# DND OGL - Is anyone following this? Thoughts? **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Tags:** rpg-dnd-wargames\ **Created:** [January 8, 2023, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dnd-ogl-is-anyone-following-this-thoughts/977886 "2023-01-08T18:54:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 33
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2025, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dnd-ogl-is-anyone-following-this-thoughts/977886/641 "2025-04-02T22:01:09Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Because first of all, you have to have some way of deciding whether someone is wise enough in the ways of whatever. The rules provide no guidance on this matter. They do. It is called a Wisdom ability. And then what skills you have chosen to be proficient in. Not to mention what feats, backgrounds and subclasses you choose. Those are _your_ choices. If you want a PC “wise in the ways of the forest”, then- design one that way. You cant to be good at survival - put a decent score in Wis, and choose it as a proficient skill. Even taking the rogue with a wis of 8 (altho , since perception is a Wis skill, that is a foolish choice), you can _choose_ Survival as a skill, and then even _choose_ it as a Expertise skill, and you will be decent at it. And if later, your early choices that you made- arent quite what you wanted, there are several ways to rectify that, including asking the DM to let you train in a skill. > [@Chronos](#): > > So you have to set a DC for that person, anyway. And then once you do that, that person will say “Wait, with that DC, shouldn’t the druid still have had a chance for failure, too? With a DC 11, and the druid has +10 in survival- then no, the druid has no chance of failure. If another PC has -1 in survival, then they have a very good chance of failing a DC 10- and in both cases that was do to their _choices._ > [@Chronos](#): > > but there was a way to determine that: If the character’s bonus was at least the DC (or rather, at least one less than the DC, because the die always adds 1), they were an auto-success, and if the character’s bonus was more than 20 less than the DC, they were an auto-fail. _That is exactly how it works in 5e._ The DM sets the DC. If a PC has a high enough skill to make that DC without rolling, they auto succeed. If the DC is 20, and a PC has a -1 in a skill- they auto fail since even a rolled 20 is a 19- and a fail. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2025, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dnd-ogl-is-anyone-following-this-thoughts/977886/642 "2025-04-02T22:08:44Z")
> [@Johnny\_Bravo](#): > > It absolutely is not. If a barbarian with an intelligence of 5 tells me he wants to craft a technomagical construct out of pine cones and whiskey I have no obligation, implicit or explicit, to let him start rolling dice. I can say no, you have no idea how to do that. One of the things I really love about 5th edition is the following from the DMG. > [@5th Edition Dungeon Master's Guide (2024)](#): > > - Rules Aren’t Physics. The rules of the game are meant to provide a fun game experience, not to describe the laws of physics in the worlds of D&D let alone the real world. > - The Game is Not an Economy. The rules of the game aren’t intended to model a realistic economy and players who look for loopholes that let them generate infinite wealth using combinations of spells are exploiting the rules. > - Rules Rely on Good-Faith Interpretation. The rules assume that everyone reading and interpreting the rules has the interests of the group’s fun at heart and is reading the rules in that light. It’s _everyone’s_ job to interpret the rules in good faith. I guess we could all quibble over what good faith actually means, but a lot of times we know bad faith efforts when we see it. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2025, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dnd-ogl-is-anyone-following-this-thoughts/977886/643 "2025-04-02T22:09:37Z")
You’re saying that 5e wasn’t designed around bounded accuracy? Because that’s what “everything should always have a chance of success and a chance of failure” is. > [@DrDeth](#): > > _That is exactly how it works in 5e._ The DM sets the DC. If a PC has a high enough skill to make that DC without rolling, they auto succeed. If the DC is 20, and a PC has a -1 in a skill- they auto fail since even a rolled 20 is a 19- and a fail. Except that, with bounded accuracy, it almost never actually happens that way on either end, and it never happens on both ends at once. Except for when people say “Well, you’re just supposed to arbitrarily decide that it succeeds, or arbitrarily decide that it fails”, as a supposed fix to the fact that the system doesn’t actually make that happen. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2025, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dnd-ogl-is-anyone-following-this-thoughts/977886/644 "2025-04-02T22:19:03Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > You’re saying that 5e wasn’t designed around bounded accuracy? Yes, but still- you do not- according to the rules-_always have a chance of success and a chance of failure_. The DMG even says you dont always have to have a roll for everything- you dont need a perception. The even have Passive perception checks, where if the trap or door is DC 10 and you passive check is better than that- no need to roll at all. " _In D&D 5e, you generally don’t need a Perception check to spot something obvious or that a character would immediately notice, but you might need one for things that are hidden or require closer observation._ _Here’s a more detailed explanation:_ \*\* **Passive Perception:** \* _Characters have a passive Perception score, which represents their ability to notice things without actively searching. This means that things that are plainly visible or easily sensed should be noticed by the character without a roll._ \*\* **When to Roll:** \* _You should call for a Perception check when a character is trying to notice something that is hidden, obscured, or requires a specific effort to perceive, such as a hidden door, a faint sound, or a subtle clue."_ On skill or ability checks, there is no auto fail on a 1 or auto succeed on a 20. Some DMs have house rules that make a 1 always fail and a 20 always work, but that is only for combat in RAW. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Bravo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_bravo/32/493_2.png) [@Johnny\_Bravo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Bravo)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2025, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dnd-ogl-is-anyone-following-this-thoughts/977886/645 "2025-04-02T23:31:12Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Because that’s what “everything should always have a chance of success and a chance of failure” is. I’m not trying to be dense but I genuinely cannot understand how you’re getting from A to B. > [@Chronos](#): > > Except for when people say “Well, you’re just supposed to arbitrarily decide that it succeeds, or arbitrarily decide that it fails” A person who makes arbitrary decisions about how the game operates is, quite literally, the defining characteristic of a tabletop RPG versus a standard board game that doesn’t require a GM. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2025, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dnd-ogl-is-anyone-following-this-thoughts/977886/646 "2025-04-03T02:06:16Z")
> [@Johnny\_Bravo](#): > > I’m not trying to be dense but I genuinely cannot understand how you’re getting from A to B. 5e was designed around the principle of bounded accuracy. Bounded accuracy means that the modifiers or DCs should never get so large as to go off of the RNG. In other words, that there should always be a chance of success and a chance of failure. > [@Johnny\_Bravo](#): > > A person who makes arbitrary decisions about how the game operates is, quite literally, the defining characteristic of a tabletop RPG versus a standard board game that doesn’t require a GM. But when you’re charging over a hundred bucks for the basic rules for the game, I expect the that you won’t have major subsystems that consist entirely of “You figure it out; we, the professional game designers, have failed to come up with something that actually works”. I mean, I could play the “you figure it out” game system for free. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Bravo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_bravo/32/493_2.png) [@Johnny\_Bravo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Bravo)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2025, 10:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dnd-ogl-is-anyone-following-this-thoughts/977886/647 "2025-04-03T10:55:43Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > 5e was designed around the principle of bounded accuracy. I understand what bounded accuracy is, mathematically. I don’t see how you’re getting from there to saying it requires that any player should be allowed to roll a skill check for any action whatsoever and that the DM can never say “that’s not possible for your character” or “your character can do that without rolling” without breaking a fundamental aspect of its design philosophy. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2025, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dnd-ogl-is-anyone-following-this-thoughts/977886/648 "2025-04-03T19:34:57Z")
> [@Johnny\_Bravo](#): > > I’m not trying to be dense but I genuinely cannot understand how you’re getting from A to B. That is a \*general concept \* behind 5e. However, of course general concepts are overruled buy specifics, > [@Chronos](#): > > In other words, that there should always be a chance of success and a chance of failure. Not always. Generally. Read the section on passive perception sometimes. > [@Chronos](#): > > But when you’re charging over a hundred bucks for the basic rules for the game, PHB for either D&D 2024 or PF2 is just under $50. > [@Johnny\_Bravo](#): > > I don’t see how you’re getting from there to saying it requires that any player should be allowed to roll a skill check for any action whatsoever and that the DM can never say “that’s not possible for your character” or “your character can do that without rolling” without breaking a fundamental aspect of its design philosophy. Yes, all those things are covered in the rules. Bounded accuracy is a general concept, and there are many exceptions. If there is a giant out on the open on a clear day, say within range of the PCs- they dont have to roll perception to see it. OTOH, a low level bard who tries to “seduce the dragon” should automatically fail. ---
**Author:** ![hogarth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hogarth/32/1773_2.png) [@hogarth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hogarth)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2025, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dnd-ogl-is-anyone-following-this-thoughts/977886/649 "2025-04-13T04:09:42Z")
I remember when 3E D&D came out, I was blown away by the skill system. In particular: - Take 10 and Take 20 (so your characters doesn’t take their lives in their hands every time they do something routine) - Fixed DCs listed in the skill descriptions (so players can actually judge which skill attempts are risky and which are relatively riskless rather than trying to read the DM’s mind) - No critical failures or successes on skill checks (so Albert Einstein doesn’t have a 5% chance to forget 2 + 2 = 4) Was there any tabletop RPG that had features like those before 3E came out? It seems like most games didn’t really have good rules for varying degrees of skill difficulty before that. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2025, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dnd-ogl-is-anyone-following-this-thoughts/977886/650 "2025-04-13T04:39:15Z")
> [@hogarth](#): > > Was there any tabletop RPG that had features like those before 3E came out? It seems like most games didn’t really have good rules for varying degrees of skill difficulty before that. There were plenty of games prior to 3E that had decent rules for varying degrees of difficulty. In _Cyberpunk 2020,_ released in 1991, task resolutions were made by rolling 1d10 and adding the result to the Skill + Attribute. Skills + attributes were ranked between 1-10. Someone with a Tech of 6 and a Pick Lock of 5 would roll 1d10 + 6 (Tech) + 5 (Pick Lock) = Final Result. The Ref (GM), would determine the difficulty and inform the player. - Easy: 10 (Cheap Lock) - Average: 15 (Regular lock) - Difficult: 20 (High quality lock) - Very Difficult: 25 (State of the art lock) - Nearly Impossible: 30 (Unique cutting edge lock technology) You could also add modifiers to the roll based on circumstances. If you’re trying to pick a lock without proper tools you might add +3 to the difficulty. Alternatively you might subtract from the difficulty if the player has a special set of tools for that particular type of lock. > [@hogarth](#): > > Take 10 and Take 20 (so your characters doesn’t take their lives in their hands every time they do something routine) In my old age, I’ve come to the conclusion that you shouldn’t have your players roll unless something is at stake. If they’re just doing something routine, why roll? Just let the player accomplish whatever task they set out to complete. ---
**Author:** ![hogarth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hogarth/32/1773_2.png) [@hogarth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hogarth)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2025, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dnd-ogl-is-anyone-following-this-thoughts/977886/651 "2025-04-13T04:46:01Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > In my old age, I’ve come to the conclusion that you shouldn’t have your players roll unless something is at stake. If they’re just doing something routine, why roll? I agree, but I still thought it was revolutionary at the time for the player to know exactly what qualifies as “routine” (i.e. “take 10” territory) for their character, rather than rely on the DM’s mercy (or lack thereof). ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2025, 7:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dnd-ogl-is-anyone-following-this-thoughts/977886/652 "2025-04-13T07:16:35Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > In my old age, I’ve come to the conclusion that you shouldn’t have your players roll unless something is at stake. Yes. In the TTRPG, _TORG Eternity_, they even make that part of the rules. Don’t roll dice unless it’s dramatically appropriate; in other words, only if there are actual consequences for success or failure. Otherwise just assume they succeed if the character has any reason to be proficient at it. It’s a good philosophy to have in any TTRPG in my opinion. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2025, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dnd-ogl-is-anyone-following-this-thoughts/977886/653 "2025-04-13T20:40:05Z")
> [@hogarth](#): > > Take 10 and Take 20 (so your characters doesn’t take their lives in their hands every time they do something routine) In 3.5 you could not take 20 if there was a chance of a dangerous failure. > [@hogarth](#): > > No critical failures or successes on skill checks 5e does the same. > [@hogarth](#): > > Was there any tabletop RPG that had features like those before 3E came out? I am not sure, but maybe RuneQuest had the no criticals on skills checks? > [@Odesio](#): > > In my old age, I’ve come to the conclusion that you shouldn’t have your players roll unless something is at stake. I do the same, mostly. ---
**Author:** ![hogarth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hogarth/32/1773_2.png) [@hogarth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hogarth)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2025, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dnd-ogl-is-anyone-following-this-thoughts/977886/654 "2025-04-13T21:10:26Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > > [@hogarth](#): > > > > Take 10 and Take 20 (so your characters doesn’t take their lives in their hands every time they do something routine) > > In 3.5 you could not take 20 if there was a chance of a dangerous failure. True. I was thinking of adding a comment about how “take 20” neatly codifies the ability to reroll until you succeed (when there’s no danger), but I forgot. > [@Atamasama](#): > > Don’t roll dice unless it’s dramatically appropriate; in other words, only if there are actual consequences for success or failure. The problem with these kind of guidelines is that it’s implicitly saying “unless **the DM** determines it’s dramatically appropriate”. If it specifically stated that a **player** can determine whether or not they can auto-succeed at a skill, that would be more interesting to me (as someone who is usually a player and rarely a DM). ---
**Author:** ![vislor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/vislor/32/5933_2.png) [@vislor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vislor)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2025, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dnd-ogl-is-anyone-following-this-thoughts/977886/655 "2025-04-14T00:05:08Z")
> [@hogarth](#): > > I remember when 3E D&D came out, I was blown away by the skill system. In particular: > > - Take 10 and Take 20 (so your characters doesn’t take their lives in their hands every time they do something routine) > - Fixed DCs listed in the skill descriptions (so players can actually judge which skill attempts are risky and which are relatively riskless rather than trying to read the DM’s mind) > - No critical failures or successes on skill checks (so Albert Einstein doesn’t have a 5% chance to forget 2 + 2 = 4) > > Was there any tabletop RPG that had features like those before 3E came out? It seems like most games didn’t really have good rules for varying degrees of skill difficulty before that. Thank you for this! This is why I thought 3E was a big leap for DND. Rules instead of rulings. It put a lot of control int the hands of the players. Further, it allows play to be more consistent between tables. If I have X feat, I know what it does for my character. I don’t have to try and convince a new DM to allow what my old DM rules. Having said that, 3.5/PF1 took it too far. I think by the end, there were ten different action types? d20pfsrd has six and I can’t find more but I thought there were. Sure, once you knew them, they were easy, but it’s a lot for a new player to pick up. I do think they have to find a balance. PF2 is better but still leans a bit too far for me into rules. What I mean by that, is I have given my players abilities because it fits their concept and then I find it’s a feat for a class. For what PF2 is trying to do, though, it does it well. > [@Odesio](#): > > In _Cyberpunk 2020,_ released in 1991, Shadowrun had a similar thing in its first edition as did Vampire/Werewolf/Mage. If Cyberpunk 2020 kept those, that is impressive. SR and VtM were confusing in their early editions. SR had Target Number (TN) that could change based on what was attempted. It was a die poll of d6 and I think TN started at 7. The rolls “exploded” so any sixes were rolled again and the result added, so a six was a seven. VtM could have a TN of 6-9 for the die pool of d10s. This made it quite complex and the GM had to see the rolls to figure out the successes. Later versions of both standardized the rolls, with SR having a 5 or 6 a success and VtR having an 8+ a success. They made dice to help count successes. Much easier when the player can call out their successes and the GM can say the results. (In fact, VtM used to do four rolls per attack in combat. An attack roll, a defense roll, a damage roll, and then a resist roll. Newer versions simplified that to one roll. I have no idea why Exalted 3E went to the complicated thing they did. I have heard few people who like it, not zero but few. They have created two simpler systems for Exalted 3E since.) As for as standard difficulties, three successes is a base success in both games, with more being better. Players in either game can assume a third of the die pool will succeed, so know if they have a reasonable chance. > [@DrDeth](#): > > > [@Odesio](#): > > > > In my old age, I’ve come to the conclusion that you shouldn’t have your players roll unless something is at stake. > > I do the same, mostly. > [@Atamasama](#): > > It’s a good philosophy to have in any TTRPG in my opinion. I agree. In fact, I would go so far as to say that anything that the DM needs the players to learn is just told to them and doesn’t rely on the result of a die. If they need to find something to continue the plot, let them find it. I have seen too many games derailed because they rolled and failed. > [@hogarth](#): > > The problem with these kind of guidelines is that it’s implicitly saying “unless **the DM** determines it’s dramatically appropriate”. If it specifically stated that a **player** can determine whether or not they can auto-succeed at a skill, that would be more interesting to me (as someone who is usually a player and rarely a DM). I don’t think that’s how DND/PF works. To explain that, both games are from a combat simulator/wargame that has added in role playing options and rules over the decades. (There was a good YouTube video saying that if you used DND but didn’t have combat, it could be argued you weren’t playing DND. Not that they were doing anything wrong. Merely that maybe DND wasn’t the system for them.) I say this because, in response to @hogarth, there are a lot of games that allow the players to determine their success or failure. Fate comes to mind right away but I’m sure there are others. For my groups, my players don’t like giving themselves negatives so Fate didn’t work as a game. Thanks for the discussion! ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2025, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dnd-ogl-is-anyone-following-this-thoughts/977886/656 "2025-04-14T00:06:29Z")
> [@hogarth](#): > > If it specifically stated that a **player** can determine whether or not they can auto-succeed at a skill, that would be more interesting to me (as someone who is usually a player and rarely a DM). Not me, that sounds awful. The GM should be the arbiter of such a thing in most games. And there’s nothing implied; explicitly it’s the GM making the decision. Now, there are certainly games that allow for more of a collaboration between players and GM to craft the story and build a narrative. The _Fate_ system comes to mind as something that does that. And there’s nothing wrong with it, but that isn’t how a game like D&D was designed. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2025, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dnd-ogl-is-anyone-following-this-thoughts/977886/657 "2025-04-14T07:13:41Z")
In actual DnD news - looks like both Perkins and Crawford (the top 2 designers) have resigned from WotC. > **[Jeremy Crawford and Chris Perkins to Leave Dungeons & Dragons' Design Team](https://screenrant.com/jeremy-crawford-chris-perkins-leaving-dnd-interview/)** > > Two guiding forces of D&D are stepping away. I think this was something expected for Perkins, but Crawford seems to have come as a little surprising to some people. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2025, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dnd-ogl-is-anyone-following-this-thoughts/977886/658 "2025-04-14T21:41:24Z")
> [@vislor](#): > > This is why I thought 3E was a big leap for DND. Rules instead of rulings. The thing is, trying to rely on rulings still results in rules, anyway. Because every time a player says “I want to do X, how does that work?”, and the DM makes a ruling, that sets a precedent. Fast forward a few years in any particular group, and everyone knows how to do X, Y, and Z, because they’ve been doing it for years, and have developed houserules for all of those things. And those houserules can get just as complicated and uninviting as the rules of 3.5. Except even more so, because being designed by amateurs, they’re often much worse rules, and they’re not written down anywhere, and every table has different ones. ---
**Author:** ![kenobi\_65](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kenobi_65/32/13178_2.png) [@kenobi\_65](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kenobi_65)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2025, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dnd-ogl-is-anyone-following-this-thoughts/977886/659 "2025-04-14T21:54:17Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > In actual DnD news - looks like both Perkins and Crawford (the top 2 designers) have resigned from WotC. A friend of mine is a designer for the D&D line at WotC, and he posted about their departure on his Facebook page a couple of days ago. It looks like ScreenRant confirmed it from a direct source at WotC, but at least I can add a bit of further confirmation. ---
**Author:** ![N9IWP](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/n9iwp/32/3154_2.png) [@N9IWP](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/N9IWP)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2025, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dnd-ogl-is-anyone-following-this-thoughts/977886/660 "2025-04-23T18:07:53Z")
SRD 5.2 was released-- it is using the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY-4.0). ArsTehnica article: > **[Everything but the Beholders: D&D updates core rules, sticks with CC license](https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2025/04/everything-but-the-beholders-dd-updates-core-rules-sticks-with-cc-license/)** > > Campaigns and spinoffs, even commercial, can use basic pieces for free. SRD (linked in the above article) [https://www.dndbeyond.com/srd](https://www.dndbeyond.com/srd) Brian (hasn’t played D&D or any other RPG [other than some one-shots] in years) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dnd-ogl-is-anyone-following-this-thoughts/977886.md?page=32) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dnd-ogl-is-anyone-following-this-thoughts/977886.md?page=34)