[TML] Mongoose Traveller

[Jerry W Barrington]

On 11/7/07 1:44 AM, Eris Reddoch wrote:

> Who here is paying attention to Mongoose Traveller?
> 
> If you haven't taken note, go to Planet Mongoose at
> http://blog.mongoosepublishing.co.uk/ and read over the
> Traveller entries for the last month, or so. Read their last
> ezine. Read their press release about Traveller.
> 
> It seems to me, the TML would be discussing MongTrav, or RTT,
> or whatever we grognards end up calling it almost to the
> exclusion of everything else right now.  The core book for RTT
> is scheduled to be released 1st quarter 2008...3 or 4 months,
> folks! And you've probably read about sunsetting licenses for
> every other version of Traveller (except *maybe* GT) and how
> that is going to make RTT (and T5 which some of us doubt
> *ever* sees the light of day) the "official" and *only*
> Traveller to carry the flame forward.
> 
> But, a search of the TML reveals next to nothing about
> Mongoose and the coming sea change in the rules for our game.
> 
> Come on folks...Pros and Cons? Hopes and Fears? Bouquets and
> Brickbats? Something? Anything?

Actually, when it 1st came to our attention, there was a good discussion
over it.  Since then, I haven't heard anything new, so what's to discuss.

Indeed, new players would be a good thing.  The game has been practically
dead since GDW went under.



On 11/7/07 1:12 PM, Ewan Quibell wrote:

> There have always been "other" companies producing Traveller material in
> the OTU, FASA, DGP, and Judges Guild are the easily identifiable ones.
> Some of which is dross, but most of which is good product.
> 
> The whole Mongoose License deal puts a break on this type of creativity
> as you can't produce a Traveller product without going through them. I
> think for me the "too controlling" thing goes against the grain.

That's my issue with the whole way Marc is doing website "approval".  I
don't like a situation where the system owner can simply tell me to shut my
site down because it talks about Traveller.

You know, it used to be that people could publish (fan or commercial)
material "for use with" any game system without *having* to have permission
from the game's publisher.  What ever happened to *that*?



On 11/7/07 1:12 PM, Garry Ward wrote:

> That is what I'm wondering; not being a legal wiz, I'm not sure if the OGL
> implies the D20 mechanics or is just some weasel wording to try and protect
> their IP while still allowing local gamers to create their own adventures
> instead of just running the canned ones.

Uh, local gamers can *always* make their own adventures, no matter what
licensing applies.  It's only *publishing* that can be limited.



On 11/7/07 1:12 PM, James Ramsay wrote:

> Personally I am hoping they go further then the d20 OGL and release the
> char gen, but I am inclined to believe they won't. Even if they don't it
> is still nice to have (free) legal hard copies to give players for
> reference, and for computer use.

Containing chargen is pretty major.  Look at all the old articles that were
published for different careers.  Hell, chargen is almost the only reason I
keep following Traveller!



On 11/7/07 1:12 PM, Michael Taylor wrote:

> I'm especially interested in their intention to make Traveller the generic
> Sci-Fi toolkit it was always meant to be.

I like this idea too, as I think (very much personal opinion) the OTU is the
weakest part of the game.  But I'm not holding my breath.

> If I had my way I'd fix it thus:
>        a. Throw out the career paths, maybe keeping an optional Life Path type
> of background tables (Mongoose appears to be doing this) and put in a good
> Build Point system complete with Advantages/Disadvantages (a fanzine put out
> an article on this that was well done) but not the munchkin-friendly kind like
> GURPS or Champions.

Ouch!  As stated above, chargen is what I *like* about Traveller.  I'd do it
a bit differently, more detailed/complicated, but the careers would still be
there.

> Or at least great support.

I think this is the biggest issue.  Traveller was doing pretty good (it
seemed to me anyway) while GDW was pumping the material out.



On 11/7/07 1:12 PM, James Ramsay wrote:

> I disagree with that. Jump being the limit of communication limits many
> possibilities, and it is fairly openly stated in CT that this limit is a
> core feature.

True, but TNE FF&S opened that up some with alternate star drives.