I have a book ready to go and I used what was in the "Free Rules" as a guideline. Of course this is not perfect and I may have to make adjustments after the SRD 5.2 has been released.
Is it possible any delay is intentional? That they want to put off releasing the SRD to Creative Commons because it will mean game products made by other parties that are near completion or complete will have to weather a wait? That they want others to have to wait as the longer a competitor waits that competitor is not seeing sales they might otherwise be seeing?
I wouldn't be surprised if we do not see the SRD until Wizards have at least released the Heroes of the Borderlands starter set.
It could drop next week for all we know though.
But Wizards' 'prolificacy' when it comes to new stuff is drastically slower and fewer than was TSR's in the '90s. Some third-party publishers put out things almost constantly. In the form of zines or downloadable adventures or downloadable supplements and sourcebooks. And from what we saw in early 2023 Wizards don't quite like the idea of others' making money if they are making use of the rules of the game. Any resentment in that regard probably didn't just wash away when they backed down after having to be reminded we don't need them to play D&D.
It's possible but stupid, because they want to encourage uptake of the new rules, and 3PP using the new rules will help with that. That said, Hasbro has done stupider things.
It's possible but stupid, because they want to encourage uptake of the new rules, and 3PP using the new rules will help with that. That said, Hasbro has done stupider things.
Oh I agree third-party publishers' adopting the new rules will help with sales of those new rules.
But it's not as if Wizards didn't fail to remember this in early 2023 when they announced they would be expecting those third-party publishers to pay royalties.
Most 3PPs miss a point. You've got SRD 5.1 - the One DND Test Material - and the updated Free Rules (2024). Even with out the exact wording, we have a pretty good idea of what the SRD 5.2 will contain - and how D&D works. Just publish under SRD 5.1 and the upcoming SRD 5.2.
If you somehow mange to make some minor mistakes, you'll simply issue a digital Errata, as the error isn't intentional; and then correct your material. And stick to digital publications until SRD 5.2 is released. You don\t let disruptons stop you, but use disruptions to leverage change and come up with different solutions.
If you can't navigate the currents and streamfalls, you'll fail in modern business.
Most 3PPs miss a point. You've got SRD 5.1 - the One DND Test Material - and the updated Free Rules (2024). Even with out the exact wording, we have a pretty good idea of what the SRD 5.2 will contain - and how D&D works. Just publish under SRD 5.1 and the upcoming SRD 5.2.
If you somehow mange to make some minor mistakes, you'll simply issue a digital Errata, as the error isn't intentional; and then correct your material. And stick to digital publications until SRD 5.2 is released. You don\t let disruptons stop you, but use disruptions to leverage change and come up with different solutions.
If you can't navigate the currents and streamfalls, you'll fail in modern business.
I think you're maybe missing the functional point of the SRD 5.2; it's not about knowing how the rules work, it's about having the legal provisions to publish content using those exact rules wordings. That's what mattered so much about the OGL and SRD 5.1 (and it's later release under CC).
this is a good point. we probably wont see a lot of third party stuff update on DDB too until we got SRD 5.2, because they cant update the non-DDB versions at least until they can use the new wording etc. (or at least they dont want to risk the legal uncertainty)
I think you're maybe missing the functional point of the SRD 5.2; it's not about knowing how the rules work, it's about having the legal provisions to publish content using those exact rules wordings. That's what mattered so much about the OGL and SRD 5.1 (and it's later release under CC).
That's no real issue. Just write, that the material is intended to work with the upcoming SRD 5.2 - or simply is 5.2e compatible - instead of using any direct quotes. Just keep your material digital to enable easy updates, until SRD 5.2 is finally released.
In these cases wording is everything. You can easily make 5.2e compatible stuff and simply refer to the Basic Rules (2024), without copying any actual material. You can even create generic stuff that way. As long as your material is only depending on WotC's IP, but does not extend fair use - it isn't copyright infringement. It's a matter of finding that balance.
Anyway the DM will still need to adapt and tweak your material to the specific scenario, setting and party. The beauty of the D&D concept is flexibility. While WotC owns the game system, the community owns the concept (gift from Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson), as reflected in CreativeCommons SRDs since the 2023 OGL-scandal.
I think you're maybe missing the functional point of the SRD 5.2; it's not about knowing how the rules work, it's about having the legal provisions to publish content using those exact rules wordings. That's what mattered so much about the OGL and SRD 5.1 (and it's later release under CC).
That's no real issue. Just write, that the material is intended to work with the upcoming SRD 5.2 - or simply is 5.2e compatible - instead of using any direct quotes. Just keep your material digital to enable easy updates, until SRD 5.2 is finally released.
In these cases wording is everything. You can easily make 5.2e compatible stuff and simply refer to the Basic Rules (2024), without copying any actual material. You can even create generic stuff that way. As long as your material is only depending on WotC's IP, but does not extend fair use - it isn't copyright infringement. It's a matter of finding that balance.
Anyway the DM will still need to adapt and tweak your material to the specific scenario, setting and party. The beauty of the D&D concept is flexibility. While WotC owns the game system, the community owns the concept (gift from Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson), as reflected in CreativeCommons SRDs since the 2023 OGL-scandal.
Again, you're still missing the point that D&D 5th edition content creators may be intentionally waiting until the 5.2 SRD and associated licenses are out and viewable before making any decisions on how they interact with it. Can and should are different propositions. A lot of people would rather know for 100% that what they're doing is gonna conform to license agreements or whatever, rather than dance around it hoping they're okay.
Or, alternatively, it’s a comprehension failure/bad faith position on the listener’s part.
Considering the initial bad faith came from WotC trying to destroy the OGL? It is not up to the community to assume good faith on their part until they uphold promises. Animosity exists entirely at the fault of WotC and making excuses for them is tone deaf.
Or, alternatively, it’s a comprehension failure/bad faith position on the listener’s part.
Considering the initial bad faith came from WotC trying to destroy the OGL? It is not up to the community to assume good faith on their part until they uphold promises. Animosity exists entirely at the fault of WotC and making excuses for them is tone deaf.
The initial revision was not great for 3PP, but the original OGL is a crude napkin contract and really should have been updated to something more professional and comprehensible. Which WotC tried to do after the initial feedback, but a small segment of the playerbase insisted on rejecting anything WotC did, so now instead of everyone winning everyone is stuck with a lukewarm status quo. There was plenty of bad faith/tone deafness to go around at the end of that episode.
The initial revision was not great for 3PP, but the original OGL is a crude napkin contract and really should have been updated to something more professional and comprehensible. Which WotC tried to do after the initial feedback, but a small segment of the playerbase insisted on rejecting anything WotC did, so now instead of everyone winning everyone is stuck with a lukewarm status quo. There was plenty of bad faith/tone deafness to go around at the end of that episode.
'Small segment'?
That is not even close to the truth.
A small segment of users of this site, almost exclusively denizens of these forums, who are disproportionately outnumbered by the broader TRPG community, as well as publishers of clones of earlier editions of D&D and games based on D&D, and not just content for 5E by '3pps,' more YouTubers than there are of you, and then their tens of thousands of subscribers who were vocal in their criticism of the proposed changes, have either convinced themselves they are in the majority or are grossly dishonest and know it.
(Removing the personal attack from the quote)
The only hard data we have on how upset people are over the OGL is polling data - we know approximately 10,000 people responded to the poll about the OGL. We also know that, just a couple weeks later, more than 50,000 people responded to the first poll about the 2024 ruleset.
We also know that third party content is not anywhere close to as popular as D&D. When releasing the draft OGL 1.1, the cutoff for paying Wizards royalties was $750,000 in annual income, with fewer than 20 content creators hitting this threshold. Compare to the hundreds of millions Wizards pulls in from its books - Wizards’ sales are hundreds of times larger than what they consider a big third party publisher. The overwhelming scale of Wizards’ sales data fairly strongly establishes that the majority of players are not actually purchasing third party content, and thus did not have a stake in the game.
Finally, there’s the fact that, even with the OGL and various individuals threatening to quit, the number of folks who quit were dwarfed by the number of new players - D&D saw two-digit growth in 2023.
The OGL issue was certainly a big moment for Wizards - but to say the majority cared about it based on anecdotal data like YouTube views and forum posts is relying on weak evidence. The hard data seems to indicate there exists a silent majority who did not really care, and was much more interested in things like the future of the game itself.
When it comes down to it, is a good sign for the hobby and for humanity generally. It is overwhelmingly clear that Wizards’ primary goal was not money. That was the first set of provisions they dropped in negotiations - which, in very high value contract negotiation, you don’t drop the things you care about so quickly. Especially given the timing of the revision - on the coattails of a bigot trying to steal Wizards’ intellectual prof property to make a racist version - and the fact Wizards only fought to protect the “please don’t use our content to make your racist content” provisions, it is pretty clear the OGL revision was truly about protecting the brand’s identity from people like Ernie Gygax. They even offered third party publishers a HUGE win in exchange for this anti-bigotry agreement, the right to use certain Wizards trademarks in advertising, allowing third parties to more easily capitalize on D&D’s large name recognition. Players (I think foolishly) rejected this deal in favor of a legally inept document.
Which brings us back to the question of this thread. Wizards surrendered their protections and know they are going to be stuck with whatever they release. Of course they are going to be extra cautious - this is the only chance they have to make the determination “is this content we can afford to see alongside bigotry?” or “is this such an important part of our brand that we cannot release it to the public’s use, since it would hurt us if it made the news alongside problematic content?”
That brings us back to another uncomfortable truth - players are partially responsible for any delays. Because a very vocal group - very likely not even a majority - rejected a superior offer that would have also protected Wizards, Wizards is almost certainly being more cautious in what is released than they might have otherwise been, if they had legal protections against their content being used for hate.
Caution means delays. It means risk analysis. It might even mean certain things that could have been released are not.
This is the world the anti-OGL change people wanted; it is pretty disingenuous for them to now try to spin anti-Wizards conspiracies… because Wizards is acting in a way necessitated by these advocates’ own behavior.
I could be wrong, but doesn't Creative Commons make the OGL irrelevant?
Nope, if anything it re-enforces the copyright and trademark of wizards IP declarations of the OGL. Something that as part of pushing the SRD5.1and OGL1.0(a) in CC-BY, secures the IP declarations of the OGL1.0(a), and only the “wording” used in the SRD is Open Community Content that can be used without legal recourse.
Now, if what was reported back in January of 2023, that hasbro is planning to push a OGL2.0;SRD5.5 or 5.25 that has the OGL1.1”Draft” “Wording”, then hasbro and WotC can pack it up and shut it down, because if only 10,000 survey participants can cause 1.2Billion worth of “good-Faith” to be pulled from the savings, I’d hate to see what larger portion of the D&D community would do if Wizbro was to do something so “Incompetent”.
Time will tell, and we shall see, we shall seee….
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
I could be wrong, but doesn't Creative Commons make the OGL irrelevant?
CC means that you can use the 2014 SRD under two different licenses: CC or OGL. If all you're using is the SRD, there's not much reason to ever use the OGL version, but there are occasional situations where the OGL matters, usually because you're also working with a third party product released under the OGL.
Nope, if anything it re-enforces the copyright and trademark of wizards IP declarations of the OGL.
I'm not sure I understand what you're even talking about. Releasing under CC-BY has no effect on the OGL, because its an independent license -- you can accept the CC-BY license without accepting the OGL license, or vice versa, and you're only bound by the license you accept.
Now, if what was reported back in January of 2023, that hasbro is planning to push a OGL2.0;SRD5.5 or 5.25 that has the OGL1.1”Draft” “Wording”,
It's not; they made the exercise totally pointless when they released it under CC-BY, because the CC-BY license is not revocable.
FWIW, Hasbro absolutely could have come out with the SRD by now, or even by a couple weeks ago, if they'd given it high priority. They clearly haven't (at least, as a whole; the D&D team might have given it a high priority and then had to sit around while IP and Legal take their time). I just don't think there's any interesting conspiracy there.
I think now is a good time to remind WotC that there are a lot of us still voting with our wallet. Until they have released ALL of the srds and have an option to hide 2024 content, I will be sitting here with my 6 character limit free account and not sending another dime to their coffers until all of their promises they're not getting another dime from me. I know that I am not alone on this.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Determining that is probably a large part of the delay.
I have a book ready to go and I used what was in the "Free Rules" as a guideline. Of course this is not perfect and I may have to make adjustments after the SRD 5.2 has been released.
There are many people in the same predicament as you.
Is it possible any delay is intentional? That they want to put off releasing the SRD to Creative Commons because it will mean game products made by other parties that are near completion or complete will have to weather a wait? That they want others to have to wait as the longer a competitor waits that competitor is not seeing sales they might otherwise be seeing?
I wouldn't be surprised if we do not see the SRD until Wizards have at least released the Heroes of the Borderlands starter set.
It could drop next week for all we know though.
But Wizards' 'prolificacy' when it comes to new stuff is drastically slower and fewer than was TSR's in the '90s. Some third-party publishers put out things almost constantly. In the form of zines or downloadable adventures or downloadable supplements and sourcebooks. And from what we saw in early 2023 Wizards don't quite like the idea of others' making money if they are making use of the rules of the game. Any resentment in that regard probably didn't just wash away when they backed down after having to be reminded we don't need them to play D&D.
It's possible but stupid, because they want to encourage uptake of the new rules, and 3PP using the new rules will help with that. That said, Hasbro has done stupider things.
perhaps they are just dotting the i's and crossings the t's
Oh I agree third-party publishers' adopting the new rules will help with sales of those new rules.
But it's not as if Wizards didn't fail to remember this in early 2023 when they announced they would be expecting those third-party publishers to pay royalties.
Seems more like someone in Wizards’ management cast Time Stop.
Most 3PPs miss a point. You've got SRD 5.1 - the One DND Test Material - and the updated Free Rules (2024). Even with out the exact wording, we have a pretty good idea of what the SRD 5.2 will contain - and how D&D works. Just publish under SRD 5.1 and the upcoming SRD 5.2.
If you somehow mange to make some minor mistakes, you'll simply issue a digital Errata, as the error isn't intentional; and then correct your material. And stick to digital publications until SRD 5.2 is released. You don\t let disruptons stop you, but use disruptions to leverage change and come up with different solutions.
If you can't navigate the currents and streamfalls, you'll fail in modern business.
I think you're maybe missing the functional point of the SRD 5.2; it's not about knowing how the rules work, it's about having the legal provisions to publish content using those exact rules wordings. That's what mattered so much about the OGL and SRD 5.1 (and it's later release under CC).
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
this is a good point. we probably wont see a lot of third party stuff update on DDB too until we got SRD 5.2, because they cant update the non-DDB versions at least until they can use the new wording etc. (or at least they dont want to risk the legal uncertainty)
That's no real issue. Just write, that the material is intended to work with the upcoming SRD 5.2 - or simply is 5.2e compatible - instead of using any direct quotes. Just keep your material digital to enable easy updates, until SRD 5.2 is finally released.
In these cases wording is everything. You can easily make 5.2e compatible stuff and simply refer to the Basic Rules (2024), without copying any actual material. You can even create generic stuff that way. As long as your material is only depending on WotC's IP, but does not extend fair use - it isn't copyright infringement. It's a matter of finding that balance.
Anyway the DM will still need to adapt and tweak your material to the specific scenario, setting and party. The beauty of the D&D concept is flexibility. While WotC owns the game system, the community owns the concept (gift from Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson), as reflected in CreativeCommons SRDs since the 2023 OGL-scandal.
Again, you're still missing the point that D&D 5th edition content creators may be intentionally waiting until the 5.2 SRD and associated licenses are out and viewable before making any decisions on how they interact with it. Can and should are different propositions. A lot of people would rather know for 100% that what they're doing is gonna conform to license agreements or whatever, rather than dance around it hoping they're okay.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
The initial revision was not great for 3PP, but the original OGL is a crude napkin contract and really should have been updated to something more professional and comprehensible. Which WotC tried to do after the initial feedback, but a small segment of the playerbase insisted on rejecting anything WotC did, so now instead of everyone winning everyone is stuck with a lukewarm status quo. There was plenty of bad faith/tone deafness to go around at the end of that episode.
(Removing the personal attack from the quote)
The only hard data we have on how upset people are over the OGL is polling data - we know approximately 10,000 people responded to the poll about the OGL. We also know that, just a couple weeks later, more than 50,000 people responded to the first poll about the 2024 ruleset.
We also know that third party content is not anywhere close to as popular as D&D. When releasing the draft OGL 1.1, the cutoff for paying Wizards royalties was $750,000 in annual income, with fewer than 20 content creators hitting this threshold. Compare to the hundreds of millions Wizards pulls in from its books - Wizards’ sales are hundreds of times larger than what they consider a big third party publisher. The overwhelming scale of Wizards’ sales data fairly strongly establishes that the majority of players are not actually purchasing third party content, and thus did not have a stake in the game.
Finally, there’s the fact that, even with the OGL and various individuals threatening to quit, the number of folks who quit were dwarfed by the number of new players - D&D saw two-digit growth in 2023.
The OGL issue was certainly a big moment for Wizards - but to say the majority cared about it based on anecdotal data like YouTube views and forum posts is relying on weak evidence. The hard data seems to indicate there exists a silent majority who did not really care, and was much more interested in things like the future of the game itself.
When it comes down to it, is a good sign for the hobby and for humanity generally. It is overwhelmingly clear that Wizards’ primary goal was not money. That was the first set of provisions they dropped in negotiations - which, in very high value contract negotiation, you don’t drop the things you care about so quickly. Especially given the timing of the revision - on the coattails of a bigot trying to steal Wizards’ intellectual prof property to make a racist version - and the fact Wizards only fought to protect the “please don’t use our content to make your racist content” provisions, it is pretty clear the OGL revision was truly about protecting the brand’s identity from people like Ernie Gygax. They even offered third party publishers a HUGE win in exchange for this anti-bigotry agreement, the right to use certain Wizards trademarks in advertising, allowing third parties to more easily capitalize on D&D’s large name recognition. Players (I think foolishly) rejected this deal in favor of a legally inept document.
Which brings us back to the question of this thread. Wizards surrendered their protections and know they are going to be stuck with whatever they release. Of course they are going to be extra cautious - this is the only chance they have to make the determination “is this content we can afford to see alongside bigotry?” or “is this such an important part of our brand that we cannot release it to the public’s use, since it would hurt us if it made the news alongside problematic content?”
That brings us back to another uncomfortable truth - players are partially responsible for any delays. Because a very vocal group - very likely not even a majority - rejected a superior offer that would have also protected Wizards, Wizards is almost certainly being more cautious in what is released than they might have otherwise been, if they had legal protections against their content being used for hate.
Caution means delays. It means risk analysis. It might even mean certain things that could have been released are not.
This is the world the anti-OGL change people wanted; it is pretty disingenuous for them to now try to spin anti-Wizards conspiracies… because Wizards is acting in a way necessitated by these advocates’ own behavior.
I could be wrong, but doesn't Creative Commons make the OGL irrelevant?
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Nope, if anything it re-enforces the copyright and trademark of wizards IP declarations of the OGL. Something that as part of pushing the SRD5.1and OGL1.0(a) in CC-BY, secures the IP declarations of the OGL1.0(a), and only the “wording” used in the SRD is Open Community Content that can be used without legal recourse.
Now, if what was reported back in January of 2023, that hasbro is planning to push a OGL2.0;SRD5.5 or 5.25 that has the OGL1.1”Draft” “Wording”, then hasbro and WotC can pack it up and shut it down, because if only 10,000 survey participants can cause 1.2Billion worth of “good-Faith” to be pulled from the savings, I’d hate to see what larger portion of the D&D community would do if Wizbro was to do something so “Incompetent”.
Time will tell, and we shall see, we shall seee….
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
CC means that you can use the 2014 SRD under two different licenses: CC or OGL. If all you're using is the SRD, there's not much reason to ever use the OGL version, but there are occasional situations where the OGL matters, usually because you're also working with a third party product released under the OGL.
I'm not sure I understand what you're even talking about. Releasing under CC-BY has no effect on the OGL, because its an independent license -- you can accept the CC-BY license without accepting the OGL license, or vice versa, and you're only bound by the license you accept.
It's not; they made the exercise totally pointless when they released it under CC-BY, because the CC-BY license is not revocable.
FWIW, Hasbro absolutely could have come out with the SRD by now, or even by a couple weeks ago, if they'd given it high priority. They clearly haven't (at least, as a whole; the D&D team might have given it a high priority and then had to sit around while IP and Legal take their time). I just don't think there's any interesting conspiracy there.
I think now is a good time to remind WotC that there are a lot of us still voting with our wallet. Until they have released ALL of the srds and have an option to hide 2024 content, I will be sitting here with my 6 character limit free account and not sending another dime to their coffers until all of their promises they're not getting another dime from me. I know that I am not alone on this.