Traveller Developer's Pack

[dmccoy1693]

I understand the desire of Mongoose to protect their intellectual property and to nurture a successful product line, but I wonder whether there might be a better way to encourage better third-party support for Traveller.

To be entirely frank, the reason I haven't devoted as much time to Traveller to as I have to Pathfinder products is simple: sales. My print books sell better with Pathfinder then they do with Traveller. i.e. My last Traveller book sold 150-200 copies while my last Pathfinder book sold 500-600 copies. Combine that with the level of work that is needed to be done with each to inform the respective audiences and store owners. I sneeze Pathfinder and game stores are handing out tissues, but I can yell that I support Traveller from mountaintops and social networks and the most frequent question I get is, "You mean the 30 year old game where you can die in character generation?" atleast that is, when I get a question. And those that do know about MGT have little clue there are licensees. Going game stores is a tough market to break into. The relative market size does not help.

IMO, Mongoose has done everything i hoped they would with Traveller. The license is free, easy to use, the core book is a complete game, and there are 3 essential books to work from. Had they put the OGL in the books themselves and said, "these sections are open content," I doubt much if anything would have changed for us, except possible increase in confusion. If the Product Identity/Open Content statements are not worded unambiguously (and I've seen many that are ambiguous), it can be a nightmare parsing out what is and is not open content. I mean it would be nice to use minor rules set A from book B but I have not yet used the Mercenary ticket generation system in any of my books and I doubt I will. I suspect a similar situation would emerge with all the other rules systems add-ons if they had been open content. So I have no complaints about what Mongoose has or has not done.

EDIT: Sorry Prime Evil, I originally sent this as a PM when I intended this to be public. Sorry about that.

 

[Prime_Evil]

To be entirely frank, the reason I haven't devoted as much time to Traveller to as I have to Pathfinder products is simple: sales. My print books sell better with Pathfinder then they do with Traveller. i.e. My last Traveller book sold 150-200 copies while my last Pathfinder book sold 500-600 copies. Combine that with the level of work that is needed to be done with each to inform the respective audiences and store owners. I sneeze Pathfinder and game stores are handing out tissues, but I can yell that I support Traveller from mountaintops and social networks and the most frequent question I get is, "You mean the 30 year old game where you can die in character generation?" atleast that is, when I get a question. And those that do know about MGT have little clue there are licensees. Going game stores is a tough market to break into. The relative market size does not help.

I think that SF roleplaying has always been the poor cousin of fantasy roleplaying for a whole heap of reasons. Pathfinder is doing well at the moment largely because it is becoming the dominant player in the lucrative fantasy genre. It doesn't hurt that Paizo actively promotes high-quality third-party publications in a way that WoTC never did back in the 3.5 era. One of the reasons that I single out Paizo for comparison is that their public relations work is second to none - they have done an outstanding job of building a community around their games to the point where they are seriously challenging D&D for the top spot in the industry.

I think that producing support material for SF games such as Traveller was more viable from an economic standpoint when the RPG industry as a whole was larger - I suspect that the slice of the pie associated with that particular market segment was proportionally the same as it is now but the pie as a whole was larger. This made it viable for second-tier publishers such as Judges Guild and FASA to produce licensed product lines supporting Traveller back in the day. As the RPG industry shrinks, the economic incentive to produce third-party support for anything other than the dominant games decreases.

The way that people tend to remember Traveller as "the 30 year old game where you can die in character generation" is interesting. Unfortunately, Traveller hasn't been in continuous publication over that period due to the dissolution of GDW in the early 1990s. As a consequence, many people remember it as a quaint footnote in the history of RPGs rather than as a contemporary game with an active fan community.

As an aside, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say something blasphemous - the close identification of the Traveller ruleset with the OTU in the minds of many gamers actively hurts the position of the system in the market. Traveller is not the game that people go to if they're looking for a generic SF system that can handle everything from near-future cyberpunk to space opera in a galaxy far, far away - even though it is theoretically capable of doing both of those things. Gamers are more likely to turn to GURPS or Chaosium's BRP if they are looking for a system that can fill that particular niche.

Don't get me wrong - I love the OTU and enjoy playing in it, but I wonder if Traveller would do better if it were marketed as a more generic SF ruleset capable of handling many different settings?

(As a comparison, it might be worth looking at the close association between Runequest and Glorantha in the minds of many gamers. The Mongoose Runequest II product line was an excellent rule system, but I know many gamers who wouldn't go near it because they don't like Glorantha and in their minds the two things are equivalent. From this perspective, rebranding Runequest II as Legend may actually be a good marketing move to draw in new players).

IMO, Mongoose has done everything i hoped they would with Traveller. The license is free, easy to use, the core book is a complete game, and there are 3 essential books to work from.

Don't get me wrong. I appreciate the fact that Mongoose has released as much material as they have under the OGL. I also enjoy seeing what third-party publishers do with the material that is already available. But it's hard to view some of the juicy extensions to the core rules that have been published by Mongoose (such as vehicles or cybernetics or robots) without wishing that third-party publishers could use some of the material from them too

Had they put the OGL in the books themselves and said, "these sections are open content," I doubt much if anything would have changed for us, except possible increase in confusion. If the Product Identity/Open Content statements are not worded unambiguously (and I've seen many that are ambiguous), it can be a nightmare parsing out what is and is not open content.

And yet this seems to be the approach that Mongoose is taking with Legend, based upon the few public statements released so far. I agree that ambiguous Product Identity/Open Content statements can be a nightmare. Indeed, I recall that a number of publishers during the d20 boom (*cough* White Wolf *cough*) deliberately introduced ambiguities intended to make it impossible for other companies to re-use OGC from their books.

Here's where the model pioneeered by Pathfinder comes into play. Paizo has provided a new model for licensing material under the OGL that is not dependent upon the ongoing maintenance of a System Reference Document but which makes it very clear what material is available for use by third-party publishers as OGC and what material is not. The interesting thing about this model is that not all of the material released as OGC is available for use in works that bear the Pathfinder Compatible logo - only OGC from those works listed on the Compatibility License page may be referenced in works bearing the logo.

This seems to be a more flexible approach than the one pioneered by WoTC back in the early d20 days, which was built exculsively upon the concept of a well-maintained SRD (an idea that was gradually dropped due to the workload involved).

I mean it would be nice to use minor rules set A from book B but I have not yet used the Mercenary ticket generation system in any of my books and I doubt I will. I suspect a similar situation would emerge with all the other rules systems add-ons if they had been open content.

It's certainly true that different publishers will use different parts of the available OGC, and that's cool. The Mercenary Ticket Generation System might not be of much interest to you, but it might turn out to be vital to some crazy person out there who decides to produce a book of Mercenary adventures...

So I have no complaints about what Mongoose has or has not done

Neither do I. Mongoose has done a great job of reviving classic Traveller and has been kind enough to let other people play in their sandbox. My comments aren't intended as a criticism - I am merely asking whether there might be an alternative approach that reduces the amount of effort required to update the SRD.

EDIT: Sorry Prime Evil, I originally sent this as a PM when I intended this to be public. Sorry about that.

No problems! I really appreciate hearing your thoughts on the matter. I also respect the work that Jon Brazer Enterprises has done to support Mongoose Traveller - it is obviously a labour of love for you guys!

 

[dmccoy1693]

Don't get me wrong - I love the OTU and enjoy playing in it, but I wonder if Traveller would do better if it were marketed as a more generic SF ruleset capable of handling many different settings?

And yet this seems to be the approach that Mongoose is taking with Legend,

My editor andI have debated at length would it have been better for Mongoose (and myself and other compatible publishers) if the system book had been named something else and the setting been called Traveller. Our general conclusion is that while it miht have taken more work to get people into it, it would have attracted more people interested in alternate settings. As it isnow, we kind of feel that only material that directly works in the 3I setting of 30+ years ago gets any real traction while everything else gets largely ignored.

I don't see Mongoose taking the Legend approach willingly as much as them executing their plan B and working with the cards they now have left available to them. I think their preference would be for the approach they've previously used.

 

[Prime_Evil]

My editor andI have debated at length would it have been better for Mongoose (and myself and other compatible publishers) if the system book had been named something else and the setting been called Traveller. Our general conclusion is that while it miht have taken more work to get people into it, it would have attracted more people interested in alternate settings. As it isnow, we kind of feel that only material that directly works in the 3I setting of 30+ years ago gets any real traction while everything else gets largely ignored.

I tend to agree with you on this point. The game system has the potential to be extremely versatile and it is a bit of a disappointment that it has been tied so closely to the 3I setting. Although Mongoose have made a few concessions to people who want to use Traveller to simulate other settings, there are many assumptions underlying the rules that are closely tied to the OTU. For example, the core rules postulate a technological progression tied to the 3I rather than presenting a generic SF toolkit. This is a bit of a problem for third-party publishers who want to build a product line based on a different setting. It doesn't help that most of the rules that could be used to develop the game in an alternative direction (e.g. cybernetics, vehicle design) are classified as product identity. This means that it is difficult for third-party publishers to unlock the true potential of the system without re-inventing the wheel.

I don't see Mongoose taking the Legend approach willingly as much as them executing their plan B and working with the cards they now have left available to them. I think their preference would be for the approach they've previously used.

I suspect you are right, but it never hurts to ask the question

Matt seems fairly approachable and it would be interesting to hear his perspective on the future of Traveller licensing.

 

[Prime_Evil]

One thing that I forgot to mention is that traditional pen-and-paper RPGs no longer command the market share that they once did. Although the market does seem to have recovered slightly from the terminal decline that it was in a year or so ago, I get the feeling that sales are still less than fantastic. Most of the second-tier RPG publishers - including Mongoose - are making an effort to diversify into other areas such as board games, card games, and miniature games. For some reason, Traveller has never really made the leap out of the 'RPG ghetto" and it is unclear how much mass-market appeal the OTU would have in the current era. Although it would be great to see a new Traveller miniatures game (Striker 2nd ed?) it is unclear whether the license held by Mongoose from FFE would allow them to produce such a product.

I get the feeling that Mongoose is playing it fairly safe with the Traveller product line at the moment and is releasing those products that are likely to have a built-in audience. This means that we will see lots of products tied to the 3I setting or that build on settings with a proven track record (such as 2300 AD). We are unlikely to see any new settings that take the game in a bold new direction until industry conditions make this economically viable.

 

[dmccoy1693]

For some reason, Traveller has never really made the leap out of the 'RPG ghetto" and it is unclear how much mass-market appeal the OTU would have in the current era.

In my opinion, the OTU as written has little mass market appeal today. The are few far-future settings in today's market. There hasn't even been a Star Trek tv series in quite some time (even if you count Enterprise). BSG was had a much smaller universe than anything Traveller had going for it, and the themes were completely different. Many of the ideas that Traveller was built on (character advancement is slow, communication has to be hand delivered, more than half the ship is fuel, giant empires) are not things alot of players today are interested in. If the ship combat rules were set up to handle something like a Star Wars X-Wing battle (where every character is in the cockpit of their fighter can take multiple actions per round (like line up a shot, get a sensor lock, fire and evade) instead of the pilot lines up the shot, the sensor guy gets sensor lock and the gunner actually fires. Everyone wants to be Luke or Wedge. Not many people want to be the guy sitting behind Nien-Nunb operating the sensors.

A long while back I tried to do my own Foreven setting. I tried updating it for a more modern audience and I got such a horrible reaction from the test audience that I abandoned it and am not going to be returning to it. So there's a catch-22. The existing OTU gamers don't want an update but an update is pretty much the only way to appeal to a new audience.

I get the feeling that Mongoose is playing it fairly safe with the Traveller product line at the moment and is releasing those products that are likely to have a built-in audience.

I'd agree with that. But with the state of the current economy, its a wise move so I don't fault them for it. They tried doing 2000AD games for Traveller and they didn't do well, mostly because 2000AD comics are virtually unknown in the US. They're doing something with the StarFleet Battle crew and that could be huge, but it might not. I'm betting it'll do well but I am still sitting back and watching with interest.

 

[GypsyComet]

If the ship combat rules were set up to handle something like a Star Wars X-Wing battle (where every character is in the cockpit of their fighter can take multiple actions per round (like line up a shot, get a sensor lock, fire and evade) instead of the pilot lines up the shot, the sensor guy gets sensor lock and the gunner actually fires. Everyone wants to be Luke or Wedge. Not many people want to be the guy sitting behind Nien-Nunb operating the sensors.

I'll note that this problem is one that plagues even the Star Wars RPGs.

The difference has a lot to so with the references brought to a Traveller game. Us old farts tend to have a lot of written SF in our references, with a veneer of Star Wars, the original Galactica, and Star Trek over it. Heroism is about the sword and blaster.

The younger players have a lot more visual media in their baseline. Star Wars for certain, but Farscape, Firefly, Avatar, lots of anime, and highly researched and accurate portrayals of futuristic military actions like Starship Troopers :roll:
Books play very little role in the new player's baseline.

In a universe where fleet battles are visual range affairs, quite a few of the things that slow Traveller down can easily be chucked.

 

[Prime_Evil]

If the ship combat rules were set up to handle something like a Star Wars X-Wing battle (where every character is in the cockpit of their fighter can take multiple actions per round (like line up a shot, get a sensor lock, fire and evade) instead of the pilot lines up the shot, the sensor guy gets sensor lock and the gunner actually fires. Everyone wants to be Luke or Wedge. Not many people want to be the guy sitting behind Nien-Nunb operating the sensors.

There are few RPGs that successfully translate cinematic space combat into something that actually works in play. In many game systems, one or two players end up resolving the combat situation with the GM while the majority of the group sit around doing nothing. This results in a situation where the players who have a critical role on the ship LOVE space combat but the rest of the group HATE it. The most elegant solution to this problem is the one pioneered by the old FASA Star Trek game - ensuring that each player in the group has a clearly defined role to play in space combat.

A long while back I tried to do my own Foreven setting. I tried updating it for a more modern audience and I got such a horrible reaction from the test audience that I abandoned it and am not going to be returning to it. So there's a catch-22. The existing OTU gamers don't want an update but an update is pretty much the only way to appeal to a new audience.

This is the crux of the problem. As things stand, Traveller has been designed to appeal to existing OTU gamers rather than to attract new players. And because most OTU gamers care deeply about canon, it's very difficult to retcon changes to the setting. Mongoose has managed to slip a few subtle updates into their books, but even these minor changes make some OTU grognards uneasy. At this point, I suspect that the only viable solution would be to create a new universe that reflects contemporary sensibilities. But this is easier said than done. And I suspect many 3I fans will resist any attempt to break the close integration between the rule system and their preferred setting. Just listen to the grumblings that occur on these message boards whenever Mongoose publishes anything for Traveller that isn't immediately applicable to the OTU!

I'd agree with that. But with the state of the current economy, its a wise move so I don't fault them for it. They tried doing 2000AD games for Traveller and they didn't do well, mostly because 2000AD comics are virtually unknown in the US. They're doing something with the StarFleet Battle crew and that could be huge, but it might not. I'm betting it'll do well but I am still sitting back and watching with interest.

As somebody who grew up with 2000 AD comics, I'm disappointed that they haven't done more with those settings. However, I understand the commercial reasons behind the decision. I'm still dreaming of a Rogue Trooper sourcebook one day...and a book covering the ABC Warriors. But any new products in this line are likely to be one-off specials with a low print run.

 

[AlegisDownport]

Hi,

as someone is blogging and writing various bits 'n pieces for Traveller (using the 'Classic' ruleset), I'm conscious that I don't want to tick the people at Mongoose and Far Future off by inadvertently breaking copyright when I make a new post.

Looking through forum posts, though there is a new version of the SRD due in the new year, I'd like to look at the current version and make sure I'm complying with the copyright of the OTU / Mongoose Publishing rules.

Apologies if this is in an obvious place for people, I've checked out a number of places and can't find a link for the current SRD to review - could someone provide a link for me to jump to please?

Many thanks,
Steve

 

[rust]

Try this link, I hope it still works after the website's redecoration:

http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/pdf/travdevpack.zip

 

[AlegisDownport]

Hi - yes - that link works and I've downloaded the pack. Many thanks for the prompt reply!

Much appreciated,
Steve

 

[dmccoy1693]

I'll note that this problem is one that plagues even the Star Wars RPGs.

I use to GM a WEG d6 Star Wars game where the players spent a large portion of their time in fighters. The ship combat rules there were awesome.

Oh, wait, you're referencing the version of Star Wars produced by the (WotC) Empire, huh?

 

[Prime_Evil]

I use to GM a WEG d6 Star Wars game where the players spent a large portion of their time in fighters. The ship combat rules there were awesome.

I know that this is a bit off-topic, but have you guys ever considered doing something with the Open D6 system?

 

[dmccoy1693]

I know that this is a bit off-topic, but have you guys ever considered doing something with the Open D6 system?

Considered and its not off the table. However if we did, we wouldn't use the Open D6 license, we'd just use the OGL and tweek the rules enough to make it our own. On the whole, I like the system, but I really think that the current owner of WEG has damaged the d6 name with the whole Septemius fiasco that we do not want a game associated with it. However, we're more likely to use Fate. Its a popular system right now and I don't have to spend time showing people that "my" system works. Players of Fate already know that it is a good system so I can instead spend time showing them how I altered it to fit the setting.

One of the things we've considered doing is taking the D6 ship combat system and modifying it to Traveller as an alternate ship combat system. Interest in it was low (its not from the CT days, see comments above) so we decided not to do it.

 

[Prime_Evil]

One of the things we've considered doing is taking the D6 ship combat system and modifying it to Traveller as an alternate ship combat system. Interest in it was low (its not from the CT days, see comments above) so we decided not to do it.

Wow...I'd be interested in that. A cinematic space opera combat system for Traveller. That would be very cool.

 

[SSWarlock]

Wow...I'd be interested in that. A cinematic space opera combat system for Traveller. That would be very cool.

Have you seen/tried "Power Projection: Fleet" by BITS? It's a table-top ship-to-ship combat game designed specifically for Traveller. Though out of print, it's still available on eBay and other online stores every now and then.

 

[Rick]

Wow...I'd be interested in that. A cinematic space opera combat system for Traveller. That would be very cool.

Have you seen/tried "Power Projection: Fleet" by BITS? It's a table-top ship-to-ship combat game designed specifically for Traveller. Though out of print, it's still available on eBay and other online stores every now and then.

Seconded - I have a copy and it's excellent. Based on the Full Thrust rules and scaled up for big Traveller ships. Ad Astra in the USA do a couple of fleets - Zho and Imperial.

 

[GypsyComet]

I'll note that this problem is one that plagues even the Star Wars RPGs.

I use to GM a WEG d6 Star Wars game where the players spent a large portion of their time in fighters. The ship combat rules there were awesome.

Oh, wait, you're referencing the version of Star Wars produced by the (WotC) Empire, huh?

Mostly, but I was refering to:

Everyone wants to be Luke or Wedge. Not many people want to be the guy sitting behind Nien-Nunb operating the sensors.

which is going to be an issue regardless.

 

[Prime_Evil]

Have you seen/tried "Power Projection: Fleet" by BITS? It's a table-top ship-to-ship combat game designed specifically for Traveller. Though out of print, it's still available on eBay and other online stores every now and then.

No...I didn't even know that it existed. I have a few of the BITS products from back in the day and have always been impressed with them though.

 

[Prime_Evil]

Everyone wants to be Luke or Wedge. Not many people want to be the guy sitting behind Nien-Nunb operating the sensors.

I'm sure that the guy behind Nien-Nunb has lived off the geek-cred of being in the movie ever since. I mean...he was in the last half-decent Star Wars movie...lol

However, this is a common problem with SF games. It's easy to make players feel important in fantasy games where they are the ones who slay the dragon and save the kingdom. It's much harder to do this in SF games where the scale of the universe tends to overwhelm the achievements of the characters. There can only be one person who destroys the Death Star, but there can be as many dragon slayers as there are dragons. (I'm ignoring the argument that the Empire can build multiple Death Stars - it was lame in the movie...and it's still lame now).

In the context of Traveller, I have heard a number of experienced roleplayers comment that they don't like the OTU because the characters can't make any impact on the setting. I disagree with this viewpoint, but I understand why some people might feel that way.