Cubicle 7 Also Announces A New 'C7d20' System

Joining Paizo (which has hinted at plans to update Pathfinder), Kobold Press (with it's Black Flag project), MCDM (which is working on a new game), and--of course--Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition (which was released last year), Cubicle 7 has announced a new C7d20 System.

You heard it here first! C7d20, our brand new system, is in development. Building on the great d20 games we know and love, our system will offer all the exciting action-packed adventures players expect from a d20 fantasy game, as well as the broader styles of gaming that we’ve brought to 5e in Doctors and Daleks, Adventures in Middle-earth, and Uncharted Journeys.

C7d20 will be a complete rule set that is compatible with 5e — you’ll be able to use all of your favourite 5e books and supplements, including Uncharted Journeys and Broken Weave. A core rulebook for C7d20 will launch later this year and you’ll be able to see hints of what is to come when Broken Weave launches. We’re involved in discussions about open licensing and will have more news on this as the situation develops.

 

[overgeeked]

Lighter makes for maximum compatibility, so someone will be making one of those.

I hope so. And I hope one of them is by C7 because they clearly know their way around fiddling with the d20 system. A lighter d20 game with the Doctors & Daleks encounter design would be chef’s kiss.

 

[DMZ2112]

We'd love it to be! So we'll definitely be reaching out to the Kobolds as we develop ours and they work on theirs

Supremely glad to hear this!

This is all starting to remind me of the Cola Wars of the 1980s. I'm curious to see which one will end up on top (my money is on ORC, but time will tell.)

For my part I am going to do my best to stay invested in as many of them as possible and encourage cross-pollination as best one man can. The real strength of this movement won't be in a king of the hill, but in a library of compatible open content that can be used to construct a custom version of the ruleset tailored to the individual table.

If we ever decide this phenomenon needs a name, I am throwing my weight behind 'Benderization."

 

[Emmetation]

I hope so. And I hope one of them is by C7 because they clearly know their way around fiddling with the d20 system. A lighter d20 game with the Doctors & Daleks encounter design would be chef’s kiss.

One of my big design goals is faster combat, which is something we nailed in Soulbound IMO. But yep, plenty of folks looking to add complexity, but I think one of our pillars will be allowing for ease of use and flexibility while keeping it compatible with 5e

 

[Haplo781]

Supremely glad to hear this!


For my part I am going to do my best to stay invested in as many of them as possible and encourage cross-pollination as best one man can. The real strength of this movement won't be in a king of the hill, but in a library of compatible open content that can be used to construct a custom version of the ruleset tailored to the individual table.

If we ever decide this phenomenon needs a name, I am throwing my weight behind 'Benderization."

 

[Rabulias]

But will Black Flag and C7d20 be compatible?

I would think so. If Project Black Flag (PBF) is compatible with 5e, and C7d20 is compatible with 5e, then it's A = B and B = C, therefore A = C. I think the bigger issue may be a product like, say, an adventure, that references a "sorcerer" or a "troll" by name but not detailed. Do they mean PBF's troll or the one in C7d20? In the majority of cases it won't matter, of course, but there may be slight differences. Say hypothetically that PBF's troll is vulnerable to fire and acid and C7d20's is just vulnerable to fire, and the adventure writer includes of a wand of acidic spray in a treasure pile before the PCs meet the troll. A writer using PBF might include this wand to make a tough fight a little easier, but a DM using C7d20 would find the fight may be tough for their players.

I'm probably worrying over nothing. I think in such a world, adventure and supplement writers would cite the source for any references like that. Another reason the SRD is so nice to have.

 

[Haplo781]

Supremely glad to hear this!


For my part I am going to do my best to stay invested in as many of them as possible and encourage cross-pollination as best one man can. The real strength of this movement won't be in a king of the hill, but in a library of compatible open content that can be used to construct a custom version of the ruleset tailored to the individual table.

If we ever decide this phenomenon needs a name, I am throwing my weight behind 'Benderization."

Really hoping all the major 3pp have a powwow and come up with a set of core rules they all agree to use as a base.

 

[overgeeked]

Really hoping all the major 3pp have a powwow and come up with a set of core rules they all agree to use as a base.

They won’t have to. If WotC puts the core of 5E into the CC-BY license as proposed, many/most of the 3PP will use that as their base.

 

[Haplo781]

They won’t have to. If WotC puts the core of 5E into the CC-BY license as proposed, many/most of the 3PP will use that as their base.

They can do better.

 

[Xethreau]

I would think so. If Project Black Flag (PBF) is compatible with 5e, and C7d20 is compatible with 5e, then it's A = B and B = C, therefore A = C.

Different people have different definitions of compatibility. Tiny variations in rules re-writes can raise serious compatibility questions. Large rule overhauls all the more so.

Consider Level Up: A5E. We already have an extant 5e-spinoff system. Can and will Black Flag and C7d20 create something that is compatible with it? Morrus said "who knows" and he right about that. Yet I would point out that each designer will put forward their own design priorities, primarily because each group is introducing its own core system. Their primary priority will not likely be compatibility between competitors; instead they will do their best to take the throne as the new core engine.

 

[Rabulias]

This is all starting to remind me of the Cola Wars of the 1980s. I'm curious to see which one will end up on top (my money is on ORC, but time will tell.)

Hmmm.. they do like putting numbers in their name....