A Proto-Traveller Conundrum: pre-Mercenary Marines!

[saundby]

Speaking as someone who played with 1977 LBB1-3 only for over 25 years, to me that is Traveller, not "Proto-Traveller".

To me, proto-Traveller would be Triplanetary with some simple campaign rules.

That said, here's my perspective:
Playing with just LBB1-3 is plenty do-able. That said, they're a foundation, not a straitjacket. I had added different types of shotgun and under-barrel grenade/flare launcher by the first time I sat across the table from players in 1977. I added chain guns as portable weapons shortly thereafter, and hearing about nylon armor plates I posited armor a fair bit like what kevlar became a few years later.

When I was first exposed to books 4 and 5 I hated them. The power level was way out of whack with my game (now you know why I ran only 1977 books 1-3 for so long.) I added stuff, including much more powerful stuff, but it was in line with my LBB 1-3 stuff. I took the concept of slug-throwers as being good enough to use in the far future relative to "ray guns" to heart (and still think there's some good thinking there even after working on a number of advanced RL DEW projects.)

I posited caseless ammunition as well as sound suppression and selectable specialized rounds and added that to my game in 78 or early 79. No voice control, though.

I also added guided ammo and remote target designation pretty early on, though I didn't use lasers until 82 for target designation, I assumed some sort of inertial position system on the designator coupled with machine vision.

So my space marines had armored suits. And light, portable 20mm cannons with specialized guided rounds, but typically not in every squad.

Drawing on the other Traveller sources would be fine, but if you want to keep the feel of the early game be very wary of the costs, power, and availability of what you bring over. When players know that the portable artillery is in the game it can all go very "munchkin" very quickly.

I saw it happen to plenty of Traveller games in 80 and 81. I was lucky to have a group of friends that enjoyed playing a game that accorded with my ideas (I wasn't the only ref eschewing LBB4 & 5.)

Skills:
I gave all marines skill 1/2 in Vacc Suit (equivalent to later skill-0) and skill 1/2 in all weapons, whether they were PCs or NPCs.

All army got the all weapon skills-1/2 and either ATV or Air/Raft-1/2.

All navy got all blades-1/2, one gun-1/2, and two or three ship skills-1/2 (ship's boat, nav, gunnery, pilot, electronic, mech, engr, etc.)

I let Merchants take Ship's boat or a vehicle skill in place of a rerolled skill elsewhere till I wrote my own charts, too, as I felt they'd have cutters and ground transports to operate in their line of business. NPCs got admin, streetwise, and bribery 1/2 for free, and PCs got one of them at 1/2 for free.

Scouts got all ship/repair skills at 1/2, as I assumed they'd have to do a lot of frontier repairs and management of their craft to survive.

Anyway, you can have a lot of fun with just books 1-3 and some well-chosen additions. I still run a game (an MGT/CT mix) where an Automatic Rifle is a solid weapon.

 

[tbeard1999]

Speaking as someone who played with 1977 LBB1-3 only for over 25 years, to me that is Traveller, not "Proto-Traveller".

...

That said, here's my perspective:
Playing with just LBB1-3 is plenty do-able. That said, they're a foundation, not a straitjacket. I had added different types of shotgun and under-barrel grenade/flare launcher by the first time I sat across the table from players in 1977. I added chain guns as portable weapons shortly thereafter, and hearing about nylon armor plates I posited armor a fair bit like what kevlar became a few years later.

When I was first exposed to books 4 and 5 I hated them. The power level was way out of whack with my game (now you know why I ran only 1977 books 1-3 for so long.) I added stuff, including much more powerful stuff, but it was in line with my LBB 1-3 stuff. I took the concept of slug-throwers as being good enough to use in the far future relative to "ray guns" to heart (and still think there's some good thinking there even after working on a number of advanced RL DEW projects.)

I was okay with the future tech posited in the Ironmongery section of Book 4, but the game stats utterly broke the CT combat system. As I noted earlier, I agree with your approach -- add them, but make sure that they don't break the combat system. You could use another combat system, but (a) that wouldn't be completely faithful to the proto-Traveller meme; and (b) these weapons also broke (to a lesser, but still significant degree) the official alternative systems like Striker/AHL.

This thread gave some examples of how to enhance CT weaponry without destroying the system. Like you, I added caseless ammo, etc. in a way that didn't break the system.

URL:http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=19453]This thread[/URL]

As an aside, the reason that the CT combat system is so fragile is that the skill, armor & range modifiers are too numerous and too high for a 2d6 system. With a base "to hit" number of 8+ (41% chance), a net +4 modifier raises this to a 4+ (91% chance). So, you wind up with weapons that have an effectively 100% chance of hitting.

Automatic weapons seem particularly prone to this. An ACR on auto at medium range needs a 1+ (!) to hit an unarmored target. And this is before skill modifiers and attribute modifiers. Even against combat armor, it needs a 7+. A Gauss Rifle on auto at medium range needs a -3 or better (!!) against an unarmored target and a 4+ against combat armor.

Even the humble SMG and Automatic Rife are really too accurate -- at medium range, 0+ vs no armor; 8+ (SMG) or 7+ (AR) vs Cloth; 9+ vs Combat armor.

There are some things you can do to mitigate this.

An elegant solution that requires minimal re-working of mechanics would be require 2 rolls (base 8+ on each). One to hit, with weapon range modifiers and skill level modifiers applied. One to penetrate, with weapon armor modifiers applied. I'd also make a natural 2 or 3 an automatic fail.

So, compare a man with Auto Rifle-2 firing at a cloth armored target at medium range. Assume no to hit mods for attributes.

In straight CT, he needs a 5+ to hit and cause damage (83% chance). +2 for skill, +2 for range, -1 for cloth.

But using the two roll system, he would need a 4+ to hit and a 9+ to penetrate. A 25.4% chance of causing damage.

Against a target with no armor, in CT he'd need a -2 or better. +2 for skill, +2 for range, +6 for no armor.

Using the two roll system, he'd need a 4+ to hit and a 4+ to penetrate -- 84% chance.

Against a target with combat armor, in CT he'd need a 7 or better (58%). +2 for skill, +2 for range, -3 for combat armor.

Using the two roll system, he'd need a 4+ to hit and a 10+ to penetrate -- 15% chance, which seems more reasonable given that combat armor is the best armor available.

If he had a Book 4 ACR, in CT he'd need a 5+ to hit a target in combat armor (72%) -- +2 for skill, +2 for range, -1 for combat armor.

Using the two roll system, he'd need a 4+ to hit and a 9+ to penetrate -- 25% chance, which seems more reasonable given that combat armor is at least 1 TL above the ACR.

If he had a Book 4 Gauss Rifle, in CT he'd need a 2+ to hit a target in combat armor (100%) -- +2 for skill, +4 for range, +0 for combat armor.

Using the two roll system, he'd need a 4+ to hit and a 8+ to penetrate -- 38% chance. You'll need a plasma or fusion gun to consistently penetrate combat armor, which seems about right to me.

...Anyway, you can have a lot of fun with just books 1-3 and some well-chosen additions. I still run a game (an MGT/CT mix) where an Automatic Rifle is a solid weapon.

Yes, I agree. Although, I'd jazz up the names a little. A TL7 Autorifle is a "Battle Rifle". It's main enhancement is universal mountings and a little less weight. It can also fire as a Rifle. At TL 9, the Autorifle is a "Combat Rifle". It has built-in electronic sights (with low light night sight), fires caseless ammo, a 30 round magazine and weighs the same as the TL 8 Battle Rifle. Pricier models have thermal sights built into the integral sights. At TL10, it's an Advanced Combat Rifle, fires ETC ammo, with 40 round magazine and integral grenade launcher. At TL11, it's a Gauss Rifle, with a 60 round magazine, and much better electronics and far higher res thermal sights. If you use the double-roll system above, I'd give it a +2 against Combat Armor (for a net modifier of -1).

If you want an assault rifle, just use the Carbine and give it a +1 when firing a burst or +2 when firing full auto.

 

[Mithras]

That's it! TL differentiations of the basic TL5.6 and 7 weapons in Book1. THat's the answer I think. Cheers.

Yes, I agree. Although, I'd jazz up the names a little. A TL7 Autorifle is a "Battle Rifle". It's main enhancement is universal mountings and a little less weight. It can also fire as a Rifle. At TL 9, the Autorifle is a "Combat Rifle".....

 

[Mithras]

SMGs were popular in or group, and I noticed this effect alot. Not a problem now, though. I use a stripped down version of Book 1 combat, its the same, but without the tables of DMs. ONe roll, add a couple of modifiers, continue playing

As an aside, the reason that the CT combat system is so fragile is that the skill, armor & range modifiers are too numerous and too high for a 2d6 system. With a base "to hit" number of 8+ (41% chance), a net +4 modifier raises this to a 4+ (91% chance). So, you wind up with weapons that have an effectively 100% chance of hitting.

 

[Carlobrand]

...Even the humble SMG and Automatic Rife are really too accurate -- at medium range, 0+ vs no armor ...

??

Scenario: I am an experienced combatant. I have an Uzi with which I am skilled and accustomed. A man-sized non-moving target is some 40 meters away, not evading, not under cover. Nothing is disturbing my focus. I squeeze off a 4-round burst - and I should miss??? Seriously?

I think if there is a flaw in the game at all, it's that bit someone else mentioned about not effectively capturing combat circumstances. The scenario I mentioned is ideal: my target is not trying to avoid getting hit, nothing is spoiling my own action, it's basic target practice with some poor schnook as the target. If I miss under those circumstances with an automatic weapon with which I am trained and experienced, I should be ashamed. Modifying that makes no sense.

On the other hand, if I'm under fire myself, or hurrying to get off the first shot before he shoots, or otherwise less than ideally focused, then it stops being target shooting and becomes a good deal more difficult.

Just some thoughts:
If you're wanting to complicate things in the pursuit of "reality" (something we've all done for one rule or another), then add DMs that reflect the difficulty of conducting disciplined fire while in the heat of combat. There's that whole thing about suppressing fire and fire under combat conditions. If you shoot while in a complex fight - more going on than just you and your target - you get a slight penalty reflecting the need to give part of your attention to what else is going on. If you shoot while actually getting shot at, you take a supressing fire penalty - the more lead coming your way, the bigger the penalty. Let an evading target take wild shots - really, how hard is it to squeeze a trigger? - he rolls 12 to hit, no DMs apply, but now you suffer a suppressing fire penalty when shooting at him.

Or, reflect the tendency to hurry a shot in combat by giving the player a chance at getting in the first shot - with a hefty penalty DM; he might be willing to gamble in order to have a chance at keeping the target from shooting back. (Of course, an undisciplined NPC - or one who knows he's got a really good chance of hitting in the first place - might independently take the same chance and accept the same penalty, resulting in both parties quick-firing, both getting negative DMs but neither actually being first, but that is the nature of a firefight.)

There's a DM for weapon skill. That will tend to offset the aforementioned penalties - as it should. Someone with a lot of experience using a weapon in combat conditions is not going to be as affected by those factors as someone with little combat experience.

 

[saundby]

What a great thread.

Some great conversation here about LBB1-3 combat.

I do the situational combat modifiers myself. I've found it hard to get player buy-in for multiple rolls on an attack. I've tried hit and placement, though placement was actually just a name for an abstraction of the effect, using the term "penetration" would immediately start a fight that would lead to a lot of fun with watermelons on the shooting range--which is fun but it won't settle the game-table arguments caused by a name like that.

I've also tried 3d6 to get a wider range of outcomes, but going back and forth between 3d6 and 2d6 gets under everyone's skin in CT.

 

[tbeard1999]

??

Scenario: I am an experienced combatant. I have an Uzi with which I am skilled and accustomed. A man-sized non-moving target is some 40 meters away, not evading, not under cover. Nothing is disturbing my focus. I squeeze off a 4-round burst - and I should miss??? Seriously?

Seriously.

I think that there's ample real world evidence that small arms is nowhere near as accurate as CT portrays. I am not a combat veteran, but I count several combat veterans as close friends.
They agree with me on this point and that's sufficient for me.

But I'm not interested in debating this point because my objection is based on drama. Or rather the lack thereof. I contend that make it trivially easy to hit with (certain) firearms sucks all the drama out of the game.

If you're wanting to complicate things in the pursuit of "reality" (something we've all done for one rule or another), then add DMs that reflect the difficulty of conducting disciplined fire while in the heat of combat.

Ah, now we have an area where I do claim some competence -- game design. The problem with your solution is that there are already too many modifiers for a 2d6 system. Adding more just creates more issues. The 2d6 mechanic is simply too sensitive for a large number or range of modifiers. A mere -3 modifier will make a CT task nearly impossible -- 8%. A mere +4 modifier will make a CT task virtually certain to succeed (92%). Adding additional modifiers to an already overcrowded list won't solve the problem to my satisfaction. A simple example -- a man at medium range firing an SMG at an unarmored target will hit on a 0+. To reduce the to hit chance to 83% requires a DM of -4. But a Carbine firing at the same range and skill level needs an 8+ (42%) to hit. A -4 DM would give you a less than 3% chance of success.

This illustrates the problem -- a given modifier will affect different "to hit" numbers radically differently. A +4 changes a 100% chance to an 83%, but it changes a 42% chance to a 3% chance.

So no, I don't think the solution lies in yet more modifiers.

Regarding your other comments, you might want to check out my "combat system c". I think it does the kinds of things you mentioned (suppression particularly).

 

[SanDragon]

The first round has the highest likelihood to hit. The rest of the burst will go over the target due to recoil forcing the muzzle up... and possibly, right or left, depending on your handedness.

I think...

 

[sabredog]

The first round has the highest likelihood to hit. The rest of the burst will go over the target due to recoil forcing the muzzle up... and possibly, right or left, depending on your handedness.

I think...

That's why you aim lower and ride the recoil up the target. Most people tend to aim too high even when shooting at a static target with semi-auto weapons. With full auto they are all over the place unless they are trained. So it's not a given that the first round will always hit - in my experience, the first round may not hit a lot of the time (under stress) and the operator will walk the rounds on target. Or the first round will likely hit the enemy's weapon or near it, since that tends to be what the operator sees and focuses on when the threat is first presented. Although in a free-fire situation that doesn't seem to happen as much since everyone involved is in a shooting mindest already.

PC's are supposed to be trained - or at least once were, as military personnel so I would imagine that they would know what they are doing and hit a lot more often than the average joe off the street..