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

mamba · May 7, 2024

Alzrius said:
It's the same reason you can't make up a new creature called an "orc overlord" and have that term be unusable because it's Product Identity. At best, people wouldn't be able to use that particular name with that particular stat block, but that's not really accomplishing much.

we seem to have a different understanding of what the point of making something Product Identity is. To me it simply means others cannot use it as Open Game Content and if they want to use an Orc Overlord, then they will have to come up with their own stats rather than copying mine.

If I wanted no one to be able to have an Orc Overlord, then I would need a trademark, which is something else entirely.

Alzrius said:
Trademark has nothing to do with any aspect of what we're talking about.

it does when you want to stop others from using the name

Alzrius said:
You're literally making my argument for me here. The text you cited flat-out states that Product Identity cannot be used to make Open Game Content unusable by anyone else. It's right there in black-and-white; I'm not sure what else to tell you.

well, you clearly are reading this very differently then because it says the opposite of what you claim, it says OGC can at most be what I do not tag as PI (I actually have to declare it as OGC in addition)

Alzrius said:
Again, OGC includes "game mechanics and the methods, procedures, processes, and routines,"

none of which I am using here, so.... as I said, you basically have to claim that I cannot use the 6 attributes for my monster without it becoming derivative, good luck with that

mamba · May 7, 2024

Parmandur said:
Well, I think it is probsvly good. Like, an SRD thar does something like OSRIC, but make a more of the actual original Gyfaxian language open source? For 1E, BD&D 2E...?

that would be good, I could see them removing a lot of stuff to more closely mirror the 5e SRD too however

mamba · May 7, 2024

kenmarable said:
You are quick to quote the definition of Open Gaming Content (2d) specifically excluding Product Identity, but I don't see you quoting the end of the definition of Product Identity (2e) where it specifically excludes Open Gaming Content.

I had it the first time I quoted the OGL, by now I have three posts from today that do...

I did not include it this time because (e) just states that existing OGC cannot be turned into my PI. (d) defined what OGC is, and that is existing OGC + whatever I explicitly declare OGC - my PI

kenmarable said:
As for it "clearly stating" that one takes precedence over the other, you would be one of the only people who thinks this circular exclusion is "clearly stating" anything!

I am sure lawyers can spend a lot of money by arguing either side, I am just explaining how I read it

SteveC · May 7, 2024

Alzrius said:
I disagree. The OGL mandated that anything derived from Open Game Content, had to itself be Open Game Content. Removing that provision nullifies a lot of the benefits for the wider community.

It will be interesting to see how Creative Commons changes the scene. There are some great OGL writers and studios that behaved (in my opinion) very much not in the spirit of the license back in the 3E era. I hope when the new edition is launched and we see what third-party publishers do with it, that doesn't repeat.

SteveC · May 7, 2024

Eyes of Nine said:
This just continues my sad that 4e is not under the OGL

I want to shift to the earth where 4E was released via OGL. The gaming industry would likely (note the likely part) be very different in that case.

Eyes of Nine · May 7, 2024

SteveC said:
I want to shift to the earth where 4E was released via OGL. The gaming industry would likely (note the likely part) be very different in that case.

The best timeline

Mistwell · May 7, 2024

MoonSong said:
The point is we should want to have both. Creative Commons is nice, but the viral nature of the OGL and the ability to remix with previous Open Game Content is nice. Currently the only way to access existing Open Game Content is through the OGL. Both are open licenses, but aren't compatible with each other.

So put it into the OGL. Do it through the CC.

Reynard · May 7, 2024

SteveC said:
It will be interesting to see how Creative Commons changes the scene. There are some great OGL writers and studios that behaved (in my opinion) very much not in the spirit of the license back in the 3E era. I hope when the new edition is launched and we see what third-party publishers do with it, that doesn't repeat.

We've already seen it: they do their book and get their million dollar kickstarter and give nothing back to the 5E publishing community, unless they decide to do a bespoke license.

Reynard · May 7, 2024

Mistwell said:
So put it into the OGL. Do it through the CC.

This is a nonsense statement. They a different, mutually exclusive things.

SteveC · May 7, 2024

Reynard said:
We've already seen it: they do their book and get their million dollar kickstarter and give nothing back to the 5E publishing community, unless they decide to do a bespoke license.

My understanding is that those products are all OGL. And the OGL could (really does) have problems where you use the core content and then make all of your product closed. If that's the same, I think that will be against the CC licensing intent severely. Maybe nothing will change with a different license, and it will just make me want to use that bashing the head against the wall emoji.

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

mamba

Legend

mamba

Legend

mamba

Legend

SteveC

Doing the best imitation of myself

SteveC

Doing the best imitation of myself

Eyes of Nine

Everything's Fine

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)

Reynard

Legend

Reynard

Legend

SteveC

Doing the best imitation of myself

Similar Threads

Related Articles