Ask Your TAS Question Here

[phavoc]

So, TAS is a bit like the hardcopy JTAS of old? A digital magazine for the non-entrepreneur (and maybe some entrepreneurs) to submit articles pertaining to Traveller and adding to the universe? I've missed those sources for the small additions from short adventures to a new weapon, beasty or instrument and new ideas that people can plug in to their games.

No, the new TAS is a publishing system for releasing work via DriveThrough. But the terms seem a bit onerous for publishers of 3rd party material - at least those professional ones. For casual publishers, it's not as much of an issue. Anybody whose trying to build up their own body of work kind of gets screwed with the terms.

I liked the old JTAS articles too. But this ain't gonna be it.

 

[dmccoy1693]

But for full-time publishers it's kind of a raw deal. The terms are pretty one-sided - 50% royalties to Drivethrough, irrevocable terms, etc. Basically once you are in, you are in for life with that content.

That's about the size of it, but I'm sticking with it, for otu material only.

 

[phavoc]

There really needs to be a logical split here. One agreement set to cover the more professional side of publishing, and the other for the amateur side where players/fans are looking to publish their won things. It wouldn't be terribly hard to have two license agreements, as most 3PP would use boilerplate. That's not at all unusual for other industries.

I can see where whoever drafted the agreement they looked to screw the other party first. That's the nature of most licenses if you don't push back. And if you have no real leverage then it's a our way or the highway sort of deal. But it really leaves a raw tasted in peoples mouth, and it does nothing to build up a relationship between the parties. In the e-book publishing they (major publishing houses) to 75% of the profits to go the publisher, and only 25% to the author. Down from the 50% for hardbacks. Now if you are Stephen King or some other big name you have the clout to push back. But otherwise it's another take it or leave it. I've seen some of those contracts and they just suck.

And here, being asked to give up your IP with no guarantee of compensation from the publisher if they choose to use it, just really sucks. It needs to be a 2-way street if they expect quality work to be created and published. If there's no money, it's a labor of love, and if it's a labor of love you can find other way to release it for free and the publisher still gets nothing out of it. Traveller has suffered for a long time from a dearth of regular materials being published. Source books are one thing, but games need a constant infusion of new things to keep players and refs interested. Otherwise it will, like Traveller has, fall to the grognards... and they aren't enough to keep the lights on indefinitely.

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

I suspect that if you want a more professional license, you can talk to Matt about obtaining one. I suspect it will cost you though, as a license to publish any other material normally would.

If you want to publish using 2nd Edition stuff or OTU stuff, it is TAS right now.

If you want to publish stuff using the OGL, that is still there, but you have to use the 1st Edition rules.

I also suspect that trying to port over 2nd Edition rules into your OGL material will be frowned upon - but, some of the things incorporated (Boon/Bane) is already OGL in other systems, so adapting that to the Traveller OGL is perfectly fine. Don't try to change the Electronics Skill though...

Regarding giving up the IP license, for many people that isn't a big deal. I could create a setting and continue to publish things about that setting. BUT, I would have to allow others to publish stuff in my setting as well. Some people would be OK with that (don't use TAS) and some will be fine with it (use TAS).

This is very similar to how D&D5e ended up. No OGL, but this kind of a marketing idea.

Also, DTRPG already takes 25% of the price, so basically, Mongoose takes another 25% and I keep 50% and get to publish OTU stuff, or at least use OTU material in my work.

I know the IP ownership is a big deal to some people, I get that. But, I also think that many things once published for Traveller (especially Traveller) or other RPGs are pretty open once published anyway. Most of the stuff I have written, I assume Referee's are going to change anyway, so if they publish those changes, I am good with it - for the most part.

There are a lot of people that like the Chamax - Now you can publish a book about how the Chamax Plague extends into the Spinward Marches and impacts the Imperium's fight against VIRUS if you like...

Regarding concerns about Payment - DTRPG has been around for a while and has a decent reputation for paying people. I don't see that changing any time soon.

In the end, it is the call of every writer/publisher to decide if these TAS rules are acceptable for their stuff or if they want to stay with the OGL material and keep the IP info and the other 25% of the sale price.

 

[Golan2072]

Our (small) RPG-related company, Stellagama Publishing, intends to publish several products based on 2d6 sci-fi. We have already published three products for White Star, a sci-fi ruleset based on the Swords & Wizardry engine. We already have two products - short rule supplement related to mortal injury and techno-resurrection and a corporate-espionage adventure - in layout stages; the first (the adventure) should be ready in one or two weeks.

We are also working on two additional products which are much longer. One is a "Space Patrol" supplement related to interstellar law enforcement and the other is a full-blown original sci-fi setting.

None of the products contains any IP related to the Third Imperium. Most are setting-neutral.

The reasons we want to use TAS are:

1) Claim compatibility with the MGT 2e rules.

2) Have access to the market opened by TAS and by association and compatibility with the official, up-to-date Traveller rules.

What we need to be sure about (clearly stated in the legal document we sign):

1) That we have full control of our "core" IP. That is, that we retain ownership of the main IP of our products, especially the settings, and can use it as we see fit. We don't mind other people using pieces of our IP in their products or claiming compatibility with it. But we want to have ownership of the material itself, especially the setting. And that we could publish our products, even if it needs conversion to the older OGL rules (i.e. remove references to official Traveller), even in the case TAS gets shut down and/or the license is revoked.

2) That we can publish our own full-blown original setting without being restricted to the OTU.

3) That we can use crowdfunding for our products. This is due to the cost of art and potentially layout for bigger products; crowdfunding means being able to fund more art without having to pitch in significant sums which might not be fully returned.

4) That we can market my product through any avenue we wish, i.e. advertise it on our blog/site/G+/FB.

5) That we can offer PoD options for customers. This means a significant increase in sales as many customers desire a print copy.

6) That we can clearly display the Stellagama Publishing logo on the cover, next to the Mongoose or TAS logo.

Again, no Third Imperium IP content in any of our products. We just want to claim compatibility with your up-to-date rules (and hence support them as a 3PP).

Without having the above conditions satisfied, we will find it difficult from a business standpoint to publish material through TAS, and will possibly be forced to consider using the OGL in order to avoid infringing on Mongoose IP while retaining control of our products.

We will most likely publish our short products through TAS anyway, but bigger products would be more difficult for us to publish through the TAS as it stands.

50% royalties are completely OK for small products using stock art and in-house layout work, but once we add original art, the profit margins shrink considerably and price might have to go significantly up to compensate (and allow us to cover the art costs).

 

[phavoc]

TAS works well for casual publishers and creators. It doesn't work well for others because of costs, IP rights, etc. I understand why MGT is doing it, but it would appear that by doing so they are destroying their existing 3rd party publishers. Which is a shame because some of their work exceeds the official stuff.

If you make the terms too onerous (such as having to give up your IP), or take away too much of the profit (50%), then there is no incentive to publish this as a business. So that leaves you with people who do it for fun and are happy to monetize their pleasure. There's nothing wrong with it, but what you will most likely see is a drop in overall quality. As others have pointed out, art isn't free (even most bad art costs you money), and people who are creating content deserve to be fairly compensated.

There's really no loss to MGT in this sense, especially since most of the 3rd party people aren't competing with MGT. The only competition is for a gamer's dollar. And that competition exists outside of this discussion - always has and always will. The stuff being released by say GKG or JBE or Middenface hasn't taken away at all from the core MGT product line. If anything, in my opinion as a customer of all three, it's helped MGT by adding more content to the system. I see MGT as providing the core products, the main course if you will. And the 3rd parties provide the desert. Done properly everyone wins - especially the gamer.

I also hope it's not a grab by DTRPG to get exclusivity. It wouldn't be the first time a company took advantage of it's position at the top to try and squash other competitors through restrictive agreements and licensing. There is a long and very dirty list of companies who tried the same tactic (some worked, others spectacularly blew up in their face when customers revolted).

I do hope this is sorted out relatively quickly. Over on the COTI forum Matt has said this was not their intent, so hopefully this was one of those contract agreement issues that slipped through the crack.

 

[dmccoy1693]

I also hope it's not a grab by DTRPG to get exclusivity.

Oh it most definitely is. Make no mistake about that. You don't see DriveThru doing this for 13th Age, because they sell at the OpenGamingStore. They're not doing this with Pathfinder because they sell at Paizo, and no pathfinder compatible publisher would agree to this license since it would require them to stop selling at Paizo. They are only doing this with game systems where the main publisher is exclusive to DriveThru, and this:

• keeps the main publisher from looking for a better deal elsewhere
• keeps the compatible publishers from selling in other venues (I have to take down my Foreven Traveller books down from OpenGamingStore, afterall)
• eats away at drivethru's competition's market share

The main publishers like it since they can get a little extra money, don't have to choose between putting an OGL in their core book or taking the time to create a long SRD, and they get direct information about how much their licensees are selling. That last one is considerably more valuable than you can realize. If MWP suddenly sees that an old west setting or book is selling like hot cakes for the Cortex system, don't you think they'd create their own book covering the same genre. So for DriveThru to offer that ability to the publishers, its one hell of a tempting offer that I doubt I couldn't turn up

 

[phavoc]

I had been under the impression the Foreven sector was always to be open for people to write for?

So have they revoked that long standing license?

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

I don't think so.

Foreven is now part of the expanded OTU agreement under TAS.

 

[Nerhesi]

As stated earlier (I haven't been corrected thus far)... TAS has nothing to do with official Mongoose publications or being "Canon".

We can have a half dozen of us, each publish full supplements detailing Foreven, The Beyond, Zhodane, etc... ultimately, that is not Canon.

So Mongoose then releases a supplement for The Beyond, and it is the Canon version.

As for Foreven, the rule seems to be that there won't be any Canon publications for it. So we are free to create whatever we want. This is the same as it was pre-TAS.

 

[dmccoy1693]

As stated earlier (I haven't been corrected thus far)... TAS has nothing to do with official Mongoose publications or being "Canon".

We can have a half dozen of us, each publish full supplements detailing Foreven, The Beyond, Zhodane, etc... ultimately, that is not Canon.

So Mongoose then releases a supplement for The Beyond, and it is the Canon version.

As for Foreven, the rule seems to be that there won't be any Canon publications for it. So we are free to create whatever we want. This is the same as it was pre-TAS.

Correct good sir.

 

[MongooseMatt]

Can anything from the OTU be used, even things not published by Mongoose?[/b] So if I wanted to publish something from The Beyond sector (just as an example), even though it was originally published by FASA and Mongoose has not yet covered that sector, can I work with that material?

As yet, no - stick with Mongoose Third Imperium material. This may well change (we have already discussed this with Mr Miller), but we want to make sure TAS is working for everyone first.

Note: At this time, this _does_ include Third Imperium books printed by Mongoose for the previous edition as they have not been outmoded by the new rules.

Can I publish my own non-OTU setting with TAS?[/b] If I create my own setting with the Travellers' Aid Society, will it still be mine or no one but me can publish for it?

We are working on this as a priority - we will set up a system whereby you retain ownership of your own work (though if it uses the Traveller rules and, especially, the Third Imperium setting, you can only publish it through TAS).

Doesn't this mean Marc W Miller loses control over the OTU too?

No - and this is really the reason for TAS. Basically, it keeps everything in one place where Mr Miller is able to retain control of his own work - but he is very keen for everyone else to put their own spin on things, in an environment where other players cabn pick and choose what they want to use and there is always a touchstone of 'true canon' if you will, which will be material published by Mongoose and Mr Miller.

Best of both worlds, really!

There appears to be more to the "rules" of the TAS than was posted by Matt. Especially related to the ownership of the IP and what DTRPG takes above their normal 25% of the sale.

As mentioned above, this is a priority for us. We want people to be comfortable with TAS, and it is certainly not our intention to use it to hoover up everyone's work and call it our own. Give us a few more days on this and I am sure we can present something far more agreeable to you all!

May I publish ships created with 1st edtion / 1st edition High Guard?[/b] It says "current edition", but for ship building, the current edition is 1st.

Good point However, no. By current, we mean the new range of Traveller books, that have the new style logo (and don't worry, the new High Guard is very close to being published!). The one exception to this is material from our older Third Imperium-branded books. These may be revised in the future but, for now, they are the best source for OTU material so we are happy for you to use them.

 

[Pyromancer]

As mentioned above, this is a priority for us. We want people to be comfortable with TAS, and it is certainly not our intention to use it to hoover up everyone's work and call it our own. Give us a few more days on this and I am sure we can present something far more agreeable to you all!

Is there an update on this?

 

[Pyromancer]

Is there a restriction on the language used? Can I publish material in a language other than English?

 

[MongooseMatt]

Is there a restriction on the language used? Can I publish material in a language other than English?

It has to be English for now, but expect this to change in the future.

 

[Pyromancer]

Is there a connection between Mongoose and travellermap.com? Am I allowed to use maps from travellermap.com in TAS products?

 

[MongooseMatt]

In terms of direct screenshots... probably not.

However, we regard Travellermap as canon and, in fact, will be including a chapter on it in the Traveller Companion. You would certainly be allowed to use the UWPs on the site.

 

[Pyromancer]

In terms of direct screenshots... probably not.

However, we regard Travellermap as canon and, in fact, will be including a chapter on it in the Traveller Companion. You would certainly be allowed to use the UWPs on the site.

I guess I'll have to paint my own starmaps then. They will look suspiciously similar to the ones on travellermap, but I will try to make them different somehow...