https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1949-coming-april-22-publish-your-own-creations-using
Looks like they're coming out with the 5.5/2024-2025 edition SRD for third party creators next week and it's going into creative commons instead of a custom OGL. I'll be curious to see what they include compared with the free rules and the official releases this time around. Regardless, I see this as good for the community in the sense that it's extra legal bubblewrap protection for creators in the RPG space especially fantasy gaming even if you don't want to support 5.5e or WOTC for any one or more of the plentiful good reasons not to. I have no plans to add to the 5.5 compatible ecosystem and there won't be any stipulation to actually make stuff that's compatible but it'll be nice to have something hackable piecemeal into what I actually want.
Would really prefer they release some older products into creative commons.
They can keep 5.2 entirely proprietary for all I care.
Meh.
Quote from: Ruprecht on April 17, 2025, 06:56:26 PMWould really prefer they release some older products into creative commons.
They can keep 5.2 entirely proprietary for all I care.
While it's very important (and a straight up promise from when they broke on their "claim all work done industry-wide is ours" position for a vastly better one), we only have a promise that they will
look into releasing older OGLed content under some better license. Unlike the D&D 5.5 rules, which they actively promised to release.
True... but it's at least a start. Self serving admittedly with 5 1/2e as it's the active edition but it's still a start and a promise kept. I honestly don't expect them to keep going but at least (for now) the OGL for 3.x is still active.
Yeah, don't care. I would be somewhat excited to see the 3/4e stuff being fully released, but not this version.
I'd be much happier if they released it under the OGL. The CC is terrible for the job the OGL was meant to do, encourage sharing of game material. Instead, CC products basically close everything off
Quote from: JeremyR on April 20, 2025, 12:42:44 AMI'd be much happier if they released it under the OGL. The CC is terrible for the job the OGL was meant to do, encourage sharing of game material. Instead, CC products basically close everything off
Which CC license bothers you?
CC-0 puts a work in the public domain.
CC-By only requires you credit me in the attribution section. The rest of the work is free to fold, spindle, and mutilate.
CC-By-SA begins the restrictive parts by requiring works based on it to have the a license.
I appreciate and use CC-0 and CC-By. The others, especially SA and NC are a big turn off for me.
Quote from: swzl on April 20, 2025, 07:59:20 AMI appreciate and use CC-0 and CC-By. The others, especially SA and NC are a big turn off for me.
Care to elaborate on that specific opinion?
Myself coming from the Linux/FOSS world, one of the things that is very common in software licenses is larger companies abusing MIT and commercial permissive licenses, and never giving anything back in return to those open source projects.
Apple has famously taken code from OpenBSD/FreeBSD and given literally nothing in return to those projects despite the security strides they've made. and we're pretty sure Microsoft and Apple have both flat out violated GNU licenses before.
All that to say I'm not a fan of people who kick the ladder out once they're on top, so I completely understand CC-BY-SA and it's kin licenses. more so in an OSR/D&D context.
Personally I think CC-NC is a big reason the Glog never made it to the big time. If you can't sell it you won't spend much time creating a product for it and the ecosystem doesn't really grow the same way.
It's good that WotC is actually following through with their promises. Otherwise...meh. This may give a pop of life to 5E, but 5E has been a super-popular and super-heavily played system for a decade now, so most of what this will do is give 5E a dignified end of life rather than letting the OGL scandal have the last word. But it's basically a played out system.
As to the choice of license...
I am torn on Creative Commons for RPGs. The thing which makes open source software work which creative commons doesn't really support is that you can fork FOSS software (effectively, pirating open source software is a feature, not a bug.) This does marvels for reducing the harms of malicious project leadership because you can always fork the code, but it often means that maintainers of essential, but obscure bits of software go wildly under-appreciated. Look up the XZ Utils hack if you want to see an example of that.
The icing on the cake is that because in many ways RPGs are computer games for wetware (your brain), they are open source software by design. You can't really play an RPG without understanding the rules/
After much navel-gazing, I increasingly think the proper is the heavily curated and playtested books model most people develop RPGs with. Even the biggest companies half-ass their proofreading and playtesting, and yet this is somehow an expectation that people still hold even for small indie projects. I increasingly think the correct solution is to choose chaos. Forget all the creative commons nonsense; use the GNU GPL license. Remind people that the license comes with no warranty, so all balance guarantees are completely thrown out, encourage GMs write whatever sort of patches they want, and to monetize them as microtransactions (because GNU GPL), and let Darwinism bring the best products to the top.
Then when it comes time to write the book, you skim the cream of the crop and give anyone who wound up being in that a royalty.
Quote from: Socratic-DM on April 20, 2025, 03:26:00 PMQuote from: swzl on April 20, 2025, 07:59:20 AMI appreciate and use CC-0 and CC-By. The others, especially SA and NC are a big turn off for me.
Care to elaborate on that specific opinion?
Myself coming from the Linux/FOSS world, one of the things that is very common in software licenses is larger companies abusing MIT and commercial permissive licenses, and never giving anything back in return to those open source projects.
Apple has famously taken code from OpenBSD/FreeBSD and given literally nothing in return to those projects despite the security strides they've made. and we're pretty sure Microsoft and Apple have both flat out violated GNU licenses before.
All that to say I'm not a fan of people who kick the ladder out once they're on top, so I completely understand CC-BY-SA and it's kin licenses. more so in an OSR/D&D context.
Rob Conley and Kevin Crawford are big inspirations for me. Both do a ton of creative work on their IP. And both have opened up and shared many of their mechanics under licenses that allow others to take base designs and elaborate on them. Rob released a bunch of rules under CC-BY. Kevin has a version of WWoN as CC-O. As a non coding Linux guy I get peoples concern about not giving back. I am working on a frankengame for my home campaign. I took elements from games released under CC-BY and CC-O to express my and my players preferences for rules elements. I post all my rule module adaptions on my website under CC-BY. I have heard many times, if you were really creative you would write your own rules from scratch. My response is twofold. One, I stand on the backs of giants. Why would I refuse their generous gifts. Two, unless this is your thing, it is akin to not only reinventing the wheel, but have to reinvent the tools to make the tools to make the wheel. I don't have unlimited time or creative energy. I'd rather spend what I have on campaign construction and making adventures for my players. Rules for me provide the games and the worlds scaffolding.
CC-SA imposes a license requirement that as someone who is not corporate legal, does not have corporate legal, and does not want corporate legal; why include a compulsion. By all means copy write and protect your creative IP. But for rules and systems I choose to follow: freely accepted and freely shared.
CC-NC is even worse. Non commercial. Man can't you let a poor delusion, fantasy heartbreaking fool just dream a little. How much money do you think I'm really going to make?
To address the issue of CC limiting success or sales: Use one version for your personal, profit driven project. Then release an SRD with your license of choice. See Knave 1E. One of it's attractions was the CC-By. Knave 2E was a huge success, but sadly dropped the CC-By. See Open Quest. Paul Newport has done an excellent job keeping his creative projects profitable and keeping the project open. He really sets a gold standard. I have already mentioned Rob Conley and Kevin Crawford. They keep up the good fight.
And lastly, I know that rules are not copy writable. Having a permissive license states up front that I won't sue and am not interested in legal action. C-By and CC-O tell me as an aspiring designer to go and try. Use these tools and see what you've got. Failure to include a permissive license or the use of restrictive licensing ups the risk ante. I lived through the era of cease and desist for fan made content. I don't want to do that again, even if there are no legal repercussions.
And it's up...
https://www.dndbeyond.com/srd?&icid_medium=organic&icid_source=editorial&icid_campaign=2025srd&icid_content=article_1949