Dungeons & Dragons SRD 5.2 Is Officially Live

The new System Reference Document (SRD) for Dungeons & Dragons' revised 5th Edition is officially live. The new SRD was officially released and is available for download on D&D Beyond. A FAQ detailing changes from the previous SRD was also released.

The SRD provides a version of D&D's rules that can be used and referenced in third-party material and form a framework for publishing material compatible for D&D's latest edition. The newest version of the SRD contains a mix of species, backgrounds, subclasses, and feats from the 2024 Player's Handbook, along with statblocks from the 2025 Monster Manual.

One other interesting note is that the new SRD purges references to creatures and characters classified as D&D IP. The previous SRD released under a Creative Commons license contained reference to Strahd and Orcus, both of which were removed in the new SRD. Additionally, the SRD renames the Deck of Many Things as "Mysterious Deck" and the Orb of Dragonkind as "Dragon Orb" to allow for both to be used in third-party material while not infringing upon D&D IP.

 

[Dire Bare]

Yes, 20+ years later he says that. At the time it was purely a business move and he repeatedly said so and said it’s how he convinced management to go along.

Not true.

Dancey gave interviews years ago that the purpose of the OGL was two-fold. Yes, to make money for WotC as you described. But also, at the same time, to make sure that D&D would survive WotC and be truly a community game. The money-making part was how it was sold to management, and was a legitimate purpose . . . but the more altruistic "give D&D to the people" purpose was more subversive on Dancey's part, but there from the beginning.

 

[mamba]

The money-making part was how it was sold to management, and was a legitimate purpose

so Dancey agrees with that part then, which answers

I think Ryan Dancy may disagree.

 

[popuman]

Yes: the online content-creation economy is driven solely by traffic because YouTubers and the like are paid based on the number of views they get, and clickthroughs to their sponsors. They are therefore incentivised to create the impression of controversy (on which they, naturally, have the most interesting Hot Takes™) even if little or no actual controversy exists, because videos where people just tell you everything is fine aren't interesting. The content mill is fueled by outrage, and we live in an increasingly polarised society as a result.

I call that “El Escandalo” and I tune out/downvote them to oblivion.

 

[Alzrius]

Yes, 20+ years later he says that. At the time it was purely a business move and he repeatedly said so and said it’s how he convinced management to go along.

I'll direct you to my post which also quotes him from much earlier (and which Rick Marshall corroborates in the comments as not being purely a business move).

 

[mash(live in japan]

The problem with SRD 5.2 not being attributed to OGL 1.1 is... I think it's probably a minor detail, but I don't think it's a big issue.

 

[Hussar]

I'll direct you to my post which also quotes him from much earlier (and which Rick Marshall corroborates in the comments as not being purely a business move).

By the same token, claiming that it was purely altruistic is a bit revisionist too though.

 

[Alzrius]

By the same token, claiming that it was purely altruistic is a bit revisionist too though.

I don't know that anyone here has said it was "purely altruistic." Most of what I've seen has been people pushing back (correctly) against the idea that altruism played no part in the original motivations that saw the OGL's creation.

 

[Reynard]

I don't know that anyone here has said it was "purely altruistic." Most of what I've seen has been people pushing back (correctly) against the idea that altruism played no part in the original motivations that saw the OGL's creation.

I think folks are talking past eacxh other on this. It is true that Ryan Dancey saw the commercial viability of the Open Gaming License. It is also true that he was glad to make it so that D&D would continue to exist beyond the life of WotC.

 

[Remathilis]

I think folks are talking past eacxh other on this. It is true that Ryan Dancey saw the commercial viability of the Open Gaming License. It is also true that he was glad to make it so that D&D would continue to exist beyond the life of WotC.

I've always thought Dancy was too clever by half. The point of the OGL was to get a bunch of companies (big and small) to support WotC /D&D instead of making rival games. The idea of could be used as a "In case of emergency, break glass" was something he and a handful of people thought would not get noticed and be there as an Uno reverse should things go South. The by half part was that people discovered the Break Glass provision very easily and used it way before an emergency was ever called, creating WotC own competition it was trying to avoid with the OGL. Which is why subsequent versions of the SRD have been far less generous.

 

[Reynard]

I've always thought Dancy was too clever by half. The point of the OGL was to get a bunch of companies (big and small) to support WotC /D&D instead of making rival games. The idea of could be used as a "In case of emergency, break glass" was something he and a handful of people thought would not get noticed and be there as an Uno reverse should things go South. The by half part was that people discovered the Break Glass provision very easily and used it way before an emergency was ever called, creating WotC own competition it was trying to avoid with the OGL. Which is why subsequent versions of the SRD have been far less generous.

I think the "point" was to sell PHBs.

As to competition: did anything really compete with the 3E PHB? The only one I can imagine even close might have been Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed. Did any of the 1000 d20 versions of existing games actually have legs?