69
Dungeons & Dragons will release its 2024 ruleset under a Creative Commons licence
(www.dicebreaker.com)
Too little too late tbh
this post was submitted on 23 May 2024
69 points (100.0% liked)
rpg
72 readers
1 users here now
This community is for meaningful discussions of tabletop/pen & paper RPGs
Rules (wip):
- Do not distribute pirate content
- Do not incite arguments/flamewars/gatekeeping.
- Do not submit video game content unless the game is based on a tabletop RPG property and is newsworthy.
- Image and video links MUST be TTRPG related and should be shared as self posts/text with context or discussion unless they fall under our specific case rules.
- Do not submit posts looking for players, groups or games.
- Do not advertise for livestreams
- Limit Self-promotions. Active members may promote their own content once per week. Crowdfunding posts are limited to one announcement and one reminder across all users.
- Comment respectfully. Refrain from personal attacks and discriminatory (racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc.) comments. Comments deemed abusive may be removed by moderators.
- No Zak S content.
- Off-Topic: Book trade, Boardgames, wargames, video games are generally off-topic.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Yeah I'm not buying shit from wotc/hasbro
Exactly
Yeah, but if you make homebrew they don't like, they'll send the Pinkertons after you.
(I know that was about an MTG set. I'm just making a joke about how little faith I have in WOTC.)
Just finish dying already. I’m sick and tired of this drama. Everybody and their grandma has a better product and their shit keeps getting free exposure.
It's been so frustrating seeing people on YouTube and wherever who have spent the past 18 months "spotlighting" and "advocating for playing" other systems climb all over each other to praise this move. A move that does nothing but tell 3rd party publishers that they can safely go back to ignoring Shadowrun, Pathfinder, and OSR games.
Maybe if those games had more appealing rule systems, other publishers would make products using them.
This includes all class features, monsters, rules expressions and anything that isn’t trademarked as intellectual property. Essentially, you get mechanics for cover but not Beholders, martial archetypes but not the city and denizens of Baldur’s Gate.
Is this even necessary? Isn't all of that stuff already non-copyrightable?
You are correct. They do this because corporations in the past have sued over even though rules, etc. are fair use. When they first started the OGL they gained a lot of goodwill from the community.
Short answer, no. There is a lot of nitpicky fine print and "nuance" involved but while you cannot copyright rolling a twenty sided die you can copyright a bunch of distinct and organized thoughts and specific groups thereof, such as the collection of rules that make up a class or subclass. If that class, subclass, spell, made up monster with a specific name and abilities, etc is published in some work that is sold for profit then legal action can occur.
Anything under creative commons effectively becomes public domain. If it appears in a WotC book, digital content, etc and is not specifically under CC, like say spells and subclasses from any supplement not included in that (such as Xanathar or Tasha), it is copyrighted and WotC can and will sue you if you republish it.
WOTC could offer to come suck me off and still wouldn't give them a fuckin dime. Fuck you Hasbro, you lazy sacks of shit wanted to have intellectual rights to work you didn't create just because it's in a rule system you have some IP in. You forever burned the bridge for me.
They've already lost me to Kobold Press 5e materials as well as games like Wanderhome and Kids On Bikes 2
put everything under the orc license and we can talk.
Until the next time they try to revoke the license, you mean?
@wahming @HubertManne There's no revoking a Creative Commons.
There's no revoking the OGL either. That didn't stop them from trying.
the writing of the ogl was a little loose with that which allowed them to try. orc was made to fix that.
Source? That was not my understanding of the OGL. It guaranteed a perpetual license to users, and there is no legal precedence for such a revocation. That didn't stop them from trying to bully everybody into submission. What reason is there to think any other license would make a difference? It's not about the chances of them winning, it's about the legal trouble and bills they can cause. I'm not sure why anybody would trust hasbro / wotc after that fuckup, regardless of their promises.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Game_License
Linda Codega, for Io9 in January 2023, reported on the details from a leaked full copy of the OGL 1.1 including updated terms such as no longer authorizing use of the OGL1.0. Codega explained that while the original OGL granted a "perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive license" it also included language around authorized versions of the license and "according to attorneys consulted for this article, the new language may indicate that Wizards of the Coast is rendering any future use of the original OGL void, and asserting that if anyone wants to continue to use Open Game Content of any kind, they will need to abide by the terms of the updated OGL, which is a far more restrictive agreement than the original OGL".
basically their lawyers combed through and thought they found a way around it. ORC was cleaned and and to make it clear that is not possible has this:
b. Modifications. This ORC License may not be amended, superseded, modified, updated, repealed, revoked, or deauthorized. Neither You nor Licensor may modify the terms of this ORC License; however, You may enter into a separate agreement of Your own making provided such agreement does not seek to modify the terms hereof. This ORC License does not, and shall not be interpreted to reduce, limit, restrict, or impose conditions on any use of the Licensed Material that could lawfully be made without permission under this ORC License.
Big team of lawyers beats moral high ground every time. The law is pay to win.
The text of OGL 1.0a does not say that its irrevocable, and that was the big problem. It does say perpetual, but not irrevocable, and that was where the supposed crux of the argument came in. That said, during the OGL debacle, i saw it pointed out that the legal licensing definition of "irrevocable" was decided in court years after the ogl was written. I know the original writers of it had come out and said that they had intended it to be irrevocable, though
@wahming @HubertManne
The ogl and orc use unintelligible language, and have little legal precedent for rulings.
CC licences have neither problem.
I don't see how this https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode.en has less intelligible language than this https://paizo.com/orclicense
They don't control the ORC. They can't even LARP revoking it, unlike the OGL.
Now if only there were any chance it would be a good rules set and not the blandest thing on the menu
This is in reference to the 5e rules. You know, the line they are ready to replace?
Yes I know. 5e is the blandest rpg system going
Is it really a replacement when you're just republishing them in a slightly different font?
Have… have you read any of the playtest material? Like, I think they’re a bunch of dinguses too. But there are some substantial modifications in there that everyone will feel when playing.
This means that i can make a game with this rules and dont havent to pay?
@loboaureo @copacetic yeah. Until they decide to argue to revoke the license for reasons.
(Also you have to watch out what part is covered under the license, some stuff is gonna be product identity)
(Actually, the beneficial part of this is mostly that you can use their own expression of the rules to make games. Rules as such are not copyrightable, but if you are expressing the rules too similar to their own texts they still could sue you. Using such a license is supposed to take care of that)