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]

There's an ongoing joke in the MCU between Black Widow and Hawkeye about remembering Budapest.

All I can say is that you remember the d20 Era a lot different than I do.

That was when I started gaming! That is precisely.what I call not achieving liftoff.

 

[Parmandur]

3.x seems more a matter of time before it becomes CC

My read at this point, since WotC keeps bringing this up after nearly a year abd a half, is thst they want to do something bigger and flashier than an afternoon's work sctubbing up the 3.5 SRD and calling it a day.

 

[Blue]

They said they would be willing to go to court over it, but then changed tactics and sciested from the OGL entirely. 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.

And even more than it being ironclad, it's backed by IBM's lawyers because of how it's used in open source. Look back at SCO.

Small publishers are afraid of Hasbro's lawyers. Small countries are afraid of IBM's lawyers.

I had an IBM Business Partner (they want corps to buy through them in the US instead of direct) that gave me a quote he heard at IBM's Watson facility in upstate New York: "IBM legal has an unlimited budget, which they frequently exceed..."

 

[Alzrius]

The viral aspect of "Open Gaming" never really took off, to be honest.

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.

 

[Parmandur]

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...

Yup, and WotC was not about to sue customers over the OGL, the point of the OGL was to not sue people and make them feel safe they didn't face being sued by Hasbro

 

[mamba]

They changed the "a" to an "o," but close enough. Even then, if you call it a "warg," you'll likely have the Tolkien estate on you, and I doubt you have a license to use their content.

agreed, but I was trying to make a point by using an example everyone would understand more than making one up that does not run afoul of Tolkien

They don't have "nothing." Far from it. That would mean that you can declare "barbarian warlord" or "evil cleric" or any other combination of terms Product Identity, ruling it out for everyone else.

these are just words, unless I can trademark them anyone can use them, and good luck with that...

The OGL explicitly states that material derived from existing OGC cannot cease being OGC

show me that, because all I see is you cannot close OGC off, everything I see loses out to my declaration of PI

"(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 is an enhancement over the prior art and any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor, and means any work covered by this License, including translations and derivative works under copyright law, but specifically excludes Product Identity."

and the other relevant part does not help at all

"(b)"Derivative Material" means copyrighted material including derivative works and translations (including into other computer languages), potation, modification, correction, addition, extension, upgrade, improvement, compilation, abridgment or other form in which an existing work may be recast, transformed or adapted;"

as a new monster does none of this, have fun arguing that I cannot use Strength as an attribute without being derivative, because as far as I can tell that is basically what you would have to resort to

 

[Parmandur]

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.

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

 

[mamba]

My read at this point, since WotC keeps bringing this up after nearly a year abd a half, is thst they want to do something bigger and flashier than an afternoon's work sctubbing up the 3.5 SRD and calling it a day.

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

 

[mamba]

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).

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

WotC was not about to sue customers over the OGL, the point of the OGL was to not sure people.l and make them feel safe not being sued.

 

[Alzrius]

agreed, but I was trying to make a point by using an example everyone would understand more than making one up that does not run afoul of Tolkien

It's the same reason you can't make up a new creature called an "orc overlord" and have that term be unusable because it's Product Identity. At best, people wouldn't be able to use that particular name with that particular stat block, but that's not really accomplishing much.

these are just words, unless I can trademark them anyone can use them, and good luck with that...

Trademark has nothing to do with any aspect of what we're talking about.

show me that, because all I see is you cannot close OGC off, everything I see loses out to my declaration of PI

"(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 is an enhancement over the prior art and any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor, and means any work covered by this License, including translations and derivative works under copyright law, but specifically excludes Product Identity."

You're literally making my argument for me here. The text you cited flat-out states that Product Identity cannot be used to make Open Game Content unusable by anyone else. It's right there in black-and-white; I'm not sure what else to tell you.

and the other relevant part does not help at all

"(b)"Derivative Material" means copyrighted material including derivative works and translations (including into other computer languages), potation, modification, correction, addition, extension, upgrade, improvement, compilation, abridgment or other form in which an existing work may be recast, transformed or adapted;"

as a new monster does none of this, have fun arguing that I cannot use Strength as an attribute without being derivative, because as far as I can tell that is basically what you would have to resort to

Again, OGC includes "game mechanics and the methods, procedures, processes, and routines," including the derivative materials outlined above. That clause you highlighted means that you can't claim that someone else's Product Identity falls under that, but at the same time it also specifies that the reverse is true, since (again, which you yourself quoted), Product Identity is excluded from being Open Game content, which is itself defined.