Subdermal Armor too strong

[actionman]

I could definitely see subdermal armour being an elective option for troops expecting to be deployed into heavy fighting. Particularly those who routinely operate Battle Dress, where every point matters for surviving stuff like automatic gauss weapons loaded with APDS and you're already spending a lot of money per soldier. Or high-end mercenaries and special forces, where you're really trying to concentrate as much force and skill in as small a space as possible.

Stuff like the Soldier's Organ Package shows us that there is room in the setting for spending a lot of money on individual soldiers sometimes (Even if it's not a regular occurance), and subdermal armour is a drop in the bucket compared to that, plus it doesn't come with horrible early aging and sanity altering downsides like the package.

Some thoughts:

There are two different trains of thought happening in this discussion. There's the logical-intuitive train of thought, like me thinking about long term medical effects of subdermal armor and the problems of heat dispersion in brain cyberwear, and then there's the other train of thought about the MgT game mechanics, which create the de facto reality in game. These two trains of thought aren't compatible, and the game mechanics create what is true in game, plus whatever house rules the ref implements. The game mechanics create the in-game reality, and the logical-intuitive thinking must be developed from that reality. So, according to the reality created by the game mechanics, the logic might be completely different. The question should really be, "The rules mandate this is true, so what must the logic be that reaches this already mandated conclusion?"

So in the in-game reality created by the rules, it may very well be that every soldier getting subdermal armor and cyberwear is the most logical course of action for Traveller militaries.

In general, when the game mechanics create a reality that is grossly illogical or fails to have a plausible cause and effect for things in its de facto reality, it creates uncomfortable cognitive dissonance, that feeling of things not making sense. People respond to this by making house rules, or ignoring things, or by refusing to discuss issues. Each occurrence of this weakens a game as a whole, and if there are enough of these problems, people have to house rule so much that they're essentially playing a different game. People can make things work, but they shouldn't have to.

 

[actionman]

That's just an assumption. It may be true. It might not be, as we don't know anything about the technology involved. There could be nano or biotech components that allow for some degree of growth over time. There might not.

Subdermal armor seems unlikely to be the sort of thing you'd implant in a child for a variety of reasons. But we are talking about wholly imaginary technologies and cultures.

Imagine getting your brother's hand-me-down subdermal armor.

 

[actionman]

That's because the offensive weapons are all banned, and therefore no one carries them. So no one needs their own armour...

Of course, once legislation is enacted, the problem is solved. Edit: Something refs should consider is if a world has high law level, what are the prevailing conditions on that world which necessitate such high law levels? IMO, Traveller's view of law level is from the perspective of state oppression, as in, the world's government will punish you if you have these things. It never suggests that there might be valid concerns or very real problems which necessitated these restrictions as a response.

 

[badpixie]

I've never played nor run a game where characters had that much disposable income.

 

[hopsnbaer]

Now that I am getting older, if I start thinking about what I would do with an extra Mega Credit or two in-game, spending it on Subdermal Armor is not on my list.

 

[Fluffy Bunny Feet]

I agree; subdermal armor seems like something for VIPs, not soldiers. But I was offering thoughts along the lines that Luckmann had laid out -- their GM has ruled that subdermal armor is extremely tightly controlled 'military' technology. It is not my place to dispute their rulings.

Also spies, anthropologists on violent worlds, criminals.

 

[swordtart]

Some thoughts:

There are two different trains of thought happening in this discussion. There's the logical-intuitive train of thought, like me thinking about long term medical effects of subdermal armor and the problems of heat dispersion in brain cyberwear, and then there's the other train of thought about the MgT game mechanics, which create the de facto reality in game. These two trains of thought aren't compatible, and the game mechanics create what is true in game, plus whatever house rules the ref implements. The game mechanics create the in-game reality, and the logical-intuitive thinking must be developed from that reality. So, according to the reality created by the game mechanics, the logic might be completely different. The question should really be, "The rules mandate this is true, so what must the logic be that reaches this already mandated conclusion?"

That is my preferred solution as once you start changing things where do you stop.

So in the in-game reality created by the rules, it may very well be that every soldier getting subdermal armor and cyberwear is the most logical course of action for Traveller militaries.

If the army career represents most militaries, then most militaries don't issue subdermal armour as there would be a greater incidence (i.e. >0) of them as a mustering out benefit. I am unsure where the idea that it is military equipment has come from (other than potentially a referees personal setting decision).

In general, when the game mechanics create a reality that is grossly illogical or fails to have a plausible cause and effect for things in its de facto reality, it creates uncomfortable cognitive dissonance, that feeling of things not making sense. People respond to this by making house rules, or ignoring things, or by refusing to discuss issues. Each occurrence of this weakens a game as a whole, and if there are enough of these problems, people have to house rule so much that they're essentially playing a different game. People can make things work, but they shouldn't have to.

However some people do seem to want to find inconsistency and point it out even if it is in a part of the game in which they have no interest.

 

[Fweeba]

Some thoughts:

There are two different trains of thought happening in this discussion. There's the logical-intuitive train of thought, like me thinking about long term medical effects of subdermal armor and the problems of heat dispersion in brain cyberwear, and then there's the other train of thought about the MgT game mechanics, which create the de facto reality in game. These two trains of thought aren't compatible, and the game mechanics create what is true in game, plus whatever house rules the ref implements. The game mechanics create the in-game reality, and the logical-intuitive thinking must be developed from that reality. So, according to the reality created by the game mechanics, the logic might be completely different. The question should really be, "The rules mandate this is true, so what must the logic be that reaches this already mandated conclusion?"

So in the in-game reality created by the rules, it may very well be that every soldier getting subdermal armor and cyberwear is the most logical course of action for Traveller militaries.

In general, when the game mechanics create a reality that is grossly illogical or fails to have a plausible cause and effect for things in its de facto reality, it creates uncomfortable cognitive dissonance, that feeling of things not making sense. People respond to this by making house rules, or ignoring things, or by refusing to discuss issues. Each occurrence of this weakens a game as a whole, and if there are enough of these problems, people have to house rule so much that they're essentially playing a different game. People can make things work, but they shouldn't have to.

I don't really think that subdermal armor as depicted in Traveller would necessarily have long term medical effects, it's designed by a civilization as far ahead of us as we are ahead of the industrial revolution, so it strikes me as eminently reasonable that the answer to any issues we would raise would be something like 'yeah, that was a problem when it was being designed, but we solved it'. Much like they did for fusion generators, gravitics, energy weaponry, etc.

Certainly the lack of them has never given me a sense of cognitive dissonance between the game and what seems to make plausible sense, nothing that I can't easily accept as a conceit of a science fiction setting.

 

[J. L. Brown]

If the army career represents most militaries, then most militaries don't issue subdermal armour as there would be a greater incidence (i.e. >0) of them as a mustering out benefit.

The Army career does hand out Augments as mustering out benefits (p. 24), though. A roll of 1 or 6 will get the veteran an augment; just one roll is sufficient to get Subdermal Armor +1, while two such rolls can get Subdermal Armor +3. They are listed on p 106 of the Core Rules Update.

Of course, there are far better choices available -- but someone can choose it if they want.

 

[Vormaerin]

I don't really think that subdermal armor as depicted in Traveller would necessarily have long term medical effects, it's designed by a civilization as far ahead of us as we are ahead of the industrial revolution, so it strikes me as eminently reasonable that the answer to any issues we would raise would be something like 'yeah, that was a problem when it was being designed, but we solved it'. Much like they did for fusion generators, gravitics, energy weaponry, etc.

Certainly the lack of them has never given me a sense of cognitive dissonance between the game and what seems to make plausible sense, nothing that I can't easily accept as a conceit of a science fiction setting.

Correct. No one is going to get major brain surgery every time they need to upgrade their iPhone or iPad, so obviously if Neural Comms/Neural Comps are a thing, that level of brain surgery needs to be basically walk-in outpatient clinic level tech. And similar situations with other technology.

Of course, if you don't like that, you can set your environment differently. But the players should be aware of the situation. The original topic was whether Subdermal Armor is mechanically too strong. If the GM doesn't like subdermal armor and doesn't want it in their campaign, that should be clear. And if there's going to be house rules of downsides to having cyberware, they should be spelled out in advance as well.

Cyberware doesn't fit every setting. It has appeared sporadically in Charted Space, but it's never been a major element. It is most often a step between "peg leg" and "regrow the limb" rather than a shadowrun style "make me superhuman" tool. But you could easily make it more or less effective to suit your campaign style.

 

[rinku]

Just keep to the physics and it won't really be a superpower. Most implants are only giving the same benefits as cheaper and removable equipment. A bionic arm alone isn't going to let you lift a car; It might help punch or especially grip better, but so would a powered glove.

 

[swordtart]

The Army career does hand out Augments as mustering out benefits (p. 24), though. A roll of 1 or 6 will get the veteran an augment; just one roll is sufficient to get Subdermal Armor +1, while two such rolls can get Subdermal Armor +3. They are listed on p 106 of the Core Rules Update.

Of course, there are far better choices available -- but someone can choose it if they want.

Yes, but it is not like the Navy and the Ships Boat where you get told what type of vessel is the default - which allows you to make some assumptions on the number of Ships Boats out in the oggin as the majority* of ex-navy acquired one in service.

You can choose any augment (it could as easily be a neural comm), so any assumption is unsafe. Since Agent also gets implant we cannot even presume augmentation is a factor in only ground military only.

*EDIT
Not majority acquire, majority could acquire. See post #96 below.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Cyberware doesn't fit every setting. It has appeared sporadically in Charted Space, but it's never been a major element. It is most often a step between "peg leg" and "regrow the limb" rather than a shadowrun style "make me superhuman" tool. But you could easily make it more or less effective to suit your campaign style.

Have you seen the artwork lately? The book covers and interior art all feature extensive use of cybernetics. This implies it is common in the setting even though they don;t say so.

 

[Vormaerin]

Yes, but it is not like the Navy and the Ships Boat where you get told what type of vessel is the default - which allows you to make some assumptions on the number of Ships Boats out in the oggin as the majority of ex-navy acquired one in service.

I don't understand what you are saying with this.

First, it's a choice of a small craft or ship shares and it's not automatically a ship's boat, that's just typical of boats in the MCr10 or less range. The light fighter, gig, launch, pinnace, ship's boat, and slow boat all qualify. The modular cutter *barely* doesn't qualify, if your GM is a stickler for 10.1 not being 10 or less

Second, if you are saying that the majority of ex-navy acquired a the small craft benefit, that's not remotely true. Even if you assume 5 terms and Rank 4, you only have 7 rolls. IF you put all of them into benefits, you have a 73% chance of getting at least one 6 to get that benefit. But most players will take several rolls on the cash table in my experience.

And, of course, about 1 in 4 Naval personnel mishap out of the service in any given term, so getting to 5 terms with 3-4 promotions is actually not likely.

 

[Vormaerin]

Have you seen the artwork lately? The book covers and interior art all feature extensive use of cybernetics. This implies it is common in the setting even though they don;t say so.

Sure, it's easy to get "my normal limb but metal" out of chargen by taking that as an option for any injury. That's not the same thing as an actual enhancement.

Also, it's art. None of those characters with stat blocks actually have cybernetics. Just like lots of ship art has airfoils or whatever, but they aren't in the stat block.

Cybernetics have existed in Charted Space material for a long time. It's never been a focus of the game. It's still not a focus of the game even with the possibility of actually getting some minor cybernetics in chargen in MgT2e and T5.

 

[swordtart]

I don't understand what you are saying with this.

First, it's a choice of a small craft or ship shares and it's not automatically a ship's boat, that's just typical of boats in the MCr10 or less range. The light fighter, gig, launch, pinnace, ship's boat, and slow boat all qualify. The modular cutter *barely* doesn't qualify, if your GM is a stickler for 10.1 not being 10 or less

The benefit table says "Ship's Boat" not "Small Craft". It allows you to choose an alternative and a Ship's Boat isn't even the best one - though there is nothing to say you have to have a stock one. No-one with half a brain is going to take a ship share when they could get a MCr10 small craft and sell it if it becomes necessary.

My point was that the Army benefit table does not say "Dermal Armour". It is a subtle difference perhaps, but when you have no information to go on...

Second, if you are saying that the majority of ex-navy acquired a the small craft benefit, that's not remotely true. Even if you assume 5 terms and Rank 4, you only have 7 rolls. IF you put all of them into benefits, you have a 73% chance of getting at least one 6 to get that benefit. But most players will take several rolls on the cash table in my experience.

Yes, my apologies that was an error, I had "CAN acquire" when I started drafting the response but decided to work out what the actual percentage that would acquire one so I could put that instead.

I got distracted when working out the percentage and the next day I realised that I hadn't actually posted the response. I hit send before I remembered that I hadn't actually put in the percentage and my edit was in a halfway state.

Generally I see players always going for the benefit as the majority are significantly more valuable than the cash equivalent.

And, of course, about 1 in 4 Naval personnel mishap out of the service in any given term, so getting to 5 terms with 3-4 promotions is actually not likely.

My experience has been that a much lower percentage mishap out. I tended to assume that the majority of Navy personnel spent their time in the line/crew assignment. I also assumed that people of less than average intelligence are not even applying for or getting into the Navy. The chance of a person of average intelligence not surviving a line/crew assignment each term is 1 in 6. That equates to 60% making to 5 terms.

Even those that mishap out have a 50:50 chance of an outcome that may allow them to retain their benefit for the term so even a first term washouts has a not insignificant chance of a boat (and will have the skills to use it).

I should also clarify that I am talking career ex-Navy not single term draftees. I have no good way to determine what percentage in the Navy are drafted - I tend to put them into the colonial Navies instead. Many will also be coming from the academies and whilst they might have less terms to accumulate benefits, their chance of promotion is significantly higher and it likely averages out in the end.

If YTU has a Navy populated by random draftees and poorly educated low intelligence people who for some reason didn't apply for careers where they were more suited but still managed to spoof the navy board, your outcomes may be different.

Probably time for another spreadsheet.

 

[J. L. Brown]

The chance of a person of average intelligence not surviving a line/crew assignment each term is 1 in 6. That equates to 60% making to 5 terms.

Nit pick: That is a 60% chance of washing out, only 40% make through the 5th term. One in six fails is 0.16666; five in six passes is 0.83333 -- 0.83333^5 (number retained after 5 survival rolls) is 0.4-ish.

Rolling "Ship's Boat" benefit tells us no more about the prevalence of Ship's Boats than rolling 'Augment' tells us about the prevalence of sub-dermal armor. Both present the character with choices to take either; and both have much better choices available. The actual number is pretty irrelevant through; I was just responding to the idea that zero people could muster out with sub-dermal armor. I will happily concede that only a small minority of Army veterans choose it.

Anyhow, I long ago house-ruled around the quirky 'armor layering' rules from RAW; so I have to agree that the way RAW armor layering works with subdermal armor is silly.

 

[Condottiere]

Officers should get pinnaces.

Captains, gigs.

Admirals, either barges or yachts.

 

[swordtart]

Nit pick: That is a 60% chance of washing out, only 40% make through the 5th term. One in six fails is 0.16666; five in six passes is 0.83333 -- 0.83333^5 (number retained after 5 survival rolls) is 0.4-ish.

Not a nit-pick perfectly valid challenge, you are correct - I clearly need to reload my operating system.

Rolling "Ship's Boat" benefit tells us no more about the prevalence of Ship's Boats than rolling 'Augment' tells us about the prevalence of sub-dermal armor. Both present the character with choices to take either; and both have much better choices available. The actual number is pretty irrelevant through; I was just responding to the idea that zero people could muster out with sub-dermal armor. I will happily concede that only a small minority of Army veterans choose it.

To be fair I was mostly using it to see if it was credible that there would be a raft of "white-van men" in spaaaaace that would open up the inner systems to greater exploitation and how many ex-navy vets there were in the average system.

 

[swordtart]

Officers should get pinnaces.

Captains, gigs.

Admirals, either barges or yachts.

There is probably a joke about a gig economy in there somewhere.