Well in advance of releasing the SRD for their upcoming version of Traveller, Mongoose has released their Traveller Logo License (scroll toward bottom of page. Of particular interest to me, under Section 11, there was this somewhat ominous condition:

QuoteGaming books produced under this agreement may not detail the process of generating and assigning scores to Characteristics.  In addition, the terms used for Characteristics (Strength, Dexterity, Endurance, Intelligence, Education and Social Standing) may not be changed.  They may be abbreviated to Str, Dex, End, Int, Edu, and Soc respectively.  Readers may be referred to the Traveller (TM) Core Rulebook in order to generate and assign scores to Characteristics.

Now, this is just the logo license, but I'm inclined to believe that this condition will appear in the game's SRD as well.  The most direct implication, of course, is that there can be no derivative games that do not require direct reference to the core rule published by Mongoose.

As some of you may be aware, the SRD for Mongoose's RuneQuest effectively gives away the store -- the whole game is there in the SRD, including the standard method for generating characteristics.  This is how GORE can be a stand-alone game without requiring the purchase or use of MRQ.  It looks as if Mongoose is taking a page from the D&D 3.5 SRD in not providing stat generation methods, which is great for them.  Sucks a bit for me, though.

Help me out here.  I know that there are a number of stand-alone games that are derived from the D&D 3.5 SRD.  How did they manage to get around the prohibition of including the stat rolls?  True20, for instance, got around it by simply using the characteristic bonuses and penalties instead of the characteristics themselves.  What about Castles & Crusades, or Mutants and Masterminds?

!i!

If the SRD/OGL version works the same way as the D20 one, then you'll still be able to include full chargen info, you just can't use the actual branding of the original product.

Which didn't really stop anyone at all on the third-party market, because everyone and their bloody mother knew that "based on the D20 SRD" meant D&D.

That's rather what I thought at first -- that perhaps it was only intended to inhibit people from releasing stand-alone games under the Traveller brand.  But then, I thought, what's the point if it doesn't inhibit the production of stand-alone games that don't bear the Traveller logo.

So, as I'm understanding it, I can (potentially -- we haven't read the proper SRD yet) produce a game that tells players to roll 2d6 for each of the six characteristics, just like Traveller, as long as I never make reference to Traveller by name?  That sounds okay by me.

!i!

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaSo, as I'm understanding it, I can (potentially -- we haven't read the proper SRD yet) produce a game that tells players to roll 2d6 for each of the six characteristics, just like Traveller, as long as I never make reference to Traveller by name?  That sounds okay by me.
!i!

I can't see how you'd be in the wrong referencing or even quoting (and citing) Traveller as long as you don't use or dilute the trademark and don't re-use text from Traveller instead of writing your own prose (that is, your quotes are references supporting your material rather than a way to avoid writing your own material). As I'm intimately involved in a project that skirts the boundaries I've been trying to pin down just what exactly the "IP" that gets licensed actually *is* for Traveller. So far it looks like the name and the fiction. I think my most likely genuine transgression so far is to retain the misspelling of "vacc suit".

That said, just because you're right doesn't mean they can't sue you.

Check me on this, but last I checked, the RQ SRD does not include the standard method of generating stats.

Meanwhile, True20 is OGL but not D20. I believe the same applies to C&C and M&M.

There are a very few if any games that have chargen rules included while still bearing the D20 logo. The original Spycraft 1.0 may be one. [EDIT: No, it wasn't.] I assume that in all cases, a special arrangement was made with WotC so that an all-in-one game could be made that didn't require the D20 PHB or D20 Modern.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaThat's rather what I thought at first -- that perhaps it was only intended to inhibit people from releasing stand-alone games under the Traveller brand.  But then, I thought, what's the point if it doesn't inhibit the production of stand-alone games that don't bear the Traveller logo.

Perhaps because, as the way they handled Runequest shows, Mongoose have bought into the idea that legal ownership of a system doesn't actually matter, since it is difficult in the extreme to patent game mechanics (Wizards managed it with some Magic: the Gathering mechanics, but I'd submit that most RPG rules would not be patentable): what's important is the trademark, the intellectual property. For D&D, that might even be true; for other games, less so.

Yup. Whether or not the trademark is really all that important, this is definitely why Wizards made a distinction between OGL and D20. As for why they bothered with OGL at all, and why other companies also do so, I suspect the idea is to gather "mindshare" around general system concepts which have the trademarked "official" system near the center of gravity. I'm not exactly sure how the OGL license works but I think it was also pitched as an attempt to harness some of the benefits of open development, i.e. encouraging community-wide collaboration and development to advance the "state of the art".

Note: the D20 license prohibits inclusion of rules for character creation and advancement. Not sure about Mongoose's license(s).

Quote from: WarthurPerhaps because, as the way they handled Runequest shows, Mongoose have bought into the idea that legal ownership of a system doesn't actually matter, since it is difficult in the extreme to patent game mechanics...

This particular situation is nuanced by one very important fact -- the system Mongoose was releasing via OGL was, for all intents and purposes, already in print through Chaosium.  Making the whole system freely available undermined direct competition.

By the way, I found this discussion of the same topic on RPG.net. The conclusion there was much the same as here -- the license to the trademark will prevent you from including stat generation rules, but the general OGL won't.

!i!

Quote from: Elliot WilenNote: the D20 license prohibits inclusion of rules for character creation and advancement. Not sure about Mongoose's license(s).

Every version of the Mongoose RuneQuest SRD that I've been able to dig up, like this one, have featured both rules for characteristic generation and character advancement.  The MRQ SRD is the whole shootin' match, and again, I can't help but think it was purposefully intended to undermine Chaosium's propagation of the Basic Roleplaying system.

!i!

Huh.

I have some html files of the SRD dated from the end of August, 2006 that omit the dicerolls for generating characteristics. I don't know where they came from, though. The current SRD is a zipfile containing Word docs with various dates. The Creating an Adventurer section dates from October 19, 2006 and does have the dicerolls. So maybe something changed between those two dates. This corraborates that the dice rolls were missing when the SRD was first released.

BTW, this looks worth tracking. It's an effort, based off the MRQ-SRD, to simplify the system back into something like the author's personal take on, presumably, RQ2/3, and then release it as a free PDF with optional orders through Lulu.

I do agree this sort of sucks for Chaosium.

On the other hand, if they're on the ball, the existence of the OGL doesn't necessarily help or hurt them any more than it does Mongoose themselves. Effectively both companies are having to compete with the freely-downloadable SRD plus all the variants it will engender...but they also might benefit somewhat by having the essential BRP mechanics gain mindshare.

:deflated:

Please.  This is Chaosium we're talking about here.  Everyone's favorite, rather daft uncle.  The one who, when your mother pulls out the old family photo album, you point to one of his old photographs and ask, "Geez! Who was that handsome bastard?"

By the way, as I mentioned elsewhere recently, what can be seen of Mongoose's new Traveller combat rules bears a striking similarity to Chaosium's old SuperWorld combat.  I like to think that it's just a coincidence, but every now and then it sure looks like someone at Mongoose is gunning for Chaosium's hide.

!i!