Does anything work in Traveller?
This thread began 13 years ago, so I'm not sure how things turned out for the original poster. Also, I'm well aware people don't like the CT combat rules for a variety of reasons, so I'm not advocating for them if someone doesn't want to use them.
But from what I can see... they work.
The original post was about how DMs piled up at the closer ranges.
Yes, if one is firing a Shotgun, Automatic Rifle, or Submachine Gun at Short range, you're almost guaranteed to do effective damage to the target if they are wearing no armor. I'm not sure I see how this is a bad thing, however.
Wearing armor means a better than 50% chance of taking a hit. But still, there's a chance no effective damage will be taken.
But there's this as well: CT combat is simultaneous. If you're shooting at someone, someone can shoot at you. Like most things in CT (going back to character generation) to engage in combat is a risk. At at closer ranges, those risks pile up. (Which, again, to me seems like a great idea.)
This always leaves the Sword of Damocles hanging over the PCs them moment things start getting tense. It means running for cover the moment it looks like guns are coming out. It means being smart about positioning, flanking, and so on. Because
you might not be firing every round. Because to fire means to be at risk. You might be working your way closer, or pulling back, or getting around your opponent for a free shot.
All of this depends, of course, on using the system as it was original designed: small operation, paramilitary activity, for a group of adventurers
on an adventure.
This means two things:
One: Classic
Traveller is
not about modeling military action. (If one wants a more detailed modeling of military action, the game will not work for you.) Classic
Traveller is a game built to abstractly handle all sorts of adventure elements in an evening's play. The system allows the Referee to adjudicate on the fly all sorts of situations and events based on the actions and decisions of the players. But the
adventure part of the equation can never be forgotten. If there is a threat of a firefight, with the rules (as was pointed out upthread) everyone knows there is danger. A tension hangs in the air. Even as a scene is playing out, the player might be working to avoid gunplay even as they start looking around for cover to duck behind.
If the guns come out, then everyone knows that there's real danger and there is
excitement and tension at the table about that danger.
The reason combat is deadly at shorter ranges is because it produces an "Oh, shit!" fury of declarations of actions and die rolls. One either wants that, or one doesn't. But that doesn't mean it doesn't work.*
Two:
Building from point One above, the game is about adventure fiction, not milsim. Thus, one has to ask: What is the objective in the situation taking place right now. It can't be about a straight-forward standup fight. Because why would a group of adventures head into a simple, straight-forward standup fight? They're not teens looking to prove themselves in the back alley outside a bar, after all.
So, what is the context for the conflict?
Are the Player Characters looking to get back to their ship after official have blocked their path? Are they looking to get to the alien artifact in the ancient temple that the indigenous lizard-people are guarding? Are they trying to rescue a fellow-crewmember from a bandit camp? Are they trying to escort a member of a noble house to his yacht during a coup?
These, and countless other scenarios, offer an almost infinite series of choices for the Players (and thus the Player Characters). Some will involve gunplay. Some won't. Depending on circumstances and choices, moments of the adventure might involve gunplay, and then sneaking about, then gunplay again. The gunplay might be quick, or a PC might get pinned down and then several rounds of gunplay might occur.
But clearly, given that the objectives in an
adventure are seldom "To stand around and fight," and given that the combat is deadly, the Players (and the PCs) will be better served by coming up with plans and schemes that get them to their goals and get them out of trouble with as little full-on engagement as possible.
The system handles this very well, with the Referee sketching out quick details on a sheet of paper as required. Ranges are abstract, DMs for Cover and so forth are listed, and new DMs can be created as required.
We're not looking for a fully detailed field combat system in these situations. We're looking for a set of rules that can handle the tension of gunplay in the moment, with the risk stark and the results stark, and then we move on.
Again, I'm not saying the CT combat is for everyone. But it does, I believe, what it was designed to do it does well. And thus, it works.
* As a side note: NPCs lacking expertise in weapons will suffer a DM -5 for their combat Throws. As the rules assume that dedicated training of some time is required to gain
expertise of a weapon in combat situations, then we can assume the that the PCs will often have an edge over a group of farmers who might be armed, but not used to combat engagement. Thus, the PCs are not always facing the same tense odds in every fight.
