WotC To Give Core D&D Mechanics To Community Via Creative Commons

Wizards of the Coast, in a move which surprised everbody, has announced that it will give away the core D&D mechanics to the community via a Creative Commons license.

This won't include 'quintessentially D&D" stuff like owlbears and magic missile, but it wil include the 'core D&D mechanics'.

So what does it include? It's important to note that it's only a fraction of what's currently available as Open Gaming Content under the existing Open Gaming License, so while it's termed as a 'give-away' it's actually a reduction. It doesn't include classes, spells, or magic items. It does include the combat rules, ability scores, and the core mechanic.

 

[mamba]

Along with literally every other monster, magic item, race, and class.

Yes, such D&D specific things like Elf, Dwarf, Gnome, Fighter, Druid, Cleric, Paladin, Goblin, Orc, Dragon, Troll, ... need I go on ?

 

[Yaarel]

Yes, such D&D specific things like Elf, Dwarf, Gnome, Fighter, Druid, Cleric, Paladin, Goblin, Orc, Dragon, Troll, ... need I go on ?

As a rule of thumb, if a term exists in a dictionary of the English language, it is laughable for Hasbro-WotC to claim to "own" it.

 

[mamba]

What is it you could have done with 1.0a before which you cannot do with this combination of CC and 1.2, other than hateful content, which you wanted to do with it?

computer games, VTTs that are not laughably outdated even today

 

[mamba]

The CC release is a smokescreen unless you are going to create your own D&D equivalent system.

That is not a smokescreen, that is literally why anything is being released under CC at all

 

[mamba]

As far as I know, the Pathfinder SRD isn't a product relying on WotC's SRD, it's a product that REPLACES WotC's SRD.

well, goes to show how little you know. PF would not exist without WotC's SRD and the OGL. That includes their SRD

 

[mamba]

This license is worse than the not-draft, IMO/.

not sure what you are reading then, this is so much better

 

[mamba]

Here's wotc telling us how we can and can't use something that is completely outside their control.

it's not outside their control, it is their license after all

Either you agree to the terms, or you cannot use OGL licensed content for your VTT and need a separate license from WotC (which you probably need anyway for all the stuff not covered under the OGL, but that is a separate issue)

I do not like this restriction, esp. in how limited it is. So in my feedback I will ask that in the OGL text (so it cannot be changed later), WotC agrees that the limitations imposed upon VTTs in their VTT policy are also applicable to their own VTT. Levels the playing field quite nicely

 

[mamba]

Regardless of whether this announcement is good or bad (your opinion may vary) the deauthorization of OGL 1.0 is still B.S. and WotC has already shown they don't operate in good faith. At this point, even if they walked everything back it would be too late for me.

if they kept 1.0a as is, would you then stay? Because I do not see how you can do that either then...

 

[mamba]

What they have defined as "Core Rules" is extremely limited and not exactly suitable to make a fully-functional game, as others have pointed out.

it is entirely suitable to make a complete functional game. It is not a complete functional game and is not suitable to make a D&D clone, but that is what the OGL is for

 

[mamba]

The classes are not part of the 1.2 OGL.

yes they are, they just are not in the part covered by CC

 

[mamba]

Stay away from the Hasbro-WotC CC license trap.

none of the public domain you listed is included in the 'trap'. Please also explain how CC-BY can work as a trap

 

[mamba]

One thing I'm still confused about is the stripped down 5E SRD only in that reduced state in the CC or also in the 1.2 OGL. Because if it's the same why would anyone agree to the OGL?

the reduced state is CC, everything else is OGL 1.2 only

 

[Yaarel]

none of the public domain you listed is included in the 'trap'. Please also explain how CC-BY can work as a trap

You already have access to everything in the SRD − the ideas and the rules − even without any OGL.

By signing on to a CC license, you would sign away all your rights to own your own Intellectual Property − without any gain in return.

What Hasbro-WotC is trying to pulll is a con.

It is like someone saying, you can use the Atlantic Ocean, as long as you agree to destroy your own business. It makes no sense.

For Hasbro-WotC to try a CC licensing of property that you already own anyway, is a trap.

 

[mamba]

Exactly.

“WotC would never use a morality clause to go after LGBTQ+ representation.”

Ahem. They already have.

Not really... "In a statement, the DMs Guild noted that the decision was made after Clegg was asked to change two pieces of interior art by Lluis Abadias that "crossed the line.""

We can argue whether they crossed a line (not to me), but saying that this is somehow against LGBTQ+ representation is taking it a 'little' too far. Pretty sure there was plenty of that left, even without a shirtless vampire

 

[Hex08]

if they kept 1.0a as is, would you then stay? Because I do not see how you can do that either then...

Well, that depends on what you mean by stay. I don't play 5E so what WotC does in regard to it doesn't matter to me so then no, my behavior won't change and I won't purchase WotC games because I don't currently. If WotC came out with something I thought was interesting in the future then I probably wouldn't buy it. However, I do play and purchase games based on OGL 1.0 from 3PP and if it stayed as is and the companies that create those games chose to continue publishing under it then yes, I would continue buying those games.

This isn't just about Hasbro/WotC, other 3PP are also affected and they would keep my business if the OGL did or didn't change. However, this will prevent me from buying any future games from WotC.

 

[ECMO3]

As a rule of thumb, if a term exists in a dictionary of the English language, it is laughable for Hasbro-WotC to claim to "own" it.

They do not own the words but they claim to own the representation of it in terms of content (fighter with d10 hps, Elf with Trance).

This new OGL is bad. It is nothing like 1.0a. Put the entire SRD into creative commons and then we will be talking.

 

[Scribe]

yes they are, they just are not in the part covered by CC

Yes, you are right, I misspoke.

 

[mamba]

It seems like the guys at Paizo are as confused as us:

that was explained in another thread, there was a typo in the OGC version of the demon, so now every OGL product needs to have the typo or otherwise violates WotC's copyright. Ridiculous but apparently true

 

[mamba]

How?

well, technically it forces them to have a license other than the OGL, but chances are they need that anyway

They put restrictions on just how 'good' a VTT using the OGL stuff can be

"Using VTTs to replicate the experience of sitting around the table playing D&D with your friends. So displaying static SRD content is just fine because it’s just like looking in a sourcebook. [...] What isn’t permitted are features that don’t replicate your dining room table storytelling. If you replace your imagination with an animation of the Magic Missile streaking across the board to strike your target [...] that’s not the tabletop experience. That’s more like a video game."

 

[Yaarel]

They do not own the words but they claim to own the representation of it in terms of content (fighter with d10 hps, Elf with Trance).

This new OGL is bad. It is nothing like 1.0a. Put the entire SRD into creative commons and then we will be talking.

There are things relating to protecting Product Identity that the CC cannot do.

The license must be OGL 1.0a or the new ORC whose authorship is aware of the Product Identity issue.