D&D (2024) Ben Riggs speculates on 2024 D&D and the OGL.

[FitzTheRuke]

1) They're almost certainly NOT releasing in Spring. I guarantee you that "leak" was in error.
2) Like @Parmandur said, 3PP could make 2024-compatible material using the current SRD.
3) They've said that they'd update the SRD and the CC. We have no reason (yet) to think that has changed.

 

[Vikingkingq]

I think Riggs' speculation about not doing an OGL for OneDnD doesn't make much sense to me. Since the 2024 edition is deliberately close to the 2014 5th edition, there would be a lot of overlap between the two editions and that overlap would all be in the OGL/CC. They could have a more restrictive license for the stuff that's unique to the 2024 edition, but it would be pretty partial and I don't think it would be worthwhile for anyone to use that license.

Also, they may not be releasing in the spring, since they walked back that announcement. It could well have been a placeholder date.

 

[mamba]

3) They've said that they'd update the SRD and the CC.

no, they said they would either do that, or release an errata (document with things you should use now instead of what the SRD says, like ‘species’ instead of ‘race’)

 

[Morrus]

However, he fails to consider a third explanation: the existing SRD allows for making options compatible with D&D'24 already,

Yup. A new SRD would be redundant. It's not needed. The existing SRD contains everything you need to make product compatible with any version of D&D.

The whole thing is a non-issue. If they released a new one, it would merely be symbolic.

What I expect is platform access to be the thing, not the rules text. That's what will replace the OGL as the signal of 'compatibilty' -- is it on DDB? That's what will matter in the long run.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

no, they said they would either do that, or release an errata (document with things you should use now instead of what the SRD says, like ‘species’ instead of ‘race’)

Sure. I guess that's different than "updating", but not by much.

 

[Retreater]

The existing SRD contains everything you need to make product compatible with any version of D&D.

Except 4E, right?

 

[Morrus]

Except 4E, right?

Hmm. I don’t recall the 4E terminology well enough, but it broadly used the same verbiage didn’t it? Class names, hit points, armor class, all that stuff?

Unless your goal is to reprint the rules as opposed to make compatible material. But that’s not what the OGL was ever intended for anyway.

 

[Yaarel]

About Lineage vs. Species: Crawford went into that in detail during the content creator event earlier this year. Lineage was what the D&D design team thought would be appropriate, but their sensitivity readers Noped Lineage and suggested Species instead, which tested well apparently. Others adopted Lineage based on WotC early moves toward using it, IMO.

Thanks for that info.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Hmm. I don’t recall the 4E terminology well enough, but it broadly used the same verbiage didn’t it? Class names, hit points, armor class, all that stuff?

Unless your goal is to reprint the rules as opposed to make compatible material. But that’s not what the OGL was ever intended for anyway.

There are 4e retroclones.

However, for various reasons there just isn't the same breadth and depth of community around it.

 

[Reynard]

The whole thing is a non-issue. If they released a new one, it would merely be symbolic.

I think that symbolism is what makes it an, er, non-non-issue from a community outreach and customer relations standpoint. Putting the SRD out the (especially if it were the whole thing this time) not only tells the fan base that WotC is dedicated to supporting open gaming with 5E in perpetuity, it also puts a nail in the coffin of potential rivals like TotV.