MGT 2e is already a Platinum seller and its only been out a year.
I'm curious -- how many units does an item have to sell to be a platinum seller in today's RPG market? And who certifies platinum status?
MGT 2e is already a Platinum seller and its only been out a year.
How would CE becoming more active *not* bring Marc more money since the 443 deals provide a lot of supplements CE doesn't yet have?
I'm curious -- how many units does an item have to sell to be a platinum seller in today's RPG market? And who certifies platinum status?
The method is similar to how Pathfinder makes Wizards no money. And identical to how T20 made Wizards almost nothing; it use the open content in a way that was so nearly stand-alone that a one page OGL non-D20-Logo web expansion filled the gap.
Indeed, which was why WOTC has never done an actual OGL again, everyone that I have ever talked to that was there at the time said it was the worst move the company ever made in regards to D&D.
everyone that I have ever talked to that was there at the time said it was the worst move the company ever made in regards to D&D.
What is? Doing the OGL? Or not doing the OGL?
There is an OGL 5E SRD. It's playable as written... tho' fairly limited (one subrace per race, and subclass per class).
There is no 5E compatibility license for the OGL products.
There is an open supplement license (which was the model for the TAS license) which surrenders all the IP value of the submitted work...
What is? Doing the OGL? Or not doing the OGL?
The original question is moot as long as CE is not recognized as Traveller.
I never really thought about it before, but why can CE not call itself Traveller if it was derived from the Traveller SRD? Does Mongoose have an exclusive license on the Traveller name (other than Marc's T5)?
I am definitely the novice here, but am I the only one who sees a parallel between WOTC shutting out 3PP from the post 3rd Edition D&D and the rise of Pathfinder to Mongoose driving off lots of 3PP and the rise of CE?
If FFE & COTI borrow a page from the D&D play book and treat CE like WOTC treated Pathfinder, are we setting Traveller and CE up to follow a similar path?
The people that I know that are involved in the 3PP (most of them old names and old friends here on COTI) would jump at a chance to place a "compatible with Traveller" on their products and be willing to pay FFE to do so. What they need is a simple mechanism that allows them to retain IP rights on their creations. This looks to this ignorant outsider like it is still an opportunity and not a problem.
(Unless we follow WOTC/Pathfinder and choose to make it 'us' vs 'them').
Actually this sidles up to another Meta-Traveller question; Is Traveller the setting or the rules?
In CE's case it takes a version of the rules and separates it from the setting. As such CE's answer to the question is Traveller is the setting.
Mostly that is due to the wording of the SRD/Developer's Doc produced by Mongoose. 3ed party development in the 3rd Imperium setting was limited to one sector.
Implementation of the 3rd Edition OGL was seen as a bad move, retrospectively, by a lot of people that were in the know at WOTC during the time it was introduced.
Gold is 500+ (I think)
I'm in a similar "frame" of mind: I'm not interested in the 3I setting, but am interested in a rules framework for my own creations. One can either buy OOP versions of the 1977 (or 1981, if you don't mind some additional setting implications) LBB's, the FFE one-volume reprint (which uses the 1981 version), or now buy CE (which is PWYW), if one is more inclined to a setting-light set of rules. If one is interested in the 3I then MgT 2e and T5 are also available, as well as all the OOP versions of Traveller that came before.I happen to agree with what I think is called the Proto-Traveller movement. The CT '77 and '79/'80 versions had no real setting, i.e no true 3I. "Traveller" predates 3I meaning Traveller is the rules. CE is a non-3I legacy of Traveller and therefore properly Traveller.
I looked at the Traveller Logo License (TTL) and see that it is Mongoose exclusive. Echoing the thoughts above about "compatible" publishers, it looks to me like it is time for a new non-Mongoose TLL. Of course, I'm sure MongooseMatt ain't gonna let that happen!
So I come back to the original question. In my case it's CE (or Cepheus Engine Traveller - CET?) all the way because I reject Mongoose's restrictions on 3PP and want more than just the 3I. I have found much enjoyment in Gypsy Knights Games' The Clement Sector or Zozer's Orbital 2100 and more recently Stellagama's These Stars Are Ours! From my perspective CET helps Traveller by being the version that favors the most creation by both players and publishers.
Yes, and those people are also very short sighted. They may have seen it as "competing companies are making books for our game without us making a dime off it" when they should have seen it as "their biggest competition was making books to support their game, helping them sell more of their books." The OGL helped D&D become and stay a dominant force all through it's 3rd edition days.
Let's be honest a second, 4e went down because wizards made changes that were "too different" from previous versions for most fans.
However, it may have survived it if they had serious Compatible publisher support, making products that were too niche for Wizards to do.
Take the "gnome effect." Gnomes are the least popular core book race, but if it is a choice between disappoint the gnome fan in the group or stick with the version with a gnome in it, the latter wins. And because that one person is unhappy, wizards lost out on a whole group of sales.
This, however, could have been overcome with a publisher-friendly license, like the OGL. But no OGL meant those short sighted bean counters cost the company money.
The same is true for those that relied on a constant stream of Necromancer adventures, Paizo adventure paths, and hundreds of other niche products that just weren't coming out for the game. It was death by 1,000 cuts.
Even worse, Paizo started their own game. Sure you can say, "the OGL enabled that." Wrong. Sure it made it easier, but anyone can made a recognizable D&D clone without using the OGL, just like Dungeon Crawl Classics. But by using the OGL they were able to achieve market dominance just like wizards had in the previous decade by having lots of companies making products you just don't have time for.
Take my own company for example, we do the "weird" races. Last time I was at PaizoCon, I ran games using those races. People were THANKING me for giving those under-supposed races their time in the sun. If I stopped doing that for Pathfinder and start my own game featuring those races, would I peal off some players of Pathfinder, possibly. Would it be enough for Paizo to notice, probably not. But it would be 1 cut. Give it a bunch more just like it and sooner or later their bottom line would hurt.
Wizards did learn their lesson and released an OGL for 5e, as well as a game recognizable as D&D to their audience.