Get The Daggerheart SRD Here

[Reynard]

It seems like a lot of folks are on the fence about looking into Daggerheart. This is a link to the SRD so those folks can check out the rules without dropping $$$ for the PDF sight unseen.

Thanks Darrington for making this accessible!

 

[Nylanfs]

I'm not sure why they felt the need to produce another license, when the they could have simply used the ORC?

 

[Elvish Lore]

Maybe for similar reason that Paizo didn't just use any of the robust and excellent Creative Commons licenses instead of creating the ORC?

 

[aramis erak]

Maybe for similar reason that Paizo didn't just use any of the robust and excellent Creative Commons licenses instead of creating the ORC?

Creative Commons is convoluted, and isn't ONE license, but a family of more than 6 variations.

Further, Creative Commons wasn't intended for mixed license material - as in, listing a raft of sections as product identity and thus off limits. It can be used that way, but it's not a standard feature of CC. CC was intended for "whole document" level licenses.

ORC and the WOGL have explicit provisions for excluded-from-license portions.
The CGL provides multiple levels of exclusion... prohibited, referenceable, modified....
I don't like the CGL... it's a bit unclear.
All three are designed for a mixed content mode, some open, some closed, in the same publication.

 

[Nylanfs]

Creative Commons is convoluted, and isn't ONE license, but a family of more than 6 variations.

Further, Creative Commons wasn't intended for mixed license material - as in, listing a raft of sections as product identity and thus off limits. It can be used that way, but it's not a standard feature of CC. CC was intended for "whole document" level licenses.

ORC and the WOGL have explicit provisions for excluded-from-license portions.
The CGL provides multiple levels of exclusion... prohibited, referenceable, modified....
I don't like the CGL... it's a bit unclear.
All three are designed for a mixed content mode, some open, some closed, in the same publication.

This, the CC, while excellent for a LOT of things, is the wrong license for TTRPG books.

 

[aiouh]

I'm not sure why they felt the need to produce another license, when the they could have simply used the ORC?

Screengrabs from the DPCGL

ORC on modifications, revisions

The DPCGL and ORC License are fundamentally different licenses for different purposes. If I was a Darrington Press shareholder I'd do the same.

 

[Reynard]

I'm not sure why they felt the need to produce another license, when the they could have simply used the ORC?

Because they don't want DH in the open. They want to let people support it while maintaining ownership. It is similar to the Shadowdark license or the Dragonbane license.

 

[Elvish Lore]

This, the CC, while excellent for a LOT of things, is the wrong license for TTRPG books.

It's actually not, one of the CC licenses would have worked fine and do work for fine for a bunch of publishers, but previous post proved my point which was... companies do stuff for reasons that benefit them. I see people getting unhappy at Darrington for their license and it's undeserved.

 

[aiouh]

It's actually not, one of the CC licenses would have worked fine and do work for fine for a bunch of publishers, but previous post proved my point which was... companies do stuff for reasons that benefit them. I see people getting unhappy at Darrington for their license and it's undeserved.

Why is it undeserved? They basically just added in the same provision people got mad at WotC for.

 

[Vael]

The licensing stuff is a little ... I'm gonna wait and let the dust settle and see if I can sift out the facts from the clickbait later.

What I will say is the SRD is very complete and gave me enough confidence to actually buy the box set. So the value included is impressive.