New SRD => No useful searchable document?

[Scribble]

Ok, let's assume monsters are open (big assumption, but bear with me). There would be nothing to stop someone from publishing them on a 4E version of a d20srd.org type site, right? As long as they followed whatever rules the new OGL sets up?

My guess is this is part why we're seeing monsters that aren't just "Fire Archon..." They're "Fire Archon (Insert Descriptor Heres.)

Probably an attempt to lessen what they have to put out as "open game content."

Allow people to use the names but only as a reference, as others have said. Fire Archon 54 HP MM page x.

As an attempt to make it easier for people to use the content, but not just reprint it in a different form.

 

[JohnSnow]

My guess is this is part why we're seeing monsters that aren't just "Fire Archon..." They're "Fire Archon (Insert Descriptor Heres.)

Probably an attempt to lessen what they have to put out as "open game content."

Allow people to use the names but only as a reference, as others have said. Fire Archon 54 HP MM page x.

As an attempt to make it easier for people to use the content, but not just reprint it in a different form.

I think it's entirely possible that, with a few notable exceptions, the monster's name and mechanical description (including their powers) will be open content, while the descriptive text will be closed.

That way, someone could include a full statblock in an adventure so that you wouldn't have to reference the Monster Manual in play.

I'm betting they'll prevent anyone from reprinting the combat chapter or stat descriptions. In other words, there won't be any more variant PHBs or complete games published with the 4e OGL.

 

[Rykion]

If necessary, the current OGL license could most likely be used for just this purpose, because something that is declared open, or derived from something open is, according to the license, open content. I would be very amused to hear an argument on how a fourth edition fighter is not derived from the third edition fighter.

All I'm looking for is an easy to use electronic copy of the rules, and I'm sure something will come up. I'm just hoping it will be from WotC themselves. As I already have the 4E rules on preorder, WotC will still get what's due to them!

--Steve

The 4E OGL sounds like it will be closer to the d20 license. It looks like WotC wants third parties to publish settings, modules, and supplements for D&D rather than stand-alone games. They are offering an electronic version of the rulebooks for a small fee after purchasing the paper form of those books, so that should cover people that want electronic copies.

I doubt WotC will make it easy for someone else to put out a very comprehensive version of the 4E rules. I suspect that they will declare 4E material original content not derived from the 3E SRD. That will prevent third parties from using the 3E OGL to make an open copy of the 4E rules. It might not stand up in court, but someone would actually have to take them to court to try to change it.

 

[Arnwyn]

This seems to me to mean that we will no longer have something like d20srd.com to check the actual rules. In fact, it sounds like the SRD will jsut be a bunch of guidelines, like "It's usually a bad idea to force players onto a particular adventure path."

I suspect this is the case, along with references to PHB/MM/DMG page numbers.

And, as another poster said, there will be no free useful searchable document. But there will be searchable documents - since you can enter the code from your purchased PHB at WotC's site and voila - instant electronic document.

But no - nothing like the d20 SRD that exists today, not at first, anyways.

 

[Scribble]

In fact, it sounds like the SRD will jsut be a bunch of guidelines, like "It's usually a bad idea to force players onto a particular adventure path."

My guess is it will be more along the lines of what you see at the beginning of most d20 supplements. The legalese that describes what parts are open and what parts are not.

It won't be advice for how to make a product, just advice on what you can and cannot use while making that product.

 

[davethegame]

I have no doubt that, if it is legally permissible under the new license, someone will scan and apply optical character recognition to the rulebooks, extract the open sections, and make them available for copy and paste.

Agreed, though I bet that this will happen even if not legally permissible. It just depends on how out-in-the-open the final product is.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

From The Rouse also comes the information that the new SRD will probably updated a lot more often and thus give a more complete look of the game then the old SRD.

The reason is probably that WotC doesn'T need to care about formatting the text and removing IP from it to enter it in the SRD. Instead, it adds just things like "Paragraphs 1-8 from the Monster Manual VIII of page 12 are designated open content."

The goal seems more to enable publishers to use WotC material as soon as possible.

 

[Agamon]

Uh oh, confusion. It was my understanding that the small fee to get the digital version of the book you bought was not tied to DDI. It's nice that you can include rules form new books in that online thing in DDI, but is there not a fee one can pay to just get the digital content regardless of whether you're a DDI subscriber?

I totally understand getting rid of the free SRD as it exists in 3.5, but replacing that with a subscription service that makes you pay even more on top of the sub price to get the content? Are they trying to make up for the past few years of free stuff?

 

[JVisgaitis]

It depends on what's up with the license, but I'm sure someone will create the next incarnation of d20srd.

 

[JohnSnow]

Uh oh, confusion. It was my understanding that the small fee to get the digital version of the book you bought was not tied to DDI. It's nice that you can include rules form new books in that online thing in DDI, but is there not a fee one can pay to just get the digital content regardless of whether you're a DDI subscriber?

I totally understand getting rid of the free SRD as it exists in 3.5, but replacing that with a subscription service that makes you pay even more on top of the sub price to get the content? Are they trying to make up for the past few years of free stuff?

Point of clarification. If you own the books, you'll be able to download a .pdf version of them for a nominal fee. You do not have to subscribe to D&D Insider to do this.

It's possible they plan to enable some extra functionality, such as a fully searchable hypertext document accessible from the Game Table, for D&D Insider subscribers.

Curiously, how would people feel about an online resource for all Open Content that required you to have, for example, a registered copy of the PHB in order to view PHB content? Would that satisfy everyone? Because if people actually aren't interested in getting the rules for free, it should.

Bear in mind, whether WotC wants to bother with this is another matter entirely. I'm just trying to guage whether people really just want an online version they can access when their PHB isn't handy, or whether that's actually code for "I want the rules for free but I'm not willing to admit it."