Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
I'm looking for that, Sigg. What page in TTB?
CT Only: CT - We Don't Need No Stinkin' Skills
- Thread starter Supplement Four
- Start date
I'm looking for that, Sigg. What page in TTB?
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Page 21 of TTB, section entitled weapon expertise
creativehum
SOC-14 1K
Right. The Player Characters are described as having better combat skills than most people -- even thouse who served in a service.
And with the Default Skills (offered by the Refree if he wishes as default skills at expertise-0 for PCs) the skill list possessed by a PC is broader than most people as well.
Finally, not every NPC the PCs will encounter will have a service record.
For example, a firefight with 15 colonists might have two veterans among them (with expertise only in specific weapons), with the other 13 firing weapons at a DM-5.
Of course, using RAW, remember that the right weapon at the right range is going to to get a +DM to improve the odds.Notice that this makes the game more compelling in terms of range and tactics (and ultimately strategy) as the PC try to retain their advantage of better skill against a larger force that can try to get better positioning.
And with the Default Skills (offered by the Refree if he wishes as default skills at expertise-0 for PCs) the skill list possessed by a PC is broader than most people as well.
Finally, not every NPC the PCs will encounter will have a service record.
For example, a firefight with 15 colonists might have two veterans among them (with expertise only in specific weapons), with the other 13 firing weapons at a DM-5.
Of course, using RAW, remember that the right weapon at the right range is going to to get a +DM to improve the odds.Notice that this makes the game more compelling in terms of range and tactics (and ultimately strategy) as the PC try to retain their advantage of better skill against a larger force that can try to get better positioning.
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
That's a damn nice blog post you have on point crawls, there, creativehum.
For the most part they are "Heroes" and a cut above, but I think a strong case can be made that the average Traveller PC is an average Joe. And maybe a better character for it. But, as with all things RPG-wise that philosophy varies. In my ATU, though, they are just average guys caught up in extraordinary events. Sometimes.
I mean, even in something like Firefly we only see the events worth of Facebook posts. The rest of the time they are grubbing by on crappy cargo and mail runs.
Why so bad a modifier? Why not leave it at 8+ or even 10+ and just treat it as a morale issue - the game has that written into the rules.
In my recently ended campaign the crew ended up doing the Fort Apache/Seven Samurai thing on a colony world. They helped the colonists in a battle where everyone was reasonably well-armed with rifles and shotguns, courtesy of the cargo they were hoping to sell somewhere else. The players had better, obviously, and with the exception of the lone Scout "Colony Advisor" who was there to help the colonists figure out how to get their crops growing better and control the local pests, were the only ones with military experience.
Although only 2 out of that 5 PC crew actually had shooting kind of combat experience being that they were Marines while everyone else was Navy or Scouts.
I fought it all out as a miniature game using some basic quick n' dirty rules I made up for this and emphasized morale over actual combat results. The more who got hurt, the harder it was to find people to stand and fight. But the basic 8+ roll for each NPC was used, no DM's...the players already had all those.
I think people always forget that morale is what is really important most of the time and that's why it is in the game. You don't need to penalize an NPC beyond not having any DM's to begin with, but you do need to figure out if he'll stand and fight, especially when people start going down under fire.
As an amusing sidebar to the above described battle we ended up with an epic duel in the house of one colonist and one of the alien invaders. Both on opposite sides of the living room. One with a shotgun and the other with an ACR.
It went on the entire battle with neither doing more than pinking away at the other - the ACR fire was getting smaller and smaller in volume as the bad guy just couldn't get a break rolling the dice and was running out of ammo. The colonist just had a shotgun and couldn't do much against the invader's armor.
It was hilarious - we were all rooting for the colonist, who the players decided was worthy of an entire back story that they came up with during the battle. The "Old Man" was just wanting to be left alone and watch his shows when the aliens came and was not going to surrender no matter what. They decided he was some old guy with a shotgun and a "get off my lawn" attitude.
In the end the aliens lost, but the old man survived and took the alien captive when the invader ran out of ammo and missed the retreat call because the Old Man kept shooting at him.
See, neither one broke morale, either. The house was shot to pieces, fires starting here and there, and yet it wasn't until the end when the alien ran out of ammo that either picked up some modifiers to their morale rolls. It was epic.
It went on the entire battle with neither doing more than pinking away at the other - the ACR fire was getting smaller and smaller in volume as the bad guy just couldn't get a break rolling the dice and was running out of ammo. The colonist just had a shotgun and couldn't do much against the invader's armor.
It was hilarious - we were all rooting for the colonist, who the players decided was worthy of an entire back story that they came up with during the battle. The "Old Man" was just wanting to be left alone and watch his shows when the aliens came and was not going to surrender no matter what. They decided he was some old guy with a shotgun and a "get off my lawn" attitude.
In the end the aliens lost, but the old man survived and took the alien captive when the invader ran out of ammo and missed the retreat call because the Old Man kept shooting at him.
See, neither one broke morale, either. The house was shot to pieces, fires starting here and there, and yet it wasn't until the end when the alien ran out of ammo that either picked up some modifiers to their morale rolls. It was epic.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
What sets a Traveller apart? They are ordinary joes dealing with out of the ordinary events and situations.
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
If characters continually, or occasionally, practice or use specific weapons without actually having a skill in them, they're familiar enough with them not to get penalized.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Practicing by range shooting is not the same as when the target is shooting back...
Hence the need to use morale rules in such situations.
If you can stand under fire you can at least return suppression fire. You might even hit someone.
Just have it so the NPC can fire if it makes a successful morale roll. You can add all sorts of DM's to that. Positive ones for cover, for concealment (not as good, but good for the first shot maybe), etc..
This is where things like PC's with skill like Leader and Tactics come in to lend positive DM's to the NPC's morale. When an NPC actually takes down an enemy his morale roll should get a positive DM until the next setback.
creativehum
SOC-14 1K
I'm kind of confused by this question. Everything I referred to in my post is from the Classic Traveller Basic Rules. (The DM-5 for non-combatants, and so on.)
Are you asking me: Why are you bothering to use the rules?
Or are you asking me: Where did you make up such a bad DM?
On a further point, RAW, the target number to a hit is not 8+ (though countless people play Traveller that way and that's fine. A hit in combat is:
8 modified by (skill expertise) (lack of skill expertise) (weapon and range) (weapon and armor) (characteristic modifier) (any other circumstances of note).
I agree completely... and I use the Morale rules.
creativehum
SOC-14 1K
Thanks!
I'm asking why does it have to be such a bad DM. I know it is in the rule book, but as we know and argue over here on these forums and across gaming tables all the time the rules are not only highly malleable but it is encouraged to make them suit your game.
So, since you don't have to use that DM why would you? It might be workable for some rabble of NPC's coming to burn down the windmill you are in, but at -5 those are essentially random shots by people so unfamiliar with weapons they are using as to be harmless. Really, 13+ to hit on 2D6? With armor and evasion modifiers added on top?
In such cases I have always thought it made more sense to either go with morale first and the basic roll to hit of 8+ or more often. DM's for armor and actions apply. At least that creates some sense of danger and risk.
No, the base target for success in Traveller is 8+. Everything else is a modifier. In fact LBB1 even has that enshrined in a larger, bolder font than the rest of the entire set of rules. Page 30.
So since a generic NPC would have to roll 8+ for success unless the task was so routine as to be virtually automatic.
Yes, there is the Skill-0 thing that was introduced to Traveller well after the original rule were printed in 1977. Obviously included to help blockheads understand they could already try for a successful roll on a task with either no or negative modifiers, or to reduce rules lawyering over the same thing, it is completely unnecessary to play the game otherwise. It played just fine without that until the second printing of CT four years later.
For example, the rules do not limit your character's attributes from providing positive and negative modifiers to the basic throw when using weapons. If you have less than the required minimum you have a negative modifier, a positive DM if you exceed a certain level. You get those DM's regardless of skill level. I would argue that those rules were intended to cover anyone who didn't have a skill in a given weapon, or had potential. Skill-0 wasn't required.
But players will wheedle and blockheads will think if you don't have a skill for it your PC cna't even brush his teeth so therefore we have toothless characters and nobody can drive the air/raft to the store for food.
creativehum
SOC-14 1K
Great.
Thanks for the answers.
At this point I don't know if this will matter given your answers above, but the defrault skills are part of the 1977 rules. They are referred to as 1/2 expertise, but otherwise are identical to the default 0 rules for both weapons and skill found in later editions.
But, yes, of course, rules can be ignored as one desires.
Thanks for the answers.
At this point I don't know if this will matter given your answers above, but the defrault skills are part of the 1977 rules. They are referred to as 1/2 expertise, but otherwise are identical to the default 0 rules for both weapons and skill found in later editions.
But, yes, of course, rules can be ignored as one desires.
Not really...only weapon skills were 1/2 point skills. The rules pointed out that all PC's have a natural ability when it came to weapon use and was represented by that. If you got a skill in a weapon then the skill became 1.
It was what further defined the difference between a skilled roll with modifiers and a non-skilled roll at the base chance. And it was only in weapons.
It was what further defined the difference between a skilled roll with modifiers and a non-skilled roll at the base chance. And it was only in weapons.
It's the GM's call on extending level 0's past the list. At least it's so using RAW.
creativehum
SOC-14 1K
Whoops. You're right about that. My bad.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
True, but some skills have no penalty for unskilled use:
gambling, forgery, air/raft, ATV, steward.
A few more have a low unskilled penalty, a few had a high unskilled penalty, and a few are not possible without expertise in the skill (or jack of all trades).
The target number of 8+ was for combat only, situation throws can have just about any target number you care to mention, some are roll above and some are roll below.
Sorry, I'm being argumentative and cranky to no good purpose today. And yesterday.
It's Day-2 of what is brewing to be a 3-4 day migraine with spasms in my neck and back, and it is pushing through the painkillers. The stresses of this time of year are not helping.
No one said anything but I could see I was just circling my tail and being a horse's rear. Sometimes I forget that argument doesn't mean being a pedant.
Carry on. I'm going to take my morphine and try to center myself a bit before the relatives start arriving tomorrow.
It's Day-2 of what is brewing to be a 3-4 day migraine with spasms in my neck and back, and it is pushing through the painkillers. The stresses of this time of year are not helping.
No one said anything but I could see I was just circling my tail and being a horse's rear. Sometimes I forget that argument doesn't mean being a pedant.
Carry on. I'm going to take my morphine and try to center myself a bit before the relatives start arriving tomorrow.
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
It's the Ref's call to change any rule.
But, Sup 4 specifically says that Doctors, Barbarians, and Bureaucrats do not get the default gun weapon rule.
Similar threads
