Playtest 2.0 files - Things that still bug me.

Sunday, I ran a "big brawl"... group a of 4 cutlass wielding psychos (888??? Melee-LBlade 1) and a 5 round delayed group of 3 "Betters" (AFC66B Melee-LBlade 3, GunCbt-SlugPist 3, Cloth; 888CC9 LBlade 1, CG-SP 3, Tactics 2, CLoth; 888777 M-LBd 1 GC-SP 3, cloth) vs 6 PC's...
Best PC weapon skill was Melee-2 (2 PC's), 2 more had melee 1, and one had no skill at all; the 6th is a "do no harm" doc...

I using the 1st draft's "Stats don't add to effect nor timing, only to base success"

Lowest Effect die was a -1 success (due to high stat but bad mods); highest was a 10. Median was about 6.

The feel was right out of my SCA and other armed western martial arts melee experiences. I could see the battle ebbing and flowing much like an SCA melee. With two RBG's... ;)

Mr Big Bad got unlucky and slowed down by tag-teaming...
The second group had SMG's (Autopistols with 5d autofire, really, since SMG's are missing) stashed in the area... both got theirs. Mr Buff lost his to a well placed kick. Other guy got shot with Mr Buff's.

Missing Rule (I can't find it, at least): disarming.
I used the disarm as a melee attack, but rather than damage, the effect is resisted by a rolled Str & Weapon. (Mr. Buff FAILED! Nat 2.)

Damage to End
We almost all (in my group, except DK) agree that it is not feeling right to always hit end until end zero's... we want randomization on all hits.

going to randomization would also allow some first hits to be telling even if they don't incapacitate... by hurting dex first. Or weakening, by hitting Str first.

Damage process
The damage rules as written provide a very narrow band of damage per weapon, starting near the median of the CT damage. No grazes can occur with rifles, and it's pretty rare even with blades, to cause one. All 7 of us agreed this is a problem.

The multiplicative process would have solved this. And would have made most of the first group go dead, rather than KO'd.



Initiative
It isn't intuitive as written, but it rapidly becomes quick and easy; the separation of movement from combat actions was confusing for 4 of the 6 players for the first 3 turns.... after which they caught on.
Putting out a D20 or D12 with dex scores near the dice for initiative works REALLY well. Dropping a counter on initative six dice before the "up the initiative" to mark an available interrupt helped immensely.

I need to make some "Acted/waiting" tokens for my players. It really would help.

Movement
Standard Traveller movement is in 1.5m squares (ecxept TNE). Tics under Draft 2 are 2m of movement.


UPP's
Backwards compatibility requires having at least a sidebar on "Travellerecimal" and UPP's. it's a fast way to track NPC's and write them down....
 
TrippyHippy said:
Teaching is 90% classroom management, with the rest made up with administration, middle management, crisis management, social working....and about 1% subject knowledge.

I'd amend that to "Being a teacher is 90%..."

I regard my job as all the good bits of teachign with the bad bits of being a teacher taken out.

My personal feeling is that an instruction skill might not go amiss as that's what you're using most when you're teaching (as opposed to classroom managing). Subject knowledge is a pre-requisite for being able to teah something, but the difference between a good teacher and a poor one is not how much they know bvut how well they convey it.

Andy
 
AKAramis said:
Damage to End
We almost all (in my group, except DK) agree that it is not feeling right to always hit end until end zero's... we want randomization on all hits.

going to randomization would also allow some first hits to be telling even if they don't incapacitate... by hurting dex first. Or weakening, by hitting Str first.

I should begin by admitting I don't have any actual play experience, but random stats seems like a much better option to me as well.

Having been thinking on it, it occurs to me that this would also allow the point of unconsciousness to be shifted to End 0 (rather than End 0 on the first hit or when any two stats reach zero). This maintains the possiblity of early KOs, but also allows for the chance that someone can be beaten to a bloody pulp, yet not give up until they're finished off.

Damage process
The damage rules as written provide a very narrow band of damage per weapon, starting near the median of the CT damage. No grazes can occur with rifles, and it's pretty rare even with blades, to cause one. All 7 of us agreed this is a problem.

The multiplicative process would have solved this. And would have made most of the first group go dead, rather than KO'd.

A multiplication system seems widely to superior to the current fixed damage structure, but I'm now favouring Libris' idea of dice of damage, to which the Effect is added as a flat bonus. This allows for a much finer detail in distinguishing between degrees of damage output, and seems like it will be simpler to tweak, adjust and generally mess around with for those that like to tinker.

The major problems I see with multiplication is that an uncapped Effect leads to extreme damage and excessive lethality, while a capped Effect will see max and near-max damage coming up more often than not (even if the maximums are more reasonable under this system.

Done properly, though, I'd take either mulitplacation or dice over the current fixed damage.
 
SableWyvern said:
AKAramis said:
Damage to End
We almost all (in my group, except DK) agree that it is not feeling right to always hit end until end zero's... we want randomization on all hits.

going to randomization would also allow some first hits to be telling even if they don't incapacitate... by hurting dex first. Or weakening, by hitting Str first.

I should begin by admitting I don't have any actual play experience, but random stats seems like a much better option to me as well.

Having been thinking on it, it occurs to me that this would also allow the point of unconsciousness to be shifted to End 0 (rather than End 0 on the first hit or when any two stats reach zero). This maintains the possiblity of early KOs, but also allows for the chance that someone can be beaten to a bloody pulp, yet not give up until they're finished off.

Damage process
The damage rules as written provide a very narrow band of damage per weapon, starting near the median of the CT damage. No grazes can occur with rifles, and it's pretty rare even with blades, to cause one. All 7 of us agreed this is a problem.

The multiplicative process would have solved this. And would have made most of the first group go dead, rather than KO'd.

A multiplication system seems widely to superior to the current fixed damage structure, but I'm now favouring Libris' idea of dice of damage, to which the Effect is added as a flat bonus. This allows for a much finer detail in distinguishing between degrees of damage output, and seems like it will be simpler to tweak, adjust and generally mess around with for those that like to tinker.

The major problems I see with multiplication is that an uncapped Effect leads to extreme damage and excessive lethality, while a capped Effect will see max and near-max damage coming up more often than not (even if the maximums are more reasonable under this system.

Done properly, though, I'd take either mulitplacation or dice over the current fixed damage.

the nice thing about present or multiplication processes is that you only roll 2d6. Period. Damage, however, is too narrow a band as is.

While I dislike rolling lots of damage dice, my players don't... Heck, we played Tunnels and Trolls!
 
AKAramis said:
the nice thing about present or multiplication processes is that you only roll 2d6. Period. Damage, however, is too narrow a band as is.

While I dislike rolling lots of damage dice, my players don't... Heck, we played Tunnels and Trolls!

I'm with you on the buckets-of-dice issue, and that's one of the main reasons it took me so long to give serious consideration to the ideas Libris presented upthread.

If an xD6 system is used for damage, I'd like to see it kept to 5d6 as a maximum, using multipliers (eg, 3d6x2) where necessary.
 
Currently playtesting a system where damage is denoted as xA+B, where you multiply your Effect by a value and add on another value afterwards. So, melee weapons and handguns are all x1+0 to x1+5, rifles are x2+0 to x2+5, big guns are x4+10 and so forth. It's working ok, and will probably stay in V3.
 
Mongoose Gar said:
Currently playtesting a system where damage is denoted as xA+B, where you multiply your Effect by a value and add on another value afterwards. So, melee weapons and handguns are all x1+0 to x1+5, rifles are x2+0 to x2+5, big guns are x4+10 and so forth. It's working ok, and will probably stay in V3.

I look forward to seeing it.
 
SableWyvern said:
I'm with you on the buckets-of-dice issue, and that's one of the main reasons it took me so long to give serious consideration to the ideas Libris presented upthread.

If an xD6 system is used for damage, I'd like to see it kept to 5d6 as a maximum, using multipliers (eg, 3d6x2) where necessary.

When it comes to buckets of dice... I once had to roll 100d6 in T&T... worse, the 7 PC's generated more combat total...

I agree, tho, that 5 dice max is a good limit. You can buy packs of 5d6 at wal*mart for about $3... 25mm d6's.

Mongoose Gar said:
Currently playtesting a system where damage is denoted as xA+B, where you multiply your Effect by a value and add on another value afterwards. So, melee weapons and handguns are all x1+0 to x1+5, rifles are x2+0 to x2+5, big guns are x4+10 and so forth. It's working ok, and will probably stay in V3.

sounds good.
 
If an instruction skill is added, I think it should not put a limit on how high of a skill a person can teach, but should only affect the TIME it takes to teach the skill. A person can only teach someone to the same skill level that they have themselves, with the Instruction skill reducing the amount of time it takes to learn it.

This is one of those skills to me that is really good for an NPC to have, but not really useful to a PC during the game. Sure, they might teach their buddy a skill or two, but in the big scheme of the game, is it worth one of those precious skill spots? When you only get a few skills, I don't think Instruction is one that players are really going to use.
 
I would see instruction being of more use as an in game skill. I was thinking that it would be used to convey information rather than as a means of formal training.

However, the more I think about it, the more I think the game will be no poorer for not having it.

Andy
 
Andrew Whincup said:
I would see instruction being of more use as an in game skill. I was thinking that it would be used to convey information rather than as a means of formal training.

However, the more I think about it, the more I think the game will be no poorer for not having it.

Andy

Given the nature of travel, ship crews often cross train each other using Instruction under MT (or occasionally under CT, using some advanced characters).

Time flies, and you can count on attendance...

In 3 weekly sessions of play, we've covered 6 weeks and 4 parsecs. And the players are complaining we're not "doing enough trading".
 
Instruction is an awesome skill, and has at least two Traveller uses.

First, as AKAramis noted, cross-training sessions to pass the time in jump.

Second, for mercenaries, training local forces on a cadre ticket, in preparation for an imminent offensive.
 
Hello....going on with this topic, I'd like to add a new comment...

I have a ten years ago homerules about "Wound localization", rolling 2d6 and it was cool...

My question, is not possible to aim to specific location to avoid armor in the chest, for example? Because if a NPC is wearing a heavy armor but the head is exposed, is not possible to wound him with the exception of fire him with a bazooka, and it would be ok to be able to aim to the head with your pistol...

Any idea? The easiest way is to random de location.
 
dgmonteavaro said:
Hello....going on with this topic, I'd like to add a new comment...

I have a ten years ago homerules about "Wound localization", rolling 2d6 and it was cool...

My question, is not possible to aim to specific location to avoid armor in the chest, for example? Because if a NPC is wearing a heavy armor but the head is exposed, is not possible to wound him with the exception of fire him with a bazooka, and it would be ok to be able to aim to the head with your pistol...

Any idea? The easiest way is to random de location.

Hit location was a 3rd party option for MegaTraveller (from DGP, who wrote MT for GDW)...

It was core to TNE...

but with the simple damage system in MoTrav, just assume center of mass unless called, and provide an appropriate effect aside from normal stat loss if warranted... like a head shot being randomized between Dex, Int, and Edu... (which was in DGP's hit location system...)
 
Possibly you can take a -DM in order to get round armour and ignore its protection. say -2 to hit the head, -4 to hit between the collar and the brim of a helmet or to hit a hand. Makes highly killed characters with a chance to aim very deadly. Sounds good.

Andy
 
I'm looking at dividing armour into Partial and Full. When a target is hit, roll 1d6:

Partial Armour: 1-4 use armour; 5-6 ignore armour.
Partial Armour + Helmet: 1-5 use armour; 6 ignore.
Full Armour with helmet removied: 1-5 use armour; 6 ignore
Full Armour: Always use armour.

I have been toying with the idea of allowing a -2DM to hit, in order to gain a +1DM to the armour roll.

This keeps things fairly abstract and simple, while allowing for partial coverage.
 
Back
Top