So "Exodus Traveler's Handbook" is the name chosen for WotC D&D-in-space RPG

Prodromoi

Banded Mongoose
Apparently Wizards of the Coast have re-skinned D&D and quietly released it as a game called Exodus. "So what?", one might say...

"Exodus Traveler's Handbook" (with one L) is the title of their Player's Handbook-alike. I can't help but wonder if that name being chosen was entirely accidental.

Matt, what are your thoughts on this?


(Screenshot is from the webstore for buying Exodus. Another article that mentions it is here)
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2025-08-21 223519.png
    Screenshot 2025-08-21 223519.png
    915 KB · Views: 13
Last edited:
I wouldn't say quietly. The ttrpg is part of a much larger multimedia event. I first heard of it when I learned Peter F Hamilton was writing two tie in novels.

Exodus: the handbook has been out for a while, I just ordered their "Monster Manual" which is called the Exodus Encyclopedia or some such.

It's an interesting setting, but I wish I could get pdfs of the books - reading real books is now almost impossible for me.
 
Well, MWM had to put two 'L's' in Traveller due to the Traveler's Insurance Group's copywrite. I'm sure the same logic applies here.
As for WotC being a putz about this... Well, we know of HasBorg's past, don't we? It hasn't been 'by gamers for gamers' for quite some time.
 
Well, MWM had to put two 'L's' in Traveller due to the Traveler's Insurance Group's
Cite? Even Appelcline says it was for no other reason than to be distinctive.
copywrite [sic]
Urk? Copyright covers something completely different. This would be trademark - and trademarks only cover products in a specific sector. I could market Traveler brand laundry detergent and all the insurance company could do is send a nastygram - which I could cheerfully ignore.
 
Last edited:
I thought they had Star Frontiers, and Alternity, on the sidelines.

Unless, they plan on taking on Forty Kay directly.
 
Sue them hard enough to make that product line unprofitable and call it done. Hasbro/WOTC has done far worse to other companies.
 
I got the 'two L's in Traveller' from a Con panel by Chuck Gannon a million years ago. Perhaps he was wrong, or memories have faded, or whatever. It still saved GDW an annoying /expensive lawsuit.
 
I got the 'two L's in Traveller' from a Con panel by Chuck Gannon a million years ago. Perhaps he was wrong, or memories have faded, or whatever. It still saved GDW an annoying /expensive lawsuit.
How about searching for yourself and seeing how many different currently active trademarks there are using the words 'Traveler' and 'Traveller':


There would have been no lawsuit.
 
How about searching for yourself and seeing how many different currently active trademarks there are using the words 'Traveler' and 'Traveller':


There would have been no lawsuit.
Lawsuits don't need to meritorious to be expensive. It's a common strategy to file the same patent as someone else, and then sue them for violating your IP. Patent trolling, its called for patents, and it is good business, but seems like it could work with trademarks too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll There used to be a judge in Texas who would work with patent trolls to help meritless lawsuits succeed (at least until they went to appeal) for a small consideration - his jurisdiction saw more cases than anywhere else, since you could file in any jurisdiction, but his was one where the judge was willing to work with plaintiffs for a successful outcome. Don't know if he's still around, this was 20 years ago.

Since the suit would eventually fail if appealed, it was really about making it more expensive to defend the patent than to settle with the plaintiff, but that usually worked.

So no, lawsuits don't need to be meritorious to be useful.

I know that here in Finland, McDonald's sued a burger kiosk for selling Rye Burgers, if memory serves back in the 90s. (A hamburger on Finnish rye bread which is nothing like American rye bread, it is dark brown - no it does not make a good burger bun and it is absolutely not a thing you want to make a burger out of, but some people like it, or at least they order it, so what can you do?) The place had been selling them since forever, but McDonalds wanted to start selling them, so they made the kiosk stop calling it that. "Our lawyers can make your life hell," if you're a small kiosk owner- grill cook, you can't afford to fight it.

Not saying it could happen to Traveller, but life isn't fair and WoC doesn't seem like the kind of company that fights fair. I don't give two short shits about D&D, because it's not Traveller (except now maybe it is?) but its just what I hear.
 
Now explain to me how it is that all those companies use the Traveler trademark and nobody has ever sued anybody.

You're telling people to be afraid of the monster under the bed.
no, I'm telling you this is possible to do. Doesn't mean it will happen. That nobody has ever sued anyone (taking your word, but I also believe this to be the case) doesn't mean firms don't try to do this to each other. My impression of the Traveller scene is that it has been pushed forward by people who love the game, and maybe make a reasonable amount of money at it, or maybe just do it for fun, but there hasn't been any big money on the scene. If they have a disagreement, they'll negotiate, and not blow everything up fighting over their share. If the pile of money grows, this changes and the sharks swarm in.

Maybe this is just an accident by WotC, or maybe it is a deliberate effort to put some shine on their crappy game by giving the unwary the impression that it really is Traveller. Even if they are trying to colonize the IP, doesn't mean they'd win either.
 
There are oodles of entities who have trademarked the term 'Traveller' - two Ls - search yourself and see. What you're saying is that Mongoose is in danger unless they change the name of the game, and that is wrong by black letter law.

No entity can bring trademark action against another entity who is using a term they have trademarked outside the very narrow class of goods their trademark is granted for. Period.
I'm aware of the universal prevalence of the word "Traveller" - try reading Bluesky feeds about the game and you'll learn a lot about a certain ethnic minority but only see a post now and again about the scifi RPG. I am also NOT suggesting Mongoose change the name of the game - that would be exactly the wrong thing to do.

WotC knew exactly what they were doing when they wrote Traveler's Handbook on their book; that did not happen by accident, and the reason has to do with the existence and value of the Traveller RPG. Their lawyers would have looked at it, and decided that Mongoose wouldn't easily win a legal action against them. This is because, as you say, trademarks are interpreted narrowly.

The real question is why did WotC decide to do this? It makes them look pretty feeble, like a cheap knock-off brand that tries to fool people into thinking its the real thing (which is kind of what this is). It could be just this, and it won't go any further unless their game takes off, which it shouldn't do, but who knows?

They might also be trying to move in on the IP for later action. Traveller has a lot of IP managed in a not very professional way, precisely because it has been open to a Creative Commons kind of approach. No matter if you get contracts looked at by a lawyer, hobbyists and small scale entrepreneurs just won't be able to afford the expertise and consistent strategy of a corporate legal department, so there will be a lot of scope to use legal action to capture IP. If WotC decide it is time to move in and start monetizing Traveller, then they'll buy or steal what they can, sue anybody else still left publishing Traveller branded products, and try to bring the whole thing into their IP, so that anything happening in the space involves money flowing in their direction. Part of this would be to establish some kind of legitimacy - even if fake legitimacy - by having some products of their own that they can portray as somehow being a part of the Traveller scene.

If anybody brings a trademark action, it would be WotC after they've established themselves in the Traveller market, and they would do it not by trying to win a case - which wouldn't happen, because of the aforementioned narrow character of trademarks - but by establishing a plausible enough case to take it to court, preferably in a carefully selected jurisdiction which is favourable to them and expensive for Mongoose (or whoever is being sued) to fight the case in. If it doesn't get thrown out straight away, since WotC has deep pockets they can keep legal actions going forever, and this would force Mongoose to surrender. That's the normal way this is done.

This doesn't mean anything will come of this. Maybe they're just trying it out and will decide not to go this way, for whatever reason. Maybe their game will succeed on its own merits and they'll be happy to compete fair and square with the real Traveller.
 
Generic terms can't be patented, and, I doubt, trademarked.

In financial terms, what's valuable would be the name and the related intellectual property, which, to be fair, was never really leveraged into media content.

And, going by rumour, others have already taken what they wanted from the game, apparently Firefly, and The Expanse.
 
Okay, Rumour Control...

What has been posted above is mostly not how trade marks work :) The Traveller RPG has indeed been trade marked (as a registered trade mark), for both the current and Classic editions.

With regards to WotC and Exodus, as Bella said, lawyers have spoken and lines have been agreed and drawn. All is good.
 
The novel is up to Hamilton's usual epic standard, and the game setting is pretty interesting.

I doubt if I will run more than a couple of games with the 5e d20 rules, conversion to Traveler should be easy enough.
 
Back
Top