WotC WotC D&D Community Update

WotC posted a community update to share news of what they are working on for community outreach.

D&D Community Update

D&D Beyond - Dungeons & Dragons Fifth Edition Tools, Rules, Races, Classes, Items, Spells, Monsters, and More

www.dndbeyond.com

 

[Dire Bare]

it’s not exactly free if you have to create those SRDs from scratch. How much goodwill it gets you (that helps your bottom line) is also unclear to me, as those SRDs will not be used to create anything 5e related.
I am not even sure there is much of a point in it, since the 3e SRD was apparently sufficient for all the retroclones, so having that under CC is more important (and that already is more of a formality than not) than having a 1e SRD at all.

Either way, I applaud them for thinking about it.

Sure, dedicating man-hours to the project isn't "free" for WotC, but it is low-cost if treated as a side-project that takes a backseat to the continuing design of the current game.

Creating previous edition SRDs and releasing them into Creative Commons isn't necessary, as of course the OSR community has been hacking D&D editions using the 3E SRD for quite some time now. That's why it's a gesture of goodwill, and also positions WotC as being in the driver's seat, even if not technically true or necessary.

Like @bedir than I think it's a smart move for WotC to do this to help rebuild community trust. But, I also think it will be a side-project at best and might take considerable time before each previous edition gets a Creative Commons SRD. Of course, taking their time also stretches out the marketing angle, as every once in a while they get to announce another SRD released into CC.

 

[Oofta]

You've never done something wrong and been given a second chance by those around you?

Not even a "done something wrong" situation. It's thought about and discussed doing something wrong but ultimately changed your mind before you actually did anything and then bent over backwards to make it right.

I can't imagine holding anyone to the standard of "you can't even think of doing something I disagree with".

 

[Hutchimus Prime]

Guess the “One D&D” branding isn’t disappearing quite yet.

 

[Dausuul]

They are saying "previous editions" instead of "previous SRDs". Am I reading too much, or is it possible that 4e and/or AD&D will be added to Creative Commons?

It sure sounds that way. They're talking about "editions," plural (though I suppose that could refer to 3E and 3.5E).

Of course, just because they are "reviewing" previous editions doesn't mean they will actually go into CC. They might review (for example) 1E, and conclude that it isn't feasible or worthwhile to extract an SRD from the tangle of subsystems.

 

[darjr]

Someone on Mastodon pointed out there is nothing about AL here and that kinda made me sad.

 

[ReshiIRE]

Giving second chances doesn't make someone a fool, it makes someone a good person.

Yes. Giving second chances to another person** makes someone a good person.

WoTC aren't a person. They're a corporation. People don't need to be gracias to them. They can continue to complain* and not give money to them.

Granted, they do seem to be being more transparent right now, that is good - and the more they open up older editions, the better. That warrents praise. It's a good chance and it shows that they can improve.

That does not mean that it's a bad idea to be on guard when they almost certainly try to screw up the community and the wider TTRPG industry again however - as a shareholder ran corporation is wont to do.

* (It's not constructive to complain right now however considering the immediate 'thing' is done; WoTC are improving in certain areas; and this thread isn't about the OGL situation really. Even further threads about the OGL situation consequneces shouldn't devolve into litigating into the past until a major move happens again. It distracts from talking about future releases and the game.)

** within reason but I think that's implied in every statement like this.

 

[mamba]

Not even a "done something wrong" situation. It's thought about and discussed doing something wrong but ultimately changed your mind before you actually did anything

you keep repeating this, but it does not get any more true through repetition… they did much more than think about it. They acted. That their actions fell flat is not something they get credit for, the same way a bankrobber that gets thwarted by a security guard cannot claim he didn’t actually do anything.

 

[dave2008]

Someone on Mastodon pointed out there is nothing about AL here and that kinda made me sad.

Kyle talked about AL, IIRC, in one of his interviews, but I don't remember which one or what he said.

 

[Scribe]

Not even a "done something wrong" situation. It's thought about and discussed doing something wrong but ultimately changed your mind before you actually did anything and then bent over backwards to make it right.

They sent out contracts.
They negotiated with, and signed an agreement with Kickstarter.
They sent out a (multiple?) revised position.

This is all far more than 'thinking' about it.

I can't imagine holding anyone to the standard of "you can't even think of doing something I disagree with".

Uhh, I hate to break it to you, but this is now common practice online.

 

[Oofta]

you keep repeating this, but it does not get any more true through repetition… they did much more than think about it. They acted. That their actions fell flat is not something they get credit for, the same way a bankrobber that gets thwarted by a security guard cannot claim he didn’t actually do anything.

No policy was actually changed. It's like someone talking about robbing a bank, casing the joint, drawing up plans and then deciding they couldn't get away with it after getting a better understanding of the security.

No matter how often you repeat it, they made no policy changes. I don't trust them any less now because I never trusted them in the first place. Either I will spend money on their products because they offer something I want or I won't.