Known Issues/Playtesting Wanted

[SableWyvern]

Exactly.

It's safer to fight in the dark. Bullets will do less damage since they'll get a lower overall effect.

I have no idea if you're using irony to agree with me, or making a literal point in disagreement. Care to clarify?

 

[JimG]

*Aiming in the general sense -- anything that helps or hinders your ability to hit.

Exactly.

It's safer to fight in the dark. Bullets will do less damage since they'll get a lower overall effect.

When I was reading the rules, I interpreted this to mean that anything that helps your ability to hit also helps you hit more vital/less protected areas of your target, sort of rolling a critical hit system into the single attack roll. It's safer to fight in the dark because your opponent is less likely to place a bullet in the gap between your vest and your helmet.

In theory, I like the idea. However, I haven't had any time to run combats yet, so I can't comment on how well any of it works in practice though.

 

[SableWyvern]

When I was reading the rules, I interpreted this to mean that anything that helps your ability to hit also helps you hit more vital/less protected areas of your target, sort of rolling a critical hit system into the single attack roll. It's safer to fight in the dark because your opponent is less likely to place a bullet in the gap between your vest and your helmet.

In theory, I like the idea. However, I haven't had any time to run combats yet, so I can't comment on how well any of it works in practice though.

The problem is, night fighting doesn't make it less likely to hit vitals -- it makes it impossible.

To do maximum damage with your weapon, you need to be an elite marksman firing under absolutely ideal circumstances. Someone shooting one range band under Optimum range will do two points less damage than if he takes exactly the same shot, but at Optimum range -- not just on average, but as an absolute.

In the real world (if we allow for time travel) an absolute klutz from the bronze age who is suffering from a serious concussion could be handed a pistol and accidentally put a round through someone's eye. In Traveller, someone of mediocre skill, firing at a sub-optimal range at night, cannot.

Some people will just take this in stride, and consider it no more than a necessary abstraction. I can live with it on those terms, but would like to see the effect minimised to the highest degree possible without breaking anything else, or adding excessive complexity. Naturally, the point at which complexity reaches the point of becoming excessive is a purely subjective thing.

 

[Libris]

I think that the damage should be separated from the to hit roll with the possibility of a critical hit, say natural 12. Striker actually did it quite well. Even the original LBB separated damage.

No matter how good you are with a pistol, a shot to the visor of battledress is just going to annoy the wearer, on the other hand a fluke shot might find a weak spot.

 

[Libris]

Some people will just take this in stride, and consider it no more than a necessary abstraction. I can live with it on those terms, but would like to see the effect minimised to the highest degree possible without breaking anything else, or adding excessive complexity. Naturally, the point at which complexity reaches the point of becoming excessive is a purely subjective thing.

This is true and obviously some abstraction is required but I've already got a shelf full of "broken" versions of Traveller, I don't need another.

 

[SableWyvern]

I think that the damage should be separated from the to hit roll with the possibility of a critical hit, say natural 12. Striker actually did it quite well. Even the original LBB separated damage.

No matter how good you are with a pistol, a shot to the visor of battledress is just going to annoy the wearer, on the other hand a fluke shot might find a weak spot.

Seperating damage from to-hit removes the dichotomy of Timing and Effect, which is currently the system's real strength, IMO, and the reason I can forgive some less than ideal results when it comes to damage.

 

[Libris]

I think that the damage should be separated from the to hit roll with the possibility of a critical hit, say natural 12. Striker actually did it quite well. Even the original LBB separated damage.

No matter how good you are with a pistol, a shot to the visor of battledress is just going to annoy the wearer, on the other hand a fluke shot might find a weak spot.

Seperating damage from to-hit removes the dichotomy of Timing and Effect, which is currently the system's real strength, IMO, and the reason I can forgive some less than ideal results when it comes to damage.

I thought the whole point of replicating what happens in real(ish) life was what this was about rather than getting it to fit a nice game concept which although it works well for most skills doesn't work realistically for gun combat.

Other than the aiming and putting the round on target, the terminal results shouldn't have anything to do with how good the firer is. Using a critical hit system for combat (simply a natural twelve) although should give even the most inept the possibilty for spectacular results.

 

[SableWyvern]

I thought the whole point of replicating what happens in real(ish) life was what this was about rather than getting it to fit a nice game concept which although it works well for most skills doesn't work realistically for gun combat.

I think there is a problem with the realism of damage; OTOH, I think the basic Timing and Effect system allows for as much "realism" as more typical combat timing systems, and more than most.

The flow of combat under the current system is much more natural than the rigid structure of conventional round-by-round combats, and things like the ability to duck behind cover or expose yourself in order to take a shot are implemented well. A group working together to put constant fire on targets are liable to take that target out or keep them supressed. The simple addition of pre-emptive, sustained suppression fire (as per my suggestion upthread) makes fire-and-movement tactics even more effective. These are all good things, IMO, and tied into Timing/Effect in such a way that I consider the compromise required to keep Timing/Effect worthwhile.

Other than the aiming and putting the round on target, the terminal results shouldn't have anything to do with how good the firer is. Using a critical hit system for combat (simply a natural twelve) although should give even the most inept the possibilty for spectacular results.

Actually, what you've done is ensure that inept shooters always get spectacular results when they hit, because the worst will only ever hit on natural 12s anyway.

This can be overcome with a D&D style "confirmation roll", so let's assume we go down that path, or come up with another option as good or better. That leaves the question of what new initiative system you plan to implement, since we've now killed Timing/Effect.

 

[Libris]

Actually, what you've done is ensure that inept shooters always get spectacular results when they hit, because the worst will only ever hit on natural 12s anyway.

This can be overcome with a D&D style "confirmation roll", so let's assume we go down that path, or come up with another option as good or better. That leaves the question of what new initiative system you plan to implement, since we've now killed Timing/Effect.

Ah! Quite. There would need to be some sort of confirmation thing.

What's wrong with using dice damage like the LBB? A Gauss rifle used to do 4d6 giving the possibility of damage from 4 to 24. Sure, you'd need to modify the armour but that's no big deal. In fact if you landed a hit in LBB combat it was nasty, especially with military weapons. It would be easy to figure out how much armour was required to stop say 90% of gauss rifle rounds even if using some armour piercing rule. Also works out well for shotguns where damage can be applied against individual damage dice or even groups of dice.

We don't actually have to kill the Timing/Effect dice.

The timing die works normally. The effects die is used to determine which ability is effected. 1-2 Highest, 3-4, Middle, 5-6 lowest. With the first hit affecting one characteristic with over flow going to others. The effects die even works with subsequent hits to determine where to apply the first die damage.

 

[SableWyvern]

Ok, I'll give you that as potentially workable alternative.

The question is, is the pay-off for selecting a high Effect worth it?

 

[Libris]

Ok, I'll give you that as potentially workable alternative.

The question is, is the pay-off for selecting a high Effect worth it?

You could just use the effect dice as is and simply add it to the damage. Works out quite well for low power weapons but becomes somewhat moot for high tech military where getting the first shot in would be priority anyway! Reminds me of the western title "The Quick and the Dead".

 

[SableWyvern]

You could just use the effect dice as is and simply add it to the damage. Works out quite well for low power weapons but becomes somewhat moot for high tech military where getting the first shot in would be priority anyway! Reminds me of the western title "The Quick and the Dead".

Now you're pretty much right back where we started. :wink:

For high-damage weapons, xd6 is not much different from a fixed damage value (if you're rolling 6d6, your damage is going to be within a point or three of 21 the vast majority of the time). For low damage weapons, your more varied but low-valued spread is going to be overshadowed by the result on the Effect die, thus making skill the primary variable effecting damage.

 

[captainjack23]

Not sure if this has been mentioned, but one of the nice rules in T4 was the damage cap - no matter what a weapons rating, mods included, was, one shot could do a max of 3d6 damage (4?); the rest was wasted, most likely by the projectile exiting the body.

Might apply here rather well, even as a simple point cap (not dice based) given the high lethality noted.

Cap.

 

[SableWyvern]

With a fixed damage value, I'm not sure I'd be happy with this -- IMO, an absolute damage cap should allow for lethal shots on any human target. With fixed damage, such a cap would be irrelevant, because more damage would have no effect anyway, the target already being dead by the time the cap is reached.

 

[Mongoose Gar]

I'm going to try a few games with damage scores of A x Effect + B, where A and B vary depending on the weapon. A pistol might just do 1 X Effect +4 (1-10 damage), a big gun might do 3 x Effect +7 (10-25 damage). It's a bit more complex, though.

 

[SableWyvern]

I'm going to try a few games with damage scores of A x Effect + B, where A and B vary depending on the weapon. A pistol might just do 1 X Effect +4 (1-10 damage), a big gun might do 3 x Effect +7 (10-25 damage). It's a bit more complex, though.

You're capping effect at 6 then, I presume?

 

[Libris]

Now you're pretty much right back where we started. :wink:

Almost

You could also use the difference between what you need to hit (if it's positive) to damage that penetrates if it was an aimed shot. It has no effect if it doesn't or it wasn't aimed. You can put the same 6 limit on this as per skills.

For example, Dead Eye Pete fires an aimed shot from his autopistol at Dave the Deadman and rolls a 6 for damage, a 3 for effect and gets 4 more than need to hit. He gets a solid hit for 13 damage; Dave's going down. Dave's mate, Lucky Louis squeezes off a round at Pete, and gets just what he need to hit. He does however roll a 12 for damage and a 6 for effect which promptly blows Pete into the weeds.

For example, Rolling 3d6 with his assault rifle our hero gets 17 damage, a 5 on his effects die and rolled a 14! (with mods obviously). Whoot!!!
Unfortunately, his target is in TL14 light combat armour with an AV of 22; proof against most gauss rifle round let alone a low tech assault rifle. The damage is 22; same as the armour and fails to penetrate.

For high-damage weapons, xd6 is not much different from a fixed damage value (if you're rolling 6d6, your damage is going to be within a point or three of 21 the vast majority of the time). For low damage weapons, your more varied but low-valued spread is going to be overshadowed by the result on the Effect die, thus making skill the primary variable effecting damage.

It probably is though.
You could add the difference between what you need to hit and what you rolled to damage as well. A random hit from a pistol bullet might kill you, a random hit from a gauss rifle is likely to kill you but a 9mm to the left eye most definitely will.

The dice method though does give the possibility of high as well as low rolls though and bring in much more unpredicability.

From a game point of view, I find that players like adding up dice for damage but aren't so keen on adding up modifiers and flat damage values.

 

[Mongoose Gar]

Yeah, back to the 6 cap.

 

[Exwrestler]

Any system that goes back to handfuls of dice will immediately reduce my groups to the two guys that liked traveller already.

 

[Libris]

Any system that goes back to handfuls of dice will immediately reduce my groups to the two guys that liked traveller already.

Fair enough but we're not talking bucks of dice. The to hit mechanism is virtually identical. Most weapons may do up to 4d6 damage. High power weapons can be dealt with using a multiplier similar to the 6d x # system used in GURPS. The advantage of using dice for damage is that it removes a significant part of the skill factor in generating damage and leaves it to the weapon.