WotC updates SRD resources page with CC faq and SRD 5.1 under CC

[Haplo781]

I found this statement interesting:

Will more content be added to the SRD? The full 5th edition game and its expansions are available for use via the DMs Guild. New material will be added to the SRD if it is necessary to keep this document and its contents compatible with the latest D&D rules.

That doesn't sound like "we plan to add older editions" to me.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I'm not sure why you are repeating this when I gave you the context in the way I used the term.

....because it's true.

It's (CC BY) is the most open CC they have, and it's the best one that they could use.

 

[rules.mechanic]

That doesn't sound like "we plan to add older editions" to me.

They probably can't add older editions to the same SRD but let's hope they also release the older edition SRDs to CC. What I find interesting is that:

1. For the SRD: they seem to be committing to update the 5.1 SRD (which is a little out-of-date even before you consider recent changes to races, or future changes in preparation for 1DnD)
2. For DMs Guild: "full... game and it's expansions" sounds like they're opening up more expansions to being DMs Guild legal (in keeping with that screenshot doing the rounds that lists a LOT of additional settings as options)

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

1. For DMs Guild: "full... game and it's expansions" sounds like they're opening up more expansions to being DMs Guild legal (in keeping with that screenshot doing the rounds that lists a LOT of additional settings as options)

Wake me up when they open up Greyhawk to the DM's Guild.

 

[overgeeked]

For DMs Guild: "full... game and it's expansions" sounds like they're opening up more expansions to being DMs Guild legal (in keeping with that screenshot doing the rounds that lists a LOT of additional settings as options)

The what now?

 

[Jer]

That doesn't sound like "we plan to add older editions" to me.

That was the plan when they were eliminating the OGL 1.0a and moving to a new OGL. Adding older edition material to the CC-BY license made sense from their perspective to make people happy because it the OGL 1.0a was going away.

From their perspective, backing off the OGL deauth serves the same purpose, even if it really doesn't.

 

[Jer]

Wake me up when they open up Greyhawk to the DM's Guild.

I mean, as soon as your predicted 50th anniversary Greyhawk release happens it'll happen

(I'm curious to see if Greyhawk would get a massive uptake on DM's Guild or if the intersection of "folks who want to publish Greyhawk stuff" and "folks who want to publish for 5e" is too small to make a large impact).

 

[Enrahim2]

If publisher X uses the OGC of publisher Y and changes it a bit, that new, changed bit is not by default OGC. You seem to think, and repeatedly insist, that it is OGC...but it is not. That's never been how the OGL worked. Whatever content the publisher makes OGC is all that's OGC. If someone wants to stand on the shoulders of OGC and not release their stuff as OGC, that's entirely their choice. You and I agree that they should, but there's nothing in the OGL that requires them to. The CC-BY license is far more open than the OGL.

Actually, most derived OGC is OGC per default, as most of it is what is described as "game mechanics". Per 1.0a section 1(d) this is per default OGC. The way that maybe might prevent such from being ogc is to argue they embody product identity.

And thus is the beauty of it! While it might not strictly speaking legaly bind you to share alike, the only way of avoiding it is to put explicitly on paper that you dont want to give this to the community. This is not looking good, and quite obvious. Hence as long as there isnt a conspiracy starting to exploit this in a way that normalises it, the PR risk of not sharing alike is normally just more than what you can expect to gain from holding on to the IP - unless it is already well established reasonable product identity like a "Jedi" class.

Thus this soft SA has indeed been extremely succefull in making a great effectively SA arrangement.

(I have to add that I am not convinced it is not actually legally SA, but this post is written under the assumption that the essence of the post I reply to was correct)

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I mean, as soon as your predicted 50th anniversary Greyhawk release happens it'll happen

From your mouth to Beory's ears!

 

[rules.mechanic]

The what now?

It was a "coding bug" according to DMs Guild but raised a lot of questions:

Spoiler: Twitter content...