OK, so what does a D&D creator do now?

[darjr]

If I want to make D&D content do I use the OGL? What if I want to use open content that is from outside the SRD 5.1? Should be available, yes?

What if I want to use the CC license? Can I pull in open content released under the OGL from outside of the SRD 5.1?

 

[Maxperson]

If I want to make D&D content do I use the OGL? What if I want to use open content that is from outside the SRD 5.1? Should be available, yes?

What if I want to use the CC license? Can I pull in open content released under the OGL from outside of the SRD 5.1?

All of the content released via OGL 1.0a has a license allowing anyone to use it at the front of the product.

 

[darjr]

All of the content released via OGL 1.0a has a license allowing anyone to use it at the front of the product.

Yea but can I use that with the cc srd 5.1 content? Would I want to?

 

[TerraDave]

Owlbear is owlbear. In practice there is a huge overlap in the material you would actually use across all the SRDs. Unless you want to copy chunks of other OGL games, it’s probably easier to just do it under the 5.1 cc srd.

 

[Maxperson]

Yea but can I use that with the cc srd 5.1 content? Would I want to?

I don't know if you'd want to, but if you can use them both and neither one says you can't use anything else, then you can mix them. You'd just need to put all of the proper notices at the front.

 

[mellored]

Best as I can tell.

Just use the CC SRD.

 

[Parmandur]

If I want to make D&D content do I use the OGL? What if I want to use open content that is from outside the SRD 5.1? Should be available, yes?

What if I want to use the CC license? Can I pull in open content released under the OGL from outside of the SRD 5.1?

I think in order to use anything that is OGC, you need to use the OGL to keep the chain going: it's material released under the OGL, not CC. Someone wanting to make a 5E clone or Adventure can use CC without referencing anything outside of the SRD, which I'm sure plenty will.

Importantly, using the OGL now is safer than it was for the past 20 years, because of the CC release: WotC lacks the ability to benefit anymore by messing with the OGL due tot he CC drop, so the safe haven is even safer.

 

[darjr]

@Parmandur I didn’t even think if that

 

[Parmandur]

@darjr repost of my thoughts on the situation from another thread, but basically building s business sround OGL is now rock solid, because Hasbro has nothing to gain:

So, the thing to take away from all this is that there are factions within Hasbro/WotC, which we can probably theoretically generalize as Pro-Open Gaming (OG), Anti-OG, and OG-Neutral. The Anti-OG faction just made their bid, probavly with the OG-Neutral nodding their heads that the restrictions seemed reasonable (we saw this play out out here I'm the Fandom, even). The Anti-OG crowed internally laot so hard that the OG-Neutral appear to have gone over entirely to the Pro-OG side.

If you game out the situation now is that...WotC or Hasbro can never again build an internal business case for going against the OGL, ever, under any administration. The three main sticking points listed in the survey were probably the real reasons that the internal Anti-OG team were using: NFTs and such, objectionable content getting too close to the Brand, and Pathfinder 5E rising. Now, those fears can never be avoided by any action. You can go mint Nazi D&D Erotic NFTs under Crestive Commons in perpetuity, and anyone can make Pathfinder 5E under Creative Commons (Raise the Black Flag, C7d20? They can be CC, forever). There is no business incentive to ever change the OGL, because it will always have to compete with the Crearive Commons. This is total victory for the OGL ecosystem, it removed any business interest to rock the boat.

What I suspect we will see next? A new d20 STL, with access to the Beyond marketplace. Gives then their trademark brand controls.
Well, it further incentivizes them to make OneD&D the actual 5E Pathfinder: the light update that incorporates popular changes without invalidating older material. So that nobody can compete on that score.

Their real money was always going to be merchandising and services like Beyond. Doubt that will change now that the grownups won.

 

[Enrahim2]

I think using OGL1.0a is likely going to be quite fine, and still by far the most convinient way of releasing material for D&D going forward. There are a couple of new considerations to make though:

1) Ideological. There is likely to be a period of tension between ORC and OGL as competing licenses. If ORC is good think the community as a whole will be better of if ORC come out as the dominating license. (One could even dream that eventually wizards might then consider releasing something under ORC to gain more benefit from that community). Each new OGL release is affecting this balance.

2) The landscape might change. OGL1.0a is quite safe for now, because wizards do not have any reason to do anything about it. But this might change. If someone make an OGL product that turn so successfull that it threatens any of wizards products, or if someone abuses OGL (again) to make something wizards really dont want to be associated with, that could again bring the calculus into the danger zone. I find this unlikely, but if you are planning significant investments this might still not be a risk worthwhile to take. Pivoting to CC later might be an option, but not a convinient and possibly costy one.