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.

 

[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to do with whether WotC can revoke or terminate or de-authorize the license itself, just whether SRD content can be withdrawn from the license.

"irrevocable (meaning that content licensed under this license can never be withdrawn from the license)."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