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.

 

[Yaarel]

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

In a "modification", there is a blending of the open source content and your own creative effort.

It cant be separated out.

 

[Yaarel]

They can't own "gnome". They have a much better chance of owning "rock gnome that is highly intelligent, fairly resilient, have a life span of centuries, can see in darkness, is resistant to mental magic, knowledgeable about artifice, and is good at building clockwork devices"

Your point that the more distinctive a modification is, the more copyright protectable it becomes, is correct, of course.

I just want to look more closely at the public domain concept of a "gnome".

The term is an umbrella for multiple different cultural traditions.

"Rock gnome". The person who invented the word "gnomus", Paracelsus in the 1500s, used it as a name for an "earth" "elemental", a personality of the rock itself. So, a "rock gnome" is a tautology and public domain.

Afterward, many cultures used this Neo-Latin term "gnomus" whenever translating their own local traditions about "land spirits" and "sprites" into Latin as the language of scholars. So, "gnome" came mean many very different things, depending on context.

"Highly intelligent". Some traditions, such as leprechaun, portray the land being as a clever trickster. One also sees the connotation of intelligence in the popculture phrase of the "gnomes of Zurich", referring to international bankers and similar.

"Fairly resilient". Tough as a rock − as an earth elemental is.

"Life span of centuries". Many (most?) of these creatures of reallife folklore beings are immortal, such as capable of being injured but as a spirit incapable of dying, or other characterizations of immortality. The idea is, they exist as long as the rock or land exists. A long life span is public domain.

"Can see in darkness". In 1712, a definition of "gnome" is, "a dwarf-like earth-dwelling spirit". As a creature of the underground that lacks lanterns or torches, it is understood that gnomes can see in the dark, in some sense.

"Is resistant to mental magic". At the moment, I cant think of a reallife public domain tradition that refers to a gnome having mental resilience. But at the same time, for the same reason, mental resistance doesnt feel especially "gnomish" to me. If mental magic is what makes this gnome distinctive, it might make more sense to call it a "psionic gnome" rather than a "rock gnome". Then again, the Norwegian and Swedish gnome (nisse, tomte, etcetera) is psionic, being a "mindful" presence and influence.

"Knowledgeable about artifice". British gnomes, such as brownie, are industrious and make things, including shoe makers.

"Building clockwork devices". Gnomes can relate to mills that grind grain, and later machinery. Specifically a clock maker would be an example of such mechanical artifice.

Note, the popculture "garden gnome" appearance orginates as a Dutch tradition.



As you can see, the D&D gnome concept is a fairly straightforward import of public domain concepts about the "gnome".

In the case of the "gnome", it is easy to write up your own description of a gnome without any copyright issue. You might tweak it for good measure, such as highlighting its "earth elemental" traits or that it is a "faerie spirit" depending on which reallife tradition one leans into, or make it radically unique as your own recognizable modification. But pretty much any version of a D&D gnome that you reinvent is going to be safe.

 

[mamba]

In a "modification", there is a blending of the open source content and your own creative effort.

It cant be separated out.

Sure it can, there are pages, chapters, topics.

I agree that if e.g. you change the combat attack rules you will have to make your changes available because they are mixed in or derivative, but if you e.g. create your own races / classes / travel rules / ... then you can keep them completely as they are not derivative

If you are so worried that you even want to keep the parts you are changing, then start fresh, no one is stopping you.

 

[sigfried]

It looks like the lawyers took extra care to separate what parts of the SRD would make them lose a court case against the "you can't copyright game mechanics" and they just closed the rest of the SRD.

Yep. Mind you; I'm happy with that because it signals they are not going to go after people who are just using the mechanics themselves (folks like Evil Genius Games, who I write for). For us, that's a great signal that we won't have trouble from WOTC.

For the wider D&D community, it's still only a weak half-measure and still a huge step backward from the commitment WOTC upheld with the community for 23 years.

 

[dave2008]

For the wider D&D community, it's still only a weak half-measure and still a huge step backward from the commitment WOTC upheld with the community for 23 years.

Why do you say that? In the survey I listed 3 items that need to be corrected or removed. But other than that I feel it is a superior document than OGL 1.0(a). What do you feel steps backwards. It at least advances the OGL by making it irrevocable.*

I also think the should include share-a-like in the OGL instead of leaving it the Creator to share their work however they want. But I understand that as a reaction to people fearing WotC was trying to steal your work in the leaked drafts. This is one of the 3 items I asked for clarification/corrections on.

*with a correction to sections 6 & 7. These are the two other areas I asked for corrections / removal

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I answered and told them to just go back where we were to build trust. I told them that I hated that they are dividing the community again.

 

[Horwath]

I think they should compromise on that by keeping the morality clause but having it adjudicated by a panel made up of, say, three OGL stakeholders, only one of which would be WotC.

And conclusion would be by 2 votes?

Hmm, lets think which side has more leverage/resources for bribing the "neutral" party...

 

[demoss]

It patches the hole in OGL 1.0a about not being irrevocable.

This is incorrect in my understanding.

The word is there, but the language as a whole includes ways for the license to be revoked at WotC's sole discretion - either universally, or for a single creator.

First, look at the part that actually talks about irrevocability:

"... irrevocable (meaning that content licensed under this license can never be withdrawn from the license) ..."

This clearly governs the licensed content, not the license itself. So no, they cannot say "ability scores are no longer licensed", but they CAN stop offering the license at any time, and they can void the already accepted licenses through a variety of means:

1. Morality clause allows individual severance at whim.

2. Claiming infringement allows termination without time allowed for cure. It is not clear to me there is an effective way to challenge claimed infringement.

3. The non-standard version of the severance clause in practise allows voiding the entire license. Not whim, but I'm pretty sure a high-powered lawyer will be able to find something unenforcable allowing Wizards to void the entire license.

4. There is explicit language in the contract saying that any explainers, headings, or footnotes have no meaning: clearly intended to allow them to misrepresent the contents in summaries, like saying "specifically includes the word irrevocable".

 

[demoss]

Right, though the specific expression of certain features/abilities may not be... mileage will vary.

A crapton of the specific expression comes from Tolkien and other fiction that predates D&D, and is used by some mildly popular MMOs as well.

Claiming ownership of "fantasy elves" even with some specifics attached would be wrought.

Claiming ownership of a specific fantasy elf character or village would be trivial.

(I believe, IANAL.)

 

[demoss]

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

CC has the massive advantage that it is a well known set of licenses. It should be easy to find competent legal advice on CC anywhere in the world.

Finding competent legal advice on 1.0a or another custom US agreement, especially if you live in a civil law country?

It seems that no-one for 23 years was able to find any, or alternatively Hasbro is now acting in bad faith...

 

[demoss]

In a "modification", there is a blending of the open source content and your own creative effort.

It cant be separated out.

It can IMO be trivially separated.

Put the modified rules in a different section from your own material that uses the rules.

 

[Umbran]

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

Mod Note:
Please address what is said, not the person who says it.

 

[MoonSong]

Why do you say that? In the survey I listed 3 items that need to be corrected or removed. But other than that I feel it is a superior document than OGL 1.0(a). What do you feel steps backwards. It at least advances the OGL by making it irrevocable.*

How is it superior if it lacks any way to access existing OGC and to contribute to it?

 

[dave2008]

How is it superior if it lacks any way to access existing OGC and to contribute to it?

It is clearer legal language and "irrevocable." It also doesn't deny access to or prevent distributing OGC through CC or upcoming ORC or even the OGL. The OGL 1.2 does not de-authorize the OGL 1.0(a). WotC is doing that separately. So by the OGL 1.2, you can license your work any way you want according to the OGL 1.2. However, I did ask them to make a grant of use part of the OGL 1.2 because I find it to cumbersome to use multiple licenses.

Remember this is a draft, it can still be improved.

 

[Voadam]

It is clearer legal language and "irrevocable."

Irrevocable does seem very narrowly specified in the license to have nothing to do with whether WotC can revoke or terminate or de-authorize the license itself, just whether SRD content can be withdrawn from the license.

"irrevocable (meaning that content licensed under this license can never be withdrawn from the license)."

There do seem a number of ways WotC can terminate the license. Not at will explicitly for the entire license, but still there are avenues in its terms.

"If any part of this license is held to be unenforceable or invalid for any reason, Wizards may declare the entire license void, either as between it and the party that obtained the ruling or in its entirety."

The Termination section provides explicit ways it can terminate an individual's license, but does not address one way or the other whether WotC can terminate at will, revoke the license, or de-authorize it in the future. Fairly similar to the 1.0 OGL not addressing these types of terms.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yeah, one of the main effects here is that Kobold Press can use the 5E rules verbatim without even agreeing to the OGL, and just make their own Classes, Races, Spells, Monsters, etc. and put those options out as open content. That's awssome

Yep. I plan on making my own 5e clone using the CC mechanics pretty much verbatim. I kinda hope they put the updated rules kernal for ODD in the CC as well, though I doubt it. I have a feeling the skill rules especially are going to be more what i want than the current 5e mechanics. But I built a whole system that rides almost entirely on it's 36

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.

No one said "everything under the 5e rules". Even the OGL doesn't grant that. The CC proposal makes it possible to copy-paste the core mechanics of 5e in specific without any possibility to a copyright claim for using their expression of the ideas contained therein. This is all the bulk of the original OGL does, barring things like allowing the free use of certain named elements that are pretty clearly copyrightable as specific expressions of ideas. But a game using that core rules kernel is compatible with 5e dnd, and never has to worry about a copyright claim based on that similarity.

Where is the line on derivative copyright rights for D&D ghouls as you look at Kobold's ghoul empire with paralyzing touch undead Imperial Ghouls, Darakhul, Iron Ghouls, etc.

How much IP does WotC have in the trade dress type elements of a monster stat block or a spell?

5e bare bones core mechanics are creative commons. Classes, spells, monsters, etc. are not safe harbored. Kobold has built a lot off the D&D OGC bones. That is partly the point of a large number of OGL products.

It's not that KP could just continue all the same products, it's that they can easily just keep doing what they have been doing, creating new stuff that builds on that ruleset, just being more distanced with the creative work side of it to keep it non-deriviitve. So, no new Ghoul Empire products, unless they don't actually reference the specific idiosyncratic features of 5e dnd ghouls, and instead just use KP worldbuilding material and brand new mechanical options. Not only that, they could put out a new game product that just presents original classes based on broad fantasy archetypes that aren't the same as those in the dnd PHB.

They could probably even put out fighter subclasses, by just not explicitly naming the fighter, but that would be awkward, and at that point they'd be better of using the OGL just in terms of product clarity.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Irrevocable does seem very narrowly specified in the license to have nothing to do with whether WotC can revoke or terminate or de-authorize the license itself, just whether SRD content can be withdrawn from the license.

"irrevocable (meaning that content licensed under this license can never be withdrawn from the license)."

There do seem a number of ways can terminate the license. Not at will for the entire license, but still there are avenues in its terms.

"If any part of this license is held to be unenforceable or invalid for any reason, Wizards may declare the entire license void, either as between it and the party that obtained the ruling or in its entirety."

The Termination section provides explicit ways it can terminate an individual's license, but does not address one way or the other whether WotC can terminate at will, revoke the license, or de-authorize it in the future. Fairly similar to the 1.0 OGL not addressing these terms.

Sure, but they could delete or rewrite sections of the original OGL if it was found unenforcable in court, too. It's not especially different, and is not remotely the same sort of thing as having an at-will termination clause.

It's like how people are saying they can still change the terms whenever they want to add revenue reporting or royalties, when...no, they can change the terms of attribution and of contacting the license holder.

 

[Voadam]

Sure, but they could delete or rewrite sections of the original OGL if it was found unenforcable in court, too. It's not especially different, and is not remotely the same sort of thing as having an at-will termination clause.

There are some relevant differences. 1.0 did not give WotC an avenue to choose to declare the OGL void.

1.2:

"Severability. If any part of this license is held to be unenforceable or invalid for any reason, Wizards may declare the entire license void, either as between it and the party that obtained the ruling or in its entirety. Unless Wizards elects to do so, the balance of this license will be enforced as if that part which is unenforceable or invalid did not exist."

1.0

"Reformation: If any provision of this License is held to be unenforceable, such provision shall be reformed only to the extent necessary to make it enforceable."

It is not an explicit at-will termination clause, unless any part is held invalid or unenforceable for any reason.

It's like how people are saying they can still change the terms whenever they want to add revenue reporting or royalties, when...no, they can change the terms of attribution and of contacting the license holder.

It is pointing out that there are more avenues for WotC to terminate the license under 1.2 than under 1.0.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

There are some relevant differences. 1.0 did not give WotC an avenue to choose to declare the OGL void.

1.2:

"Severability. If any part of this license is held to be unenforceable or invalid for any reason, Wizards may declare the entire license void, either as between it and the party that obtained the ruling or in its entirety. Unless Wizards elects to do so, the balance of this license will be enforced as if that part which is unenforceable or invalid did not exist."

1.0

"Reformation: If any provision of this License is held to be unenforceable, such provision shall be reformed only to the extent necessary to make it enforceable."

Yes, I've read them. I don't agree that they are significantly different.

It is not an explicit at-will termination clause, unless any part is held invalid or unenforceable for any reason.

What? How does this make sense in reply to what you quoted above?

I said that the OGL 1.2 clause for termination in the case of a court finding the license invalid or unenforceable is not remotely the same kind of thing as an at-will termination clause.

And it isn't.

It is pointing out that there are more avenues for WotC to terminate the license under 1.2 than under 1.0.

It isn't when it's presented as if nothing changed between the 1.1 leak and the 1.2 proposal. Then, it's a blatant misrepresentation of the actual situation at hand.

 

[sigfried]

Why do you say that? In the survey I listed 3 items that need to be corrected or removed. But other than that I feel it is a superior document than OGL 1.0(a). What do you feel steps backwards. It at least advances the OGL by making it irrevocable.*

I also think the should include share-a-like in the OGL instead of leaving it the Creator to share their work however they want. But I understand that as a reaction to people fearing WotC was trying to steal your work in the leaked drafts. This is one of the 3 items I asked for clarification/corrections on.

*with a correction to sections 6 & 7. These are the two other areas I asked for corrections / removal

I say it's a half-measure because they put only half of what was available in the OGL into Creative Commons. Half of what they freely shared, they are not freely sharing. Instead, you need to enter into an agreement with them where they can decide, at any time, to stop sharing it with you.

Their use of the word irrevocable is something of a misdirection. They say this means "that content licensed under this license can never be withdrawn from the license." Which means, they won't take the existing SRD away and replace it with a text that says "Sorry Suckers" or what have you. But, what they can do is lock you out of the license any time they like cutting off your access to the material. No license for you = no SRD for you. So they are very specific not to make it mean the thing that people want to say about the OGL 1.0 that WOTC can't nullify use of the license.

What WOTC puts in the Creative Commons (Which is roughly half the SRD) would be truly open and available to all to use no matter what they decide later.

What WOTC puts in the OGL1. 2 would be free to use so long as WOTC decides it's OK for you to use it.