Black Flag Kobold Press' Black Flag System Reference Document Released

The System Reference Document--called the Black Flag Reference Document or BFRD--for Kobold Press' Black Flag roleplaying game system--launched as a reaction to the Open Gaming License crisis caused by Wizards of the Coast in 2022/2023--has been released under the Open RPG Creative (ORC) License, a viral share-alike license designed to replace the Open Gaming License.

A System Reference Document is a tool for third party developers, and contains the rules text that those creators are permitted to use, along with examples of how certain rules elements--such as subclasses--work.

The document includes lineages, heritages, classes, spells, monsters, and more.

The BFRD is the second major third-party 'alternate 5E' SRD to be released, following the Level Up: Advanced 5E SRD (A5ESRD) from EN Publishing.

Wizards of the Coast announced this week that the 2024 core rules of Dungeon & Dragons would be added to their own System Reference Document in 2025.

 

[darjr]

Home - Tales of the Valiant

Game Master’s Guide Preorder Open! Be Bold. Be Brave. Be Valiant! Tales of the Valiant (ToV) is a Black Flag Roleplaying game that builds on the Creative Commons foundation of 5th Edition. Fully compatible with the 5E products you already know and love, Tales of the Valiant is a new game, but if...

www.talesofthevaliant.com

Well, looks like we got ToV's full reference doc up. Seems to be the full levels 1-20 for classes with a subclass each.

I think this is pretty much what your gonna be having so far in ToV. So, time to compare the Monk to see if the ToV version is fully better!

@Morrus

 

[Marc Radle]

So far the rules look like a solid take on 5E. I like a lot of what I'm seeing here.

Thanks so much!!

There still seems to be some of the unfortunate sloppiness I've noticed in a lot of Black Flag playtest documents, though. Like, it doesn't appear that the Wild Shape has rules for how long it lasts, how hit points work, and whether you can cast spells. (The Shifter subclass specifies you can't, but not the core feature.)

Reposting a portion of my post from yesterday since I think it's pertinent here:

The BFRD is a collection of developer tools. It is a reference document that contains all of the elements of the Black Flag Roleplaying System that are free-to-use for designers and developers that are interested in creating material for Tales of the Valiant (and its inevitable mutations).

Like the 5E System Reference Document, the BFRD does not contain EVERYTHING you can find in the Player’s Guide and Monster Vault. Some material from Tales of the Valiant remains protected IP, which is why you may see some subclasses mentioned in the BFRD that are not fully outlined. We’ve included subclasses for each class so developers and designers understand how we developed our subclasses, but as much as we’d love to we can’t give everything away for free in the reference document.

 

[dave2008]

I'm not complaining here. I just think its interesting to see how ORC and CC play out together from an upstream / downstream perspective.

That is interesting. Thank you for pointing it out. I was unaware ORC required you to release everything. Makes it a little less publisher friendly than I thought.

 

[eyeheartawk]

That is interesting. Thank you for pointing it out. I was unaware ORC required you to release everything. Makes it a little less publisher friendly than I thought.

The opposite.

If you iterate on open gaming content, people get to iterate on yours. That's better for everyone. It prevents situations like what Monte Cook does with his stuff. Where he gets to use all OGC from the OGL but he locks everything down as product identity. Which, you know, is decidedly uncool. Then again this is the same guy who went what if the World of Darkness but Minnesota so, I guess coolness isn't his foremost concern anyway, but still.

 

[dave2008]

The opposite.

If you iterate on open gaming content, people get to iterate on yours. That's better for everyone. It prevents situations like what Monte Cook does with his stuff. Where he gets to use all OGC from the OGL but he locks everything down as product identity. Which, you know, is decidedly uncool. Then again this is the same guy who went what if the World of Darkness but Minnesota so, I guess coolness isn't his foremost concern anyway, but still.

That is why I said less publisher friendly. As an artist / publisher I want to the rights to control some of my work. ORC makes that impossible - that is not friendly IMO. Now I agree some publishers took the intent of the OGL to far, but taking away protections completely is an issue I think.

Now, is it good for fans? Probably. Unless publishers don't want to use ORC because they loose all control. I know that it has turned me of ORC. If I put my blood, sweat, and tears into something important, I don't want to give it all away. Not that I am a publisher, but I have thought about it before.

 

[eyeheartawk]

That is why I said less publisher friendly. As an artist / publisher I want to the rights to control some of my work. ORC makes that impossible - that is not friendly IMO. Now I agree some publishers took the intent of the OGL to far, but taking away protections completely is an issue I think.

Now, is it good for fans? Probably. Unless publishers don't want to use ORC because they loose all control. I know that it has turned me of ORC. If I put my blood, sweat, and tears into something important, I don't want to give it all away. Not that I am a publisher, but I have thought about it before.

How is it different though? I recognize the reality of the OGL is that people like Monte and Goodman can lock mechanics behind product identity and nobody will find it worthwhile to legally challenge, so they get away with it. But, that was never the intent. The OGL made the product identity provision for lore and names and general IP stuff, not the mechanics. So really, ORC is just making that more ironclad and not able to be abused. It really functions no differently than the OGL was supposed to.

This is what open gaming is supposed to look like. And yeah, if you don't like it, don't use it. I for one, welcome more games that aren't D&D derived into the marketplace anyway.

 

[mamba]

The opposite.

If you iterate on open gaming content, people get to iterate on yours. That's better for everyone.

that argument can go both ways

If you want to build an ecosystem around your product, CC might be better.

If you are looking more for an open source approach where the fanbase releases something semi-professional for the community to use, ORC would be better.

Adventures are essentially the same under both.

 

[Chaltab]

Reposting a portion of my post from yesterday since I think it's pertinent here:

I fully understand that the SRD won't include everything, but given how otherwise complete the core class write-ups appear to be this looks like a case of a rule being missing by oversight or mistake rather than deliberately withheld. I may of course be wrong, it's just something I noticed.

 

[Nylanfs]

The mimic can use anyone it's adhered to as a human shield as a reaction, for instance. Have fun killing your lockpicking rogue!

They probably deserved it anyway...

 

[GrimCo]

Yet Paizo does, and EN Publishing. So that's not a great answer.

Paizo's business model is based on sales of adventure paths. From almost all pf1 players i met ( couple of dozen, more or less), there were only couple of them who bought any pf1 books ( usually core rulebook). Why pay for stuff if it's free online, legeal and easy to access?

This way, they gave enough so designers have tools to develop their own stuff, but not enough for cheap players to play full game for free.