What is the Traveller system called?

[Wil Mireu]

Related to the "Universal Machine Publications" thread... how are third party publishers supposed to refer to the system that Traveller uses if they're just publishing OGL material for it to expand what's available as open content for it? They can't just call it "the Traveller OGL" without needing the Traveller license, which means it's hard to actually tell people what they're using.

UMP call it "the 2d6 SF OGL" which is a bit of a mouthful (and also ambiguous - there are probably a few systems released under the OGL that use 2d6), as is "the system used by a popular scifi RPG" (which is how people got around the d20 license)... I wonder if it's even possible (if not cheeky) to just call it "the Traveler OGL system" (note the single L in Traveler there).

Can Mongoose just end this confusion and give it an official OGL name that publishers can use without legal repurcussions?

 

[dmccoy1693]

I call it Traveller, but I'm licensed. :wink:

 

[Wil Mireu]

I call it Traveller, but I'm licensed. :wink:

Yes, but the question is "what do you call it if you're just releasing under the OGL".

 

[Wil Mireu]

Maybe we can call it the Herpestidae 2D6 OGL (the latin family name for the Mongoose is Herpestidae)

 

[hdan]

The Foreven System?

 

[Wil Mireu]

The Foreven System?

Nope. That's a specific license that allows people to use Third Imperium IP in a very limited setting.

 

[Prime_Evil]

How about the Open SF System or Open Universe System

 

[Wil Mireu]

How about the Open SF System or Open Universe System

Something like that would be nice... the trick is to make it recognisable to everyone. If Mongoose were to officially say "this is what the system can be referred to as" then that would probably do the trick.

 

[Condottiere]

You could label it as the Mango System.

Or appropriately science fictiony Moongopher.

Or, Honey Badger.

 

[MongooseMatt]

Something like that would be nice... the trick is to make it recognisable to everyone. If Mongoose were to officially say "this is what the system can be referred to as" then that would probably do the trick.

We would much prefer it is people just used the Traveller Open Licence - that is why it is there

 

[Prime_Evil]

Something like that would be nice... the trick is to make it recognisable to everyone. If Mongoose were to officially say "this is what the system can be referred to as" then that would probably do the trick.

We would much prefer it is people just used the Traveller Open Licence - that is why it is there

Agreed. But Honey Badger also has a nice ring to it...

And nobody messes with a Honey Badger!

 

[Wil Mireu]

We would much prefer it is people just used the Traveller Open Licence - that is why it is there

I realise that you would prefer that, but that doesn't answer my question. The OGL is there for people to use too, and they are not actually obliged to use the Traveller license.

 

[Prime_Evil]

Although Mongoose can't stop people from using OGC, I'm sure that they want to avoid fragmentation of the market and continue building the strength of the Traveller brand. Having said that, the OGL expressly forbids you from claiming compatibility with Traveller UNLESS you comply with the additional terms contained in the Traveller Logo Licence. The terms of the licence are fairly generous, but the main sticking point is Section 11 - which prohibits you from telling players how to create characters. Due to the restriction in the license, there are probably are legitimate reasons why publishers might not want to brand certain works as Traveller- compatible - but these will probably be rare. Certainly people who wanted to do something like offer a point-buy system for Traveller might choose to step outside of the license and just use OGC, as might folks who want to produce a rules variant that is considerably different to the parent game. But in those cases, it's probably best not to brand them as Traveller-compatible anyway as they change the system in fundamental ways. And that isn't really a matter for the folks at Mongoose or FFE....

 

[phavoc]

I don't think you'll get the answer you want out of Mongoose. The reason why is from a purely legal point. And you are really barking up the wrong tree here. The Traveller trademark is owned by Marc Miller and Mongoose is just the current license holder.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

I just tell people to buy Mongoose Traveller, if they haven't figured it out already for themselves. Nearly all do though. Problem solved.

 

[dragoner]

I call it Traveller, but I'm licensed. :wink:

Exactly, even those without licenses call it that.

 

[Wil Mireu]

Although Mongoose can't stop people from using OGC, I'm sure that they want to avoid fragmentation of the market and continue building the strength of the Traveller brand. Having said that, the OGL expressly forbids you from claiming compatibility with Traveller UNLESS you comply with the additional terms contained in the Traveller Logo Licence. The terms of the licence are fairly generous, but the main sticking point is Section 11 - which prohibits you from telling players how to create characters. Due to the restriction in the license, there are probably are legitimate reasons why publishers might not want to brand certain works as Traveller- compatible - but these will probably be rare. Certainly people who wanted to do something like offer a point-buy system for Traveller might choose to step outside of the license and just use OGC, as might folks who want to produce a rules variant that is considerably different to the parent game. But in those cases, it's probably best not to brand them as Traveller-compatible anyway as they change the system in fundamental ways. And that isn't really a matter for the folks at Mongoose or FFE....

All of which is understood... but again, that leaves the problem of how one is supposed to refer to the Open Content system that is derived from the Mongoose Traveller system without mentioning "Traveller" or "Mongoose" or "SRD".

In other words, does the damn thing have a name, and if not, can people agree on one? Maybe this is something the third party publishers could get together and agree on if Mongoose isn't interested in doing this?

 

[dmccoy1693]

In other words, does the damn thing have a name, and if not, can people agree on one? Maybe this is something the third party publishers could get together and agree on if Mongoose isn't interested in doing this?

I like calling it Traveller and frankly don't see a need to call it anything else.

But, speaking hypothetically, if I made my own game (chargen included, and didn't use the Traveller logo) using the base engine of Traveller and tweeked it to the game's specifics, I'd probably call it something unique. I might stick a "T" on the front of it. Like if I did a CoC-style game with Traveller as the base engine, I might call it the "TInsanity System," just as an example.

IMO, if someone wants to take the Traveller rules and republish the system (possibly with tweeks, possibly just RAW), that's their problem to figure out a name for it. I don't mean that as snarky or mean or anything. Its just that I see it as, if you're going to not use the license to say what system it is, own it. Be bold and declare yourself different. Don't go half-hearted. Show that there is a real reason to buy your version over the official rules. And brand your difference with a different name.

 

[Anonymous]

I might be way off base here but why would it be in Mongoose or FFE's interest to help promote a product that doesn't promote theirs?

Isn't the purpose of licensing to enable the owner of the IP/product take their cut from someone else piggy backing from their effort?

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

I might be way off base here but why would it be in Mongoose or FFE's interest to help promote a product that doesn't promote theirs?

Isn't the purpose of licensing to enable the owner of the IP/product take their cut from someone else piggy backing from their effort?

There's a group of people that only see FREE with some games. Abbreviations like OGC is all they are interested in. See cult movements. Corporations and sold products are a bad thing to them.