D&D General So what about the SRDs?

[Morrus]

For me, having the 5E SRD in Creative Commons is more than I really hoped for and if that's all we ever get I'm fine with it, because it contains what 3rd party creators really need from D&D.

Indeed. Hell, the 3.x one did. A 5.2 one is literally just a token gesture. It’s meaningless on a practical level (excepting cases of textual reproduction for software). We’ve been making 2024 compatible products for months already, and a new SRD won’t make one iota of difference to that.

 

[Burnside]

Indeed. Hell, the 3.x one did. A 5.2 one is literally just a token gesture. It’s meaningless on a practical level (excepting cases of textual reproduction for software). We’ve been making 2024 compatible products for months already, and a new SRD won’t make one iota of difference to that.

Yeah, I totally agree BUT they did say they would do the update, so they really should follow through on the commitment, even if creators really don't "need" it.

I'm not 100% sure they will, unless there is a public outcry that forces their hand. We certainly haven't heard a thing about it since early last year.

 

[KYRON45]

I would posit that I am about as experienced in their usage as it’s possible to be. I’ve been using them consistently for the 25 years since they were first dreamed up as a glint in Ryan Dancey’s eye, and I’m still using them for my current work.

You’re a publisher so of course you know what’s what. No doubt.
I’m saying there are a lot of Monday morning coaches that are trying to out expert one another.

That’s a sports metaphor so it’s probably wrong.

 

[dave2008]

Yeah, I totally agree BUT they did say they would do the update, so they really should follow through on the commitment, even if creators really don't "need" it.

I'm not 100% sure they will, unless there is a public outcry that forces their hand. We certainly haven't heard a thing about it since early last year.

You might want to check out post #9 and post #12.

 

[SlyFlourish]

Indeed. Hell, the 3.x one did. A 5.2 one is literally just a token gesture. It’s meaningless on a practical level (excepting cases of textual reproduction for software). We’ve been making 2024 compatible products for months already, and a new SRD won’t make one iota of difference to that.

I'm hoping to see it for that reason. Being able to take the new D&D 2024 monsters they choose to release and have them in other formats like Markdown or use them in tools like Owlbear Rodeo with its monster plugin. We'll hopefully see new character builders built for D&D 2024 even if they don't have all the stuff.

Some creators worry about using the new language D&D 2024 prefers without getting some sort of permission (like an SRD). I think they're probably overreacting but I can see why they'd worry about it.

The 5.2 SRD helps WOTC as much or more than it helps us. It means more creators and publishers will make more D&D 2024 compatible stuff. They run more Kickstarters. Some of those make lots of money. WOTC can then target those products to bring into D&D Beyond and know it's compatible with D&D 2024 (because of their use of the SRD) and then get their percentage.

This helps WOTC promote D&D 2024 even moreso.

This is exactly what Ryan Dansey intended for the 3rd edition SRD and I believe it worked then and it could work now.

The issues with Obojima only supporting D&D 2014 is a good case study in why it helps to have the D&D 2024 SRD out. Granted Obojima was released before D&D 2024 was so it wouldn't have helped then, but you can see why WOTC would want publishers to be writing against their current system instead of the old one.

 

[dave2008]

I'm hoping to see it for that reason. Being able to take the new D&D 2024 monsters they choose to release and have them in other formats like Markdown or use them in tools like Owlbear Rodeo with its monster plugin. We'll hopefully see new character builders built for D&D 2024 even if they don't have all the stuff.

Some creators worry about using the new language D&D 2024 prefers without getting some sort of permission (like an SRD). I think they're probably overreacting but I can see why they'd worry about it.

The 5.2 SRD helps WOTC as much or more than it helps us. It means more creators and publishers will make more D&D 2024 compatible stuff. They run more Kickstarters. Some of those make lots of money. WOTC can then target those products to bring into D&D Beyond and know it's compatible with D&D 2024 (because of their use of the SRD) and then get their percentage.

This helps WOTC promote D&D 2024 even moreso.

This is exactly what Ryan Dansey intended for the 3rd edition SRD and I believe it worked then and it could work now.

The issues with Obojima only supporting D&D 2014 is a good case study in why it helps to have the D&D 2024 SRD out. Granted Obojima was released before D&D 2024 was so it wouldn't have helped then, but you can see why WOTC would want publishers to be writing against their current system instead of the old one.

Well, based on posts #9 and #12 the SRD update is right around the corner!

 

[Morrus]

Some creators worry about using the new language D&D 2024 prefers without getting some sort of permission (like an SRD). I think they're probably overreacting but I can see why they'd worry about it.

I am very aware that they worry about it. But I reiterate that they don’t need to. That’s why I keep saying it. Maybe they’ll believe me or maybe they won’t, maybe they’ll worry less, maybe they won’t, but I’ve given the facts as best I can, and consider myself very qualified to do so. And I will say it again any time the subject comes up.

The 5.2 SRD helps WOTC as much or more than it helps us. It means more creators and publishers will make more D&D 2024 compatible stuff.

That’s nice for them.

This helps WOTC promote D&D 2024 even moreso.

Well, WotC’s marketing success is their thing. I’m
Not involved with that.

This is exactly what Ryan Dansey intended for the 3rd edition SRD and I believe it worked then and it could work now.

More specifically he intended it for D&D. And yes, it worked. Then, and forever.

Go ahead and make your 3.5/5e/2024 compatible products using the existing licenses. Or your 1e/2e products (plenty of people are—that’s the basis of the OSR movement. They aren’t using an official 1E SRD or an OD&D SRD? They understood this years ago.

The issues with Obojima only supporting D&D 2014 is a good case study in why it helps to have the D&D 2024 SRD out.

Not really. They could support 2024. We do.

but you can see why WOTC would want publishers to be writing against their current system instead of the old one.

I can’t speak to WotC’s desires. All we can do is go by the letter of the licenses. The words they are legally using, not the ones we imagine they might intend or want. And those words let you do everything you need to.

 

[Rabulias]

My question is — what 3.5 compatible content can you not create using the 5E SRD? Even the CC version? Specifically, what is the use case?

I may be misunderstanding some of the legalities of the SRD and its usage, but what if someone wanted to make a 3.5-compatible Prestige Class? The term "Prestige Class" is not part of the 5.1 Creative Commons release. One could argue that the term is generic enough to use safely, but if I was a small publisher, I would not want to risk a C&D letter from Wizards. There are other terms and phrases unique to 3.x play that were not carried forward into the current SRD. You could rely on the (as yet) untested-in-court notion that "game rules are not copyrightable," but who wants to be the first test case? One could get around it all by making up new terms like "Fancy Class" or some such, but that begins to feel silly.

While it is possible to create and publish material for older editions today, I understand the producers wanting clear and irrevocable SRDs for their favorite editions. They will sleep better at night.

 

[Reynard]

Then you fundamentally misunderstood my post. Or how SRDs and open licenses are used. Or both.

Maybe.

If I decided to make a 4E or Cyberpunk Red or WoD compatible adventure, what is stopping me? (Assuming I am not violating any trademarks.) In my understanding, it is that those games (as far as I know) don't have an SRD or license that explicitly allows for such support.

You don't need to reproduce any copyrighted text to produce a compatible adventure or supplement for any game, so why do SRDs and licenses exist?

 

[Morrus]

I may be misunderstanding some of the legalities of the SRD and its usage, but what if someone wanted to make a 3.5-compatible Prestige Class? The term "Prestige Class" is not part of the 5.1 Creative Commons release. One could argue that the term is generic enough to use safely, but if I was a small publisher, I would not want to risk a C&D letter from Wizards. There are other terms and phrases unique to 3.x play that were not carried forward into the current SRD. You could rely on the (as yet) untested-in-court notion that "game rules are not copyrightable," but who wants to be the first test case? One could get around it all by making up new terms like "Fancy Class" or some such, but that begins to feel silly.

You may have stumbled across one of the only (the actual only?) 3.x-specific terms. But there’s nothing in any license which says you can’t use those words (there are prohibited terms but “prestige class” is not one of them). You’re good to use it.

While it is possible to create and publish material for older editions today, I understand the producers wanting clear and irrevocable SRDs for their favorite editions. They will sleep better at night.

Sure. I get it. But I can’t speak to their inner feelings. I can only give you the facts. Use them or not as you will.