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.

 

[Parmandur]

yes, not sure if that is a good or a bad thing though

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...? If theyvwant to do something more sweeping like that, there is even a commercial purpoae: the 3D VTT theybare building is system agnostic, and that means that folks could use it to run AD&D, B/X, 3E or 4E...all of which WotX does still, after all, sell products for. An SRD would be a food basis for them selling older edition material on Beyond or the VTT, in addition to DMsGuild or Roll20

 

[Reynard]

I'm pretty sure that every company (that wasn't Paizo) which published a PF1-compatible product counts as part of the viral aspect of Open Gaming.

Paizo was (and remains) extremely supportive of Open Gaming and are kind of an outlier in that regard.

 

[Blue]

They didn't say anything about lawyer review, clearly they want designer review. And the designers are shoulder deep in core books development.

Which holds even less weight, because when the promise was made in early 2023 to complete by end of 2024, they had to know that would be heavy time for the designers.

 

[Parmandur]

Which holds even less weight, because when the promise was made in early 2023 to complete by end of 2024, they had to know that would be heavy time for the designers.

They did they eould like to do it within a year, it even at the time Kyle Brink mentioned that the people qualified to do it were building the Core vooks...one of which even got delayed out of the anniversary year. Due dates slip. Follow-through is what matters more than timing, and they are continuing to update us is actually impressive: if they hadn't mentioned it ever again the number of people who would blame them is honestly miniscule, it could easily have been dismissed as an off-hand comment. Someone or several someone's with some pull internally is keeping this alive, which they don't have to do. Props to them.

 

[kenmarable]

I think I saw that video too

My loophole was not based on that however but on the license clearly stating that my Product Identity takes precedence over Open Game Content, and then there is that bit

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.

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've seen 20+ years of debate over the meanings of the commas in those two definitions by people with more expertise in this than us. So, no, the license does not "clearly state" what you claim it does. (It also does not "clearly state" the opposite either. There are a LOT of things that is very unclearly tries to state but winds up getting in its own way! ) If anything, this just highlights the weaknesses in the wording of many sections. But considering what little they had to go on at the time, it's held up very well for these couple decades!

 

[Parmandur]

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.

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've seen 20+ years of debate over the meanings of the commas in those two definitions. So, no, the license does not "clearly state" what you claim it does. (It also does not "clearly state" the opposite either!) If anything, this just highlights the weaknesses in the wording of many sections. But considering what little they had to go on at the time, it's held up very well for these couple decades!

Well, yeah, the definitions are problematic, partly because the law and precedent is muddled to begin with. However, the law would .ostentatious likely side with anyone claiming Product Identity is their intellectual property under standard copyright lE. Open Content and Product Identity are not real legal with standardized meaning, just vsur terms in a license. Snd WotC was not about to sue Monte Cook Games and drag them through the court system to set a precedent.

 

[Blue]

Their is a common opinion thwt game rules don't count as Intellectual Property, but one of the deeper dives I listened to from an IP lawyer last year is that the reality is that nobody knows where the line is in Common Law for game rules because game companies really, really don't want to set a precedent ao settle before any judge really analyzes the situation and creates a precedent thar could disadvantage everyone in the games industry (or at least, force absolutely everyone to change business as usual). The Product Identity language was relying on the understanding that rules couldn't be IP, but a huge number of creators have ignored that opinion and gotten away with it for decades...and basically nobody involved would want to force a judge to carefully examine that situation.

Agreed, I've heard something similar. That "you can't copyright rules" has been tested up to the "roll a die and move that many spaces", and no one wants to test it further.

 

[Blue]

Well, first, the OGL is safe now because WotC has nothing to gain.

Your definition of safe relies on corporate benevolence or at least disinterest.

Those using the OGL always thought it safe, until that was brought into question. And what was brought into question is still there. All it takes is another push from Hasbro or change of senior management at WotC and it may not be "safe". And if the OGL can be rendered unsafe at any time via factors not under our control, you can't consider it safe.

Second, how many people were making use of that material for building further work?

Some number above zero, which is enough to put rest to the comment I was answering that claimed everything would be in CC.

But in truth, plenty. Fate was put out under the OGL as well as another license, and it has a thriving ecosystem official, 3pp and fan made. I can see fans putting out stuff for PF1 for a long time. 13th Age is just about to have a 2nd edition which will probably change licenses, but anything put out for the 1e is under it. OpenD6 is under OGL. DCC was under OGL, and I can see people reusing their stuff. Fan expansions. Enough that there are people out there that would rather not lose it.

 

[Reynard]

Agreed, I've heard something similar. That "you can't copyright rules" has been tested up to the "roll a die and move that many spaces", and no one wants to test it further.

There are obviously folks posting I'm this thread that have me blocked, so I am missing context for sure, buy I just wanted to support this post.

No one in the TTRPG space has decided to push this to the next level. If WotC didn't do it over OSRIC I don’t think anyone will.

 

[Mistwell]

Most interestingly, number 7 is missing for me... wonder why...

Me too!