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.

 

[Ondath]

Level up has, e.g., Owlbears, as does pathfinder 1e and 2e. I don't know how hard WotC are willing to go after people for "Owlbear" but it's no longer under the "safe haven" of the old OGL.

Well yes, but currently released Level Up and Pathfinder books can be reprinted with OGL v1.0a without any issue, since WotC said they won't be touching past works. Future editions of the game might need to make non-copyright infringing versions of these, but I think this isn't that hard. Wizards is claiming Magic Missile as their content? I mean, WoW has had Arcane Missiles as a spell for the last 18 years and it wasn't based on the OGL. So they can claim the name Magic Missile and maybe the exact flavour (four darts that hit unerringly), but surely you can cook up a non-infringing version pretty easily (Arcane Bolts that creates 3 magical bolts that are guided so always hit their target!).

 

[Clint_L]

Looks like they're scaling back their strategic nuke (by including irrevocably language in 1.2) but building up their tactical nuke arsenal by reserving the right to boot you for engaging in speech (beyond what's in the product) that they deem harmful.

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.

 

[Ondath]

<snipped because no longer needed>

 

[overgeeked]

Never mind. Figured it out.

Which pages: https://www.dndbeyond.com/attachments/39j2li89/OGL1.2_DraftForDiscussionPurpose.pdf

The SRD: https://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/DND/SRD-OGL_V5.1.pdf

 

[Ondath]

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.

I think this would be a fantastic solution (maybe one of the stakeholders can be the Open Gaming Foundation!), but I think it'll be unlikely.

I'm not sure how to feel about that part of the deal, honestly. Yeah, I can't really trust a corporation to decide what conduct is harmful or harrassing (and WotC does have a bad track record with this, for instance by removing the DMsGuild adventure Eat The Rich after initially okaying it). But at the same time, imagine the kind of havoc an actually competent NuTSR could cause if they released 5E-compatible products using the OGL. I can't fault Wizards for wanting to avoid that.

Ultimately, anything that falls outside WotC's vision of what D&D should be can created using the CC anyway, so I'm more okay with this than not.

 

[Alzrius]

I don't know much about CC licenses, but I saw on another thread that this isn't a Share Alike version of the CC license in question, and that this apparently means that if you make a 5E CC product this way, no one else can use new content you create, i.e. there is no "Open Game Content" provision which allows for other people to build off of what you make.

 

[Ondath]

I don't know much about CC licenses, but I saw on another thread that this isn't a Share Alike version of the CC license in question, and that this apparently means that if you make a 5E CC product this way, no one else can use new content you create, i.e. there is no "Open Game Content" provision which allows for other people to build off of what you make.

I think the exact terms of CC-BY are that anyone can use the content released in it (even commercially) as long as they attribute to it, but they don't have to make their own contribution also a part of CC-BY.

Which isn't that different from how OGL v1.0a worked, to be honest. You had games like Dungeon Crawl Classics where almost all of the new additions to the D&D-lingo were closed off and marked as Product Identity, so you always had ways of not making your content share-alike. And if someone who takes up D&D's core mechanics using this license is so inclined, they can also release their own contribution under CC-BY, so it's not like anything is stopping them.

 

[dave2008]

The CC portion is to allow people to make whole new games that are D&D compatible. Your Doctors and Daleks or One Ring stuff.

The OGL 1.2 is for your D&D adjacent stuff. Things like settings or supplements. WotC wants tighter control on those.

And to round out the trilogy, DM's Guild is for when you need their IP directly (ie a Ravenloft product).

Yep, that is it. I really like this strategy personally. Just need to work on that morality clause.

 

[wingsandsword]

I can put in elves, dwarves and gnomes until the cows come home, although I will have to give tieflings a different name, like devilfolk (which is better for new players anyway).

I'd go with Nephilim, the name for humans partly descended from angels and devils from real-world lore.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

So, I actually went through the parts of the SRD that will be released in CC, and it includes:

• The core advancement mechanics of exp, leveling up, multiclassing
• Backgrounds and feats (with one example of each), languages, traits, the two-axes alignment system
• The entire mundane equipment section
• The entire rules on using ability scores (so proficiency, six ability scores, the skill list and saving throws included) and downtime
• The entire rules on combat
• 5E-style Vancian casting, spell components, spell area/duration rules
• Monster stat block principles
• Conditions

This is the better version of the post I made on the other thread (and for all I know several other people, I couldn't keep up with it while also parsing the SRD). Well done.

 

[rknop]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that stuff has always been covered by the SRD, not the OGL.

That statement is ... well, it's not even wrong, it simply makes no sense, in the same way that the statement "I thought the color was blue and not standing up" makes no sense.

The SRD and the OGL are not at all comparable things.

OGL = a license for sharing game content.

SRD = a specific document with game content in it.

 

[darjr]

Could an OSR base be built off if a CC 5e?

 

[CleverNickName]

1. We're giving the core D&D mechanics to the community through a Creative Commons license, which means that they are fully in your hands.
2. If you want to use quintessentially D&D content from the SRD such as owlbears and magic missile, OGL 1.2 will provide you a perpetual, irrevocable license to do so."

Woah, I did not see that coming.

Pass the crow, I guess?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Could an OSR base be built off if a CC 5e?

I think so. OSR classes and races lean heavily on folklore and myth, so "warrior," "wizard," "priest" and "thief" would feature heavily. Thieves doing more damage when they attack an unsuspecting victim has long ago gotten out into public domain, although the colloquial phrase "stabbing in the back" suggests it probably always was.

All OSR games I know of already use different names for WotC IP critters like carrion crawlers or beholders and many of them exclude them entirely. (Carrion crawlers have always been a weird thing to make IP, IMO. Ooh, big scary dungeon caterpillars!)

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I'd go with Nephilim, the name for humans partly descended from angels and devils from real-world lore.

whispers: Which instantly also makes them more interesting than 5E tieflings and aasimar.

 

[Michael Linke]

Could an OSR base be built off if a CC 5e?

Yes? OSR games typically use significantly different progressions and class assortments from the base 5e classes, so those classes being missing from the CC content isn't a huge problem. Likewise spells, races, monsters, etc. The CC material appears to tell you how to play D&D, provided a character sheet has been handed to you. It's up to you, as a creator, to figure out your own classes, character creation methods, spells, monsters, etc.

 

[Lidgar]

• Protecting D&D's inclusive play experience. As I said above, content more clearly associated with D&D (like the classes, spells, and monsters) is what falls under the OGL. You'll see that OGL 1.2 lets us act when offensive or hurtful content is published using the covered D&D stuff. We want an inclusive, safe play experience for everyone. This is deeply important to us, and OGL 1.0a didn't give us any ability to ensure it.
• TTRPGs and VTTs. OGL 1.2 will only apply to TTRPG content, whether published as books, as electronic publications, or on virtual tabletops (VTTs). Nobody needs to wonder or worry if it applies to anything else. It doesn't.
• Deauthorizing OGL 1.0a. We know this is a big concern. The Creative Commons license and the open terms of 1.2 are intended to help with that. One key reason why we have to deauthorize: We can't use the protective options in 1.2 if someone can just choose to publish harmful, discriminatory, or illegal content under 1.0a. And again, any content you have already published under OGL 1.0a will still always be licensed under OGL 1.0a.
• Very limited license changes allowed. Only two sections can be changed once OGL 1.2 is live: how you cite Wizards in your work and how we can contact each other. We don't know what the future holds or what technologies we will use to communicate with each other, so we thought these two sections needed to be future-proofed.

These bullets are...interesting. It's like watching a highly complicated, ritual dance, only it's being performed by Chris Farley (with no disrespect to the very talented late Mr. Farley!).

 

[Charlaquin]

Ok. So, based on what’s in the draft, it looks like what they would be releasing under Creative Commons is very literally the core rules. It includes all the rules for adventuring, combat, spellcasting, downtime, etc. in the SRD. What it does not include is any races, any classes, any monsters or NPCs, the rules for magic items (weird…), or any magic items.

This looks like a good-faith gesture, but saying it doesn’t include “quintessentially D&D stuff like owlbears and magic missile” is misleading. It doesn’t include any specific expressions of the rules at all. I genuinely don’t think anything in the portions of the SRD being released under Creative Commons is copyrightable material anyway. In that light, this looks like a really sneaky PR stunt.

Not only that, this would only be the core rules in the SRD 5.1. It doesn’t include the 3e SRD at all, which OGL 1.0a does.

Sorry, WotC, but this isn’t going to cut it.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

So I'm much happier with WotC today than I've been in a fortnight or so. In part because I no longer need them, and am no longer trapped in a somewhat unhealthy relationship with them. They've set unambiguously free the necessary pieces for a thousand people to make clones or other games that any 5e player could learn in an afternoon. They've also made it clear that non-clone games can unambiguously incorporate things like advantage/disadvantage or use the same skills without fear of a lawsuit from Hasbro. Things like the iconic six D&D ability scores and the alignment system now unambiguously belong to everyone. Generally the legal status of any game taking substantial inspiration from D&D is much clearer.

I still have little confidence in WotC, but whatever doom they take themselves to they've done the gaming community a tremendous favor today.

 

[FallenRX]

Well yes, but currently released Level Up and Pathfinder books can be reprinted with OGL v1.0a without any issue, since WotC said they won't be touching past works. Future editions of the game might need to make non-copyright infringing versions of these, but I think this isn't that hard. Wizards is claiming Magic Missile as their content? I mean, WoW has had Arcane Missiles as a spell for the last 18 years and it wasn't based on the OGL. So they can claim the name Magic Missile and maybe the exact flavour (four darts that hit unerringly), but surely you can cook up a non-infringing version pretty easily (Arcane Bolts that creates 3 magical bolts that are guided so always hit their target!).

If they are "Deauthorizing" ogl 1.0a....i have no idea how that works.

But the deauthorization has to be retroactive so those are still, pretty much screwed.
Its legally very...messy and probably not sound.

At most its saying them will turn a blind eye.