The Great Traveller Clean-Up!

[Old timer]

Oh and tactical combat.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FI7HWDIvECM

That's what a firefight sounds like, not 1 shot every 6 seconds.

Extended rate of fire for semi-auto's needed.

Fireteam Movement so Army/Marine type fireteams of three persons can shoot and fire as one.

6 seconds is too long for a turn. 6 seconds is an eternity in combat.

TRAV combat is not lethal enough. Though rare, as most bullets just wound, there isn't a bullet that can't kill with a single shot. That means inflicting 21 points of damage as an 'average' TRAV character is (777). IMTU we double the damage whenever natural doubles are rolled to hit. (4,4; 5,5; 6,6) etc.

Just no, really just no, sorry to sound forceful on this but traveller is not a tactical combat game, those ideas are not traveller. Combat is lethal enough, it does not need to be any more deadly. The ideas are great as house rules for your traveller game, but not for traveller as a whole.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

TRAV combat is not lethal enough. Though rare, as most bullets just wound, there isn't a bullet that can't kill with a single shot. That means inflicting 21 points of damage as an 'average' TRAV character is (777). IMTU we double the damage whenever natural doubles are rolled to hit. (4,4; 5,5; 6,6) etc.

That's all fine and dandy. But Effect is added to the damage as well. And if it's an easy non-trivial headshot, and a critical success is rolled... instant death.

A lot of wargamers mistake Traveller as a wargame.

 

[dragoner]

Oh and tactical combat.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FI7HWDIvECM

That's what a firefight sounds like, not 1 shot every 6 seconds.

Extended rate of fire for semi-auto's needed.

Fireteam Movement so Army/Marine type fireteams of three persons can shoot and fire as one.

6 seconds is too long for a turn. 6 seconds is an eternity in combat.

TRAV combat is not lethal enough. Though rare, as most bullets just wound, there isn't a bullet that can't kill with a single shot. That means inflicting 21 points of damage as an 'average' TRAV character is (777). IMTU we double the damage whenever natural doubles are rolled to hit. (4,4; 5,5; 6,6) etc.

It is less lethal than older traveller, but chargen is much more in depth than CT as well, so maybe it is a balance between the two, so as to not quickly kill off a character that took a while to run through chargen. CT had the most realistic combat: a quick roll and if you get shot, you die or close to it; I kind of miss that myself. 6 seconds is also a trade off, while it is long enough for some other tasks, it is too long for firing between shots; again, CT had 'panic fire' where you could empty an entire clip in a combat round: attacking multiple targets with a negative DM applied. At some point I just accept it all, as there are a huge amount of fiddly bits, such as why is a knife/dagger's damage so low? It is basically the same as or worse than a pistol bullet, the difference is with the pistol is range and ease of use, not that it somehow imparts extra damage.

 

[First Age]

Just no, really just no, sorry to sound forceful on this but traveller is not a tactical combat game, those ideas are not traveller. Combat is lethal enough, it does not need to be any more deadly. The ideas are great as house rules for your traveller game, but not for traveller as a whole.

Thank you!

I think lethality in MongTrav is just about right, for a tabletop roleplaying game.

 

[Jame Rowe]

Just no, really just no, sorry to sound forceful on this but traveller is not a tactical combat game, those ideas are not traveller. Combat is lethal enough, it does not need to be any more deadly. The ideas are great as house rules for your traveller game, but not for traveller as a whole.

Thank you!

I think lethality in MongTrav is just about right, for a tabletop roleplaying game.

My whole issue with it is a pistol doing 3d6 MINUS 3. Take out the minus 3, make the rifles 4d6 (or even 36d plus 3) and improve the armor a bit to match. Then we're good.

 

[dagrillac]

Hi,

I agree with a big bumper player book including all the expanded career's (except slaver).

I would like to see an expanded ship book, bringing together all the different things you can stick in your boat as well.

Kind Regards

David

If you do a Deluxe book with errata and maybe some of the cooler stuff from supplements folded into the core book, and maybe some new art, I will happily buy a copy.

Well, to be honest, if they did a "Deluxe Player's Rulebook" with all the background, career information, equipment and rules from the career books to date, I think it would do very well... it wouldn't need to have all the information, indeed that would be unwise, since people wouldn't buy the books, but just the careers alone would make it worthwhile - the rules and most of the specific background could be referred to the career books, with just the basics being brought into the main book.

A "Big Bumper Book of Referee Fun" could be good too - but I kinda like having separate books when doing different GM tasks, although books that actually stay open would be a move I'd appreciate (which is why I'm slowly moving towards PDFs - I can keep those just one alt-tab away instead of trying to keep a softback book open.

My favourite would be to rewrite High Guard, redoing the ship design rules, perhaps bringing them more in line with the new vehicle rules if people like them and with notes explaining in more detail the accepted tolerances and practices when designing deckplans, as well as various sizes of staterooms and common areas. For example, a warship would probably be happy with 4-square staterooms that are double-occupied - indeed, you may even get 4 people to a 6-square area, if you have double bunks on either side of a central "corridor", most likely with a shared fresher at the end of the block - most likely used for enlisted crewmen where space is at a premium (that's similar to the bunkspace on a WWII sub). Compare that to a larger, luxury stateroom on a private yacht and you can see how the tonnage may vary, let alone the allowance needed on the deckplans.

Splitting the design rules off into their own rulebook would also be a valid (in my opinion) option, also... allowing them to be looked at in more depth. Perhaps, then, High Guard could discuss various things like probable fleet strengths and the chain of command - things that are only really covered in Sector Fleet, but would apply to non-3I settings also.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

My whole issue with it is a pistol doing 3d6 MINUS 3. Take out the minus 3, make the rifles 4d6 (or even 36d plus 3) and improve the armor a bit to match. Then we're good.

The problem is you're reading its damage as "3d6 MINUS 3". Not every bullet has to remove a characteristic point. And how often do you roll a 3? I thought so.

 

[Easterner]

Odds of rolling a 3 = 5.6%
Odds of a kill on an average human with 1 shot = 0%

As to using +6 as "Bang your dead" = Ludicrous

Otherwise my Beowulf could kill your AHL with such a roll or a Tigress for that matter.

To use that rule would require clear guidelines for a +6. Which of course would solve the problem.


Oh and we need a double tap rule too.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

Odds of rolling a 3 = 5.6%
Odds of a kill on an average human with 1 shot = 0%

As to using +6 as "Bang your dead" = Ludicrous

Otherwise my Beowulf could kill your AHL with such a roll or a Tigress for that matter.

To use that rule would require clear guidelines for a +6. Which of course would solve the problem.


Oh and we need a double tap rule too.

If it's an easy shot, and there is skill, add the effect to the damage amount. If a player is expecting to kill with just one shot (point-blank to the face), why is a roll being made? That person is killed. If it's gutshot, they don't die instantly. But they will die.

I blame the referee for why players use Traveller rules to wargame with.

 

[GypsyComet]

Traveller under GDW always had attached wargames, from Mayday to Battle Rider, Snapshot to Striker, and Imperium to Fifth Frontier War.

Traveller does not need to become a wargame. It needs its attached wargames back in focus.

 

[Easterner]

Trav needs to be realistic and accurate so that I can wargame with it in TRAV WW2 or play Wild West (got them rules) but that's just me. It also needs to be that way to curb the enthusiasms of those old time Trav players who think they can engage and beat Imperial Marines armed with fusion guns any old time.

Oh from those of us who strap a gun on our hips most days here's some news. There is no target so close, nor so big it can't be missed.

A Mesa cop called me the 'man who never misses' and was shocked when I told him I was missing the little 3" tall targets we were blasting with pistols one match.

After two days of a national qualifying match I had one miss. Everyone asked if I missed the nasty moving target? Nope, I missed a point blank, non-moving, shotgun target in the fast but controlled environment of a shooting match.

Needless to say if I can miss point blank in play, the real thing is worse. The only close shot guaranteed to hit is touching the gun to the other guy.

So a +6 might equal, double or triple damage, but it'll never be 'Bang your dead' without a phaser set on disintegrate.

 

[Old timer]

Can i ask where this idea of +6 effect 'bang your dead' has come from? The only reference to it +6 effect in the core rule book is that an effect of 6+ inflicts at least 1 point of damage regardless of armour (page 66 just before vehicle combat rules). Same for vehicle and starship combat as well, which is hardly one hit your dead.

 

[steve98052]

There is no target so close, nor so big it can't be missed.

This reminds me of a discussion in a play-test of a game book that dealt with guns. I had just seen the film Pulp Fiction. (Spoiler paragraph follows.)

I mentioned my amusement at the shootout where a man charges out of a bathroom, shouts "Die you *s, die!", empties his "hand cannon" at Jules and Vincent at roughly point-blank range, and misses them every time. Afterwards, Jules asserts that it was divine intervention.

In reply to my remark, one of the other play-testers described a situation she had observed in her work as a public defender. One of her clients had been involved in a shoot-out with police. The client and several of his friends each emptied their large-capacity magazines, trying to shoot the police. Several police officers emptied their large-capacity magazines, shooting back at the suspects. The range was about ten feet (three meters). Over a hundred rounds were fired, and no one was hit. The police holstered their weapons and wrestled the suspects to the ground, and arrested them.

I don't know whether the suspects had any sort of pistol combat training, but the police were definitely trained, and practiced with targets regularly. But when the time came to shoot at people who were shooting back, no one hit anyone.

* I don't know whether the word the hand-cannon guy used is allowed here, so I replaced it with the asterisk.

 

[Jame Rowe]

My whole issue with it is a pistol doing 3d6 MINUS 3. Take out the minus 3, make the rifles 4d6 (or even 36d plus 3) and improve the armor a bit to match. Then we're good.

The problem is you're reading its damage as "3d6 MINUS 3". Not every bullet has to remove a characteristic point. And how often do you roll a 3? I thought so.

No, it means "you hit. Roll damage, for 3d6 and remove 3 from the damage result. Not from the characteristic you hit, but from the pistol damage rolled.

Sorry if I'm being harsh but I aim to correct your misunderstanding. I dislike the thought that, on a successful pistol hit, that is, a hit by a pistol hit, a player can roll 3 and then has to remove 3 from the damage and ends up inflicting no damage. Pistols don't work that way.

And yes, I do not actually object to a player rolling 3 damage, having it be 3 damage and then discovering that the opponent's armor absorbed it all (that's what armor's there for). It's the thought of a pistol being unable to do damage on a minimum-damage roll.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

Sorry if I'm being harsh but I aim to correct your misunderstanding. I dislike the thought that, on a successful pistol hit, that is, a hit by a pistol hit, a player can roll 3 and then has to remove 3 from the damage and ends up inflicting no damage. Pistols don't work that way.

The bullet hit. It just doesn't do the kind of damage to reduce a characteristic.

And yes, I do not actually object to a player rolling 3 damage, having it be 3 damage and then discovering that the opponent's armor absorbed it all (that's what armor's there for). It's the thought of a pistol being unable to do damage on a minimum-damage roll.

It's all about rolling three 1s. The bullet went clean through without hitting bones or organs. The bullet hit the edge of a body and cut through skin only. The bullet is in the guy's fat belly and he's still running toward you like it was nothing.

 

[CosmicGamer]

It's all about rolling three 1s. The bullet went clean through without hitting bones or organs. The bullet hit the edge of a body and cut through skin only. The bullet is in the guy's fat belly and he's still running toward you like it was nothing.

The bullet was stopped by their cell phone. http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1432243/thumbs/o-CELL-PHONE-STOPS-BULLET-570.jpg

 

[Jame Rowe]

Sorry if I'm being harsh but I aim to correct your misunderstanding. I dislike the thought that, on a successful pistol hit, that is, a hit by a pistol hit, a player can roll 3 and then has to remove 3 from the damage and ends up inflicting no damage. Pistols don't work that way.

The bullet hit. It just doesn't do the kind of damage to reduce a characteristic.

Then it's not a hit, not as such. I am going to keep at this as the revised CT is better for this. A hit does damage, even if it doesn't damage a characteristic, and that means it inflicts damage.

And yes, I do not actually object to a player rolling 3 damage, having it be 3 damage and then discovering that the opponent's armor absorbed it all (that's what armor's there for). It's the thought of a pistol being unable to do damage on a minimum-damage roll.

It's all about rolling three 1s. The bullet went clean through without hitting bones or organs. The bullet hit the edge of a body and cut through skin only. The bullet is in the guy's fat belly and he's still running toward you like it was nothing.[/quote]

Which is what armor is for - it doesn't have to be armor as such, the damage - all NOT reduced by "take 3 off the result of the die" of it - is absorbed by something, and the pistol's damage is still a minimum of 3 points that are absorbed by something other than the opponent.

 

[CosmicGamer]

I can see what people on both sides are getting at. For me, the issue is why does a pistol (other than gauss):

The bullet went clean through without hitting bones or organs. The bullet hit the edge of a body and cut through skin only. The bullet is in the guy's fat belly and he's still running toward you like it was nothing.

but a rifle (other than antique) and other weapons (other than improvised) don't follow the same logic?

How about an antique pistol with it's 3d6-6 damage - does it heal your opponent if you roll less than 6 on 3 dice? :?

Perhaps a modification of all weapon negative damage DMs is needed.

3d6-6 gives the range -3 to 12 damage. I'd think 2d6-1 for 1 to 11 damage makes more sense.

If 3d6-3 irks one too much, making it 3d6-2 isn't going to throw things out of balance.

But then there is the issue of the positive DMs for weapons damage. A dagger is 1d6+2 for a range of 3 to 8 damage. So a dagger always does at least 3 damage but a larger blade can do less with 2d6 giving 2 damage as a minimum. The rapier does 5 to 11 damage and the much more destructive broadsword has a lower minimum with a 4 to 24 range.

I understand that using only d6 limits things and the DMs are needed so that there is more variety in weapon damage ranges.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

The bullet hit. It just doesn't do the kind of damage to reduce a characteristic.

Then it's not a hit, not as such. I am going to keep at this as the revised CT is better for this. A hit does damage, even if it doesn't damage a characteristic, and that means it inflicts damage.

Hit and damage are two different things. Classic Traveller uses that "You're so f*cking awesome with that big-a** powered suit, that I can't hit you!" mentality.

Which is what armor is for - it doesn't have to be armor as such, the damage - all NOT reduced by "take 3 off the result of the die" of it - is absorbed by something, and the pistol's damage is still a minimum of 3 points that are absorbed by something other than the opponent.

Armor is a whole other separate thing, which has nothing to do with hits or damage. Hit is your skill check being successful or not (Classic Traveller screws up what a hit is, but the D&D crowd are used to it (yet another reason why Classic Traveller never works as a wargame)). Damage is the weapon type. Armor subtracts from the damage.

Bullets should not decide what kind of armor you have. Armor should not change the type of bullets hitting it, or the hit even happening or not. Mongoose has a nice mechanic as-is. It's not for wargaming. Even with High Guard and Mercenary, it's still not a wargame. The core book doesn't keep track of ammo and doesn't have hit locations, but players have easily added such things for "role-play" purposes (not wargame) to the Mongoose game.

 

[Jame Rowe]

If 3d6-3 irks one too much, making it 3d6-2 isn't going to throw things out of balance.

I could accept this, with the main unease stemming from the CT body pistol doing only 2d6 damage. That's why I made the suggestion of pistols doing 3d6 and rifles doing 3d6+3 also - change it so even a pistol always does some damage, even that one point.

But then there is the issue of the positive DMs for weapons damage. A dagger is 1d6+2 for a range of 3 to 8 damage. So a dagger always does at least 3 damage but a larger blade can do less with 2d6 giving 2 damage as a minimum. The rapier does 5 to 11 damage and the much more destructive broadsword has a lower minimum with a 4 to 24 range.

I understand that using only d6 limits things and the DMs are needed so that there is more variety in weapon damage ranges.

Which is why they did it - makes sense from a design perspective but not necessarily works the way they thought.