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).

 

[SlyFlourish]

By definition, the ORC makes EVERYTHING that isn't specific IP or lore info open. so I wouldn't use the word "locked" other than that anything that uses BF inherently requires you make yours open also.

Kobold Press held back mechanics from Tales of the Valiant when publishing the Black Flag SRD. They could do this because the 5.1 SRD used CC BY. So they themselves held back things like extra subclasses and some monsters but then require publishers downstream to publish all mechanics. I think what Paizo did was better where they released all of the Pathfinder 2 revised core books under ORC. At least they followed the same limitations they expect downstream producers to follow.

For me, the “locked” part means that I have to use ORC if I use Black Flag material. I don’t like being locked into any one license.

 

[Nylanfs]

Thank you. I honestly didn't know and I was asking an honest question, so, it's nice to get straightforward answers.

So, how is this so different than a company using crippled content under the OGL?

For me, CC BY is more open and more widely used than ORC and gives more flexibility to downstream producers to decide what they do and don’t want to release and I think that’s fine. That’s why I publish a lot of my material under a CC BY license.

The problem with CC-BY is that it is essentially all or nothing for a specific document. Each publisher would essentially have to make two documents (if they had IP they wanted to protect, like a setting, town, characters, etc). It's not really a good fit for the TTRPG industry.

The difference between a source using the OGL (and the publisher declaring anything new mechanically is IP and not open) and the ORC. Is that the ORC explicitly says that new mechanics, and the material describing said new mechanics is "Licensed Material" ie OGC. Anything else is trademarks, world lore, story arcs, distinctive characters, and visual art and is "Reserved Material". The owner can release none or any of that as they wish. with explicit statements.

What KP did with the Black Flag & ToV was somewhat unnecessary under the final text of the ORC, but I'm pretty sure it was started before the ORC was, and I think they didn't want to redo a bunch of their plans midstream after the final text was released. AFAIK ToV was released under the ORC. so that the Reserved Materials could be preserved, but mechanics and text for mechanics are open.

Edit: Oh, I see that ToV is NOT released under the ORC, just the Black Flag. This option is also only available to the original creators of a system, not downstream.

@Hussar The ORC Axe (FAQ) does a pretty good job of explaining the license and use cases in laymen's terms.

 

[SlyFlourish]

The problem with CC-BY is that it is essentially all or nothing for a specific document. Each publisher would essentially have to make two documents (if they had IP they wanted to protect, like a setting, town, characters, etc). It's not really a good fit for the TTRPG industry.

There are ways to designate what parts of a work are released under a CC license but it is much easier to just publish a separate document with the stuff you want to release. This is also the case with the OGL and ORC, though – it's exactly what both WOTC and Kobold Press did anyway.

Speaking as a publisher, figuring out what parts to mark as product identity and what not to can be tricky too. It's just easier for me to publish a whole document I can point to and say "you can use anything in this under the CC BY" license.

What KP did with the Black Flag & ToV was somewhat unnecessary under the final text of the ORC, but I'm pretty sure it was started before the ORC was, and I think they didn't want to redo a bunch of their plans midstream after the final text was released. AFAIK ToV was released under the ORC. so that the Reserved Materials could be preserved, but mechanics and text for mechanics are open.

A Kobold Press representative stated explicitly here on EN World that they held back content from the Black Flag license because they didn't want to give away too much. This was specifically mechanical content (ToV's extra subclasses).

Edit: Oh, I see that ToV is NOT released under the ORC, just the Black Flag. This option is also only available to the original creators of a system, not downstream.

Yeah, that's my issue. If Kobold Press released all of TOV under ORC, that'd be one thing. If they released Black Flag under a CC BY license, that would also be fine. But releasing a subset of TOV under ORC but not the rest of it gave them the option to limit mechanical material but did not give that right to anyone publishing downstream from Black Flag. That bugs me. I still remain a big fan and collaborator with Kobold Press regardless.

 

[bedir than]

The problem with CC-BY is that it is essentially all or nothing for a specific document.

This isn't true. Creative Commons specifically addresses how to mix licenses.
Some are using SRDs, but you could also, using layout (as most websites do) to say what is available via CC BY, CC 0 and even CR

 

[Nylanfs]

Yes, it isn't strictly true, that's why I had essentially. But for the VAST majority of publishers trying to figure out HOW to differentiate it in a published work (pdf, book, etc.) is going to take more time than they want, especially if they are a first time publisher.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I don’t know if anyone else has commented on this, but I was reading the Solasta 2 dev blog and they were talking about the 2024 Champion fighter as if its inclusion were a fait accompli. I think that pretty much confirms that the game will be based around the 5.2 SRD.