Black Flag So What's In Kobold Press' BLACK FLAG First Playtest?

Black Flag, the codename for Kobold Press' new open TTRPG, announced during the height of the recent OGL controversy as an open alternative to 5E, has put out the first playtest packet. It's 12-page document of character creation rules. So what's inside?

The introduction summarises character creation, defining 5E concepts like level, hit dice, and so on. It introduces the game as being backward-compatible with 5E.

Black Flag -- like Level Up: Advanced 5E, and Ancestry & Culture--divides the 5E concept of 'race' and 'subrace' into inherited and cultural elements. Black Flag goes with the terms Lineage and Heritage.

It goes on to present the Dwarf, Elf, and Human, along with a choice of two heritage traits for each--the heritage traits for dwarf, for example, are Fireforge and Stone. Elves get Cloud and Grove, while humans get Nomadic and Cosmopolitan. You can choose any heritage for your lineage, though. These are analogous to 5E's 'subraces', although the inherited/learned elements are separated out -- Cloud Elves are a lot like High Elves, and Grove Elves are a lot like Wood Elves, for example.

Following that are two backgrounds -- Scholar, and Soldier. They each give the usual array of proficiencies plus a 'talent'.

Magic, martial, and technical talents are essentially feats. You get a talent from your background, and can substitute an ability score increase for one.

The playtest feels to me much like a 5E written in their own words, but with 5E's 'race/subrace' structure replaced with 'lineage/heritage', the biggest thing being that the heritage (what was subrace in 5E) is cultural.

As a disclaimer, I do of course publish Level Up: Advanced 5E, which shares the exact same goal as Kobold Press' project (BTW, check out the new A5ESRD site!) It will be interesting to see how the approaches diverge; while both are backward-compatible, they already have different ways to handle what 5E calls race -- Level Up has you choose a heritage (your inherited species, basically), and any of 30+ cultures (learned stuff from where you grew up). Black Flag goes with lineage (again, your inherited species), and a choice of heritages for each lineage. And the bestselling 5E book Ancestry & Culture on DTRPG, uses those terms -- so there's plenty of options to choose your heritage/culture, lineage/heritage, or ancestry/culture!

Whatever happens, the future certainly contains a choice of open 5E alternatives!

 

[Reynard]

I feel this playtest suffers from the same flaw that 1D&D's does: it is asking us to "test" stuff in parts. I would much prefer if we got a single document and were told to run a campaign for 3 or 6 months and tell us what worked and what didn't (essentially the Paizo style of doing it). D&D is a complex thing and has lots of moving parts that interact in unexpected ways. We can't really test any new parts in isolation in a couple of weeks. So, like 1D&D playtest packets, this feels more like marketing than honest playtest.

 

[Zaukrie]

And perhaps a bit of a misguided one.

Pathfinder got huge because WotC took 4e in such a radical design shift that Paizo could sell an older edition of D&D as new against WotC's version that was wildly different.

Black Flag isn't competing against a wildly different edition of D&D, it will be competing against One D&D at right around the same release window. And both systems are basically updated 5e with an eye on backwards compatibility, which means they are trying to do the same things. They are even doing some of the same innovations (1st level powers tied to backgrounds, removal of racial ASI).

I realize this is just a sliver of the grand design, comparing packet one of BF to packet one of 1DnD, I don't see much difference. What I want to see is design space ceded by WotC to be explored: new classes, new magic systems, etc. I'm not interested in an alternative cleric which has access to the Beer domain as much as I am an invoker-like blaster/healer type priest compared to the doctor/warrior cleric D&D already gives me. A shaman who summons spirits rather than a wild shaping druid. A warrior class with tactical options beyond attack (or cast magic). Psionics, runes, witchcraft, an artificer that actually builds things, etc.

Because unless WotC continues to shoot themselves in the foot for the next two years, I don't see a need for a 5e Pathfinder. I do see a great need though for a 5e Arcana Unearthed/Evolved, a system with unique archetypes and innovative alternatives to WotC's safer design principles.

I await future packets to see what else is coming through.

My thoughts exactly. Open the DMG, look at the optional rules, and riff on those.

Look at level up and steal maneuvers.

Give us a watlord.

If this is not different at all, I'm not interested in spending on money on it.

 

[Aldarc]

I have a hard time imagining successful publishers -- who are who we're talking about, for the most part -- not going the Arcana Unearthed route, since that would let people pick up their books as either new core books or as supplements. I would guess their new "core" players book will look a lot more like the Midgard Heroes Handbook than the PHB.

Because unless WotC continues to shoot themselves in the foot for the next two years, I don't see a need for a 5e Pathfinder. I do see a great need though for a 5e Arcana Unearthed/Evolved, a system with unique archetypes and innovative alternatives to WotC's safer design principles.

With Arcana Evolved, Monte Cook took the opportunity to design the classes in terms of playstyles. What sort of archetypes are people drawn to? Not necessarily in terms of fantasy archetypes - e.g., fighter, paladin, wizard, rogue, etc. - but in terms of playstyle: e.g., heavily armored warrior, the light Dex warrior, the spell master, the skill monkey, the healer, etc.

Moreover, Arcana Evolved looked around to different sources for its fantasy inspiration: e.g., Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, Earthsea, etc. That gave the races, classes, setting, and such a fresh feel to the game.

 

[Nathaniel Lee]

I at least would totally love a 5e with 80% of crunch trimmed off.

Isn't that just Dungeon World...?

 

[Nathaniel Lee]

What exactly is someone to "playtest" here? What kind of feedback would be useful for this kind of thing?

How does the idea of separating biological from cultural feel? Is the specific approach they used good? How about the details of the traits themselves? Do they make sense? How do people like the particular talents they designed? I'd definitely rather get a bigger chunk at once, but there's something to be said for quick iteration and a tighter, more focused feedback loop. We use that strategy often in software development.

 

[Nathaniel Lee]

I feel this playtest suffers from the same flaw that 1D&D's does: it is asking us to "test" stuff in parts. I would much prefer if we got a single document and were told to run a campaign for 3 or 6 months and tell us what worked and what didn't (essentially the Paizo style of doing it). D&D is a complex thing and has lots of moving parts that interact in unexpected ways. We can't really test any new parts in isolation in a couple of weeks. So, like 1D&D playtest packets, this feels more like marketing than honest playtest.

I get the feeling that Black Flag is going to be more backwards compatible, if not 100% backwards compatible, with 5E than One D&D is.

The goals of the projects are quite different in that One D&D is less about making something that can actually work with old sourcebooks (the compatibility is only with the adventures and campaign guides, not the actual mechanics) and building towards their idea of the future of the game. By contrast, Black Flag is more about building more or less a tweaked 5E that they can call their own and continue to build off of with their new stuff as well as maintaining their old stuff, free from the "shackles" of Wizards and the OGL.

The playtest document already indicates that you can just use the exact materials out of the existing sourcebooks around classes, spells, etc. and that the way to make those more aligned with what they'll eventually release as classes is to have characters choose a feat/talent at 1st level. I really don't see them changing anything fundamental about the classes, at least as far as progression structure. That's the biggest problem with One D&D: existing subclasses aren't going to be a straightforward conversion, if even viably convertible at all. With Black Flag, it sounds like it's going to be plug and play, with the base classes potentially just getting a little boost in power.

Holding out hope that my instinct is right here and we'll see that level of compatibility, because I feel One D&D feels more disconnected from 5E than 3.5E did from 3E, and I don't really want something that veers to closely to a 6E.

 

[Novak]

Playtest Packet 1 Is Here For Project Black Flag!​

View attachment 275473

Marc,

I am absolutely going to provide this feedback through official channels. But to provoke additional discussion, I'm going to put my early draft here of things I'd like to see:

1. Degrees of success for many/all things. I did not realize how much I liked PFe's over/under by 10 rules, until I started thinking about a game without them.

2. More options for character class builds, on the assumption that you will hew close enough to 5e for that to matter. This is one of the places 5e is most lacking, but A5E really shines.

3. More options in combat for non-casters. Again, 5e is anemic here, but A5E really shines.

4. My long historical complaints about the spell casting system in general. It just.... doesn't make a lot of sense, this modern hybridized semi-Vancian backflip with a half twist. There is probably not a lot of bang for the buck in trying to fix this. without a complete overhaul that no longer looks like 5e. But some specific complaints:

4a. Maybe some semi-modularization, or something rationalized enough that you can give solid GM advice for how you want a game world to run. Like, "If you want locks to matter instead of having the wizard bypass them all, do this," and "If you want travel time to matter instead of the wizard teleporting everyone all over, try this." Where the advice is more specific than just "Disable all these spells." Something where those gate-passing spells can be calibrated to kick in at specific levels, instead of making every campaign bypass every gatekeeping effect at the same level. (Other gatekeeping effects-- creating food and water, language spells, and probably more I am forgetting.)

4b. More spells that gain utility smoothely as the caster levels up.

 

[Loren the GM]

I would like KP to post the questions from the survey at some point. So we can see them and consider them in our playtest. Or at least an idea. It’s one of the things I didn’t like about the ONE pt.

Text from this link:
Project Black Flag Playtest Packet 1 Feedback - Kobold Press
(edit to add: you can visit the feedback form without locking yourself out of providing feedback later to see questions)

Project Black Flag Playtest Packet 1 Feedback
Please use this form to provide playtest feedback, in particular your experience with the packet's rules elements (not typos or layout issues).

You do not need to play a full game session using the rules elements to provide playtest feedback; thoughtful reading and review is acceptable. Actual play is encouraged whenever possible!

Which elements of Packet #1 did you playtest?​

• Lineage & Heritage
• Backgrounds
• Talents
• Other (Fill in the blank answer)
• None

Select all that apply
(checkboxes)

General Playtesting Feedback​

Did you encounter any mechanical issues with something you playtested? (For example: if a mechanic was confusing, did not work as expected, seemed too under-powered, etc.)

Large Text Area to Provide Answer

Did you have strong feelings towards anything you playtested? (For example: did you love a particular detail or feature, did you find a detail offensive, did you hate the way something worked, etc.)

Large Text Area to Provide Answer

Feel free to provide any additional playtest thoughts or feedback here.

Large Text Area to Provide Answer

Submit Button

 

[Remathilis]

By contrast, Black Flag is more about building more or less a tweaked 5E that they can call their own and continue to build off of with their new stuff as well as maintaining their old stuff, free from the "shackles" of Wizards and the OGL.

Then the intended audience for this product is actually Kobold Press, not us. It's a ruleset that KP can use to refer back to without referencing WotC's PHB. That's great for them, but as a player I have to ask if that has any value to me. In 2024, I will have a choice to buy Black Flag, One D&D, or stick with my 5e PHB. So far, the selling point for BF is "I'm not giving my money to eevviill WotC" which isn't really a personal concern. As both systems continue to put out new packets (especially classes, where we will see the true divide in game design) this might change. But for now, "D&D minus WotC" isn't a selling point.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

With Arcana Evolved, Monte Cook took the opportunity to design the classes in terms of playstyles. What sort of archetypes are people drawn to? Not necessarily in terms of fantasy archetypes - e.g., fighter, paladin, wizard, rogue, etc. - but in terms of playstyle: e.g., heavily armored warrior, the light Dex warrior, the spell master, the skill monkey, the healer, etc.

Moreover, Arcana Evolved looked around to different sources for its fantasy inspiration: e.g., Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, Earthsea, etc. That gave the races, classes, setting, and such a fresh feel to the game.

I would expect Monte Cook to be among the people pondering what a Monte Cook Games 5E core set would look like. And certainly, AU was influential in that regard -- I'm guessing we will see some folks going far afield, when they don't have a goal of providing a backwards compatibility SRD.