A Criticism of the Bell Curve

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:

And I'm no longer so sure that CT can't be fixed, yet keep its flavor.

Bottom line, it's your game. You need to do what you're comfortable with.

I don't agree with you on many of your assumptions and points of view, but I'm very glad you started this thread. As you can see, it's made me re-think the INT + EDU rule to the point that I am retro-actively implementing it in my game.

Maybe that's a symptom of the Law of Unintended Thread Consequences?

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by AviH:
The analysis of 2D6 and DMs in the thread has been very interesting, but as it seems to focus on combat I think it is lacking.

Any RPG will make compromises on accuracy vs. playability and it is just a matter of where do we draw the line. The main test should be - do the DMs predict (within reasonable accuracy) real life.

Here I am with S4 (He mentioned it on pg.2 or 3 of this thread); Use realistic modifiers ...

One problem with RPG's is that most players are not really scared for their life when entering a combat situation - and too many 'Hollywood' movie stereotypes show them the correct way is to rush in shoot all over the place and kill the baddies.
Real war footage looks more like lots of soldiers barely moving or hopping from cover to cover while they and their friends shoot a lot of bullets into empty spaces...

I am sure someone on the list can qoute the kill ration from the Vietnam conflict (Hundreds or thousands of bullets per enemy casualty)

Well, is your assertion that "The main test should be - do the DMs predict (within reasonable accuracy) real life" really true? Or rather is it necessarily true? Seems to me that the genre being modeled should be honored. So by my reasoning, in a Star Wars setting, Imperial Stormtroopers shouldn't be able to hit the broad side of a barn. In a LOTR (movie) setting, the heroes should be able to cut down dozens of foes. In a Chopsocki genre, henchmen should attack in succession; never at the same time. Etc.

My problem with CT is not that it fails to model whatever genre it models. Rather, that it fails to model any genre very well because its mechanics are broken. My contention is that there is a specific (and I hope easily fixed) flaw -- the modifiers "to hit" are too large. If I'm right, these pretty much tells me how to fix the problem.

Re the focus on combat. Well, that's the system that I think is most broken. I'll get to skills, but I don't think that they are much of a problem -- as long as they are limited in number per CT.

Re: making the modifiers "realistic" -- Interestingly, that's exactly what I'm doing. I'm re-scaling the CT to hit modifiers so that they work with the 2d6 system.

Another comment -- as a wargame designer, I wrestle with the notion of "realism" all day. One thing that I've noticed is that "realism" is a highly subjective notion because the data we have on combat is very limited, in many cases biased or plagued with dubious methodology, from a non-representative sample, etc. The result is that game designers often invoke "realism" as a sort of talisman to ward off complaints about their game system.

My philosophy is to prefer a fun game over a "realistic" game. I respect hard data with a reasonable and unbiased methodology; but I seldom waste time with anecdotal data (it's unreliable and often flatly contradicts other anecdotal data). I prefer the reasonable interpretation where there are alternatives.

So it doesn't bother me per se that gun shots have a high chance of hitting. What bothers me is that *anyone* can reach that point by simply choosing the right weapon and having a relatively modest skill. And even if I did think that guns are too accurate in CT, there's not much that you can do about it unless you're willing to replace the combat system (which I've already done). And even then, there are limits to what a 2d6 system can do.

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by AviH:
The analysis of 2D6 and DMs in the thread has been very interesting, but as it seems to focus on combat I think it is lacking.

Any RPG will make compromises on accuracy vs. playability and it is just a matter of where do we draw the line. The main test should be - do the DMs predict (within reasonable accuracy) real life.

Here I am with S4 (He mentioned it on pg.2 or 3 of this thread); Use realistic modifiers ...

One problem with RPG's is that most players are not really scared for their life when entering a combat situation - and too many 'Hollywood' movie stereotypes show them the correct way is to rush in shoot all over the place and kill the baddies.
Real war footage looks more like lots of soldiers barely moving or hopping from cover to cover while they and their friends shoot a lot of bullets into empty spaces...

I am sure someone on the list can qoute the kill ration from the Vietnam conflict (Hundreds or thousands of bullets per enemy casualty)

Well, is your assertion that "The main test should be - do the DMs predict (within reasonable accuracy) real life" really true? Or rather is it necessarily true? Seems to me that the genre being modeled should be honored. So by my reasoning, in a Star Wars setting, Imperial Stormtroopers shouldn't be able to hit the broad side of a barn. In a LOTR (movie) setting, the heroes should be able to cut down dozens of foes. In a Chopsocki genre, henchmen should attack in succession; never at the same time. Etc.

My problem with CT is not that it fails to model whatever genre it models. Rather, that it fails to model any genre very well because its mechanics are broken. My contention is that there is a specific (and I hope easily fixed) flaw -- the modifiers "to hit" are too large. If I'm right, these pretty much tells me how to fix the problem.

Re the focus on combat. Well, that's the system that I think is most broken. I'll get to skills, but I don't think that they are much of a problem -- as long as they are limited in number per CT.

Re: making the modifiers "realistic" -- Interestingly, that's exactly what I'm doing. I'm re-scaling the CT to hit modifiers so that they work with the 2d6 system.

Another comment -- as a wargame designer, I wrestle with the notion of "realism" all day. One thing that I've noticed is that "realism" is a highly subjective notion because the data we have on combat is very limited, in many cases biased or plagued with dubious methodology, from a non-representative sample, etc. The result is that game designers often invoke "realism" as a sort of talisman to ward off complaints about their game system.

My philosophy is to prefer a fun game over a "realistic" game. I respect hard data with a reasonable and unbiased methodology; but I seldom waste time with anecdotal data (it's unreliable and often flatly contradicts other anecdotal data). I prefer the reasonable interpretation where there are alternatives.

So it doesn't bother me per se that gun shots have a high chance of hitting. What bothers me is that *anyone* can reach that point by simply choosing the right weapon and having a relatively modest skill. And even if I did think that guns are too accurate in CT, there's not much that you can do about it unless you're willing to replace the combat system (which I've already done). And even then, there are limits to what a 2d6 system can do.

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tbeard1999:

And I'm no longer so sure that CT can't be fixed, yet keep its flavor.

Bottom line, it's your game. You need to do what you're comfortable with.

I don't agree with you on many of your assumptions and points of view, but I'm very glad you started this thread. As you can see, it's made me re-think the INT + EDU rule to the point that I am retro-actively implementing it in my game.

Maybe that's a symptom of the Law of Unintended Thread Consequences? </font>[/QUOTE]Maybe so. Thrashing these things out can certainly help clarify the issues and identify sloppy reasoning.

And for what it's worth, I'm pretty sure that *I* may not agree with my own assumptions at the end of the day. It may well turn out that after "fixing" the mechanics, the game still won't be fun.

But it's an interesting challenge to work inside the parameters I set.

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tbeard1999:

And I'm no longer so sure that CT can't be fixed, yet keep its flavor.

Bottom line, it's your game. You need to do what you're comfortable with.

I don't agree with you on many of your assumptions and points of view, but I'm very glad you started this thread. As you can see, it's made me re-think the INT + EDU rule to the point that I am retro-actively implementing it in my game.

Maybe that's a symptom of the Law of Unintended Thread Consequences? </font>[/QUOTE]Maybe so. Thrashing these things out can certainly help clarify the issues and identify sloppy reasoning.

And for what it's worth, I'm pretty sure that *I* may not agree with my own assumptions at the end of the day. It may well turn out that after "fixing" the mechanics, the game still won't be fun.

But it's an interesting challenge to work inside the parameters I set.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
My problem with CT is not that it fails to model whatever genre it models. Rather, that it fails to model any genre very well because its mechanics are broken. My contention is that there is a specific (and I hope easily fixed) flaw -- the modifiers "to hit" are too large.

I don't agree that the CT mechanics are broken, and I see a fundamental flaw in your logic, here.

You're considering CT DMs as a "to hit" proposition only.

What you're missing is that CT DMs aren't only modeling the chance to hit. They're modeling the chance to hit and damage.

In other words, the DMs are meant not only as a modifier to hit a target, but also as a modifier to penetrate armor.

Thus, you get higher DMs than if you were just trying to hit a target.








It's logical to assume that sometimes a target can get hit and the armor withstand the blow. In vanilla CT terms, this can be the result of a failed to-hit throw.

But, when a vanilla CT hit occurs, it indicates that not only is the target hit, but the armor has failed to withstand the entire force of the blow.

If you fire a pistol at a man wearing a flak jacket, and the jacket protects the defender from the gunshot--the bullet doesn't penetrate--this is modeled as a failed to-hit throw in vanilla CT.

If you fire the pistol, and the round penetrates the flak jacket, harming the wearer of the armor, then this is modeled in CT as a successful attack throw.

"To-hit" and "To-hit & Damage" are two different animals. The higher CT DMs reflect this.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
My problem with CT is not that it fails to model whatever genre it models. Rather, that it fails to model any genre very well because its mechanics are broken. My contention is that there is a specific (and I hope easily fixed) flaw -- the modifiers "to hit" are too large.

I don't agree that the CT mechanics are broken, and I see a fundamental flaw in your logic, here.

You're considering CT DMs as a "to hit" proposition only.

What you're missing is that CT DMs aren't only modeling the chance to hit. They're modeling the chance to hit and damage.

In other words, the DMs are meant not only as a modifier to hit a target, but also as a modifier to penetrate armor.

Thus, you get higher DMs than if you were just trying to hit a target.








It's logical to assume that sometimes a target can get hit and the armor withstand the blow. In vanilla CT terms, this can be the result of a failed to-hit throw.

But, when a vanilla CT hit occurs, it indicates that not only is the target hit, but the armor has failed to withstand the entire force of the blow.

If you fire a pistol at a man wearing a flak jacket, and the jacket protects the defender from the gunshot--the bullet doesn't penetrate--this is modeled as a failed to-hit throw in vanilla CT.

If you fire the pistol, and the round penetrates the flak jacket, harming the wearer of the armor, then this is modeled in CT as a successful attack throw.

"To-hit" and "To-hit & Damage" are two different animals. The higher CT DMs reflect this.

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tbeard1999:
My problem with CT is not that it fails to model whatever genre it models. Rather, that it fails to model any genre very well because its mechanics are broken. My contention is that there is a specific (and I hope easily fixed) flaw -- the modifiers "to hit" are too large.

I don't agree that the CT mechanics are broken, and I see a fundamental flaw in your logic, here.

You're considering CT DMs as a "to hit" proposition only.

What you're missing is that CT DMs aren't only modeling the chance to hit. They're modeling the chance to hit and damage.

In other words, the DMs are meant not only as a modifier to hit a target, but also as a modifier to penetrate armor.

Thus, you get higher DMs than if you were just trying to hit a target.

...

"To-hit" and "To-hit & Damage" are two different animals. The higher CT DMs reflect this. </font>[/QUOTE]Thanks, but I was aware that the CT to hit roll is for hitting *and* penetration. But it seems to me that this fact makes the ease of obtaining high modifiers even more dubious. I use the same terminology as the rules do for clarity.

However, I can't follow your argument that higher CT DMs reflect the fact that the roll resolves hits and penetration.

The fact that the roll resolves *both* events -- hitting and penetration -- makes larger modifiers *worse* not better, in my opinion.

AS I see it, anytime the actual chance of hitting or of penetrating is less than 100%, then fewer hits *and* penetrations would be expected, compared with just the number of hits.

So if there's a 50% chance of hitting and a 50% chance of penetrating, there's a 25% chance of both hitting and penetrating. This is less than the chance of hitting alone.

And if your skill increased your to hit chance by 30% but didn't affect penetration, a single roll system should not increase the success chance by 30%. In that particular case, the 30% improvement in accuracy would result in a 15% increase in the number of targets hit and penetrated. This, it seems to me, is the strongest argument against a single die system -- that modifiers can have an unreasonable effect on the results.

(Some folks might argue that higher weapons skill makes it easier to penetrate armor by picking out weak spots. Fine by me, but I'd expect their own combat systems to reflect that as well. And I note that GDW rejected this idea in AHL/Striker/MT and every other RPG they created after CT.)

So it looks to me like a combined roll should generally have *smaller* modifiers, compared with a two step system.

And in any case, I just don't think you can have very large modifiers in a 2d6 system without making nearly automatic hits or automatic misses far more common than I think they should be.

Ex - the SMG in CT hits an unarmored target on a 0+ (at short or medium range). That means a character with nothing more than SMG-0 and no DEX bonus will hit every single time -- even if the target is evading. It's worse than that, because he'll hit TWICE per the double shot rule. And, he'll get a shot at two other figures with a 98% chance of success.

And while auto weapons are the greatest offenders, they are by no means the only ones. The humble Rifle at medium range will hit an unarmored target 83% of the time even if the firer has Rifle-0 and no DEX mod. If the firer's skill level is 1, the chance increases to 92%.

I just can't understand why someone wouldn't think this system is broken.

And doesn't the fact that you have created your own variant combat system contradict your statement that "I don't agree that the CT mechanics are broken"?

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tbeard1999:
My problem with CT is not that it fails to model whatever genre it models. Rather, that it fails to model any genre very well because its mechanics are broken. My contention is that there is a specific (and I hope easily fixed) flaw -- the modifiers "to hit" are too large.

I don't agree that the CT mechanics are broken, and I see a fundamental flaw in your logic, here.

You're considering CT DMs as a "to hit" proposition only.

What you're missing is that CT DMs aren't only modeling the chance to hit. They're modeling the chance to hit and damage.

In other words, the DMs are meant not only as a modifier to hit a target, but also as a modifier to penetrate armor.

Thus, you get higher DMs than if you were just trying to hit a target.

...

"To-hit" and "To-hit & Damage" are two different animals. The higher CT DMs reflect this. </font>[/QUOTE]Thanks, but I was aware that the CT to hit roll is for hitting *and* penetration. But it seems to me that this fact makes the ease of obtaining high modifiers even more dubious. I use the same terminology as the rules do for clarity.

However, I can't follow your argument that higher CT DMs reflect the fact that the roll resolves hits and penetration.

The fact that the roll resolves *both* events -- hitting and penetration -- makes larger modifiers *worse* not better, in my opinion.

AS I see it, anytime the actual chance of hitting or of penetrating is less than 100%, then fewer hits *and* penetrations would be expected, compared with just the number of hits.

So if there's a 50% chance of hitting and a 50% chance of penetrating, there's a 25% chance of both hitting and penetrating. This is less than the chance of hitting alone.

And if your skill increased your to hit chance by 30% but didn't affect penetration, a single roll system should not increase the success chance by 30%. In that particular case, the 30% improvement in accuracy would result in a 15% increase in the number of targets hit and penetrated. This, it seems to me, is the strongest argument against a single die system -- that modifiers can have an unreasonable effect on the results.

(Some folks might argue that higher weapons skill makes it easier to penetrate armor by picking out weak spots. Fine by me, but I'd expect their own combat systems to reflect that as well. And I note that GDW rejected this idea in AHL/Striker/MT and every other RPG they created after CT.)

So it looks to me like a combined roll should generally have *smaller* modifiers, compared with a two step system.

And in any case, I just don't think you can have very large modifiers in a 2d6 system without making nearly automatic hits or automatic misses far more common than I think they should be.

Ex - the SMG in CT hits an unarmored target on a 0+ (at short or medium range). That means a character with nothing more than SMG-0 and no DEX bonus will hit every single time -- even if the target is evading. It's worse than that, because he'll hit TWICE per the double shot rule. And, he'll get a shot at two other figures with a 98% chance of success.

And while auto weapons are the greatest offenders, they are by no means the only ones. The humble Rifle at medium range will hit an unarmored target 83% of the time even if the firer has Rifle-0 and no DEX mod. If the firer's skill level is 1, the chance increases to 92%.

I just can't understand why someone wouldn't think this system is broken.

And doesn't the fact that you have created your own variant combat system contradict your statement that "I don't agree that the CT mechanics are broken"?

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
However, I can't follow your argument that higher CT DMs reflect the fact that the roll resolves hits and penetration.

The fact that the roll resolves *both* events -- hitting and penetration -- makes larger modifiers *worse* not better.

Let's test what you say here.

An Imperial Marine, decked out in Combat Armor, stands 2 meters in front of an attacker using an AutoPistol. The Imperial Marine doesn't move, or try to evade. He just stands there (maybe the attacker is coming up on him from behind).

Using just vanilla CT rules...

The attacker is DEX-7 and AutoPistol-2

2D for 8+ to hit.

DMs
---
+2 Skill
+2 Short Range
-5 vs. Combat Armor
---
-1

The attacker needs a 9+ to hit and penetrate the Marine in Combat Armor.

That's a 28% chance of hitting, penetrating, and damaging the Marine in the combat armor.





Compare this to the same attacker, shooting at an Imperial Army officer wearing Cloth Armor, standing in the same spot as the Imperial Marine.

DMs
---
+2 Skill
+2 Short Range
-3 Cloth
---
+1

The attacker needs a 7+ to hit and damage the Imperial Army officer.

That's a 58% chance of hitting, penetrating, and damaging the Army officer in the Cloth armor.




28% chance of hitting/penetrating/damaging the Marine in Combat Armor.

58% chance of hitting/penetrating/damaging the Army officer in Cloth Armor.

Obviously, Combat Armor is 30% more effective against AutoPistol fire than Cloth Armor is.

I fail to see your exception with this.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
However, I can't follow your argument that higher CT DMs reflect the fact that the roll resolves hits and penetration.

The fact that the roll resolves *both* events -- hitting and penetration -- makes larger modifiers *worse* not better.

Let's test what you say here.

An Imperial Marine, decked out in Combat Armor, stands 2 meters in front of an attacker using an AutoPistol. The Imperial Marine doesn't move, or try to evade. He just stands there (maybe the attacker is coming up on him from behind).

Using just vanilla CT rules...

The attacker is DEX-7 and AutoPistol-2

2D for 8+ to hit.

DMs
---
+2 Skill
+2 Short Range
-5 vs. Combat Armor
---
-1

The attacker needs a 9+ to hit and penetrate the Marine in Combat Armor.

That's a 28% chance of hitting, penetrating, and damaging the Marine in the combat armor.





Compare this to the same attacker, shooting at an Imperial Army officer wearing Cloth Armor, standing in the same spot as the Imperial Marine.

DMs
---
+2 Skill
+2 Short Range
-3 Cloth
---
+1

The attacker needs a 7+ to hit and damage the Imperial Army officer.

That's a 58% chance of hitting, penetrating, and damaging the Army officer in the Cloth armor.




28% chance of hitting/penetrating/damaging the Marine in Combat Armor.

58% chance of hitting/penetrating/damaging the Army officer in Cloth Armor.

Obviously, Combat Armor is 30% more effective against AutoPistol fire than Cloth Armor is.

I fail to see your exception with this.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
I mean, the SMG in CT hits an unarmored target on a 0+ (at short or medium range), for heaven's sake. That means a character with nothing more than SMG-0 and no DEX bonus will hit every single time -- even if the target is evading. It's worse than that, because he'll hit TWICE per the double shot rule. And, he'll get a shot at two other figures with a 98% chance of success.

Let's test this too...




Stat-7, SMG-0 character. Fires at an unarmored target at Short Range.

DMs
---
+0 Skill
+0 DEX Bonus
+3 Short Range
+5 vs. No Armor
---
+8

This is an automatic hit and penetration (no armor to penetrate). And, this will happen twice due to the autofire rule.

That part is understood.

Yet, again, here's what you're missing...

Let's say the defender is an average character of 777777 stats.

Let's also say that the damage rolled (3D) for the SMG is average (10 points average).

That means damage roll #1 could be: 5, 1, 4

Damage roll #2 could be: 2, 6, 2

So, total damage is: 1, 2, 2, 4, 5, 6. (an average of 20 points on 3D)

This damage will wound the target with a single Serious Wound. He'll end up with stats reduced to: 001. And, he'll heal from that gunshot wound, to full recovery, in 5-30 days if the recommended care is provided.




What is this saying?

It's saying that, if you place yourself within 50 meters of an attacker spraying your with full automatic fire of an SMG, you will be shot.

Well, if damage is low, you'll only have a minor wound. And, if damage is higher than average, you'll be killed.

That doesn't sound too unreasonable to me. We're talking 50 meters and an SMG spraying the area with full auto. Not so unrealistic.





But consider....

If the defender's stats are higher than normal, this SMG shot can easily average as a Minor Wound that will completely heal in half an hour if treated properly.

Consider the exact same damage and scenario above, but change out the victim with stats: A8C.

This character will only be wounded with an Minor Wound! He's not shot! He's more like "Stunned" from the gunfire. He'll heal completely (get his breath back) in 30 minutes!



This is another area I think you're neglecting to fully comprehend. I've mentioned it before. The CT combat system uses abstract damage.

Just because you hit and penetrate doesn't necessarily mean that your target is "shot"....the damage roll is needed to complete the picture.




So, when you say that it's ridiculous that an SMG fired at a target at 50 meters has a 100% chance of hitting that target, most people would tend to agree that, yeah, that's not modeling reality.

But, when you consider the damage roll in CT as well, you can see that a successful hit does not necessarily mean the character was shot.

Being shot by any firearm would be a pretty serious affair, even if it's the best of wounds.

But, if you're fully healed in 30 minutes, you weren't shot. You were knocked unconscious. Maybe you were winded. But, no bullet penetrated your skin.




Likewise, consider D&D (which has a similar attack/penetrate throw plus a damage throw that must be considered together).

You've got a 3 foot long sword. You swing it, hit, and do 1d8 of damage vs. your opponent with 42 hit points.

Did you just break the skin with that hit?

No. He probably (it's abstract...so you have to extrapolate if you want details) blocked your blow. But, the 1d8 of damage you do represents your opponenet getting tired, becoming weak, less and less able to defend himself.

SOMETIMES vanilla CT attack and damage rolls refelct the SAME thing.

An SMG is fired....

...it's a 100% chance of success on the to-hit due to modifiers and the autofire rule...

...damage is rolled, but the dice come out below average: 1, 1, 3, 2, 4, 3.

Your opponent, unarmored, has stats: F65

Your opponent takes all of the damage from his STR stat (it's his choice).

Now, after suffering a fully automatic SMG burst, the character has stats: 165.

DO YOU think that the SMG throw represents the character actually hitting the target with some SMG bullets, and the target just shrugged off the wound?

Or, do you think that it's an abstract system, and, if you want to extrapolate what happened here, then a SMG burst was fired at the target, and the target was "rattled" and maybe "scared" from the weapons fire.




You see...the CT system isn't broken. I just don't think you understand it fully.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
I mean, the SMG in CT hits an unarmored target on a 0+ (at short or medium range), for heaven's sake. That means a character with nothing more than SMG-0 and no DEX bonus will hit every single time -- even if the target is evading. It's worse than that, because he'll hit TWICE per the double shot rule. And, he'll get a shot at two other figures with a 98% chance of success.

Let's test this too...




Stat-7, SMG-0 character. Fires at an unarmored target at Short Range.

DMs
---
+0 Skill
+0 DEX Bonus
+3 Short Range
+5 vs. No Armor
---
+8

This is an automatic hit and penetration (no armor to penetrate). And, this will happen twice due to the autofire rule.

That part is understood.

Yet, again, here's what you're missing...

Let's say the defender is an average character of 777777 stats.

Let's also say that the damage rolled (3D) for the SMG is average (10 points average).

That means damage roll #1 could be: 5, 1, 4

Damage roll #2 could be: 2, 6, 2

So, total damage is: 1, 2, 2, 4, 5, 6. (an average of 20 points on 3D)

This damage will wound the target with a single Serious Wound. He'll end up with stats reduced to: 001. And, he'll heal from that gunshot wound, to full recovery, in 5-30 days if the recommended care is provided.




What is this saying?

It's saying that, if you place yourself within 50 meters of an attacker spraying your with full automatic fire of an SMG, you will be shot.

Well, if damage is low, you'll only have a minor wound. And, if damage is higher than average, you'll be killed.

That doesn't sound too unreasonable to me. We're talking 50 meters and an SMG spraying the area with full auto. Not so unrealistic.





But consider....

If the defender's stats are higher than normal, this SMG shot can easily average as a Minor Wound that will completely heal in half an hour if treated properly.

Consider the exact same damage and scenario above, but change out the victim with stats: A8C.

This character will only be wounded with an Minor Wound! He's not shot! He's more like "Stunned" from the gunfire. He'll heal completely (get his breath back) in 30 minutes!



This is another area I think you're neglecting to fully comprehend. I've mentioned it before. The CT combat system uses abstract damage.

Just because you hit and penetrate doesn't necessarily mean that your target is "shot"....the damage roll is needed to complete the picture.




So, when you say that it's ridiculous that an SMG fired at a target at 50 meters has a 100% chance of hitting that target, most people would tend to agree that, yeah, that's not modeling reality.

But, when you consider the damage roll in CT as well, you can see that a successful hit does not necessarily mean the character was shot.

Being shot by any firearm would be a pretty serious affair, even if it's the best of wounds.

But, if you're fully healed in 30 minutes, you weren't shot. You were knocked unconscious. Maybe you were winded. But, no bullet penetrated your skin.




Likewise, consider D&D (which has a similar attack/penetrate throw plus a damage throw that must be considered together).

You've got a 3 foot long sword. You swing it, hit, and do 1d8 of damage vs. your opponent with 42 hit points.

Did you just break the skin with that hit?

No. He probably (it's abstract...so you have to extrapolate if you want details) blocked your blow. But, the 1d8 of damage you do represents your opponenet getting tired, becoming weak, less and less able to defend himself.

SOMETIMES vanilla CT attack and damage rolls refelct the SAME thing.

An SMG is fired....

...it's a 100% chance of success on the to-hit due to modifiers and the autofire rule...

...damage is rolled, but the dice come out below average: 1, 1, 3, 2, 4, 3.

Your opponent, unarmored, has stats: F65

Your opponent takes all of the damage from his STR stat (it's his choice).

Now, after suffering a fully automatic SMG burst, the character has stats: 165.

DO YOU think that the SMG throw represents the character actually hitting the target with some SMG bullets, and the target just shrugged off the wound?

Or, do you think that it's an abstract system, and, if you want to extrapolate what happened here, then a SMG burst was fired at the target, and the target was "rattled" and maybe "scared" from the weapons fire.




You see...the CT system isn't broken. I just don't think you understand it fully.

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tbeard1999:
However, I can't follow your argument that higher CT DMs reflect the fact that the roll resolves hits and penetration.

The fact that the roll resolves *both* events -- hitting and penetration -- makes larger modifiers *worse* not better.

Let's test what you say here.

An Imperial Marine, decked out in Combat Armor, stands 2 meters in front of an attacker using an AutoPistol.

Compare this to the same attacker, shooting at an Imperial Army officer wearing Cloth Armor, standing in the same spot as the Imperial Marine.

...

The attacker needs a 7+ to hit and damage the Imperial Army officer.

That's a 58% chance of hitting, penetrating, and damaging the Army officer in the Cloth armor.

28% chance of hitting/penetrating/damaging the Marine in Combat Armor.

58% chance of hitting/penetrating/damaging the Army officer in Cloth Armor.

Obviously, Combat Armor is 30% more effective against AutoPistol fire than Cloth Armor is.

I fail to see your exception with this. </font>[/QUOTE]That's because I don't object much to these two particular outcomes. However, I count 45 ranged weapons in CT, Book 4 and COI. With 5 possible range bands and 7 types of armors, that means there are 1575 possible to hit numbers. With 3 different DEX states (advantageous, no effect, disadvantaged), (say) 6 levels of weapon skill (0 to 5), and 2 evasion statuses (evading/not evading), that yields 56,700 possible outcomes. With that many possibilities, I'd be terribly disappointed in you (and Marc Miller) if you couldn't find some examples of the system behaving properly.

But that's not really the issue, is it? Isn't the issue really whether the system breaks down *in normal game play* more often than is acceptible?

Consider *my* examples, which do not match pistols against battle dress, and are, I think you'd agree, at least as likely to occur as the situations you chose:

SMG -- With *no* skill or DEX modifiers, hits unarmored targets on 0+ at short or medium ranges. Hits cloth-armored target on 8+ 41% of the time. A +2 modifier raises the latter to 72.2% of the time. Oh, and the SMG gets 2 shots (which admittedly is a separate issue from the 2d6 system).

Rifle -- With *no* skill or DEX mods, hits unarmored target 91% of the time at short range, 83% of the time at medium range. With a modest +2, the percentages rise to 100% and 97% respectively. Vs cloth, the rifle hits 17% of the time at medium range and 28% of the time at short. With a +2 modifier, the probabilities change to 58% and 42% respectively.

In these examples, we can see both rational outcomes (I have no problem with the Rifle's base performance against Cloth, but Book 4+ skills bloat can very quickly make Rifles overly lethal vs Cloth) and irrational ones. As it happens, my system will produce similar numbers to the current system in *rational* cases. What it will *not* do is create base to hit numbers of 0+.

And you should recall that I have stated that CT works okay by itself (I do have some issues with SMGs, but they aren't fatal); I've contended that the Book 4 weapons and chargen are the main culprits in breaking the system.

An assault rifle firing a burst hits a cloth armored target on a 7+ (58%). No so bad, until you recall that almost half the population will qualify for a +2 DEX bonus, which will increase the chance to 83%. One level of Cbt Rifle skill will move it to 93%.

The problem is that *if* you re-scale Book 4 weapons so that they behave in the CT 2d6 system, you'll have to re-scale the other weapons, so that they accurately reflect the differences between each other. In other words, I can't fix the ACR and assault rifle without modifying the automatic rifle and SMG.

But when I am through with my revision of the CT armor and hit mods, the reasonable results will be retained.

However, maybe I missing something, but you seem to be changing your argument. Orginally, you seemed to be disagreeing with the *way* to fix the CT combat system, not on the need to do so. Now, you seem to be arguing that the CT system is just fine.

I don't think that you can have it both ways. If you think that CT's combat system isn't broken, then why have you created an extensive alternative combat system?

If your argument is that the CT mods work okay in your alternative system, well, I haven't disputed that. My only concern is whether they behave in the CT system.

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tbeard1999:
However, I can't follow your argument that higher CT DMs reflect the fact that the roll resolves hits and penetration.

The fact that the roll resolves *both* events -- hitting and penetration -- makes larger modifiers *worse* not better.

Let's test what you say here.

An Imperial Marine, decked out in Combat Armor, stands 2 meters in front of an attacker using an AutoPistol.

Compare this to the same attacker, shooting at an Imperial Army officer wearing Cloth Armor, standing in the same spot as the Imperial Marine.

...

The attacker needs a 7+ to hit and damage the Imperial Army officer.

That's a 58% chance of hitting, penetrating, and damaging the Army officer in the Cloth armor.

28% chance of hitting/penetrating/damaging the Marine in Combat Armor.

58% chance of hitting/penetrating/damaging the Army officer in Cloth Armor.

Obviously, Combat Armor is 30% more effective against AutoPistol fire than Cloth Armor is.

I fail to see your exception with this. </font>[/QUOTE]That's because I don't object much to these two particular outcomes. However, I count 45 ranged weapons in CT, Book 4 and COI. With 5 possible range bands and 7 types of armors, that means there are 1575 possible to hit numbers. With 3 different DEX states (advantageous, no effect, disadvantaged), (say) 6 levels of weapon skill (0 to 5), and 2 evasion statuses (evading/not evading), that yields 56,700 possible outcomes. With that many possibilities, I'd be terribly disappointed in you (and Marc Miller) if you couldn't find some examples of the system behaving properly.

But that's not really the issue, is it? Isn't the issue really whether the system breaks down *in normal game play* more often than is acceptible?

Consider *my* examples, which do not match pistols against battle dress, and are, I think you'd agree, at least as likely to occur as the situations you chose:

SMG -- With *no* skill or DEX modifiers, hits unarmored targets on 0+ at short or medium ranges. Hits cloth-armored target on 8+ 41% of the time. A +2 modifier raises the latter to 72.2% of the time. Oh, and the SMG gets 2 shots (which admittedly is a separate issue from the 2d6 system).

Rifle -- With *no* skill or DEX mods, hits unarmored target 91% of the time at short range, 83% of the time at medium range. With a modest +2, the percentages rise to 100% and 97% respectively. Vs cloth, the rifle hits 17% of the time at medium range and 28% of the time at short. With a +2 modifier, the probabilities change to 58% and 42% respectively.

In these examples, we can see both rational outcomes (I have no problem with the Rifle's base performance against Cloth, but Book 4+ skills bloat can very quickly make Rifles overly lethal vs Cloth) and irrational ones. As it happens, my system will produce similar numbers to the current system in *rational* cases. What it will *not* do is create base to hit numbers of 0+.

And you should recall that I have stated that CT works okay by itself (I do have some issues with SMGs, but they aren't fatal); I've contended that the Book 4 weapons and chargen are the main culprits in breaking the system.

An assault rifle firing a burst hits a cloth armored target on a 7+ (58%). No so bad, until you recall that almost half the population will qualify for a +2 DEX bonus, which will increase the chance to 83%. One level of Cbt Rifle skill will move it to 93%.

The problem is that *if* you re-scale Book 4 weapons so that they behave in the CT 2d6 system, you'll have to re-scale the other weapons, so that they accurately reflect the differences between each other. In other words, I can't fix the ACR and assault rifle without modifying the automatic rifle and SMG.

But when I am through with my revision of the CT armor and hit mods, the reasonable results will be retained.

However, maybe I missing something, but you seem to be changing your argument. Orginally, you seemed to be disagreeing with the *way* to fix the CT combat system, not on the need to do so. Now, you seem to be arguing that the CT system is just fine.

I don't think that you can have it both ways. If you think that CT's combat system isn't broken, then why have you created an extensive alternative combat system?

If your argument is that the CT mods work okay in your alternative system, well, I haven't disputed that. My only concern is whether they behave in the CT system.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
Stat-7, SMG-0 character. Fires at an unarmored target at Short Range.

DMs
---
+0 Skill
+0 DEX Bonus
+3 Short Range
+5 vs. No Armor
---
+8

This is an automatic hit and penetration (no armor to penetrate). And, this will happen twice due to the autofire rule.

And, I should add...

Most targets just won't be "standing" there. They'll try not to get hit. They'll use the CT evasion rule, and they'll use the CT cover rule.

If this target evades behind cover, a -5 DM is applied. Which means the SMG hit becomes a 5+ to hit on both throws.

So, the chances are greater that only one of the autfire attacks will "hit", and if it does, damage will be less.

Considering damage as a part of the whole, as I discuss in the above post, it becomes even more likely that a target of this shot, even if "hit", is not really "shot".




TBeard, the biggest error in your logic that I can see is that you're taking the "to-hit" roll of an abstract system "literally".

As in D&D, a successful "hit" does not necessarily mean that the target was "shot".

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
Stat-7, SMG-0 character. Fires at an unarmored target at Short Range.

DMs
---
+0 Skill
+0 DEX Bonus
+3 Short Range
+5 vs. No Armor
---
+8

This is an automatic hit and penetration (no armor to penetrate). And, this will happen twice due to the autofire rule.

And, I should add...

Most targets just won't be "standing" there. They'll try not to get hit. They'll use the CT evasion rule, and they'll use the CT cover rule.

If this target evades behind cover, a -5 DM is applied. Which means the SMG hit becomes a 5+ to hit on both throws.

So, the chances are greater that only one of the autfire attacks will "hit", and if it does, damage will be less.

Considering damage as a part of the whole, as I discuss in the above post, it becomes even more likely that a target of this shot, even if "hit", is not really "shot".




TBeard, the biggest error in your logic that I can see is that you're taking the "to-hit" roll of an abstract system "literally".

As in D&D, a successful "hit" does not necessarily mean that the target was "shot".

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
Consider *my* examples, which do not match pistols against battle dress, and are, I think you'd agree, at least as likely to occur as the situations you chose:

SMG -- With *no* skill or DEX modifiers, hits unarmored targets on 0+ at short or medium ranges. Hits cloth-armored target on 8+ 41% of the time. A +2 modifier raises the latter to 72.2% of the time. Oh, and the SMG gets 2 shots (which admittedly is a separate issue from the 2d6 system).

Actually, I don't agree, as I pointed out in the recent posts (you probably haven't seen them yet).

You're (1) not considering the effects of damage with respect to the CT to-hit roll, and (2) you're being too "literal" with an abstract system.

A successful to-hit roll in vanilla CT doesn't always mean the target was "shot".

Damage applied to the target will help you extrapolate what was modeled with the abstract system.




Let me ask you this:

Most weapons in CT do 3D damage.

Average stats for a CT character are 777.

Average damage, then, is 10 points (average of 3D).

That means, on average, that any single successful to-hit roll will only effect the defender with a Minor Wound that will be healed, completely, in half an hour if proper medical treatment is avaialable.

Here's my queston: Does that sound like a "literal", Oh-My-God-I'm-Shot! system? Or does that sound like an abstract system?




You're taking the system too literally. You're considering every successful "to-hit" roll as a literal "that character was shot" mechanic. And, you're not considering the part damage plays in this abstract system.

If a pistol is fired at an unarmored man, at point blank range, doing 3D damage of 1, 3, 6....

...and, the target's physical stats are 777.

...And, the target, after being shot, has stats 641.

Was that target really "shot"?

Of course not.

Why. Because you can't take the "to-hit" roll literally.

It's an abstract system.

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
[qb]I mean, the SMG in CT hits an unarmored target on a 0+ (at short or medium range), for heaven's sake. That means a character with nothing more than SMG-0 and no DEX bonus will hit every single time -- even if the target is evading. It's worse than that, because he'll hit TWICE per the double shot rule. And, he'll get a shot at two other figures with a 98% chance of success.

[qb]

Let's test this too...
...

This is an automatic hit and penetration (no armor to penetrate). And, this will happen twice due to the autofire rule.

That part is understood.

Yet, again, here's what you're missing...

Let's say the defender is an average character of 777777 stats.

...

What is this saying?

It's saying that, if you place yourself within 50 meters of an attacker spraying your with full automatic fire of an SMG, you will be shot.

Well, if damage is low, you'll only have a minor wound. And, if damage is higher than average, you'll be killed.

That doesn't sound too unreasonable to me. We're talking 50 meters and an SMG spraying the area with full auto. Not so unrealistic."

I'm not interested in debating the *damage* caused by CT weapons. In my mind, weapon damage should be determined by the type of campaign, rather than by what we call "realism". My own research into small arms wounds indicates that people are much more resilient than most RPGs assume. Nor have I proposed any changes to the CT damage rules.

But let's go back to what the situation described "says". Are you really saying you have no problem with a barely trained person (skill-0) hitting and wounding 4 people with a single 4-shot burst >95% of the time? Because that's what will happen statistically with the SMG. And it will happen 100% of the time if he has a skill level of only 1.

If that's an acceptible situation to you, then you obviously are satisfied with the CT combat system. It is not acceptible to me, particularly when a relatively simple adjustment to the modifiers will make the outcome more reasonable (to me).

Of course, that (again) raises the question of why you'd write your own combat system if you really thought the CT combat system was fine.

You see...the CT system isn't broken. I just don't think you understand it fully.

I assume that you can understand a relatively simple game system like CT. I'd appreciate it if you'd do me the same courtesy.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
Consider *my* examples, which do not match pistols against battle dress, and are, I think you'd agree, at least as likely to occur as the situations you chose:

SMG -- With *no* skill or DEX modifiers, hits unarmored targets on 0+ at short or medium ranges. Hits cloth-armored target on 8+ 41% of the time. A +2 modifier raises the latter to 72.2% of the time. Oh, and the SMG gets 2 shots (which admittedly is a separate issue from the 2d6 system).

Actually, I don't agree, as I pointed out in the recent posts (you probably haven't seen them yet).

You're (1) not considering the effects of damage with respect to the CT to-hit roll, and (2) you're being too "literal" with an abstract system.

A successful to-hit roll in vanilla CT doesn't always mean the target was "shot".

Damage applied to the target will help you extrapolate what was modeled with the abstract system.




Let me ask you this:

Most weapons in CT do 3D damage.

Average stats for a CT character are 777.

Average damage, then, is 10 points (average of 3D).

That means, on average, that any single successful to-hit roll will only effect the defender with a Minor Wound that will be healed, completely, in half an hour if proper medical treatment is avaialable.

Here's my queston: Does that sound like a "literal", Oh-My-God-I'm-Shot! system? Or does that sound like an abstract system?




You're taking the system too literally. You're considering every successful "to-hit" roll as a literal "that character was shot" mechanic. And, you're not considering the part damage plays in this abstract system.

If a pistol is fired at an unarmored man, at point blank range, doing 3D damage of 1, 3, 6....

...and, the target's physical stats are 777.

...And, the target, after being shot, has stats 641.

Was that target really "shot"?

Of course not.

Why. Because you can't take the "to-hit" roll literally.

It's an abstract system.