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]

Sounds like a lot of what's staying out of the CC is the stuff WotC invests playtesting dollars into. If you want to make balanced classes and spells for your own CC-derived work, you will have to invest in your own playtesting.

or use the OGL, which is your only option today since nothing is covered by CC

 

[mamba]

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 are not claiming it though...

 

[Yaarel]

they are not claiming it though...

Hasbro-WotC is trying to prevent the gaming community from having access to "classes" like "Wizard" and "Fighter".

The gaming community absolutely can have and use these names and concepts in a roleplay game.

It would be stupid to sign away ones right to use these public domain English language terms and concepts.

 

[mamba]

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

yes

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.

no, you sign away nothing, read the CC-BY sometime

 

[mamba]

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.

ha, so yes, none of this applies to you outside of what material is being made available by others than WotC, so you have no way of staying (with WotC). Yes, that question does not apply to you then

 

[mamba]

Hasbro-WotC is trying to prevent the gaming community from having access to "classes" like "Wizard" and "Fighter".

nonsense. They are not including their version of them in the CC part, that is all

The gaming community absolutely can have and use these names and concepts in a roleplay game.

No one disputes that, including WotC

It would be stupid to sign away ones right to use these public domain English language terms and concepts.

No one is asking you to

 

[Yaarel]

no, you sign away nothing, read the CC-BY sometime

Of course, I read it.

But Hasbro-WotC is using the CC-BY in a deceptive way.

They intend to only give the parts of the SRD that they have zero ownership of anyway, especially the game rules.

There is no gift from Hasbro-WotC. Since you can already use the game rules without the CC-BY, anyway.

Then suppose you make the mistake of using the CC-BY. Any product that uses this license becomes Open. Meaning, you know longer have Product Identity that you can own.

Hasbro-WotC would never use a CC license because it would mean losing control of Intellectual Property.

Hasbro-WotC is carefully only putting content into the CC that is beyond their control anyway: namely, the game rules.

Hasbro-WotC is doing a con.

 

[mamba]

Of course, I read it.

good, then explain how it is a trap again... because what you said ("you would sign away all your rights to own your own Intellectual Property") is patently false.

But Hasbro-WotC is using the CC-BY in a deceptive way.

They intend to only give the parts of the SRD that they have zero ownership of anyway, especially the game rules.

There is no gift from Hasbro-WotC. Since you can already use the game rules without the CC-BY, anyway.

you get the right to use their language, which is not nothing. If you do not care for that then don't use it. Not sure what the issue is here

Then if you make the mistake of using the CC-BY any product that uses this license becomes Open. Meaning, you know longer have Product Identity that you can own.

you sign away nothing, read the license again then

I'll make it easy for you

Creative Commons — Attribution 4.0 International — CC BY 4.0

"Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially."

" You must give appropriate credit", "You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits."

where are you signing anything away?

 

[Hex08]

ha, so yes, none of this applies to you outside of what material is being made available by others than WotC, so you have no way of staying (with WotC). Yes, that question does not apply to you then

Nope. If Hasbro/WotC had acted in good faith I would have purchased other products from them if they published them and if they interested me. Therefore, I would have had a way of staying but since they haven't acted in good faith I won't.

I'm not really sure what your point here is. WotC has had a long history, through the OGL, of supporting 3PP and the the TTRPG industry as a whole and everything they have done recently shows they have every intention of walking back that support.

 

[Yaarel]

good, then explain how it is a trap again... because what you said ("you would sign away all your rights to own your own Intellectual Property") is patently false.

Anyone can use Open content. That is what open means. Anyone who uses the CC license is required to make the derivatives Open. The CC lacks protected Product Identity that partially derives from open content.

you get the right to use their language, which is not nothing.

I am confident, Hasbro-WotC will calculate the content for the CC to be worthless. Everything Hasbro-WotC has done and continues to do is in bad faith.

If you do not care for that then don't use it. Not sure what the issue is here

Hasbro-WotC uses this deceptive "CC" tactic, like using the "morality clause" deceptively, as a disguise to try assassinate the OGL 1.0a.

you sign away nothing, read the license again then

By using a CC "open license", you sign away your right to keep your creative content closed.

 

[ThrorII]

I kind of feel it has to.

Question: Would it be possible/acceptable to Wizards to withdraw the 5.1 SRD from 1.0 OGL as a 'half deauthorization' ?

I feel that for most of the OSR community, that would be acceptable. Create a 1.0(b) OGL that is stated as "irrevocable" "perpetual" and whatever other language deemed necessary, and covers the 3.5 SRD only, or just excludes the 5.1 SRD.

Would everyone be happy? No. Some want in on the 5e gravy train. Would it protect all the OSR publishers, and Paizo? Yes.

 

[mamba]

Anyone can use Open content. That is what open means. Anyone who uses the CC license is required to make the derivatives Open. The CC lacks protected Product Identity.

this is simply not true, no matter how often you repeat it

By using a CC "open license", you sign away your right to keep your creative content closed.

nonsense, clearly you never read the license. There are plenty of CC licenses and some do, but CC-BY does not for example, which is the one used here (CC-BY-SA would however). I even copied the text / summary, and yet you repeat this

 

[doctorbadwolf]

You could do it without the OGL before, but to be safe you would have needed the services of a good IP lawyer to make sure you're not accidentally infringing, or to try to defend you in court if WotC felt otherwise and took action. The OGL was a set of clearly spelled out guidelines that you let you make content without having to ask a lawyer if you were clear of any copyright infringement.

I can’t tell if you are intending to correct me, or agree with me, because that is basically what I was saying.

The value of the OGL is in large part not having to worry about copyright ambiguity and a future litigious IP-holder.

The rest of the value is that it created a big tent, and a lingua franca, and thus a thriving ecosystem of games, but allowing you to use things that you probably would lose in court over, like the exactly reproduced text of the section on Spellcasting, or the literal fighter class as expressed in the SRD. No hoops.

 

[Yaarel]

this is simply not true, no matter how often you repeat it

nonsense, clearly you never read the license. There are plenty of CC licenses and some do, but CC-BY does not for example, which is the one used here (CC-BY-SA would however). I even copied the text / summary, and yet you repeat this

With the CC license, you can monetize your derivative modifications. But you cant prevent competitors from also monetizing you modifications.

The CC license lacks a mechanism to "close" content.

As you yourself quote:

"YOU MAY NOT ... RESTRICT OTHERS from doing anything the license permits."

There is no protected closed content in a CC license. There is no "Product Identity" that can derive from modification of open content from a CC license.

 

[Yaarel]

The significance is, any gaming product that one would create using CC content from Hasbro-WotC, would lose the protection of being closed Property Identity.

 

[CleverNickName]

Creative Commons 3.0 is the license I used to publish my blogs on Blogspot, back in the day. It had a few rules I had to follow, but nothing worth fighting about. This one that Wizards of the Coast mentions, the Creative Commons 4.0 license, is even less strict than a blog: it allows you to use it commercially and create derivative works, for example.

I think you guys are hitting the panic button a little too eagerly.

 

[Yaarel]

it allows you to use it commercially and create derivative works, for example.

The CC 4.0 allows you modify open content and sell your modification.

However, the CC 4.0 forbids you to prevent others from modifying and selling your content that you modified.

By contrast.

The OGL 1.0a allows you to modify open content and sell your modification.

But it also allows you to declare your own modification to be a "Product Identity" that others cannot modify or sell without your permission.

This Product Identity is vital.

 

[Scribe]

I feel that for most of the OSR community, that would be acceptable. Create a 1.0(b) OGL that is stated as "irrevocable" "perpetual" and whatever other language deemed necessary, and covers the 3.5 SRD only, or just excludes the 5.1 SRD.

Would everyone be happy? No. Some want in on the 5e gravy train. Would it protect all the OSR publishers, and Paizo? Yes.

Honestly, this is the line for me if they refuse to budge off of 5e.

 

[Ghal Maraz]

I'm guessing the community will still need the ORC, whatever it happens with OGL. The "morale clause" is too much of a risk. And I still find it not necessary, as almost all of the (very few) RPG discutibile products out there weren't ever made with the OGL.

 

[treps]

Open Game Content (OGC) is not even a notion defined or existing in the licence... 23 years of OGC are now not even usable in new publication under this licence...