D&D (2024) WotC Announces April 22 Release For 2024 System Reference Documents

The System Reference Document 5.2--the tool which helps developers create third-party content using the Dungeons & Dragons core rules engine--will be released under the Creative Commons license on April 22nd.

Additionally, Wizards of the Coast will publish a Conversion Guide for updating game content from the 2014 edition to the 2024 edition. This guide will arrive at a later date.

The Free Rules document on D&D Beyond will also be updated with new D&D Beyond Basic Rules (2024).

The older 5.1 SRD, which is based on the 2014 edition of D&D, will also remain available under both Creative Commons and the Open Game License (OGL).

More information will be available on April 22nd, when the new SRD is released.

A copy of each System Reference Document is stored independently at A5ESRD.com, which includes the 5.1 SRD, the revised 3.5 SRD, and other System Reference Documents (including the enormous A5E SRD).

 

[Reynard]

I remember a lot of the "crippled content" that Monte Cook released; while he withheld everything he reasonably could (e.g. the names of monsters), you could at least use things like stat blocks, so it wasn't a total loss...even if it seemed needlessly petty.

As far as the ORC License goes, I do think that its requirement that derivative content be open is an unequivocably good thing. I just wish that Paizo allowed for that with Pathfinder Infinite, instead of expressly forbidding it (which wasn't the case for OGL material released under Pathfinder Infinite).

Pathfinder infinite is the venue to use Golarion/Starfinder IP not covered under ORC. Why would they allow someone to open up their IP to everyone downstream?

 

[Alzrius]

Pathfinder infinite is the venue to use Golarion/Starfinder IP not covered under ORC. Why would they allow someone to open up their IP to everyone downstream?

You've misunderstood my point (which is probably my fault for not explaining it sufficiently).

Pathfinder Infinite (and Starfinder Infinite) allows for someone to write PF/SF material and post it for sale, all while using both the mechanics of the game and the lore which was otherwise never made available.

However, under the OGL, the derivative content of that material (i.e. the mechanics) were still Open Game Content, and so could be used in other OGL products, even if those products weren't released for Pathfinder/Starfinder Infinite.

But that's not the case for derivative mechanics released under the ORC License, as Paizo has openly stated that "...you are expressly prohibited from releasing any content in your Pathfinder Infinite or Starfinder Infinite product as Licensed Material under the ORC."

So in other words, even if you simply make new mechanics from existing mechanics in your Pathfinder/Starfinder Infinite product that you release under the ORC License, you can't later use those in another non-Infinite product released under the ORC License.

 

[abazaba]

Wizards of the Coast will publish a Conversion Guide for updating game content from the 2014 edition to the 2024 edition.

Ah, I see. A 'conversion guide', because the 2024 ruleset isn't a 'new edition'. Got it.

 

[Reynard]

Ah, I see. A 'conversion guide', because the 2024 ruleset isn't a 'new edition'. Got it.

As I understand it, that is in addition, not instead of. It's there to help folks translate to the 2024 rules.

 

[Alzrius]

Ah, I see. A 'conversion guide', because the 2024 ruleset isn't a 'new edition'. Got it.

To be fair, WotC did release a conversion guide (although they called it an "update booklet") for the 3.0 to 3.5 changeover as well.

 

[mamba]

On the other hand, if a publisher uses CC BY material to create derivative work, they're under no obligation to release that work as being itself open. If they don't, that means that producers further downstream aren't allowed to use said derivative work, even though they would have been if the same scenario had occurred under the OGL. Hence why the OGL is the better license for the RPG community.

that very much depends on whether they release their stuff under either license. In practice there is next to no difference, many publishers keep everything to themselves even with the OGL

 

[Alzrius]

that very much depends on whether they release their stuff under either license. In practice there is next to no difference, many publishers keep everything to themselves even with the OGL

To be clear, they can't keep "everything" to themselves with the OGL; derivative Open Game Content must itself be Open Game Content.

Now, they can keep things like the names of new monsters to themselves, but the stat block and other mechanics are still OGC.

 

[mamba]

Well, it is why ORC is better, because share-alike is required, right? Many OGL publishers (not least monte Cook) refused to put anything original into Open Content.

the ORC enforces this better than the OGL, the question is whether this discourages people to use it compared to CC-BY

A license that opens everything to the community but ‘no one’ is using is worse for the community than the CC-BY.

I also think that if you require that of downstream publishers, the original publisher should open everything up too. What is good for the goose…

 

[mamba]

To be clear, they can't keep "everything" to themselves with the OGL; derivative Open Game Content must itself be Open Game Content.

plenty excluded everything

 

[Reynard]

To be clear, they can't keep "everything" to themselves with the OGL; derivative Open Game Content must itself be Open Game Content.

While I agree that this was the intent, and that ORC fixed the loophole, the fact is that tons of publishers PIed their new systems and statblocks and spells etc. If you recall the OGL kerfuffle and the subsequent discussions that led to ORC, this was a major point of contention.