Questioning common wisdom: Traveller isn't about combat.

[Condottiere]

It's why you hire bodyguards.

And meatshields.

 

[OriginalCaruso]

For my AD&D and Traveller games combat is mostly a last resort. AD&D is predicated on adversarial encounters with few ranged weapons whereas Traveller is more exploratory in nature and the plethora of high damage ranged weapons demands a different approach.

Totally different games with different foundations - IMHO they should not be directly compared as both have great strengths and some weaknesses.

Combat is always an option, where the consequences in Traveller can be more severe than in AD&D, horses for courses

 

[Sigtrygg]

What do all these situations have in common?
Situation 1.
PCs are doing stuff in the outback, local farmers don't like it and organise an ambush.
using local knowledge they set up ambush positions and take aim with their telescopic sight rifles...
Situation 2. A group of PCs are in an elevator on a ship approaching the engineering section, they arrive at the deck, the door opens slightly and a grenade is thrown into the elevator...
Situation 3. A PC, skulking around a Costco, is surprised by a security guard. The PC picks up a heavy fire extinguisher and hits the guard...

 

[Vormaerin]

For my AD&D and Traveller games combat is mostly a last resort. AD&D is predicated on adversarial encounters with few ranged weapons whereas Traveller is more exploratory in nature and the plethora of high damage ranged weapons demands a different approach.

Totally different games with different foundations - IMHO they should not be directly compared as both have great strengths and some weaknesses.

Combat is always an option, where the consequences in Traveller can be more severe than in AD&D, horses for courses

No, they shouldn't be directly compared to each other. However, most of the time that this topic comes up, it is a result of people trying Traveller after first having played D&D or its many derivatives. So they come in thinking that adventure design is "go somewhere cool, have fights" and then people try to explain the differences.

But also keep in mind that many of Traveller's top space opera competitors are D&D derivatives: Starfinder, Stars Without Number, etc.

 

[Condottiere]

Mooks are there to rack up experience points.

Or ambiance.

Usually, killing isn't profitable in Traveller.

Antagonists are there so that the adventure isn't a walkover.

 

[ottarrus]

It's why you hire bodyguards.

And meatshields.

The problem with hiring security is twofold:
a] You hire any old tough looking guy only to find out that he has all the situational awareness of a potted plant and the combat ability of a wet bar of soap.
b] You hire vetted security from a reputable company. This works for awhile until you get a rep in the security industry on-world [and possibly off-world depending on you're level of mischief] as people that hire muscle and then go out to do dumb stuff that gets people killed.

Now, I'll fully grant you that most people in the security business have a higher tolerance for risky crap than most people, even most Travellers, but they still want to get home after their shift with their pay safely in their pockets just like anybody else.

 

[metlk]

Mooks are there to rack up experience points.

Or ambiance.

Usually, killing isn't profitable in Traveller.

Antagonists are there so that the adventure isn't a walkover.

I think this is the point a lot of people miss. Combat is not supposed to act as a barrier forcing (or strongly encouraging) players to avoid it, it's there to act as an obstacle to overcome. I think too many refs over the years have adopted the idea that combat is to be avoided at all costs, so they purposefully make the encounters disproportionate to what it should actually be. If you play any of the adventure modules, Mongoose talks a much more balanced approach and often puts the travels through a series of combat scenes as obstacles, not as deterrents. Some of theme are quite tough to survive if you don't prepare properly, but none of them are set out with the sole purpose of killing the players if they choose to fight, but that's what many refs will do because "combat should be deadly." If that's what your players want, fine. But if that's not what they want, you're just a dick.

 

[OriginalCaruso]

The AD&D reward system as written give XP for killing adversaries and no such system exists in Traveller. I removed XP for killing adversaries from my AD&D game and instead reward good / clever play.

The absence of XP in Traveller offers far better balance - I occasionally reward a weeks study bonus for exceptional and repeat use of a skill which might be regarded as a surrogate for XP.

But as I noted previously on this forum, my players much prefer to think than fight - we are a mature bunch though which might have something to do with their approach

 

[paltrysum]

My favourite rule from LBB:4
Panic Fire: At medium range or less, players may voluntarily chose to use panic
fire, if firing small arms slug throwers. Panic fire uses all rounds in the weapon, and
hits are resolved as if the weapon were being fired at its highest setting (four round
bursts, etc.). The player may take up to three normal fires (or less, depending on
how much ammunition is left in the weapon when panic fire is initiated), all of
which are made at a DM of -2. When firing rifles treat them as assault rifles on
automatic setting Players firing carbines treat them as submachine guns.

Great blast from the past! I remember my teenage RPG group resorting to this rule often. In our defense, we were like 14 and consuming all the classic war movies, so of course we loved the panic fire rule.

 

[prometheus2011]

What about dark conspiracy

 

[Sigtrygg]

The OP postulated Traveller isn't about combat
I would like to add a couple more:

Traveller isn't about the Third Imperium
Traveller isn't about the crew of a ship
Traveller isn't about trading

 

[JustEastOfTheEdge]

Not about much, is it . A wonder they manage to fill all those books.

 

[Limpin Legin]

I don't know if I'm right, but there it is as food-for-thought.

My own food-for-thought is along these lines:

• No RPG, Traveller RPG or otherwise, are just about combat.
• So why does combat become a common denominator? Adventures involve mission objectives, and a set of (usually) undisclosed challenges:
  • Challenges can be resolved in numerous ways, but, if players cannot resolve challenges in normal way, they result to using brute force, which in turn, usually means combat.
  • Similarly if the players are new or their PCs are lacking in skill, they (often) resort to combat.
  • If they are sneaking around and attracted unwanted attention, then alarm, followed by combat, usually happens.
  • Traveller doesn't exactly have a reputation system (except law level). Then it gets easier to remove a challenge thru combat, than it does to deal with a challenge.
  • Fear: Fear and suspense in games promotes fight or flight reaction, which in turn makes players trigger happy.
  • A lot of RPG players are ex military soldiers, etc. They want to skilfully simulate their gainly combat knowledge.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Not about much, is it . A wonder they manage to fill all those books.

Ah, but I was going to sneak back and add an edit...
which I will now do as a separate post:

Traveller isn't about combat
Traveller isn't about the Third Imperium
Traveller isn't about the crew of a ship
Traveller isn't about trading

it can be any of the above, but offers the potential to be so much more

 

[nats]

All made more difficult because to play the game fairly realistically the characters will want to go around with lighter armour and weapons most of the time unless they are actually taking part in a war. Also there is no real levelling up, getting much stronger, getting vastly more improved with experience in this game. The combat you do in the first session can be pretty much as deadly as the combat you do in the 20th session. The game is also fairly random, especially in chargen when you get all your stats and skills.

So to combat this, for player characters only, I now use 3xd6 to generate characters starting attributes and discard the lowest dice just for this reason. That is the most important thing in order to get the character a decent start in the game, stay in a career long enough to get some decent skills etc. It can still generate a 2 or a 3 but I feel its a bit fairer in the long run.

I would also suggest giving all NPCs and creatures a -1 DM to hit, if for no other reason than the game is about having fun. This isnt at all realistic because most enemies the characers will face will most likely be more experienced at combat that they are, but hey its also a game and nobody enjoys dying.

It is a great shame this game doesnt have traits like Cepheus as they can help in the long run if you can allocate the characters a trait after each completed mission. I think the game badly needs something like this.

 

[Limpin Legin]

Ah, but I was going to sneak back and add an edit...
which I will now do as a separate post:

Traveller isn't about combat
Traveller isn't about the Third Imperium
Traveller isn't about the crew of a ship
Traveller isn't about trading

I always thought Traveller was about bikini food in time for next summer's beach visit,

or ...

English Maypole dancing xD

 

[Condottiere]

 

[Jet_Black]

We often have sessions where some skill rolls are our only interaction with the rules, but there are times when you either had a stressful day at work, or trouble in the family, or whatever, when you just want to roll some dice and waste some Sindalian Deathbots with extreme prejudice.

There you have it. No need for constant navel-gazing!

 

[MasterGwydion]

"Common Wisdom"

I have never found wisdom to be common.

 

[Limpin Legin]

"Common Wisdom"

I have never found wisdom to be common.

Use your common sense or maybe your none-the-wiser ? (Only joking.)