Autofire Issues in v3.2

[tbeard1999]

A question and an observation:

Q1. How do "to hit" modifiers apply to autofire attacks, if they apply at all. (It would be helpful for the example to include the effects of the firer's Rifle skill).

Observation. This mechanic looks like it's defective. I can't tell for sure until the question above is answered.

To hit, you roll dice equal to the autofire rating of the weapon (usually 3 or 4). The lowest die is automatically the timing die. The remaining dice are individually paired with the timing die to produce several “to hit” rolls.

Here’s the example from the rules:

Morn fires his Advanced Combat Rifle (Automatic 4). He rolls four d6, and gets a 2, a 3, a 4, and a 5. The 2 is the lowest die, so it becomes the Timing die for the weapon. The other dice are Effect dice. Morn assembles three attacks 2+3=5, 2+4=6, and 2+5=7.
The problem is that there is a 52% chance of rolling at least one “1” on 4d6. And you cannot roll an 8+ if one of your dice is a 1! So poor Morn has a 52% chance of missing all three shots, just by rolling a 1 if he has no bonuses to the roll. Worse, if he fails to roll at least one "1", he has a 52% chance of rolling at least one "2", which is nearly as bad. If one die is a two, the other die *has* to be a "6" to score a hit.

When time permits, I'll run the statistics out. But right now, it looks like Morn has a better chance of hitting his target by firing 1 bullet rather than 12 bullets. And his chance of a miss *increases* as he fires more rounds...

Sigh...

 

[tbeard1999]

I should add that *if* modifiers are added to the effect dice, then it will be nearly impossible to hit with autofire if there's a net negative modifier. A -1 modifier will make it impossible to score a hit if the timing die is a 1 or 2. There's an 81% chance of rolling at least one "1" or "2" on 4d6. So poor Morn will miss at least 81% of the time in that case.

 

[tbeard1999]

There are no special modifier rules in the Autofire section. Therefore, it's reasonable to assume that modifiers apply to autofire "to hit" rolls like any other "to hit" roll.

If that is the case, it is virtually impossible to hit anything if there is even a -1 to hit modifier.

If a 1 or 2 is rolled, the to hit number cannot be 9+. And on 4d6, there's less than a 3% chance that a 1 or 2 won't be rolled.

I created a Monte Carlo simulation to roll 10K attacks at a time, assuming this is how it works. Here's the result:

-2 on the "to hit" roll, <0.1% chance of scoring a hit. Average number of hits is 0.002. Compared with 16.7% chance of hitting with a single shot.

-1 on the "to hit" roll, 5% chance of scoring a hit. Average number of hits is 0.09. Compared with 27.8% chance of hitting with a single shot; average hits 0.278.

No modifier on the "to hit" roll, 33% chance of scoring a hit. Average number of hits is 0.6. Compared with a 41.7% chance of hitting with a single shot; average hits 0.417.

+1 modifier on the "to hit" roll, 85% chance of scoring a hit. Average number of hits is 1.7. Compared with 58.3% chance of hitting with a single shot; average hits 0.583.

+2 on the "to hit" roll, 99% chance of scoring a hit. Average number of hits is 2.5. Compared with 72.2% chance of hitting with a single shot; average hits 0.722.

+3 on the "to hit" roll, 99.999% chance of scoring a hit. Average number of hits is 2.999. Compared with 83.3% chance of hitting with a single shot; average hits 0.833.

So...

1. Lousy shooters are far better off using single shots than autofire. Good shooters are far better off using autofire. (The exact opposite of what seems to be happening in the Real World; highly trained Allied troops in Iraq tend to use single shots, while poorly trained terrorists use autofire).

2. A mere +1 modifier can lead to a 6X increase in the chance of hitting. A +1 net modifier will result in a hit almost always, while a -1 net modifier will result in a miss 95% of the time. And a -2 net modifier makes a hit *impossible*.

3. The more bullets you fire, the less likely you are to hit in cases where there's no modifier or a negative modifier. With no modifier, an autofire of 3 will hit 37.8% of the time. With a -1, you'll hit 9.6% of the time (vs. 5% of the time with Autofire 4).

Is this really a good way to handle autofire?

 

[Supplement Four]

And you cannot roll an 8+ if one of your dice is a 1!

I haven't been keeping up with the play test because Mongoose already lost me. I think CT is better.

But, as to your comment above...

Unless they've changed it in v3.2, the shooter will have a +1 DM from skill (at Skill-1), allowing for an 8+ throw if a "6" is thrown. 1 + 1 + 6 = 8.

Other modifiers (range) may apply as well.


If old Morn doesn't have a Skill-1, then Skill-0 avoids the penalty (and, you're right, the Skill-0 character cannot hit unless modifiers for range help him).

Those that aren't skilled use a -3 DM, IIRC.

 

[atpollard]

Is this really a good way to handle autofire?

You are being too negative.
Think of it as encouraging moderation and punishing people who want to machine gun everyone they meet.

 

[tbeard1999]

You are being too negative.
Think of it as encouraging moderation and punishing people who want to machine gun everyone they meet.

Well you are definitely "a glass half full" kinda guy. Or in this case, a "glass 1/64th full" kinda guy.

 

[Stainless]

With all this talk of percentages describing probabilities to hit, etc. (very logical, intuitive and interesting it is by the way), why doesn't someone design an RPG based on percentile probabilities upwards? Oh...hang on, they have already! It's called Basic Role Playing (BRP)

http://basicroleplaying.com/

 

[atpollard]

Well you are definitely "a glass half full" kinda guy. Or in this case, a "glass 1/64th full" kinda guy.

On a more serious note:
As you pointed out, the probability of rolling a (1) approaches 100% as the number of dice increases. For the sake of argument, let us accept that a timing of (1) in unavoidable in certain situations.

If the available modifiers (range, skill, whatever) yield a positive value that allows a roll of (6) on the other dice to hit, then it is POSSIBLE to hit the target. If a timing roll of 1 is unavoidable and an ‘effect’ roll of 6 is required to hit, then there is no penalty to additional dice and very high cyclic rates are only beneficial. Under such a system, a 10 round auto-fire burst is better than a 4 round burst (9 chances to roll a 6 instead of 3). A 100 round burst would be even better (16+ rolls of 6 on average) and a 1000 round burst would be the best (166+ rolls of 6 on average).

Would anyone like to ‘spray and pray’ with a VRF ‘Gattling’ pulse laser ?

Perhaps some sort of (house?) rule that an effect roll of 6 always ‘hits’ [but forfeits the super damage] to avoid ‘impossible’ shot situations - [My character charges the machine gun because my armor and evasion bonus mean that the auto-fire cannot hit me].

 

[tbeard1999]

On a more serious note:
Perhaps some sort of (house?) rule that an effect roll of 6 always ‘hits’

<swears under breath; kicks trash can across the office>

This is the real problem. It seems like every specific use of the timing/effect system winds up needing special house rules.

And the number of special rules necessary to beat even vaguely reasonable results out the mechanic is going to exceed the MGT rules in length. And, as an added "bonus", a poorly conceived, poorly tested, fiddly, nonintuive mechanic will become exception-riddled as well. Oh boy.

The result is wheeeeeeeeeee, another crappy version of Traveller. And boy, doesn't Traveller need yet another crappy version? I was just saying yesterday how we didn't have enough Traveller versions with obtuse, defective, illogical and absurd mechanics...

At some point, a clearly defective mechanic just needs to be replaced. In my opinion, this one should never have even made it to general playtest. While I've come up with mechanics as bad (or worse), I have never let them see the light of day.

I sure hope MWM got his money up front from Mongoose.

 

[atpollard]

<swears under breath; kicks trash can across the office>

Breathe. In through the Nose and out through the Mouth. Again - Deep - Slow. Feel better?

I prefer a straight Roll 2D6, 8+ to hit, myself (and that is supposed to be an option). The issue of cannot miss/cannot hit situations is part of every game mechanic. Either you accept it, or you create some version of the "1 always fails and 20 always succeeds" rule. I prefer to always allow some chance, but that is just my preference.

Is it really such a 'game killer' if an unskilled character spraying the room with bullets has so little control over the weapon that he cannot hit his target? He could fire a weapon with shorter bursts or get more skill before attempting that task. It affects 'in game' decisions, but has it really proven unworkable? What about all of the other possible combinations that result in an automatic failure or success - do you feel this strongly about them?

 

[tbeard1999]

Breathe. In through the Nose and out through the Mouth. Again - Deep - Slow. Feel better?

I prefer a straight Roll 2D6, 8+ to hit, myself (and that is supposed to be an option).

But it isn't. The combat system requires that you use the worthless timing/effect mechanic. If the timing/effect system were optional, we wouldn't be having this conversation. It isn't, though. It's integral to the combat system(s). So its limitations, defects and absurdities become highly relevant, at least to me.

The issue of cannot miss/cannot hit situations is part of every game mechanic. Either you accept it, or you create some version of the "1 always fails and 20 always succeeds" rule. I prefer to always allow some chance, but that is just my preference.

Agreed, but this isn't my complaint.

Is it really such a 'game killer' if an unskilled character spraying the room with bullets has so little control over the weapon that he cannot hit his target?

If that were the sole problem, maybe not, although combat is very important to me.

However, *every* application of the timing/effect system seems to require either a (a) "it isn't really a game killer" handwave; or (b) desperate and vain attempts to house-rule it into shape.

I'd also note that your statement could be used to excuse any mechanic.

He could fire a weapon with shorter bursts or get more skill before attempting that task. It affects in game decisions, but has it really proven unworkable? What about all of the other possible combinations that result in an automatic failure or success - do you feel this strongly about them?

Not sure I understand the question.

I generally object to mechanics that make an automatic result the norm. Especially where the statistical qualities aren't intuitively obvious to players or referees.

I am also not in favor of another crappy version of Traveller. Because of its marketing prowess, Mongoose's version will be the definitive version of Traveller. And that's gonna be a damn shame, if these defects remain unaddressed.

I note that Mongoose folks have not answered any of my questions on the Mongoose Traveller forum, though they've been active in other threads. Not a good sign.

 

[sablewyvern]

I don't have a problem with unskilled automatic fire being innefective, but there is an issue if automatic fire is always the better option for a skilled marksman. Ideally, except when firing machineguns on fixed lines or the like, single shots should be preferred.

Making the optimum range for autofire Close for all weapons goes some way to achieving this with minimal effort, however.

 

[tbeard1999]

I don't have a problem with unskilled automatic fire being innefective, but there is an issue if automatic fire is always the better option for a skilled marksman. Ideally, except when firing machineguns on fixed lines or the like, single shots should be preferred.

Making the optimum range for autofire Close for all weapons goes some way to achieving this with minimal effort, however.

Sigh.

Yet another house rule to cover a basic defect in the system? How many house rules will it take for you to consider that perhaps the timing/effect system simply does not work?

 

[Supplement Four]

wheeeeeeeeeee[/I], another crappy version of Traveller.

While I'm laughing and scratching my belly at this, I'm also nodding my head in agreement.

I had such high hopes for MGT. Mongoose did a superb job on Conan. I was expecting something really special with their treatment of Traveller.

What I'm seeing looks to me like a GM writing his own house rules, not fully thought-out, with holes, rather than what a professional game designer should be putting together.

That's not to say that the system doesn't already have its fans. Most negative (if well meaning and hopefully constructive) feedback on the system posted to the MGT forum seems to get hounded by 2 or 3 rabid MGT fans who drown out all reason.

I don't have a grudge against MGT. Hell, I want it to be a good system.

But, like TBeard, I'm tired of seeing these opportunities go by where something great for Traveller could be created when insteads we get the same old milktoast rules that need to be modded and houseruled right out of the gate.

I'm disappointed.

 

[sablewyvern]

Yet another house rule to cover a basic defect in the system? How many house rules will it take for you to consider that perhaps the timing/effect system simply does not work?

Isn't this thread meant to be about discussing a problem and possible fixes for that problem? Dropping Timing/Effect is one possible fix, but some of us would (for our own strange reasons ) prefer to see it kept.

Personally, I like Timing/Effect, and I like the rules I've built around it -- something I think we've established fairly comprehensively. That you don't like Timing/Effect has been similarly determined. Obviously, we're coming at the whole issue from very different angles.

On this particular issue, I had already dropped the Optimum range for autofire to Close amongst my tweaks, although I hadn't realised how necessary such a change might be. So, I'm not really adding another house rule -- I've just found that one I already felt necessary for versimiltude also has strong mechanical benefits.

 

[atpollard]

I haven't been keeping up with the play test because Mongoose already lost me. I think CT is better.

Because I cannot resist ...

... even if MoT only provides CT compatible Vehicles, Attributes and Weapons, it is not impossible that CT+ (or ACT, or any other attempts at a CT mechanic) could see publication under the OGL.



Here are two one line rules that will solve 90% of the task problems. Pick your favorite one:

OPTIONAL RULE-1: For all tasks use 1 red die (always timing) and multiple white die (always effect).

OPTIONAL RULE-2: For all tasks use 1 red die (always timing) and multiple white die (always effect), with a roll of exactly 2 always indicating failure and a roll of exactly 12 always indicating success.

(If I were writing the rules, I would make the option of SELECTING the Timing die a carefully crafted EXCEPTION to the above rule - perhaps to benefit a single-shot rifle type of task.)

 

[Supplement Four]

I don't have a problem with unskilled automatic fire being innefective...

What about Grandma Jones picking up the SMG that was left on the sofa, pointing it, and letting lose, full auto, at an intruder coming in through the sliding glass door, just 10 feet away.

Shouldn't there be at least some chance that Grandma, even though old and fragile and unskilled might hit the intruder, just 10 feet away, in the hail of wild bullets pumping out of the end of that SMG that Grandma can barely hold in her hands?

 

[sablewyvern]

What about Grandma Jones picking up the SMG that was left on the sofa, pointing it, and letting lose, full auto, at an intruder coming in through the sliding glass door, just 10 feet away.

Shouldn't there be at least some chance that Grandma, even though old and fragile and unskilled might hit the intruder, just 10 feet away, in the hail of wild bullets pumping out of the end of that SMG that Grandma can barely hold in her hands?

Grandma has the option of using burst fire or a shotgun. Problem solved.

 

[Supplement Four]

Personally, I like Timing/Effect...

Just to be clear, from my end of things, I don't dislike the idea behind the timing/effect die.

If a way (and easy way) could be found to use the idea and not have the problems it creates, then I'd be all for it.

As it is, though, the T/E die seems to cause more problems than its worth having.

If you can't find a way for the T/E effect to work without house-ruling it to death, then the mechanic has got to go.

At least, that's what a good game designer would do.

 

[sablewyvern]

Just to be clear, from my end of things, I don't dislike the idea behind the timing/effect die.

If a way (and easy way) could be found to use the idea and not have the problems it creates, then I'd be all for it.

As it is, though, the T/E die seems to cause more problems than its worth having.

If you can't find a way for the T/E effect to work without house-ruling it to death, then the mechanic has got to go.

At least, that's what a good game designer would do.

See, I'm rarely happy with rules I design myself from scratch. Even when I am, I generally lack the motivation to finish a project.

However, I love working with a pre-existing framework, so I've had a great time playing with Timing/Effect to get it to behave the way I want it to. I was happy when tbeard started this thread, because it gives me a reason to go back and see if I need to do more tweaking.

Which isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of the official system, but it meets all my needs (even if not out of the box).