WotC 2024 D&D Core Rules Will Be Added To SRD In 2025

Alzrius said:

Except that it does:

Click to expand...

no, because whatever creature I created is not part of the Open Game Content, that just ensures that I cannot e.g. take WotC's Orc and make it proprietary...

Alzrius said:

Open Game Content, in other words, cannot be closed

Click to expand...

yes, my creature is not Open Game Content unless I say so however

mamba said:

no, because whatever creature I created is not part of the Open Game Content, that just ensures that I cannot e.g. take WotC's Orc and make it proprietary...

Click to expand...

The name and description don't have to be Product Identity; the stat block (including special powers), however, must be Open Game Content.

mamba said:

yes, my creature is not Open Game Content unless I say so however

Click to expand...

Only the name and description. The stats are Open Game Content regardless of your say-so, because they were OGC from the beginning.

mamba said:

yes, Basic Fantasy moved from OGL to CC in its 4th edition. Someone could retroclone 3e out of 5e, but why bother when in a year or so we have the SRD in CC. At a minimum I would wait until then to see what parts get left behind in the OGL

Click to expand...

That's because Basic Fantasy is, well...basic. The 5.1 SRD is much, much thinner than the 3.5 SRD, so there's less material there to back-port. Like, good luck making anything psionic using the 5.1 SRD, for instance.

mamba said:

3.x seems more a matter of time before it becomes CC

Click to expand...

If you believe WotC. I am not sure I do -- again, not because of malevolence necessarily, but because it just isn't a priority and every time they shrink the D&D team they push this onto an even farther back burner.

mamba said:

yes, Basic Fantasy moved from OGL to CC in its 4th edition. Someone could retroclone 3e out of 5e, but why bother when in a year or so we have the SRD in CC. At a minimum I would wait until then to see what parts get left behind in the OGL

Click to expand...

Just because they did doesn't mean they have an legal cover to do so.

Alzrius said:

The name and description don't have to be Product Identity; the stat block (including special powers), however, must be Open Game Content.

Only the name and description. The stats are Open Game Content regardless of your say-so, because they were OGC from the beginning.

Click to expand...

IANAL, but I'd say my declaration of PI beats WotC's declaration of OGC "(d)"Open Game Content" means the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity" and since I determine what is PI...

Given that WotC is bringing up, on their own initiative, their plans to put older versions of D&D under Creative Commons, I feel quite optimistic that they will do so. I know its a longer wait than many of us would want, but I do understand the business and goodwill reasons to get the 2024 rules and 5.2 SRD out first.

I also don't buy the argument that the CC license does not give stronger protection (compared to the OGL) from WotC trying to walk things back through intimidation with threats of costly litigation. People who argue that don't understand how massively important CC is to the economy. You don't need Apple, Google, Amazon, or any other deep pocket corporation to involve themselves. There are thousands of lawyers in the US with Westlaw and Lexis Nexis alerts of every case decision and every docket that involves litigation involving CC licenses. Besides the potential of large businesses and NGOs with an interest in protecting the integrity of CC, it is a big enough issue for plenty of lawyers who would be willing to take on a case like this to build their and their firms' reputations. They (likely) wouldn't give a damn about the gaming community. But anything related to CC licensing can be made newsworthy. Even if the small publisher is likely to settle, abuse of CC in this way is bad enough precedent, and Hasbro is a big enough, newsworthy company, that there are plenty of IP attorneys who would chomp at the bit to put Hasbro in its place.

Hasbro / WotC would be playing an entirely different game with CC than they were with the OGL.

kenmarable said:

The context of my first statement was clearly that if WotC is releasing it under CC-BY then also releasing it under the OGL is, in fact, 100% moot.

WotC releasing future SRDs under CC-BY and the OGL gains nothing. Once it is in CC-BY, any virtuous virality is entirely voluntary. The only way to maintain the virtuous virality is to release it only via OGL and not CC-BY, which, whether we like it or not, isn't going to happen and with 5.1 released via CC-BY, the ship has already sailed. So, yes, once it is in CC-BY, then releasing also under OGL as well is 100% moot as I said.

I'm not saying this is a good thing, of course! I've been a vocal supporter of the OGL's virality for over 20 years, and I still plan to publish under the OGL (and ORC and CC-BY-SA). And I agree that CC-BY's (at least percieved) greater stability does trade off the important viral heart of the OGL. However, with WotC not bothering to enforce proper OGL compliance pretty much ever and the past decade of OGL compliance being a joke with maybe 1 product in 10 using it properly, the virtuous virality was already voluntary in practice, sadly.

I wish we lived in a timeline where the OGL recieved the support and enforcement that it deserves. But, we don't. The 5.1 SRD is already CC-BY, and the 5.2 one will be as well. As in so many other areas of life, being an Open Gaming giver and not just a taker will have to be largely voluntary (again, in D&D world, at least, the Pathfinder world is a different matter which many overlook).

Click to expand...

I'd argue that releasing the 5.2 SRD under the OGL isn't "moot" in the sense that it makes it much easier for anyone easily release derivative material that also takes advantage of existing OGC without having to juggle two overlapping licenses. The entire point of open gaming is to reduce FUC (i.e. the aforementioned fear, uncertainty, and doubt), and requiring publishers who want to use existing materials with the 5.2 SRD materials to finagle two different licenses makes that much harder. Ease of use counts for something.

mamba said:

IANAL, but I'd say my declaration of PI beats WotC's declaration of OGC "(d)"Open Game Content" means the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity" and since I determine what is PI...

Click to expand...

Unfortunately this is how most folks have interpreted it. As far as I know, no one has ever fought it in court. like, if I used a Flee! Mortals statblock as a centerpiece to a thing, would MCDM try and sue?

Alzrius said:

I'd argue that releasing the 5.2 SRD under the OGL isn't "moot" in the sense that it makes it much easier for anyone easily release derivative material that also takes advantage of existing OGC without having to juggle two overlapping licenses. The entire point of open gaming is to reduce FUC (i.e. the aforementioned fear, uncertainty, and doubt), and requiring publishers who want to use existing materials with the 5.2 SRD materials to finagle two different licenses makes that much harder. Ease of use counts for something.

Click to expand...

OGC doesn't have anything to do with any of it.

Reynard said:

If you believe WotC. I am not sure I do -- again, not because of malevolence necessarily, but because it just isn't a priority and every time they shrink the D&D team they push this onto an even farther back burner.

Click to expand...

I believe it when I see it, but they keep mentioning it, if they wanted to silently sweep it under the rug they would not do that

Reynard said:

Just because they did doesn't mean they have an legal cover to do so.

Click to expand...

by that logic all the OSR has no legal cover either