Back

@Oiselarius Eh, not sure if I'd call the 5.1 SRD as comprehensive a presentation of D&D 5e as you seem to be in this article. There's only one example background, only one example feat (though feats are less essential in 5e), only one subclass per class, a lot of spells missing, and so on. It's a smaller percentage of the 5e core books than the 3.0 and 3.5 SRDs represent of their core books.

Which is not to say it isn't *significant* that suddenly a large chunk of D&D is fully free and open.

@pteryx I think the point of the article, which I agree with, is that Hasbro/WotC is abandoning D&D as a TTRPG. They have a sinister plan that they are still pursuing and the OGL will be nixed no matter what, which is the reason I’ve permanently abandoned years of work.

@Oiselarius I do gather that's the point of the article, though it's unclear whether that's true or not at this time from my perspective. Given that point, though, it's surprising that they don't talk about that apparent microtransaction-laden hybrid MMO/VTT thing they seem to be trying to make.

Just, there was also a side element of the article wherein they were gushing about how much content the 5.1 SRD has (while still spinning its CC-BY release as part of the abandonment plan).

@pteryx so far I haven’t found stuff I’ve needed in the 3x SRD that isn’t in 5 but I abandoned D&D after oTSR so the 3 new games (yes they’re different games not different editions) don’t matter to me. The OGL and subsequent OGC does.

@Oiselarius I feel like people like you and me, who care about the OGL and its commons for reasons that have nothing to do with 5e, are kind of an unrecognized bloc in all this. Even WotC seems to acknowledge 3.x grognards as part of the OGL fight more than the general gaming community seems to.