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).

 

[Spellslinging Sellsword]

The value of the ignore list is strong in this.

 

[mamba]

You yourself have noted that there are relevant differences between the OGL and the CC-SA.

no, quite the opposite

Maybe you agree, maybe you don't - but there's no relevant difference here between the OGL and CC-share-alike.

even the post you referred to does not support your claim of relevant differences, but does the opposite

(Yes, everyone knows it is technically different, particularly in the way it handles Product Identity carve-outs. But how is it different fro present purposes?)

 

[Hussar]

So it's your position that no publisher has done this? (Also, it's not a question of releasing crippled content under the CC-BY; it's that they don't need to release anything at all.)

If your stance is that every single publisher that has put out material under the CC-BY has done so with OGL-levels of openness, making literally all of their derivative content be open, then you're going to need to actually demonstrate that instead of putting it forward as a hypothetical on your part.

I don't know. You seem to know. You are the one claiming that the CC-BY allows producers to not release anything at all. I'm asking if you know anyone who has actually done this or is it hypothetical? After all, we know OGL producers who have published crippled content, but, according to you, it's a tiny minority. So, has there been this great wave of CC-BY producers who have refused to release anything into the open?

 

[Nylanfs]

So, has there been this great wave of CC-BY producers who have refused to release anything into the open?

I don't "think" any of MCDM's 5e releases that have used the CC-BY have released anything new into the open, but I don't have access to my PDF's at the moment.

 

[mamba]

I don't "think" any of MCDM's 5e releases that have used the CC-BY have released anything new into the open, but I don't have access to my PDF's at the moment.

pretty sure they used the OGL and just declared everything IP

 

[bedir than]

So, has there been this great wave of CC-BY producers who have refused to release anything into the open?

Black Flag products used the CC-BY and then locked it behind the ORC.

 

[Nylanfs]

Black Flag products used the CC-BY and then locked it behind the ORC.

By definition, the ORC makes EVERYTHING that isn't specific IP or lore info open. so I wouldn't use the word "locked" other than that anything that uses BF inherently requires you make yours open also.

 

[bedir than]

By definition, the ORC makes EVERYTHING that isn't specific IP or lore info open. so I wouldn't use the word "locked" other than that anything that uses BF inherently requires you make yours open also.

It means that it is only available by using that license, no other.

 

[Hussar]

Black Flag products used the CC-BY and then locked it behind the ORC.

Thank you. I honestly didn't know and I was asking an honest question, so, it's nice to get straightforward answers.

So, how is this so different than a company using crippled content under the OGL?

 

[SlyFlourish]

I don't know. You seem to know. You are the one claiming that the CC-BY allows producers to not release anything at all. I'm asking if you know anyone who has actually done this or is it hypothetical? After all, we know OGL producers who have published crippled content, but, according to you, it's a tiny minority. So, has there been this great wave of CC-BY producers who have refused to release anything into the open?

I know of two big RPGs that built products on the 5.1 SRD CC BY license and then limited the release of their own products to more bespoke licenses but I don’t have much of a problem with it because the core stuff is still available under the 5.1 SRD.

I’m not crazy about Kobold Press using the 5.1 SRD CC but then limiting Black Flag to ORC, thus requiring downstream producers to use ORC and release all mechanics when they themselves did not. If they released Black Flag under a CC BY, I’d be a lot happier.

For me, CC BY is more open and more widely used than ORC and gives more flexibility to downstream producers to decide what they do and don’t want to release and I think that’s fine. That’s why I publish a lot of my material under a CC BY license.