5e SRD: I guess WoTC learned something from 3e->4e?

Judging__Eagle · Post by **Judging__Eagle** » Tue Jan 12, 2016 7:40 pm

So, apparently the 5e SRD got recently released here; with the PDF also available.

There have been some TGD reviews of 5e's books. However, I'm going to go through the SRD myself to see if there's anything useful or interesting.

Grek · Post by **Grek** » Tue Jan 12, 2016 9:26 pm

The Dungeon Master's Guild is something WotC should have done on release, frankly. If their idea all along has been to outsource setting books and adventure modules, they really really needed to have that out as soon as the DMG was out or possibly earlier.

pragma · Post by **pragma** » Tue Jan 12, 2016 9:33 pm

It's worth noting that they're only publishing one archetype per class in the SRD. That limits its usefulness to potential players quite a bit. It's a step up from the Basic Rules, but it cuts out a lot of useful content. I don't think that's how an SRD is supposed to work.

pragma · Post by **pragma** » Tue Jan 12, 2016 9:37 pm

They also only appear to include on feat (Grappler, thankfully with errata) in the SRD. Spell list is pruned too: my telltale was the absence of swift quiver at ranger level five. Other changes include IP scrubbing spells, Tenser's Floating Disk has been changed to Floating Disk.

Dogbert · Post by **Dogbert** » Tue Jan 12, 2016 11:25 pm

Did I misread, or does WotC intend to appropriate PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES in this new OGL?

At least they added a paragraph regarding "unenforceable bullshit."

Ferret · Post by **Ferret** » Wed Jan 13, 2016 5:34 pm

Grek wrote:The Dungeon Master's Guild is something WotC should have done on release, frankly. If their idea all along has been to outsource setting books and adventure modules, they really really needed to have that out as soon as the DMG was out or possibly earlier.

That was actually the plan - their Codename: Morningstar project was supposed to be digital rules/character creator/content marketplace. However, that imploded shortly before the release of the DMG, I think, and it's taken until now for them to reveal its replacement.

nockermensch · Post by **nockermensch** » Wed Jan 13, 2016 10:52 pm

pragma wrote:It's worth noting that they're only publishing one archetype per class in the SRD. That limits its usefulness to potential players quite a bit. It's a step up from the Basic Rules, but it cuts out a lot of useful content. I don't think that's how an SRD is supposed to work.

This. The 5e OGL is too little, too late, and poisoned by stupidity. Making 50%+ of the class archetypes closed source has two possible reactions:

1) It makes the document immediately useless for the public in need to check rules online. So no community trusted nextsrd.org

2) It can make a third part publisher that really wants to write for the kind of world 5e generates to release their own open source replacements for the closed archetypes. This leads to "We're using Paizo's Necromancer in this campaign", which by its turn makes owning the PHB less useful for several players, which isn't something WotC should want.

I'm amazed about how they managed to fail in different directions with this OGL announcement.

Ravengm · Post by **Ravengm** » Wed Jan 13, 2016 11:33 pm

Well, it's something I guess.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Wed Jan 13, 2016 11:38 pm

I'm mostly baffled by the spell list changes. I get that the point of excluding most of the archetypes and virtually all of the feats is "buy our fucking book!" (because clearly a comprehensive SRD has never worked for any game ever - oh wait), but the spell list changes are so fucking minor. No one is going to buy the PHB so their wizard has access to counterspell and feign death at level 3. No one is ever even going to prepare those spells. But on the off chance someone does, fuck you! No you can't ctrl+f them in the PDF to quick reference their rules text. You'll flip pages like this isn't 2016 and you'll like it. WAIT NO WHERE ARE YOU GOING THAT'S THE PIRATE BAY DON'T DO IT LET ME SPIT IN YOUR MOUTH YOU FUCKING CONSUMER WHORE

No, really, why is WoTC so fucking jurassic? Even their online MtG offerings have been anemic as shit and almost a decade late. The amount of money they lost out on being late to that game (and then being shit at it after they'd showed up) is staggering. There are so many people at that company who clearly do not deserve their job. They are just phoning that shit in and coasting by on the brand power.

Rawbeard · Post by **Rawbeard** » Thu Jan 14, 2016 9:15 am

this just means they have officially abandoned 5e, because nobody cared to pay for it.

Otakusensei · Post by **Otakusensei** » Thu Jan 14, 2016 2:45 pm

WotC hate is easy, but they make it so. My group has been jonesing for an SRD since we're switching from Pathfinder (goodbye you beautiful, tragic mess) to 5e (it smells like 2nd edition in here!). And now that WotC takes that step, they fuck it up completely. So completely that I really don't think they even understand what an SRD is for.

For spell lists there's always the Grimore (http://ephe.github.io/grimoire/) until they find and kill it I suppose.

Daniel · Post by **Daniel** » Thu Jan 14, 2016 4:42 pm

It is using the Dragon Sorcerer archetype instead of the Wild Mage Sorcerer archetype.
Heresy! Heresy I say!

The Wild Mage is one of the 2nd edition bits in 5th that is actually fun.

martian_bob · Post by **martian_bob** » Sun Jan 17, 2016 9:04 pm

They've got a DMs Guild program, in partnership with OneBookShelf, that has some... fun provisions. It's not terribly easy to find, either, so here's a Pastebin link: http://pastebin.com/zu002y6m. It's pretty much what you'd expect, and a lot of it is (unfortunately) industry standard. Some of my favorite parts follow.

(c) Exclusive License to all User Generated Content in your Work. Effective as of the date we first make your Work available through the Program, you grant us the exclusive, irrevocable license for the full term of copyright protection available (including renewals), to all User Generated Content included in your Work. You agree that the User Generated Content is available for unrestricted use by us without any additional compensation, notification or attribution, including that we may allow other Program authors, the Owner and other third parties to use the User Generated Content.

In order to prevent legal claims that could be disruptive to the Program participants or impede the ability of you and other Program authors to participate in the Program, you irrevocably waive any legal claim you may have under any theory of law in any territory that your rights were infringed due to any use of your User Generated Content by us, the Owner or its affiliates, licensees and sublicensees, and/or any other Program authors, including copyright infringement. This waiver does not apply to royalty payments we may owe you under Section 7. You also irrevocably waive any moral rights in your Work and agree not to assert any moral rights in your Work against us, the Owner, and/or other Program authors. If, under any applicable law, this waiver of moral rights is not effective, you acknowledge that your Work is subject to the licenses you grant in Section 4 without any credit obligation, that you intend for your Work to be used in this way, and that this form of use will not be contrary to your moral rights.

You agree to sign and deliver to us any further documents that we may reasonably request to confirm your grant of rights to us (and Owner) under this Agreement, following all instructions we provide for signature and return (“Additional Documents”). If you do not complete and return any such Additional Documents within 30 days after we request them, you agree that we can sign the Additional Documents on your behalf and, to make your agreement legally enforceable, you hereby irrevocably appoint us as your attorney-in-fact with full power to execute, acknowledge and deliver the Additional Documents as required to confirm our rights. In legal terms, your appointment is a power coupled with an interest.

All rights granted to us (and Owner) under this Agreement are irrevocably vested. No breach by us (or Owner) of this Agreement will entitle you to equitable relief, whether injunctive or otherwise, against or with respect to your User Generated Content or any other works produced pursuant to the rights granted under this Agreement or their exploitation. If the rights granted to OBS (or Owner) under this Agreement should revert to you under any copyright law or similar law, and if you are at any time thereafter prepared to enter an agreement with a third party for the license, exercise or other disposition of all or any of those rights, you will, before entering into the agreement, give OBS and Owner notice of the proposed terms (and all modifications of the terms) and the party involved. In each case, both OBS and Owner will then have 10 business days in which to elect to acquire the rights involved on the terms you offered to that third party.

Gnorman · Post by **Gnorman** » Mon Jan 18, 2016 12:11 am

Holy shit that may be the most laughable collection of overreaching contract clauses that I've ever seen. The first one is pretty standard but the rest are hilarious. I don't think I've ever seen a waiver of moral rights before.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Mon Jan 18, 2016 8:41 am

Gnorman wrote:Holy shit that may be the most laughable collection of overreaching contract clauses that I've ever seen. The first one is pretty standard but the rest are hilarious. I don't think I've ever seen a waiver of moral rights before.

It looks on first and second reading to be hilarious legalese fail. Your moral rights are the right to have people not take your material and edit it so that it says something completely different or use your stuff without attribution. In the US you basically don't have moral rights (although people editing your quotes to make it look like you said something other than what you did is Libel and taking your work without attribution is Plagiarism - these are judged according to damage rather than infringement on rights per se). In Europe, you have moral rights to your written works and you can't waive them.

I'm told by wikipedia that there are jurisdictions where you both have and can waive moral rights. Canada, apparently. So that part of the contract might actually be a thing that applies to Canadians. Or it might be what it looks like: a hilarious mishmash of brutalist legal language culled from a dozen different unenforceable EULAs into an alphabet soup of tyrannical overreach.

-Username17

Gnorman · Post by **Gnorman** » Mon Jan 18, 2016 9:36 am

Yes, it certainly seems that "unenforceable bullshit" is their legal philosophy as well as their design goal.

Orca · Post by **Orca** » Mon Jan 18, 2016 11:09 am

So they closed down their official forums. Then they set up this system where they can skim some money off user generated content. I suspect these are linked; not that they can stop people putting content out for free, but they can try to make the first impression new gamers get one that they need to pay for content.

ishy · Post by **ishy** » Mon Jan 18, 2016 2:40 pm

[url=http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?3161-A-Million-Answers-From-Mearls-Lindsay-About-DM-s-Guild-DDAL-and-the-OGL-%28Compiled-AMA%29&s=30ec0a1f8571e60959e3c248f43c78b0 wrote:Mike Mearls[/url]]Do you feel that you will need some sort of quality control regarding what gets uploaded to the DMsGuild, or will you let the market sort itself out?

A little bit of both. Part of the promise of the Guild is that it allows any creator to dive in and take part. A great way to improve quality lies in actually creating. I can tell you, my first few pieces of game design were pretty terrible. So, the reviews and ratings available through the Guild are a very useful tool. On the other side of things, we know that we can provide a lot of advice and insight into how to improve your design and writing skills. For instance, at conventions this year we are planning on hosting panels and discussions on game design to help people skill up. (MM)

Mike Mearls holding panels on game design has got to be unintentionally hilarious.

Judging__Eagle · Post by **Judging__Eagle** » Mon Jan 18, 2016 7:06 pm

So, what WoTC has learned is that exploiting its fanbase is totally a doable thing. I guess the question now is whether the fans will fall for it.

hyzmarca · Post by **hyzmarca** » Mon Jan 18, 2016 9:37 pm

Dogbert wrote:Did I misread, or does WotC intend to appropriate PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES in this new OGL?

At least they added a paragraph regarding "unenforceable bullshit."

It's specifically says translating material into different programming languages. So I assume that it refers to things like this.

http://www.pcinvasion.com/vampire-the-m ... ted-by-ccp

Basically, they're saying that Baldur's Gate is a derivative work of D&D. And if someone painstakening rewrote the entirely of Baldur's gate in Apple Basic and released it for Apple IIs (though I have no clue why anyone would) that would also be a derivitive work. Or, you know, more realistically, if someone released an enhanced edition on steam mobile phones. https://play.google.com/store/apps/deta ... tion&hl=en

So basically all that definition is saying is that Baldur's Gate Enhanced edition for Android is a derivative of D&D. Which no one would deny.

nockermensch · Post by **nockermensch** » Mon Jan 18, 2016 10:00 pm

ishy wrote:
[url=http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?3161-A-Million-Answers-From-Mearls-Lindsay-About-DM-s-Guild-DDAL-and-the-OGL-%28Compiled-AMA%29&s=30ec0a1f8571e60959e3c248f43c78b0 wrote:Mike Mearls[/url]]Do you feel that you will need some sort of quality control regarding what gets uploaded to the DMsGuild, or will you let the market sort itself out?

A little bit of both. Part of the promise of the Guild is that it allows any creator to dive in and take part. A great way to improve quality lies in actually creating. I can tell you, my first few pieces of game design* were pretty terrible.[...]

*(2001 - 2016)

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Tue Jan 19, 2016 12:51 am

Judging__Eagle wrote:So, what WoTC has learned is that exploiting its fanbase is totally a doable thing. I guess the question now is whether the fans will fall for it.

They probably shot themselves in the foot right at the gate. This edition is supposed to be the make up shit on the spot edition isn't it? Why would anyone want to spend money to make shit up for them at all? Especially when most of their pitch was for you to fill in the blanks for yourself so they wouldn't have to.

Gnorman · Post by **Gnorman** » Tue Jan 19, 2016 2:37 am

Look, if you're the kind of person who is willing to pay $4 to have gnolls, lizardfolk, and minotaurs ($4 for a 12-page book, I might add, that apparently required three authors) in your game, I kind of think you deserve to lie in the shitbed that you made for yourself by supporting this edition.

The part where they all but admit to crowdfarming the Monster Manual is also pretty funny.

JonSetanta · Post by **JonSetanta** » Mon Jan 25, 2016 5:47 am

Thanks for the links!

OgreBattle · Post by **OgreBattle** » Mon Jan 25, 2016 12:44 pm

Isn't this kind of like a return to the 80's where hopeful fans submit their content to the gaming magazine then pay money to buy the magazine?