What is the Traveller system called?

[Wil Mireu]

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.

Why are you so miserably cynical that you have to immediately assume that everyone must be acting out of malice? Stop making unwarranted assumptions about people. Open Content is there for anyone to be able to use in pretty much any way that they see fit and it's certainly neither your place nor anyone else's place to judge them for that.

Perhaps you need to be reminded that Mongoose themselves took the d20 SRD and published it as a hardcopy and sold it as the "Mongoose Pocket Player's Handbook". This was pretty much exactly the same as the d20 SRD that was available online, but they were selling it for about $20. Why? Because they could. Are you going to judge them for that too?

Publishers may (for any number of reasons) simply not want to associate their setting with Traveller, but may like the rules that are available as open content and free to use. Maybe they find the Traveller license to be limiting in ways that doesn't suit them. Or maybe they want to tweak those rules in their own way to make them something similar but different (see e.g. Mutants and Masterminds).

 

[Wil Mireu]

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?

It isn't, and nobody's asking them to do that - unless you consider asking them to just give the system an official name by which it can be referred to as "helping to promote products that don't promote theirs". I guess I could see some logic to that.

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?

That's one purpose for it. But this isn't really the same as the usual way of licensing because the OGL is involved. People don't need Mongoose's permission and don't need to pay them money either in order to use systems that they release under the OGL. The Traveller Logo License does limit what people can do with that open content - if people want to do more with it then they can simply use it without the Traveller Logo License.

 

[Anonymous]

FFE have a reputation for not being the most "sharing" of companies which is odd really. It seems to me that Traveller as a game is now or could easily become synonymous with sci-fi RPG and yes, the time could be ripe to exploit that and I think that is in some ways what you're suggesting with this thread.

The intent as I understand it of OGL is to encourage we the players to contribute without hinderance from the wonders of copyright to the games we play and love. Something to be done as a non commercial venture that the community might benefit.

I get the feeling that Sauron might be up in his castle shouting "One RPG to rule them all" and that the community based OGL mentality might not appeal.

 

[Wil Mireu]

I get the feeling that Sauron might be up in his castle shouting "One RPG to rule them all" and that the community based OGL mentality might not appeal.

That would be fairly short-sighted of him then, since pretty much the entire point of declaring something to be "Open Content" is to make it community based.

Like in the open software world, where people can write programs based on open content, and themselves make them available as open content for others to use or to add to (and can even charge for it too, depending on the exact license).

 

[Anonymous]

The question that follows to my mind then is who declared which parts of Traveller OGL?

Was it an outcome of the T20/QLI off shoots?

 

[Prime_Evil]

T20/QLI needed to release certain parts of the system as OGC to be compliant with the d20 trademark license. Mongoose and FFE agreed to release portions of the Mongoose Traveller system as OGC, but they were under no requirement to do so - it was an act of generosity on their part to build a community of developers around the system.

 

[Wil Mireu]

T20/QLI needed to release certain parts of the system as OGC to be compliant with the d20 trademark license. Mongoose and FFE agreed to release portions of the Mongoose Traveller system as OGC, but they were under no requirement to do so - it was an act of generosity on their part to build a community of developers around the system.

I think T20 was partly a case of unfortunate timing. Had it come later then it probably wouldn't have been released under the actual d20 License at all, and could have been developed as a generic OGLd20 game like Mutants and Masterminds was (and probably would have had a much better system as a result too).

I think it's more likely that Mongoose probably saw the success of the d20 license and figured they could achieve similar levels of success by making releasing Traveller under the OGL. Most of the time businesses don't act on "generosity", they act because something will make them money and generate sales and goodwill and market share - and I don't fault them for that, it's a smart move and it's worked out well for Mongoose.

BUT, by releasing the system as open content they must realise that not everyone is going to want to do what they'd like them to do with it. Of course, someone else is much less likely to get huge success by developing an alternative based on that open content, but again we have but to look at the success of Mutants and Masterminds and Pathfinder to know that isn't necessarily true...

 

[Prime_Evil]

I think T20 was partly a case of unfortunate timing. Had it come later then it probably wouldn't have been released under the actual d20 License at all, and could have been developed as a generic OGLd20 game like Mutants and Masterminds was (and probably would have had a much better system as a result too).

I don't know that the d20 system was a great fit for Traveller, but obviously that is a very subjective judgement - GURPS worked better for me because I'm a fan of the system, even though it is quite complex.

I think it's more likely that Mongoose probably saw the success of the d20 license and figured they could achieve similar levels of success by making releasing Traveller under the OGL. Most of the time businesses don't act on "generosity", they act because something will make them money and generate sales and goodwill and market share - and I don't fault them for that, it's a smart move and it's worked out well for Mongoose.

I agree it was a shrewd business move because it's prevented any other SF RPG from achieving a similar market share. But that doesn't mean that it wasn't also a generous move.

Ultimately, the value of any game system resides not just in the rules but in the network of people who play it. This is what MBA types call a network externality - a game with a large community of players has greater value to newcomers than a game played only by a handful of people. Let's face it, even if a game has the best rules ever written it has little or no value to newcomers unless they can find somebody to play it with. This is something that the pre-Hasbro management of WoTC clearly understood when they opened D&D up to other publishers with the OGL. And it's something that Mongoose glimpsed when they released large chunks of Traveller under the OGL, although they didn't express it so clearly. Releasing a game under the OGL helps to build a community around it and foster a sense of ownership amongst fans. It creates a virtuous circle where both the publisher and the fans benefit from a deeper sense of investment - for the publisher this means better sales, while for the fans it means greater participation.

 

[Condottiere]

I always thought it was a way to maintain mind share, to marginalize competitors.

It's rather like OSes, most people like to stick to one, and not have to figure the intricacies of others.

While I like D&D and it's IP, I'm not that thrilled with their mechanics but it seems impossible to separate the two, as the ability to make almost impossible attacks and absorb tremendous amounts of damage is part of the DNA, and the class system never allowed much flexibility, with the exception of D&D2.5, which was rather abuseable.

I always found throwing lots of dice at a problem was inherently enjoyable.

 

[Prime_Evil]

I always found throwing lots of dice at a problem was inherently enjoyable.

When I die, I want that carved on my gravestone...

 

[dragoner]

I agree it was a shrewd business move because it's prevented any other SF RPG from achieving a similar market share.

IIRC the new Star Wars dwarfs Traveller, and it's IP & system are far more tightly held.

 

[Wil Mireu]

I don't know that the d20 system was a great fit for Traveller, but obviously that is a very subjective judgement - GURPS worked better for me because I'm a fan of the system, even though it is quite complex.

I think the main problem with T20 as a system is that it couldn't decide what it wanted to be. It had levels and BABs (which only really make sense in D&D), and it had classes with careers crammed in on top of those (which really didn't work), and it had hitpoint and "Lifeblood" too. It was like trying to cram the square peg that was Traveller into the round hole that was D&D, and it didn't work very well as a result.

GURPS on the other hand just translated Traveller into GURPS terms and was done with it, and it worked much better as system IMO.

I agree it was a shrewd business move because it's prevented any other SF RPG from achieving a similar market share. But that doesn't mean that it wasn't also a generous move.

I would take the view that it was "coincidentally generous".

 

[enderra]

T20/QLI needed to release certain parts of the system as OGC to be compliant with the d20 trademark license. Mongoose and FFE agreed to release portions of the Mongoose Traveller system as OGC, but they were under no requirement to do so - it was an act of generosity on their part to build a community of developers around the system.

Not to lessen that perceived "generosity", but

a) it was done for business reasons (it worked for D&D3 after all)
b) Copyright doesn't apply to game rules anyway, at least not in the US and probably not elsewhere. At the very most - and I have seen voices who doubt even that - you could claim a copyright on the sequence of written words (i.e. the "expression" you can find in the rules book). So releasing an SRD doesn't actually cost you anything in terms of IP because you don't own that stuff in the first place.

The Traveller trademark and to a somewhat lesser extent the 3I are the real IP in this case, and it would be incredibly stupid of FFE/Miller to just let anybody use said IP without exerting control. Hence the Traveller and Foreven licenses.

Disclaimer: IANAL. If you want legal advice, hire a lawyer.

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.

Yes, clever, isn't it?

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).

No, it's too close. You could presumably get away with it if you hide in the backwoods of China or somewhere and even then your products would be considered "forgeries", like Nikke shoes and Gupci bags and L3go bricks. Traveller probably doesn't have enough brand recognition to get your "Traveler" books confiscated, but in theory that is what ought to happen on import. If you are a domestic producer, they could and would have to sue you for trademark violation, and they'd win.

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

Why should they? The point is to promote the Traveller brand.

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

You mean the Traveller logo license.

 

[Wil Mireu]

Why should they? The point is to promote the Traveller brand.

Then maybe it's up to the third party publishers to do that then. Like something along the lines of the 'OGL 3.5 System Compatible" logo by LJP Games for the games derived from the d20 license:
http://www.rpgnow.com/product/55437/OGL-35-System-Compatible-Logo

All one of the third parties needs to do is to come up with something like this (say, a "2d6 SF OGL System Compatible" logo), make it freely available for anyone to use and make an announcement somewhere about it, and then people will have a logo to use to signify that they use that system.

 

[dmccoy1693]

Why should they? The point is to promote the Traveller brand.

Then maybe it's up to the third party publishers to do that then. Like something along the lines of the 'OGL 3.5 System Compatible" logo by LJP Games for the games derived from the d20 license:
http://www.rpgnow.com/product/55437/OGL-35-System-Compatible-Logo

All one of the third parties needs to do is to come up with something like this (say, a "2d6 SF OGL System Compatible" logo), make it freely available for anyone to use and make an announcement somewhere about it, and then people will have a logo to use to signify that they use that system.

LPJ did that after Wizards announced that they were pulling the d20 logo. It was done as a last resort and to help d20 publishers from panicking. And there was alot of panicking in those days.

Mind you, other publishers tried to do something similar, but it never stuck because there was far more value in the d20 logo. And that is saying alot considering that there were plenty of people saying that the d20 logo was worthless for sometime before Wizards pulled it. So the other competing d20 system-indicating logos were less then worthless.

The problem with calling Traveller something other than Traveller is a problem of rebranding. Rebranding is much harder than branding. Branding is like pushing a car forward from a complete stop to 60 miles/hour while the car is in drive. Incredibly difficult, but alteast all the machinery of the car is not fighting you. Rebranding with a complete name change is like trying to stop a car that is moving 60 miles/hour by getting infront of it and pushing it to a stop. Then pushing it in the reverse direction, while it is still pointed forward and still in drive, and getting it up to 60 mph. Not only are you fighting the existing energy the vehicle possesses, once you get it stopped, you will be fighting the car's gears. The gears want to go forward, but you're pushing it an entirely different direction. You're exerting more than twice the energy to achieve the speed it already is at, just not in the direction you want it at. It is far easier to stick with the direction it already is going. I mean there's a reason why Mongoose called the core book Traveller. To keep the analogy consistent, the car was already going 40. All Mongoose had to do was to turn the wheel a little bit and then push it that last 20 mph to get it up to 60.

Having said that, if Mongoose pulled the logo tomorrow. I'd have a LPJ style logo prepared and given away within 24 hours. But before starting the Foreven Worlds project, I asked Matt if its going to end anytime soon and he said not for quite some time to come. So I do not see a need to stand infront of a moving car right now.

 

[Wil Mireu]

I don't see it as "rebranding" at all. It's not rebranding anything, it's creating a brand for something that currently doesn't have one (and doesn't even have an official name either).

The system that Traveller uses is not "Mongoose Traveller". "Mongoose Traveller" is a specific game using that specific system - the material released under the OGL that is from that system is not the same thing.

 

[dmccoy1693]

I don't see it as "rebranding" at all. It's not rebranding anything, it's creating a brand for something that currently doesn't have one (and doesn't even have an official name either).

The system that Traveller uses is not "Mongoose Traveller". "Mongoose Traveller" is a specific game using that specific system - the material released under the OGL that is from that system is not the same thing.

Think of a brand as a name people will pay for. From there you can vary that name and people will still pay for it. Coke is the brand. From there you have coke, diet coke, caffeine free coke, vanilla coke, cherry coke and so on. If another cola company got coke's recipe and made it and sold it under a different name, people would still buy coke far more often then other one because of the name. Traveller is the brand. From there you have classic traveller, mega traveller, gurps traveller traveller20, traveller hero, mongoose traveller, t5. The brand is Traveller. So calling the system anything other than the brand name is rebranding and stopping a car by standing infront of it.

 

[Wil Mireu]

Think of a brand as a name people will pay for. From there you can vary that name and people will still pay for it. Coke is the brand. From there you have coke, diet coke, caffeine free coke, vanilla coke, cherry coke and so on. If another cola company got coke's recipe and made it and sold it under a different name, people would still buy coke far more often then other one because of the name. Traveller is the brand. From there you have classic traveller, mega traveller, gurps traveller traveller20, traveller hero, mongoose traveller, t5. The brand is Traveller. So calling the system anything other than the brand name is rebranding and stopping a car by standing infront of it.

I would say that the Pathfinder RPG completely destroys your analogy though. They took the 'recipe' of D&D's d20 system and made it their own, and have been more successful than D&D is for a long time. Who's to say that can't happen with the "2d6 SF OGL" that Traveller uses? Maybe UMP will do it, maybe someone else will.

Traveller's fans can't even agree on what it is. Some say "Traveller" is the Third Imperium setting only, some say that it's a the RPG engine to which any setting can be attached (never mind that the rules change with every edition), and some say it's whatever Marc Miller does and nothing else matters.

People have been wondering on and off about Traveller in other time periods - a fantasy Traveller, or a historical Traveller, or a Roman Traveller, etc. What do they mean by that? Do they really want a game called "Traveller" set in a different time period? Or do they want a system that is based on Traveller rules that they can use in different time periods? That's where an independent "2d6 OGL" can come in - it doesn't even have to be "scifi", it could be truly generic.

 

[Condottiere]

Traveller is too closely associated with the Third Imperium, as well as historical settings leading up to it.

 

[dmccoy1693]

I would say that the Pathfinder RPG completely destroys your analogy though.

Actually, that's exactly what I am talking about. What paizo did is stand infront of a semi and (along with the right combination of 4 print products/month every single month, a serious marketing campaign, taking the chance that the game could utterly flop and sink the company, exceptionally good timing, the brandholder abandoning the aspects of the game that the fans liked, and alot of luck and even more hard work) it worked out.

Can anyone call the game 2d6 do all of that?

Do you know who fits the basic structure of that (with variations): Mongoose.

• T5 was delayed and when it did come out, fans were not happy.
• Mongoose has been supporting their version of Traveller with regular releases
• The system itself is generally liked by the fans and the pro-CT community (although yes, there are detractors)
• Mongoose markets as much as possible for a company that is not Pathfinder size (where T5 does not get, as far as I can tell, any marketing at all).

I know I am not going to convince you. You've argued against it for far to long. So I'm going to end it by saying, "Its called Traveller."