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).

 

[Micah Sweet]

I mean, if your campaign doesn't have any direction or major story arcs, or if everyone enjoys a completely random experience where ^ANY_THI^NG _CA^N HA_PP^EN, sure. One-shots, for example: they are the best places to deploy this Deck, IMO.

But in campaigns, when I'm working toward a goal, or if we are building on an existing story that everyone is engaged in and fully committed to, that Deck spells disaster (in my experience).

I've used it in both and...well, I loved the former but hated the latter. But your "deploy the Deck early" comment gave me an idea for my next Session Zero. Everyone rolls up their character, and then they draw a card from the Deck as the final step of their character creation...hmm...

I think I'm stealing that idea.

 

[overgeeked]

I mean, if your campaign doesn't have any direction or major story arcs, or if everyone enjoys a completely random experience where ^ANY_THI^NG _CA^N HA_PP^EN, sure. One-shots, for example: they are the best places to deploy this Deck, IMO.

But in campaigns, when I'm working toward a goal, or if we are building on an existing story that everyone is engaged in and fully committed to, that Deck spells disaster (in my experience).

I don’t run campaigns like that. I run open-world sandboxes. Where the players are free to go and do whatever. Introducing the Deck wouldn’t ruin anything because the players making choices is the point. There’s nothing for them to wreck by drawing a card. The game isn’t about my prep, it’s about their choices and me improvising around those choices.

I've used it in both and...well, I loved the former but hated the latter. But your "deploy the Deck early" comment gave me an idea for my next Session Zero. Everyone rolls up their character, and then they draw a card from the Deck as the final step of their character creation...hmm...

Now you can die in character creation just like in Traveller.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don’t run campaigns like that. I run open-world sandboxes. Where the players are free to go and do whatever. Introducing the Deck wouldn’t ruin anything because the players making choices is the point. There’s nothing for them to wreck by drawing a card. The game isn’t about my prep, it’s about their choices and me improvising around those choices.

Now you can die in character creation just lime in Traveller.

Exactly! That's the spirit!

 

[CleverNickName]

Now you can die in character creation.

Just like the game's founders intended!

 

[pemerton]

That they aren't going to dual-license 5.2 under the OGL is the next thing to meaningless. CC-BY 4.0 is quite permissive, and it's very easy to use material released under it with OGL material (ask your lawyer if you're vague on it). If you're used to the open source software world, it's roughly analogous to combining three-clause BSD (CC-BY 4.0) code with GPL 2.0 (OGL 1.0a) code.

(Combining CC-BY-SA and OGL would be likely impossible, for all that both licenses have basically the same share-alike goal. The fact that CC-BY does not have share-alike provisions is why it is pretty comfortably compatible with the OGL.)

I'm not familiar with the open source software stuff.

Looking at CC-BY 4.0, the relevant provisions seem to be section 3(a)(1) on attribution; section 3(a)(4):

If You Share Adapted Material You produce, the Adapter's License You apply must not prevent recipients of the Adapted Material from complying with this Public License.​

And Section 2(a)(5)(B):

You may not offer or impose any additional or different terms or conditions on . . . the Licensed Material if doing so restricts exercise of the Licensed Rights by any recipient of the Licensed Material.​

So suppose I publish something that includes X (CC-BY 4.0 licensed content), Y (OGC licensed under the OGL) and Z (my own content that is derived/adapted from X and Y), then - based on my initial reading of the above provisions, plus the OGL - I am required to clearly designate and attribute the X and not purport to impose any further restrictions on use/reproduction of it; clearly designate and attribute (as per OGL section 15) the Y and indicate that it is licensed for reproduction pursuant to the OGL; and clearly designate the Z, and likewise (as is required by the OGL) indicate that it is OGC and is licensed for reproduction pursuant to the OGL.

Is this roughly what you have in mind?

You can include stuff from a CC BY released document within an OGL document. The former doesn’t exclude the latter.

As per what I just posted, I think your "OGL document" would need to designate and attribute the CC-BY licensed material, and would need to make sure it does not purport to limit reproduction of that material by reference to the terms of the OGL.

So we could simply release the 5.2 CC-BY SRD under the OGL ourselves. If someone really wanted to use the OGL for some reason.

My initial intuition is that this is not correct, because you would not be able to comply with the following section of the OGL:

5.Representation of Authority to Contribute: If You are contributing original material as Open Game Content, You represent that Your Contributions are Your original creation and/or You have sufficient rights to grant the rights conveyed by this License.​

My initial though is that being a holder of licensed rights under the CC-BY 4.0 does not grant you sufficient rights to grant the rights conveyed by the OGL in respect of the licensed material.

 

[Reynard]

That is a great point. Of the three times I've seen it actually appear in a campaign, two of those campaigns ended within a few sessions, and the other one was where the players basically said "We're too smart to mess with this nonsense!".

Nah.

I make it a point to introduce the Deck in every long running D&D campaign I GM, and while it causes chaos (the point) it has never killed a campaign.


Maybe folks are too precious about the status quo or, worse,the "story" of their campaigns?

 

[Hussar]

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.

Except of course for the mountain of broken ogc material released.

But we don’t count that.

 

[Alzrius]

Except of course for the mountain of broken ogc material released.

But we don’t count that.

I'm not sure what you mean by "broken." If you mean things like having the monster's names declared PI and only their stat blocks open (what was often referred to as "crippled content") then that's unfortunate, but still usable; WotC themselves renamed OGC monsters.

If, on the other hand, you mean people violating the terms of the OGL by trying to declare OGC material PI, then that's just them violating the terms of the license.

Oh, and neither had "mountains" of material.

All of which makes you, rather ironically correct about one thing: we don't count that.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Maybe folks are too precious about the status quo or, worse,the "story" of their campaigns?

I don't think so - I think it just derailed those two campaigns enough that people kind of lost interest. You can try and couch it in negative, loaded, judgemental language like "precious", but the reality is, sometimes something derails a campaign enough that the will to keep going with it (which needs to quite high) diminishes significantly. No-one is at fault for that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't think so - I think it just derailed those two campaigns enough that people kind of lost interest. You can try and couch it in negative, loaded, judgemental language like "precious", but the reality is, sometimes something derails a campaign enough that the will to keep going with it (which needs to quite high) diminishes significantly. No-one is at fault for that.

That is definitely a thing that can't be ignored at your table, but I'm with @Reynard in that I'm sorry when I see it, and that kind of chaos is not a problem for me personally.