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.

 

[Alzrius]

IANAL, but I'd say my declaration of PI beats WotC's declaration of OGC "(d)"Open Game Content" means the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity" and since I determine what is PI...

I feel very confident in saying that you'd be wrong, since that passage means that you can't do an end run around someone else's Product Identity declaration by saying that it's Open Game Content, rather than the reverse.

 

[Blue]

I don't know why "They are coming after the new stuff" is being taken as they are not coming.

Because early in 2023 they promised it by the end of 2023, and it never came. Saying that the lawyers are busy doing SRD 5.2 review now is perfectly reasonable. Saying they were doing it all through 2023 as well is not. So it makes those cautious about WotC carrying through to be pessimistic.

 

[Alzrius]

OGC doesn't have anything to do with any of it.

I disagree.

 

[Reynard]

by that logic all the OSR has no legal cover either

Published under the OGL it does, but not under CC. Granted, i don't even know if games like OSE even bother with a designation. They might just be going with the "So sue me" tactic.

 

[Reynard]

I disagree.

Nothing released under the OGL has anything to do with stuff released under CC.

 

[Alzrius]

Nothing released under the OGL has anything to do with stuff released under CC.

No one said otherwise. What I said was that if someone wants to use existing Open Game Content (i.e. a product that used the OGL to release a 5.1 SRD-based book) in conjunction with material from the 5.2 SRD, it's much easier to have both SRDs under a single license, i.e the OGL.

You can use the OGL and CC in the same book, but it's a lot more complicated, and so it's be easier for publishers if they didn't have to do that.

 

[Blue]

the OGL is not broken, adding that word is more a bit of goodwill than legally relevant

Untested in a courtroom. There are people with a lot more legal knowledge than I who have opined both ways. There are small publishers who have stated that even if they are most likely in the right legally, they don't have the resources to fight it against Hasbro in court. And there's the fact that CC felt the need to add that clause in between v2 and v3, and they likely had a reason for thinking so.

Regardless of if I agree with you, that aspect is untested in a courtroom and has at least a shred of ambiguity.

 

[mamba]

I feel very confident in saying that you'd be wrong, since that passage means that you can't do an end run around someone else's Product Identity declaration by saying that it's Open Game Content, rather than the reverse.

I am not making an end run, the WotC Orc remains OGC, nothing I can do about that. My Warg Rider does not become OGC however if I declare that as PI however

 

[Alzrius]

I am not making an end run, the WotC Orc remains OGC, nothing I can do about that. My Warg Rider does not become OGC however if I declare that as PI however

Yes it does. The stats do, at least, and given that "warg" and "rider" are both in the SRD, I'm pretty sure the name does also.

 

[kenmarable]

The name and description don't have to be Product Identity; the stat block (including special powers), however, must be Open Game Content.

Only the name and description. The stats are Open Game Content regardless of your say-so, because they were OGC from the beginning.

Technically, yes, and that was the common understanding for a long time. However, no one, as far as I recall, actually tried pushing that and just abided by the OGC declarations even if they were more restricted than should have been allowed to be. Especially add in the complexities of how exactly the word "derived" would be interpreted legally.

(If I write a feat, does simply being a feat make it derived? Or just the parts of the feat that are more specifically derived like "You can add your Charisma modifier to your melee weapon attack rolls" but other text is not? What if I call it a Shmeat that it not a feat, but you can use it in place of a feat? Etc. Etc. It's unfortunately too indistinct for anyone willing to take the risk.)

Fast forward to now where lack of enforcement and rampant misunderstanding of the OGL, and that's sadly a lost cause. Trying to claim someone else's content as automatic OGC would likely be a PR nightmare, unfortunately, even if it technically did actually make it to court, the license might technically stipulate that as you say.

So, in practice, rather than in theory, nothing has been forced to be OGC due to being derived. It should have been, but even back in the 3.0 heyday, most publishers would (and did!) say "That is OGC whether they like it or not, but it's not worth the risk of challenging their awful OGC declaration."

Therefore any claims of "derived content is automatically OGC" are basically academic and of no practical relevance.