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!

 

[Mistwell]

Worlds without number is a good example of a 'middle ground' game of the style I'd be interested to see someone do with 5e.

A streamlining and simplifying treatment, not full rules lite.




It's not fundamental changes. It's the inevitable "small" changes that will add up.

Much like the 3.0 to 3.5 changes. Technically 'backwards compatible', but different enough that most groups just moved whole hog to the way 3.5 did things. It was just easier for most groups to move on, rather than trying to keep reconciling the two slightly different rules sets. The same with PF1 vs. 3.5...

That is why I view claims of 'backwards compatibility' as a big PR canard. (But evidently one that most RPG companies think is necessary for the player base.)

I think that Pazio finally figured the canard part out, and moved on with PF2 - which has seemed to work out for them.

Kobold needs to decide if they are going for true 100% compatibility; then do a pure 5e clone that just has some nomenclature changes, and make it actually fully backwards compatible.

If Kobold is just going to claim 'backwards compatibility' in the 3.5/PF1 sense... Then admit what you'd really like to do, and have the confidence to rebuild 5e from the ground up, actually fixing the known issues with the game that have come out over years of actual play.

I second the "with numbers" series of books. I kept hearing raves about it and finally downloaded the free Stars Without Number book and woah, that guy does GREAT work. Like really great work.

 

[Zaukrie]

I'd suggest stealing success and failure mechanics from PF. And 13th age has interesting dice mechanics.....

 

[Ruin Explorer]

3d printers are accusable now in ways that weren't really even a plausible near term thing at the time.

Sure but that doesn't solve the problem for two reasons:

1) They're still not very accessible - they're solely a toy for upper-middle-class people with a lot of space and disposable income.

2) They can't produce good, well-balanced, correctly weighted dice, or at least none I've used could. Not compared to random Chessex dice, let alone the really nice dice some people have.

 

[tetrasodium]

Sure but that doesn't solve the problem for two reasons:

1) They're still not very accessible - they're solely a toy for upper-middle-class people with a lot of space and disposable income.

I pulled this from google, also I can get permanent markers to draw on a d6/d8/d12 from my toolbox or the grocery store

2) They can't produce good, well-balanced, correctly weighted dice, or at least none I've used could. Not compared to random Chessex dice, let alone the really nice dice some people have.

They've mentioned doing dice & making it as easy as possible for folks to make them at a couple points.

Combat casting is broken - no more concentration saves. What mage wouldn't take this at level 1? Mental Fortitude is bonkers because they failed to think through the ramifications. Like you now end forcecage with a save (not escape - you end the spell), planeshift, magic jar, feeblemind, all sorts of spells now don't work the way they were supposed to work by this wording. The armored "talents" were all weirdly nerfed. School specialization is super clunky because you cannot backtrack your hit points and figure out what they were supposed to be. Polyglot is terrible, trade skills is extremely horrible, this playtest is all over the place.

This is a good example of why there isn't enough crunch to evaluate anything yet. Take combat casting, it's overly good if concentration checks are higher of 10 or 1/2 damage but things start changing fast if it's a new mechanic like DC=damage or something & they change again if armor is more important but harder for casters to use as a couple examples.

 

[SpaceOtter]

@Marc Radle
What I really want to see is active support for Theatre of the Mind play built in as an option. I want to see that the designers look at the static and rigid movement rates, ranges, etc. and recognise them as a legacy of the original game's wargaming roots, but that RPGs have better ways of handling TotM play now beyond the approach of eyeball/handwave it. That is not a condemnation of folks who like the very concrete legacy approach, but it's an area of the game's design that has been largely untouched for a very long time. I mean, here we are, decades later, and it seems like we're still stuck on "30 ft. move/move X squares or inches" and no willingness to embrace newer options.

If every movement rate is species-specific and static (all humans move 30 ft. for example) it's a bit dull imo, when movement should be exciting and even unpredictable! Look at chases, races, escapes, pursuits, even trying to outrun that honking great big boulder trap in flicks! As it stands, it's basically just boringly mathematical: You move X distance, They move Y distance, after Z rounds you have moved away/they have gained, etc. Great for play on the likes of battlemats, but not exciting at all. We roll for the excitement of combat and I posit that we should roll for the excitement of movement too.

I've submitted my feedback, but in brief here's what I do:

Speed 30 ft. is the baseline, which I represent as "+0".
Every 5 ft. above/below this is a +1/-1 modifier, so Speed 40 ft. would be "+2".
The GM sets a number of rounds for a race/chase to occur over, and everyone involved rolls d20 + Speed modifier each round, with successes indicating gaining/moving further away, failures indicating cinematic stumbles/trips/brief collisions with items in the environment, etc. that cause you to lose ground.
Characters can take actions during their chases/escapes that might force others involved to make appropriate rolls, such as toppling a merchant's stall to force a pursuer to make a Dex-related Save to avoid losing ground that round.

I'd love to see those old static movement rates presented like "Speed: 30 ft. (+0)". to facilitate this approach for TotM play and more exciting movement. It's also useful because a) it's really easy to convert from 5e, b) it takes up little extra space, and c) it means you can optionally modify the speed/movement rate using DEX or CON as needed (for short sprints/long distance runs) and this nixes the idea that Stumpy Roland, Cleric, can leg it as quickly as Rolanda the Lean, Rogue.

I'd also love to see them implement zone-based combat as an option, and abstract areas of effect by using the likes of the "Strikes d4+2 targets" approach that was featured in the back of the DMG as an option.

 

[mamba]

They're going so far afield, I expect the conversations about whether what they're making is "really" 5E have already started.

Didn't they basically say right from the start that they aren't ?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Didn't they basically say right from the start that they aren't ?

They may have. The moment I heard "funky dice," I checked out.

 

[Reynard]

They may have. The moment I heard "funky dice," I checked out.

It's interesting that funky dice was your line. Do you mind expounding a little? Is it because you don't like proprietary components in general? Do you find symbol based resolution less satisfying or harder? Do you think it is gimmicky? Is there a dice mechanic that doesn't include funky dice that would inspire you to nope out just as quickly?

Note that I am not trying to argue with you or defend that choice by MCDM. I am honestly curious.

 

[Zaukrie]

It's interesting that funky dice was your line. Do you mind expounding a little? Is it because you don't like proprietary components in general? Do you find symbol based resolution less satisfying or harder? Do you think it is gimmicky? Is there a dice mechanic that doesn't include funky dice that would inspire you to nope out just as quickly?

Note that I am not trying to argue with you or defend that choice by MCDM. I am honestly curious.

I don't want to buy more dice. I don't want to look up on a table what happens. I'm also not the person you asked....

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

It's interesting that funky dice was your line. Do you mind expounding a little? Is it because you don't like proprietary components in general? Do you find symbol based resolution less satisfying or harder? Do you think it is gimmicky? Is there a dice mechanic that doesn't include funky dice that would inspire you to nope out just as quickly?

Note that I am not trying to argue with you or defend that choice by MCDM. I am honestly curious.

I largely play online nowadays and don't like requiring my players -- many of whom have been new to gaming over the years and others of whom have struggled a lot financially in recent years -- spend any money. Proprietary dice typically can't work with online dice rollers.

Further, they're usually unnecessary, IMO, especially for six-sided die (which many of the funky dice tend to be). Just make them d6s with bonus decorations.

I am very focused on the at-table experience, physical or virtual, and funky dice usually means the designers are less concerned about that than I am. MCDM will do fine without my dollars, especially since I will continue to watch Colville's DM advice videos and even his eccentric takes on movies and novels.