WotC updates SRD resources page with CC faq and SRD 5.1 under CC

[UngeheuerLich]

That doesn't sound like "we plan to add older editions" to me.

No. But it takes the wind of the sails of those who hyperbole that now OneD&D won't be compatible to 5e anymore.

 

[Jer]

It was a "coding bug" according to DMs Guild but raised a lot of questions:

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]

It was a "coding bug" according to DMs Guild but raised a lot of questions:

Spoiler: Twitter content...

Cool. Thanks. As noted, not all of those are WotC IP so that makes it a bit...awkward.

 

[bedir than]

I'm glad the ORC is still in development for folks that want to support open gaming and the OGC ecosystem.

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]

I still think it's funny that the ORC will be more closed than Creative Commons, but people will insist it is more open

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]

I still think it's funny that the ORC will be more closed than Creative Commons, but people will insist it is more open

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]

But that's not on WoTC. Nor is it a feature of the OGL- after all, they don't have to put any of the remix in the OGC, do they? They can just, um, Monte Cook it.

So you're saying that people can cook the books?

 

[Maxperson]

If that's all they cared about, they could have released 5.1 to the CC and still tried to de-auth the 1.0a. The ability to use the 5.1 SRD would be unaffected.

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.

 

[Jer]

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]

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 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.