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.

 

[Eyes of Nine]

This just continues my sad that 4e is not under the OGL

 

[Parmandur]

This just continues my sad that 4e is not under the OGL

Well, it will be interesting how far WotC goes with "older Editions under CC."

 

[bmfrosty]

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).

In that 3rd paragraph, I suspect that most people fail to understand the difference and aren't interested in learning the difference anyway.

I think that the best thing for WotC/Hasbro to do is to stop trying to wring more money out of D&D by this sort of means. I think there's a limited amount of monetary scale for them in the TTRPG space, and that they could have continued to be the big fish in a small pond there by just continuing what they had done publicly pre-pandemic.

I think the much better play for them would have been to protect the status quo and their trademarks/copyrights and tried to leverage the game to make plays into bigger pools like they did with the movie.

There have to be a bunch of opportunities like that, but only if the game is favorably viewed. I think the live play podcasts and such would leverage them into audio dramas really well, which would then leverage them into other things, and the use of the D&D name and associated trademarks is a big part of that.

 

[mamba]

No, they didn't. You can't just rewrite the OGL to make it say what you want it to say, even if you say that you did.

you do not need to rewrite anything, you just declare everything you added your protected IP

That sword cuts both ways. If I reuse someone else's Open Game Content, even if they don't call it Open Game Content, then there's nothing they can do about it.

they can sue you… the point was that the OGL was not ‘viral’ however

 

[Reynard]

You can't actually do that, though. I'm aware that some companies have said that they could (or maybe it was for classes instead of monsters), but they're still in violation of the license. At most they could claim that the names and flavor text were OGC (which is still a jerk move).

Matt Coville did essentially that with Flee! Mortals. It's BS but that's how LOTS of creators used the OGL.

 

[Nikosandros]

Well, it will be interesting how far WotC goes with "older Editions under CC."

Just tell me when the bard for OD&D (Strategic Review 6) and the Archer Ranger (Dragon 45) will be released under CC.

 

[Alzrius]

you do not need to rewrite anything, you just declare everything you added your protected IP

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.

they can sue you… the point was that the OGL was not ‘viral’ however

They can certainly try to sue you, since (at least in the United States) anyone an attempt to sue anyone else for anything at any time; but at least in terms of legalities, they'd lose (which might not matter if they just want to get you into court, but they can do that with anything).

That said, the OGL is viral in nature; there's no declaration that can undercut that.

Matt Coville did essentially that with Flee! Mortals. It's BS but that's how LOTS of creators used the OGL.

Yeah, and he's wrong. I don't just mean ethically, I mean it literally doesn't work how he said it does; if you use the Open Game License, then anything derived from Open Game Content is itself Open Game Content. Saying it's not is moot.

 

[Reynard]

Yeah, and he's wrong. I don't just mean ethically, I mean it literally doesn't work how he said it does; if you use the Open Game License, then anything derived from Open Game Content is itself Open Game Content. Saying it's not is moot.

Sure but it started with Malhavoc and when one of the designers of the game sets the precedent and no one ever opposes them, it pretty much becomes the default.

 

[Parmandur]

you do not need to rewrite anything, you just declare everything you added your protected IP


they can sue you… the point was that the OGL was not ‘viral’ however

But almost as important...Ryan Fancey and the lawyer he worked with thought it was viral, based on a mistaken understanding.

 

[Alzrius]

Sure but it started with Malhavoc and when one of the designers of the game sets the precedent and no one ever opposes them, it pretty much becomes the default.

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.

EDIT: Also, as I recall Malhavoc mostly just said that things like monster names and descriptions weren't OGC, which is technically in compliance with the OGL even if people (correctly) felt it violated the spirit of it. It's why that practice was referred to as "crippled content."