(The FFW as a Vehicle for) Canon Facts

[Timerover51]

So, from the sound of it, no 3rd party material can be published unless is covers either Traveller 5, for which no license exists, or Mongoose 2nd Edition, for which a license exists but might not be worth a whole lot.

Any Traveller 5 Material would have to somehow conform to all previously published material including T20 and GURPS Traveller with respect to the OTU, but also account for the passage of 700 years.

 

[robject]

Timerover, I know of two people who have published under license for Traveller5 - our own Magnus Thornwood / Craig Glesner, and Greg Lee.

As far as to what a published work should conform, that's what I was musing about in the Original Post.

Let the publishers do their own research.

That's fine, but how much effort is worth putting the resources into research, and how difficult it is to check output. Most fans are not publishers or writers, and would-be publishers are typically not up on Traveller. Even those fans of Traveller who ARE writers struggle with canon. Is it worth it? Not really. The intersection of (grognards && is-a-publisher) is small.

 

[mike wightman]

Ever read A:4 Leviathan?

It is an official, part of the OTU, approved for use with third party produced adventure.

The authors didn't know that GDW's 3I house setting didn't follow all the published rules as written, nor did they know that the GDW authors envisaged a frontier sector that had a millennia of past exploration and history.

As a result we got an official adventure that includes jump torpedos and is set in an unexplored and unknown subsector only two away from the Spinward Marches.

That is why canon matters.

 

[robject]

...and Leviathan is an otherwise awesome adventure. Marc ran adventures out of it, in the day, right?

The Jump Torpedo Fiasco is why one of the top items listed in "canon" is "no jumping unless you ship is at least 100 tons". (I note TNE relaxed that rule as well, perhaps thinking that a technology breakthrough would allow it?).

And the wildness of the Egyrn and Pax Rulin subsectors may be casualties in the change from the Proto-Imperium to the OTU.

 

[mike wightman]

Yup, it is a great adventure. Moving forward with a T5 setting though there should a setting guide for potential authors.

MgT's forthcoming Guide to the 3I will likely add to the canon issues, rather than solve anything, which will be a shame. If MWM were to declare the MgT 3I the final definitive guide to the 3I it would solve some issues.

 

[kilemall]

Not true. At least not true in the US nor UK.

If it's not shared outside your home group, you don't.
If you share it, technically, it does need a license.

But posting here, we are effectively 'licensed' under the terms of the site, correct?

If it claims Traveller compatibility, it needs a license. Period.

The Fair Use Provision is a free license (as in Free beer) that allows sharing materials for any traveller edition, provided it's not monetized.

The OGL allows using MGT or T20 rules in part, but not indicating compatibility. In fact, it prohibits such UNLESS a separate license for that is in force.

The Traveller Logo License allows indicating compatibility with MGT. But it's expired.

The TAS license allows using MGT2e rules, and indicating compatibility, but severely limits sales potential and it is Not free.

So effectively, if I wanted an all-Traveller license for everything including T5 and MgT 2E, I would have to have both an FFE AND a TAS license?

Would the terms of those licenses preclude my including back stats for previous versions?

 

[atpollard]

So effectively, if I wanted an all-Traveller license for everything including T5 and MgT 2E, I would have to have both an FFE AND a TAS license?

Would the terms of those licenses preclude my including back stats for previous versions?

I am about 90% certain that an 'all-Traveller' License would need to be negotiated with Marc (FFE) and Matt (Mongoose) and would be a custom deal. There is no generic FFE contract for other editions of the rules except the not-for-profit 'Fair Use' Policy. I doubt the stock MgT2E License will do what you want. It is VERY OTU centered as of the last version that I read.

Both Marc and Matt have said they are willing to discuss special contracts ... the hard part is time and money. They are both busy and you are competing with many other voices for their attention. :coffeesip:

 

[robject]

MgT's forthcoming Guide to the 3I will likely add to the canon issues, rather than solve anything, which will be a shame. If MWM were to declare the MgT 3I the final definitive guide to the 3I it would sole some issues.

Here's the fun part: people vested with the authority to propose edits need to pound such drafts mercilessly. It's hard work for an amateur (I know, because I've had to do this before. It's painful painful painful.)

 

[robject]

So effectively, if I wanted an all-Traveller license for everything including T5 and MgT 2E, I would have to have both an FFE AND a TAS license?

Would the terms of those licenses preclude my including back stats for previous versions?

The "Fat Cat" trader was to be dual-statted for MgT1.0 and T5. They were working under MGT's licensing system already, and typically, such an add-on-like thing is not hard to negotiate with Marc.

 

[Timerover51]

I am about 90% certain that an 'all-Traveller' License would need to be negotiated with Marc (FFE) and Matt (Mongoose) and would be a custom deal. There is no generic FFE contract for other editions of the rules except the not-for-profit 'Fair Use' Policy. I doubt the stock MgT2E License will do what you want. It is VERY OTU centered as of the last version that I read.

Both Marc and Matt have said they are willing to discuss special contracts ... the hard part is time and money. They are both busy and you are competing with many other voices for their attention. :coffeesip:

The bottom line is would the profits be anywhere near worth the time and effort put into it.

 

[aramis]

But posting here, we are effectively 'licensed' under the terms of the site, correct?

Yes.

Essentially, the site operates under the FUP... except that the site is actually owned by FFE. So, really, by posting here, you're licensing FFE to continue to host your material.

So effectively, if I wanted an all-Traveller license for everything including T5 and MgT 2E, I would have to have both an FFE AND a TAS license?

Yes, but...

Would the terms of those licenses preclude my including back stats for previous versions?

Yes. The TAS license precludes releasing the same material elsewhere.
So, essentially, your choices are:

1) FUP - no money, but CT, MT, TNE, T4, T5, HT, GT, and GTIW allowed. Post here, or on your own website, or on a file sharing service.
2) OGL - money, but only MGT 1E or T20, and can't actually note the compatibility
2a) OGL - make your own corebook based upon MGT1E and/or T20... money, but still can't note compatibility.
3) T5 License. Negotiate terms with Marc and his Lawyer.
4) TAS license. Money, but technically only MGT2, and can't rerelease the material anywhere else.
5) Post to COTI - No money, can rerelease elsewhere.
6) Genericize it. No stats for specific named systems.

I can't think of other modes, but IANAL.
I do know that Marc wants all official licensed T5 material to revert to him eventually.

 

[robject]

Yes. The TAS license precludes releasing the same material elsewhere.
So, essentially, your choices are:

1) FUP - no money, but CT, MT, TNE, T4, T5, HT, GT, and GTIW allowed. Post here, or on your own website, or on a file sharing service.
2) OGL - money, but only MGT 1E or T20, and can't actually note the compatibility
2a) OGL - make your own corebook based upon MGT1E and/or T20... money, but still can't note compatibility.
3) T5 License. Negotiate terms with Marc and his Lawyer.
4) TAS license. Money, but technically only MGT2, and can't rerelease the material anywhere else.
5) Post to COTI - No money, can rerelease elsewhere.
6) Genericize it. No stats for specific named systems.

I can't think of other modes, but IANAL.

Maybe:

7) Talk Marc or Rob or Andrea or Greg or Jim into accepting an article for Imperiallines (it's not dead, it's just pining for the fjords).

 

[Timerover51]

Maybe:

7) Talk Marc or Rob or Andrea or Greg or Jim into accepting an article for Imperiallines (it's not dead, it's just pining for the fjords).

Where does Freelance Traveller fit into all of this?

Second, based on this, it would appear that a supplement adapting Real World vehicles, ships, and equipment to Traveller 5 Maker format, without using the various Maker systems, would not be allowed.

I was thinking of say the B-25H Mitchell, with fourteen 0.50-caliber machine guns and a lightweight 75mm aircraft cannon, the USS Nautilus (SS-168 Cruiser submarine), a Fletcher-class destroyer, a M3 Stuart Light tank, a WW2 DUKW amphibious truck, some of the World War 2 radar, along with some actual effective casualty radius of shells (to include the fragmentation "butterfly" pattern of shells), the effective casualty radius of bombs, and what it would take to sink a World War 2-era warship in terms of bomb and torpedo hits. The weapons data would definitely not fit any canon that has been published, but would be based on actual results.

 

[aramis]

Where does Freelance Traveller fit into all of this?

Fair Use Provision.

 

[simonh]

The problem with that idea is two-fold - two current editions in distribution, AND as every new book comes out, canon potentially changes drastically.

This. Do not try to rigorously define canon. That's impossible. Instead only try to realise the truth. There is no canon.

Is Virus canon? Is the Real Strephon being the actual Real Strephon canon? Canon was only ever an illusion. The concept only makes sense if it's immutable and it never has been.

Instead there are only mutually consistent sets of published material. These overlap massively. Many publications (in terms of the setting material) are completely consistent with everything else ever published for Traveller, but many others belong to families of material consistent with each other but not certain other collections of material. Sometimes the discrepancies will be confined to only two or three publications and the inconsistency will consist of just a few paragraphs in each, e.g. where background material on a particular world differ. In other cases whole publishing lines, such as TNE, diverge from everything else.

I think this is a much more practically useful way to look at things. For a particular campaign or a particular publishing line the question becomes which set of mutually compatible material will you use? That becomes the canon for that line or that campaign. What most people refer to a 'Traveller Canon' is actually just the particular set of (mostly) consistent material Marc happens to be blessing right now, until he changes his mind again. Which is fine, and is his right, and is even necessary for practical purposes, but don't let's get all precious about it.

So I don't think the concept of 'a' Traveller canon is remotely useful, but a map of mutually consistent sets of material would undoubtedly be very valuable.

Simon Hibbs

 

[kilemall]

This. Do not try to rigorously define canon. That's impossible. Instead only try to realise the truth. There is no canon.

Is Virus canon? Is the Real Strephon being the actual Real Strephon canon? Canon was only ever an illusion. The concept only makes sense if it's immutable and it never has been.

Instead there are only mutually consistent sets of published material. These overlap massively. Many publications (in terms of the setting material) are completely consistent with everything else ever published for Traveller, but many others belong to families of material consistent with each other but not certain other collections of material. Sometimes the discrepancies will be confined to only two or three publications and the inconsistency will consist of just a few paragraphs in each, e.g. where background material on a particular world differ. In other cases whole publishing lines, such as TNE, diverge from everything else.

I think this is a much more practically useful way to look at things. For a particular campaign or a particular publishing line the question becomes which set of mutually compatible material will you use? That becomes the canon for that line or that campaign. What most people refer to a 'Traveller Canon' is actually just the particular set of (mostly) consistent material Marc happens to be blessing right now, until he changes his mind again. Which is fine, and is his right, and is even necessary for practical purposes, but don't let's get all precious about it.

So I don't think the concept of 'a' Traveller canon is remotely useful, but a map of mutually consistent sets of material would undoubtedly be very valuable.

Simon Hibbs

All very rational, but assuming Aramis and Robject's posts are accurate (and I have no reason to doubt them), creating backdated material for previous systems are no bueno for monetized content.

Which drives me bonkers, as I come from the mainframe tradition of decades worth of backwards compatibility hence master stat tables, and is something like saying you can only write Star Wars material for the new films and cannot do a backstory in the original movies.

I'm sure there are very good reasons for all this as the business has tight margins and Marc in particular would have decades of experience in 'what happens' versus fan theory of how it 'should' work, but it's all very offputting and really steps on my non-OTU/system agnostic preferred approach.

To the point of not wanting to even touch the mess.

Not to mention that sticky TAS license, which means if I understand this correctly, I can't issue a T5 version or future Marc versions if I publish a TAS version on the core content (the other way round the issue, if this is possible). I can't create say Adventure 98- Gunrunner, publish in TAS then publish the same statted in T5, correct? Or reskin for OGL or some other game system?

If that is the situation, that's what we call 'forking' which the Linux people have been desperately trying to avoid, the RPG version of what Microsoft tried to do to Java with Java+.

 

[robject]

Second, based on this, it would appear that a supplement adapting Real World vehicles, ships, and equipment to Traveller 5 Maker format, without using the various Maker systems, would not be allowed.

If you were porting REAL world vehicles and equipment, I would suggest using ThingMaker as the helper to adapt the stats to T5 benchmarks.

 

[robject]

I can't create say Adventure 98- Gunrunner, publish in TAS then publish the same statted in T5, correct?

Right. The T5 material has to have a license. By the way, such licenses are the easy part. The hard part is porting everything from one rule system to the other. The licensing is a transaction between you and Marc: if you have your ducks in a row, that part is not difficult.

However, it is difficult if you want to get the license first and then start churning things out. But then, that would make you a publisher like Mongoose - which is exactly what they did.

 

[aramis]

All very rational, but assuming Aramis and Robject's posts are accurate (and I have no reason to doubt them), creating backdated material for previous systems are no bueno for monetized content.

Which drives me bonkers, as I come from the mainframe tradition of decades worth of backwards compatibility hence master stat tables, and is something like saying you can only write Star Wars material for the new films and cannot do a backstory in the original movies.

I'm sure there are very good reasons for all this as the business has tight margins and Marc in particular would have decades of experience in 'what happens' versus fan theory of how it 'should' work, but it's all very offputting and really steps on my non-OTU/system agnostic preferred approach.

To the point of not wanting to even touch the mess.

Not to mention that sticky TAS license, which means if I understand this correctly, I can't issue a T5 version or future Marc versions if I publish a TAS version on the core content (the other way round the issue, if this is possible). I can't create say Adventure 98- Gunrunner, publish in TAS then publish the same statted in T5, correct? Or reskin for OGL or some other game system?

If that is the situation, that's what we call 'forking' which the Linux people have been desperately trying to avoid, the RPG version of what Microsoft tried to do to Java with Java+.

From my layman's read on things...
Star Wars- new materials have to mesh with the new canon, period. Od materials can continue to be sold, but with a different logo.

TAS - based upon what I've read, once you send it to TAS, you have to withdraw it from ALL other venues; doesn't matter which is first. And the TAS license is not cancellable by the content producer.

It's a copy-paste version of the D&D one.

 

[kilemall]

Thank you for the effort to explain the licenses gentlemen.

Rules and courtesy forbid me from expressing my full emotions on this topic. Suffice to say, not happy that one cannot reach all of Travellerdom with these roadblocks.

Another thing for Mongoose and MWM to consider besides this 'version lock-in' business-

there is a difference between settings and rule systems.

Many of us prefer one rule system or one setting, but not necessarily the two together, or would like to create ATUs not set in the same galaxy or timeline.

In a sense, I understand the business logic I suspect is behind it- need setting material to generate add-on products and sell something new after the core book(s), or entice people interested in the setting to try the system, or provide new value for people buying the system who would ignore the setting anyway.

Not to mention avoiding screeching conflicts over already published material that drive away sales or interest in the game brand, which means quite enough to review material for current editions, something else to look over everything for every possible rules/setting combination.

But for those of us who might want to write for X setting with Y rules, particularly ATU ones where it might go from RPG to novel and/or TV show ala The Expanse, these licenses are very troubling and sticky. Ultimately, limiting the horizons and willingness to lose control of their material to a rights deal I don't see most writers or movie makers make.

It also makes doing something like licensing Dune or some other classic sci-fi and producing a sourcebook a miserable proposition, as the double whammy of an estate license AND the game license pound of flesh puts the writer with sunk costs in artwork such a work would need in a VERY ugly position. Possibly not doable as no estate is going to sign away any kind of forever rights, ever.

Yes the percentage of 'profit' an RPG writer gets is higher then a scifi author, but the RPG writer also don't get advances OR have everything they write locked away, forever.

So, legitimate reasons for them to do what they do for licenses, but legitimate reasons also to not monetize content under those licenses, and I think the brand suffers long term for it.