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.

 

[mamba]

The OGL is, from a game theory point of view, safe enough to use now probsvlt, but based on the close legal analysis from actual lawyers we saw during the crisis...WorC did probably have more than a leg to stand on, and likely would have qon in open court. Fortunately, Creative Commona ia actually ironclad.

that is not my read on the OGL discussion… that was more WotC has no chance except to drag it out or find an incompetent judge, the license itself is irrevocable and perpetual, whether the word is in it or not, all that changed is legal conventions would include that word today when at the time everyone understood it to be redundant (because it cannot be perpetual when it can be revoked…) and other such licenses of the time also do not use it

 

[Reynard]

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 did not do that strongly enough, and that's why ORC looks like it does.

Also, I did not think you could release a portion of a document into CC.

 

[mamba]

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.

if I can release a book of monsters for D&D under the OGL and none of them have to be open content, then I am not sure in which case anything would actually be forced to be included as open content

 

[Alzrius]

It did not do that strongly enough, and that's why ORC looks like it does.

Honestly, I think the ORC License's biggest advantage over the OGL is that it's not owned by any person or corporation. Which is something WotC should do for an OGL v1.0b, but I'm sure that's just wishful thinking at this point.

Also, I did not think you could release a portion of a document into CC.

You mean for the CC-BY-4.0? I have no idea.

if I can release a book of monsters for D&D under the OGL and none of them have to be open content

You can't actually do that, though. I'm aware that some companies have said that they could (or maybe it was for classes instead of monsters), but they're still in violation of the license. At most they could claim that the names and flavor text were OGC (which is still a jerk move).

 

[MoonSong]

Since everything will eventually go to creative commons, this seems to be just a temporary problem. Now we are good. And after SRD 5.2 gets out, most probably it won't take that long until older SRDs are released under CC.

It's not just official SRDs that matter. There's lots of non-WotC content on OGC. There's the whole of Pathfinder 1, a good deal of Pathfinder 2, lots of existing OSR stuff, the Mongoose version of Ronequest, at least one edition of Tormenta. A lot of it isn't even D&D centric and tons of it cannot be converted to CC because the publishers are gone or licence contracts have ended.

 

[mamba]

You can't actually do that, though. I'm aware that some companies have said that they could

they did not just say so, they did…

but they're still in violation of the license

if no one enforces it that makes no practical difference, even if they would be in violation, which I am not so sure of

 

[Nikosandros]

It's not just official SRDs that matter. There's lots of non-WotC content on OGC. There's the whole of Pathfinder 1, a good deal of Pathfinder 2, lots of existing OSR stuff, the Mongoose version of Ronequest, at least one edition of Tormenta. A lot of it isn't even D&D centric and tons of it cannot be converted to CC because the publishers are gone or licence contracts have ended.

All of this is true and most discussions here about the OGL forget about it. OTOH, I'm fairly positive that WotC doesn't care about all this games and now that 5e is under CC, WotC has no real interest in tampering with the OGL again.

 

[Alzrius]

they did not just say so, they did…

No, they didn't. You can't just rewrite the OGL to make it say what you want it to say, even if you say that you did.

if no one enforces it that makes no practical difference, even if they would be in violation, which I am not so sure of

That sword cuts both ways. If I reuse someone else's Open Game Content, even if they don't call it Open Game Content, then there's nothing they can do about it.

 

[Parmandur]

if I can release a book of monsters for D&D under the OGL and none of them have to be open content, then I am no sure in which case anything would actually be forced to be included as open content

There was an assumption behind the OGL, that "rules not being copyrightavle" meant that a y rules content could not be IP, by their nature. However, many OGL creators have lined off their rules content as IP reserved, and the non-copyrightable nature of game rules is highly, highly speculative, and exists mainly because big game companies are scared to test it even though they would probably win by and large (big risk that "winning" might change the nature of game copyright usage in Common law practice inunpresictavle ways).

 

[Parmandur]

All of this is true and most discussions here about the OGL forget about it. OTOH, I'm fairly positive that WotC doesn't care about all this games and now that 5e is under CC, WotC has no real interest in tampering with the OGL again.

They literally have no financial incentive to mess with people that way: the CC release guarantees that the rules are open, so going after small companies using rhe OGL in good faith would gain Hasbro no money.