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.

 

[kenmarable]

The viral aspect of "Open Gaming" never really took off, to be honest.

Early on it absolutely did, especially with certain products. Pathfinder 1, in particular, even massively benefited from several monster books and a few others. But there have been many products that were cited by other OGL publishers.

On the D&D side, however, that initial wave of OGL publishers either moved to PF1, moved to their own system, or closed up shop. Also, the industry email lists where a lot of this discussion, coordination, and sharing was happening died out. Bring in 4e and GSL, and on the D&D side, OGL publishing pretty nearly flatlined.

However, over in the PF1 realm, OGL sharing of content continued to be alive and well with many publishers sharing content.

Then with 5e back in the OGL, it was almost entirely new publishers using it (plus Kobold Press, but not many others from the old days). Unfortunately, the vast majority of new D&D OGL publishers didn't even understand the license since institutional knowledge in the industry had largely evaporated or moved to other games.

Maaaaany 5e OGL publishers weren't even aware that you could use OGC from other publishers or even from the earlier SRDs!!! The vast majority thought they could only use the 5.1 SRD and nothing else and had no consideration that anyone would want to use their stuff as well.

So when most 5e OGL publishers aren't even aware of the viral aspect of it, it's not surprising that it wasn't catching on anymore. But the viral Open Gaming community was very alive and well during 3.0, got burned a bit with 3.5, then fully ditched D&D for PF1, and then never really came back to D&D. So it certainly caught on, just not to the long term benefit of D&D itself.

 

[Parmandur]

Early on it absolutely did, especially with certain products. Pathfinder 1, in particular, even massively benefited from several monster books and a few others. But there have been many products that were cited by other OGL publishers.

On the D&D side, however, that initial wave of OGL publishers either moved to PF1, moved to their own system, or closed up shop. Also, the industry email lists where a lot of this discussion, coordination, and sharing was happening died out. Bring in 4e and GSL, and on the D&D side, OGL publishing pretty nearly flatlined.

However, over in the PF1 realm, OGL sharing of content continued to be alive and well with many publishers sharing content.

Then with 5e back in the OGL, it was almost entirely new publishers using it (plus Kobold Press, but not many others from the old days). Unfortunately, the vast majority of new D&D OGL publishers didn't even understand the license since institutional knowledge in the industry had largely evaporated or moved to other games.

Maaaaany 5e OGL publishers weren't even aware that you could use OGC from other publishers or even from the earlier SRDs!!! The vast majority thought they could only use the 5.1 SRD and nothing else and had no consideration that anyone would want to use their stuff as well.

So when most 5e OGL publishers aren't even aware of the viral aspect of it, it's not surprising that it wasn't catching on anymore. But the viral Open Gaming community was very alive and well during 3.0, got burned a bit with 3.5, then fully ditched D&D for PF1, and then never really came back to D&D. So it certainly caught on, just not to the long term benefit of D&D itself.

I mean, I would shorthand all thar as "the viral aspect of open gaming never really ctook off" with "really" doing a fair but if lifting to be fair. There was some movement, but it never cleared the ground and went airborne.

 

[kenmarable]

Sad, but true. Some creators actually went out of the way to release as little as possible.

That's another historical difference. During 3.0, those publishers were heavily shamed by other OGL publishers. (Not that it ever really changed their behavior, unfortunately).

Now, however, it's common standard for 5e (not PF 1&2, mind you) to even go so far as "Only what is OGC via the SRD is OGC" if they even remember to include an OGC declaration at all! It's 50/50 if they even update the Section 15 properly!!

 

[kenmarable]

I mean, I would shorthand all thar as "the viral aspect of open gaming never really ctook off" with "really" doing a fair but if lifting to be fair. There was some movement, but it never cleared the ground and went airborne.

Sure, I'm overly wordy as usual (just ask my family! )

But I would further addendum "for D&D" and absolutely agree! The D&D OGL landscape and the Pathfinder OGL landscape have operated very differently and largely independently of each other over the years. It did get airborne, but it then flew over to Paizoland airspace never to be seen in these parts again.

 

[mamba]

The lie was put to that a little over a year ago. It was a fine fiction for nearly 20 years, but then WotC proved how fundamental that word is to an actual functional OGL.

nah, it’s not fiction, go ahead and publish under the OGL and see if anything happens… any incentive WotC ever had is gone, not that they stood much of a chance in court either way

 

[Reynard]

Sad, but true. Some creators actually went out of the way to release as little as possible.

Yup, and Monte Cook, one of the architects of 3E, was among the worst offenders. Matt Coville is also horrible for giving back to Open Gaming.

 

[Reynard]

nah, it’s not fiction, go ahead and publish under the OGL and see if anything happens… any incentive WotC ever had is gone, not that they stood much of a chance in court either way

Paizo must really feel embarrassed then...

 

[Parmandur]

Sure, I'm overly wordy as usual (just ask my family! )

But I would further addendum "for D&D" and absolutely agree! The D&D OGL landscape and the Pathfinder OGL landscape have operated very differently and largely independently of each other over the years. It did get airborne, but it then flew over to Paizoland airspace never to be seen in these parts again.

Well, sure, but you can also interchange "D&D" with "the RPG industry at large." The Pathfinder 3PP seemed to dry up when the 5E SRD was nailed down.

"Shame" only works on companies if it impacts their bottom line, frankly, and it doesn't emphasize that 3pp keeping their legal IP rights made any fiscal impact.

 

[mamba]

Paizo must really feel embarrassed then...

why, because they switched to ORC? Them switching proves nothing about the OGL…

Didn’t they say they would go to court over the OGL if they had to? They would not do that if they knew they’d lose…

 

[Alzrius]

The lie was put to that a little over a year ago. It was a fine fiction for nearly 20 years, but then WotC proved how fundamental that word is to an actual functional OGL.

No, they didn't. The idea that WotC could revoke the OGL 1.0 and 1.0a because the word "irrevocable" isn't in them was always smoke and mirrors. We had numerous attorneys here on these very boards who expressed a great deal of informed skepticism that WotC's declaration about revoking either of the two original OGLs would pass legal muster.

The actual threat that WotC put forward was the fear, uncertainty, and doubt involved regarding the OGL's status, largely because no matter how bogus WotC's claims were, putting the lie to them in court would have cost a small fortune in legal fees. Money, not sound legal reasoning, was always the scare factor.

That's why I don't understand why everyone's so sanguine about the SRD being in the Creative Commons. Publically making a completely unfounded claim about being able to "revoke" something (whether it's the OGL in its entirety or the SRD's entry into the CC), effectively daring anyone to prove them wrong by publishing with "revoked" materials and so leaving themselves open to a supposed civil suit, is a tactic that's just as viable for the SRD under the CC as it is for the OGLs (and no, that doesn't mean WotC would be threatening to revoke the entire CC, just the 5.1 SRD being usable under it).

(I've heard some people say that WotC threatening to do that with the CC would effectively be them threatening to kill the entire license, and so would see Microsoft and Apple step up to challenge them in court, but everything I've looked up suggests that the "it would kill the CC" idea is complete nonsense, and the "big tech companies would save the day" idea strikes me as wishful thinking.)

For more on the potential legal shortcomings with regard to the supposed sense of safety that CC offers, I'll direct people to this post, made by an actual lawyer right here on EN World (with a good follow-up over here).