ATU OGL Books? What are you looking for?

[kristof65]

Over the weekend, while cleaning out a corner of my basement, I came across a sci-fi setting I wrote for a company that was looking to publish a minis game in the early 90s. The rules themselves sucked, and the project was ultimately abandoned because of their inability to get a decent rules system working. Which was a shame, because everyone involved in the play testing loved the setting. Fortunately, the rights to the setting reverted to me, and I stored my materials away somewhere thinking I might find another use for them someday for my own, or someone elses miniature's game. I had pretty much forgotten I still had the materials - I honestly thought the only thing left was what was in my head.

Reading over them again, I realized that the Traveller OGL would work as a way for me to actually publish the setting, and in the long run, do better justice to the setting than a mini's game would. Before I embark down that path, I'm kind of curious as to what most traveller player's/GMs would find useful/desirable in published ATUs?

I'm going to try and keep my questions as generic as possible, so that other potential Traveller authors find the thread useful as well.

- Is an original, creative setting more or less appealing than a licensed setting?

- what kind of things in a setting would make it a "must buy" or "must avoid?"

- how much of the SRD should a setting source book contain? (IE, if a setting can use Traveller careers, skills and tasks as is or with only minor differences, should things like the skills and tasks systems be included since they are OGL?)

- one book, or many? In other words, should a designer shoot for one book containing as much as possible, or break it down into 2-3 books.

- are there any particular setting books you'ld want to advise as good or bad examples of publishing an OGL setting? (for any rulesystem, not just Traveller).

 

[GypsyComet]

- how much of the SRD should a setting source book contain? (IE, if a setting can use Traveller careers, skills and tasks as is or with only minor differences, should things like the skills and tasks systems be included since they are OGL?)

Because there are bits missing from the SRD, you'll want to aim people at owning the Traveller (or whatever) book as well. As such, quote only enough to provide context for the changes you need to make. Save *your* pages for *your* stuff as much as possible.

- one book, or many? In other words, should a designer shoot for one book containing as much as possible, or break it down into 2-3 books.

Develop all the "necessities". If you have obligatory pagecount left over in your basic book, start in on the optional stuff there, then plan to move on into one or more add-on books. For a space setting, your basic book can usefully touch on all the differences, but if your tech is radically different and your worlds need details to make the setting really pop, each will need its own book.

- are there any particular setting books you'ld want to advise as good or bad examples of publishing an OGL setting? (for any rulesystem, not just Traveller).

The Green Ronin historical setting books for D20 were *built* about right, IMO, whether or not the actual material was terribly interesting.

 

[kristof65]

Because there are bits missing from the SRD, you'll want to aim people at owning the Traveller (or whatever) book as well. As such, quote only enough to provide context for the changes you need to make. Save *your* pages for *your* stuff as much as possible.

That's my preference, too. I just recall seeing some discussion about that issue in regards to B5 and Hammer's Slammers, and people wanting that stuff included in the basic books for those ATUs. I am hoping that opinion was mostly because they are licensed Mongoose products, rather than a general feeling for ATUs overall.

Thanks for the feedback. I pretty much feel like I "know" the answers to most of these, I just want to make sure I don't have any pre-conceived notions that are contrary to popular opinion.

 

[Empty Hex]

Is an original, creative setting more or less appealing than a licensed setting?

Obviously, it depends on the setting. I would probably be a hell of a lot more interested in "Traveller: Dune" than an original setting, but I'd sooner check out an original setting than "Traveller: Cleopatra 2525."

what kind of things in a setting would make it a "must buy" or "must avoid?"

A "must buy" for me would be modular; something that's totally compatible with the main rulebook but with bits and pieces (particularly alternate systems for jump travel, alternate psionics, etc.) that I could borrow and integrate into my settings or even an altered OTU.

A "must avoid" would be something so self-contained and esoteric that it has no use for anyone except those playing exactly that setting, or the other extreme: a setting that doesn't really differ from the OTU except a few name changes and some pointless quirks.

how much of the SRD should a setting source book contain? (IE, if a setting can use Traveller careers, skills and tasks as is or with only minor differences, should things like the skills and tasks systems be included since they are OGL?)

Minimal. I don't want to buy the same book over and over again. In most cases, I think you can just state some changes briefly and let people infer things for themselves. For example, if your setting's army uses medieval roles instead of modern army ranks, you can just mention that briefly and not rewrite the whole 'Army' career entry so the ranks have news names.

one book, or many? In other words, should a designer shoot for one book containing as much as possible, or break it down into 2-3 books.

I prefer one book, but if that's not possible, I think the best approach is to have a 'player book' and a 'referee book' that are completely distinct in function. For example, one having new rules and the other having the new setting.

are there any particular setting books you'ld want to advise as good or bad examples of publishing an OGL setting? (for any rulesystem, not just Traveller).

I think Privateer Press' Iron Kingdoms books (both the Character Guide and the World Guide together) represent the best example of someone taking a rulesystem and really making something both unique and useful out of it.

I would also recommend the old Megatraveller 'Hard Times' book as an example of how to create a setting with a drastically different flavor that doesn't deviate too much from the main rules.

As an example of what not to do, I'd say look at something like Monte Cook's Ptolus. While it's a brilliant and wonderful piece of work, it's pretty much useless unless you're content to remain within the bounds of the author's vision.

 

[AKAramis]

Licensed settings have a built-in fanbase, but are not as long-term stable a fan base.

Created settings, if well written, accessible, and providing for PC's to have room to adventure, tend to be better long term (like the OTU, or Forgotten Realms, Kalamar, or even Jorune), but tend also to be harder for newbs to grok.

Market needs both, really.

 

[kristof65]

Market needs both, really.

That's what i really want to hear...

 

[Supergamera]

If you're going to develop a setting, you should ask yourself a few questions first:

"What can my setting offer that existing settings (in this case, the OTU) can't?"
"How can I offer a setting that enables the GM, rather than limits them into my vision?"

 

[rust]

- what kind of things in a setting would make it a "must buy" or "must avoid?"

I usually buy other settings to "mine" them for useful material for my
own "homegrown" settings, so a "must buy" would be one with many
interesting ideas, and a "must avoid" would be one that contains only
material I could also find elsewhere.

- how much of the SRD should a setting source book contain? (IE, if a setting can use Traveller careers, skills and tasks as is or with only minor differences, should things like the skills and tasks systems be included since they are OGL?)

In my opinion as few as possible or necessary, because I have the SRD
and would hesitate to spend money on material I already have.

- one book, or many? In other words, should a designer shoot for one book containing as much as possible, or break it down into 2-3 books.

One book should be sufficient for a playable setting, it really should not
need more. Additional supplements to add more detail could be fine, but
the setting should feel "complete" without them.

 

[Zowy]

A StarTown building book, with examples. A Used ship and salvage yard book, would be nice. My players tend to get into trouble alot :wink: The need for cheep spare parts, somewhere to fence their loot and make shady deals tends to come up alot :evil:

 

[rust]

A StarTown building book, with examples.

An excellent idea, I would definitely buy it.

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

I LOVE setting books.

Keep it rules light and fluff heavy. Give me something different than the OTU. I just don't mean different government and aliens, but different underlying assumptions, then explore and explain them so that they make sense and I can extrapolate from them to my version of the setting.

Give me lots of plot hooks!

 

[kristof65]

...but different underlying assumptions, then explore and explain them so that they make sense and I can extrapolate from them to my version of the setting.

That's basically the whole foundation of my setting - I make two major underlying assumptions - basically, the nature of FTL and the circumstances of Earth's first alien contact. I explore enough of the history, races, etc to give a viable (and hopefully beleivable) interstellar setting, and that's it. The rest is up for extrapolation by the GM.

Honestly - since I originally designed it as the background of a mini's based wargame, I have no preconceptions about where it goes from there, other than it's a place full of strife and conflict. Which, coincidently, seems to be a good place for PCs to hang out.

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

Sounds good to me!

 

[Golan2072]

- Is an original, creative setting more or less appealing than a licensed setting?

I'd prefer an original setting over a licensed one, especially if the original setting is particularly tailored towards gaming in general and Traveller in particular.

- what kind of things in a setting would make it a "must buy" or "must avoid?"

Features of Good Settings:
- A setting that facilitates play, allows PCs to make a difference and allows the PCs to be the heroes (or villains!).
- An interesting and new setting with interesting and new ideas, or, for the very least, a refreshing rendition of good sci-fi concepts.
- A setting that allows a variety of play-styles and campaign types - for the very least it should support military games, games of exploration and merchant campaigns.
- A setting that takes into account the Traveller rules and assumptions and is designed to be play well with them.

Features of Bad Settings:
- Settings that overly restrict players' and referees' freedom and/or reduces their abilities to make a difference and be heroes/villains.
- Settings that don't take into account the Traveller system and the nature of the game and thus doesn't clinch well with actual gameplay.

- how much of the SRD should a setting source book contain? (IE, if a setting can use Traveller careers, skills and tasks as is or with only minor differences, should things like the skills and tasks systems be included since they are OGL?)

As little as possible; I already have the MGT book so all the rules I need in a setting book are for setting-specific rule changes, and even then they shouldn't be too extensive - no need to re-invent the wheel.

- one book, or many? In other words, should a designer shoot for one book containing as much as possible, or break it down into 2-3 books.

I prefer having a basic setting book giving me a good overview, and, if I really like it, additional books focusing on specific aspects of that setting (an area, an alien race, a campaign type and so on). The basic book should be completely usable and playable as-is.

 

[kristof65]

- A setting that takes into account the Traveller rules and assumptions and is designed to be play well with them.

Features of Bad Settings:
- Settings that don't take into account the Traveller system and the nature of the game and thus doesn't clinch well with actual gameplay.

Just to be sure we're on the same page, can you expand on what you mean by this?

 

[Golan2072]

What I mean is that the implied flavor in the text should match the feel you get from playing it. This is especially important if major technological assumptions in the setting differ from vanilla MGT, and even more important if this is a licensed setting (as getting the right feel in play is the main reason for using it rather than an original setting).

The setting and any additional material should be fully playable. For example, if you're providing military ship designs they should be more or less effective in MGT space combat (this was an issue with some official OTU ships, in CT's/MT's Fighting Ships IIRC). New item stats should be balanced and fit will with existing items. New careers should be more or less on par with the existing ones in terms of skill diversity and power level.

Don't get me wrong - I see no problem with altering the rules as much as you need to fit the new setting, as long as the rules work as intended and convey the setting-appropriate feel.

 

[kristof65]

Ok, we're on the same page then. But that brings up some specific questions about how to deal with some things.

1. As I stated previously, I make a different assumption about FTL. This has two major effects as far as rules are concerned:

1a. Of course, it is going to require me to re-write some of the ship design rules - though I'm trying to minimize the re-write to the absolutely essential things, which is primarly the FTL drive. But part of that is that my version of FTL has an upper size limit that is much lower than the OTU. This is going to affect the portability of ships between my setting and the OTU. Many of the smaller OTU designs could be easily converted to my setting, I don't know that the reverse will be so easy.

1b. Sector Maps. Without going into detail, my FTL assumption doesn't work very easily on the standard Traveller Sub-sector hex map. I've "stolen" another mapping technique that fits better, and should be just as easily interpreted. But you aren't going to be able to swap star maps between the two settings.

Personally, I don't see any issues with those things being "incompatible" with the OTU, but perhaps I'm overlooking something?

2. How to deal with things that are in Traveller, but are not in my setting. For example, Psionics. There is nothing within the setting that explicitly forbids or requires them, they just aren't there. There is no reason a GM can't add them for his campaign, but I want it clear to players that they are not an assumed part of my setting.

 

[Jame Rowe]

I agree with most of the posters; I don't mind an alternate setting, but if you're going to make an alternate setting with an alternate FTLD, then some notes on how the drive works and how it integrates with whatever version of the Traveller rules you're using are a required addition.

Other than that, I'd love to see what you have.

 

[Golan2072]

Personally, I don't see any issues with those things being "incompatible" with the OTU, but perhaps I'm overlooking something?

I don't see any problem with settings being incompatible with the OTU - to the contrary, I'm quite interested in different settings offering something new than additional OTU material. My point was about rule compatibility and gameplay compatibility, not OTU compatibility if you're using a different universe.

 

[kristof65]

My point was about rule compatibility and gameplay compatibility, not OTU compatibility if you're using a different universe.

Yep, I get that - it just led my thoughts off on a tangent, because I see a disconnect between OTU ships and my setting ships. Frex, ships in my setting will typically be faster and able to carry more cargo than an OTU one when compared ton for ton. Within the setting, this isn't an issue. If someone takes the FTL concepts and builds their own ATU based on them, it won't be a problem. Dump one of these ships and it's underlying tech in the OTU or vice versa - it's a problem.

Truth is, the gameplay and rule things are why I'm suddenly drawn to this project again. With the Traveller rules now OGL, I can focus purely on the setting, and the few rules I need to make things work, rather than trying to design an entire balanced rules system from the ground up. For me, it's always been easier to keep my add ons balanced, than it has an entire system - mostly because I can't decided what to tweak, and keep on tweaking.

Whether or not I get the setting book complete, I am going to release the FTL stuff and mapping stuff as OGL just because.