A Criticism of the Bell Curve

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tbeard1999:
FIRST – IT'S TOO EASY TO WIND UP WITH AUTOMATIC HITS (OR AUTOMATIC MISSES) IN THE CT COMBAT SYSTEM WHEN USING BOOK 4+ WEAPONS AND CHARACTERS.

OK. Well, your previous example used the SMG from Book 1. Now, you're focussed on Book 4+.

I'll roll with that.

So, I'll consider what you posit with an example from Book 4.

A Gauss Rifle, fired at an unarmored target, at Medium Range. The target is not moving (no evasion or cover DMs), and the Gauss is fired in fully automatic mode.

Let's say a DEX-7, Combat Rifleman-2 character is firing this weapon. Fair enough?

DMs
---
+2 Skill
+0 DEX Bonus
+4 Medium Range
+7 vs. No Armor
---
+13

And, to max this out as far as possible, let's say we're firing a 10 round burst, which will net us 3 Attack Throws.

All three attacks are successful automatically.

Let's roll Damage--

4D: 1, 2, 1, 3
4D: 2, 1, 1, 3
4D: 2, 1, 2, 1

(That's low damage I'm using to make a point.)

The target has physical stats of CF8.

The damage is applied (let's ignore the First Blood rule for these purposes), and the target's stats are now: 358.

Do you get my drift?
</font>[/QUOTE][/QB][/QUOTE]

I've gotten your drift all along; I just don't find it convincing.

And I notice that you seem to be going to a great deal of trouble to defend a combat system that YOU yourself found inadequate.

I also find myself wondering how much you'd have been persuaded by the "it's just abstracted" defense when you were working on your combat system.

Unless of course, you've had a sudden change of mind brought on by this brilliant and insightful thread?

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
And I notice that you seem to be going to a great deal of trouble to defend a combat system that YOU yourself found inadequate.

I never called CT broken. I don't think it is.

I understand it's abstraction, and it's not really to my tastes either.

I'd use it because it's not broken (unlike, say, T4, with is broken).

You were calling CT broken, and I just thought I'd be helpful in showing you that it's really not.

I also find myself wondering how much you'd have been persuaded by the "it's just abstracted" defense when you were working on your combat system.

And, I do like my combat system better.

For one, it's harder to-hit. I prefer that.

Second, armor absorbs damage. I like that too.

Third, the way I handle damage, a successful "hit" does typically mean the character was shot rather than the way CT handles it.

Those are things I wanted "fix" for my group (and whoever else likes the rules).

But, I don't say that CT is broken and that my rules fix it. I say that my rules handle CT combat more intuitively--in a less abstract fashion.

Unless of course, you've had a sudden change of mind brought on by this brilliant and insightful thread?

You jest, but I have found the thread very insightful. It's made me question some assumptions. Before I "defended" CT, I was probably thinking more like you are now.

I see that I was wrong about some things (allowing career switching and ignoring the INT + EDU experience limit among them).

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
And I notice that you seem to be going to a great deal of trouble to defend a combat system that YOU yourself found inadequate.

I never called CT broken. I don't think it is.

I understand it's abstraction, and it's not really to my tastes either.

I'd use it because it's not broken (unlike, say, T4, with is broken).

You were calling CT broken, and I just thought I'd be helpful in showing you that it's really not.

I also find myself wondering how much you'd have been persuaded by the "it's just abstracted" defense when you were working on your combat system.

And, I do like my combat system better.

For one, it's harder to-hit. I prefer that.

Second, armor absorbs damage. I like that too.

Third, the way I handle damage, a successful "hit" does typically mean the character was shot rather than the way CT handles it.

Those are things I wanted "fix" for my group (and whoever else likes the rules).

But, I don't say that CT is broken and that my rules fix it. I say that my rules handle CT combat more intuitively--in a less abstract fashion.

Unless of course, you've had a sudden change of mind brought on by this brilliant and insightful thread?

You jest, but I have found the thread very insightful. It's made me question some assumptions. Before I "defended" CT, I was probably thinking more like you are now.

I see that I was wrong about some things (allowing career switching and ignoring the INT + EDU experience limit among them).

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tbeard1999:
And in any case, I find the outcome objectionable, regardless of the designer's motives.

OK. Well, now we're just down to that you don't like the CT system.</font>[/QUOTE]

Not to be difficult, but that's not exactly true. I've been trying to keep as much of the CT system as possible while addressing the flaws that I see in it. Clearly, I wuldn't spend so much time on a system I didn't like.

But liking something does not require me overlook (what I consider to be) serious flaws.

I do dislike certain outcomes generated by the system -- the aforementioned almost automatic 4 hits in a 4 shot burst by a nominally trained individual. But I can easily adjust the system so that those kinds of things won't happen often.

I am unpersuaded by your abstraction argument...and I'm skeptical that you would have given it much creedence earlier. Because at the end of the day, I want a fun game. And games in which barely skilled people find it easy to get automatic hits are not fun for me. And arguing that it's "abstract" does not make it more fun to me.

But it's okay with me if you have changed your mind; I do that all the time. But I'd note that *I* was the one who said that CT was fine when limited to book 1 hardware and characters. Yes SMGs are a problem, but that can be solved without redoing the entire system. So perhaps my mind doesn't *have* to be changed as much...

And, that mucho OK. You don't have to. Heck, I'm more partial to armor absorbing damage than how it is handled in vanilla CT.

But, as I've pointed out, vanilla CT isn't broken. It's just abstract. You don't like abstract, and that's OK. Tweak it.

<shrug> Sorry, but calling it "abstract" doesn't make the dubious outcomes any less annoying. Nor does it somehow redeem the system. In fact, it's hard for me to imagine what system *could* be considered lousy in the face of your "abstraction" defense.

Heck, I've tweaked the hell out of CT over the years.

You were claiming that CT was broken though, when it really isn't. It just doesn't fit to your tastes.

Actually, I am claiming *both* things -- its broken (with book 4 weapons and chargen) *and* it isn't to my taste in that broken form. I'm pretty sure I know the difference between the two.

Now, *if* every successful to-hit roll meant the character was actually shot (on average, damage would exceed two stats on most characters), then I'd have to agree with you. Because then, and only then, a successful to-hit roll would also indicate a gunshot wound on the victim. You'd have a strong point, if that were the case.

And, therein lies the error I see you've made when considering the CT system.

I fail to see how this argument redeems the system. At the end of the day, the result is that a nominally trained user of the SMG (or the Gauss Rifle or the ACR or the Assault Rifle) winds up virtually assured of AT LEAST wounding 3 characters in a 4 shot burst.

This is an absurd outcome (if such things exist), and a lousy game design decision. If you're gonna make it that easy to get automatic hits (a) why would anyone use another weapon if given a choice; and (b) why even bother with a "to hit" roll. That's a lot of trouble for a mechanic that often won't get used...

The fact that the weapon can't kill anyone just indicts the damage system, which I'm not presently concerned with.

TBeard, I haven't been trying to make an enemy of you. I hope you haven't taken my comments that way. I've just been arguing the other side of the issue.

You've got some damn good thoughts, and they're well worth listening to (and reading).

I just think your point of view on reading the CT combat system is off. I hope I was able to correct it.

I don't think you're an idiot or anything of the sort. Heck, I like ya.

To me, this has just been two GMs discussing the finer points.

I hope you feel the same.

S4

Oh, I had a rough day, so I was probably not my usual kindhearted and tolerant self.

No offense taken and hopefully none given.

And if this discussion has made you change your position on CT's combat system, then it accomplished something. I realize that part of the trouble here is that I haven't provided a final set of modifiers. I suspect that you won't find them as odious as you seem to think. The main change will be that the "to hit" number -- as generated by the armor and range chart modifiers -- will not go below 8 for semi-automatic weapons. Automatic weapons will have a minimum to hit number of 7 (ACR, Autorifle and Assault Rifle) or 6 (SMG, Gauss Rifle, LMG, Autocannon). Skilled characters will still find it pretty easy to hit targets. The DEX mods for all weapons are now +1; +2 is huge on a 2d6 system. The automatic rifle, assault rifle and ACR require the same DEX as a Rifle, Carbine and Rifle, respectively. The SMG is still fearsome at closer ranges; it's just not overwhelming. The Gauss Rifle is an improvement over the ACR, but no longer a Waste-O-Matic.

I'll also clean a few things up that appear to me to be simple errors or useless clutter. For instance, the gun charts don't have Jack or Reflec because these armors affect guns the same as None. That makes the consolidated "to hit" charts much shorter. I'm ditching the bizarre -4 reflec modifier for body pistols. This *must* be a typo; reflec affects no other gun at all and there's no reason to imagine that a tinfoil bodysuit will somehow prove as effective against body pistols as ballistic cloth armor.

The higher to hit numbers will be about what they are in the current CT system.

And note that this system will break if you don't also limit the skills of Book 4+ characters.

I haven't looked at melee weapons so I don't know if they'll need to be tweaked. (I kinda like the idea of letting swords and the like be relatively effective against armor; it makes swords possibly useful, and swords are cool). Since Book 4 didn't introduce any melee weapons, they're probably okay.

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tbeard1999:
And in any case, I find the outcome objectionable, regardless of the designer's motives.

OK. Well, now we're just down to that you don't like the CT system.</font>[/QUOTE]

Not to be difficult, but that's not exactly true. I've been trying to keep as much of the CT system as possible while addressing the flaws that I see in it. Clearly, I wuldn't spend so much time on a system I didn't like.

But liking something does not require me overlook (what I consider to be) serious flaws.

I do dislike certain outcomes generated by the system -- the aforementioned almost automatic 4 hits in a 4 shot burst by a nominally trained individual. But I can easily adjust the system so that those kinds of things won't happen often.

I am unpersuaded by your abstraction argument...and I'm skeptical that you would have given it much creedence earlier. Because at the end of the day, I want a fun game. And games in which barely skilled people find it easy to get automatic hits are not fun for me. And arguing that it's "abstract" does not make it more fun to me.

But it's okay with me if you have changed your mind; I do that all the time. But I'd note that *I* was the one who said that CT was fine when limited to book 1 hardware and characters. Yes SMGs are a problem, but that can be solved without redoing the entire system. So perhaps my mind doesn't *have* to be changed as much...

And, that mucho OK. You don't have to. Heck, I'm more partial to armor absorbing damage than how it is handled in vanilla CT.

But, as I've pointed out, vanilla CT isn't broken. It's just abstract. You don't like abstract, and that's OK. Tweak it.

<shrug> Sorry, but calling it "abstract" doesn't make the dubious outcomes any less annoying. Nor does it somehow redeem the system. In fact, it's hard for me to imagine what system *could* be considered lousy in the face of your "abstraction" defense.

Heck, I've tweaked the hell out of CT over the years.

You were claiming that CT was broken though, when it really isn't. It just doesn't fit to your tastes.

Actually, I am claiming *both* things -- its broken (with book 4 weapons and chargen) *and* it isn't to my taste in that broken form. I'm pretty sure I know the difference between the two.

Now, *if* every successful to-hit roll meant the character was actually shot (on average, damage would exceed two stats on most characters), then I'd have to agree with you. Because then, and only then, a successful to-hit roll would also indicate a gunshot wound on the victim. You'd have a strong point, if that were the case.

And, therein lies the error I see you've made when considering the CT system.

I fail to see how this argument redeems the system. At the end of the day, the result is that a nominally trained user of the SMG (or the Gauss Rifle or the ACR or the Assault Rifle) winds up virtually assured of AT LEAST wounding 3 characters in a 4 shot burst.

This is an absurd outcome (if such things exist), and a lousy game design decision. If you're gonna make it that easy to get automatic hits (a) why would anyone use another weapon if given a choice; and (b) why even bother with a "to hit" roll. That's a lot of trouble for a mechanic that often won't get used...

The fact that the weapon can't kill anyone just indicts the damage system, which I'm not presently concerned with.

TBeard, I haven't been trying to make an enemy of you. I hope you haven't taken my comments that way. I've just been arguing the other side of the issue.

You've got some damn good thoughts, and they're well worth listening to (and reading).

I just think your point of view on reading the CT combat system is off. I hope I was able to correct it.

I don't think you're an idiot or anything of the sort. Heck, I like ya.

To me, this has just been two GMs discussing the finer points.

I hope you feel the same.

S4

Oh, I had a rough day, so I was probably not my usual kindhearted and tolerant self.

No offense taken and hopefully none given.

And if this discussion has made you change your position on CT's combat system, then it accomplished something. I realize that part of the trouble here is that I haven't provided a final set of modifiers. I suspect that you won't find them as odious as you seem to think. The main change will be that the "to hit" number -- as generated by the armor and range chart modifiers -- will not go below 8 for semi-automatic weapons. Automatic weapons will have a minimum to hit number of 7 (ACR, Autorifle and Assault Rifle) or 6 (SMG, Gauss Rifle, LMG, Autocannon). Skilled characters will still find it pretty easy to hit targets. The DEX mods for all weapons are now +1; +2 is huge on a 2d6 system. The automatic rifle, assault rifle and ACR require the same DEX as a Rifle, Carbine and Rifle, respectively. The SMG is still fearsome at closer ranges; it's just not overwhelming. The Gauss Rifle is an improvement over the ACR, but no longer a Waste-O-Matic.

I'll also clean a few things up that appear to me to be simple errors or useless clutter. For instance, the gun charts don't have Jack or Reflec because these armors affect guns the same as None. That makes the consolidated "to hit" charts much shorter. I'm ditching the bizarre -4 reflec modifier for body pistols. This *must* be a typo; reflec affects no other gun at all and there's no reason to imagine that a tinfoil bodysuit will somehow prove as effective against body pistols as ballistic cloth armor.

The higher to hit numbers will be about what they are in the current CT system.

And note that this system will break if you don't also limit the skills of Book 4+ characters.

I haven't looked at melee weapons so I don't know if they'll need to be tweaked. (I kinda like the idea of letting swords and the like be relatively effective against armor; it makes swords possibly useful, and swords are cool). Since Book 4 didn't introduce any melee weapons, they're probably okay.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
As a game designer, I'm all too aware of how "abstraction" can be used as a catch-all excuse for lousy design.

But, is it really "lousy" game design?

Think about it. A game like this, with its deadly firearms, walks a fine line between "deadly reality" and "fun & exciting gameplay."

If you make damage ultra-realistic, then getting shot in the game means your character is either dead or hospitalized for a long period of time.

That translates into no firefights during a game session. Is that fun?

Or, if you go the other way, and allow characters to withstand multiple types of damage, it blows your suspension of disbelief. Characters are superheroes. Nothing can hurt them. There's no risk. It's like a munchkin computer game with unlimited lives. Is that fun?

What does Classic Traveller do?

It walks that fine line between those two worlds.

It allows characters to participate in fast-n-furious firefight action while keeping a foothold in reality (maintaining suspension of disbelief).

It takes a skilled game designer to do that.

So, I definitely wouldn't say that Classic Traveller is built on lousy game design.

Especially, in reality, it's an award-winning, hall-of-fame, still-being-played-after-three-decades game design.

S4

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
As a game designer, I'm all too aware of how "abstraction" can be used as a catch-all excuse for lousy design.

But, is it really "lousy" game design?

Think about it. A game like this, with its deadly firearms, walks a fine line between "deadly reality" and "fun & exciting gameplay."

If you make damage ultra-realistic, then getting shot in the game means your character is either dead or hospitalized for a long period of time.

That translates into no firefights during a game session. Is that fun?

Or, if you go the other way, and allow characters to withstand multiple types of damage, it blows your suspension of disbelief. Characters are superheroes. Nothing can hurt them. There's no risk. It's like a munchkin computer game with unlimited lives. Is that fun?

What does Classic Traveller do?

It walks that fine line between those two worlds.

It allows characters to participate in fast-n-furious firefight action while keeping a foothold in reality (maintaining suspension of disbelief).

It takes a skilled game designer to do that.

So, I definitely wouldn't say that Classic Traveller is built on lousy game design.

Especially, in reality, it's an award-winning, hall-of-fame, still-being-played-after-three-decades game design.

S4

 

[Ishmael]

a point I'd like to inject about damage and death and wounding.....

using first aid rules, even a minor hit can eventually lead to serious stuff if no first aid is done... and for a weapon killing someone, really only a clean head or heart shot gives instant death. Most likely a wounded person would be rolling on ground yelling/moaning until he died, but in gametime, that'd mean he was just given a major or even a minor wound that isn't being treated in time.

to test efectiveness or 'realism' based on killing in a single shot in a single round seems odd to me . For games with short combat rounds, maybe games *shouldn't* be overly deadly...let the lack of medics do'em in.

 

[Ishmael]

a point I'd like to inject about damage and death and wounding.....

using first aid rules, even a minor hit can eventually lead to serious stuff if no first aid is done... and for a weapon killing someone, really only a clean head or heart shot gives instant death. Most likely a wounded person would be rolling on ground yelling/moaning until he died, but in gametime, that'd mean he was just given a major or even a minor wound that isn't being treated in time.

to test efectiveness or 'realism' based on killing in a single shot in a single round seems odd to me . For games with short combat rounds, maybe games *shouldn't* be overly deadly...let the lack of medics do'em in.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
I fail to see how this argument redeems the system. At the end of the day, the result is that a nominally trained user of the SMG (or the Gauss Rifle or the ACR or the Assault Rifle) winds up virtually assured of AT LEAST wounding 4 characters in a 4 shot burst.

This is an absurd outcome (if such things exist), and a lousy game design decision.

You've got to have some special circumstances for that to happen, remember.

(1) The targets probably aren't aware of your attack. If so, the additional targets hit by the Group Hit rule will evade, and you won't get to attack them.

(2) The targets have to be standing very close together. Otherwise, you're only attacking one of them.

(3) Again, you're under the impression that an SMG can hit four targets. It's three targets total: the main target plus a max of up to two adjacent targets. That's a max of three characters that can get hit by the four-round burst.

(4) And, finally, you're not considering damage again. It takes two stats at zero before a character is seriously wounded. I'm sure you'll agree that a gunshot wound is a serious wound (that it won't heal in 30 minutes, as a Minor Wound will). Once you've considered damage, it's easy to see which targets were actually "shot" and which weren't. In the SMG example I posted about this, on the dead character was actually hit with bullets. The adjacent targets were only knocked unconscious with Minor Wounds--they cannot have sustained a bullet wound. So, if the burst was a 4 round burst from the SMG, then 1-4 bullets hit the main target and killed him. How many actual bullets struck the main target is up to the GM to decide, if important. The other two characters, although knocked unconscious, were not struck with bullets.




Let me ask you something.

If you're playing D&D, and you pick up your gladiator short short and swing it with all your might at an Orc, your d20 indicating a hit, and you doing 1d6 damage...

If the Orc has 26 hit points, and you just hit for a total of 5 points...

...did you really hit that Orc, plunging your steel into his gut? Or, did something else happen?

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
I fail to see how this argument redeems the system. At the end of the day, the result is that a nominally trained user of the SMG (or the Gauss Rifle or the ACR or the Assault Rifle) winds up virtually assured of AT LEAST wounding 4 characters in a 4 shot burst.

This is an absurd outcome (if such things exist), and a lousy game design decision.

You've got to have some special circumstances for that to happen, remember.

(1) The targets probably aren't aware of your attack. If so, the additional targets hit by the Group Hit rule will evade, and you won't get to attack them.

(2) The targets have to be standing very close together. Otherwise, you're only attacking one of them.

(3) Again, you're under the impression that an SMG can hit four targets. It's three targets total: the main target plus a max of up to two adjacent targets. That's a max of three characters that can get hit by the four-round burst.

(4) And, finally, you're not considering damage again. It takes two stats at zero before a character is seriously wounded. I'm sure you'll agree that a gunshot wound is a serious wound (that it won't heal in 30 minutes, as a Minor Wound will). Once you've considered damage, it's easy to see which targets were actually "shot" and which weren't. In the SMG example I posted about this, on the dead character was actually hit with bullets. The adjacent targets were only knocked unconscious with Minor Wounds--they cannot have sustained a bullet wound. So, if the burst was a 4 round burst from the SMG, then 1-4 bullets hit the main target and killed him. How many actual bullets struck the main target is up to the GM to decide, if important. The other two characters, although knocked unconscious, were not struck with bullets.




Let me ask you something.

If you're playing D&D, and you pick up your gladiator short short and swing it with all your might at an Orc, your d20 indicating a hit, and you doing 1d6 damage...

If the Orc has 26 hit points, and you just hit for a total of 5 points...

...did you really hit that Orc, plunging your steel into his gut? Or, did something else happen?

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Ishmael James:
...using first aid rules, even a minor hit can eventually lead to serious stuff if no first aid is done... and for a weapon killing someone, really only a clean head or heart shot gives instant death. Most likely a wounded person would be rolling on ground yelling/moaning until he died, but in gametime, that'd mean he was just given a major or even a minor wound that isn't being treated in time.

That's only if you're using House or extended Medical rules from some supplement or magazine, though.

If we're talking straight vanilla CT, then no wound will degrade past its initial level (unless by GM choice). Minor Wounds (one stat at zero) will improve to fully healed after three days of rest. Serious Wounds (two stats at zero) will never improve, but never degrade either, requiring medical supervision for improvement.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Ishmael James:
...using first aid rules, even a minor hit can eventually lead to serious stuff if no first aid is done... and for a weapon killing someone, really only a clean head or heart shot gives instant death. Most likely a wounded person would be rolling on ground yelling/moaning until he died, but in gametime, that'd mean he was just given a major or even a minor wound that isn't being treated in time.

That's only if you're using House or extended Medical rules from some supplement or magazine, though.

If we're talking straight vanilla CT, then no wound will degrade past its initial level (unless by GM choice). Minor Wounds (one stat at zero) will improve to fully healed after three days of rest. Serious Wounds (two stats at zero) will never improve, but never degrade either, requiring medical supervision for improvement.

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tbeard1999:
I fail to see how this argument redeems the system. At the end of the day, the result is that a nominally trained user of the SMG (or the Gauss Rifle or the ACR or the Assault Rifle) winds up virtually assured of AT LEAST wounding 4 characters in a 4 shot burst.

This is an absurd outcome (if such things exist), and a lousy game design decision.

You've got to have some special circumstances for that to happen, remember.

(1) The targets probably aren't aware of your attack. If so, the additional targets hit by the Group Hit rule will evade, and you won't get to attack them. </font>[/QUOTE]Sorry, but there is no evidence -- or requirement in the rules -- to support this assertion. A target may eschew evading for the simple reason that he wants to shoot back.

And by the way, while it is true that "only" three people will get hit virtually all the time, one will get hit twice -- a 100% chance, by the way. That person is fairly likely to die, which sorta weakens the "it's abstracted because damage doesn't kill" argument. Assuming, of course, that I was actually persuaded by that argument.

And by the way...the outcome is *still* absurd even if the targets are evading. A 100% chance of hitting the target twice (and likely killing him).

(2) The targets have to be standing very close together.

Like, say in a typical compartment of a typical Traveller starhip?

(3) Again, you're under the impression that an SMG can hit four targets. It's three targets total: the main target plus a max of up to two adjacent targets. That's a max of three characters that can get hit by the four-round burst.

I keep mistyping that. I understand that "only" three characters are automatically hit (4 times total) at combat ranges by a nominally trained shooter firing a four shot burst.

The fact that the 4 automatic hits are "only" divided among 3 targets doesn't somehow rehabilitate the system for me.

(4) And, finally, you're not considering damage again. It takes two stats at zero before a character is seriously wounded. ...

And again, it is little comfort to me that the nominally trained auto weapon user has a virtually guaranteed chance of wounding 2 people and probably killing a third with a 4 shot burst.

All that does is call into question the rationality of the CT damage model. (Something I have not criticized).

You're stretching way too hard here.

Let me ask you something.

If you're playing D&D, and you pick up your gladiator short short and swing it with all your might at an Orc, your d20 indicating a hit, and you doing 1d6 damage...

If the Orc has 26 hit points, and you just hit for a total of 5 points...

...did you really hit that Orc, plunging your steel into his gut? Or, did something else happen?

<shrug>

Since I have not questioned the *damage* mechanic of CT, the question seems of little relevance. However, I am willing, in the case of D&D, to buy into their hit point model because it happens to make for a fun game.

But the fact that I may be tolerant of absurdity in D&D's combat system does not make the case that I should tolerate purported abstractions -- a bald supposition on your part, by the way -- in CT. Different settings, different weaponry and very different game systems.

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tbeard1999:
I fail to see how this argument redeems the system. At the end of the day, the result is that a nominally trained user of the SMG (or the Gauss Rifle or the ACR or the Assault Rifle) winds up virtually assured of AT LEAST wounding 4 characters in a 4 shot burst.

This is an absurd outcome (if such things exist), and a lousy game design decision.

You've got to have some special circumstances for that to happen, remember.

(1) The targets probably aren't aware of your attack. If so, the additional targets hit by the Group Hit rule will evade, and you won't get to attack them. </font>[/QUOTE]Sorry, but there is no evidence -- or requirement in the rules -- to support this assertion. A target may eschew evading for the simple reason that he wants to shoot back.

And by the way, while it is true that "only" three people will get hit virtually all the time, one will get hit twice -- a 100% chance, by the way. That person is fairly likely to die, which sorta weakens the "it's abstracted because damage doesn't kill" argument. Assuming, of course, that I was actually persuaded by that argument.

And by the way...the outcome is *still* absurd even if the targets are evading. A 100% chance of hitting the target twice (and likely killing him).

(2) The targets have to be standing very close together.

Like, say in a typical compartment of a typical Traveller starhip?

(3) Again, you're under the impression that an SMG can hit four targets. It's three targets total: the main target plus a max of up to two adjacent targets. That's a max of three characters that can get hit by the four-round burst.

I keep mistyping that. I understand that "only" three characters are automatically hit (4 times total) at combat ranges by a nominally trained shooter firing a four shot burst.

The fact that the 4 automatic hits are "only" divided among 3 targets doesn't somehow rehabilitate the system for me.

(4) And, finally, you're not considering damage again. It takes two stats at zero before a character is seriously wounded. ...

And again, it is little comfort to me that the nominally trained auto weapon user has a virtually guaranteed chance of wounding 2 people and probably killing a third with a 4 shot burst.

All that does is call into question the rationality of the CT damage model. (Something I have not criticized).

You're stretching way too hard here.

Let me ask you something.

If you're playing D&D, and you pick up your gladiator short short and swing it with all your might at an Orc, your d20 indicating a hit, and you doing 1d6 damage...

If the Orc has 26 hit points, and you just hit for a total of 5 points...

...did you really hit that Orc, plunging your steel into his gut? Or, did something else happen?

<shrug>

Since I have not questioned the *damage* mechanic of CT, the question seems of little relevance. However, I am willing, in the case of D&D, to buy into their hit point model because it happens to make for a fun game.

But the fact that I may be tolerant of absurdity in D&D's combat system does not make the case that I should tolerate purported abstractions -- a bald supposition on your part, by the way -- in CT. Different settings, different weaponry and very different game systems.

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tbeard1999:
As a game designer, I'm all too aware of how "abstraction" can be used as a catch-all excuse for lousy design.

But, is it really "lousy" game design?

Think about it. A game like this, with its deadly firearms, walks a fine line between "deadly reality" and "fun & exciting gameplay."

If you make damage ultra-realistic, then getting shot in the game means your character is either dead or hospitalized for a long period of time.

That translates into no firefights during a game session. Is that fun?

Or, if you go the other way, and allow characters to withstand multiple types of damage, it blows your suspension of disbelief. Characters are superheroes. Nothing can hurt them. There's no risk. It's like a munchkin computer game with unlimited lives. Is that fun?

What does Classic Traveller do?

It walks that fine line between those two worlds.

It allows characters to participate in fast-n-furious firefight action while keeping a foothold in reality (maintaining suspension of disbelief).

It takes a skilled game designer to do that.

So, I definitely wouldn't say that Classic Traveller is built on lousy game design.

Especially, in reality, it's an award-winning, hall-of-fame, still-being-played-after-three-decades game design.

S4 </font>[/QUOTE]A game must be evaluated in context. In 1977, Traveller was an amazing achievement. It's flaws -- and yes, there were some -- were more than compensated by its positives. In 2007, it hasn't aged well, in terms of game mechanics. Indeed, the fact that the system was unable to handle what was asked of it should have been obvious from the time Mercenary was published (1979). CT's mechanics were apparently not designed for expansion and are ill-suited to handle Book 4 weapons or characters.

I'd point to the fact that alternative Traveller combat systems are nearly as unbiquitous as universal task systems for Traveller. This implies that I am hardly alone in being disatisfied with CT's combat system. And you yourself posted a CT combat system revision only a few days ago that completely changed the combat system. So I think we can dispense with the implication that I am somehow unusual in my disatisfaction with CT.

I'm no mind reader, but I can't help but think that your real concern is that I am trying to address the problems yet keep as much of the old system as possible. Why that should matter is inexplicable to me. Or, I could be dead wrong...

But are you *sure* that you think CT's combat system is fine? While someone can have a change of heart, yours came awfully suddenly. For the first half of this thread, you were asserting that your alternative system fixed the problems you saw in CT. It was only after I explained why I didn't use your alternative system (or mine) that you suddenly took the position that CT's combat system was just fine.

Or am I just imagining something here?

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tbeard1999:
As a game designer, I'm all too aware of how "abstraction" can be used as a catch-all excuse for lousy design.

But, is it really "lousy" game design?

Think about it. A game like this, with its deadly firearms, walks a fine line between "deadly reality" and "fun & exciting gameplay."

If you make damage ultra-realistic, then getting shot in the game means your character is either dead or hospitalized for a long period of time.

That translates into no firefights during a game session. Is that fun?

Or, if you go the other way, and allow characters to withstand multiple types of damage, it blows your suspension of disbelief. Characters are superheroes. Nothing can hurt them. There's no risk. It's like a munchkin computer game with unlimited lives. Is that fun?

What does Classic Traveller do?

It walks that fine line between those two worlds.

It allows characters to participate in fast-n-furious firefight action while keeping a foothold in reality (maintaining suspension of disbelief).

It takes a skilled game designer to do that.

So, I definitely wouldn't say that Classic Traveller is built on lousy game design.

Especially, in reality, it's an award-winning, hall-of-fame, still-being-played-after-three-decades game design.

S4 </font>[/QUOTE]A game must be evaluated in context. In 1977, Traveller was an amazing achievement. It's flaws -- and yes, there were some -- were more than compensated by its positives. In 2007, it hasn't aged well, in terms of game mechanics. Indeed, the fact that the system was unable to handle what was asked of it should have been obvious from the time Mercenary was published (1979). CT's mechanics were apparently not designed for expansion and are ill-suited to handle Book 4 weapons or characters.

I'd point to the fact that alternative Traveller combat systems are nearly as unbiquitous as universal task systems for Traveller. This implies that I am hardly alone in being disatisfied with CT's combat system. And you yourself posted a CT combat system revision only a few days ago that completely changed the combat system. So I think we can dispense with the implication that I am somehow unusual in my disatisfaction with CT.

I'm no mind reader, but I can't help but think that your real concern is that I am trying to address the problems yet keep as much of the old system as possible. Why that should matter is inexplicable to me. Or, I could be dead wrong...

But are you *sure* that you think CT's combat system is fine? While someone can have a change of heart, yours came awfully suddenly. For the first half of this thread, you were asserting that your alternative system fixed the problems you saw in CT. It was only after I explained why I didn't use your alternative system (or mine) that you suddenly took the position that CT's combat system was just fine.

Or am I just imagining something here?

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
Since I have not questioned the *damage* mechanic of CT, the question seems of little relevance. However, I am willing, in the case of D&D, to buy into their hit point model because it happens to make for a fun game.

Well, if you can buy D&D, then you sure should be able to buy the exact same thing happening in CT.

I can see that I'm not getting anywhere here, so I guess I'll bow out. I'd ask you again to consider what I've said.

Adios,

S4

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
Since I have not questioned the *damage* mechanic of CT, the question seems of little relevance. However, I am willing, in the case of D&D, to buy into their hit point model because it happens to make for a fun game.

Well, if you can buy D&D, then you sure should be able to buy the exact same thing happening in CT.

I can see that I'm not getting anywhere here, so I guess I'll bow out. I'd ask you again to consider what I've said.

Adios,

S4

 

[Supplement Four]

There's always one more thing that draws us back in, isn't there...

Originally posted by tbeard1999:

But are you *sure* that you think CT's combat system is fine? While someone can have a change of heart, yours came awfully suddenly.

I've had no change of heart. I've never felt CT was broken. I do feel like it is a good system and does what it sets out to do.

My attempts to "fix" it are meant to mold it to my personal tastes.

As I said, I like armor absorbing damage. I like to-hit throw representing actual hits on a target. Etc.

So, I re-worked CT to provide that taste.

But, CT, as is, is not, and has never been, broken. It works fine. It's just an abstract system. What I've done is take some of the "abstract-ness" out of the system.

And, I think I've done that nicely.

Anyway, I'll *try* to bow out now and let you continue with your thread.

S4