From the Mongoose Publishing Forums
Quote from: Mongoose Matt
It has taken us a little while, but we have finally arrived - 3rd party licensing for Traveller has been revamped and is now live!
You can find out more right here: https://www.mongoosepublishing.com/pages/traveller-licensing
We now have three modes of licensing for those looking to publish their own Traveller material to the wider world.
Fair Use Policy
This is continuing as before, granting immense scope for fans wanting to create non-commercial material. We will be formally adding Mongoose's editions of Traveller to the Fair Use Policy in early 2025.
TAS Programme
This is our Drivethru community publishing programme, and it has been running successfully for quite some time now! Fundamentally, it allows creators to publish their own material based on all current edition Traveller books from Mongoose, including the official Charted Space universe. However, we have made a few tweaks and changes for publishers.
First off, 3rd party publishers going through the TAS Programme will now receive greater revenue. We have changed the percentage received by publishers to 60%, and we will be looking to increase this further in the future.
Second, we have added a new set of templates that will allow publishers to match our new 'Update' format (it is much prettier!), complete with deck plans, sector maps, and all the other bits and pieces you will need. You can find that here: https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/473270/tas-adobe-templates-update-2024
Finally, we have also updated the TAS Programme logo. You are still welcome to keep and use the old one on existing books, but the new logo looks better!
TAS_logo_2024-01_997x.jpg
Traveller Compatibility Licence
Are you an existing publisher and want a freer hand in both print and PDF publishing? The Traveller Compatibility Licence will be for you, a royalty-free licence that allows you to publish products that have a direct compatibility with the current edition of Traveller.
Traveller Compatible Logo.jpg
And the Fanfare
From this point on, we will also be taking a more active role with third party publishers, blowing their trumpets and highlighting all the new products that catch our eye so the wider Traveller audience does not miss out!
Fuck Mongoose, use the OGL + Cepheus Engine.
Worlds/Stars without numbers. It's a helluva lot better to go down that road.
And I get why Mongoose is doing this as traveller is a dying IP and they need more 3PP to support their brand.
Quote from: THE_Leopold on March 08, 2024, 07:01:24 PM
Worlds/Stars without numbers. It's a helluva lot better to go down that road.
And I get why Mongoose is doing this as traveller is a dying IP and they need more 3PP to support their brand.
Is it really starting to noticeably fade?
Traveller has been that "evergreen" Sci-fi game of the RPG hobby that's kinda always been around in some form.
Just curious as for all that I don't like about it - it seems to be well thought of in general.
Quote from: Jaeger on March 08, 2024, 07:20:06 PM
Quote from: THE_Leopold on March 08, 2024, 07:01:24 PM
Worlds/Stars without numbers. It's a helluva lot better to go down that road.
And I get why Mongoose is doing this as traveller is a dying IP and they need more 3PP to support their brand.
Is it really starting to noticeably fade?
Traveller has been that "evergreen" Sci-fi game of the RPG hobby that's kinda always been around in some form.
Just curious as for all that I don't like about it - it seems to be well thought of in general.
Traveller over all isn't dying but Mongoose is strangling their current edition in a few ways.In order for any RPG to truly thrive, there needs to be some leniency for creators to make content and share it with each other. Mongoose tried to lock down the entire IP and choked out their own growth. Their book are notorious for typos and errors. There's been more than one problem with the physical print runs needing to be returned and new books given to the customer due to poor QA. Not to mention that they've recently starting to nudge things in the direction of DEI compliant content that's resulted in the lowering of quality.
OTOH, This has caused the creation of the Cepheus Engine and it's thriving and growing. Several companies are producing a lot of good material. Zozer, Stellagama, Independence Games, Old School Roleplaying, and Moon Toad all have excellent material out. The Cepheus SRD is free and under an open license. You can check it out here: https://www.orffenspace.com/cepheus-srd/index.html
Traveller is my personal favorite RPG of all time and I'm using Cepheus Engine for games I run. The 2d6 system it uses isn't perfect but damn does it hold up well.
Better late than never; but also, possibly too late. There's no putting the genie back in the bottle, and the active 3rd parties have already decided free is a very good price.
I do keep in mind Mongoose 1e is the only edition of Traveller from any publisher to have any kind of open game license. The very early days of MonTrav saw some material published that was clearly love letters to Classic not Mongoose. It's to that 1e SRD that we owe the existence of CE at all. How they went from that to the 2e license scheme is baffling; except of course that Mongoose Publishing stepping on their own dick is par for the course.
QuoteCepheus Engine
If it minimizes your house rules document compared to running Classic or either edition of Mongoose, or if you just appreciate the free pdfs, hell yes Cepheus Engine.
If you can't run an adventure from any edition of Classic, Mongoose or CE in any other of those rulesets because you're hung up on the name on the cover you're doing something badly wrong though. It's insulting to my, and to your, intelligence to be told we need to run Cepheus to use material by Zozer et al.
It's like if the guy behind OSRIC had a raging hate-boner against TSR or WotC, and therefore insisted OSRIC was a completely different game from AD&D. It's awkward sometimes.
Quote from: Dave 2 on March 14, 2024, 08:29:58 PM
Better late than never; but also, possibly too late. There's no putting the genie back in the bottle, and the active 3rd parties have already decided free is a very good price.
I do keep in mind Mongoose 1e is the only edition of Traveller from any publisher to have any kind of open game license. The very early days of MonTrav saw some material published that was clearly love letters to Classic not Mongoose. It's to that 1e SRD that we owe the existence of CE at all. How they went from that to the 2e license scheme is baffling; except of course that Mongoose Publishing stepping on their own dick is par for the course.
QuoteCepheus Engine
If it minimizes your house rules document compared to running Classic or either edition of Mongoose, or if you just appreciate the free pdfs, hell yes Cepheus Engine.
If you can't run an adventure from any edition of Classic, Mongoose or CE in any other of those rulesets because you're hung up on the name on the cover you're doing something badly wrong though. It's insulting to my, and to your, intelligence to be told we need to run Cepheus to use material by Zozer et al.
It's like if the guy behind OSRIC had a raging hate-boner against TSR or WotC, and therefore insisted OSRIC was a completely different game from AD&D. It's awkward sometimes.
Late and didn't read or didn't understand what you read (you choose).
The thread is about mongoose "opening" their doors to 3rd party developers.
MY response is germain to the thread, use the OGL + Cepheus Engine to develop whatever you want.
Now, if you had said it wouldn't be compatible...
Then my answer would be to do the extra work to make it compatible since rules and mechanics aren't copyright or trademark nothing is stoping you from using a compatible engine to publish your shit, furthermore you legally CAN say it's compatible with Traveller WITHOUT signing to their license.
Now, read carefully before sperging out (ironic since I'm the resident aspie) and make a comment germaine to the conversation and my response, or don't IDGAFF.
Quote from: BadApple on March 08, 2024, 08:47:03 PM
....
Traveller over all isn't dying but Mongoose is strangling their current edition in a few ways. In order for any RPG to truly thrive, there needs to be some leniency for creators to make content and share it with each other. Mongoose tried to lock down the entire IP and choked out their own growth. Their book are notorious for typos and errors. There's been more than one problem with the physical print runs needing to be returned and new books given to the customer due to poor QA. Not to mention that they've recently starting to nudge things in the direction of DEI compliant content that's resulted in the lowering of quality.
...
So basically, they are trying to do what Chaosium is with the BRP system: i.e. Trying to catch up to the horse long after it has bolted from the barn.
The irony is strong here considering that they are also responsible for the d100 legend system...
Quote from: GeekyBugle on March 07, 2024, 02:11:18 PM
Fuck Mongoose, use the OGL + Cepheus Engine.
The only problem with that is the OGL. Cepheus Engine uses most of the OGL as its legal shield, if WotC revokes it (and I do think they will in the future), then the legal status of ALL Cepheus Engine products is in jeopardy.
Mongoose Publishing has been working with Cepheus Engine creators to come up with a solution that will satisfy as many as possible, much of it is in the hands of the lawyers.
Quote from: jeff37923 on March 16, 2024, 01:23:46 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on March 07, 2024, 02:11:18 PM
Fuck Mongoose, use the OGL + Cepheus Engine.
The only problem with that is the OGL. Cepheus Engine uses most of the OGL as its legal shield, if WotC revokes it (and I do think they will in the future), then the legal status of ALL Cepheus Engine products is in jeopardy.
WOTC has released the 5e SRD under the CC license. What would be the point of them trying to revoke the OGL?
Only thing I can think is to get rid of the monsters released via the Tome of Horrors but not the SRD, but I've seen many games use them without the OGL at all, so I think at this point it's also moot.
Quote from: jeff37923 on March 16, 2024, 01:23:46 AM
The only problem with that is the OGL. Cepheus Engine uses most of the OGL as its legal shield, if WotC revokes it (and I do think they will in the future), then the legal status of ALL Cepheus Engine products is in jeopardy.
Mongoose Publishing has been working with Cepheus Engine creators to come up with a solution that will satisfy as many as possible, much of it is in the hands of the lawyers.
Ok, I gotta be missing something Big here. But I'll expose my massive ignorance anyway...
Why can't the Cepheus people take Wotc's OGL, change the company name, and the D&D specific nomenclature, replace it with theirs, then just re-use that document as their own 'Cepheus Engine OGL' ?
Quote from: Jaeger on March 17, 2024, 07:17:04 PM
Quote from: jeff37923 on March 16, 2024, 01:23:46 AM
The only problem with that is the OGL. Cepheus Engine uses most of the OGL as its legal shield, if WotC revokes it (and I do think they will in the future), then the legal status of ALL Cepheus Engine products is in jeopardy.
Mongoose Publishing has been working with Cepheus Engine creators to come up with a solution that will satisfy as many as possible, much of it is in the hands of the lawyers.
Ok, I gotta be missing something Big here. But I'll expose my massive ignorance anyway...
Why can't the Cepheus people take Wotc's OGL, change the company name, and the D&D specific nomenclature, replace it with theirs, then just re-use that document as their own 'Cepheus Engine OGL' ?
The Open Game License is a document that's basically a prepared written permission for for others to copy and modify gaming material covered under it by any third party for any purpose. While WOTC did create it for D&D 3E, they also used it for 5E and other game publishers have used it for their own games. I know that WEG D6 is covered under it.
Quote from: Jaeger on March 17, 2024, 07:17:04 PM
Quote from: jeff37923 on March 16, 2024, 01:23:46 AM
The only problem with that is the OGL. Cepheus Engine uses most of the OGL as its legal shield, if WotC revokes it (and I do think they will in the future), then the legal status of ALL Cepheus Engine products is in jeopardy.
Mongoose Publishing has been working with Cepheus Engine creators to come up with a solution that will satisfy as many as possible, much of it is in the hands of the lawyers.
Ok, I gotta be missing something Big here. But I'll expose my massive ignorance anyway...
Why can't the Cepheus people take Wotc's OGL, change the company name, and the D&D specific nomenclature, replace it with theirs, then just re-use that document as their own 'Cepheus Engine OGL' ?
The OGL itself is trademark and copyright WotC, so it would take a lot more work than you think and by lawyers to avoid any risk.
BUT, using the license to cover Cepheus Engine poses exactly ZERO risk for them, even if WotC did get rid of the OGL I don't think they can then retroactively apply the changes unless trademark/copyright law is really different from regular law.
What would happen is that nobody could publish NEW material under it.
There's always the ORC or failing that CC By/ CC.
Quote from: Jaeger on March 17, 2024, 07:17:04 PM
Quote from: jeff37923 on March 16, 2024, 01:23:46 AM
The only problem with that is the OGL. Cepheus Engine uses most of the OGL as its legal shield, if WotC revokes it (and I do think they will in the future), then the legal status of ALL Cepheus Engine products is in jeopardy.
Mongoose Publishing has been working with Cepheus Engine creators to come up with a solution that will satisfy as many as possible, much of it is in the hands of the lawyers.
Ok, I gotta be missing something Big here. But I'll expose my massive ignorance anyway...
Why can't the Cepheus people take Wotc's OGL, change the company name, and the D&D specific nomenclature, replace it with theirs, then just re-use that document as their own 'Cepheus Engine OGL' ?
IANAL, but I think that the OGL wording is specific enough that they can claim copyright infringement on the language of it.
Given the OGL itself is under CC, WOTC no longer has the ability to void it.
Quote from: Jaeger on March 17, 2024, 07:17:04 PM
Ok, I gotta be missing something Big here. But I'll expose my massive ignorance anyway...
Why can't the Cepheus people take Wotc's OGL, change the company name, and the D&D specific nomenclature, replace it with theirs, then just re-use that document as their own 'Cepheus Engine OGL' ?
I'm definitely confused by the responses to this query. The answer as far as I know is: they can.
More to the point, again as far as I know, they (or anyone) can
use the OGL (or any license) as-is. I suppose the wording of the license might be protected by copyright in some cases, but that's only protection for right of authorship. As long as they don't claim to have written it, I don't see an legal issue with them declaring "these terms, written by someone else, are exactly how we're licensing our stuff."
WoTC can (try to) pull the license for
their IP, but the author of the license has no legal jurisdiction over whether or not the same wording is binding between two
other parties.
Note however that without trying (like WoTC, and mostly likely failing, like WoTC) to pull the license itself, you can't UNlicense a previously licensed IP. Cepheus can produce a new license for their material, but anyone wanting to leverage the prior license for the material it applies to still can.
Quote from: Zalman on March 18, 2024, 09:09:27 AM
Quote from: Jaeger on March 17, 2024, 07:17:04 PM
Ok, I gotta be missing something Big here. But I'll expose my massive ignorance anyway...
Why can't the Cepheus people take Wotc's OGL, change the company name, and the D&D specific nomenclature, replace it with theirs, then just re-use that document as their own 'Cepheus Engine OGL' ?
I'm definitely confused by the responses to this query. The answer as far as I know is: they can.
More to the point, again as far as I know, they (or anyone) can use the OGL (or any license) as-is. I suppose the wording of the license might be protected by copyright in some cases, but that's only protection for right of authorship. As long as they don't claim to have written it, I don't see an legal issue with them declaring "these terms, written by someone else, are exactly how we're licensing our stuff."
WoTC can (try to) pull the license for their IP, but the author of the license has no legal jurisdiction over whether or not the same wording is binding between two other parties.
Note however that without trying (like WoTC, and mostly likely failing, like WoTC) to pull the license itself, you can't UNlicense a previously licensed IP. Cepheus can produce a new license for their material, but anyone wanting to leverage the prior license for the material it applies to still can.
The thing is, it is different when you are a small time publisher whose livelihood is dependent on this. Most of the CE creators I have talked to don't want to take the risk. If it went to court, just the legal fees alone to fight it would bankrupt most of them.
Quote from: BadApple on March 18, 2024, 08:17:08 AM
Given the OGL itself is under CC, WOTC no longer has the ability to void it.
Wait, what? Where? When? Can you point us to the proof?
Quote from: jeff37923 on March 18, 2024, 10:25:41 AM
The thing is, it is different when you are a small time publisher whose livelihood is dependent on this. Most of the CE creators I have talked to don't want to take the risk. If it went to court, just the legal fees alone to fight it would bankrupt most of them.
That makes sense for small publishers making money off of
someone else's IP. But not for someone licensing their own IP with a license that someone else wrote. I think such a lawsuit would not only be spurious, I'm dubious that they could even identify a law to cite to establish their case.
Methinks there are two concepts being improperly conflated here.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on March 18, 2024, 11:23:24 AM
Quote from: BadApple on March 18, 2024, 08:17:08 AM
Given the OGL itself is under CC, WOTC no longer has the ability to void it.
Wait, what? Where? When? Can you point us to the proof?
The put the 5e SRD core documents in CC as their way to stop the bleeding about a month after the OGL debacle started early last year when it was obvious that it would continue to rage past the initial couple of weeks. They promised to put other editions into CC as well but haven't had any public progress on that front since the controversy died down.
https://dnd.wizards.com/resources/systems-reference-document
"The full contents of SRD 5.1 are now released under both the terms of OGL 1.0a and the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International ("CC-BY-4.0"). "
Quote from: RNGm on March 18, 2024, 01:32:58 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on March 18, 2024, 11:23:24 AM
Quote from: BadApple on March 18, 2024, 08:17:08 AM
Given the OGL itself is under CC, WOTC no longer has the ability to void it.
Wait, what? Where? When? Can you point us to the proof?
The put the 5e SRD core documents in CC as their way to stop the bleeding about a month after the OGL debacle started early last year when it was obvious that it would continue to rage past the initial couple of weeks. They promised to put other editions into CC as well but haven't had any public progress on that front since the controversy died down.
https://dnd.wizards.com/resources/systems-reference-document
"The full contents of SRD 5.1 are now released under both the terms of OGL 1.0a and the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International ("CC-BY-4.0"). "
Yes, the 5.1 SRD but BadApple was talking about the license, the OGL being put under CC By too, IF that's true then it's a huge development that flew under everybody's radar.
edit: Nevermind. My mistake.
CC or OGL, I would never trust a company that uses Pinkertons or lawfare as part of their standard business model.
Quote from: RNGm on March 18, 2024, 01:43:53 PM
It was big news a little over a year ago in the TTRPG space with tons of folks talking about it along with the OGL debacle. You might have missed it and that's fine but it was prominently covered in the fandom and industry FWIW.
The terminology in this thread is baffling.
The "OGL" is not "released under CC". Both are licenses, not IP. IP is "released" under a "license."
Much of the WoTC IP that had been previously licensed under the OGL, has
also been licensed under CC, since WoTC backtracked on trying to "revoke" the license (a legally dubious move, based on the fact that the OGL didn't contain the word "irrevocable". CC
does contain that word.) Now anyone wanting to make content for D&D can do so under
either license, at their option! (Why anyone would choose OGL over CC as a licensee is beyond me, but it's possible).
"Revoking" a license as the licensor means
for your IP. If successfully revoked, it means no one can use your IP any longer under that license. It doesn't affect anyone else using the same license to distribute
their own IP in any way. It's the particular use of the license by the licensee that is being revoked.
Quote from: Zalman on March 18, 2024, 02:09:09 PM
The "OGL" is not "released under CC". Both are licenses, not IP. IP is "released" under a "license."
Quote from: GeekyBugle on March 18, 2024, 01:40:29 PM
Yes, the 5.1 SRD but BadApple was talking about the license, the OGL being put under CC By too, IF that's true then it's a huge development that flew under everybody's radar.
Apologies. I've made the error of conflating the license with what was covered under the license.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on March 17, 2024, 08:41:29 PM
The OGL itself is trademark and copyright WotC, so it would take a lot more work than you think and by lawyers to avoid any risk.
BUT, using the license to cover Cepheus Engine poses exactly ZERO risk for them, even if WotC did get rid of the OGL I don't think they can then retroactively apply the changes unless trademark/copyright law is really different from regular law.
What would happen is that nobody could publish NEW material under it.
There's always the ORC or failing that CC By/ CC.
Ahh, Ok so the OGL license itself is copyrighted...
So no copy-pasting to use it as one's own then unless you re-word the whole thing, and then run it by a lawyer.
*Yes, that would cost real money...
Me dense, Geeky Smart.
Personally, unless I got a lawyer to explain it to me like I was five; I'd NEVER trust the ORC license...
The OGL is like one page: The ORC, not so much...
*But if (Cephus/Mongoose) are paying lawyers anyway; Why not!?
Quote from: BadApple on March 18, 2024, 08:17:08 AM
Given the OGL itself is under CC, WOTC no longer has the ability to void it.
I believe they only put out the 5E Basic Rules, under Creative Commons?
Quote from: Jaeger on March 18, 2024, 03:10:51 PM
Ahh, Ok so the OGL license itself is copyrighted...
So no copy-pasting to use it as one's own then unless you re-word the whole thing, and then run it by a lawyer.
Not quite: just like any copyrighted work you can still copy and use the license for yourself. You just can't claim you wrote the license, or try to make money selling the license.
I did get my wires crossed, it was the SRD that was put under CC.
That said, based on similar types of contracts and licenses tested in court cases, WOTC doesn't have the authority to revoke the OGL 1.0a for what is already published. It's extremely doubtful they could suspend or revoke the right to use the license itself or revert any material published under the OGL 1.0a that they own under a new license.
As far as the OGL being copyrighted, that's a sticky one but kind of a moot point. Within it's own text it says that it's to be copied and place with the document that's to be covered under it. That gives written permission to use the OGL in it's entirety for it's intended purpose. Most of the OGL is written in standard legal terms and phrases so it's not really an original document until it's presented as a whole. As such, a similar type of license is likely to contain wording very similar or identical even if it's prepared by a lawyer completely unfamiliar with either the OGL or the RPG industry. Any judge would be very aware of this and a complaint of plagiarism simply would be laughed out of court before the defendant was even notified, even assuming you could find a lawyer dumb enough or desperate enough to take the case.
The funny thing is, half of what is covered under the SRD can't be covered by this kind of license due to the nature of the material. Game mechanics would need to patented before they would be protected IP. To get a patent, they would have to demonstrate a game mechanic is unique enough as to not be similar to another game mechanic. On top of that, each and every individual mechanic would have to patented. You could not simply lump them together and say these are a unique combination and therefore should be protected protected.
Quote from: Man at Arms on March 18, 2024, 11:33:15 PM
I believe they only put out the 5E Basic Rules, under Creative Commons?
This is my understanding, and if it was more I think we'd all know about it. The 5e SRD isn't enough to play 5e in the way that most players want; it has one feat (grappler, which you should never take) and like one subclass for each class. It has the core rules, but many of the later rules that clear up issues or exploits aren't there. It's still immensely important for publishers, who can refer to those rules without worrying about their product getting undermined by WotC pretending they are capable of revoking the license- a real threat under the OGL, but no concern at all under creative commons.
But it's a common misunderstanding that they moved everything in the OGL to CC. They did not. For instance, the 3.5 SRD, still the core of Pathfinder 1 and 2, was not listed under creative commons. While WotC stopped their assault, they have given no legal assurance that they won't start again; when last we heard, they believed they could "revoke" the existing OGL and replace it with a new one that has basically full control or whatever they deem possible. They even tried to make it palatable to internet totalitarians by putting in some anti-hate clauses, but even that didn't fool people like they'd hoped.
As a result, Paizo quickly released what amounts to a Pathfinder 2.5e, wherein they drop everything that could be related to WotC, all the names, everything. You basically have to mentally translate everything now and it is, in my personal opinion, a giant mess; if I thought I could get a table of my friends to try it out before, there's almost no chance now.
Archives of Nethys- which maintains all the open content Paizo produces- just gained the ability to be viewed in "remastered" or "legacy":
https://2e.aonprd.com/
The renaming hits very hard, with "force barrage" as the new magic missile and so forth.
This is done so that the new stuff can be added to the ORC and so that WotC can't potentially get them (or anyone using their stuff) on naming details. I think Paizo should have found another way, but I do get it, and if WotC had not pulled this shit, none of this would have been necessary.
Traveller's premise was just never very interesting to me. "Odd jobs in space" is so generic that you could do that with any system. d20 Future was more interesting and that was cribbing off TSR's old dead scifi IPs like Star Frontiers, Star*Drive and Bug Hunters.
Same reason I can't give a shit about Stars Without Number. There's no meat on it. No settings, no sense of fun or whimsy...
Quote from: Zalman on March 19, 2024, 06:53:36 AM
Quote from: Jaeger on March 18, 2024, 03:10:51 PM
Ahh, Ok so the OGL license itself is copyrighted...
So no copy-pasting to use it as one's own then unless you re-word the whole thing, and then run it by a lawyer.
Not quite: just like any copyrighted work you can still copy and use the license for yourself. You just can't claim you wrote the license, or try to make money selling the license.
Or just change a few words here and there and call it something else.
Quote from: Venka on March 19, 2024, 09:45:46 AM
Quote from: Man at Arms on March 18, 2024, 11:33:15 PM
I believe they only put out the 5E Basic Rules, under Creative Commons?
This is my understanding, and if it was more I think we'd all know about it. The 5e SRD isn't enough to play 5e in the way that most players want; it has one feat (grappler, which you should never take) and like one subclass for each class. It has the core rules, but many of the later rules that clear up issues or exploits aren't there. It's still immensely important for publishers, who can refer to those rules without worrying about their product getting undermined by WotC pretending they are capable of revoking the license- a real threat under the OGL, but no concern at all under creative commons.
But it's a common misunderstanding that they moved everything in the OGL to CC. They did not. For instance, the 3.5 SRD, still the core of Pathfinder 1 and 2, was not listed under creative commons. While WotC stopped their assault, they have given no legal assurance that they won't start again; when last we heard, they believed they could "revoke" the existing OGL and replace it with a new one that has basically full control or whatever they deem possible. They even tried to make it palatable to internet totalitarians by putting in some anti-hate clauses, but even that didn't fool people like they'd hoped.
As a result, Paizo quickly released what amounts to a Pathfinder 2.5e, wherein they drop everything that could be related to WotC, all the names, everything. You basically have to mentally translate everything now and it is, in my personal opinion, a giant mess; if I thought I could get a table of my friends to try it out before, there's almost no chance now.
Archives of Nethys- which maintains all the open content Paizo produces- just gained the ability to be viewed in "remastered" or "legacy":
https://2e.aonprd.com/
The renaming hits very hard, with "force barrage" as the new magic missile and so forth.
This is done so that the new stuff can be added to the ORC and so that WotC can't potentially get them (or anyone using their stuff) on naming details. I think Paizo should have found another way, but I do get it, and if WotC had not pulled this shit, none of this would have been necessary.
Which is why my bestiary is taking so long, having to come up with new monsters is time consuming.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on March 19, 2024, 01:28:19 PM
Traveller's premise was just never very interesting to me. "Odd jobs in space" is so generic that you could do that with any system. d20 Future was more interesting and that was cribbing off TSR's old dead scifi IPs like Star Frontiers, Star*Drive and Bug Hunters.
Same reason I can't give a shit about Stars Without Number. There's no meat on it. No settings, no sense of fun or whimsy...
You're seriosly missing it completely with Traveller. Traveller as you described it is a shit tier, no imagination way to play. Like all the best RPGs, it's designed for the GM to bring in his own scifi material from books, movies, and his own imagination and the be flexible for various forms of campaigning. Star Wars? Check. Star Trek? Check.
You can do a Firefly camapign but you can just as easily do a high tech interstellar spy thriller or first contact diplomacy games. Don't ever let the "official" setting for a game limit your play.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on March 19, 2024, 01:28:19 PM
Traveller's premise was just never very interesting to me. "Odd jobs in space" is so generic that you could do that with any system. d20 Future was more interesting and that was cribbing off TSR's old dead scifi IPs like Star Frontiers, Star*Drive and Bug Hunters.
Same reason I can't give a shit about Stars Without Number. There's no meat on it. No settings, no sense of fun or whimsy...
Traveller has no meat on it, huh? Here's some meat for you to choke on.
https://wiki.travellerrpg.com/Main_Page
https://travellermap.com/?p=-0.433!0.5!2&options=41979
Quote from: BadApple on March 19, 2024, 06:21:52 PM
You can do a Firefly camapign but you can just as easily do a high tech interstellar spy thriller or first contact diplomacy games. Don't ever let the "official" setting for a game limit your play.
I loved running the LBBs back in the day, but as the Imperial juggernaut grew, I became less interested. I guess that's why I like Cepheus Engine more that Trav these days.
Quote from: zircher on March 20, 2024, 04:36:01 AM
Quote from: BadApple on March 19, 2024, 06:21:52 PM
You can do a Firefly camapign but you can just as easily do a high tech interstellar spy thriller or first contact diplomacy games. Don't ever let the "official" setting for a game limit your play.
I loved running the LBBs back in the day, but as the Imperial juggernaut grew, I became less interested. I guess that's why I like Cepheus Engine more that Trav these days.
Plus, for the cost of two Mongoose PDFs, as shiny as they are, you can get pretty much all of Stellagama's material. And that isn't mentioning Independence or Zozer.
Quote from: BadApple on March 19, 2024, 06:21:52 PM
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on March 19, 2024, 01:28:19 PM
Traveller's premise was just never very interesting to me. "Odd jobs in space" is so generic that you could do that with any system. d20 Future was more interesting and that was cribbing off TSR's old dead scifi IPs like Star Frontiers, Star*Drive and Bug Hunters.
Same reason I can't give a shit about Stars Without Number. There's no meat on it. No settings, no sense of fun or whimsy...
You're seriosly missing it completely with Traveller. Traveller as you described it is a shit tier, no imagination way to play. Like all the best RPGs, it's designed for the GM to bring in his own scifi material from books, movies, and his own imagination and the be flexible for various forms of campaigning. Star Wars? Check. Star Trek? Check.
You can do a Firefly camapign but you can just as easily do a high tech interstellar spy thriller or first contact diplomacy games. Don't ever let the "official" setting for a game limit your play.
If they expect me to spend money on their game, then I expect them to provide me with actual tools rather than forcing me to do all the heavy lifting myself. Setting books, advice, adventures, etc.
Otherwise I might as well just use Risus. The rules fit on one two-sided sheet of paper.
I know Traveller has its official "third imperium" setting, but I don't find it interesting enough to play in. I'd rather play Alternity/d20 Future Star*Drive or Bug Hunters or Iron Lords of Jupiter or whatever, but WotC are being assholes about it by not letting you buy the PDFs nor allowing fans to support it on Dmvault, so good luck finding anyone interested in playing. No offense to Traveller fans, but I don't find Third Imperium interesting.
Quote from: jeff37923 on March 20, 2024, 03:07:24 AM
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on March 19, 2024, 01:28:19 PM
Traveller's premise was just never very interesting to me. "Odd jobs in space" is so generic that you could do that with any system. d20 Future was more interesting and that was cribbing off TSR's old dead scifi IPs like Star Frontiers, Star*Drive and Bug Hunters.
Same reason I can't give a shit about Stars Without Number. There's no meat on it. No settings, no sense of fun or whimsy...
Traveller has no meat on it, huh? Here's some meat for you to choke on.
https://wiki.travellerrpg.com/Main_Page
https://travellermap.com/?p=-0.433!0.5!2&options=41979
I said Stars Without Number has no meat on it. Don't get your knickers in a twist.