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.

 

[Weiley31]

Is the Survey up?

 

[MoonSong]

Is the Survey up?

yes

 

[mamba]

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."

you are not obligated to publish your content under that license, it is not ‘viral’. This is now the fourth time or so I am telling you this. Maybe look into it at least once before being continuously wrong

CC-BY is not CC-BY-SA. Guess what they SA stands for…

 

[mamba]

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.

no they would not, you keep proving that you have no idea what you are talking about with every post you make

 

[Weiley31]

Alright everyone: make sure you express your feelings/thoughts in a concise matter. And probably not in extreme Karen mode so that way, they just don't ignore/ramble past it.

 

[mamba]

It's less about if they own elves, clerics and dwarves, and more about the wording and creative choices behind their iteration of these things. Sure you can just recreate a virtually equal elf, but it's easier to build a network of collaborative works around it if you have all the basics spelled out, and you can safely reference stuff like detect magic, turn undead and fey ancestry by name. The ideal scenario would be all the SRDs in CC-BY from first to last page. The CC-BY stuff is clearly a peace offering, but a document without classes, races or a single statblock is almost like a mockery.

of course, but then you need the OGL, you can hardly complain that they do not put everything under the CC license

 

[mamba]

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.

yes, now we are getting somewhere.

They are giving you mechanics, take them or leave them. If you create your own setting around them, then there is nothing you have to put under CC-BY.

If you modify them, then you have to make them available. Depending on what you do (e.g. adjust XP needed for each level), that is at best a minor inconvenience.
If you create huge and elaborate mechanics (not likely), then do not start from their base, create your own. Chances are their base does not help with that anyway. Problem solved.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

I was formal, wrote clearly and made my opinions known.

In the last comment I said "I do not think that this move will give you the results you are looking for. If not, D&D has survived one company losing profits because it did know what gamers wanted. People played the older edition until a new company came in that truly understood gamers and made a game people wanted. If need be we can do that again"
I was much more eloquent in the actual survey.

 

[Xyxox]

yes

I voted high understanding and low satisfaction on everything and mentioned OGL 1.0a in ever text response. Since they will use analytical software to read the results, the more OGL 1.0a is mentioned in responses with low satisfaction and high understanding, the worse the survey will look for them, at least internally. Externally they will always put the best face on it possible.

 

[mamba]

The supposed need to revoke OGL 1.0a by WOTC for fear of being associated with hateful material may be a smokescreen. Questions for any lawyers out there (I’m not one) : Couldn’t a racist parody or satire of the game be created at any time in the US? Maybe someone could take WOTC’s public missteps in that area and super exaggerate it?

putting the mechanics under CC does not prevent this either though, at most it encourages it, as you do not need their races and classes, etc. anyway. So not sure how much of a concern this really is.

You cannot prevent this no matter what you put in your OGL and it rarely happens no matter what is in it

 

[mamba]

Except they make it revocable in Section 9 (b).

1.0a is just as irrevocable as 1.2. Neither one spells out the relevant revocation (the one of WotC no longer offering the license)

Arguably it is more revocable, because in 2000 distinguishing irrevocable from perpetual was not practice yet and perpetual commonly meant both (if the license is perpetual, how can it be revocable…)

 

[Xyxox]

putting the mechanics under CC does not prevent this either though, at most it encourages it, as you do mot need their races and classes, etc. anyway. So not sure how much of a concern this really is.

You cannot prevent this no matter what you put in your OGL and it rarely happens no matter what is in it

Not to mention the market itself squashes any potential profit motivation which limits the spread of the content.

Keep in mind, any group attempting to do this is only doing it to gain notoriety and media spreading the news that it did this.

 

[mamba]

I don't see how it is possible for Kobold Press to do that under what is proposed.To get everything in the 5E rules, they must agree to the new OGL.

They do not need to clone 5e. What they ‘need’ might very well all be in the CC part. Arguably they need nothing at all and can just describe it in their own words instead.

 

[mamba]

SRD 5.1 will not end up under the Creative Commons in total. Only part of it will, and likely that will be very small, though we do not yet know the extent of it.

we know, all the rules, the monster description (ie what every stat is) and the conditions (poisoned, etc)

 

[Xyxox]

They do not need to clone 5e. What they ‘need’ might very well all be in the CC part. Arguably they need nothing at all and can just describe it in their own words instead.

I think they would be better off than getting mixed up in the mess that is the Creative Commons. CC was never designed for use with TTRPGs and as such should not be used, IMO. Great for documentation about open source software and some other uses, but lousy for this sort of content in my humble opinion.

 

[mamba]

I think they would be better off than getting mixed up in the mess that is the Creative Commons. CC was never designed for use with TTRPGs and as such should not be used, IMO. Great for documentation about open source software and some other uses, but lousy for this sort of content in my humble opinion.

It’s probably more important to separate what is yours from what is derived / original than before, but should be manageable.

If Kobold though they could pull this off before, this only makes it easier

 

[Xyxox]

Just because it's fun

 

[MonsterEnvy]

To repeat:
It's too late to turn back. On to what's next!
View attachment 273178

You do know this does not prevent turning back. There is no exclusivity clause.

 

[Voadam]

Is the Survey up?

Here is the direct link to the survey.

 

[Yaarel]

no they would not, you keep proving that you have no idea what you are talking about with every post you make

Based on your posts, it seems either you dont understand what I am saying, or you dont understand what the CC license is saying.

Try paraphrase in your own words what you think I am saying. I can see if you are catching my point.