OGL: Kobold Press 'Raising Our Flag' For New Open RPG

Kobold Press has announced its plans regarding the upcoming new OGL v1.1, which involves a new, open game codenamed Project Black Flag.

​

Kobold Press has been and always will be committed to open gaming and the tabletop community. Our goal is to continue creating the best materials for players and game masters alike.

This means Kobold Press will release its current Kickstarter projects as planned, including Campaign Builder: Cities & Towns (already printed and on its way to backers this winter).

In particular, Deep Magic Volume 2 will remain fully compatible with the 5E rules. We are working with our VTT partners to maintain support for digital platforms.

As we look ahead, it becomes even more important for our actions to represent our values. While we wait to see what the future holds, we are moving forward with clear-eyed work on a new Core Fantasy tabletop ruleset: available, open, and subscription-free for those who love it—Code Name: Project Black Flag.

All Kobolds look forward to the continued evolution of tabletop gaming. We aim to play our part in making the game better for everyone. Rest assured, Kobold Press intends to maintain a strong presence in the tabletop RPG community. We are not going anywhere.

Raising Our Flag - Kobold Press

Kobold Press is committed to open gaming. We are moving forward with clear-eyed work on a new Core Fantasy tabletop ruleset: available, open, and subscription-free for those who love it—Code Name: Project Black Flag.

koboldpress.com

 

[humble minion]

Well, here's to hoping whatever changes they make push the system towards the lighter side. The crunchier side is well covered.

Given KPs previous output, they tend towards a crunchier approach. Lots of optional rules for special rules specific weapons can use, specialised magic subsystems, a vast number of expansion spells etc.

 

[Azzy]

Well, I canceled my order for Mordenkainen Presents Monsters of the Multiverse and decided to purchase Deep Magic in its stead.

 

[Bohandas]

I do get the logic with copyright outlasting the author's life. If copyright ceases immediately on author's death, or even shortly after, then it guts the creator's ability to have their kids and/or other heirs benefit from their work

And this differs from how it works in any other job how?

 

[Mind of tempest]

People like having a standard base instead of reinventing the wheel every time they make a new game? Perish the thought.

The OGL was not a yoke. Trying to remove it is the yoke.

People have always been able to use it or not, and get a weird as they wanted with it if they did. That's part of why this is a problem right now.

d20 is closer to a game engine and it makes are making the licence to hard to bear.

I wonder if that is how the mess started?

 

[humble minion]

And this differs from how it works in any other job how?

If my job is carpentry, I can spend my lifetime building furniture. Some of it I may sell (or rent out) during my lifetime and earn income that way which i can use to buy other assets. But when I die, any furniture i haven't sold becomes the property of my heirs, to sell or rent out or use themselves as they see fit. It doesn't suddenly become an ownerless free-for-all for whoever wants to use it.

Intellectual property is an asset built up through work, the same as furniture in my example above.

 

[overgeeked]

Intellectual property is an asset built up through work, the same as furniture in my example above.

The clear difference being IP is an intangible idea rather than actual physical stuff. You can’t sell the same chair a thousand times but depending on the IP you can. Chair the Movie. Chair the Lunchbox. Chair the Cereal. Chair the Flamethrower. Etc. It’s a fundamentally different kind of property that should be treated differently than a toothbrush or a car.

 

[rknop]

It's not the same.

Your heirs don't get to keep selling the furniture you've already sold, without limit.

 

[overgeeked]

The “backstage” of the Kobold Press discord is a bit of a mess. All the posters who answered a simple riddle were given access to a few hidden channels. Those channels are filled with people bickering about systems and subsystems and crunch levels and dice. Everyone’s staking claims of “I’m out if X is in the game” or “I’m out if X isn’t in the game.” It’s hilarious and sad at the same time.

 

[humble minion]

The clear difference being IP is an intangible idea rather than actual physical stuff. You can’t sell the same chair a thousand times but depending on the IP you can. Chair the Movie. Chair the Lunchbox. Chair the Cereal. Chair the Flamethrower. Etc. It’s a fundamentally different kind of property that should be treated differently than a toothbrush or a car.

Yep. And it treated differently, and that's entirely reasonable (yeah, my analogy wasn't perfect...)

But making copyright cease immediately on the death of the creator is way too harsh, imho. For one thing, it's a disincentive to create, because you know that if you don't cash in on everything you create immediately, your family may earn nothing from it. Second, it devalues creative work, especially from older creators. Why would people pay to use your IP now when they can wait for you to die? And why would they pay when if you die, their investment immediately becomes valueless? And finally, it's brutal on the family of deceased creators. If the breadwinner in your house was a creative, and they die, then suddenly you're not only dealing with the loss of a loved one, but also with destitution as a major asset suddenly becomes valueless.

Death of the author plus 30 years or 50 years is a fairly reasonable compromise I think. Means the creator's kids can be provided for, and have time to develop assets and a career of their own before the family assets disappear into public domain.

 

[Zardnaar]

Yep. And it treated differently, and that's entirely reasonable (yeah, my analogy wasn't perfect...)

But making copyright cease immediately on the death of the creator is way too harsh, imho. For one thing, it's a disincentive to create, because you know that if you don't cash in on everything you create immediately, your family may earn nothing from it. Second, it devalues creative work, especially from older creators. Why would people pay to use your IP now when they can wait for you to die? And why would they pay when if you die, their investment immediately becomes valueless? And finally, it's brutal on the family of deceased creators. If the breadwinner in your house was a creative, and they die, then suddenly you're not only dealing with the loss of a loved one, but also with destitution as a major asset suddenly becomes valueless.

Death of the author plus 30 years or 50 years is a fairly reasonable compromise I think. Means the creator's kids can be provided for, and have time to develop assets and a career of their own before the family assets disappear into public domain.

Or just a flat 30 or 50 years or whatever one thinks is fair.