D&D General So what about the SRDs?

[Staffan]

As far as I can remember... there has not been a single lawsuit ever brought by WotC against any creator of paper-based product that was released under the OGL or used an SRD.

I don't think things got as far as lawsuits, but in the early days there were definitely some C&Ds thrown around. I specifically remember Fast Forward Entertainment getting C&Ded because they didn't bother reading the actual documents and made stuff referring to Lolth and other "fluff" elements that were definitely never anywhere near the SRD.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I don't think things got as far as lawsuits, but in the early days there were definitely some C&Ds thrown around. I specifically remember Fast Forward Entertainment getting C&Ded because they didn't bother reading the actual documents and made stuff referring to Lolth and other "fluff" elements that were definitely never anywhere near the SRD.

Which means that we have to go as far as a person not following the rules of the OGL and SRDs at all to reach the point of merely a C&D letter and not even a lawsuit filing. So the possibility of someone following the rules of the OGL / CC / and the various past SRDs for some standard product of like subclasses, magic items or an adventure to be used by 5E24 players-- but yet somehow that generating an actual lawsuit from WotC because they didn't wait for the 5.2 SRD-- seems exceedingly far-fetched.

 

[Reynard]

On whose dime?

Just generally. I would be very surprised if one could copyright the results of a simple formula in table form. Though I imagine that one could patent a novel equation?

 

[hojulation]

I'm honestly not trying to be difficult. I am trying to understand how you can use the 5.1 SRD to produce legally protected works for other editions of D&D, and what the limits are. I get that a derivative work can re-define elements in the SRD to "revert" them to their 3.5 definition. What I am confused about is how you could add things explicitly not in the 5.1 SRD but in another edition. Can you, for example, make a 4E retroclone? If so, could you release THAT into CC?

I know I don't have an exact answer for your question, but something that I recalled while reading it may be of use to you, and if you know all of what I'm about to write, then apologies again.

In 2015, Necromancer Games released a monster book called "Fifth Edition Foes". This was a year before the 5.1 SRD was released under the OGL 1.0a.

They were using Open Game Content previously released and cited the 3E SRD for their rule references. Due to the mechanical similarities between 3E and 5E it worked pretty well.

If you look it up, you'll note stat blocks are laid out just a little bit differently, information is slightly shifted from where you'd expect to find it from the official 5.0 stat blocks. And they used modified phrases like "tactical advantage" to refer to the Advantage mechanic, but of course this wasn't explicitly stated, just inferred. There was an expectation that you the reader were already experienced with 5E and would know what this meant.

I bought the book at the time it was released and used it to great effect. It provided my campaign with a lot of unique and unexpected monsters that didn't appear in the 5.0 monster manual.

I will say, I don't know if the book was ever updated after the release of the 5.1 SRD, but that release version provides an example of how compatible content might be produced without an edition specific SRD.

 

[Alzrius]

Just generally. I would be very surprised if one could copyright the results of a simple formula in table form.

Bear in mind that Table 1 (which is actually Table 1-1; my mistake there) on page eight of the 3.5 PHB actually has more than just the ability scores and their modifiers on it, also listing bonus spells gained for high ability scores. So simply deleting the bonus spells part would probably be transformative enough that it wouldn't be an instance of infringement...but as with all of these things, the results are presumptive until a judge makes a ruling.

 

[hojulation]

@Reynard another thought I had that might be more of an answer is to point you towards the YouTuber Oldegreybeard.

He has a video (linked here) discussing the 4E GSL and the 5.1 SRD and what modifications he is making to create a 4E compatibles ruleset without having a 4E SRD released under a substantially less restrictive license.



Another 4E example would be the ORCUS system. It's freely available on DTRPG I believe and is a complete 4E compatible game built upon a mountain of OGL content. 13th Age, A5E, and Pathfinder being listed as just some of the rules references.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Terminology seems a little sus. Can I not use "damage reduction" in any game not referencing the 3.5 SRD via the OGL.

I think WotC could easily argue terms like "bloodied" are their terms to mean a certain thing, while "damage reduction" is a concept used widely. IANAL, so take that FWIW.

The SRD has nothing at all to do with trade dress.

It does. Tables come to mine immediately, as has been mentioned a few times.

That WotC released proper names in the SRD is an unforced error, to be sure.

No error at all. Intentional. Meant so creators had a larger pool of things to include. Aboleth, all the demon and devil names, etc. are not errors and things you couldn't include without the SRD.

Re: trying this out in court, it came close a few times

 

[Rabulias]

Notice those last two entries, which say that the PF1 rules rely not just on the SRD, but also on The Book of Experimental Might and the Tome of Horrors, meaning that those would also have to be released under the Creative Commons license also (once the 3E SRD is) since Pathfinder uses material from them. And that strikes me as not being very likely.

Or they could choose to excise those portions from any hypothetical Creative Commons Pathfinder SRD release. Still, I agree that Paizo is not looking at anything other than ORC these days.

I don't think things got as far as lawsuits, but in the early days there were definitely some C&Ds thrown around. I specifically remember Fast Forward Entertainment getting C&Ded because they didn't bother reading the actual documents and made stuff referring to Lolth and other "fluff" elements that were definitely never anywhere near the SRD.

Also, the initial release of the 3rd edition SRD was a draft or provisional SRD that third party products used. This SRD included the stats for beholders, displacer beasts, and other monsters later excluded from the final SRD. It also had spell names including mage names, such as Melf's acid arrow, Bigby's grasping hand, and Evard's black tentacles.

 

[Alzrius]

Or they could choose to excise those portions from any hypothetical Creative Commons Pathfinder SRD release. Still, I agree that Paizo is not looking at anything other than ORC these days.

True, which would make it a sort of "mini-Remaster," though I agree that would be more effort than they'd care to make.

 

[Rabulias]

Terminology. Presentation (trade dress). Proper names.

Presentation, trade dress, and most proper names are not part of the SRD. Those are covered by the DM's Guild agreement (and WotC's fan policy?), I believe, along with much more.