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

The 2024 version of the D&D core rules will be included in an expanded version of the System Reference Document, and available to third parties via Creative Commons (though there is no mention of thr Open Gaming License). The new SRD 5.2 will be available early 2025 after the new Monster Manual has been released.

The new SRD will be localized in the languages which WotC supports.

Regarding the long-awaited SRDs for previous editions, WotC says that they will start reviewing those documents once the 2024 rulebooks are out.

 

[Jadeite]

I am from Germany and I was there around that area. I started playing in the mid 90s with AD&D and then converted readily to 3e where I started DMing. It was just that we had enough material to play forever without magazines in 2002. Maybe I have seen them, but I just did not need them. 3e spoke for itself.

Did you use the English version or the translation by Amigo and later FuS? There were some attempts to release some German version of the magazines which contained content from both, but it wasn't successful if I recall correctly.
The content of the magazines was a mixed bag. Some stuff from Dragon was mechanically broken, but 3.5 as a whole was glorious mess. Dungeon Magazine reached its height when Paizo introduced the Adventure Paths (and WotC let Paizo publish the magazines a little bit longer to be able finish Savage Tide).
I had a conscription to my local gaming store and after that one disappeared (literally, there were tons of angry eBay comments from people who never received the products they paid for) subscribed directly from Paizo (or rather indirectly as they had a partner in the UK).

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Did you use the English version or the translation by Amigo and later FuS? There were some attempts to release some German version of the magazines which contained content from both, but it wasn't successful if I recall correctly.
The content of the magazines was a mixed bag. Some stuff from Dragon was mechanically broken, but 3.5 as a whole was glorious mess. Dungeon Magazine reached its height when Paizo introduced the Adventure Paths (and WotC let Paizo publish the magazines a little bit longer to be able finish Savage Tide).
I had a conscription to my local gaming store and after that one disappeared (literally, there were tons of angry eBay comments from people who never received the products they paid for) subscribed directly from Paizo (or rather indirectly as they had a partner in the UK).

I used english versions. I did not like the German translations back then.

 

[DavyGreenwind]

I guess that's the part that's confusing me. If both are open licenses, why would you need both? Isn't one always going to be enough? Is there ever a situation where one would be preferable to the other?

(I promise I'm not trolling. This has always been confusing to me.)

Releasing a new OGL would be superfluous. CC covers everything OGL does and then some. Same with current OGL. It became superfluous when they released it on the CC.

 

[Uta-napishti]

This is great news that WoTC is building on the positive moves they made early last year to get out of the OGL cancellation fiasco. It would be lovely of course if 5.2 was also released under the OGL 1.0a, for those combining newer and older content. If they can only see supporting one license, of course the CC is better going forward. It is also good news to hear that the 3.5 SRD material will be reviewed. The goal is of course to get the older stuff offered under the same license as the newer SRDs, to allow material to be combined / remixed freely. Top points for supporting the other large market languages as well. This is WoTC taking care of the hobby!

 

[Yaarel]

Nice. Perhaps those who insist on using 5.whatever to identify the revision could settle on 5.2 to match the SRD.

Huh. 5.2. That is tempting.

 

[Jadeite]

The 3.5 SRD was reviewed more than 20 years ago. The PHB material didn't contain deities or XP charts, the DMG material didn't contain the planes or Red Wizards and the MM section didn't contain certain monsters like Beholders or Carrion Crawlers (that selection was somewhat weird). It was ready for release years ago. It's nice that they still intend declare their intent to release it, but I get similar declarations from certain Kickstartarters that I've already written off. I guess most people will have stopped caring if it ever releases, especially now that Paizo has purged most direct references. I'd prefer an updated OGL since there's stuff like Tome of Horrors that's released under the OGL but wasn't in the SRD.

 

[Parmandur]

No, you don't. The license defines Product Identity. If you declare something as Product Identity that doesn't meet the definition provided by the license, your declaration is of the same legal effect as a declaration that you are the Emperor of the United States.

The licenses definition of anon-legal termhas no legal force, ia the thing. There is no mechanism for arbitration or enforcement. However, there is a mechanism for arbitration enforcement of copyright, so Monte Cook could probavly successfully sue anyone who tried to use the OGL to use stuff he states is off limits specifically.

 

[Vincent55]

Returning to this company would be like returning to an abusive ex who said this time I have changed. Sorry, but I have moved on and have found happiness elsewhere but have a nice life.

 

[Alzrius]

no, first of all PI trumps OGC, and second you will fail at making ‘Strength’ OGC. Me using the OGC Orc and creating an Orc Archer from it would be derivative, but coming up with my own monster and assigning values to the 6 stats, good luck with that

You don't need luck. All of the stats that you create for that monster are based on the SRD's game rules, which makes it derivative, and therefore itself OGC. That includes the "Strength" ability score; why you think that can be PI I have no idea. PI only "trumps" OGC to the extent that you can declare something which is actually original (e.g. the monster's flavor text) PI if you want.

sure, but it has no ‘have to’ for having to declare anything as OGC

In point of fact, you do have to declare what content is OGC in your product (which it presumably has some of, otherwise why are you using the OGL at all?).

I am not turning anything that already is OGC into closed content, I am preventing any of my new content to become OGC

Again, the stats are already OGC simply by virtue of them being generated using rules which are themselves OGC. That's not up for debate.

well, that is taken off the table by me using the OGL to begin with… and good luck even trying to get a copyright on the 6 stats

Just because something is in the OGL doesn't mean it's not copyrighted, or gives up copyright. The OGL doesn't absolve anyone of their copyrights, it's just a license that copyrighted content can be used in the manner the license outlines. That's the entire point of the OGL.

I am not doing that…

See above. Even derivative uses of the SRD's game rules are OGC, because the SRD's game rules themselves are OGC. It doesn't matter what sort of new monster you invent, at the bare minimum its stat block is going to be OGC whether you like it or not.

 

[Cadence]

step 3 is where you go wrong, your CC contribution is whatever you added in 2, not what came in 1 and you have no right to put either under a more restrictive license

“No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.”

the license being CC-SA

Whether you can combine parts that are under OGL and under CC-BY in one document is a different question, not sure on that one, but each part would stay under its license

IANAL, but I think this is conflating two things - (1) what CC-BY let's you do, and (2) the not putting additional restrictions on the original.

(1) Say you incorporate a CC-BY clip into a short film you make. You may copyright your short film so no one else may reproduce or modify your new short film, as long as you give credit to the clip's creators, say if you altered it, and give a link to the CC-BY license saying you had permission.

(2) You cannot submit your whole video to something that checks for copyright abuses that will flag anyone using that CC-BY clip (as that would stop others from using the original CC-BY work).

Or again:

(1) Say you make a new image by remixing someone's CC-BY image. You can do that if you give credit to the original creator, say you modified it, and give a link to the license. You can also put your derivative picture under CC-BY-ND so that others can't modify it, but can reuse it.

(2) You cannot try to go after people for also making derivatives of the original CC-BY image, just your changes to it.

Also note:

You cannot put your new derivative into the public domain as that would mean people using it didn't have to abide by CC-BY on the original.