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

 

[Remathilis]

I did a rudimentary look through, but I can't say I'm blown away.

At first blush, it looks like 5.25. not quite as bold in its changes as 1D&D (and that's saying something considering how safe WotC's playing it) is, but definitely not a pure clone. It's got a Pathfinder 1e vibe to it for sure. However, beyond "argle-bargle WotC bad" I can't see enough of a reason to wholesale switch yet. At best, I might pick up some pieces of it to augment my 5e/1D&D games with (some of those feats, err, talents, look nice) but strictly comparing this packet to the WotC playtest packet of the same topics, I'm not exactly overwhelmed with [Core Fantasy Roleplaying] yet.

I wait to see something that doesn't feel like they are retreading WotC's path and is unique to them. Luck points sound interesting, and I await new races, classes or subclasses that WotC hasn't already done.

 

[Parmandur]

I did a rudimentary look through, but I can't say I'm blown away.

At first blush, it looks like 5.25. not quite as bold in its changes as 1D&D (and that's saying something considering how safe WotC's playing it) is, but definitely not a pure clone. It's got a Pathfinder 1e vibe to it for sure. However, beyond "argle-bargle WotC bad" I can't see enough of a reason to wholesale switch yet. At best, I might pick up some pieces of it to augment my 5e/1D&D games with (some of those feats, err, talents, look nice) but strictly comparing this packet to the WotC playtest packet of the same topics, I'm not exactly overwhelmed with [Core Fantasy Roleplaying] yet.

I wait to see something that doesn't feel like they are retreading WotC's path and is unique to them. Luck points sound interesting, and I await new races, classes or subclasses that WotC hasn't already done.

Considering that this has been in the works since last Summer, it feels a bit like they were betting on OneD&D being more of a departure than it's looking like at this point. Still, it shows promise as a supplement to D&D.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

I'm kind of happy that's it's basically just 5e but with a few improvements.

5e always felt like it was the perfect foundation, with nothing ever built onto that foundation.

 

[mamba]

The XP table has some issues for levels 3 and 4

 

[kunadam]

I'm kind of happy that's it's basically just 5e but with a few improvements.

5e always felt like it was the perfect foundation, with nothing ever built onto that foundation.

Now I began to read rulesets again, and I begin to feel that 3.5 was that perfect foundation and a lot of cool stuff was built on it (Pathfinder and 5e for sure).
And I'm not that happy about Black Flag being just 5e with some tweaks. I would like to see something new but with the same motor

 

[Incenjucar]

I find myself wondering how the Lineage/Heritage divide should apply to scenarios such as werefolk, merfolk, centauroids, undead, etc. A lot of template-style possibilities out there.

 

[tetrasodium]

I find myself wondering how the Lineage/Heritage divide should apply to scenarios such as werefolk, merfolk, centauroids, undead, etc. A lot of template-style possibilities out there.

If at all possible I'd like to see some of the more unusual ones be a bit more restrictive than common races. It's one thing to have a player pitch an oddball combo to the GM & work something out. GMs have a totally different situation when a player walks in with a combo that's mutually exclusive with a setting's lore. I grew tired of Droaam & other race centric regions providing identity to certain races in my eberron game like Valenar being absolutely savaged by players wanting to play an elf or warforged noble from breland somehow known as a mold breaking example who redefines the role of an entire race. Inevitably the player expects to rewrite the role of that race in the world because of it IME.

 

[kunadam]

There's a definite push towards players interacting with the world through their characters rather than personally using their character & talking to the other players collaboratively during character creation... this is good & moves away from one of the unreasonable sins of 5e.

I don't get the distinction here, could you elaborate?

 

[tetrasodium]

I don't get the distinction here, could you elaborate?

Look at the 5e phb chapter1 step by step character creation (pg11-15). This seems to be the same "chapter" but it's possible the text has differences on the website vrs the book. In that a player completes a character without ever even being nudged to so much as consider the fact that they are part of a group they are expected to work with till they have in isolation chosen race class ability scores description & equipment when it's too late for collaboration & discussion. The only time that the DM is even mentioned in the first 5 steps is to point out that the DM might give more options. The idea that a GM might restrict options or require flavor to match the campaign/setting they are going to be running is not even hinted at. That sort of "I'm the star, just do your job" attitude is a thing that d&d5e encourages players to take over & over again while the blackflag packet takes a very different tone & direction with its guidance.

 

[kunadam]

Look at the 5e phb chapter1 step by step character creation (pg11-15). This seems to be the same "chapter" but it's possible the text has differences on the website vrs the book. In that a player completes a character without ever even being nudged to so much as consider the fact that they are part of a group they are expected to work with till they have in isolation chosen race class ability scores description & equipment when it's too late for collaboration & discussion. The only time that the DM is even mentioned in the first 5 steps is to point out that the DM might give more options. The idea that a GM might restrict options or require flavor to match the campaign/setting they are going to be running is not even hinted at. That sort of "I'm the star, just do your job" attitude is a thing that d&d5e encourages players to take over & over again while the blackflag packet takes a very different tone & direction with its guidance.

This I fully understand. Thanks!
I think this depends on the players and not so much on the system. I have encountered this in different systems too.
People have limited possibilities to experience certain roles, and they want to do that. But the story might dictate otherwise. And thus there will be conflict between the player and the DM.
Once one of my friend wanted to play a gnoll. In Bloodstone lands (FR) where gnolls are attacked on sight. Wasn't easy.
Or there was another player who wanted to play his weretiger character. I let it. But then I was not good enough in convincing his character to go adventuring.
So I think the most important rule should be that the DM is going to spin a story and players want to take part in it. And by taking part I also mean that one might not be able to bring a CE murderhobo to a game about tacktful diplomacy.