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

 

[Ruin Explorer]

You really can't make accusations like that without providing information people can independently corroborate. What specifically did Kobold steal from you?

< braces for something that is very clearly OGC under the definition in the OGL >

 

[dave2008]

I predict the Black Flag Project will be closer to 5E mechanically than ONE D&D will be.

I find that highly unlikely as '24 D&D is almost completely mechanically the same as 5e.

 

[TheSword]

Playing in the Scarlet Citadel now and loving it, and a big fan of Tales of the Old Margrave. They’ve got some talented writers.

… however they have huge colossal gargantuan cojones if the intend to publish a 5e clone in this climate with WotC daubing on war paint. Best of luck to them, but I would be skeptical.

If it’s an entirely new game, well, I just know I’ll be highly unlikely to pick it up. I like 5e, that’s why I play it so much. Picking up new game systems is hard work. The main reason I play WFRP as my second system is that I’ve been playing it since I was 10 - before D&D even.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Picking up new game systems is hard work.

Whenever someone says this it makes me feel like some kind of trained-from-birth ninja who knows every known martial art and easily picks up new ones.

Then I realize I have been playing new RPGs regularly since 1989, when I was 11 (and have never stopped) so maybe that isn't entirely wrong and also I wasted my life lol. Especially as in the '90s like 70% of game systems sucked hard. That's gradually decreased as the average level of game design competence has gone up.

I will also say a lot of modern games are drastically easier to learn - but not all of them, eh, PF2?

 

[Azzy]

Welp, looks like I'm going to have to buy some books from them. I also signed up for the Black Flag project.

 

[OTHG]

I think the 3rd party vendors should join together, create a crowd-funded legal defense fund, and fight wotc all the way because, from what I read, they have a good case. By just folding their tents and giving up they are doing exactly what wotc wants them to do -- get out of the business.

 

[Azzy]

Kobolds, Dragons and Worms are mythological creatures, to which WotC certainly does not have any claim whatsoever.
Drow and Duergar are, afaik, indeed claims they have.

Dvergar is the names for dwarves in Norse mythology.

 

[Steel_Wind]

Oh, yes, quite right. WotC is banking on no one being willing to stand up to them, rather than actually putting their claim of the OGL's revocability to the test.

Respectfully, this is not the way it works in our legal system.

It isn't the third party who have to put their "claims" to the test. A 3pp just goes and does what it wants to do, relying on the OGL 1.0a. It is incumbent on WotC to take the other guy to court and try to obtain an injunction. The little guy doesn't have to prove jack.

Because of: the nature of the OGL 1.0a; WotC's own claims about 1.0a on its own website; evidence from its past corporate officers; and, the evidence of what WotC did and didn't do with PF1 (and what happened thereafter); WotC is quite unlikely to be able to win an injunction motion. It simply can't meet this three-part legal test:

• It can't prove it has a strong prima facie case (though it might prove there is a serious question to be tried);
• It can't prove irreparable harm (the fallout from Pathfinder 1 demonstrates that); and,
• the balance of convenience is clearly against granting the injunction. The whole industry has operated under the validity of the OGL 1.0a for 23 years.

WotC must prove every one of those parts of the test. Fail even one of them? They lose the injunction motion.
WotC is not winning any injunction, imo.

So then WotC is in it for the long haul; it's a long lawsuit and appeals where the systemic delays in the legal system all accrue to the benefit of the defendant - and the prejudice of WotC. WotC won't get its way. We'll be half way to 7th edition before that first lawsuit is ever resolved. And to be clear, I expect WotC will probably lose.

The only thing WotC is "banking on" is that, come what may, the D&D brand will survive any setback in the short to medium term - including WotC's mismanagement - to ultimately prevail. D&D is "top of mind" in RPGs and everybody has heard of it. That's what WotC has going for them. Everything else is secondary to that.

 

[jerryrice4949]

I feel like this is going to be the Great RPG Bubble. Maybe WoTC wants that.

 

[Composer99]

@Steel_Wind Okay, so I'ma have to point you to lawyers saying it's not so open and shut, including on threads on this site.

You don't have to agree with them, but bluntly put there's no basis to take your word over theirs, whether you yourself are a lawyer or no.