UngeheuerLich
Legend
No. But it takes the wind of the sails of those who hyperbole that now OneD&D won't be compatible to 5e anymore.
WotC updates SRD resources page with CC faq and SRD 5.1 under CC
- Thread starter darjr
- Start date
No. But it takes the wind of the sails of those who hyperbole that now OneD&D won't be compatible to 5e anymore.
I mean, on the one had I'll take them at their word that it's a coding error. The "Settings ever published by Wizards/TSR" field crossed with the "Settings Wizards allows third parties to publish for on DM's Guild" in a bad way.
On the other hand, what are Kingdom's of Kalamar and Wilderlands of High Fantasy doing in that list?
(Oddly if you use the search box on DM's Guild and type in "Kingdoms of" it autocompletes it with Kalamar and lets you search - to find no products on the site. Same for "Wilderlands of". It does feel like a coding but but what a weird one.)
overgeeked
B/X Known World
Cool. Thanks. As noted, not all of those are WotC IP so that makes it a bit...awkward.
bedir than
Hero
I still think it's funny that the ORC will be more closed than Creative Commons, but people will insist it is more open
UngeheuerLich
Legend
It is not about that anymore. The big mess up from WotC was the opportunity for people who did not like WotC in the first place to jump on them.
WotC doing it right did not follow their narrative.
If someone who actually publishes or a lawyer weights in, I'd take their assessment way more serious.
Twiggly the Gnome
Legend
Never claimed it would be more open, just better for parsing out open and closed material. Very few people designated their entire product as OGC.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
So you're saying that people can cook the books?
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
Why would they do that, though? There's no point as it wouldn't accomplish any of what they were trying to accomplish when this fiasco started.
There's a lack of trust that Wizards isn't going to mess with the rest of the tabletop market just because they can.
There's also a lack of trust that just because Wizards doesn't think it benefits them to do so now, that a future group of c-suite guys won't do it in the future because they think that they've got a cunning plan that is as cunning as a fox who's just been appointed Professor of Cunning at Oxford University.
Basically it comes down to lack of trust. Wizards still has a loaded gun, and even if it seems nuts for them to use it there are folks who don't trust them to not pull that trigger anyway.
Micah Sweet
Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
There is no point. I'm just saying that the status of the 5.1 can't be the only thing that matters to WotC, as has been claimed above.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
What mattered to WotC was control over 5e content and release(minor) and control over VTT(major). They lost both of those things with the release of SRD 5.1 into CC. They don't care about editions before 5e.
AdmundfortGeographer
Getting lost in fantasy maps
Ralishaz laughing around the corner…
Saracenus
Always In School Gamer
I agree with Snarf that the 50th anniversary would be the perfect time to release Greyhawk 5e (they teased us a bit with Ghosts of Saltmarch)... As for those of us that are creatives in the very active Greyhawk fan community there is a split with those that would use DM's Guild just so something official and updated would be published. Others will continue to publish for profit with the serial numbers filed off. And yet another group is going to continue to use the D&D fan policy to publish things that are not for profit.I mean, as soon as your predicted 50th anniversary Greyhawk release happens it'll happen
(I'm curious to see if Greyhawk would get a massive uptake on DM's Guild or if the intersection of "folks who want to publish Greyhawk stuff" and "folks who want to publish for 5e" is too small to make a large impact).
I think the moment where the largest number of folks would have been happy to publish in something like DMs Guild would have been near the end of Living Greyhawk in 2007 to 2008, but it did not exist back then. The fan community at the time was very insular and it drove a lot of people away from Greyhawk fandom (it was also the height of the Edition Wars and the rise of Paizo's Galorian world).
I would love to see Greyhawk opened up on DMs Guild but I have a feeling how it gets supported outside of WotC is going to greatly depend on how they choose to open up OneD&D to the community. My two coppers.
J.Quondam
CR 1/8
To be sure, there is a quite a lot of material that appears in the 3.5e SRD, and does appear in 5e but not in the 5e SRD.
- cleric domains (over a dozen in 3.5e SRD, vs only one in 5e SRD)
- monster descriptions and tactics (some in 3.5 SRD, none in 5eSRD)
- select class advancement options (eg, the arcane trickster, eldritch knight in 3.5SRD, not in 5eSRD)
- feats (many in 3.5eSRD, only one in 5eSRD)
- monsters that are in 3.5 SRD, and in 5e but not 5e SRD (eg, devourer, several mephits, nightwalker)
- monsters that are in 3.5 SRD but not in 5e at all (eg, aranea, thoqqua, morhg)
- select magic items (including "IP-stripped" versions) (eg, shadowstaff, moaning diamond, darkskull, saint's mace in 3.5eSRD, not in 5eSRD)
Tbh, I can't imagine WotC would try to flex on any of that, since yeah, they're only in the 5e biz. But I think it's these discrepancies and overlaps and general "limbo" state of this sort of OGC that causes concern for some.
No idea how concerned anyone using older SRDs actually needs to be, though.
You are using a different definition of open than I am and calling yourself right. It's tiresome.
And PI is defined and pointedly does not include game mechanics in it's definition.
CC-BY does not require people to add to the community. That's the problem. It's not an Open Gaming license.
Snarf Zagyg
Notorious Liquefactionist
i appreciate your humpty dumpy‘ing this.
But you might as well call define open as closed.
Feel free to use the actual words from the Creative Commons licenses or, you know, explain how your definition of open (which is really just a take on copyleft) is correct - especially because we’ve already established (and multiple people have explained to you) why Hasbro couldn’t and shouldn’t use CC BY-SA.
Defining terms in idiosyncratic ways and demanding other people accept it … is tiresome. If you’d like to contribute to the conversation with some I’m-depth analysis on the different CC licenses, feel free to.
Last edited:
darjr
I crit!
The OGL doesn't either. Does it? I didn't think there was a requirement.
Or are you saying they should have picked a CC that did require giving back to the community?
UngeheuerLich
Legend
As much as I think that would be fair, OGL also did not require it. And I think, there would be a bigger outcry if WotC used a license that would require so. People would have complained, that WotC would force them to give their own content away...
edit: was ninja´d by darjr
Similar Threads
