D&D 5E (2024) I am so torn [UPDATE: I bought it]

[mamba]

If you grant the premise that it doesn't hurt, then why not release that material under the OGL too?

I am not opposed to it, the discussion was about releasing 3e under the CC, not preventing 2024 to be released under anything but CC

 

[Alzrius]

I am not opposed to it, the discussion was about releasing 3e under the CC, not preventing 2024 to be released under anything but CC

No, that's not what the discussion is about; I'll refer you back to your own post.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

I feel you. The secondary market is your friend here.

It’s just my preference. Not a moral imperative.

I will play 5e and perhaps a little dragonslayer…looking forward to my book…

 

[UngainlyTitan]

While I will admit to a small curiosity as to what @Reynard, whenever that decision is made. I find I have no appetite for another go-around on the OGL and its merits as to CC

 

[mamba]

No, that's not what the discussion is about; I'll refer you back to your own post.

well, it started there, and you cannot release someone else's content under CC or the OGL, so not sure how that got you onto the 'release 2024 under OGL' track

 

[Alzrius]

well, it started there, and you cannot release someone else's content under CC or the OGL, so not sure how that got you onto the 'release 2024 under OGL' track

You literally answered your own point of uncertainty, here: if you can't release someone else's content under a license that they didn't release it under, then it'd be nice if they released it under that license as well.

 

[mamba]

You literally answered your own point of uncertainty, here: if you can't release someone else's content under a license that they didn't release it under, then it'd be nice if they released it under that license as well.

my point is that you can use it in your product, no license enables you to release it as open content.

 

[Alzrius]

my point is that you can use it in your product, no license enables you to release it as open content.

And my point is that if you can only use it in your product by utilizing two different licenses simultaneously, that's more trouble for the publisher than it would be for WotC to just release it under the OGL also.

 

[ECMO3]

I have never NOT owned a copy of the current edition of D&D, and I played/ran all of them except OD&D (though 4E was admittedly brief).

I am also still mad that WotC has not released the 3.5 SRD into CC, and about the OGL debacle in general. But they have also done some things as shows of good faith, particularly opening up Beyond to 3rd parties and making 2024 available to other VTTs (which legitimately surprised me).

I am teetering on the fence whether to break my "no money for WotC" rule and getting the 2024 core book.

Help push me to one side or the other, please.

I don't think they opened up DNDB as an act of good faith, I think they probably get royalties for anything sold on their site.

It would be pretty simple for me - If you want to play 2024 get it, if you don't don't get it.

 

[Reynard]

I'll refer you to my earlier post about the chilling effect of trying to navigate two different licenses simultaneously in the same product.

There's literally no reason for WotC not to make it easier for everyone to use the material they've already said they're going to release. Putting out a patchwork collection of some things being released under one license and other things released under a different license creates a degree of complexity that benefits no one.

The 5.2 SRD will (presumably) be completely independent of the 5.1 SRD.

I think you have a point if that is not the case. if the 5.2 SRD is in effect errata for the 5.1 SRD, then it makes sense for them to put it out for both the OGL and in CC, because folks may well have products that use either. But if the 5.2 SRD is complete, it is irrelevant because then both the 5.1 SRD and the 5.2 SRD are both in CC and anything compatible with either can just use CC.