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

 

[ECMO3]

If WotC is going to be difficult, that's probably effectively impossible.

That works both ways though, not for someone like Kobold press, but for a smaller corporation you just close than open again under a new name and keep WOTC responding over and over. Ensure the corporation never has any actual value so it is never worthwile for WOTC to absorb it.

Also there is malicious compliance. Because there is still an OGL you pack up every crumpled up piece of scrap paper and graph paper with scribbling on it, along with coffee stains and maybe some dried up cheese from the pizza you were eating on it. Mail it all to WOTC (not email but registered mail) for their "review" but do not include any context and don't organize it. Just random papers and words with something in there you might actually use at some time.

 

[ECMO3]

So it just has to make a game with Dark Elves, Deep Dwarves, Indigo Wyrms, and... Red Dragons?

(Surely you can't copyright a red dragon?)

Red Dragon was probably a stretch, but lightning breathing blue dragon might not be.

The problem is this waters down the fantasy elements in the game. Sure you make a game with these things and you have classes like Martial, Faith Caster and Witch instead of Fighter, Cleric and Warlock

But the problem you run into is people won't want to play that game. Many will want Purple Worms and Drow.

 

[Composer99]

I'm skeptical that OGL 1.0/a can be genuinely said to be irrevocable unless a court declares it to be so (and the decision survives appeal) or WotC creates an OGL 1.0b that explicitly spells out irrevocability of itself and the previous OGL versions.

 

[ECMO3]

That's a legal gray area that I think a lot of attorneys are debating at this moment.
If it's me, I don't risk it.

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

I also think it will lack most if not all the D&D specific fantasy elements and I think there is a good chance that fantasy elements not unique to D&D (Orcs, Elves, Kobolds, Dragons.....) will be substantially different than their D&D counterparts.

 

[MockingBird]

Anyone see the Dndbeyond tweet?

 

[Dragonblade]

I'm very interested, but their game has to be totally open. Aside from their product identity, which of course they should protect, all the mechanics should be totally open to the community without restriction to use in other games, with a permanent and irrevocable open game license. Your IP should be protected but I'd like to see mechanics be open and available to everyone.

If they just release it with their own version of a Kobold Press d20 STL, or GSL, then not interested in supporting or playing it. The litmus test will be whether their "open" license is truly open.

I know this sounds terrible, but the litmus test will be whether another company should be able to theoretically use it to release their own standalone core rulebooks (obviously with different IP). The answer should be "yes".

Their should be no restrictions on media, video games, movies, whatever. No restrictions on the use of open game mechanics in any project. No rev share, no approval process, no "morals" clause (its just too subjective), etc. Open forever, worldwide, in perpetuity, un-revocable.

Open gaming should actually be open.

The success of WotC and 5e D&D, of Paizo, Kobold Press, Green Ronin, etc. has proven that a shared community of open game mechanics that still protects your IP, can lead to great success for everyone. No more walled gardens with respect to system mechanics.

 

[occam]

It seems an appropriate time to bring this up...

I have to say, in relation to Kobold Press specifically, I find myself sympathizing with WotC to some extent.

================

WotC: "Hey, you published our IP without properly crediting us, or paying us any money!"

Kobold Press: "We're planting our flag for open gaming!"

================

Me: "Hey, you published my IP without any kind of credit!"

Kobold Press: * crickets *

================

(BTW, I'm not the only person to whom this happened.) It's not really the same; after all, the OGL 1.0 gave KP the rights to publish what they did, so WotC has no (and is making no) historical claim. It didn't give them the rights to publish other people's intellectual property in violation of contract terms, though. But what could keep gaming more "available, open, and subscription-free" than that?!

 

[mamba]

I'm skeptical that OGL 1.0/a can be genuinely said to be irrevocable unless a court declares it to be so (and the decision survives appeal) or WotC creates an OGL 1.0b that explicitly spells out irrevocability of itself and the previous OGL versions.

agreed, but the opposite is also true…

 

[Composer99]

agreed, but the opposite is also true…

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.

 

[Reynard]

It seems an appropriate time to bring this up...

I have to say, in relation to Kobold Press specifically, I find myself sympathizing with WotC to some extent.

================

WotC: "Hey, you published our IP without properly crediting us, or paying us any money!"

Kobold Press: "We're planting our flag for open gaming!"

================

Me: "Hey, you published my IP without any kind of credit!"

Kobold Press: * crickets *

================

(BTW, I'm not the only person to whom this happened.) It's not really the same; after all, the OGL 1.0 gave KP the rights to publish what they did, so WotC has no (and is making no) historical claim. It didn't give them the rights to publish other people's intellectual property in violation of contract terms, though. But what could keep gaming more "available, open, and subscription-free" than that?!

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