There's a big difference between "d20 System" which refers to the OGL-spawned third-party gaming system, and using a d20 as the basis for a system. 5e will be the latter, not the former.
Actually there was also a difference between the d20 system and the OGL. Using the d20 system license was more restrictive than the OGL.
Not quite. The Open Game License (OGL) is a content license created by the Open Gaming Foundation (.org), which content creators can use to license their creations in such a way that allows others to use, modify, adapt and even profit by them while still retaining ownership and authorship recognition for their creation. It is the RPG industry's equivalent to the GNU General Public License or the OSI's Open Software License.
The OGL is not intrinsically linked to D&D, Wizards of the Coast, or the D20 System in any way. In fact, there are a number of RPGs completely unaffiliated with and unrelated to all of those things that have been released under the OGL, including The Dresden Files RPG (which uses a modified FATE system), and Grey Ghost Press' FUDGE system.
What you're actually talking about is the "Revised (v.3.5) System Reference Document" (SRD), a document released under the OGL by Wizards of the Coast (spearheaded by Ryan Dancy, etc.) in 2000. The SRD forms the basis D&D 3rd Edition, the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Green Ronin's Mutants & Masterminds RPG, and a host of other games. Don't confuse the SRD with the d20 System; they are not the same thing. The SRD forms the basis of the d20 System as it appeared in D&D 3rd Edition, but the current d20 System, as it appears in 4th Edition, is not based on nor covered by the OGL. Instead, some 4e content is licensed for use to third parties by the Game System License (GSL). The GSL cannot truly be considered "open gaming" like the OGL can because Wizards can modify or revoke the GSL at any time, and because the GSL prohibits use of the SRD.
Note that there is a "4th Edition System Reference Document" that is not the same as the SRD referenced above.
So to recap:
Open Game License (OGL) - a content license creators can use to release "open source" RPG materials.
System Reference Document (SRD) - a game system released under the OGL, which was the basis for D&D 3rd Edition, Pathfinder, and others. In common parlance, "the SRD" refers specifically and exclusively to the OGL-licensed (v.3.5) version and NOT to the 4th Edition document of the same name.
d20 System - a game system developed by Wizards of the Coast, which formerly used the OGL-licensed SRD, but now (4th Edition), does not.
Clearer? Or did that just make it worse? No, I'm not an attourney, but I do have a vested interest in publishing contracts and content licensing.
-m4ki; one down, one to go
"Retro is not new. Retro-fit is not new." --Seeker95, on why I won't be playing DDN
DDN Metrics (0-10) | enthusiasm: 1 | confidence in design: -3 | desire to play: 0 | Sticking with 4e?: Yep. | Better Options: IKRPG Mk II
The Five Things D&D Next Absolutely Must Not Do:Show
1. Imbalanced gameplay.Any and all characters must be able to contribute equally both in combat and out of combat at all levels of play. If the Fighters are linear and the Wizards quadratic, I walk. 2. Hardcore simulationist approach. D&D is a game about heroic fantasy. I'm weak and useless enough in real life; I play RPGs for a change of pace. If the only reason a rule exists is because "that's how it's supposed to be", I walk. I don't want a game that "simulates" real life, I want a game that simulates heroic fantasy. 3. Worshipping at false idols (AKA Sacred Cows). If the only reason a rule exists is "it's always been that way", I walk. Now to be clear, I have no problem with some things not changing; my issue is with retaining bad idea simply for the sake of nostalgia. 4. DM vs. players. If the game encourages "gotcha!" moments or treats the DM and players as enemies, adversaries, or problems to be overcome, I walk. 5. Rules for the sake of rules. The only thing I want rules for is the things I can't do sitting around a table with my friends. If the rules try to step on my ability to roleplay the character I want to roleplay, I walk. Furthermore, the rules serve to facilitate gameplay, not to simulate the world.
1. When in doubt, wing it. 2. Keep the story moving. Go with the flow. 3. Sometimes things make the best characters. 4. Always give players lots of things to do. 5. Wherever possible, say ‘yes.’ 6. Cheating is largely unnecessary. 7. Don't be afraid to give the characters a fun new toy. 8. Don't get in the way of a good players exchange. 9. Avoid talking too much. 10. Save some details for later. 11. Be transparent. 12. Don't show all your cards.
"Essentials zigged, when I wanted to continue zagging..." -Foxface on Essentials
"Servicing a diverse fan base with an RPG ruleset - far from being the mandate for 'open design space' and a cavalier attitude towards balance - requires creating a system that /works/, with minimal fuss, for a wide variety of play styles, not just from one group to the next, but at the same table." -Tony_Vargas on design
"Mearls' and Cook's stated intent to produce an edition that fans of all previous editions (and Pathfinder) will like more than their current favourite edition is laudable. But it is also, IMO, completely unrealistic. It's like people who pray for world peace: I might share their overall aims, but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for them to succeed. When they talk in vague terms about what they'd like to do in this new edition, I mostly find myself thinking 'hey, that sounds cool, assuming they can pull it off', but almost every time they've said something specific about actual mechanics, I've found myself wincing and shaking my head in disbelief and/or disgust, either straight away or after thinking about the obvious implications for half a minute." -Duskweaver on D&D Next
I suposse you know sometimes when a videogame is very old its source code is out, like a open licence...(I can´t explain it better). I wonder if somebody we could see like the equivalent to SRD, a out source code to be used for rpg with d20 system. Why? Like the MMO free-to-play, a hook to get new customers. I talk like a D&D Insider free-to-play. You get a free "core" and can buy a physical format. Later that videogame can be updated with a patch to get better graphics and all about it, but you can buy from store is retrocompatible. For example if you buy the moon dragon (from Spelljammer setting. It was canon) for you videogame... year later you buy the new edition you can download the stats of the moon dragon for the new game.
"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)
Book 13 Anaclet 23
Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"
while i liked some things from the d20 engine, Challenge Rating and oversimplified Attributes were not among the best features. Actually, compared with AD&D, 3e attributes are laughably 1 dimensional. You used to be able to orient a whole character around a single attribute, but in d20 that's ridiculous - it's just a bonus. Charisma used to involve all sorts of stuff like Henchmen, Reaction, Comeliness, and Followers, plus interface with specific character classes like the Bard, Druid, and Paladin. Similar things could be said about Intelligence, Cantrip lists, spell levels, languages, bonus proficiencies, learning spells, maximum number of spells, and illusion immunity. "+4" is simply not going to illustrate these levels of Diversity.
The Challenge Rating lost stability when at upper levels, the wild range of cumulative bonuses and special abilities led characters to gettting ridiculously low (like 0) to ludicrously high (like 10 levels worth) experience points and then depending ever more heavily on the DM to fudge the broken numbers.