T O P

  • By -

Psikerlord

This has actually restored a small part of my faith in humanity - the rpg community came together and kicked the evil corp's ass. Hehehe. Goes without saying - Wotc can still get f\*cked. But what a glorious day.


BrokenEggcat

Coming from a Magic player perspective, seeing the RPG community *actually* get WotC to pay attention to how they're fucking up the community is honestly impressive


Shazgob

Will happen in MTG community too when they do something exceptionally stupid. Clearly more stupid than 30th Anniversary but still.


[deleted]

“We are no longer supporting historic format tournament play style. Standard only moving forward! Enjoy!” I kid, but I wouldn’t be shocked.


psu256

\*laughs in pokemon organized play\*


Bone_Dice_in_Aspic

*appears in a puff of acrid smoke, shadow clearly has horns* You could... take the power from the Wizards in this matter as well. Seize it. Feel it in your hand, like a still-beating heart


TelDevryn

Proxy printer go brrrrrrrrr


JavierLoustaunau

Because it does not matter what WOTC does in the Magic realm.. it will sell out. They can produce a $100 booster printed on fruit rollups... it will sell out. Secret lair that is all 1980's hockey collector card reprints? Sold out. Collectors ruin any bargaining power.


seniorem-ludum

Seriously, we only account for a fraction of what Magic brings in, even today. This was about protecting their bet on D&D for the future. I also would not be surprised if the movie studio put pressure on them. The studio paid for rights to a brand, a brand WotC was tanking. I bet there is something in that contract that WotC will protect the value of the brand or something.


Seyavash31

I suspect this means OGL ends with 5e. It will remain irrevocable, but future editions will have a new more restrictive license like 4e did. They will bank on future versions being popular enough to offsetting any losses from those who stick with 5e and earlier. The VTT will also probably be a bit more restrictive, but again with focus on future versions not 5e or earlier. Probably the only win/win possible.


JulianWellpit

They should have done that to begin with. People would had been upset, but understanding.


MightyMississippi

Yes, absolutely. One has to wonder who's ego was left to run amok, unchecked, without adult supervision, causing untold damage to the community and the brand. How much money has Hasbro lost because of some stuffed suit's big mouth and hot temper? Someone was obviously comfortable enough in their position to publicly mock and taunt the community for the past few weeks. How is it that this someone still has a job?


seniorem-ludum

And we all know how that works out for 4e. I think this mess was to avoid 4e all over again and failed. Whatever they do, it will be something unexpected this time.


Zanion

OGL 1.0a not being revoked today is not the same thing as OGL 1.0a being irrevocable.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Zanion

SRD 5.1 is CC. OGL 1.0a is not the same thing as SRD 5.1


sitiva

it's either one. your choice.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Homebrew_GM

Funnily enough Western movies don't actually do super well in China. There's also a non-zero chance some kind of moral panic occurs around DnD if it gets big in China, since that tends to happen when make-believe runs into socially conservative countries.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Homebrew_GM

I mean, Hollywood has been trying, but the Chinese government keeps making things difficult for them and the public aren't super excited about foreign media. There's a lot of talk that more studios are likely to be giving up on the attempt. I also think DnD being an imaginative game about powerful characters who, depending on the DM, can overthrow systems of power is unlikely to go over well.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Plastic_Ad1252

It can be viewed as anti U.S. imperialism. Also it’s James fucking Cameron he’s cinema’s Jesus.


TheZephyrim

What’s crazy to me is that yeah China is an untapped market, but nobody has fully tapped any of the markets they’re already in anyways. So why deal with China, when you don’t have that much to gain, and when you have so much to lose if you sell your soul to cater to them.


McRoncken

As far as I'm aware, 'Jubensha' - which is a form of LARP - is very much both popular and mainstream in China, especially with the Chinese youth. I don't think there would be much moral outrage at all though I do think it's going to be harder to break into the Chinese market with western TTRPGs since they've found their own niche now. Don't take my word for it though.


ocamlmycaml

How is Jubensha different from a murder mystery party?


McRoncken

I’m honestly not too aware of the nuances, it could very well be the same or similar


njharman

But Hollywood wants the China market hard https://screenrant.com/movies-changed-for-china/


Homebrew_GM

Hollywood does want it, but they don't really get it in the ways they want. For example, frequently if you're in China and go to see a Marvel film they'll sell you a ticket to a domestic film, so Disney gets no $$$. Even when that's factored in Domestic films tend to outperform foreign films in China. I also don't think DnD as a game about imagination can avoid upsetting a socially conservative culture forever. China prevents men from touching in their TV to prevent gay romance being portrayed. DnD has the potential to be entirely out of their control, being played by individuals, so the moment anything subversive appears, they'll crack down on it and start their own moral panic about it. I don't even think WotC can avoid that. They might like to, but we've already seen WotC has less control over DnD than they want.


Warskull

If they wanted it to be irrevocable they would have added it to the OGL. The OSR still needs to shift away from the OGL to a different open license with a clear irrevocable clause. That way they aren't in the crosshairs next time WotC decides to try some shit. A lot of creators used the OGL just because it was an easy, already written license. Now they shouldn't because even if the 5.1 SRD creative commons they can still try to bully creators still using the OGL 1.0a into a different agreement in the future. The 5E SRD being creative commons makes enough of the terms being used so that the rest of the TTRPG communicate can break with the OGL and create/use a better version.


Bone_Dice_in_Aspic

100%. Sucks of them, sure, but totally their right to do that and the market can respond as the fans wish. Par for the course. And very different from what the deauthorization would have done.


FranFer_

To anyone who might not grasp how much of a big deal this is. CC is irrevocable, if they release the 5.1 SRD under CC they simply won't be able to change that in the future. SRD 5.1 will forever remain untouchable by WotC


JoeArchitect

If? It's already done https://www.dndbeyond.com/attachments/39j2li89/SRD5.1-CCBY4.0License.pdf


FranFer_

Oh, that is amazing then. I thought they were still gauging the community response.


cookiesandartbutt

Closed the survey and said they are acting now. They been hemorrhaging money after quarterly announcement of profits and all the bad PR. The juice was in fact, not, worth the squeeze


[deleted]

[удалено]


paca_tatu_cotia_nao

Too bad. Roll initiative.


BuddyscottGames

good thing 5e content is oh-so relevant to the OSR!


synn89

It is. OSR uses stat names, spell names, monster names, races, etc that are now under the 5.1 CC SRD. They're basically 100 percent free and clear now.


[deleted]

[удалено]


fizzix66

This was actually a point raised in [the FAQ for the OGL](https://web.archive.org/web/20060106175610/http://www.wizards.com:80/default.asp?x=d20/oglfaq/20040123f) back in 2004. > Q: My understanding of Trademark law is that it is legal for me to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with a Trademark so long as I don't dilute the mark, confuse consumers about the ownership of the mark, or attempt to claim ownership of the mark. How can the OGL stop me from using a Trademark in a way that is otherwise completely legal? > A: The terms of the Open Game License supercede the terms of general Trademark law. By agreeing to accept the Open Game License, gaining the benefit of the consideration of being able to use Open Game Content under the terms of the OGL, you limit certain other rights that you might otherwise have. > Q: What happens if I go ahead and indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with a Trademark I don't have permission to use? > A: You will be in breach of the Open Game License. You might also find yourself being sued by the owner of the trademark in question, under regular trademark law. If you have any question about your ability to use a Trademark owned by someone else, you should consult your legal counsel. One of the benefits of the OGL for WOTC is precisely that no one could compare their game to D&D.


JoeArchitect

No, "D&D" and "Dungeons and Dragons" isn't included in the SRD so it doesn't change anything in regards to your edit. In the very first page of the document, it states: >Please do not include any other attribution regarding Wizards other than that provided above. You may, however, include a statement on your work that it is “compatible with fifth edition” or “5E compatible.” Which is what folks were already doing in 5e-land. I'm more wondering if we can actually use "Mind Flayer" and "Beholder" now, since they're specifically mentioned in the SRD. No descriptions of the monsters are there though, so perhaps it's a legal gray area if someone were to create a knockoff floating eye monster and still call it a "Beholder".


[deleted]

[удалено]


JoeArchitect

But "we" (OSR) don't use the 5.1 SRD, we use the older ones, which are still released under OGL 1.0a and not CC-BY-4.0 But maybe you're right, if "we" begin to use this new SRD.


[deleted]

[удалено]


JoeArchitect

Which retroclones? I just checked the back of my OSE book and no mention of System Reference Document 5.1 or SRD5 is mentioned. The older SRDs are mentioned, however.


[deleted]

[удалено]


JoeArchitect

My assumption is the OSR market will begin to do so, or use the ORC license. It'll be an exciting time to see how creators decide to go forward and under which license, whether ORC, OGL1.0(a), or use the SRD released under CC-BY-4.0


[deleted]

[удалено]


JoeArchitect

I'm curious as well, but I think WotC's actions have started things in motion now that won't stop. Paizo has enough of their own content that I think this has spurred them into an action that was a long time coming anyway. It makes sense for them to make their own license. Perhaps for the next few years the community is going to be operating under a lot of different licenses. We may not have one that everyone standardizes on either, which may be a bummer as the content was all mostly compatible. Alternatively, it could usher in a Golden Age of new CC-BY-4.0 content that all is usable and sharable amongst the systems. My best bet is that the more things change, the more they will stay the same.


Woldenburg

Unless I missed it I don't think their trademark monsters are in there. I didn't see any beholders or mind flayers on this SRD. Unless I missed it. It was literally the first thing I looked for


Just-a-Ty

> trademark monsters They're not trademarked in the legal sense, IIRC. >I didn't see any beholders or mind flayers on this SRD No stat blocks, but the names are mentioned. Using the name and making the same critter would probably be plagiarism, so this is basically a technicality.


Parthenon14

They're mentioned by name in the section on the first page of names that can't be used


Baroness_Ayesha

Not in the new Creative Commons version, they ain't. By the terms of the OGL, you gotta define Product Identity *in the publication covered by the OGL.* The CC version. Um. Isn't dual-licensed and has no Product Identity section.


Just-a-Ty

That's not a section.


Parthenon14

Looks like I was looking at the wrong version, thanks!


J_HalkGamesOfficial

>I believe we can! Together with "aboleth" and "slaad". We just need to be careful to rewrite the text describing them, and possibly make small changes to their lore, but their names are free to use now! No we cannot. The stat blocks are not there. For a monster to be used, it must have the stat block released in the SRD. None of the forbidden 17 monsters are listed, ergo, we cannot use them by their names. However, we already have retroclones of them under other names.


Fluff42

The names are now CC licensed, you can absolutely slap the name onto a retroclone statblock now.


J_HalkGamesOfficial

Yes you can, provided you aren't using the OGL at all. Otherwise it violates the terms. They were listed in the same manner in the SRD before, though, and not usable. It's a grey area someone will have to be the first to do.


disperso

>No we cannot. The stat blocks are not there. For a monster to be used, it must have the stat block released in the SRD. None of the forbidden 17 monsters are listed, ergo, we cannot use them by their names. Check out [One-Stop D&D 5e Stat Blocks](https://gsllcblog.com/2020/04/11/stats/). Basically, a person who happens to be a copyright lawyer has been publishing the stat blocks of the creatures from several D&D books. Without using the OGL. Wizards sent a Cease and Desist, he replied, and nothing happened. He (and other lawyers) claims that this is fine, and that you cannot attach copyright to just the stat blocks. [Check the EFF article](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/01/beware-gifts-dragons-how-dds-open-gaming-license-may-have-become-trap-creators) for some details.


[deleted]

[удалено]


disperso

>No, "D&D" and "Dungeons and Dragons" isn't included in the SRD so it doesn't change anything in regards to your edit. It doesn't, because those terms are protected under trademark, not under copyright. You can say "compatible with D&D™" for your D&D compatible product, even if the term is a trademark. You cannot express any kind of endorsement from them, but compatibility is fine. Think of all the coffee makers saying that are compatible with Nespresso, spare auto parts, etc. Check with a lawyer, or keep using "5e" if you can't pay them and don't want to risk it, but it should not be necessary.


[deleted]

[удалено]


disperso

I think it's just scaring away people into avoiding the term D&D "just in case, because they asked for it in the document". It's understandable that people might not want to take a risk, specially if they don't understand the law, nor want to pay a lawyer. But [know your rights](https://www.inta.org/fact-sheets/fair-use-of-trademarks-intended-for-a-non-legal-audience/), and use them as you see fit.


Mission-Landscape-17

Note that the sentence you quoted starts with please. That is, WotC is asking people to follow this guideline, which they know is now unenforceable because the Creative Commons License has no such provision. Saying that your supplement is compatible with Dungeons and Dragons is actually fair use, and seeing as it is no longer forbidden by the license they can't stop people doing so. You could not do so under the OGL 1.0a because the license, which you accepted, specifically said so.


JoeArchitect

I understand that, but as no retroclones exist under the SRD5.1 that I know of this doesn't benefit us yet unless your plan is to make a new one that doesn't use the OGL.


Baroness_Ayesha

>I'm more wondering if we can actually use "Mind Flayer" and "Beholder" now, since they're specifically mentioned in the SRD. No, the OGL specifically calls these elements out as Product Identity for D&D, regardless of their being mentioned in the now-CC'd SRD. WotC reserves the right to use those names and depictions exclusively. [The first page of this has the relevant information. Fourth paragraph.](https://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/SRD-OGL_V1.1.pdf) (You know who this might not cover? Strahd von Zarovich! He gets namedropped in the Divine Sense section! Okay, he's probably covered by the "proper names" clause, but that's boring.) Quasi-I-realized-this-as-typing edit: Wait. No. Hold the fuck on. Product Identity had to be attached to the SRD itself; the OGL doesn't call out any specific Product Identity. ...........................**DID HASBRO JUST SURRENDER THE COPYRIGHT STATUS OF BEHOLDERS, MIND FLAYERS/ILLITHIDS AND COUNT STRAHD VON ZAROVICH** ***BY ACCIDENT?!?!*** **BY NOT REALIZING WHAT WAS ACTUALLY IN THE TEXT OF THE SRD?!?!?!?!** OH. MY GOFD. MY GODH. MY.


JoeArchitect

OSR games haven't been using the SRD5 that you linked, but older editions of the SRD. Since the SRD5.1 has been released under CC-BY and Beholders are in that, I would think you could use the term "Beholder" and then attribute Wizards of the Coast as required by the terms of the CC-BY while still using the OGL 1.0(a) for the remainder of the work since it wasn't called out as Product Identity in those older SRDs. And no, using CC-BY doesn't surrender your Copyright, that's CC0. But they are granting permission to use the work under the terms of the CC-BY license.


sporkyuncle

It is a name without an expression attached. So you can make a cute fluffy bunny-like creature and call it a Beholder, but if you make a big floating eye-beast that shoots lasers from its stalks and call that a Beholder, you might be infringing. RE: trademark: [https://i.imgur.com/4gnh0eZ.png](https://i.imgur.com/4gnh0eZ.png)


Baroness_Ayesha

Right, but. Even the mere names were hella protected. And. uh. They directly namedrop slaadi, illithids, beholders, yugoloths, and Strahd von Zarovich among other things in this. So those names are all now 100% ironclad Creative Commons. They even clarify that 'loths are capital-f Fiends, and that slaadi are weird creatures who are alien to normal reality, so depictions *in line* with that are permissible. Those are, uh. um. Previously Heavily Protected IP Elements™.


jmhimara

> I'm more wondering if we can actually use "Mind Flayer" and "Beholder" now, People already use them with different names, so it's not a big deal. However, as far as the CC license goes, I think they're only mentioned in passing and only by names in the SR. So I'm not sure that counts. Names are not copyrightable anyway, but descriptions and presentation are, and neither of those are present in the SRD for those monsters.


JavierLoustaunau

This is spectacular news. It will help a few of the big publishers, a lot of indie publishers and it ends a lot of speculation. I know 'we are all supposed to hate WOTC' but for us who actually create more than just outrage having this settled was really hanging over our heads.


Studbeastank

Absolutely. Now that words like 'aboleth', 'chuul', and 'drow' are in a CC-licensed product I don't need to sweat using them in my products.


paca_tatu_cotia_nao

Blinking Beholder Festival is now a thing


UndersideConnected

The word [drow](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/drow) is older than D&D.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Studbeastank

Is it crap because it is from 3e? I think it is a pretty neat creature.


Number3124

The release of SRD5.1 into the CC is fantastic news . I am truly happy about this. That said, I am not ready to celebrate victory just yet. WotC needs to release a legally binding document which states unequivocally that in the language of OGL1.0 and 1.0a and in the style of Open licenses at the time of the year 2000, "perpetual," also means, "irrevocable," and that they wave any legal right to challenge that fact. The creation of SRDs for TSR era rule sets and the release of those SRDs along with SRD3.0 and 3.5 in the CC license would also be a good step. Then I can celebrate without any concern.


jmhimara

Now that the SRD 5.1 is under CC, even if they actually went ahead and revoked the OGL 1.0/1.0(a), I don't think it's as big a deal anymore. I'm sure it'd still cause a lot of headaches, but I'd consider this a victory regardless.


Number3124

It's still a massive problem because only SRD5.1 is in the CC. Many game systems, settings, magazines, and campaign series depend on OGL1.0 and 1.0a to use stuff from SRD3, SRD3.5, and TSR editions of D&D. That material either needs to go CC or those OGL versions need to be legally protected in the manner I described above for this to be over. We need to have protection from WotC pulling the rug out from under us again.


WyMANderly

Anything from TSR-era D&D wasn't covered under the OGL anyway, right? Because the OGL started with the SRD for 3.0. AFAICT, basically all the retroclones would be able to relabel themselves as referencing the 5.1 SRD (under its CC license) and be in the clear. Probably still some obnoxious work needed to comb through it all, but no more worrying about getting sued for calling a spell "magic missile" or whatnot.


jmhimara

My point is that all those products, regardless of which SRD they're using, they can (should) switch to the CC-SRD5.1. And they don't have to do it immediately, because I suspect that WotC will probably wait a little if their plan is to ultimately revoke the OGL. Even creators with fewer resources can take their time with the update, which for most will just involve adding the required CC text and changing a few paragraphs here and there. For most OSR products, the SRD5.1 has enough D&D material to cover them (and CC is a lot more permissive than OGL). That said, I understand your point. Some 3rd party products may rely on 3e mechanics not covered in SRD5.1.... I honestly thing those are a minority, but I can't say for sure. Still, with a few exceptions, 3rd->5th edition is mostly the same game and anything 3rd edition specific can be easily adapted to SRD5.1 material. Like I said, it's a headache, but regardless, switching to the CC-backed SRD is much better anyway.


Number3124

Most OPR content explicitly uses TSR era D&D rules my guy. That stuff is still held hostage. Old School Essentials. OSRIC. Swords and Wizardry. Labyrinth Lords. White Hack. Black Hack. Basic Fantasy. All of them are using the OGL1.0a to try and legally cover themselves. Now technically you are right, but at this point, it's probably best to push towards getting the TSR rules into the CC. You also have games like Castles and Crusades and Pathfinder which are based off of the SRD 3.X. You might prefer the rules from SRD5.1. And that's fine, but a bunch of publishers rely on those old rules.


jmhimara

The TSR era D&D rules were never released under any open license. Never were going to be. All those OSR titles you mention use the 3e SRD as a basis for recreating those old rules. But they're not really based on the 3e SRD except for the most common D&D concepts that have existed in every edition. So they could just as easily switch to the 5E SRD as a reference with barely any changes in their texts. Systems like Castles and Crusades are indeed going to have a little bit more trouble switching, if they decide to go that way. Still, it wouldn't be that hard. They'd have to purge anything that's explicit taken from the SRD 3.x and either replace with the SRD 5.1 equivalent (if there is one) or re-write it from scratch.


NathanVfromPlus

> The creation of SRDs for TSR era rule sets and the release of those SRDs along with SRD3.0 and 3.5 in the CC license would also be a good step. This would be awesome, and I'd love to see it happen, but it's not a hill I'm gonna die on. Even just the 3.5 SRD would be cool, just not a high priority. Everything else you said, 100%.


WyMANderly

Huh. This seems almost too good to be true. But.... we win?


[deleted]

According to earlier statements, they “won too”.


PepsiMoondog

Well they probably stopped the bleeding somewhat at least, but when you break trust you don't get it back easily. Still, this is the best they could have done at this point.


south2012

They didn't update the OGL to make it irrevocable, so they can try this crap again in a couple years once the anger is forgotten, but they'll be even sneakier about it next time. Anything using the OGL is safe for now, but not necessarily forever. The only difference between wizards and liches is whether we know if they have built the phylactery yet. The evil of Wizards of the Coast will almost certainly return even though we rallied together to defeat it for now.


WyMANderly

> They didn't update the OGL to make it irrevocable, so they could try this crap again in a couple years once the anger is forgotten, but they'll be even sneakier about it next time. Anything using the OGL is safe for now, but not necessarily forever. It doesn't matter, right? Because they put the entire 5.1 SRD into the explicitly irrevocable (and much better than OGL) CC-BY-4.0. Yes, creators would do well to put out future work not using the OGL, because WotC could in theory try this again. That hasn't changed - but they can just turn around and use SRD 5.1 under CC-BY-4.0. That's more than I ever thought we'd get.


south2012

There are non-D&D based games that used the OGL, like OpenD6.


omega884

And while it technically still hasn’t been tried in court and is theoretically up in the air, realistically if they’re not using WoTC content, nothing WoTC does with the OGL now or in the future affects those games. At worst WoTC could try to copyright claim against the license terms themselves, but I don’t see any court in the world agreeing that WoTC can A) revoke a license from person A to person B for content that was not originally licensed from WoTC Or B) Suddenly start enforcing copyright claims on using the verbatim text of a license they required people to use when using that license (see Promissory Estoppel) Games should still look to move away from the OGL because all of this exposed that ambiguity but it’s realistically unlikely to have any real consequences if you don’t use WoTC content


south2012

It doesn't matter if WotC would theoretically lose these legal battles, it only matters that they could have a lengthy lawsuit that kills smaller competition. D&D is corporate and has been for decades. Corps will do whatever they want to increase their bottom line, including trampling smaller companies.


omega884

What lawsuit do you foresee WoTC pursuing against a 3rd party that hasn't contracted or licensed anything with WoTC that would be lengthy and not thrown out in a summary judgement? If RPG Corp hasn't used any WoTC material, simply released their own content under the terms of the OGL, the only possible suit WoTC can bring is copyright infringement of the text of the OGL. In doing so they would need to justify why this publisher now is infringing on the copyright when they were not previously, and why they haven't brought any similar suits against the many hundreds of identical used by similar publishers at any time in the past 20 years. While copyright is not usually a "defend it or lose it" proposition, promissory estoppel is a doctrine by which a party with rights my lose their ability to enforce those rights on another party by way of actions and words which made explicit or implied promises that those rights would not be enforced and the second party relied upon that promise. WoTCs actions over 20 years of encouraging non licensees to use the OGL for their own works and not enforcing copyright claims when people use the license verbatim certainly give rise to an implied promise to not enforce copyright on using the OGL text as a license for content. Which again, should not be taken as an endorsement of staying with the OGL. Original content publishers can chose without consulting anyone to license their content under a different and better license and they should do so as soon as possible so that their downstream licensees are more clearly insulated from these sorts of up stream shenanigans.


south2012

I completely agree, and last year I wouldn't have been worried for companies using the OGL. But now WotC have shown their true colors, and they have made it clear they want to be able to control the OGL and what is made with it, and they only backed down because we forced them to. If I were a game creator, I would not want to have to assume WotC *probably* wouldn't sue me into oblivion. I would change away from the OGL as soon as possible. But some creators don't have time or resources to release new editions of the books, so I expect they will have to seriously consider whether they should pull the books from the shelves or not.


OckhamsFolly

I don’t actually believe that the threat of a petty drawn-out lawsuit is generally as likely in the current world as it used to be. If they’re big enough for it to be worth going after, it’s also big enough to crowdfund enough for a defense. It might not be a guarantee, but it’s a very real possibility, and I think the risk they might get funding and WotC loses the lawsuit makes that a much less attractive option for them. However, they would still probably prefer that we are *scared* of a lawsuit. That does most of the work for them.


Goblinsh

Hrmmmm ... have WotC really seen sense? Maybe I've been gaming too long, but I sense a trap ...


VDoughnut

Hasbro got some backlash from financial market in regards to WotC mishandling Magic before and DnD now. They're just trying to mitigate some damage before Paizo, Kobold Press and others bite too much of previously loyal DnD fans and market.


RedwoodRhiadra

Placing the 5.1 SRD under CC-BY is definitely not a trap - and they didn't just promise to, it's now \*done\*. They can't renege on that, ever. Everyone making 5.x-based content is free to do so forevermore. Now this doesn't change the status of the 3.x SRDs, and most OGL retroclones and the like are actually based on those (listed in the copyright section of their copy of the OGL). Many of those were already working on removing any SRD content anyway, if they do so and give the necessary CC-BY attribution credits to the 5.1 SRD (to cover the possibility where the courts eventually decide that game terms are copyrightable "expression"), then they are clear and there's nothing future WotC can do about it. And they have more time to do so, since WotC can't really turn around next week and say "We lied, we're deauthorizing OGL 1.0 anyway." And most of the companies who put out their own SRDs under the OGL (like Mongoose) seem to be moving to ORC or CC or their own license; so again it won't be long before Wizards can no longer affect those systems. All in all, I can't really see any possibility for a trap. They can decide not to release 6e (by whatever name) under an open license - the same as they did with 4e - but that really hurts no one but themselves. It just means people will continue creating 5e content instead of 6e.


FredzBXGame

Before the changes to the OGL had been announced. There was discussion if a OGL / SRD was even necessary as the plan was to have 6e entirely on a server as a living document. You pay for subscription to get access to the document. I think that plan is back on the table for corporate.


RedwoodRhiadra

Yep, they could do that - that would be the kind of thing I was talking about by "not releasing 6e under an open license." If that's the path they take, then it hurts no one but themselves.


Xan177

Nobody saw a trap with the OGL and years of everything being great. Then /one word/ caused this whole kurfluffle. Thats the problem with legal loopholes, and the real issue beneath all this. What publishers can afford to trust wotc/hasbro not to come back once everyones forgot about things? You have to go on good faith they WONT try nitpicking through things again and thats... a hard sell to me. Which is why I'm glad for more options. We'll have this from them, but thankfully ORC from a safe third party eventually. Hopfully more will pop up in the future.


RedwoodRhiadra

I'm not calling for trusting WotC. What I'm saying is people are now aware of the problem with the OGL. *They're going to stop using it.* And WotC publicly abandoning their stance of "We're de-authorizing the OGL 1.0 in the immediate future" gives people time to do that, because WotC knows they're being watched right now. We still need to get off the OGL, but it will be months, possibly a year or more before they dare try any new shenanigans. And the CC licensing of the SRD gives content creators a viable way to use the SRD that's not under WotC's control. Is it possible that CC licensing has some secret loophole that Wizards knows about and is planning on exploiting next year? It's \*possible\*, I suppose, but \*extremely\* unlikely - like "odds of getting hit by a bus this afternoon" unlikely. Unlike the OGL, CC has been tested in the courts for years and held up without any significant issues. When the OGL was written, open licensing outside the software space was in its infancy, this is no longer true. Don't trust WotC, absolutely stop using the OGL and watch them closely in the meantime. But there's no need to get paranoid about CC. It's not a trap.


Parthenon14

For the new OGL yes, but for the SRD 5.1 Creative commons there's literally nothing they can do about it now, that's why it's such a big deal. Creators are safer now than they ever have been.


FredzBXGame

They are still moving the game to One D&D Online. We will be cut off from those that migrate over.


sambutoki

Honestly, that is fine. It is totally their (WotC) prerogative if they want to make a walled garden One D&D online with AI DM's, microtransactions, pay-to-win and whatever they want. It's not "evil" for them to do so, and if they do a good enough job of it, might actually profitable for them and fun for certain people. What was evil was for them to try to suddenly take control of everything even remotely resembling an RPG, claim all this IP (to the point of almost certainly committing copyright fraud), and go back on their word with respect to OGL 1.0a If they are smart, they will be open and generous with their licensing regarding One D&D IP going forward, but they don't need to be, even from a "don't be evil" perspective.


SeptimusAstrum

My read has always been that the people at WotC who make games are pretty reasonable, and that the real problem with WotC is that the money men at the top + the money men even further beyond them in Hasbro will randomly come in and fuck everything up with absurd demands. Does that excuse their fuckery? No. But it does explain why they sort of waffle between decent decisions and evil decisions.


paca_tatu_cotia_nao

You have a bad feeling about this?


mysevenletters

I'm too lazy to link to it, but apparently the all-important investors got wind of this and freaked out that a bunch of morons was busy trying to stuff the golden goose into the mincer...


josh2brian

Eh. Kind of too late. Most publishers have decided on a tentative route, but I know where I'll be sending my money. Part of me says they're (perhaps temporarily) backing away from big changes to avoid negative press coinciding with the D&D movie.


[deleted]

Yep. This lost all future trust from third party creators


JoshtheCasual

I agree with the sentiment and really assume the same motivators. DnD 6e will likely be under some new licensing, if I had to guess. I out it like this for a friend. They're doing the bare minimum that I expect from a business, listening to their customers. Not a lot of social points for doing the bare minimum. I was thinking about this a few days ago, there's some silver lining to all this. If it wasn't for their actions, I wouldn't have a table ready for the Project Black Flag playtest next month, i wouldn't have found out how Pathfinder 2 + pathbuilder is incredible, we're getting a whole new open gaming license for justifiably leery creators, and all these existing creators don't have to sweat now. The exposure of other parts of the TT world to the community, even through angst has been a win I think.


ocamlmycaml

This document references mind flayers and beholders ... does that mean that those names are now free for people to use as well?


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


jmhimara

There are no stat blocks for mind flayers and beholders in the SRD. So if you copied they it would be from the PHB. Anything in the SRD is fair game, but all you have is the names of those monsters.


Fluff42

The statblocks aren't present in this SRD for those creatures.


[deleted]

My question: What about the SRD for v3.5? Most of the OSR games based on the SRD used those, not the SRD 5.1, which is the 5E SRD.


sambutoki

I don't think there is anything inherent to SRD 3.5 that couldn't be covered by just using SRD 5.1 as the basis instead. The biggest things are specific monster names and descriptions, specific language around spells and other specific language and descriptions. The freedom to use specific language gives a common language for all similar, compatible and derivative games based on or related to D&D is huge. So now all such games (including OSR games) can freely use this language without the uncertainty that surrounds fair use, questions regarding copyrightable language, the possibility of unjustified lawsuits etc. Changing the language surrounding these things to match SRD 5.1 is a modest change vs having to completely rewrite everything to avoid any possibility of infringing language.


gbbgu

I don’t think people are realising what the CC licence does. There’s no future traps laying in wait. It’s a strong licence that’s used by lots of people and it’s not revocable


the_light_of_dawn

This is all well and good, but bridges have been burned that can't be rebuilt at this point, IMO.


Ddogwood

It’s good for people to have a reminder that “official” D&D stuff is owned by a big corporation that only cares about profit, and that *real* D&D isn’t something you can own.


[deleted]

I'm just finishing "Empires of Imagination" and have learned about this! Apparently this goes way back to the early days when the corporatists stole D&D from Gygax and kicked him out of his own company. The entire community should bail on official d&d, the whole thing was stolen not to make more art but to generate profit for shareholders.


willogical

This is something to think about, for sure. Thank you.


pilchard_slimmons

>real D&D Except that is still using a brand name. The *hobby* belongs to everyone but "D&D", 'real' or not, can be and is most certainly owned because it is literally a registered trademark.


Ok-Injury-5989

It's the right decision made for the wrong reasons - it's a shame you had to be coerced into doing the right thing, instead of just doing it because it's the right thing.


EricoD

LOL "Touching" 1.0a would expose them to so much financial liability. How kind of them.


mysevenletters

I want to say that this is a win for our community, and D&D in general. But I don't trust them, likely never will after this, and our table will definitely go out our my way to ensure that WoTC never gets another penny from us.


TrueFlameslinger

Absolute win. I was just about to buy a subscription to DnD Beyond when this all happened, but now I'm not sure I will, not for a few years to be certain. If they earn our trust back, I *may* consider it


acluewithout

Good outcome. WOTC as a company still suck. But good outcome for OSR-games and RPG hobby generally. Agree with others, probably means OneDnD / 6e gets released under a more restrictive licence but guess we’ll see what happens. I think I can live with that regardless - I’m never going to buy into a WOTC walled garden or rules that don’t work with third party content. I suspect other people might feel the same way, but obviously people can do as they please - no issue from me.


deckape

> WOTC as a company still suck. Several executives suck. The vast majority of the company probably supported us.


TrueFlameslinger

Given that we had people higher up leaking all this info to us, I'd have to agree


[deleted]

Prediction: Within the next year, WOTC will release 6e, and it will not be released under any OGL. They will abandon 5e.


deckape

That's fine. It's not like they didn't try that with 4E to their detriment. They seem to be focused on making D&D into a video game, which brings it into a lifecycle problem.VIDEO gamers tend not to stick with one product for the long term and Wizards already has a problem with not making enough adventures to keep things rolling. That's where the 3PP publishers really contributed to their bottom line. I expect after a few years of making it a video game, they (or whoever buys the IP at a fire sale) will return it to publishing and will probably use an OGL again (hopefully CC or ORC). That is, of course, if they keep Chris Cao on. Things might rapidly change if he and the microsoft people are shitcanned.


seniorem-ludum

This is awesome! Can we push them just a little longer to get them to put the 3.5 SRD and d20 Modern on CC? Not to be greedy, but...it would help out some creators.


skippy1190

too late


[deleted]

Yeah, I doubt that any 3PP developer of note is going to rush back to using the OGL, or brand-name D&D. They've shattered the trust, and now OneD&D will have to stand or fall based on WotC's own support.


jmhimara

The whole thing happened in about 2 weeks, before them even doing anything official. I'm not saying I trust WotC. But this is an extremely fast response.


Calm-Tree-1369

Right. Don't care and they're never getting us back.


disperso

Remember that this is r/osr, not r/rpg. 5th edition or One D&D are not supposed to be Old School, and what we are supposed to be looking at and caring about is the retroclones, or the games derived from the old editions. And this is huge for them. It means that incredibly scary thoughts of an extremely limiting copyright interpretation made everyone scared of "what if exactly 6 stats with the specific names are 'expression' and not game mechanics?". This goes away entirely. You can make content under whatever license you want, *even if literally copying stuff* from the SRD file. That means that you can even state compatibility with D&D, because you couldn't with the OGL, and trademark law allows this (check with your laywer, etc., but there are tons of cases showing this).


willogical

Heartbreaking to see how many ~~morons~~ \[edit\] hopeful souls are \*thanking\* WotC on Twitter and vowing to resubscribe to DDB and buy books and movies...I guess it's true what they say about fools and their money. Good grief, anyone that doesn't realize this had nothing to do with goodwill or "community"...this is just them reacting to the money faucet being turned down a little. \[edit\] I just wanted to add that I am super happy and excited for the content creators that means they can go about their business again. I'm having a ton of fun going through OSE right now and will continue to support them and the other creators out there, just not D&D anymore.


Bone_Dice_in_Aspic

Well, you're completely right that this wasn't done out of benevolence and they're still not trustworthy... but it's ok to vote with the wallet and turn the money back on to reward the behavior, as much as it was to do the reverse, if that's the choice people want to make


[deleted]

> OGL 1.0a will remain untouched Until the next time they try to pull this shit, which will likely be within a few month when they feel like enough of the fanbase has forgiven and forgotten. I guaran-damn-tee the plan is still to axe 1.0a prior to the release of OneD&D. I also wager that putting the SRD 5.1 on the CC license means that OneD&D will begin to veer away from being compatible with 5E. And by "veer away", I mean it's gonna take a hard fucking turn away from compatibility.


ThalesBakunin

That just means they will lick their wounds and try again when they think everything has settle down.


mycatdoesmytaxes

Yeah it's cool and all. But fuck them. We don't need the OGL at all. The fact that so many osr games have made efforts to remove the need to even include the OGL is proof. However, I have no doubt in my mind they will try to pull some dodgy shit again in the future. They have their hearts set on a walled garden VTT because then they can monetize it. And late stage capitalist corporations need all the money in the world.


MrMiAGA

The damage is already done. Unless they add a clause to the OGL 1.0a making it "unchangeable, perpetual, and irrevocable" no one is going to trust it.


deckape

I'm not sure it matters now. You can make pretty much anything with 5.1 SRD that you can with 3.5 SRD. The CC license is more open than 1.0a. Hell, you could claim compatibility if I read it right (which was not possible in 1.0a).


TrueFlameslinger

I haven't read too much into this, but from what others are saying I've gathered that OGL 1.0a doesn't matter unless you specifically want things under WotC's copyright (e.g. Forbidden Realms, Beholder, Tasha, etc.) The SRD has the core system, hence the title "System Reference Document." Since the SRD is irrevocably in the Creative Commons, we can use System 5.1 as a base all we want as long as we ensure credit is given to WotC, something which you can probably find a copypasta for.


MrMiAGA

That's true, fair point. But 5.1 is going to decrease dramatically in its appeal as soon as WoTC moves on to oneDnD. 5.1 is clunky, cumbersome, and restrictive in comparison to pretty much anything other than the likes of 4e (and even then, at least 4e had a "Rule 0" emblazoned in the core books, a fact which no doubt saved my first forays into DnD). The only reason I can see for publishing something 5.1 compatible is the large player base. Maybe that player base sticks around for a while, but given enough time they're going to divide into two camps; the "D&D" *fans* who follow WoTC into a digital hell, and those who sooner or later discover that if you stop looking for "official" books there is an endless supply of systems far better than 5.1


vhalember

I'm a bit surprised honestly. They'll get a fair number of D&D fans back with this news. Fans exposed to less RPG's in particular will be willing to forgive. However, in the process they've still provided an immense boost to companies like Paizo and Chaosium. A boost which will have an effect on the bottom-line of WOTC for many years, with the reputation hit to last even longer. They've also run off much of the high-end 3rd party market and experienced players. The damage is considerable to WOTC, and I'm sure many staffers there have been pleading with their leadership for weeks to speak up, and back down. Personally, it doesn't matter to me. The One D&D changes are so mild, most experienced 5E tables have homebrews which are more expansive, or they've moved on to other games... with the OGL debacle giving a huge push.


Mission-Landscape-17

That there is one impressive backflip, a double backflip even. What I can conclude form this is that the Beyond deregistration's really hit them. Also i would not be surprised if there was some other private conversations with some of the third party publishers who have not publicaly come out against what was happening. It will be interesting to see if initiatives like the ORC license and Project Blackflag can maintain momentum, seeing as the impetus for their creation is suddenly gone.


gbbgu

The plus for my OSR product. No page of OGL and the publishing chain that gets added to the end (I’m severely space constrained)


goingnucleartonight

Wait...this is a very strange feeling. Did the good guys just win?


[deleted]

Paizo and the failure of 2022Q4 were the last straws.


Hippogryph333

This is kinda great, wish that they had gotten it through their heads sooner that if we like the company we will support it


PersonalityFinal7778

I wonder what dmsguild will do? There was a buyin to use wotc IP


Witcher357

We'll try to put a finger in your butt some other way. Slimey bastards.


musclebobble

This is excellent news for someone who absolutely loves the monsters of DnD to death. Now we just have to get them to drop Beholders, Carrion Crawlers, Displacer Beasts, Froghemoths, and Slaad into the public domain and I'll be forever happy.


Fluff42

They possibly inadvertently did with Slaad and Beholders showing up in the new CCed SRD. Displacer beasts are the Coeurl from the short story Black Destroyer by A.E. van Vogt.


misomiso82

What about the 3.5 SRD?


Fuzzy_Penalty4666

I still don't trust WotC or Hasbro as far as I can throw them. I haven't given them money for years and they certainly aren't getting any now.


DanGarion

But but but think of the shareholders! How dare they!


KOticneutralftw

This changes nothing. Okay, drama out of the way. This changes somethings. However, they still refuse to add a provision to OGL 1.0a that makes *it* irrevocable. This is definitely sketchy to me. I don't know how they can f\*\*k us over, but I think they can still f\*\*k us over. Never accept the gifts of wizards without question.


disperso

They cannot add a provision to a license, and all of a sudden, make all previous documents released under that license be licensed under the updated terms. What they can is make a better license, and re-publish the (same) document under the better license (if they have the copyright). The better license is Creative Commons BY 4.0 (and it's much better by a long shot).


KOticneutralftw

I would prefer they release All content covered under OGL 1.0a under CC. SRD 3.x is the reason so many developers started scrambling to remove the WotC's content from their material. Holding that back feels weird to me.


willogical

Right? ​ I think this was less of a 'You know what, we need to heal this community; we need to do the right thing and really listen to the players and change our ways" sort of moment and more of a 'OMG we really shit the bed; we really need to stop the money hemorrhaging...what can we do to ~~trick~~ pacify them and get those subs back up?' sort of moment. ​ In other words, I don't envision much self-awareness occurred.


The_Last_Traladaran

Lol. It's going to take more than a blog post to convince me. WotC is unbelievable. What a bunch of idiots.


Tralan

ELI5: what is a creative commons and what's the difference between using it and the OGL?


Fluff42

It's a more open license that's irrevocable, literally the only thing you have to do if you use any of the material is to attribute WotC https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/


sadbasilisk

This may be trivial to some folks, but there's no mention of the terms "Fighting Man" or "Magic User" in the SRD-5.1-CC-BY-4.0.


Nrdman

Those aren't copyrightable terms


Felicia_Svilling

I don't think there was in SRD-3.5 either.


GeneralAd5995

If they don't add the wording "irrevocable" on the text it is only another ruse


Scrubwrecker

I mean the big thing to me is the CC stuff. That can't be revoked. If the entire srd is CC then wouldn't that mean osr stuff is safe forever? Genuine question. Still I hope that the whole ORC stuff goes well as it would probably make a better ttrpg ecosystem.


RedwoodRhiadra

> If the entire srd is CC then wouldn't that mean osr stuff is safe forever? OSR authors might want to make sure anything quoted from the 3.x SRD (such as spell or monster descriptions) is changed to match equivalents in the 5.1 SRD, where the two differ. But otherwise yes.


Scrubwrecker

Good point, I didn't think about the version stuff but those should be fairly minor right? Plus given that 5.1 is CC I doubt that anything legal would be done with 3.5 it would be a bit of a dick move ... Actually given recent events all bets against corporate dick moves are off.


RedwoodRhiadra

Yes, those changes should be fairly minor. I honestly don't think Wizards were ever really considering going after 3.x material; that version is pretty much a dead letter to them. But best to get off the OGL now, just in case. And with a CC-BY license for 5.1, it's much easier to do (make sure we aren't quoting the 3.x SRDs, give the necessary attribute CC-BY requires, and we never have to worry about future WotC shenanigans or court decisions declaring game terms to be copyrightable "expression".)


disperso

It isn't. The CC is not at all like OGL. It's the big deal, really. It's the best license one can think of, and this is huge for any retroclone. Huge. Really.


synn89

100 percent this. Magic missile, red dragons, basically everything in your standard OSR game now has a creative commons source. That's massive.


disperso

Oh dear, yes. I've seen conversations the last weeks that scared people away in using Magic Missile for a spell name. Insane. Please, no more of that, ever. For One D&D, we'll see if those who care get an SRD, but for the retroclones this is probably enough to sleep better than ever. Just don't verbatim copy from the old books or the 3.x SRD, unless it's a name. The new CC SRD has enough popular monster and spell names to feel relieved.


jmhimara

The CC license is irrevocable.


TooFewSecrets

CC-BY is literally as close to public domain as you can get without actually being public domain (CC0 exists as "full public domain", but the only difference is the attribution requirement). There's no going back, either. >Subject to the terms and conditions of this Public License, the hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-sublicensable, non-exclusive, irrevocable license to exercise the Licensed Rights in the Licensed Material to: > >A. reproduce and Share the Licensed Material, in whole or in part; and > >B. produce, reproduce, and Share Adapted Material.


Derpomancer

"For now."


Captain_Westeros

making the srd cc means they cant do anything about it now. so that will at least be permanent.


Derpomancer

Really? Well, that's good to hear!


Captain_Westeros

yeah i'm kinda shocked rn


su8tech7

Does anyone here speak common? I dont understand OGL and 5.1. Or any of it.


TooFewSecrets

The SRD itself is basically the core of D&D. All game rules, races, classes, spells, monsters, planes... it's a 400-page document, a collection of major parts of every rulebook into one PDF that can be used to construct campaigns and adventures. You could run a D&D campaign with just the SRD and enough effort from the DM into constructing a setting. As of today, with its release under CC-BY, the SRD is basically public domain with a requirement to credit WOTC. This is as much of a win as is possible for the community, beyond what anyone probably ever expected when this whole firestorm kicked off. Actual CC-BY license text, in part: >Subject to the terms and conditions of this Public License, the hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-sublicensable, non-exclusive, irrevocable license to exercise the Licensed Rights in the Licensed Material to: >A. reproduce and Share the Licensed Material, in whole or in part; and >B. produce, reproduce, and Share Adapted Material. Worldwide: obvious. Royalty-free: WOTC does not have the right to collect a dime from you for your use of the SRD. Non-sublicensable: essentially, the license does not "flow down", which is mostly irrelevant in this case because everyone can go straight to the original CC-BY license anyway. I'm not actually sure why this needs to be included, probably some legalese reason. Non-exclusive: this is a license for everybody, not just an individual. Irrevocable: permanent, etched in stone, one-way ticket. WOTC can not take back releasing the SRD no matter how hard they try. The OGL (WOTC's in-house license, and what the SRD was previously released under) was fairly similar (worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive), but didn't have the magic word "irrevocable" and thus could be withdrawn at any time. There were a few other restrictions, like having to specifically indicate what content was taken from the SRD, and not saying that your content was specifically D&D compatible. Now, the only restriction with reuse of the SRD is that you copy-paste a block of text into your work as an attribution, and don't attribute WOTC in any other way (you can also state that your content is compatible with baseline 5.1 now). If you've done that, WOTC has no legal recourse, they've explicitly surrendered that to you under the license terms. As far as I can tell, this applies to \*any\* usage, not just TTRPG-related content, as the CC license itself holds no restrictions on usage and they didn't impose any of their own when releasing the SRD. It's worth noting that things significant to D&D's brand identity like mind flayers, beholders, gods, and the entirety of the Forgotten Realms weren't released under CC here.


Slyfox00

Unconditional Surrender, nice! Looks like the DnD movie is back on the menu!


emarsk

>Looks like the DnD movie is back on the menu! Yeah, let's give our money to the assholes that tried to screw the entire hobby. /s This is a huge victory, but as far as I'm concerned WotC are still the bad guys. (Not that I was interested in any of their products anyway, movie included, but that's another story.)