D&D 5E So, 5e OGL

[prosfilaes]

Wait, what? Are you sure? Because this would be the news scoop of the year if it's true. There's a new SRD? Where did you hear this?

You think there has ever been a RPG company that wasn't completely half-assed that didn't have an SRD, a system reference document? I didn't say that it was OGLed or publically released, but I'm sure there is a document at Hasbro that has a list of what material is official and may not be contradicted in D&D 5 products.

 

[Morrus]

He probably means that those contracted by WotC are given a 5E "bible" of some sort detailing what can be used in their licensed products.

I'm sure there is, but that's not an SRD.

 

[Mark CMG]

I'm sure there is, but that's not an SRD.

I'm not so sure that it isn't, in effect, an SRD. It might even have that name but be restricted to use by those that have been licensed to use it. Nevertheless, for our purposes here in this discussion, it's not an SRD that we can use.

 

[aramis erak]

Fudge, Fate, Opend6, Traveller, WOIN. None of these have anything to do with D&D. Or even d20s.

Now you show your own ignorance and bias while accusing someone else of ignorance.

The first OGL version of Traveller was T20 - which was specifically built using the OGL to do a d20 version of Traveller. Which lead to 3PP of Traveller supplements, and showed Mongoose there was a continuing market.

Further, Mongoose got their major start as a D&D 3PP.

Were it not for D&D, there would be (1) No OGL (2) No T20 Traveller's Handbook (3) No Mongoose Traveller and quite likely, (4) due to finances, still no T5 in print.

And that's before looking at Marc's designers notes, and noting that CT-77 was a reaction to D&D & Star Wars Ep IV.

 

[Wicht]

And from a thousand other OGC contributors who have used it since its inception.

And therein lies the real beauty of the OGL.

 

[Wicht]

You think there has ever been a RPG company that wasn't completely half-assed that didn't have an SRD, a system reference document?

Normally its called the rulebook, for most RPG companies.

...But I'm sure there is a document at Hasbro that has a list of what material is official and may not be contradicted in D&D 5 products.

That there is something different though... Because it sounds like you are talking about Campaign canon as opposed to actual rules...

And the existence thereof depends on the methodology of the creators...

 

[Morrus]

Now you show your own ignorance and bias while accusing someone else of ignorance.

Nobody has been aggressive yet; was that really needed? Do we have to turn a pleasant debate into a typical intraweb fight?

The first OGL version of Traveller was T20 - which was specifically built using the OGL to do a d20 version of Traveller.

Fair enough. An error in the list doesn't negate the point being made, though, which is that the OGL is system neutral and used by non-d20 games.

 

[Jester David]

And from a thousand other OGC contributors who have used it since its inception.

Referencing one source means you need to reference their sources. So, by referencing a Pathfinder book, you need to reference the SRD. There are precious few resources in the OGL that do not reference the SRD.
Yes, there's a lot you can use. But there's also restrictions, which is why Creative Commons was embraced by other companies. If you're not doing the d20 route and want nothing from the SRD, then there's little benefit gained from the OGL.

By asking WotC to use the OGL for 5E the assumption is they will release OGC, probably in the form of a 5E SRD. Has that not been understood?

It's understated. I think most people equate the OGL with the SRD, or want a new licence.
Again, there's two-three parts that WotC would need to release, a new System Document, a trademark licence, and potentially a new gaming licence. But I'm not sure most people understand how those works. Which is kinda required to get into the publishing side of things. (Which is what got me posting in this thread again, the comment that more than 0.1% of the fanbase would be interested in publishing their work.) Making content is great, but not many people are going to take that plunge.

Since now seems to be the time to be pedantic, there is a new SRD. There is a document, along with the associated books, web pages, Word files, whatever, that specifies what sources are reference material for D&D 5, and which books, web pages, etc., can be contradicted or ignored in new material. WotC hasn't made it public, but I'm sure Green Ronin and other contractors got a copy of it.

Yes... it's called the Player's Handbook
Okay, Kobold Press was working on their stuff prior. But they likely didn't get some specialized document, they likely just got the rough, unformatted draft of the book. That's not the SRD, it's just the playtest version of the rulebook. They distribute that content all the time, under strict NDA.
An SRD would be a very different document.

What we want is a document given permission for commercial use of D&D 5 in products. It could include a work like the D&D 3 SRD and Pathfinder PRD, that clearly specifies a set of elements that can be used, but not necessarily, as long as the permission grant was relatively clear. 5E OGL doesn't usually refer to the OGL in these discussion; it refers to a vaguely defined set of licenses that would do what we want.

That would be nice. But I'd also love a document that gave permission for non-commercial use. Really, that'd be a lot more desirable for me. Where the line is for posting content on websites or free PDFs.

 

[aramis erak]

He probably means that those contracted by WotC are given a 5E "bible" of some sort detailing what can be used in their licensed products.

Mearls and Perkins have hinted very strongly at such a document existing. What they haven't stated (that I've seen) is how much it's been shared with the contractors or simply been used in-house to vet the contractor's work against.

 

[Wicht]

Referencing one source means you need to reference their sources. So, by referencing a Pathfinder book, you need to reference the SRD. There are precious few resources in the OGL that do not reference the SRD.
Yes, there's a lot you can use. But there's also restrictions, which is why Creative Commons was embraced by other companies.

I'm not sure what your point is - so if you use the OGL you have to reference your sources in section 15... So what? Why should that matter?

And as for referencing the d20 SRD, thats only true for d20 derivatives; FATE, Fudge, et.al have nothing to do with the SRD and anything you write via those rulesets is going to reference other things besides the d20 SRD. The SRD isn't used in their OGL.

And I'm not really sure what restrictions you are referring to. There's precious few restrictions on using anything that is Open via the OGL other than doing your own section 15 with due diligence.