WotC 2024 D&D Core Rules Will Be Added To SRD In 2025

The 2024 version of the D&D core rules will be included in an expanded version of the System Reference Document, and available to third parties via Creative Commons (though there is no mention of thr Open Gaming License). The new SRD 5.2 will be available early 2025 after the new Monster Manual has been released.

The new SRD will be localized in the languages which WotC supports.

Regarding the long-awaited SRDs for previous editions, WotC says that they will start reviewing those documents once the 2024 rulebooks are out.

 

[Reynard]

I'm not too familiar with 5E OGC products, but I think (i.e. hope) you're wrong about how widespread what you're saying is.

As far as I can tell,it is very common. And, of course, since the 5.1 SRD went into.CC, no one is opening anything unless they do it with a bespoke license like Shadowdark did.

 

[John Lloyd1]

Also, I did not think you could release a portion of a document into CC.

There are instructions on how to do it in the CC documentation. Basically you have to replace "this work" with whatever you are licencing.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

It's great news, but it's also important to note that "SRD 5.2 will provide revised rules at the same scope as 5.1" so we may not see many subclasses or new bastion rules etc...

That might be broadly true, but it depends upon what they mean by scope.

Like there are more features for every single class and more none subclass/feat/spell choice points like Holy Order, Cunning Attack (or whatever the new rogueb feature is called), Weapon Mastery, etc...,

Also subraces aren't a thing anymore, the previous choice point got subsumed into the race like 2014 Dragonborn dragon type were. That means Drow, Wild Elves, Tiefling & Goliath lineages could be in the SRD beyond just one, like how Dragonborn could pick from Gold/Silver/Bronze/Brass/Copper/Red/Blue/Black/White in the 5.1 SRD. Oh and Goliaths, Orcs, and Hybrid Species/Rules could be in.

Also the changes to feats/backgrounds changes like 1st level feats being granted by backgrounds means there maybe more then 1 feat in this SRD.

And lastly the changes to conjure x spells means that if they don't include the Summon X spells, there will be no actual creature summoning except for Find Familiar/Steed and Planar Ally and Gate. It might also hypothetically be needed for some features and subclass features in the SRD.

So just with that, plus the new glossary, plus the rules for building campaign settings which they mention, and they've already argueably moved past the scoop of SRD 5.1, because the 5.75e rules are inheriantly broader with extra inheriant choice points expanding the scope of even basic stuff.

I still believe it'll be 1 subclass per class.

Still they mosy have a very broad understanding of scope.

 

[MockingBird]

Great news! I wonder if the recent survey pushed them to make this announcement now rather than later when all the revised core books come out?

 

[Azzy]

Well, good news for once.

 

[Reynard]

This is a serious question: if the SRD 5.2 covers a similar scope of the game as the 5.1 SRD, and 2024 5E is as compatible as proposed, what actual difference does it make whether they release an updated 5E SRD at all? It's not like folks couldn't continue making 2024b5E compatible material without it.

 

[kenmarable]

You say that, but then...

I'm sorry, but if you break the "virtuous circle" which was the heart of the OGL, then it's very much not a moot point. While I'm aware that a lot of publishers don't seem to reuse existing Open Game Content, the option to do so is a forward-thinking one which helps ensure that the community remains a creative one long into the future, not just for the next year or two but for decades to come.

That's part of why I look askance at the Creative Commons iteration of open gaming; it's less open than what we've had up until now, and so represents an erosion of one of the best things that's ever happened for our hobby.

The context of my first statement was clearly that if WotC is releasing it under CC-BY then also releasing it under the OGL is, in fact, 100% moot.

WotC releasing future SRDs under CC-BY and the OGL gains nothing. Once it is in CC-BY, any virtuous virality is entirely voluntary. The only way to maintain the virtuous virality is to release it only via OGL and not CC-BY, which, whether we like it or not, isn't going to happen and with 5.1 released via CC-BY, the ship has already sailed. So, yes, once it is in CC-BY, then releasing also under OGL as well is 100% moot as I said.

I'm not saying this is a good thing, of course! I've been a vocal supporter of the OGL's virality for over 20 years, and I still plan to publish under the OGL (and ORC and CC-BY-SA). And I agree that CC-BY's (at least percieved) greater stability does trade off the important viral heart of the OGL. However, with WotC not bothering to enforce proper OGL compliance pretty much ever and the past decade of OGL compliance being a joke with maybe 1 product in 10 using it properly, the virtuous virality was already voluntary in practice, sadly.

I wish we lived in a timeline where the OGL recieved the support and enforcement that it deserves. But, we don't. The 5.1 SRD is already CC-BY, and the 5.2 one will be as well. As in so many other areas of life, being an Open Gaming giver and not just a taker will have to be largely voluntary (again, in D&D world, at least, the Pathfinder world is a different matter which many overlook).

 

[Parmandur]

The context of my first statement was clearly that if WotC is releasing it under CC-BY then also releasing it under the OGL is, in fact, 100% moot.

WotC releasing future SRDs under CC-BY and the OGL gains nothing. Once it is in CC-BY, any virtuous virality is entirely voluntary. The only way to maintain the virtuous virality is to release it only via OGL and not CC-BY, which, whether we like it or not, isn't going to happen and with 5.1 released via CC-BY, the ship has already sailed. So, yes, once it is in CC-BY, then releasing also under OGL as well is 100% moot as I said.

I'm not saying this is a good thing, of course! I've been a vocal supporter of the OGL's virality for over 20 years, and I still plan to publish under the OGL (and ORC and CC-BY-SA). And I agree that CC-BY's (at least percieved) greater stability does trade off the important viral heart of the OGL. However, with WotC not bothering to enforce proper OGL compliance pretty much ever and the past decade of OGL compliance being a joke with maybe 1 product in 10 using it properly, the virtuous virality was already voluntary in practice, sadly.

I wish we lived in a timeline where the OGL recieved the support and enforcement that it deserves. But, we don't. The 5.1 SRD is already CC-BY, and the 5.2 one will be as well. As in so many other areas of life, being an Open Gaming giver and not just a taker will have to be largely voluntary (again, in D&D world, at least, the Pathfinder world is a different matter which many overlook).

I mean, there was no enforcement mechanism in the OGL. It gave a mechanism to declare copyrightable Intellectual Property off-limits, and people used it in ways that would moat likely hold up in court if challenged. Suing people using the OGL in legal good faith would have destroyed the OGl even more firmly than what they did last year.

 

[mamba]

That declaration isn't worth the ink it takes to print it; not when the very license that you're using (i.e. the OGL) invalidates it.

except that it does not...

"(d)"Open Game Content" means the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity and is an enhancement over the prior art and any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor, and means any work covered by this License, including translations and derivative works under copyright law, but specifically excludes Product Identity. (e) "Product Identity" means product and product line names, logos and identifying marks including trade dress; artifacts; creatures characters; stories, storylines, plots, thematic elements, dialogue, incidents, language, artwork, symbols, designs, depictions, likenesses, formats, poses, concepts, themes and graphic, photographic and other visual or audio representations; names and descriptions of characters, spells, enchantments, personalities, teams, personas, likenesses and special abilities; places, locations, environments, creatures, equipment, magical or supernatural abilities or effects, logos, symbols, or graphic designs; and any other trademark or registered trademark clearly identified as Product identity by the owner of the Product Identity, and which specifically excludes the Open Game Content;"

 

[mamba]

This is a serious question: if the SRD 5.2 covers a similar scope of the game as the 5.1 SRD, and 2024 5E is as compatible as proposed, what actual difference does it make whether they release an updated 5E SRD at all? It's not like folks couldn't continue making 2024b5E compatible material without it.

they can verbatim use the updated spells, creatures, etc.