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.

 

[see]

and since I determine what is PI...

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 definition of "Open Game Content" does include an additional "any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor" provision. So stuff that would otherwise not meet the license's definition of OGC can be made OGC by declaration of the copyright/trademark owner.

The seemingly parallel "clearly identified" provision in the definition of "Product Identity", on the other hand, limits PI to stuff that not only meets the rest of the definition, but is also clearly identified as PI. So stuff that would be PI can be made not-PI by failing to declare it, but stuff that otherwise doesn't meet the definition cannot be made PI by declaration.

So, OGC is anything that meets the license's definition of OGC or that has been declared OGC by its owner. PI is only that content which both meets the license's definition of PI and is declared PI by its owner. This is a deliberate, intentional bias in the OGL to having things count as OGC, and not count as PI.

Now, will a random Federal judge, in the event, rule that a given monster stat block is the "game mechanic", or "derivative" of OGC, and thus OGC by the license definition? Nobody knows! There's hardly precedent on the definition of the term "game mechanic", and what constitutes a derivative work is a matter of vague guidelines.

So, by declaring the monster stat block PI, you have taken that uncertainty about how a judge would rule on the meaning of the OGL in a specific case, raised it as a banner, and declared "Come and try me!" Since your monster stat block probably isn't worth the hassle of a fight, you may well get away with it. But the effect of the uncertainty and hassle of the legal system is hardly the same thing as the OGL giving you carte blanche to "determine what is PI".

 

[mamba]

For example, you can include someone else's CC-BY material into something that has the more restrictive CC-BY-SA.

not sure why that works, but the Adapter chart says it does… I would consider BY-SA to be more restrictive than BY and therefore not an option given the ‘no additional restrictions’ clause (see below)

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.

I would assume the following causes problems if you want to relicense it under OGL

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

Whether you can include it, no idea, but that makes the two licenses incompatible and you will need to be clear about which part of your aggregate is under which license

 

[mamba]

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.

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

 

[UngeheuerLich]

"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?

Yeah. That worked for 3e too. Paizo really brought in money for WotC.

 

[mamba]

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

Sure, but you can't use PI to turn OGC into closed content.

I am not doing that…

 

[mamba]

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.

have you read the definition? I have a hard time thinking of anything I could not declare PI based on it (and wanted to include in any TTRPG product)…

The definition of "Open Game Content" does include an additional "any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor" provision. So stuff that would otherwise not meet the license's definition of OGC can be made OGC by declaration of the copyright/trademark owner.

but I am not declaring my contribution as OGC… I am declaring it as PI

So, OGC is anything that meets the license's definition of OGC or that has been declared OGC by its owner.

yep, and part of the definition of OGC is that it excludes PI

So, by declaring the monster stat block PI, you have taken that uncertainty about how a judge would rule on the meaning of the OGL in a specific case, raised it as a banner, and declared "Come and try me!" Since your monster stat block probably isn't worth the hassle of a fight, you may well get away with it. But the effect of the uncertainty and hassle of the legal system is hardly the same thing as the OGL giving you carte blanche to "determine what is PI".

it’s not that I won’t get sued by chance that makes it PI, it is the definition of PI in the license and the fact that I declared it PI

“places, locations, environments, creatures, equipment, magical or supernatural abilities” can all be PI

 

[Jadeite]

Yeah. That worked for 3e too. Paizo really brought in money for WotC.

Considering that Paizo did a lot of advertising for new D&D books in Dragon and published lots of adventures in Dungeon to run, they most likely did. Taking the magazines away from them wasn't a great idea.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Considering that Paizo did a lot of advertising for new D&D books in Dragon and published lots of adventures in Dungeon to run, they most likely did. Taking the magazines away from them wasn't a great idea.

I never knew they had magazines (back then) ... buz I live outside the USA, so...

 

[Jadeite]

I never knew they had magazines (back then) ... buz I live outside the USA, so...

I'm not from the US either but from Germany, so it's probably more about having been around that era (or having done some research about it). I guess most American players who started with 5e don't know about it, either.
Paizo was pretty much created to publish the Dragon and Dungeon Magazines which WotC saw at unprofitable at that time which 2002 was during the end of the 3.0 era. They also did Star Wars Insider and some TCG magazine that were killed off long before they lost the Dragon and Dungeon licenses. They did some OGL stuff during the late 3.5 era, using Proto-Golarion as a setting under the GameMastery line, but when they lost the magazine licenses, they created the Pathfinder Adventure Paths, with the intention to publish them for 4e once it came out.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I'm not from the US either but from Germany, so it's probably more about having been around that era (or having done some research about it). I guess most American players who started with 5e don't know about it, either.
Paizo was pretty much created to publish the Dragon and Dungeon Magazines which WotC saw at unprofitable at that time which 2002 was during the end of the 3.0 era. They also did Star Wars Insider and some TCG magazine that were killed off long before they lost the Dragon and Dungeon licenses. They did some OGL stuff during the late 3.5 era, using Proto-Golarion as a setting under the GameMastery line, but when they lost the magazine licenses, they created the Pathfinder Adventure Paths, with the intention to publish them for 4e once it came out.

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.