Combat in Traveller: some tactical principles

[swordtart]

Some thoughts:

Of course D&D style combat habits are a problem. People who have those habits have expectations of how a combat is going to play out. D&D operates on quite a few flawed assumptions, and people accustomed to it don't do particularly well when playing a game operating of different assumptions. When this happens, they can either figure out what happened and try again, or they can get all mad and raise that mournful cry: "this is stupid, let's play D&D".

Something else is a limitation inherent to all ttrps: the disconnect between what the referee/GM imagines to be in the characters' environment, what has been defined in that environment, what should reasonably be in the environment, and the players' perception of what is in the characters' environment. If the characters are in some environment and a gunfight breaks out, their players don't have the immediate visual knowledge of what cover and concealment there is. In the excitement of the moment, people default to there isn't any and say "my guy does this" instead of "wait, what kind of cover and concealment is there". Stopping to ask that question is an unwelcome pause in the action.

Solution? The ref needs to do it.

The ref could have two descriptions of an environment, the usual description and the tactical description.

The usual description: it's a bar with ornate wood paneling, and so on and so forth.
The tactical description: the bar looks like it's made from local hardwood, the tables are too, but the chairs have wicker backs. The dinner service cart is made of relatively thin metal. The piano can conceal one or two guys. There are two sturdy hardwood columns flanking the main entrance.

When the combat is joined, the ref could state the tactical description, then move into the combat. This lets the players know what's there that is tactically useful, and also reminds them about cover, concealment, and using the environment tactically. Soon the players will come to expect this, and they'll get into the habit of thinking about cover, concealment, and other tactical options.

This is what successful use of the tactics skill should tell you. You need to ask to make that check. Experienced combatants do that when they enter the room, not once the fight breaks out. That doesn't mean that the ref assumes the character doesn't do it until the player says it (often players forget) instead once combat is in the offing or actually starts then player gets that roll and the referee describes the situation in sufficient detail depending on the effect number.

If the player wants to pre-empt the fight and position themselves advantageously they need to evaluate the potential threats and position accordingly by actively requesting a tactics roll. If they fail the roll and misread the situation they might be in a less advantageous disposition, but those are the breaks. It is no worse than finding it out at random once the fight kicks off.

As Traveller combat can be so deadly it is not too much of a burden to allow a little time to review the situation and preposition your team in decent positions. Once players have done it a few times, they will get in the habit or they will decide to just cut to the chase. Real combatants get caught out because they get overconfident or careless as 100% vigilance gets exhausting.

 

[shirgall]

Where do "random" fights in alleyways come about?

Getting mugged on shore leave is a rite of passage. This is how some spacehands get melee, unarmed rather than studying fencing.

 

[swordtart]

Words to live by, all very true. IMO most of D&D's random encounters are there just for the gaining of experience points, a mechanic which (thankfully) doesn't exist in Traveller. "2 to 12 bugbears jump out for no apparent reason and kick you in the ass. Roll initiative and get your slice of this experience point pie."

If the ref decides that street violence and crime is commonplace in a particular locale, he can use these "random" fights/crimes to illustrate to the players what kind of a place they're in. Consider them something of an environmental hazard to heighten the tension, or even be a mini-adventure along with the main mission. Also consider that if the player characters have proven themselves to be dangerous when provoked, or look dangerous to begin with, people will most likely leave them alone. On the other hand, a village or neighborhood might unite against the outsiders if the characters shoot a would-be robber, and the characters might find a mob forming against them and people taking potshots at them from windows. It depends on the referee's vision of the local culture, the law level, and how many weapons are floating around.

But, the referee should always ask himself, how will this improve the session?

There needs to be some meaning to a Law Level 0 world other than the characters can fill their armouries with impunity. Not every law level 0 world means a fight before breakfast every day, but if venturing into the seedy side of town is supposed to come with some risk to offset the reward, that risk doesn't have to come from the main NPC, if only for the reason that if that fight goes badly (or too well for the Travellers) it is hard for the main NPC to ignore.

However it could well be the main NPC will toss some bottom feeders at the Travellers (as a training exercise for the henchmen and maybe a test for the Travellers). If the henchmen are able to deal with the Travellers effectively (whatever that means) they might be worth keeping around and feeding, if not then they are no major loss. If the Travellers cannot deal with his plebs then they are probably not worth dealing with either. This encounter might appear to be "random" to the players.

Consider the interaction of "Mr. Smith" with Doyle's gang right at the start of "Last Man Standing". They pick on him to establish their primacy, but in the process push him into an untenable position. He doesn't just leap out of the car and start laying into them (like many a D&D party would do) as he would just get pasted. Equally he knows that he can't just let it lie and as he thinks he is better than them he pushes back. Not casually, but instead by making a plan and engaging them on his own terms. At the end of it the gangsters have been put on notice that there are consequences, but it is still a bit of a gamble as they could just come over to the hotel guns blazing. He basically tells them to ask their boss what they should do next "You tell Mr. Doyle if he'da hired smarter guys none of this woulda happened.". The gangsters are so lacking in initiative that they actually conform to the rules of the game Smith establishes and wait for the boss to tell them what to do. Doyle recognises that Smith has initiative (and his own gang without Hickey clearly doesn't) and decides that hiring Smith is worth loosing a few of his rank and file. Smith plays a similar game with Strozzi.

This film also shows an interesting dynamic with the Law enforcement. The Sherriff feels unable to act against the gangsters and instead decides to profit from the situation. Even the Ranger captain recognises that having the gangs settle who owns what little is left of the town is more efficient than having to clear them both out and Smith is an ideal agent to bring that about. A single gang will become defacto governance (plenty of felons have gone into politics and some of them do very well - cough) and no-one really cares about this sad little ghost town anyway other than Pickett seeming concerned that it represent a victory of chaos over law and order. He says he cares about the people, but clearly most have left and he didn't do anything about it and he accepts corruption as a necessary evil so it maybe the idea of law and order is more important to him than the actuality. Smith is a useful tool for Captain Pickett to offshore some law enforcement without risking his own men, but he is clear to Smith that he will be returning and Smith had better not be there when he does so he doesn't see Smith as an ally.

This would make a great Traveller adventure for a solo character with some smarts and some advantages. Smith isn't the best shot in the world, (he misses plenty of close range shots), he can clearly drive (somewhat), but other than that he doesn't exercise any "skills" as such. Instead he brings a level of commitment and initiative lacking by the gangsters who are just playing at being big men. He also brings better equipment to offset their numerical advantage and lastly he plays smart and dirty. He makes himself appear enough of a potential asset that neither gang leader wants to kill him immediately. When he does eliminate gang members he is careful choose his time to either do it openly to make a point (and enhancing his perceived value) or to do it somewhere out of the way so others will be blamed. When Doyle's gang does finally turn on him he has established some insurance so that they cannot afford to kill him out of hand and so they beat him up to obtain information (and possibly in revenge). He is wise enough to lean into this to buy time to make his escape (or possibly he is tired of fighting but just can't bring himself to give up). His resistance to the gangs and his decent treatment of the normal towns people means that they are inclined to help him in his escape and he reminds them of their obligations to each other.

The only real threat to Smith as long as he remains careful is Hickey, a man of similar capability and stature (or actually significantly greater stature as Christopher Walken portrays him as a force of nature). Hickey is clearly just taking the money while it lasts and maybe taking a break from real work (similar to Smith) as he is far too good for Doyle's gang. The fact that he seems quite capable of eliminating Strozzi's gang single handed but has not yet done so is telling. Without a rival gang maybe Doyle wouldn't need him. I wouldn't be surprised if his long game is not similar to Smith's, to wait for the gangs to get as much money as possible, orchestrate a face-off and then wipe out any survivors. When Smith turns up, it is clear to him that it will end up between the two of them so he is happy to wait for Smith to do most of the leg work until either Smith is caught out and killed or the confrontation between them is is unavoidable.

 

[Arkathan]

Getting mugged on shore leave is a rite of passage. This is how some spacehands get melee, unarmed rather than studying fencing.

The only time I got mugged was ON base. Fortunately, shore patrol came along and scared them off.

 

[shirgall]

The only time I got mugged was ON base. Fortunately, shore patrol came along and scared them off.

Star Trek has several great episodes in this regard. Shore Leave is dangerous!

 

[MonsterX]

Law level 0 can mean a lot of things. Three obvious one come to mind.

1) Most common is there's no population, therefore no one to pass and enforce laws. This is really the only case when you can actually really just do what you want and carry all the guns you want, the problem will be there's no gun shops, since there are no shops.

2) Then there is a post-apocalyptic scenario, or active war zone in which is the social order has broken down so much no one can enforce the laws. Sure, you can carry all the weapons you want, and probably ought to, since everyone else is. However, since everyone is gunned up, it isn't really an advantage. Weapons might or might not be easy to buy or find, but they could well be hard to come by.

3) It can also mean there are rival gangs and tribes and such, who enforce their own rules, as much as they can but no authority has comprehensive control. If you commit a crime, whether it is really a crime depends on who your committed it against and who his friends and relations are. The difference with the post-apocalyptic scenario is that this is stable, so there will be codes, and balances of power between rival tribes or gangs who try to rung things in a smooth way to keep their business going. The reason it is a zero law level, is that it is based on organizations that don't pretend to do anything but take care of themselves and their members - except on individual whim, they wouldn't necessarily care if you killed some random person that didn't belong to their groups or wasn't under their protection.

There are probably other scenarios as well, and alien cultures might well present as law level 0, but the point is that it isn't necessarily a place you would go to get guns you can't find elsewhere. In some cases, it might be.

 

[actionman]

Law level 0 can mean a lot of things. Three obvious one come to mind.

Another possibility is that governmental and an organized law enforcement presence hasn't developed. There's no funding, the region or world is too sparsely populated for the subsector government to care, the people are self-reliant and haven't asked for or bothered to organize law enforcement agencies.

Or, perhaps there is a well developed legal apparatus, but people are still largely self-reliant and there are serious dangers on the planet, so it's legal for people to own and carry military grade weaponry. An example is from Traveller 2300, in which there was a world with the local equivalent of terror birds. They were giant vicious carnivores that could run at 30mph/50kph. There was some flavor text about it, and the colonists on that world needed heavy weapons just to have a chance to survive if one went after him. If a pack went after him, he'd be done even with heavy weapons. Only military grade armored vehicles were safe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phorusrhacidae



Or, people on the world don't possess or carry military grade weapons, but they manufacture them for trade. They've never been made illegal since crime is very low. An inspiration is Switzerland, where most adults have battle rifle in their closets for compulsory military service / citizen militia reasons.

 

[actionman]

The reason it is a zero law level,

I wonder if a world could be considered law level 0 by Imperial standards if the world's legal system allows all objects, such as weapons, but punishes deeds, like misuse of those weapons. And someone who is convicted of such crimes would then be banned from possessing some or all weapons.

 

[Ol'Weedy]

There needs to be some meaning to a Law Level 0 world other than the characters can fill their armouries with impunity. Not every law level 0 world means a fight before breakfast every day, but if venturing into the seedy side of town is supposed to come with some risk to offset the reward, that risk doesn't have to come from the main NPC, if only for the reason that if that fight goes badly (or too well for the Travellers) it is hard for the main NPC to ignore.

However it could well be the main NPC will toss some bottom feeders at the Travellers (as a training exercise for the henchmen and maybe a test for the Travellers). If the henchmen are able to deal with the Travellers effectively (whatever that means) they might be worth keeping around and feeding, if not then they are no major loss. If the Travellers cannot deal with his plebs then they are probably not worth dealing with either. This encounter might appear to be "random" to the players.

Consider the interaction of "Mr. Smith" with Doyle's gang right at the start of "Last Man Standing". They pick on him to establish their primacy, but in the process push him into an untenable position. He doesn't just leap out of the car and start laying into them (like many a D&D party would do) as he would just get pasted. Equally he knows that he can't just let it lie and as he thinks he is better than them he pushes back. Not casually, but instead by making a plan and engaging them on his own terms. At the end of it the gangsters have been put on notice that there are consequences, but it is still a bit of a gamble as they could just come over to the hotel guns blazing. He basically tells them to ask their boss what they should do next "You tell Mr. Doyle if he'da hired smarter guys none of this woulda happened.". The gangsters are so lacking in initiative that they actually conform to the rules of the game Smith establishes and wait for the boss to tell them what to do. Doyle recognises that Smith has initiative (and his own gang without Hickey clearly doesn't) and decides that hiring Smith is worth loosing a few of his rank and file. Smith plays a similar game with Strozzi.

This film also shows an interesting dynamic with the Law enforcement. The Sherriff feels unable to act against the gangsters and instead decides to profit from the situation. Even the Ranger captain recognises that having the gangs settle who owns what little is left of the town is more efficient than having to clear them both out and Smith is an ideal agent to bring that about. A single gang will become defacto governance (plenty of felons have gone into politics and some of them do very well - cough) and no-one really cares about this sad little ghost town anyway other than Pickett seeming concerned that it represent a victory of chaos over law and order. He says he cares about the people, but clearly most have left and he didn't do anything about it and he accepts corruption as a necessary evil so it maybe the idea of law and order is more important to him than the actuality. Smith is a useful tool for Captain Pickett to offshore some law enforcement without risking his own men, but he is clear to Smith that he will be returning and Smith had better not be there when he does so he doesn't see Smith as an ally.

This would make a great Traveller adventure for a solo character with some smarts and some advantages. Smith isn't the best shot in the world, (he misses plenty of close range shots), he can clearly drive (somewhat), but other than that he doesn't exercise any "skills" as such. Instead he brings a level of commitment and initiative lacking by the gangsters who are just playing at being big men. He also brings better equipment to offset their numerical advantage and lastly he plays smart and dirty. He makes himself appear enough of a potential asset that neither gang leader wants to kill him immediately. When he does eliminate gang members he is careful choose his time to either do it openly to make a point (and enhancing his perceived value) or to do it somewhere out of the way so others will be blamed. When Doyle's gang does finally turn on him he has established some insurance so that they cannot afford to kill him out of hand and so they beat him up to obtain information (and possibly in revenge). He is wise enough to lean into this to buy time to make his escape (or possibly he is tired of fighting but just can't bring himself to give up). His resistance to the gangs and his decent treatment of the normal towns people means that they are inclined to help him in his escape and he reminds them of their obligations to each other.

The only real threat to Smith as long as he remains careful is Hickey, a man of similar capability and stature (or actually significantly greater stature as Christopher Walken portrays him as a force of nature). Hickey is clearly just taking the money while it lasts and maybe taking a break from real work (similar to Smith) as he is far too good for Doyle's gang. The fact that he seems quite capable of eliminating Strozzi's gang single handed but has not yet done so is telling. Without a rival gang maybe Doyle wouldn't need him. I wouldn't be surprised if his long game is not similar to Smith's, to wait for the gangs to get as much money as possible, orchestrate a face-off and then wipe out any survivors. When Smith turns up, it is clear to him that it will end up between the two of them so he is happy to wait for Smith to do most of the leg work until either Smith is caught out and killed or the confrontation between them is is unavoidable.

Oh. So it's pretty much a remake of Fist Full of Dollars?

 

[IanBruntlett]

I wonder if a world could be considered law level 0 by Imperial standards if the world's legal system allows all objects, such as weapons, but punishes deeds, like misuse of those weapons. And someone who is convicted of such crimes would then be banned from possessing some or all weapons.

One approach is to make the weapons relatively commonplace but locked up and for ammunition to be strictly controlled and accounted for.

 

[actionman]

One approach is to make the weapons relatively commonplace but locked up and for ammunition to be strictly controlled and accounted for.

Ammo control is how the Swiss do it. The can is sealed and has to be presented when someone reports for regular military reserve training.

 

[IanBruntlett]

Ammo control is how the Swiss do it. The can is sealed and has to be presented when someone reports for regular military reserve training.

Thought so but wasn't too sure

 

[Condottiere]

They're encouraged to go to the shooting range, and relatively speaking, the ammunition is cheap.

I kinda suspect that the assigned bullets is for the event, if they meet a Russian paratrooper between their home and the mobilization point.

 

[actionman]

They're encouraged to go to the shooting range, and relatively speaking, the ammunition is cheap.

I kinda suspect that the assigned bullets is for the event, if they meet a Russian paratrooper between their home and the mobilization point.

It was to raise a force hundreds of thousands strong in a matter of hours. People would be able grab their kit and go as soon as they get home, or immediately if they are already home (like early morning, which is the most likely time). I just checked online, ammo is no longer issued to be kept at home as of 2007. Only members of specialist units that protect critical sites are issued ammo to keep at home.

 

[MonsterX]

Law level really focuses around weapons because that's of course the first, and maybe only, thing the PCs care about: are they going to try to take my guns away? Referees, since we have build the world and run the place, need a bit more nuanced perspective, and don't always tie law level so directly to whether the PCs can carry or buy guns. I often don't just read off the world's law level to determine what weapons the players should have - some places, there are legitimate reasons for people to carry guns, and some places not, and that affects things too. Law level can also restrict access to lots of things, can affect the policing of peoples activities - not all these things should always go together with gun restriction levels.

 

[shirgall]

Law level really focuses around weapons because that's of course the first, and maybe only, thing the PCs care about: are they going to try to take my guns away? Referees, since we have build the world and run the place, need a bit more nuanced perspective, and don't always tie law level so directly to whether the PCs can carry or buy guns. I often don't just read off the world's law level to determine what weapons the players should have - some places, there are legitimate reasons for people to carry guns, and some places not, and that affects things too. Law level can also restrict access to lots of things, can affect the policing of peoples activities - not all these things should always go together with gun restriction levels.

I use the law level as the base difficulty of Admin and Advocate checks when the Travellers are doing something unusual or trying to buck the procedure.

 

[CordwainerFish]

I use the law level as the base difficulty of Admin and Advocate checks when the Travellers are doing something unusual or trying to buck the procedure.

When the law level is low enough, Streetwise might be the appropriate skill instead.

 

[Arkathan]

When the law level is low enough, Streetwise might be the appropriate skill instead.

Depending on who you are talking to, it is relevant at higher levels too.

 

[Condottiere]

Depends on what you want to accomplish, with whom, and at what level of interaction.

Streetwise would tell you how law enforcement officers would react under certain conditions, Administration how to interact with the desk sergeant at the station, and Liaison how to schmooze with the Police Commissioner.

 

[MonsterX]

When the law level is low enough, Streetwise might be the appropriate skill instead.

Streetwise tells you how many credits to fold inside your passport as you tell the police officer "I really hope you could just let me off with a warning this time"