Character Facing and Reaction Awareness

[swest]

Greetings again,

We still haven't started our Traveller campaign (it will be our first Traveller outing...) But final character generation will be this Saturday, and our first night of play will be on 12/5/09.

Anyway, I'm wondering something about Reactions. On page 61 of the core rule book, they describe Reactions. The introductory paragraph finishes on page 62 with the words:

'A character can only react to attacks that he is aware of.'​

How is a character judged to be 'aware' or un'aware' of an attack? Surprise attacks seem obvious. Others?

Also, since there seems to be no rule regarding Facing of characters, I assume that sneaking up 'behind' a character has no meaning.

The bottom line is, I can't find anything within pages 60-68 that addresses this. Where should I look?

Thanks.

- s.west

 

[Supplement Four]

How is a character judged to be 'aware' or un'aware' of an attack? Surprise attacks seem obvious. Others?

I don't play MGT, but this seems obvious to me. I think the GM should be the final arbiter of what a character is aware of and what he is not.

If I were running the game, I'd decide, based on the situation, using logic and looking at line-of-sight.

If in doubt, and you want to roll dice, give the character some sort of perception/awareness/whatever-they-call-it-in-MGT throw. If I were running a CT game and this happened, I might say something like, "Roll INT or less on 3D to be aware of this attacker at the edge of your vision." And, I'd let the toon modifiy the throw with an appropriate skill: Leadership, Forward Observer, Recon...something like that.

 

[Icosahedron]

You're all in a bar. One of your mates goes to the head or goes to fetch the car, and gets jumped by the bad guys. You can't go to the rescue, cos you're not aware of the attack.

A sniper is holed up down the road and your mates start dropping like flies. You can't shoot back unless you have some way to figure out
a) what's happening
b) where the fire is coming from.

Your mates start dropping like flies from a gas attack. You can't put your gas mask on unless you are aware that it's gas and not a sniper attack.

etc.

 

[Madarin Dude]

I would apply a skill check and they can apply any skill that they think can modify that roll. (only one)

 

[swest]

So, bottom line: GM Discretion, and intelligent application of situational variables... sound good?

Thanks.

- s.west

 

[FreeTrav]

So, bottom line: GM Discretion, and intelligent application of situational variables... sound good?

Thanks.

- s.west

Sounds reasonable to me. And it's also the default answer for just about anything in any role-playing game, because the First Rule is always (regardless of what E. Gary Gygax or Kevin Siembada (sp?) might have said) "An ye like it not, CHANGE IT!".

 

[aramis]

Sounds reasonable to me. And it's also the default answer for just about anything in any role-playing game, because the First Rule is always (regardless of what E. Gary Gygax or Kevin Siembada (sp?) might have said) "An ye like it not, CHANGE IT!".

Quite a few games now avoid any such rule.

 

[Icosahedron]

the First Rule is always (regardless of what E. Gary Gygax or Kevin Siembada (sp?) might have said) "An ye like it not, CHANGE IT!".

Quite a few games now avoid any such rule.

Not if I buy them, they don't.

 

[Supplement Four]

Quite a few games now avoid any such rule.

I haven't seen that. (Then again, I don't buy a lot of new games, either.)

Wil, do yo have examples of some new games that say the GM is not the final arbiter of the game and that rules should not be changed to taste?

 

[aramis]

No mention of house rules at all:
Burning Empires, Mouse Guard, Brute Squad, Og

Explicitly put the options choices to the GM, but make no mention of adding new ones:
Burning Wheel, Freemarket, Unisystem (BTVS, Angel, Ghosts of Avalon, Army of Darkness), Dark Heresy, Rogue Trader, Decipher Star Trek.

The GM may not, but the group may:
Sorcerer

Many others suggest that the group approve the GM's house rules, again mostly small press stuff.



The explicit "Rule 0" GM-Uber-Alles is a 1970's thing. by the 1980's, it was falling from favor; no explicit rule 0 is in MT, either. MT explicitly state's the GM's job is to deal with things not covered by the rules, and to interpret the rules. it doesn't say he gets to toss them, or house rule at a whim.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: an explicit "The GM may change anything he wants" is bad design and bad for most groups.

Now, in all fairness, MG is hacked quite a bit with the designer's blessings, even on his BBS, but no mention is in the rules. The same designer, however, makes it clear when people ask about house ruling that they should play RAW first...

 

[FreeTrav]

I think a few people misunderstood me. The "First Rule", in my interpretation, never HAS to be written explicitly; it is - or should be - inherently understood in the nature of the beast. The reference to EGG and KS was based on recollections that each had a period where they considered What They Had Written as Holy Writ, and Not To Be Changed, Even In One's Own Games, Never Mind At Cons Or Such.

Perhaps a more humorous was of expressing it would be, "If RAW doesn't work for you, COOK IT!".

 

[Supplement Four]

"If RAW doesn't work for you, COOK IT!"

Yeah, baby!