Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 8919788" data-attributes="member: 8461">You might be right, but I remain skeptical. The 5.1 SRD is far and away more limited than the 3.5 SRD, even overlooking the epic, psionic, and divine rules that the latter has. Some of that is the sheer volume of monsters, others are spells and magic items, but overall there's simply more to work with in the 3.5 SRD.It's entirely possible that a 5E-derived OSRIC could be made, but it would require a lot more filling in of gaps for 1E content which has no 5.1 SRD equivalent. Maybe that could work for something recreating original 1974 D&D or Holmes Basic, but AD&D 1E seems like it would be much harder.And that's just for the OSR; you're not going to be able to do that for other 3.5-inspired games such as Pathfinder 1E. As someone who still plays that game, I'd prefer to go a route which sees all of the old stuff be open, rather than just a particular segment of the market. And that means sticking with the OGL, because even if the 3.5 SRD is put into Creative Commons, that won't be enough for derivative works (particularly where the publishers of those derivative works have closed their doors).For instance, Studio M— is a small publisher that releases content for the "akashic magic" subsystem of Pathfinder 1E. But that system (which is a "serial numbers filed off" verison of 3.5's Magic of Incarnum) was actually developed by Dreamscarred Press. Naturally, it relies upon PF1, which itself relies on the 3.5 SRD.But Dreamscarred Press, as far as I know, hasn't been active since 2018.So given that there's derivative "chain" of the 3.5 SRD -> PF1 -> Dreamscarred Press -> Studio M—, porting that stuff over to CC means that it has to go in that order, and any break in the chain (cue Fleetwood Mac) for whatever reason means that isn't possible.And here's the thing: those chains are actually much, much harder to port over than the above example makes them look like, because they require that everything in a given work's SRD be ported over first. So if Pathfinder uses a book from Malhavoc Press (which it does: the Book of Experimental Might), then Monte Cook would need to dust off that company heading and release that title to Creative Commons before the Pathfinder 1E Core Rulebook could release its Open Game Content (which would need to be parsed into its own SRD-like document so they don't release their IP into the CC the way WotC just did) into the Creative Commons.And given that I'm not sure how Creative Commons works anyway (what's a "share-alike" version of the license, and what's the significance of the fact that WotC didn't release the 5.1 SRD under it?), I'm not sure the recursive use of content that the OGL allows for could even be done there.The entire thing, in other words, would be a mess.I know I'm rambling at this point, and long since gone past the issue of the OSR and recreating AD&D 1E with the 5.1 SRD in CC, so I'll try and wrap this up:I'm glad that WotC put the entire 5.1 SRD under Creative Commons. I think that's a good thing, in what it allows for, but the guarantee that it makes regarding the D&D 5E rules doesn't cover literally everything else that's been released under the OGL over nearly a quarter-century. For that, we need better protections for the OGL, and I'm still waiting for WotC to do that as part of their show of contrition and making amends.I want to guarantee that the entire community is covered, or at least as much of it as possible, rather than any particular segment of it.</blockquote>

Verification