Adapting the T4 Damage/Armor System to CT

[tbeard1999]

The T4 damage/armor system is rather elegant. Essentially, weapons do x dice of damage and armor subtracts X dice. Higher penetration is handled well -- the weapon gets more dice. However, the maximum damage is 3 dice (4 dice for shotguns). A nice touch -- flexible armor doesn't completely elimate a die; it reduces it to 1 point.

My only problem with this system is that the referee has to disclose to the players how much armor the target has, and that's unacceptible to me.

If that doesn't bother you, then the T4 combat system is an easy retrofit. I'd suggest 8+ to hit with the following modifiers:

+Weapon Skill
+DEX DM (I'd still drop all of the +2 mods to a +1)
+1 if firing a burst
+2 if SMG or gauss rifle firing a burst
-2 pistols at long range, -6 pistols at very long
-2 rifles at close or very long range, -1 at long range
-3 target evadng
-3 for group hits if applicable

I'd ditch the fussy autofire rules in T4 and just let a burst use the group hits rule from CT. I would also ditch the CT rule letting autofire weapons hit twice. (Like CT, T4 grossly overstates the effectiveness of automatic weapons).

If, like me, you don't like telling the players how much armor the target is wearing, this is the best workaround I can come up with.

After scoring a hit, the player rolls the weapon's maximum damage (3 or 4 dice). If armor would have reduced the damage dice, the referee eliminates the player's damage dice in order from lowest to highest (if he wants to give the players the benefit). If he wants to give the players less of a benefit, he reduces the lowest, then the highest, then the lowest, etc. This means that the player should call out his individual rolls -- "I rolled a 3, a 4, and a 6". Doing so in ascending order would be a big help.

 

[tbeard1999]

The T4 damage/armor system is rather elegant. Essentially, weapons do x dice of damage and armor subtracts X dice. Higher penetration is handled well -- the weapon gets more dice. However, the maximum damage is 3 dice (4 dice for shotguns). A nice touch -- flexible armor doesn't completely elimate a die; it reduces it to 1 point.

My only problem with this system is that the referee has to disclose to the players how much armor the target has, and that's unacceptible to me.

If that doesn't bother you, then the T4 combat system is an easy retrofit. I'd suggest 8+ to hit with the following modifiers:

+Weapon Skill
+DEX DM (I'd still drop all of the +2 mods to a +1)
+1 if firing a burst
+2 if SMG or gauss rifle firing a burst
-2 pistols at long range, -6 pistols at very long
-2 rifles at close or very long range, -1 at long range
-3 target evadng
-3 for group hits if applicable

I'd ditch the fussy autofire rules in T4 and just let a burst use the group hits rule from CT. I would also ditch the CT rule letting autofire weapons hit twice. (Like CT, T4 grossly overstates the effectiveness of automatic weapons).

If, like me, you don't like telling the players how much armor the target is wearing, this is the best workaround I can come up with.

After scoring a hit, the player rolls the weapon's maximum damage (3 or 4 dice). If armor would have reduced the damage dice, the referee eliminates the player's damage dice in order from lowest to highest (if he wants to give the players the benefit). If he wants to give the players less of a benefit, he reduces the lowest, then the highest, then the lowest, etc. This means that the player should call out his individual rolls -- "I rolled a 3, a 4, and a 6". Doing so in ascending order would be a big help.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
My only problem with this system is that the referee has to disclose to the players how much armor the target has, and that's unacceptible to me.

T4's damage system is one of the highlights of T4. For getting such a bad rap (and I do think T4 deserves its bad rap), the game does contribute some very good ideas to Traveller mechanics.

I disagree with your above statement, though...


You fire and get a hit.

You roll regular damage.

Me, as GM, adjusts damage from behind my screen.

Simple as that.




For example, you roll and get a hit with your shotgun.

You roll 4D damage: 5, 1, 3, 2

I, as GM see the character is wearing armor that subtracts 3D from your damage. Now, I can remove the highest three dice, the lowest three dice, or the first three rolled (GMs choice, and GM's control on how deadly he wants his game to be).

Let's say I want to run my game and protect players. I'll take the top three dice from a die roll (easy to see on the game tabel too). I look down and see your damage roll. So, I'll discard the 5, 3, and 2 dice mentally, and simply apply 1 point of damage to the NPC.

I don't see that as an issue. And, players will have to listen to me as I describe what they see, "Your shot missed its mark by 90%, but clipped him on the right love handle. You heard him grunt, but he's not moving any slower than he was before he took part of the blast. Now, it's his turn..."

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
My only problem with this system is that the referee has to disclose to the players how much armor the target has, and that's unacceptible to me.

T4's damage system is one of the highlights of T4. For getting such a bad rap (and I do think T4 deserves its bad rap), the game does contribute some very good ideas to Traveller mechanics.

I disagree with your above statement, though...


You fire and get a hit.

You roll regular damage.

Me, as GM, adjusts damage from behind my screen.

Simple as that.




For example, you roll and get a hit with your shotgun.

You roll 4D damage: 5, 1, 3, 2

I, as GM see the character is wearing armor that subtracts 3D from your damage. Now, I can remove the highest three dice, the lowest three dice, or the first three rolled (GMs choice, and GM's control on how deadly he wants his game to be).

Let's say I want to run my game and protect players. I'll take the top three dice from a die roll (easy to see on the game tabel too). I look down and see your damage roll. So, I'll discard the 5, 3, and 2 dice mentally, and simply apply 1 point of damage to the NPC.

I don't see that as an issue. And, players will have to listen to me as I describe what they see, "Your shot missed its mark by 90%, but clipped him on the right love handle. You heard him grunt, but he's not moving any slower than he was before he took part of the blast. Now, it's his turn..."

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
I'd ditch the fussy autofire rules in T4 and just let a burst use the group hits rule from CT. I would also ditch the CT rule letting autofire weapons hit twice. (Like CT, T4 grossly overstates the effectiveness of automatic weapons).

Have to disagree here. I always thought T4 did a fine job of handling automatic fire. More elegant than CT.

IIRC, it's double the damage but still apply the kinetic energy rule, yes? I think there's a negative to range (have to pull my T4 book out to verify).

So, your weapon does 3D damage. Your autofire doubles that to 6D, but you take the highest 3D for your damage...

6D: 4, 1, 6, 2, 3, 5

Damage is: 6, 5, 4

From the burst.

I think that's pretty darned elegant. Often, I've considered using it in CT, but I hate changing rules for no reason. CT's autofire, throw-twice rule works fine.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
I'd ditch the fussy autofire rules in T4 and just let a burst use the group hits rule from CT. I would also ditch the CT rule letting autofire weapons hit twice. (Like CT, T4 grossly overstates the effectiveness of automatic weapons).

Have to disagree here. I always thought T4 did a fine job of handling automatic fire. More elegant than CT.

IIRC, it's double the damage but still apply the kinetic energy rule, yes? I think there's a negative to range (have to pull my T4 book out to verify).

So, your weapon does 3D damage. Your autofire doubles that to 6D, but you take the highest 3D for your damage...

6D: 4, 1, 6, 2, 3, 5

Damage is: 6, 5, 4

From the burst.

I think that's pretty darned elegant. Often, I've considered using it in CT, but I hate changing rules for no reason. CT's autofire, throw-twice rule works fine.

 

[aramis]

S4: your tolerance for making fiddly adjustments based upon looking at the player's dice rolls is FAR greater than mine, or most of the GM's I've known.

Often, when playing, I can't even SEE the dice of the player.

And players tend to simply total-and-report.

So it is an issue for many groups, especially of the "round the living room" rather than "round the table" style.

 

[aramis]

S4: your tolerance for making fiddly adjustments based upon looking at the player's dice rolls is FAR greater than mine, or most of the GM's I've known.

Often, when playing, I can't even SEE the dice of the player.

And players tend to simply total-and-report.

So it is an issue for many groups, especially of the "round the living room" rather than "round the table" style.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Aramis:
S4: your tolerance for making fiddly adjustments based upon looking at the player's dice rolls is FAR greater than mine, or most of the GM's I've known.

Often, when playing, I can't even SEE the dice of the player.

And players tend to simply total-and-report.

So it is an issue for many groups, especially of the "round the living room" rather than "round the table" style.

Ah. We always play at a table. And, dice rolls are always made out in front of everybody.

I thought that was normal, but maybe it's just my group that I've been playing with for two decades.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Aramis:
S4: your tolerance for making fiddly adjustments based upon looking at the player's dice rolls is FAR greater than mine, or most of the GM's I've known.

Often, when playing, I can't even SEE the dice of the player.

And players tend to simply total-and-report.

So it is an issue for many groups, especially of the "round the living room" rather than "round the table" style.

Ah. We always play at a table. And, dice rolls are always made out in front of everybody.

I thought that was normal, but maybe it's just my group that I've been playing with for two decades.

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tbeard1999:
I'd ditch the fussy autofire rules in T4 and just let a burst use the group hits rule from CT. I would also ditch the CT rule letting autofire weapons hit twice. (Like CT, T4 grossly overstates the effectiveness of automatic weapons).

Have to disagree here. I always thought T4 did a fine job of handling automatic fire. More elegant than CT.</font>[/QUOTE]Which isn't saying much. In any case, I think that there's a strong argument that T4 (like CT) grossly overstates the accuracy and effect of a single burst. In the Real World, better trained troops often fire single shots because of accuracy concerns. What auto fire mainly does is psychological in nature. According to post-WWII research, having automatic weapons tends to make a soldier more willing to expose himself to fire. (One reason the Soviets loved SMGs for their better infantry). Second, automatic weapons do a fine job of suppressing enemy infantry.

The one thin it isn't is very accurate. Which, of course, explains why better trained troops prefer single shots.

T4 and CT make hits by automatic weapons far more likely than the evidence indicates is reasonable. In addition, the double shot fussiness is not very refined. Surprising, considering that the rest of the system is so elegant. It's almost like one person wrote the combat system and someone else shoehorned the ridiculous autofire rules from CT in (modified, of course, to produce maximum fussiness).

I've always been fine with letting a burst give a "to hit" bonus and be done with it. But if you *had* to have the possibility of multiple hits, I don't agree with making it automatic that you hit the target twice (T4) or making 2 rolls, with modifiers that virtually ensure two hits (CT).

If I'm using a 2d (or 3d) system, I'd probably do it the way Striker does -- for every X points you exceed your to hit number, you score an additional hit.

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tbeard1999:
I'd ditch the fussy autofire rules in T4 and just let a burst use the group hits rule from CT. I would also ditch the CT rule letting autofire weapons hit twice. (Like CT, T4 grossly overstates the effectiveness of automatic weapons).

Have to disagree here. I always thought T4 did a fine job of handling automatic fire. More elegant than CT.</font>[/QUOTE]Which isn't saying much. In any case, I think that there's a strong argument that T4 (like CT) grossly overstates the accuracy and effect of a single burst. In the Real World, better trained troops often fire single shots because of accuracy concerns. What auto fire mainly does is psychological in nature. According to post-WWII research, having automatic weapons tends to make a soldier more willing to expose himself to fire. (One reason the Soviets loved SMGs for their better infantry). Second, automatic weapons do a fine job of suppressing enemy infantry.

The one thin it isn't is very accurate. Which, of course, explains why better trained troops prefer single shots.

T4 and CT make hits by automatic weapons far more likely than the evidence indicates is reasonable. In addition, the double shot fussiness is not very refined. Surprising, considering that the rest of the system is so elegant. It's almost like one person wrote the combat system and someone else shoehorned the ridiculous autofire rules from CT in (modified, of course, to produce maximum fussiness).

I've always been fine with letting a burst give a "to hit" bonus and be done with it. But if you *had* to have the possibility of multiple hits, I don't agree with making it automatic that you hit the target twice (T4) or making 2 rolls, with modifiers that virtually ensure two hits (CT).

If I'm using a 2d (or 3d) system, I'd probably do it the way Striker does -- for every X points you exceed your to hit number, you score an additional hit.

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by Aramis:
S4: your tolerance for making fiddly adjustments based upon looking at the player's dice rolls is FAR greater than mine, or most of the GM's I've known.

Often, when playing, I can't even SEE the dice of the player.

And players tend to simply total-and-report.

So it is an issue for many groups, especially of the "round the living room" rather than "round the table" style.

Agreed. I don't generally look at player die rolls and often can't because of geograpy or table layout. Hence my statement that players would need to call out their individual die rolls.

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by Aramis:
S4: your tolerance for making fiddly adjustments based upon looking at the player's dice rolls is FAR greater than mine, or most of the GM's I've known.

Often, when playing, I can't even SEE the dice of the player.

And players tend to simply total-and-report.

So it is an issue for many groups, especially of the "round the living room" rather than "round the table" style.

Agreed. I don't generally look at player die rolls and often can't because of geograpy or table layout. Hence my statement that players would need to call out their individual die rolls.

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tbeard1999:
I'd ditch the fussy autofire rules in T4 and just let a burst use the group hits rule from CT. I would also ditch the CT rule letting autofire weapons hit twice. (Like CT, T4 grossly overstates the effectiveness of automatic weapons).

Have to disagree here. I always thought T4 did a fine job of handling automatic fire. More elegant than CT.</font>[/QUOTE]Over the years, as I've tinkered with RPGs and skirmish rules, I've considering the following mechanics for autofire:

0. All of my systems share certain mechanics. First, a player makes one attack, but in that attack he may fire as many "bursts" as he has ammo in his weapon. Second, if he's "spraying" the fire, there are some rules about how to handle that (generally, the first hit strikes the primary target; the remaining hits are randomly distributed among the other targets). Third, semiautomatics can fire "bursts" as well, though at a worse "to hit" modifer compared with autofire weapons. (I emptied the 30 round clip of my Mini-14 in about 10 seconds one time, so there's plenty of time in most combat rounds to do that. Admittedly, my fire wasn't terribly accurate and the barrel got VERY hot). When a player fires 3+ bursts from a semiautomatic weapon not designed for autofire, I'll make a secret roll to see if it jams on the next shot (usually a 6 on 1d6). I also have some kind of suppression fire mechanic, which (a) gives a "to hit" bonus, but (b) allows the target to automatically avoid the fire if he evades (thereby losing his next action). I also tend to prefer single-die resolution systems (i.e. roll an 8+ on 1d10) because you can roll multiple attacks at the same time. And if damage is also on a single die, you can make all damage rolls at the same time. As anyone who plays my miniatures rules will attest, I am big on fast-playing mechanics.

So here are the resolution systems I've considered:

1. Player declares however many bursts he's firing. Roll one attack for every burst fired. Give a bonus to hit, but only one bullet hits from each burst.

Advantages -- very clean, very fast with single die resolution systems; doesn't create system-breaking modifiers; probably accurately reflects real world chances of hitting.

Disadvantages -- slower with multi-die systems (i.e. 2d6 or 3d6) because each roll is sequential. Only 1 hit possible per burst, which may be statistically accurate, but makes multiple hits from 1 burst not possible. Problematic with support weapons (20 rolls from an LMG if it fires 100 rounds). Problem can be fixed by defining support weapon bursts as (say) 20 rounds and giving better modifier, or other specialized mechanics. But that complicates the system.

2. No "to hit" bonus; in fact, a slight penalty to hit, but player rolls 2 attacks per burst.

Advantages - very clean, very fast with single die resolution systems; doesn't create system-breaking modifiers; can accurately reflect real world chances of hitting by adjusting to hit modifier; 2 hits per burst possible.

Disadvantages -- slower with multi-die systems (i.e. 2d6 or 3d6) because each roll is sequential. *Much* slower when multiple bursts fired. Very problematic with support weapons (40 rolls from an LMG if it fires 100 rounds). Problem can be fixed (say) by defining support weapon bursts as (say) 20 rounds and giving better modifier, or other specialized mechanics. But that complicates the system.

3. Striker -- one roll with autofire bonus to hit. For every X points that the modified total exceeds the base "to hit" roll, score an additional hit. More bursts get additional modifiers.

Advantages - Works well with 2d6 systems because it only has 1 die roll. Works well in games with support weapons because only 1 roll is needed (support weapons get higher modifiers). Also allows a diminishing return feature (i.e., you get a +2 for one burst, a +3 for 2 bursts, +4 for 3-4 bursts, etc.) if desired. Allows a single burst to score multiple hits.

Disadvantages - More math intensive than other systems.

4. Buckets of Dice (TNE; T2K 2nd). Roll X dice per Y bullets fired. On a Z+ a hit is scored. Individually, each shot is very inaccurate. 1 die per bullet would be untenable with heavy weapons (though it might be entertaining to roll 100 dice), so some scaling is needed.

Advantages - Very simple. Probably reflects the real world inaccuracy of automatic fire.

Disadvantages - Clumsy with high rates of fire. Hard to apply modifiers (halving or quartering the number of dice would work, but these are pretty huge modifiers). A bonus to the die roll could represent a huge shift in odds. May not be viable with d6's (each shot would have to have at least a 1/6 chance of hitting).

5. (Call of Cthlhu) For each burst, roll once to hit, with no bonus (or very modest bonus). If you hit, roll 1D-2 to see how many bullets hit the target (minimum of 1 will always hit).

Advantage - Simple. Allows multiple hits.

Disadvantage - may overstate the possibility of multiple hits. That can be addressed by reducing the d6 roll by 3 or 4. Clumsy with heavy weapons.

6. As #5, but only 1 roll. Each additional burst fired adds 1 to the d6 roll or gets an additional d6 roll.

Advantage - As #6, handles heavy weapons better.

Disadvantage - high ROF weapons get shafted because they can miss clean. This may be an advantage if the referee wants a less lethal campaign with lots of gunfire.

These days, I'm leaning towards #3 in RPGs, with #2 a close second.

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tbeard1999:
I'd ditch the fussy autofire rules in T4 and just let a burst use the group hits rule from CT. I would also ditch the CT rule letting autofire weapons hit twice. (Like CT, T4 grossly overstates the effectiveness of automatic weapons).

Have to disagree here. I always thought T4 did a fine job of handling automatic fire. More elegant than CT.</font>[/QUOTE]Over the years, as I've tinkered with RPGs and skirmish rules, I've considering the following mechanics for autofire:

0. All of my systems share certain mechanics. First, a player makes one attack, but in that attack he may fire as many "bursts" as he has ammo in his weapon. Second, if he's "spraying" the fire, there are some rules about how to handle that (generally, the first hit strikes the primary target; the remaining hits are randomly distributed among the other targets). Third, semiautomatics can fire "bursts" as well, though at a worse "to hit" modifer compared with autofire weapons. (I emptied the 30 round clip of my Mini-14 in about 10 seconds one time, so there's plenty of time in most combat rounds to do that. Admittedly, my fire wasn't terribly accurate and the barrel got VERY hot). When a player fires 3+ bursts from a semiautomatic weapon not designed for autofire, I'll make a secret roll to see if it jams on the next shot (usually a 6 on 1d6). I also have some kind of suppression fire mechanic, which (a) gives a "to hit" bonus, but (b) allows the target to automatically avoid the fire if he evades (thereby losing his next action). I also tend to prefer single-die resolution systems (i.e. roll an 8+ on 1d10) because you can roll multiple attacks at the same time. And if damage is also on a single die, you can make all damage rolls at the same time. As anyone who plays my miniatures rules will attest, I am big on fast-playing mechanics.

So here are the resolution systems I've considered:

1. Player declares however many bursts he's firing. Roll one attack for every burst fired. Give a bonus to hit, but only one bullet hits from each burst.

Advantages -- very clean, very fast with single die resolution systems; doesn't create system-breaking modifiers; probably accurately reflects real world chances of hitting.

Disadvantages -- slower with multi-die systems (i.e. 2d6 or 3d6) because each roll is sequential. Only 1 hit possible per burst, which may be statistically accurate, but makes multiple hits from 1 burst not possible. Problematic with support weapons (20 rolls from an LMG if it fires 100 rounds). Problem can be fixed by defining support weapon bursts as (say) 20 rounds and giving better modifier, or other specialized mechanics. But that complicates the system.

2. No "to hit" bonus; in fact, a slight penalty to hit, but player rolls 2 attacks per burst.

Advantages - very clean, very fast with single die resolution systems; doesn't create system-breaking modifiers; can accurately reflect real world chances of hitting by adjusting to hit modifier; 2 hits per burst possible.

Disadvantages -- slower with multi-die systems (i.e. 2d6 or 3d6) because each roll is sequential. *Much* slower when multiple bursts fired. Very problematic with support weapons (40 rolls from an LMG if it fires 100 rounds). Problem can be fixed (say) by defining support weapon bursts as (say) 20 rounds and giving better modifier, or other specialized mechanics. But that complicates the system.

3. Striker -- one roll with autofire bonus to hit. For every X points that the modified total exceeds the base "to hit" roll, score an additional hit. More bursts get additional modifiers.

Advantages - Works well with 2d6 systems because it only has 1 die roll. Works well in games with support weapons because only 1 roll is needed (support weapons get higher modifiers). Also allows a diminishing return feature (i.e., you get a +2 for one burst, a +3 for 2 bursts, +4 for 3-4 bursts, etc.) if desired. Allows a single burst to score multiple hits.

Disadvantages - More math intensive than other systems.

4. Buckets of Dice (TNE; T2K 2nd). Roll X dice per Y bullets fired. On a Z+ a hit is scored. Individually, each shot is very inaccurate. 1 die per bullet would be untenable with heavy weapons (though it might be entertaining to roll 100 dice), so some scaling is needed.

Advantages - Very simple. Probably reflects the real world inaccuracy of automatic fire.

Disadvantages - Clumsy with high rates of fire. Hard to apply modifiers (halving or quartering the number of dice would work, but these are pretty huge modifiers). A bonus to the die roll could represent a huge shift in odds. May not be viable with d6's (each shot would have to have at least a 1/6 chance of hitting).

5. (Call of Cthlhu) For each burst, roll once to hit, with no bonus (or very modest bonus). If you hit, roll 1D-2 to see how many bullets hit the target (minimum of 1 will always hit).

Advantage - Simple. Allows multiple hits.

Disadvantage - may overstate the possibility of multiple hits. That can be addressed by reducing the d6 roll by 3 or 4. Clumsy with heavy weapons.

6. As #5, but only 1 roll. Each additional burst fired adds 1 to the d6 roll or gets an additional d6 roll.

Advantage - As #6, handles heavy weapons better.

Disadvantage - high ROF weapons get shafted because they can miss clean. This may be an advantage if the referee wants a less lethal campaign with lots of gunfire.

These days, I'm leaning towards #3 in RPGs, with #2 a close second.

 

[aramis]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
Ah. We always play at a table. And, dice rolls are always made out in front of everybody.

I thought that was normal, but maybe it's just my group that I've been playing with for two decades.

20 years ago, so did I. but, no longer.

which is why dice-trustworthiness is one of my more important elements with a player.

 

[aramis]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
Ah. We always play at a table. And, dice rolls are always made out in front of everybody.

I thought that was normal, but maybe it's just my group that I've been playing with for two decades.

20 years ago, so did I. but, no longer.

which is why dice-trustworthiness is one of my more important elements with a player.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Aramis:
20 years ago, so did I. but, no longer.

which is why dice-trustworthiness is one of my more important elements with a player.

For me, it's not about "dice-trustworthiness". I do it for the same reason I won't allow the TV to be on (but I do play "theme" music sometimes).

I find that sitting at a table, with the map or whatever right in front of you, pulls people "in" to the game world.

Take a guy who's just got off work. He's just has a rushed dinner. And, he's tired. You can be the most involving GM in the world and you'll still lose a guy like this some times.

Sitting up straight, at the table, with no distractions...and you've got your best chance that your "audience" will have the best time.

My group, one time last year, gave the "sit around the coffee table in the living room" a go once.

All I can say is that it happened once.

We're back at the kitchen table, now, and all is well.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Aramis:
20 years ago, so did I. but, no longer.

which is why dice-trustworthiness is one of my more important elements with a player.

For me, it's not about "dice-trustworthiness". I do it for the same reason I won't allow the TV to be on (but I do play "theme" music sometimes).

I find that sitting at a table, with the map or whatever right in front of you, pulls people "in" to the game world.

Take a guy who's just got off work. He's just has a rushed dinner. And, he's tired. You can be the most involving GM in the world and you'll still lose a guy like this some times.

Sitting up straight, at the table, with no distractions...and you've got your best chance that your "audience" will have the best time.

My group, one time last year, gave the "sit around the coffee table in the living room" a go once.

All I can say is that it happened once.

We're back at the kitchen table, now, and all is well.