D&D General So what about the SRDs?

[Dire Bare]

They did make a commitment in a DNDBeyond posting to release an updated SRD "within weeks" of the release of the new Monster Manual.

We're on week 8.

I think if we get it in 2025, that's fine. It took 2-3 years between the release of 5E and the 5E SRD.

However, if we don't get an update in 2025, then yes they definitely reneged on a public commitment and deserve to be called out for it.

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.

Reneged? Okay.

 

[Sacrosanct]

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.

The tables are part of the SRD. The SRD also includes loads of proper names (like I mentioned, mostly monster names). And since they are in the SRD, you can publish that material using the SRD and not be required to use only the DM's Guild as per that agreement. The DM's Guild has more, sure, but we're talking about what is in the SRD, and the things I mentioned are, and are reasons why one would use the SRD in the first place to answer Reynard's question.

 

[Umbran]

That would be very much pushing the "weeks after the MM" promise...

So, I didn't see the original statement that you got it from. But I doubt that it was actually a promise.

Companies plan, target, expect, and hope things will come out by specific dates. They rarely promise.

 

[Voadam]

What exactly are people intending on making that they think their product is more likely to get them sued by WotC that none of the other thousands of products that have been released since 2000 and the initial OGL/SRD getting released? I mean heck... if WotC didn't throw up cease-and-desists against like Mutants and Masterminds or anything from Malhavoc Press (products designed and published by one of the people who actually worked on 3E in the first place)... what are any of you going to make now using terms from the 3E or 5E SRDs and the CC / OGL / ORC that is going to suddenly send their attorneys running?

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. Shouldn't that say something and alleviate a couple fears? And even if it doesn't... well, then just wait for the 5.2 SRD! What do any of you have written currently for the 5E24 game that you're just sitting on feeling unable to publish it because WotC hasn't released the 5.2 SRD yet? And why does waiting another month / two months / six months for WotC to get off their duff really matter then?

WotC did plan to reverse their position that the OGL is irrevocable and to attempt to revoke the OGL creating a potential threat over every product produced under the OGL and over every company planning on using the OGL going forward.

After the huge negative publicity and backlash over this they reversed course and released the 5e SRD to CC protecting those using the 5e CC content. They did not however issue a new OGL version with a line making irrevocability explicit that would future proof the OGL and old OGL products from WotC reversing course again in the future under the same legal theory WotC had been planning.

Some publishers think the OGL is fine as is and use it, others switched to the CC version of the SRD to safeguard against WotC having the ability to change their mind in the future and bring back the OGL fiasco again and mess with them and their products. Others switched to ORC to avoid the potential future WotC threat in using the OGL.

Most OSR and 3e and PF1 current publishing is still based on stuff from the OGL SRDs from the 3e era and not the 5e CC.

 

[Umbran]

Here's the thing about that: the "uncertainty" around the OGL comes from not being sure whether or not WotC could actually live up to its threat of revoking the OGL. Even though most people (including most of the lawyers who chimed in on the issue, here and elsewhere) were pretty sure they couldn't actually follow through on their threat, no one was 100% sure about that.

More importantly, no one wanted to be the guinea pig who went bankrupt trying to prove that in court.

But what most people seem to have overlooked is that this same scenario—where WotC issues a legal threat that seems dubious to most people, but no one is completely certain, and nobody wants to be the one to try to put the lie to it—is just as true for the CC as it is for the OGL.

True, WotC doesn't own the Creative Commons like they do the Open Game License, but that's a distinction without a difference

No it isn't.

Specifically, you seem to be ignoring all the other content in the world that uses the CC. The CC license' revocability can't be raised in isolation. In trying to revoke a CC license in this way, WotC would be putting many other unrelated businesses at risk, and thereby make them interested parties in the case.

Youtube and Google search use CC licenses, for example. As does Wikipedia, and many other services that share lots of content.

You figure Wotc wants to wrangle with Google over the rules to a game they no longer print?

 

[Morrus]

The tables are part of the SRD.

That’s not trade dress.

Trade dress is the colours, fonts, styles, borders, icons, layout. A table in itself is not trade dress. That beige/brown alternating row with green headers style of table they use is trade dress.

All that stuff people do in Homebrewery? That’s trade dress. Those red swashes on the book covers and the title font? That’s trade dress.

(But WotC has been letting people use that trade dress freely for years now without trying to stop it, so I guess they’re fine with it. But it’s not part of the SRD in any way.)

 

[Alzrius]

No it isn't.

Yes, it is.

Specifically, you seem to be ignoring all the other content in the world that uses the CC.

Incorrect. You seem to be ignoring that I specifically posited a situation whereby WotC would be "withdrawing" their own content, i.e. the 5.1 SRD, not revoking the entirety of the CC (since, as noted, the entire idea in that hypothetical is them purporting that the word "withdraw" isn't mentioned in the license, and so isn't prohibited, meaning that the license is otherwise valid). Hence, there'd be no standing for other companies which do not use the 5.1 SRD to get involved, beyond potentially submitting amicus briefs (though I suppose they could bankroll someone who does have such standing).

You've also conveniently overlooked how that was an example of a dubious action on WotC's part, akin to the dubious reasoning they gave for supposedly being able to revoke the OGL. Expressing skepticism means that you're agreeing with my premise.

Which makes it rather odd that you don't seem to realize that. Given that you can't seem to get the basic facts of your argument straight, I'm not sure why you think anyone here should put any faith in your interpretation of how that would go.

 

[DEFCON 1]

WotC did plan to reverse their position that the OGL is irrevocable and to attempt to revoke the OGL creating a potential threat over every product produced under the OGL and over every company planning on using the OGL going forward.

After the huge negative publicity and backlash over this they reversed course and released the 5e SRD to CC protecting those using the 5e CC content. They did not however issue a new OGL version with a line making irrevocability explicit that would future proof the OGL and old OGL products from WotC reversing course again in the future under the same legal theory WotC had been planning.

Some publishers think the OGL is fine as is and use it, others switched to the CC version of the SRD to safeguard against WotC having the ability to change their mind in the future and bring back the OGL fiasco again and mess with them and their products. Others switched to ORC to avoid the potential future WotC threat in using the OGL.

Most OSR and 3e and PF1 current publishing is still based on stuff from the OGL SRDs from the 3e era and not the 5e CC.

Until WotC shows any sign of actually suing someone for some product they release... I refuse to believe there's some sort of massive Sword of Damocles hanging over every Tom, Dick, and Harry who wants to publish some random D&D product. What kind of money does that person think they are going to not only make, but also take away from WotC that would warrant the company to go through the effort of filing some lawsuit?

But of course there's also the other end of this-- if someone is genuinely afraid of being sued by Wizards of the Coast for some product they make... then the simplest answer is just not make a D&D product! You don't HAVE to make D&D products you know. Design your own game. Make something original. If you don't try and jump on the D&D bandwagon, then you never have to worry about WotC at some point cutting that bandwagon loose.

 

[Sacrosanct]

That’s not trade dress.

Trade dress is the colours, fonts, styles, borders, icons, layout. A table in itself is not trade dress. That beige/brown alternating row with green headers style of table they use is trade dress.

All that stuff people do in Homebrewery? That’s trade dress. Those red swashes on the book covers and the title font? That’s trade dress.

(But WotC has been letting people use that trade dress freely for years now without trying to stop it, so I guess they’re fine with it. But it’s not part of the SRD in any way.)

I agree with you with your examples, but that's what I'm talking about as well. This is in the SRD:

The beige and white table format (trade dress) is part of the SRD. I pulled that image right from it.

 

[Burnside]

So, I didn't see the original statement that you got it from. But I doubt that it was actually a promise.

Companies plan, target, expect, and hope things will come out by specific dates. They rarely promise.

The statement is here:

https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/171...WxFG_A0ltcq-wITjMQy0ZOLCw5Qxhx48lE9Olby-styVM

"In 2016, two years after the debut of Dungeons & Dragons fifth edition, we released the accompanying SRD 5.1, allowing our amazing community of creators to publish content compatible with the game. We’re proud to report that SRD 5.2 will be released within weeks of the release of the 2025 Monster Manual!"

Is it a "promise"? I guess not. Is it a clear, public commitment in writing? I'd say so. It was something they were "proud to report", exclamation point.

Again, I don't think this is a big deal. If they get it out this year, I'll be happy. But I think the suspicion/distrust isn't exactly unearned, and I don't understand anybody's impetus to charge to WotC's defense in this area, given their lousy, relatively recent history on this particular issue.