborn, etc.)
Barebones magic item rules with one or two limited examples (e.g. +1 Weapon, +1 Armor)
Backgrounds, with one or two limited examples

That's about it. If those things were all CC, I might actually be happy (once the above issues are addressed.)
 

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
Dragonborn. I like dragonborn. I would like for people to be able to include them in future work without getting sued into oblivion by WotC (even if that would almost certainly be a winnable case.) Dragonborn are extremely popular, but stripped of their Arkhosia-specific flavoring (which was 4e-only anyway), they're really quite basic.

So, what I'd like to see added to the CC content is the following, which is probably exhaustive, but I haven't slept in 20 hours, so I might be neglecting something super important:
Baseline PHB classes (particularly since the rules for multiclassing ARE in the CC stuff...but classes aren't somehow??)
The mechanics for subclasses
Baseline PHB races (human, elf, dwarf, halfling, half-elf, half-orc, dragonborn, etc.)
Barebones magic item rules with one or two limited examples (e.g. +1 Weapon, +1 Armor)
Backgrounds, with one or two limited examples

That's about it. If those things were all CC, I might actually be happy (once the above issues are addressed.)
Were all those things listed as open Product Identity in the old license but are not listed as open Product Identity in the new license? Because I don't recall the Arkosia-specific flavoring as being released as open content Product Identity before. Which would mean it's the same as 1.0a. But I can't say I follow too closely exactly what was lumped into open product identity before. It being 4e-specific, and 4e not having an SRD open Product Identity listing for 1.0a, it sure seems unlikely that's something you could do before but not now.
 

Were all those things listed as open Product Identity in the old license but are not listed as open Product Identity in the new license? Because I don't recall the Arkosia-specific flavoring as being released as open content Product Identity before. Which would mean it's the same as 1.0a. But I can't say I follow too closely exactly what was lumped into open product identity before. It being 4e-specific, and 4e not having an SRD open Product Identity listing for 1.0a, it sure seems unlikely that's something you could do before but not now.
Yes, I recognize the Arkhosia stuff isn't open...I explicitly said so.

I'm JUST talking dragonborn. Dragon-people with +Cha, +Str (if +stats are even relevant anymore), a dragon breath, and maybe some other stuff too. The term "dragonborn." Nothing else. No cultural data, no history, none of their depictions (though permission to make your own, as is the case with the owlbear--you cannot copy WotC's images, but you can draw your own owlbear images if you wish.) JUST the dragonborn itself.

Likewise, JUST "there is a class called 'Fighter,' which is really good at fighting. There is a class called 'sorcerer,' which gets power from a blood connection to magic. [etc., etc.]" I don't need nor want ANY of the specific details. JUST the super duper ultra basic terms and framework.

Edit: Also, you seem to have a confusion here. Something could be licensed under 1.0a (which dragonborn are, via the 5e SRD) but NOT licensed under the new CC stuff. Which dragonborn would not be. I want dragonborn to be CC. I want sorcerer and paladin and druid to be CC. Most of those things already are out of WotC's control anyway--Blizzard has had shapeshifting druids and holy-warrior paladins for literally decades at this point. Making those ultra-fundamental ideas (again, ZERO cultural, nominative, etc. content)

I genuinely do not believe that such basic rules for something like "dragonborn" (again, EXCLUSIVELY "this is a dragon-person with good Str/Cha who has a dragon breath and maybe a couple other physical features" and likewise for other PHB races/species) are so horrifically precious to D&D that they would be harmed by making such things CC.
 
Last edited:

Incenjucar

Legend
Draconic humanoids with breath weapons are safe to use and far predate dragonborn. You might have an issue if you make them specifically very beefy with tendril dreadlocks, but that's probably fine too.
 

Oofta

Legend
It does actually address some of the concerns, and I hope my strident criticism up to this point underscores just how significant that statement is. I had fully expected this to be an outright slap in the face, and they seem to have given a genuine offer.

The two things I know of (there may be more) that are still at issue are: (a) giving WotC unlimited and perpetual sole discretion to pull the plug on ANY content that is "harmful" or "obscene" or "harassing" etc (all super wishy-washy, vague terms that they get to define) while explicitly forbidden the licensee to EVER attempt to appeal or overturn such claims, and (b) making it seem as though the license is exclusively between WotC and each individual creator--that is, if Publisher A puts out a work containing new open game content, the current terms seem to forbid Publisher B from creating a new work that builds on the open game content of Publisher A. That's not great and I'd like that to be explicitly permitted--that's what creates a true open gaming space, sharing underlying core ideas while protecting individual expression.
Since IANAL, I can't comment on the specifics of the legality of any of this, concerning the bolded ...

Isn't this better in many ways for content providers? If someone wants to give away all their stuff, great. But if I put out Bob's Bean Booms with a list of spells with a theme of exploding beans, no one can copy it without my permission. I don't see this as a bad thing since I would assume (again IANAL) I can always grant rights to anyone who wants to copy just by saying so.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top