What would you do to improve/change MGT combat system?

[BP]

My favorite online PbP game has only one paragraph for game mechanics! Uses only single 1d6 rolls and six attributes and works well in that Roleplay centric medium. For a table-top RPG, like MgT, multiple rolls is more enjoyable, IMO. It's that interactive feel - 'Yes - a hit!' and then 'Ah-ha! Now for damage!' thing...

My homebrew system uses two rolls. Armour is factored into the first, while the second relates the quality of the hit to the location and type of wound (i.e. a lot of damage to a small extremity, like a finger, might reflect complete destruction vs. the same amount of damage to a more substantial structure, like a thigh...).

[While a more complex design, it is no more difficult to use, even easier at times, plus supports any type of combat (i.e. aliens, cyborgs, humans, robots, spaceships, vehicles, wraiths, etc.). Was able to keep much of the MgT nature regarding chargen, equipment, tonnage, and the like - but many stats are changed and it is quite incompatible with most of MgT's 'design' rules. ]

 

[Melbourne Accords]

First, thank you to everyone who has contributed to this thread. Our group will benefit from your excellent ideas. After a break of a few years, we are about to start an Interstellar Wars/2300AD campaign and our combat house rules are under review. This is my first post, but I hope that I can offer something of use to fellow Traveller players.

Range Categories: The first edition of Traveller included two main approaches to personal combat. Mongoose has taken up the first (Book 1). Our group instead uses an adaptation of the second approach (embodied in Striker and Azhanti High Lightning). The range of each weapon is set out in three increments: Effective, Long and Extreme. We assign a Damage Point Value (DPV) to each increment. The DPV of the weapon at Long Range is half that of Effective Range. The DPV at Extreme Range is half the value at Long Range.

Damage: Striker and AHL set out damage in categories (i.e. Light / Serious). The attack roll determines whether or not an attack hits its target. Damage is then determined on a throw of 2D6. This is modified according to a Damage Point Value (DPV) of the weapon and the Armour Point Value (APV) of the target.

Suppressive Fire: I agree with the suggestion that Suppressive Fire should be easier to achieve (DM +2) than a standard attack. This provides unskilled characters with a useful tactical role.

Rapid Fire: The suggestion by Apoc527 is a great idea. We plan to assign a DM of -1 to the first shot and increase the penalty by 1 for each attack after the first. This cumulative approach will apply to melee (Rapid Strike).

For special effects in melee such as disarm or grapple we apply a DM of -2.

 

[Gee4orce]

Can anybody remember, and post, the initiative rules that were in the beta ? I seem to remember you had to prioritise acting early or acting effectively - or something like that - and it added an interesting tactical element to the game.

 

[Gee4orce]

It seems to me that the simple act of just wearing a helmet could have a significant impact on reducing the impact of some types of damage, though I suspect that you would want to avoid a situtation where the helmet would reduce the effect of any/all attacks, since the helmet only covers such a small part of a persons body.

Yep - I can't think of an RPG that handles helmets well. In the real world, if you're wearing any modern body armour it's probably going to be a bulletproof vest and a helmet. In fact, helmets are commonly worn for protection in non-combat situations: cycling, motorcycling, construction, climbing, etc.

Why is this ? Because a blow to the head is serious. Protecting the head means that an accident that injures the head ends up as a minor inconvenience instead of something potentially fatal.

I think the function of helmets then are to prevent lethal injuries. If you fall of your bike without a helmet you might be killed. If you wear one, your certainly going to come away with minor injuries, but your less likely for it to be fatal.

I'm not sure how you can patch that kind of effect into the Traveller armour system, where all armour just absorbs damage.

I developed a house rule for Silhouette along these lines though. Silhouette uses a wound level system, where an injury is either Minor, Serious or Fatal. What I did was scaled the armour benefit of helmets (and other armour too, incidentally), so that helmets had more effect on the 'Fatal' wound resistance, but not much effect on the Minor wounds. This meant if you wore a helmet and took an injury, your probably still going to get wounded, but you're less likely for that to be a fatal injury.

I think this worked really well, but it's incompatible with Traveller as it stands. I really need to port the whole wound system over for it to be workable. :?

 

[BP]

Welcome aboard and nice first post, Melbourne Accords!

Gee4orce, regards helmets (and any other exposed, weaker protected area), without some form of hit location, anything done would have to be crude.

My initial approach to MgT combat was simple - the damage roll reflected the hit in a way, so even though damage amount was lowered by armour, it did not necessarily mean the hit was to the armour, unless the damage became less than the minimum damage for a weapon type.

Since amount of damage is generally random anyway, this mechanic just means your total damage, even when unhelmeted, is less for that hit just because of armour. For armour without helments of fairly low value this seems a reasonable fudge. For heavier armour where the user is not wearing a helmet (i.e. not fully armoured), the armour value would best be reduced...

 

[CosmicGamer]

I highlighted a couple words in the quotes for emphasis.

It seems to me that the simple act of just wearing a helmet could have a significant impact on reducing the impact of some types of damage, though I suspect that you would want to avoid a situtation where the helmet would reduce the effect of any/all attacks, since the helmet only covers such a small part of a persons body.

Yep

Looks like you agree but then....

In fact, helmets are commonly worn for protection in non-combat situations: cycling, motorcycling, construction, climbing, etc... ...Protecting the head means that an accident that injures the head ends up as a minor inconvenience instead of something potentially fatal.

I agree with the first quote saying that you need to avoid having the helmet reduce the effect of any/all attacks.

I certainly am not disagreeing with the fact that a helmet will most likely reduce the force of blunt trauma.

However (this is specifically about motorcycle helmets. I wouldn't know about other types of helmets) wearing a helmet can change the angle of stress on the neck and can increase the chance of neck and spine injuries, including paralyzation. Certainly not a minor inconvenience.

So while I agree with the following

I think the function of helmets then are to prevent lethal injuries.

I believe it is possible for a person to end up with a more serious injury (paralyzed) with a helmet than if they did not have one (concussion, skull fracture).

Personally I wouldn't worry about this level of RL detail being introduced into the mechanics of a RPG game.

 

[rust]

But to me it is possible for a person to end up with a more serious injury (paralyzed) with a helmet than if they did not have one (concussion, skull fracture).

It is possible, but an extremely rare case. Normally when the force acting
on the helmet is strong enough to cause a paralyzation, the same force
acting on the unprotected head would have been lethal.

 

[BP]

Any piece of safety gear generally has the potential to directly or indirectly cause injury... in RL it is all about the relative risks. The same could be said for medicines and surgery, etc.

In non-combat senarios, MgT rules account for this possibility with Effect. My homebrew combat system uses this same concept...

 

[rinku]

And of course, there's a trade-off with full helmets between protection and affecting sight and hearing. Any thorough treatment of helmets is going to have to take into account this factor, though tech is your friend here.

Something like:

* Covered ears: -1 Recon, -1 Initiative
* Limited peripheral vision: -1 Recon, -1 Initiative
* Limited vision: -1 Recon, -1 Initiative

Modifiers being cumulative, so that a medieval great helm gets -3 to recon rolls and -3 to initiative, while a modern NATO helmet only limits these by -1 (but doesn't protect the face). On the other hand, a TL12 vacc suit helmet gives full coverage but has audio pickups and heads up displays and stuff and probably shouldn't give any penalty at all.

 

[BP]

... actually should give a positive DM

 

[rinku]

Maybe not for a basic vacc suit, but the military ones, for sure...

 

[Egil Skallagrimsson]

So, in the light of a week's worth of discussions, here is where I am at regarding Trav combat modification;

Initiative
Largely as written, like the idea that once the order in a combat is established, a sense of action/reaction develops. However,
1. in an ambush type situation the attackers get one "free attack", ie one major action before everybody rolls for initiave, then as normal.
2. when a combatants init is over 12, he upgrades his minor action to a significant action, so can run further, jump higher and, usually, shoot twice. (This rewards tactics rolls, high dex and combat drugs), we did try putting the extra action at the end of the combat round, but, quite frankly, that was a needless complication, so the combatant with Init 14 get his two attacks before anyone else moves. If weapon recoil is an issue, the effects are, obviously, applied twice.

Minor Actions
as written.

Types of fire
1. Standard, rules as written, one shot.
2. Rapid fire, those with revolvers or semi-automatic or automatic slug throwers can fire one extra round per level of skill above zero, i.e. gun combat 3 can fire three extra rounds, at the same target, and adding to damage as in burst fire. Increase recoil by one, regardless of how many extra rounds fired. In any event, no more than 4 rounds may be fired (as I pretty much cap "physical skills" at 4 anyway, the max likely will be 4 rounds fired in 6 seconds by someone with slug rifle/pistol 4)
3. Burst fire, as written (uncomplicated, and provides a useful damage bonus to overcome armour etc).
4 . Autofire, as written, but no individual target can be hit more than once by an autofire attack from the same weapon in the same attack.

Explosions
Blast in an enclosed space rebounds, measure the distance to a firm wall/side of trench etc then back to the target, he may be damaged two or even three times, e.g. grenade rolls into a foxhole, explodes for 5d6 dam, the blast then rebounds, for another 3d6, and (a very tight hole) then for a final 1d6. However, if the tactical situation is such that the target could get out of a direct line of blast with suitably hard cover intervening, then no damage at all, e.g, grenade rolls into foxhole, target jumps out of foxhole and lies down, blast travels upwards and out, causing no damage (in that situation I would probably require a dodge and a successful dex or athletics roll to get out in time).

Stance
Move at half speed when crouching, quarter speed when prone (crawling, actually pretty fast crawling speed, if done over a long distance would start to ask for end rolls, reduce speed etc)

Common Modifiers
Pretty much as written, but we give a one handed pistol an extra -2 at long range. (actually, this is still very generous for pistol accuracy, but don't want to discourage space cowboys too much)

Equipment, ranges and CSC
Mixed feelings about CSC, so use the core book weapons stats, but with Autopistols limited to "No Auto" and the addition of SMG-TL5-ranged (pistol)-dam 3d6-3-Auto 4-recoil 1- mass 3- magazine 30- 400Cr-ammo cost 20cr per mag. Note that as a smg is used two handed, the extra -2 range penalty above does not apply.
Disallow the various "improved" ammunition types for calibres below 10mm, so if you want your super duper discarding sabot uranium tips nuclear explosive round, you need a bigger barrel. (this came out of some playtesting where it became apparent that ACRs and gauss rifles with improved ammunitions were too powerful in relation to energy weapons, IMHO)

Thanks for the thought provoking contributions! I certainly accept any criticism that the system is not lethal enough to be realistic, and so the mods suggested above are tinkering with the system without greatly increasing its lethality, but, IMHO, it is lethal enough for a rpg.

Egil

 

[PFVA63]

Egil,

Your suggestions look very easy and useful. Im interested in trying them out to see how they work, as well as Rinku's suggestions on hit location and some of the other thoughts on helmets. Hopefully takenall together they won't be too complex.

This has been a really helpful and informative thread to me and has really better helped me understand a lot of things. Thanks everybody.

Regards

PF

 

[Charakan]

An impressive and easily workable series of modifications, Egil, definitely will be adding these to my game along with Rinkus hit location system.

 

[Gee4orce]

Has anybody experimented with a hit location system along the lines of the vehicle and space combat systems ? It's just a thought I had for consistencies sake, and wondered how it would work out.

ie. you look up rolled damage against a table, and it gets converted to 'single hit' or 'double hit', or 'two single hits and a double hit', etc. which you then roll against location.

I'm not quite sure how armour works in this idea: I'd want it to be location specific, but I think you'd have to subtract the armour from the rolled damage before you know what the hit location is. Perhaps you just roll location first, and then work out the number of hits.

Anyway, just an idea...

 

[Gee4orce]

Here's an idea for an auto fire rule, untested:

When making an autofirej attack, you can add the weapons auto fire rating as additional dice that you can add to you attack roll or damage roll. You can split the dice as you see fit, so an auto fire 4 weapon could add 2 dice to your attack roll, and 2 extra damage dice, or 3 and 1, or 4 and 0, etc.

For the attack roll you pair the dice up as you like into attack pairs. For the damage roll, you add the bonus dice to each damage roll.

The intention here is to simulate firing a close focused burst versus spraying across a larger area. If you focus your attack your trying to get as many rounds as possible on the target, whereas spraying the rounds means your trying to increase the likelihood of hitting

Optional rule: if you have tracer rounds or high tech fire control, you can re-assign the damage dice even after you've rolled the attack dice. Eg i assign 3 dice to damage and 1 to attack, rolling 3 dice in total for my attack roll hoping to make one good pair of numbers from the 3. I roll badly so i take another dice from those assigned to damage and roll it as an attack dice instead, sacrificing damage for actually hitting something !

The idea here is to simulate 'walking' rounds onto a target even when the initlal burst is off target.

 

[Egil Skallagrimsson]

Sounds rather complicated, the "concerntrated burst" is already covered by burst fire, surely? Wider or longer bursts by the current autofire rules. Suggest you playtest this a bit first.

Egil

 

[Gee4orce]

Sounds rather complicated, the "concerntrated burst" is already covered by burst fire, surely? Wider or longer bursts by the current autofire rules. Suggest you playtest this a bit first.

Egil

The intention is to make the current rules simpler but more flexible. This rule would replace Auto and Burst fire with a single unified rule. I think an oddity of the Rules As Written is that auto weapons do more damage in burst fire - I don't like hard add to damage values, as it's too powerful.

To restate the idea more simply:

You can add as many dice as you like to your attack up to a maximum of the weapon's Autofire value. Each die adds to either your attack roll, or to one of your damage rolls. Each die used consumes 3 rounds of ammunition. Attack roll dice are sorted into pairs as per the normal rules.

If you have tracer rounds or fire control, you can re-assign damage to dice to your attack roll even after you roll (ie. if you roll badly you can still attempt to hit the target by 'spending' damage dice on the attack roll).

 

[Egil Skallagrimsson]

The intention is to make the current rules simpler but more flexible. This rule would replace Auto and Burst fire with a single unified rule. I think an oddity of the Rules As Written is that auto weapons do more damage in burst fire - I don't like hard add to damage values, as it's too powerful.

I don't think it is an oddity, the system has been designed like that, the burst fire represents a tight burst of 4 or so rounds, and the chance that more than one of those rounds will hit an individual target, allowing greater damage. The current autofire rule represents longer bursts, that end up being more spread out as a consquence. Like I said, give your version some intensive playtesting and see if it gives a much different result, you are trying to simulate the same thing as the rules as written.

In regard to tracer, this is often much more use as a target indicator with small arms than an aid to accuracy (admittedly, with larger mgs it is sometimes used to give a "visible hose" effect to walk rounds onto the target, which is what I think you are aiming for here), fine if you want to include it as a modifier in YTU, but have you considered the burn time for different tracer rounds and so the distance at which a modifier may count? Remember that firing normal slug weapons "strike" is sometimes seen, and used to correct aiming (much more useful than tracer), why not include that? Seriously, if you want to down to that level of detail then you need to rewrite the system, not just change some modifiers.

Egil

 

[Melbourne Accords]

Since MT we have used opposed checks to resolve melee. This does introduce a second throw (to simulate the parry or block), but it creates a heightened sense of confrontation. The cumulative penalty approach could be advantageous here, providing an increasingly worse penalty on each successive attempt to parry/block.

Thanks again to everyone for your helpful suggestions. We look forward to trying them out.