What happens if... we double or 1.5x the listed armor values

[coldwar]

Right, been sort of reading, but I think I'll just start off as if no one else posted. Just to give something fresh.

For me, in my view doubling armour values would make game sessions more about high damage weaponry then close combat as the winning tool. Though if the universe you use has barely any weaponry that could inflict high levels of damage, it would likely lead to a more challenging close combat.

In my view, the values as they are, are fairly close to what the armours are designed for in real life. At least the armours that are current and those that have come and gone. x1.5 would lead to a game somewhere between the two.

Reading a certain post i believe you are likely to run a normal campaign.
Though here's a good few questions, a usefull guide on should I, or should I not change something. Hope it helps, some if put more specific to this whilst others can be changed to be ore general.
1) Do I want to make combat a challenge and something to be avoided.
2) Have I tested the rules before hand and after in the typical situations my likely players are likely to face.
3) What do my players want, something dangerous, challenging or down right scary.
4) Is the change simple enough to remember of the top of my head, or easily jogged from a few little notes.
5) How does the change effect the rules and thus any gameplay (very easily reviewed if tested before and after)
6) Is there another way to sort a problem, even if my first idea does not sort it out. And is the problem more specific to something in particular and not something in general

Not sure what else I can put at the moment. (just added 6)

 

[NinjaWeasel]

I think the OP was referring to an idea I mentioned in a thread I started over on RPG.net. If so, I also suggested that Armour be given Hit Points too. The idea I was suggesting was that the Armour's value be increased, so damage to the player was less likely in the short term, but that Armour would also become useless after it took a certain amount of damage.

There were two key design philosophies behind my suggestion: Firstly, to get away from armour being always in perfect condition and (in the case of higher end armour) effectively making you immune to weapons that inflict a relatively small amount of damage. The second was that I wanted to implement something that could be easily calculated from the existing rules. So no need to write up a completely new list of armour stats. It was also just a notion that I had and decided to put out there for feedback without any deep thought on the matter.

Right now, I think Matt's previously mentioned suggestions (of a smaller increase in value) are good but I'm still also thinking about adding hit points to Armour in order to indicate the condition of that Armour.

Unfortunately, Shawn and I have very different views on what the Mongoose edition of Traveller is. I see it as a sci-fi toolkit and Shawn clearly doesn't (I would never play a Third Imperium game with it as it doesn't interest me). I'm definitely one of those modders and houserulers he mentions. I buy games, in general, for their rule systems and will happily tinker with them to run my own settings. I'm not averse to running RAW either.

 

[CosmicGamer]

I also suggested that Armour be given Hit Points too.

Which I think is something to consider. Some might consider adding this to their game, others might consider that since the rules are generalized the mechanics for armor being damaged is "built in" to the rules..

For some, making changes is entirely appropriate.
For some, consideration of alternate ways to interpret the rules may work.

For a mix of the two, I prefer making additional rules and changing the existing rules as little as possible. For example:

Armour reduces damage by the value of the armour. A hit with Effect 6+ always inflicts at least one point of damage

Just a suggestion, if armor damage rules are added, this rule as written could be interpreted as the 1 point of damage is damage to the armor and not the person within. Now just make a new rule or rules as to how armor takes damage. Things like any time armor takes a hit that "gets through"/ it takes a certain amount of damage. I believe this requires no changes to the existing rules?

=====
The following is for those who try to use the rules as written and minimize the use of house rules. We know things like damage locations and detailed lists of how effective each possible weapon is against each type of armor are not part of the mechanics. Is it missing? That is up to individual opinion and no opinion is wrong. It's like people having different opinions as to what their favorite color is. For those who wish to make changes and add rules, there is nothing wrong with that but please resist the urge to tear these ideas up - they are not intended to disprove any of your unique tweaks to perfect the game to your liking.

Understanding the rules often simplify and generalize and do not apply to every situation, here are some thoughts to consider.

The 2d6 mechanic is just a mechanic and not a simulation of reality. A 1 in a million chance or even a 1 in 1,000 chance reality situation either becomes 100% impossible or a 1 in 36 chance with the 2d6 mechanic.

To some, it may be logical that every square inch of all types of armor does not have the same armor value. Some armor does not even cover every square inch of the person wearing it. For example, no helmet with a flak jacket. Visors, openings/ports to gather data and transfer such into the armor, elbow and knee joints, and so on might not be as strong as the rest of the armor.

To some, certain weapons that might not be effective against the stronger areas of the armor might have some effect on the weaker or not covered locations. A weapon in the right hands precisely swung to one of these areas might do 1 point or more of damage to the person inside.

To some, armor isn't always in perfect condition however the added complexity of mechanics for armor to weaken when it takes hits is not detailed separately, it is generalized by the random roll. Roll good for that battle axe and it does damage to the combat armor wearer and maybe the attacker recognized (not explicitly in the rules) your armor had taken a hit in a certain location in a previous battle and might be weaker there?

The list goes on as to things not explicitly in the rules and that could be considered part of the general mechanics of the game. This might help explain some of the rare occurrences perhaps being more likely do to game mechanics than perceived in reality. But the generalized rules may lead to some quite unlikely situations, perhaps even impossible?

In cases where the GM decides something is not logical or does not work in their game or setting, they use their brain and simply dictate that throwing marshmallows will not damage the person in battle armor and you move on. Maybe someone imaginative will decide that on a critical hit a sensor or visor is impaired by an expertly thrown marshmallow. This not necessarily a problem with the rules. This is not necessarily a house rule. This is just one of the things the GM does because the rules are generalized and do need a little help from the GM for special cases.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

For example: Armour reduces damage by the value of the armour. A hit with Effect 6+ always inflicts at least one point of damage.

Just a suggestion, if armor damage rules are added, this rule as written could be interpreted as the 1 point of damage is damage to the armor and not the person within. Now just make a new rule or rules as to how armor takes damage. Things like any time armor takes a hit that "gets through"/ it takes a certain amount of damage. I believe this requires no changes to the existing rules?

That was my first take on the rule when I read it the first time (coming from RPGs that degraded armor). So I quickly looked for degradation in the book and found none. So, ok, the guy in the suit got some shellshock that time. But the suit is perfectly fine.