Considering "Pathfinderizing" Traveller

[Kevin C. Livingston]

I am considering resurrecting T20 using the Pathfinder Rule Set (or at least partially based on it). So in order to do this I suppose that I will have to contact Mongoose, Paizo, QLI and WotC. Do I need to contact to anyone else? Heck I might not even call it Traveller but there will be enough similarities to T20 that I don't want to "step on any toes" in the legal sense.

 

[HG_B]

I am considering resurrecting T20 using the Pathfinder Rule Set (or at least partially based on it). So in order to do this I suppose that I will have to contact Mongoose, Paizo, QLI and WotC. Do I need to contact to anyone else? Heck I might not even call it Traveller but there will be enough similarities to T20 that I don't want to "step on any toes" in the legal sense.

Use OGL from MGT and OGL from WotC, done.
No, you can't call it Traveller without written permission from Marc.

 

[Kevin C. Livingston]

Use OGL from MGT and OGL from WotC, done.
No, you can't call it Traveller without written permission from Marc.

Okay, scratch the name! What about other similarities, ala Marines, Merchants, Scouts, et cetera?

 

[HG_B]

Okay, scratch the name! What about other similarities, ala Marines, Merchants, Scouts, et cetera?

MGT OGL has Scouts. The rest are real world entities.
Possible titles:

Merchant Prince = Merchants
High Guard = Fleets
Mercenary = Soldiers of Fortune
Marines = Fleet Marines (better description anyway)

etc.

 

[Kevin C. Livingston]

As far as the title of "Marines", it has reference to the "Marines of old" whose job was to protect thier own ships or raid enemy ship.

As far as the other aspects of the game. I plan on adding some things. Among the additions are: FTL Communications, Shielding, and Star Gates. Right now my rules for adding them in T20 haven't been "fine tuned" and right now I have these items in a "D.E.M field". "D.E.M." standing for Deus Ex Machina (sort of like in the Hitch Hiker's Trilogy when things had an S.E.P. Field therefore they were Somebody Else's Problem)

 

[HG_B]

As far as the title of "Marines", it has reference to the "Marines of old" whose job was to protect thier own ships or raid enemy ship.

As far as the other aspects of the game. I plan on adding some things. Among the additions are: FTL Communications, Shielding, and Star Gates. Right now my rules for adding them in T20 haven't been "fine tuned" and right now I have these items in a "D.E.M field". "D.E.M." standing for Deus Ex Machina (sort of like in the Hitch Hiker's Trilogy when things had an S.E.P. Field therefore they were Somebody Else's Problem)

Yes, that's why I would call them Fleet Marines.

Sounds like you would be be reworking ships in a large way. FTL comm would make things interesting and of a very different flavor than Traveller.

 

[beowulf2044]

The Traveller Universe has used many names taken from many published science fiction sources (Sword Worlds for instance), that I'd love to see someone else use the same ones, just to see who'd complain.

("Hey! You can't use that! We stole it fair and square!")

 

[beowulf2044]

Or, hey, why not just call it Traveler (one 'L') and just do whatever. Heck, I'd buy it.

 

[aramis]

Or, hey, why not just call it Traveler (one 'L') and just do whatever. Heck, I'd buy it.

Because, by doing so, one would be violating the licenses and hitting on a dangerous area of IP law: mimicry of trademark.

Sometimes the courts say it's different enough to change the spelling, sometimes not. The more similar the product, the more likely to say "Not enough difference."

Further, essentially, Beowulf, you've advocated for an intellectual property violation. I'm not infracting over it, but it's time for the moderator hat...

Consider this a public warning to the thread: advocating for IP violations (Copyright, Trademark, Patent) is an infractionable offense on COTI. Don't do it.

 

[beowulf2044]

And that, 'Aramis', was my last straw.

Remove me from these boards.

I am not coming back.

 

[Vile]

I am considering resurrecting T20 using the Pathfinder Rule Set (or at least partially based on it). So in order to do this I suppose that I will have to contact Mongoose, Paizo, QLI and WotC. Do I need to contact to anyone else? Heck I might not even call it Traveller but there will be enough similarities to T20 that I don't want to "step on any toes" in the legal sense.

As others have said, if you want to call it "Traveller" or "Traveler" you need Marc's explicit permission and I doubt you would get it while the Mongoose licence is running. I guess you can't use the Mongoose "Traveller Logo Licence" if you change the system from the basic MGT system (based on a discussion with Matt about combing the Mongoose Traveller and RuneQuest 1 SRDs).

However you can use the OGL and the Pathfinder and Mongoose Traveller SRDs to create an OGL game using any otherwise terms which are permitted under the licence. You can't claim compatibility with Traveller, but then a Pathfinder version would not be, anyway.

You could also write your own game without using the OGL or the SRDs as long as you don't violate IP. Game systems can't be copyrighted although the actual text is. You'll find that very few of the terms in Traveller are not commonly available, e.g. "battledress" is most probably copyrighted when applied to power (although it means something else in the RW) armour, but "ACR" is a generic term.

It sounds like your game will not really be like T20 in that sense, anyway. There is really no point in using an OGL unless you want to gain the name recognition that goes with it. on the other hand, I guess you might get that from Pathfinder, if not Traveller. Do I understand correctly that your idea is to introduce a Traveller-like game to Pathfinder players, rather than the other way around? If so, I would find a way to use only the Pathfinder SRD and avoid the Traveller one, makes things much less complicated.

Of course, I Am Not A Lawyer.

 

[HG_B]

There is really no point in using an OGL unless you want to gain the name recognition that goes with it. on the other hand, I guess you might get that from Pathfinder, if not Traveller.

OGL doesn't allow name usage. You also can't use OGL and call your game Dungeons & Dragons.

BTW people. If you must know, he was joking.

 

[Vile]

OGL doesn't allow name usage.

That's what I said.

 

[HG_B]

That's what I said.

Sorry misunderstood. I thought you meant name recognition of the Traveller game.

 

[Kevin C. Livingston]

And that, 'Aramis', was my last straw.

Remove me from these boards.

I am not coming back.

Well I was going to point out that the use of one "L" wouldn't have made a difference. However, regardless of you fellings, beowulf2044, Aramis is right. There was no need to get a ladder in your tights about it (or take such drastic measures as to leave to forums)! We're all fans here!

 

[Kevin C. Livingston]

As others have said, if you want to call it "Traveller" or "Traveler" you need Marc's explicit permission and I doubt you would get it while the Mongoose licence is running. I guess you can't use the Mongoose "Traveller Logo Licence" if you change the system from the basic MGT system (based on a discussion with Matt about combing the Mongoose Traveller and RuneQuest 1 SRDs).

However you can use the OGL and the Pathfinder and Mongoose Traveller SRDs to create an OGL game using any otherwise terms which are permitted under the licence. You can't claim compatibility with Traveller, but then a Pathfinder version would not be, anyway.

You could also write your own game without using the OGL or the SRDs as long as you don't violate IP. Game systems can't be copyrighted although the actual text is. You'll find that very few of the terms in Traveller are not commonly available, e.g. "battledress" is most probably copyrighted when applied to power (although it means something else in the RW) armour, but "ACR" is a generic term.

It sounds like your game will not really be like T20 in that sense, anyway. There is really no point in using an OGL unless you want to gain the name recognition that goes with it. on the other hand, I guess you might get that from Pathfinder, if not Traveller. Do I understand correctly that your idea is to introduce a Traveller-like game to Pathfinder players, rather than the other way around? If so, I would find a way to use only the Pathfinder SRD and avoid the Traveller one, makes things much less complicated.

Of course, I Am Not A Lawyer.

I was actually going to give it a different name all together but some of the T20 engine would be in place. I'd post more but I have a lodge meeting to attend.

 

[by_the_sword]

I'd like to see a classless, skill-based system using the d20 mechanic. What I have in mind is more like Classic Traveller only you'd be rolling d20's for task resolution and combat.

"Classes" would be replaced by "professions" like the traveller Professions (Army, Navy, Scout Merchant, etc.) and each would have skill sets that the player could chose from and develop with experience. Hit points could be based on the three physical stats, just like in Classic Traveller. It would take some developing of course. It was just a thought that I had.

 

[aramis]

Kevin:

Parts of T20 I know you'll need to replace: Ship design, Vehicle Design, World/System Generation. You can readily replace ship design and world gen with Mongoose's from their SRD, but they haven't yet released an SRD containing the vehicle design system that I'm aware of. (And the vehicle books lack any open content declaration.)

Bolding mine:

Open Game Content
Except as specified as Product Identity (see below and section 1e of the OGL) or Trademarks (see below and section 1f of the OGL), the following material is
considered Open Game Content under section 1d of the OGL:
• All of Chapter 2: Characters, Chapter 3: Classes, Chapter 4: Skills, Chapter 5: Feats, Chapter 6: Final Details, Chapter 7: Prior History, Chapter 8: Combat,
Chapter 9: Prestige Classes, Chapter 10: Psionics, Chapter 15: Starship Encounters, and Appendix III: Friends and Enemies.
• From Chapter 11: Technology and Equipment - All weapons, armor, equipment stats and descriptions.
• From Chapter 12: Design Sequences - All final design specifications. You may use any computer, vehicle, or starship final design as OGC, but you cannot explain or detail how it was actually created.
• From Chapter 13: Standard Designs - Everything but the Design Specifications for each listed entry.
• From Chapter 15: Universe/Worlds Development: All final world specifications. You may use any final generated world statistics OGC, but you cannot explain or detail how it was actually created. The Animal Development rules and final stats are also considered OGC.
• From Chapter 18: Traveller Adventures - Rewards and Advancement and the Epic Adventure System.
It is the express intent of QLI that all classes, feats, skills, and other rules that are derivative of the d20 SRD and other Open Game Content be released and
added to the existing body of Open Game Content for free use under the principals and requirements of the Open Game License. Those sections that are solely derived from the original Traveller canon works, such as the vehicle and starship design, or the world building rules remain closed content and are not considered Open Game Content.

 

[Vile]

Sorry misunderstood. I thought you meant name recognition of the Traveller game.

I may have been a tad unclear. What I meant was recognition of an OGL product. For example, an OGL product using the Pathfinder SRD would have a relatively large audience compared to a product using the MGT SRD (I'm still not sure what that should actually be called).

I was actually going to give it a different name all together but some of the T20 engine would be in place. I'd post more but I have a lodge meeting to attend.

Well, then, there's nothing standing in your way. OGL away!

I'd like to see a classless, skill-based system using the d20 mechanic. What I have in mind is more like Classic Traveller only you'd be rolling d20's for task resolution and combat.

I think the Pathfinder audience would expect a class-based system, though. Depends who the OP is trying to appeal to, I guess. You could always use the class system but call them "careers".

Regarding the vehicle system, you might in any case be better off designing something from scratch that meshes better with ship design. I was a bit (a bit, not a lot) disappointed with the MGT vehicle design.

 

[Garnfellow]

I think updating the T20 ruleset would be a great project -- T20 was very much ahead of its time, but many good d20 design advances were made after it was published. d20 Modern in particular has a large body of OGL material that would work well with T20.