Thread: IMTU (was Re: COTI)

The IMTU crowd is sort of a mystery. Aside from the handful who maintain websites or speak up in one of the fora they are a silent group. This is almost certainly due to the prevalence of the OTU in visible fan coverage, which conveys a "don't bother" message to the homebrew crowd.

The OTU is both intimidating in its hugeness and seductive in the way all published settings are. That the OTU leans heavily on a large number of old SF tropes just makes it that much more seductive. It has most of the elements a potential homebrewer would include already in place. Why do all that work when you can pick a corner of this huge shared experience and have a big block of the work already done.

The Pseudo-OGL approach Mongoose is taking has probably drawn a few more homebrewers out and given them new versions of the tools to work with. Since CT those tools have been present but often sat neglected because, well, THIRD IMPERIUM. The Mongoose decision to leave setting out of the core rulebook was vilified by a certain crowd, but it does keep those setting essays that MT and TNE were known for from whispering in the ear of the homebrewer. The setting books came along soon enough (for most people) while the career books have been cheerfully expanding the horizons of both the OTU and the homebrewers.

--- In , dcndcn13@... wrote:
>
> Given the fact that Traveller fans are probably the most constitutionally
> inclined to discard the setting ("IMTU", all of the Grognards), removing
> campaigns from the setting is practically a given.
>
> > Depends on the definition of "serious flaw" I suppose.
> >
> > To me, a serious flaw would be something that was both difficult to ignore
> > or remove from the setting AND prevented the setting from telling the
> > sorts of stories/sessions/campaigns that the game is intended to tell.
> >
>

I think that describes me a bit in that I'm part of the IMTU crowd with a website.

I don't have much patience for the version wars so I don't bother with them. I've always felt that if you don't like something from the OTU grand storyline don't include it in your game. Don't like Virus? End the Rebellion *your* way. Don't like the Rebellion? Then keep fighting the Zho's with your monolithic Imperium. Nobody's holding a gun to your head demanding that you buy their products.

Too many people (and the grognards are the most vocal) insist that Traveller must be played a certain way, which is silly. Are they really trying to control the homebrew crowd with their desire to shape the OTU as they want it? I'll tell you this: if GDW didn't break up the Imperium in the OTU, I would've in MTU.

I know that it certain circles that amounts to blasphemy. I've been playing Traveller since 1981, so the grognards can bite me. :)

I've altered the TL tables to my liking, added some engineering rules that would certainly be classified as heretical, and poached rules from various different versions and other's homebrew stuff. Most recently, I've begun using EDG's stellar generation rules in combination with a modified World Tamer's Ch.8 ("Stars and Planets") to get solar systems that work for me. I also tweak the grand storyline for MTU.

It's funny; the Traveller "community" mirrors the fractiousness of the Imperium during its Second Civil War (or "Rebellion" if you prefer). It's certainly in the "Irretrievability Phase". And no, T5 will not bring us all together. My one concern is that this disagreement will enter its "Black War" phase: where the owners of the Traveller license shut down all websites that don't conform to the current rules and setting. I don't think Marc or Mongoose will do that, but their successors (Marc is 65 IINM), if they're grognard, might.

\_/
DED

--- In , "James" wrote:
>
> The IMTU crowd is sort of a mystery. Aside from the handful who maintain websites or speak up in one of the fora they are a silent group. This is almost certainly due to the prevalence of the OTU in visible fan coverage, which conveys a "don't bother" message to the homebrew crowd.
>
> The OTU is both intimidating in its hugeness and seductive in the way all published settings are. That the OTU leans heavily on a large number of old SF tropes just makes it that much more seductive. It has most of the elements a potential homebrewer would include already in place. Why do all that work when you can pick a corner of this huge shared experience and have a big block of the work already done.
>
> The Pseudo-OGL approach Mongoose is taking has probably drawn a few more homebrewers out and given them new versions of the tools to work with. Since CT those tools have been present but often sat neglected because, well, THIRD IMPERIUM. The Mongoose decision to leave setting out of the core rulebook was vilified by a certain crowd, but it does keep those setting essays that MT and TNE were known for from whispering in the ear of the homebrewer. The setting books came along soon enough (for most people) while the career books have been cheerfully expanding the horizons of both the OTU and the homebrewers.
>
>
>
> --- In , dcndcn13@ wrote:
> >
> > Given the fact that Traveller fans are probably the most constitutionally
> > inclined to discard the setting ("IMTU", all of the Grognards), removing
> > campaigns from the setting is practically a given.
> >
> > > Depends on the definition of "serious flaw" I suppose.
> > >
> > > To me, a serious flaw would be something that was both difficult to ignore
> > > or remove from the setting AND prevented the setting from telling the
> > > sorts of stories/sessions/campaigns that the game is intended to tell.
> > >
> >
>

To be clear, I never played in the OTU. Before I came to GDW, I ran my own
TU, liberally stealing stuff from the OTU as it suited me, but we had no
emperors or Ancients or Vargr or Vilani or anything. And after I came to
GDW I no longer had any time to run my campaign.

So when I talk about people who don't use the OTU, who cherry-pick the
rules as they like, I'm not saying they are bad, I'm just saying that they
are difficult to produce products for, because they are not easily
definable, predictable, or reachable. They were people like me. That makes
it harder to produce products that will "satisfy" the fan base, because
huge numbers of them, like me, would just say, "I never used that anyway."

So I am a homebrew guy, with a lot in common with the way the Grognards
play, I just don't spend time saying, "you shouldn't put out campaign
background stuff." So when I refer to them, it is not negatively, but with
full knowledge of how hard it is to put out stuff that would satisfy
malcontents like me.

Dave

> I think that describes me a bit in that I'm part of the IMTU crowd with a
> website.
>
> I don't have much patience for the version wars so I don't bother with
> them. I've always felt that if you don't like something from the OTU grand
> storyline don't include it in your game. Don't like Virus? End the
> Rebellion *your* way. Don't like the Rebellion? Then keep fighting the
> Zho's with your monolithic Imperium. Nobody's holding a gun to your head
> demanding that you buy their products.
>
> Too many people (and the grognards are the most vocal) insist that
> Traveller must be played a certain way, which is silly. Are they really
> trying to control the homebrew crowd with their desire to shape the OTU as
> they want it? I'll tell you this: if GDW didn't break up the Imperium in
> the OTU, I would've in MTU.
>
> I know that it certain circles that amounts to blasphemy. I've been
> playing Traveller since 1981, so the grognards can bite me. :)
>
> I've altered the TL tables to my liking, added some engineering rules that
> would certainly be classified as heretical, and poached rules from various
> different versions and other's homebrew stuff. Most recently, I've begun
> using EDG's stellar generation rules in combination with a modified World
> Tamer's Ch.8 ("Stars and Planets") to get solar systems that work for me.
> I also tweak the grand storyline for MTU.
>
> It's funny; the Traveller "community" mirrors the fractiousness of the
> Imperium during its Second Civil War (or "Rebellion" if you prefer). It's
> certainly in the "Irretrievability Phase". And no, T5 will not bring us
> all together. My one concern is that this disagreement will enter its
> "Black War" phase: where the owners of the Traveller license shut down all
> websites that don't conform to the current rules and setting. I don't
> think Marc or Mongoose will do that, but their successors (Marc is 65
> IINM), if they're grognard, might.
>
> \_/
> DED
>
> --- In , "James" wrote:
>>
>> The IMTU crowd is sort of a mystery. Aside from the handful who
>> maintain websites or speak up in one of the fora they are a silent
>> group. This is almost certainly due to the prevalence of the OTU in
>> visible fan coverage, which conveys a "don't bother" message to the
>> homebrew crowd.
>>
>> The OTU is both intimidating in its hugeness and seductive in the way
>> all published settings are. That the OTU leans heavily on a large number
>> of old SF tropes just makes it that much more seductive. It has most of
>> the elements a potential homebrewer would include already in place. Why
>> do all that work when you can pick a corner of this huge shared
>> experience and have a big block of the work already done.
>>
>> The Pseudo-OGL approach Mongoose is taking has probably drawn a few more
>> homebrewers out and given them new versions of the tools to work with.
>> Since CT those tools have been present but often sat neglected because,
>> well, THIRD IMPERIUM. The Mongoose decision to leave setting out of the
>> core rulebook was vilified by a certain crowd, but it does keep those
>> setting essays that MT and TNE were known for from whispering in the ear
>> of the homebrewer. The setting books came along soon enough (for most
>> people) while the career books have been cheerfully expanding the
>> horizons of both the OTU and the homebrewers.
>>
>>
>>
>> --- In , dcndcn13@ wrote:
>> >
>> > Given the fact that Traveller fans are probably the most
>> constitutionally
>> > inclined to discard the setting ("IMTU", all of the Grognards),
>> removing
>> > campaigns from the setting is practically a given.
>> >
>> > > Depends on the definition of "serious flaw" I suppose.
>> > >
>> > > To me, a serious flaw would be something that was both difficult to
>> ignore
>> > > or remove from the setting AND prevented the setting from telling
>> the
>> > > sorts of stories/sessions/campaigns that the game is intended to
>> tell.
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>
>