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.

 

[tsadkiel]

All-new would be the operative word there. Whether Kobold's Darakhul Ghoul 5e PC race is all-new is not clear, or how much they would have to modify to make it all-new. Whether they can use the same race format, or the same race powers that were derived from the 5e SRD ghoul, or even to what extent the concept is copyright derivative of the srd ghoul are not covered by the CC material safe harbor.

In this specific case, the PC Darakhul race doesn't have a paralyzing touch or anything of the sort - they're just undead flesh hungry ghouls and reasonably distant from D&D specific ideas. the monster versions generally do have a paralyzing touch, but not PCs.

 

[Remathilis]

No. It’s nowhere near half. It’s about 15% of the 5.1 SRD that’s going to be put into CC. Races, classes, monsters, spells, and magic items are not included. That’s a lot of the SRD left out.

Yeah. That's the point.

They gave you just enough to make an RPG. They did not give you enough to clone a version of D&D. They gave you what you need to make a d20 system game (like Star Wars Saga, the One Ring, etc) but not enough to make Pathfinder. They're not stupid. They want you making D&D related content under the eye of OGL 1.2.

That said, this is a tremendous opportunity for the community to quit making D&D clones and do something interesting. All new classes and species, new magic systems, interesting monsters.

"But that's hard to create all new stuff!"

Yup. It's a lot easier to find your favorite D&D and clone it. But maybe this creates more Arcana Evolved style games that don't just rely on replicating the classic tropes.

 

[Maxperson]

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.*

It doesn't make it irrevocable at all. It's revocable in multiple areas.

 

[Scribe]

That said, this is a tremendous opportunity for the community to quit making D&D clones and do something interesting. All new classes and species, new magic systems, interesting monsters.

"But that's hard to create all new stuff!"

Yup. It's a lot easier to find your favorite D&D and clone it. But maybe this creates more Arcana Evolved style games that don't just rely on replicating the classic tropes.

The idea that D&D 'owns' Fighters, Barbarians, Clerics, Rogues, Bards, Paladins, Druids, Wizards, Rangers, and even Sorcerers, is revolting.

PS: They can keep the Artificer. PLEASE.

 

[Parmandur]

It doesn't make it irrevocable at all. It's revocable in multiple areas.

And those were his feedback points to WotC. I did say some things similar to @dave2008 in addition to pitching ghe STL making a comeback being a better way for wotC to achieve their brand goals.

 

[Justice and Rule]

PS: They can keep the Artificer. PLEASE.

There are some cool ideas in there, but there has never been a worse idea than making an official class about crafting in a game that has never had official crafting rules.

 

[Maxperson]

There are some cool ideas in there, but there has never been a worse idea than making an official class about crafting in a game that has never had official crafting rules.

I rather like the artificer.

 

[Justice and Rule]

I rather like the artificer.

It's not a bad class, but it's weird to have a class that is meant to build things and not have any official rules to do so. It's a problem we have run into pretty recently in playing an Eberron game.

 

[Remathilis]

The idea that D&D 'owns' Fighters, Barbarians, Clerics, Rogues, Bards, Paladins, Druids, Wizards, Rangers, and even Sorcerers, is revolting.

PS: They can keep the Artificer. PLEASE.

They own those specific expressions of them. The barbarian that rages, the cleric that turns undead, the druid that wild shapes, the rogue with uncanny dodge, etc.

Ditto races, spells and monsters. They might not own the concept of fireball, but they can claim the expression of 8d6 fire, Dex save for half.

 

[Haplo781]

It's not a bad class, but it's weird to have a class that is meant to build things and not have any official rules to do so. It's a problem we have run into pretty recently in playing an Eberron game.

Artificer was created in 3.x which explicitly had item creation rules.

It worked pretty well in 4e as well, as a "your powers temporarily enchant everyone's weapons/armor or create single-use gizmos" deal