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

[Maxperson]

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.

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]

From your mouth to Beory's ears!

Ralishaz laughing around the corner…

 

[Saracenus]

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 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 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]

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.

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)

... to say nothing of whatever is in the d20Modern SRD.

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.

 

[Reynard]

....because it's true.

It's (CC BY) is the most open CC they have, and it's the best one that they could use.

You are using a different definition of open than I am and calling yourself right. It's tiresome.

 

[Reynard]

. The way that maybe might prevent such from being ogc is to argue they embody product identity.

And PI is defined and pointedly does not include game mechanics in it's definition.

 

[Reynard]

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

CC-BY does not require people to add to the community. That's the problem. It's not an Open Gaming license.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

You are using a different definition of open than I am and calling yourself right. It's tiresome.

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.

 

[darjr]

CC-BY does not require people to add to the community. That's the problem. It's not an Open Gaming license.

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]

CC-BY does not require people to add to the community. That's the problem. It's not an Open Gaming license.

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