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.

 

[Hussar]

Whoops, didn't notice the thread count.

Haven't read the thread yet, but, this seems like good news. Now I have 10 more pages to see just how bad this is for the hobby.

 

[mamba]

From the CC license, "All CC licenses are non-exclusive: creators and owners can enter into additional, different licensing arrangements for the same material at any time (often referred to as “dual-licensing” or “multi-licensing”). "

you are not the creator of the SRD, so you cannot enter into a different agreement, WotC however could publish the SRD under the OGL as well

 

[Cadence]

you are not the creator of the SRD, so you cannot enter into a different agreement, WotC however could publish the SRD under the OGL as well

CC-BY "enables reusers to distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon the material in any medium or format, so long as attribution is given to the creator". (They also need to indicate if changes were made and give a link to the license: CC BY 4.0 Deed | Attribution 4.0 International | Creative Commons ).

For example, you can include someone else's CC-BY material into something that has the more restrictive CC-BY-SA. Frequently Asked Questions - Creative Commons ,
or see Chart 2 at Understanding CC licence compatibility – A Guide to Creative Commons where you can remix it into anything more restrictive.

Can't find a link right now, but CC-BY material is also regularly included by others in new copyrighted material. The CC-BY license gives them permission to do so as long as credit is given (and they don't try to say others can't also use the original CC-BY material).

On the other hand, only the original copyright holder could put it into the less restrictive PD.

The other CC licenses are very different.

 

[Mistwell]

you are not the creator of the SRD, so you cannot enter into a different agreement, WotC however could publish the SRD under the OGL as well

If there is something in the CC which you can publish under the CC, the terms of the CC say you can publish it into another license provided you follow their attribution requirements.

The OGL (not the SRD - the OGL) doesn't have any bar, as far as I know, in publishing your CC content into the Open Game License. You do not need to be the creator of the material to use the OGL, you just have to " have sufficient rights to grant the rights conveyed by this License." Which, as far as I can tell, you do have. The CC explicitly says you can put it into a different license - even a more restrictive license. So you have the rights to convey into the OGL as far as I can tell.

Tell me where I am going wrong here? The steps are:

1. WOTC puts content into the CC.
2. You use that CC content to create a new CC contribution.
3. Your use of the CC to do that, comes with explicit permission under the CC to put your CC contribution into another license (even a more restrictive one like the OGL), provided you follow their attribution requirements.
4. You then put that CC contribution into the OGL.
5. The OGL does not require that you be the copyright owner of material you put into the OGL. It says it needs to be your original content OR "You have sufficient rights to grant the rights conveyed by this License." Which, under the terms of the CC, you do.
6. The WOTC content put into the CC, by means of your new contribution under the CC and the OGL, is now in the OGL for use by others.

What part of this is flawed?

 

[Umbran]

Mod Note:

There's some stuff in the past couple of pages that got a bit heated. I'm here to tell folks that they need to stay respectful, and that if they can't do that, disengaging is likely preferable to the consequences of blowing up at each other.

 

[Cadence]

If there is something in the CC which you can publish under the CC, the terms of the CC say you can publish it into another license provided you follow their attribution requirements.

The OGL (not the SRD - the OGL) doesn't have any bar, as far as I know, in publishing your CC content into the Open Game License. You do not need to be the creator of the material to use the OGL, you just have to " have sufficient rights to grant the rights conveyed by this License." Which, as far as I can tell, you do have. The CC explicitly says you can put it into a different license - even a more restrictive license. So you have the rights to convey into the OGL as far as I can tell.

Tell me where I am going wrong here? The steps are:

1. WOTC puts content into the CC.
2. You use that CC content to create a new CC contribution.
3. Your use of the CC to do that, comes with explicit permission under the CC to put your CC contribution into another license (even a more restrictive one like the OGL), provided you follow their attribution requirements.
4. You then put that CC contribution into the OGL.
5. The OGL does not require that you be the copyright owner of material you put into the OGL. It says it needs to be your original content OR "You have sufficient rights to grant the rights conveyed by this License." Which, under the terms of the CC, you.
6. The WOTC content put into the CC, by means of your new contribution under the CC and the OGL, is now in the OGL for use by others.

What part of this is flawed?

I think this works fine for the CC-BY. I think a lot of it blows up if you do it with some of the other CC's that are more restrictive than the OGL allows.

 

[Cadence]

I think this works fine for the CC-BY. I think a lot of it blows up if you do it with some of the other CC's that are more restrictive than the OGL allows.

Adding to last comment... I think the adaptors of your material need to follow both OGL and CC-BY then.

 

[Faolyn]

What I really like are two additional things:

• they explicitely state that the SRD 5.2 will be irrevocable and unchangeable by WotC.
• they won't touch the SRD 5.1, so everyone is free to use one or the other license.

I really can't see any way how someone spins this as negative... but probably I am underestimating some people who have an axe to grind... let's see

"This just proves that WotC is going to put less effort into their '24 books, because they're counting on other people to write the supplements for them!"

How about that?

 

[Alzrius]

says who... if I make a new monster, the stats are mine, they follow the progression and wording set by the others, but they are still my stats, skills, etc. I did not just take the Orc and called it something else

No, not yours. This isn't up for debate; if they're based on existing OGC, which is what existing stats are, then they're OGC by default and cannot be made Product Identity.

there is no 'have to' part in the license... even if there were I can still declare it PI to avoid this

The OGL has many "have to" parts in it. You have to list everything you make use of in your Section 15, for instance. You have to declare your OGC and PI. You have to not use any trademark or registered trademark unless you have a separate license to do so, etc.

And no, PI isn't some sort of broad blanket that you can use to turn any OGC into closed content. The license itself is explicit in saying you can't do that.

no, I am using 6 words from the English language, there is no way you get that passed through court as game mechanics

This isn't correct. Harry Potter is just X number of words in the English language, but if you just so happen to make your own story that makes use of those same words in that same order, then even if you switch out the words that were clearly invented for the story (e.g. you have a "golden smitch" and a school named Gogwarts) then you're still going to be cited for copyright infringement, and rightly so.

If maps and dictionaries can be copyrighted, then game mechanics can be, even if they simply consist entirely of common words. The arrangement of particular words in a particular order counts as something copyrightable.

that is more worth a shot, but still pretty debatable. At the same time, I am using the OGL to avoid this, so...

Sure, but you can't use PI to turn OGC into closed content. The license forbids that, even if WotC seems entirely uninterested in enforcing that provision.

 

[Alzrius]

I think you can include both CC and OGL material in the same document, no?

You're pretty late to the party on that aspect of the discussion, Sly.