D&D (2024) WotC Announces April 22 Release For 2024 System Reference Documents

The System Reference Document 5.2--the tool which helps developers create third-party content using the Dungeons & Dragons core rules engine--will be released under the Creative Commons license on April 22nd.

Additionally, Wizards of the Coast will publish a Conversion Guide for updating game content from the 2014 edition to the 2024 edition. This guide will arrive at a later date.

The Free Rules document on D&D Beyond will also be updated with new D&D Beyond Basic Rules (2024).

The older 5.1 SRD, which is based on the 2014 edition of D&D, will also remain available under both Creative Commons and the Open Game License (OGL).

More information will be available on April 22nd, when the new SRD is released.

A copy of each System Reference Document is stored independently at A5ESRD.com, which includes the 5.1 SRD, the revised 3.5 SRD, and other System Reference Documents (including the enormous A5E SRD).

 

[Alzrius]

In the context of the discussion - that is, how to measure "open-ness" - if someone thinks that CC-BY is more open than CC-share alike, then for exactly the same reasons they should think that CC-BY is more open than the OGL. Because the nature of the restrictions those two licences (OGL and share alike) impose on downstream users is much the same, except that OGL is even more restrictive (by prohibiting the use of product identity).

The discussion hasn't been comparing the OGL to the CC-SA though, since that's not the license that the 5E SRDs have been shared under. In that regard, the CC-SA has only come up because people (well, one person) keeps trying to say that for purposes of comparison, you can say equate the OGL and the CC-SA, which strikes me as reductive.

 

[pemerton]

The discussion hasn't been comparing the OGL to the CC-SA though

Huh? @mamba and others argued that CC-BY is more open that CC-share-alike. And that, for the same reasons - given the strong parallels between share-alike and the OGL - CC-BY is more open than the OGL.

Maybe you agree, maybe you don't - but there's no relevant difference here between the OGL and CC-share-alike.

In that regard, the CC-SA has only come up because people (well, one person) keeps trying to say that for purposes of comparison, you can say equate the OGL and the CC-SA, which strikes me as reductive.

Of course they can be "equated" in this context. What salient difference do you see between them?

 

[Alzrius]

Huh? @mamba and others argued that CC-BY is more open that CC-share-alike. And that, for the same reasons - given the strong parallels between share-alike and the OGL - CC-BY is more open than the OGL.

Maybe you agree, maybe you don't - but there's no relevant difference here between the OGL and CC-share-alike.

Of course they can be "equated" in this context. What salient difference do you see between them?

You yourself have noted that there are relevant differences between the OGL and the CC-SA. Hence, they cannot be equated in this context. I suppose that saying "notwithstanding their differences, they're the same" is a technical truism, but when you have to overtly state that you're ignoring the salient differences (i.e. the parenthetical note you made in the post linked to here), that kind of seems to miss the point.

Likewise, you mischaracterized the discussion in your previous post; people saying the CC-BY is more open weren't attributing that to the use of Product Identity (which is voluntarily applied anyway; it's possible for a publisher to not declare any PI at all), but because the CC-BY gave publishers the "freedom" to close derivative content (i.e. content made using open content).

 

[kenmarable]

Which certainly puts them out of step with how the community, here on EN World (and elsewhere), has been using it. Again, maybe that's how they use the term elsewhere (i.e. outside of the TTRPG space), but not here.

This really confuses me. I thought this thread is here on EN World. I thought we are all part of this community. I see many members of this community disagreeing with you and no one agreeing. Are we not members of this community (TTRPG and EN World)? Or do only the True Scots of this community that agree with you count?

I also seem to recall following and being involved all the way back to the industry emailing lists when Clark Peterson and others were giving Ryan Dancey feedback on the initial drafts of the OGL and the 25 years of discussion around the OGL since then.

You keep claiming the overall consensus of the TTRPG community is that terms are used the way you define, yet all I see is only you using them that way and many, many other members of the TTRPG community disagreeing with you.

I don't think your appeal to the masses that all agree with you is the strong argument you think it is.

 

[Alzrius]

This really confuses me. I thought this thread is here on EN World. I thought we are all part of this community. I see many members of this community disagreeing with you and no one agreeing. Are we not members of this community (TTRPG and EN World)? Or do only the True Scots of this community that agree with you count?

This is a very weird take. I mean, from what I can tell you've essentially designated that a tiny subset of people are saying something and therefore it's true of the entire TTRPG community, while because I'm the only person in this thread disagreeing, I'm out of step with the community. So if one person says something it's wrong, but if four or five people say something it's right? Tell me, precisely what "magic number" of people saying something do you think makes it true? Or are you implying that you and the people who agree with you are the True Scots you're referring to?

I also seem to recall following and being involved all the way back to the industry emailing lists when Clark Peterson and others were giving Ryan Dancey feedback on the initial drafts of the OGL and the 25 years of discussion around the OGL since then.

Which is a total non sequitur, unless you're implying that you have some sort of special authority because...reasons.

You keep claiming the overall consensus of the TTRPG community is that terms are used the way you define, yet all I see is only you using them that way and many, many other members of the TTRPG community disagreeing with you.

"Many, many others" being less than a half-dozen people in this thread? At least one of whom has also made the claim that the entire TTRPG community agrees with their definition? Funny how you don't take them to task for asserting having a popular mandate when it's an opinion you agree with.

I don't think your appeal to the masses that all agree with you is the strong argument you think it is.

Your selective approach in who you're saying that to is quite telling, here.

 

[kenmarable]

More open = makes more open content.

This is the first I have heard "openness" rather than "virality" of copyleft licenses defined by volume of open content.

If this is truly the overwhelmingly common definition used by all of the TTRPG for the past 25 years (well, except for everyone else in thread), I'm going throw a "citation needed" out there. You keep claiming that this is how everyone uses it and has always used it, but have provided zero evidence to that effect beyond you just claiming it as fact.

 

[Alzrius]

This is the first I have heard "openness" rather than "virality" of copyleft licenses defined by volume of open content.

Which speaks to your not having been paying attention more than anything else.

If this is truly the overwhelmingly common definition used by all of the TTRPG for the past 25 years (well, except for everyone else in thread), I'm going throw a "citation needed" out there. You keep claiming that this is how everyone uses it and has always used it, but have provided zero evidence to that effect beyond you just claiming it as fact.

The insertion of "all" in your restatement of my point is a misrepresentation; there are always some people on the fringes who're using any given term incorrectly; see several of the people I've spoken with in this thread for examples.

As for evidence, you do realize that you've supplied none, right? I mean, you've designated that the people in this thread are representative of the entire TTRPG community and that their use of "open" is accurate beyond question apparently back to the date of the OGL mailing list, but put forward nothing to support that theory. So when another poster said "you're using 'open' differently from anyone else," where was that person's evidence (and no, it wasn't in those links, since those links didn't discuss the TTRPG community)?

More importantly, why didn't you chime in asking them for evidence? As I said before, your selectivity in demanding proof speaks volumes about your position.

 

[bedir than]

Those looking for a discussion on how to use various licenses and what they mean should consult the numerous members of the community who do that regularly, and note their caveats (consult a lawyer) as well as how they share their experiences.

Many are active right here on EN World, design in the open on their project Discords and have produced best selling projects under their name.

 

[Alzrius]

Those looking for a discussion on how to use various licenses and what they mean should consult the numerous members of the community who do that regularly, and note their caveats (consult a lawyer) as well as how they share their experiences.

Many are active right here on EN World, design in the open on their project Discords and have produced best selling projects under their name.

That's also a good jumping off point to mentioning that the OGL, CC-BY, and ORC aren't the only TTRPG licenses out there. There's also the ELF License, the AELF License, the Free Tabletop License, and quite a few others (though many are tied to specific games and systems).

 

[Alzrius]

Reviewing this thread, I think the trajectory it's on isn't conducive to anything productive. Having made my points at length, I'll go ahead and bow out now.