Windhorn Pact of Two
- Thread starter robject
- Start date
DGP Vilani & Vargr p 49: The Allegiance codes list has V2: Windhorn Pact of Two, with the associated map having the pact covering approximately the location shown in the Traveller Map for Tuglikki Sector.
So the Pact is at least semi-canon.
David Drazul's site lists print sources for Tuglikki sector as: Vlani & Vargr, Travellers' Digest issue 19, MegaTraveller Journal issues 1 & 2.
So the Pact is at least semi-canon.
David Drazul's site lists print sources for Tuglikki sector as: Vlani & Vargr, Travellers' Digest issue 19, MegaTraveller Journal issues 1 & 2.
All of this is DGP. How much of it falls under DGP's copyright (which is not available to current Traveller licensees), and how much of it is public domain / not copyrighted?
UPDATE Gypsycomet suggests that they "should be able to run with the reality described by
those entries without repeating those entries verbatim."
UPDATE Gypsycomet suggests that they "should be able to run with the reality described by
those entries without repeating those entries verbatim."
Last edited:
All of it falls under the DGP copyright. It is available for the Traveller Licensees if they are willing to re-write (i.e not directly copy) the text under the terms of the Traveller license (as controlled by Marc).
Nothing created after 1927 has fallen out of copyright :CoW:.
In that case, it would seem that all of the DGP material should be available as canon-sources, when current licensees create products. It is simply a matter of whether or not said licensees wish to reference the material (and abide by the DGP canon) for their products.
Or are there other issues I am missing?
You are correct. The DGP material is available as canon-sources. The problem is due to the copyright issues (i.e. no PDF reprints) the material isn't readily available to most of the licensees (or their playtesters/reviewers/editors). Over time, the number of Traveller writers who are aware of the DGP material and have access to it get smaller and smaller.
Note that the TM data is from David's dedzone site, and hasn't been vetted against V&V at all. I believe V&V didn't have anything for Tuglikki beyond dotmap/allegiance name/code (and would have been circa 1120) but I'm away from my stash at the moment so can't check.
i.e. these are excellent questions, Rob.
i.e. these are excellent questions, Rob.
Timerover51
SOC-14 5K
I guess that I question listing as "canon" material that only a very few people are going to have access to, or even know that it exists. My view is that what can be called "canon" is restricted to material that was published by GDW, as that is fairly widely available, that put out by Far Futures, and that put out by Mongoose, with the caveat that disagreements are going to occur between those sources, and it is up the the individual gamer as to what he or she uses. Everything else is supplementary material, but not part of "canon".
When it comes to the material in the JTAS, I would say that 1 to 24 can be considered as part of "canon", but past that, finding the stuff in Challenge is just that, a challenge.
GypsyComet
SOC-14 1K
Canon is what Marc Miller says it is.
Canon is also for writers. Players and Refs don't have to worry about it, though many do anyway.
Canon is also for writers. Players and Refs don't have to worry about it, though many do anyway.
Timerover51
SOC-14 5K
If the writer does not know that it exists, how is it "canon" to him or her?
And Marc contradicts himself on a regular basis, hence the need for so much errata.
When his editor tells him about it. When he asks for help on the Internet and Traveller grognards step up to help him.
Of course, the first part only works if his editor makes an effort to find out what previously published material exists, and the second part only works if the writer asks. Hence such books as the Mongoose writeup of Darrians without consulting the writeup of same in GT:Humaniti.
Hans
BlackBat242
SOC-14 1K
Or the Mongoose editors/writers deliberately considered the GURPS-Traveller stuff as being not suitable to use or consider at all.
I don't know about the editor (except that there does not seem to have been a problem with browsing other GT books for material for other Mongoose books (which IMO is just as it should be)), but the writer specifically told me that he hadn't been informed about the existence of the writeup in Humaniti.
And why should they consider GT setting material as unsuitable? Except for a few early problems and couple of instances where the setting was adapted to the rules instead of the other way around, GT conformed very closely to previously published material. It added a lot more to the setting, sure, but I don't see that as a bug but as a feature.
Hans
I happen to have V&V sitting next to me. This is correct. V&V contains a dot map of the extents, with the various polities outlined and a list of allegiance codes. For the Tuglikki sector (as most of the sectors of the extents) there is nothing further. David's site contains the 1120 rebellion era data and the 1200 TNE era updates. Though I'm not sure where he got the original data from.
That is helpful. Thanks for checking Vilani & Vargr, by the way.
FWIW, Marc (and one other person, I believe) have permission to use the DGP stuff verbatim. Everyone else would have to re-word it - but something official (published under Marc) would still be able to reference the DGP work. (Not sure if that includes Mongoose, but since they're the Official Licenced Publisher, I can't see why not.)
In any case, I have agreed with Hans' position for many years: if there's already a reasonable, plausible write-up available, why over-write and contradict it?
Add to it, enhance it, certainly. But remember there's "11,000 worlds" in the Imperium alone - which means most have NOT been written up. Go and fill in the blanks rather than rehash old ground!
Similar threads
