Damage reduces DM?

[Chuckhazard]

It is my assumption that taking damage to str dex or end results in a temporary reduction in DM. Although I haven't found it explicitly stated in core I have found several places where an example scenario makes it so.

As a player, I hate this. Nothing worse than getting your ass kicked, so your stats go down, so you get your ass kicked more. Like level drain in DND.

As a ref I love this, its simulationist and represents the adverse effects of broken bones or loss of blood or what have you.

Does anyone play this one way or the other?

What about middle of the road solutions? I'm considering ruling that damage will affect positive DM but not make the DM go negative.

I'd be interested to hear what peoples experience with this has been.

Thanks,
Charles

 

[CosmicGamer]

Getting injured reduces effectiveness. I'm fine with this. It is a far from perfect but I want quick and simple combat in my role playing games.

 

[rust]

Getting injured reduces effectiveness. I'm fine with this. It is a far from perfect but I want quick and simple combat in my role playing games.

Same here. The other way to handle it would feel too implausible.

 

[BP]

Ditto.

(In fact, I feel certain damage should effect Int checks as well - given disorientation).

 

[GamerDude]

I did a one-shot at a local game store last year, I knew all the players but they're all D&D monkey-munchkins... they don't understand the meaning of discretion, tactics, etc.

The first injury was to one of the worst of the bunch... He lost almost all his END, down to like 3 I think.

His reaction?

"OMG this game is Fing LETHAL! I want my hit points none of this crap... HIT POINTS!"

 

[BP]

Sounds like you should have let him increase his End by half his reduction of Int :lol:

 

[Matian]

I did a one-shot at a local game store last year, I knew all the players but they're all D&D monkey-munchkins... they don't understand the meaning of discretion, tactics, etc.

The first injury was to one of the worst of the bunch... He lost almost all his END, down to like 3 I think.

His reaction?

"OMG this game is Fing LETHAL! I want my hit points none of this crap... HIT POINTS!"

Arg... I had this happen. The rest of the group came together to salvage it and it managed to end up a positive experience. The group now fondly talks about how Travelling will frakkin' kill you.

The more demos I do for the store, the crunchier I get with the rules and what gamers can and can't do. It's still a far cry from how lethal I play my home games, but acceptable for one-shots. However, I had one player comment that I was really getting rough with them, and they didn't know if they'd survive the next game. I :shock: 'd.

GD 4e, ruining my games...

 

[rust]

As someone else once put it, to knowingly take a serious risk in combat
makes the difference between a hero and a bully. :wink:

So, if my players want their characters to reap the just rewards for heroic
actions, they have to accept that acting like a hero includes to take the
risk a hero has to take - no medal of honour for bungee jumping and si-
milar stunts with only fake risks.

 

[Vargr]

I have said it once, and I will say it again: I don't think Traveller is a lethal game in any way, shape or form. Rather, it addresses combat and injuries in much more realistic manner than most games out there. It's not our fault those other games are "unlethal". Serious consequences from being hit by a bullet in Traveller are a design feature; not a flaw or glitch.

In Travelller, players will win their battles and keep characters alive not because HP makes them bulletproof, but by planning, strategy, tactics, teamwork, making the most of their sorroundings and equipment and even (gasp!) knowing when to avoid a battle.

Knowing how things get done IRL actually helps you in this type of game.


Or to put it in other words: D&D4 is for wimps, real men (and women) play Traveller. :wink:

And that's OK; because both wimps and real men (and women) need games.

 

[apoc527]

And then, y'know, there are those groups that play both types of game. I've done a bit of 4E, and while I didn't really like it, it's actually a pretty nasty game--the damage can come fast and furious if you have a good DM. I had a warforged cleric go from just under full HP (90ish) to like 4 in one action from an NPC. That hurt. Granted, I used "healing surges" and got back to full HP in short order, but that's a feature of a high fantasy game, so it doesn't bug me.

Contrast that with our low-fantasy Alternity game going on right now where just a bit of damage is pretty scary because healing can take weeks!

Next up is our first ever experiment in MGT, so I'll be curious how it compares to the above two games.

 

[GamerDude]

Here's a funny follow up to my story...

That same player is now in my Strontium Dog campaign! Something about being a mutant bounty hunter appeals to him.

 

[Chuckhazard]

wow sounds like opinions are settled, thanks for the input guys!

I guess I'll run it by the book and adjust if necessary. I did just run a CoC game recently so hopefully the gang is now familiar with being squishy.

 

[ned-kogar]

The other thing to do is get them to look closely at the cover and stance rules... in a game where bullets do more than sting, they'll want to use their environment sensibly...

Ned

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

Classic Traveller allowed the player to divide up the damage dice between all three stats rather than applying all of the first attack to Endurance.

I like that better than the MGT "all Endurance" rule. You divide the damage on a per-dice basis, so if a weapon did 3D damage and you rolled 3, 4, 6; then the player could decide which stat (or even the same stat) to apply 3, 4 and 6 points of damage.

That let you spread out that initial hit and not knock your endurance to zero in one hit (with the associated -3 DM on all endurance related checks).

 

[Chuckhazard]

Classic Traveller allowed the player to divide up the damage dice between all three stats rather than applying all of the first attack to Endurance.

I like that better than the MGT "all Endurance" rule. You divide the damage on a per-dice basis, so if a weapon did 3D damage and you rolled 3, 4, 6; then the player could decide which stat (or even the same stat) to apply 3, 4 and 6 points of damage.

That let you spread out that initial hit and not knock your endurance to zero in one hit (with the associated -3 DM on all endurance related checks).

this doesn't sound so bad. I'm not so worried about squishiness really, as the mass of suckitude that comes with the damage. Unrealistic it may be but if players are getting hit hard, which subsequently impairs their ability to run/ fight back, well, it's bad for morale.

I suppose I could not hit them as hard...

I like the idea of giving players the option of divvying up the damage. Then they can take the stat penalty depending on what course of action they are going to take.

 

[apoc527]

Biggest problem with that in MGT is the "seriously wounded" rule. At least one point off all three characteristics makes you really unhappy.

 

[BP]

Well, RTT's CT style rule doesn't state you have to split across all three - it does give you the option to avoid End DM loss which could have a balancing negative impact during combat due to earlier Dex and Str losses.

On the flip side, it kinda breaks the seriously injured mechanics in relationship to healing - the optional Random First Blood rule sorta accommodates both.

 

[GamerDude]

My biggest like about the MGT damage system is... it's fairly realistic without being cumbersome and a huge bookkeeping nightmare...

Combat is lethal and the game should reflect that... D&D with it's ever increasing HP and ways to boost how many you have (magic items) is just nuts. I loved MGP's Conan for d20, you stopped gaining HP after 10th level.

The Serious Damage rule makes the player think before splitting damage across three stats...