CT Only: A Comment on Hits

[Blue Ghost]

D&D combat, in all its iterations, reflects your ability to take melee damage, including hits from arrows and the occasional "high tech" harquebus (funny, Win10 spells it with an "h" … neat).

Traveller combat reflects your ability to take damage from a firearm.

In D&D your HPs, and increase thereof, reflect your prowess as a warrior; i.e. you get more HPs because you can dodge, parry and tactically know how to offer your body up for wounding, as opposed to the rookie man-at-arms who goes in swinging a sword.

It's two different dynamics, hence the XP system (which I actually dislike) is meant to reflect your increased skill. In a sense D&D's XP system is Traveller's chargen.

But getting back to wounds and hits, I think the rules are the way they are. They've worked. House ruling can hide a number of sins and mitigate angry or dissatisfied players. Just my two bits. I think I'll excuse myself from the thread for the time being.

 

[Brandon C]

Wouldn't those penalties just be the same thing we are describing?

No. The choice to run away or to stand and fight is still the players.

I've run rpgs where physical injuries have cause PCs to suffer penalties to actions, but the the players never complained about me taking control of their characters.

A wound system as binary as the morale rules would effectively be a Save or Die roll whenever the character took damage.

 

[aramis]

No. The choice to run away or to stand and fight is still the players.

I've run rpgs where physical injuries have cause PCs to suffer penalties to actions, but the the players never complained about me taking control of their characters.

A wound system as binary as the morale rules would effectively be a Save or Die roll whenever the character took damage.

Mildly snarky semi-off-topic content inside spoiler

Spoiler:

Your players would probably hate Pendragon. Or Houses of the Blooded, or its sibling, Blood & Honor. Or Fading Suns. Or Vampire, Werewolf, & Changeling. All of these are games that take agency away in certain conditions by mechanics. And most of that list are highly regarded...

Using the morale rules on PC's doesn't take away much agency, unless the Ref is a jerk about it. It takes one option off the table... "Stay and fight"... but it leaves several others... "Surrender," "Run Away," "Sneak away and regroup," "hide in cover and hope they go away." It does strongly imply a lack of orderly retreat...

How one fails morale isn't all that clearly defined... "Break or Rout". What triggers morale checks is well defined, and is an old school staple, making combat, even when the odds are somewhat favorable, a crap-shoot. It adds another, non-lethal, layer of push-your-luck. When half the party is injured, real people usually either flee or surrender... the exceptions are notable. And notable is the key word. Traveller PC's, unlike D&D, CoC, Palladium, and many other games, are different mostly in motivation, not in capacity.

Besides, the wording in CT (at least in TTB) is explicit that it applies to PC's...

A party of adventurers which sustains casualties in an encounter will ultimately break or rout if it does not achieve victory.
At the point in time when 20% of a party is unconscious or killed, the party must begin making morale throws. For an average party, 7+ is the throw to stand, or not break and run. Valiant parties may have a higher throw. DMs are allowed: +1 if the party is a military unit; +1 if a leader (leader skill) is present; +1 if the leader has any tactical skill; -2 if the leader is killed (for two rounds at least, and until a new leader takes control); -2 if casualties (unconscious and dead) exceed 50%.

If one instead uses the Mercenary rule, the typical ground forces PC (Army, Marine, depending upon GM, possibly also police, pirate) will be 3 to 5 terms, and have a Bk 4 generated morale of 2-7 + terms, for 5-12 morale. A Bk4 character can have a morale up into the teens... I ran for a PC with 3 SEH's, 2 MCUFs, 5 CSR, and Tactics 1... that's 1d6+(3x3)+(2x1)+(5x1)+(1x1)=1d6+9+2+5+1=1d6+18... He'll keep going and going and going...

And he was only in for 5 terms.

Besides, you might try using it and seeing if the players actually do hate it... they might not.

 

[mike wightman]

That's not explicit (and is the same as I posted earlier) - it doesn't mention PCs or NPCs just a party of adventurers, the implication is the party of adventurers are PCs but its not explicit.

 

[Adam Dray]

Are you OK with Fear spells in D&D?

Yes. Traveller isn't D&D. This isn't magic.

I play plenty of games that have stronger morale rules than LBB1, actually. Burning Wheel forces a Steel test where failure requires you to choose: Stand and Drool; Fall Prone (and beg for mercy); Run Screaming.

But this is Traveller, not Burning Wheel, and I can't think of any other rules that cross the body-mind divide to tell a player how a character is feeling (or take away agency without knocking them unconscious first).

Are you OK with lowered stats in CT when a character is injured (another effect forced on the player)?

Yes. Lowered stats (and my morale DM penalties) do not tell the player how their character feels.

Are you OK with NPC reaction rolls to a player's PC?

Yes. NPCs are not PCs.

 

[creativehum]

MORALE
A party of adventurers which sustains casualties in an encounter will ultimately break or rout if it does not achieve victory. At the point in time when 20% of a party is unconscious or killed, the party must begin making morale throws. For an average party, 7+ is the throw to stand, or not break and run. Valiant parties may have a higher throw. DMs are allowed: +1 if the party is a military unit; +1 if a leader (leader skill) is present; +1 if the leader has any tactical skill; -2 if the leader is killed (for two rounds at least, and until a new leader takes control); -2 if casualties (unconscious and dead) exceed 50%.

As usual, I like the rules as written.

From the way I'm looking at it the Morale rules do not force choices on the Players when the Morale roll fails but well before the first casualty drops.

With the risk of a Morale roll hanging over the PCs even before combat begins the Players/PCs must consider:

* Do we have enough combatants to start this fight?
* Are we strong enough to start this fight? (Healed up and so on)
* Do we have a route of escape if things go south?
* Is this fight worth it?
* Can we get Surprise in the first round? (Surprise is awesome in CT and can allow the PCs to perhaps inflict a Morale roll on the opposition even before they take a wound)
* Can we sustain Surprise through a second or third round or more (like above, but better!)

And more...

Once the combat begins even more choices roll down on the PCs before a Morale Throw is even called for:

* If the PCs don't dominate the fight in the first round or two they have to start thinking about whether to press on, back up, or come up with new tactics pronto.
* If the plan they built is beginning to fray, same as the previous point
* Combatants have to think through how spread out they are or risk leaving unconscious comrades behind if they are forced to bolt

And more...

Also, note that the rules make the Throw variable based on the quality of the combatants based on courage. We can expand this to other values as well. If the PCs have a personal, emotion driven stake in the conflict at hand (rescuing a loved one or helping a comrade rescue a loved one, for example) the Referee can drop the Throw to 3+ or 4+ to stand their ground.

Further, the rules do not detail how far the PCs run or when they get to re-group. (Aramis touched on this in his post above.)The Players have options after their PCs route -- and this is more grist for the adventure mill. Having routed, and now with comrades dead or wounded the situation is now different. What will the PCs do now? Well, the Players must now sort that out.

Again, the impact of the rule is not about the moment a Morale Throw fails but is spread out well before the fight, during the fight, and after the fight. It is a hammer hanging over the heads of the PCs offering and demanding many choices. And if it should fall, if used correctly by the Referee, the rule does not control the PCs but only demands more choices and offers more conflict and opportunity for adventure.

Not only am I okay with that, I find it compelling.

 

[sabredog]

Now you're talking.

 

[Supplement Four]

As usual, I like the rules as written.

Ditto.

 

[creativehum]

Also, important note:

The Consolidated Classic Traveller Errata changes the rule from 20% casualties to 25% casualties to trigger a Morale Throw. (Starter Traveller has the correct percentage. The other three editions have the incorrect value of 20%.)

 

[creativehum]

As for D&D:

First, when we say "D&D" we need to specify which D&D we're talking about. Each edition really carries significant differences.

In the early editions (OD&D, and the Basic D&D sets, which I am most familiar with right now) you will get most of of your XP from treasure you recover and bring back to civilization, and a lower proportion of XP for defeating monsters.

The variance of XP granted between treasure and killing monsters is so large that if you can manage to get the treasure without confronting the monsters directly you want to do that! It means you are mangling your risk/reward ratio well! A lot of XP without the risk of death!

This matters because it opens up a whole realm of tactics and strategy for how PCs proceed in their adventures. I have a blog post about this here.

Now, I know not everyone plays this way -- even when using the older rules set. A table of players is going to play the way they want to play. But I'm currently running a retro-clone of Basic D&D and it is working great with these XP rules in effect.

This ties into CT: The rules were not written to encourage or reward "having fights." There needs to be a reason or goal on "the other side of the fight" worth pursuing. And if the PCs can reach that goal without having bullets flying at them that is awesome. (Of course things invariably do go wrong and the guns have to come out.)

 

[aramis]

Not only am I okay with that, I find it compelling.

I sometimes find it compelling.

Other times, I have swinging from the chandeliers space opera as Errol Flynn's directors would have shot... and in those cases, I don't do morale for PC's.

Now, when I want a feel closer to Platoon, or Apocalypse Now, then I break out the morale rules hardcore.

 

[creativehum]

I sometimes find it compelling.

Other times, I have swinging from the chandeliers space opera as Errol Flynn's directors would have shot... and in those cases, I don't do morale for PC's.

Now, when I want a feel closer to Platoon, or Apocalypse Now, then I break out the morale rules hardcore.

Oh, absolutely.

Different rules provide different kinds of play.

I never said the CT rules as RAW were any kind of pinnacle or proper or universal way to run an RPG. I noted the style of play the rules will encourage and said I found them compelling.

 

[casquilho]

I sometimes find it compelling.

Other times, I have swinging from the chandeliers space opera as Errol Flynn's directors would have shot... and in those cases, I don't do morale for PC's.

Now, when I want a feel closer to Platoon, or Apocalypse Now, then I break out the morale rules hardcore.

Well said.