Discussing the vanilla CT combat system...

[Supplement Four]

A discussion began in this thread about the vanilla CT combat system. I thought, instead of remaining off-topic in that thread, the disucssion deserves its own thread.

Here's the last post from that thread, a question to Isosahedron:

ATP, I had this very problem in a game last night. I found that, far from being deadly, the rules I was trying to tweak gave really silly results. A marine (gun2) standing 5 feet from a target leaning around a corner (-2 cover) had less than a 50-50 chance of hitting his target.

What was the exact situation?

What's the Marine's weapon, and what's his DEX?

Was the target wearing armor? Was the target evading?

I'm curious.




Take a Marine. DEX-7, Rifle-2, using an autorifle to fire at a target, under cover, just 5 feet away. Target is not armored.

--Marine attack--
+2 DM Skill
+0 DM DEX
+0 DM Short Range
+6 DM No Armor
-4 DM Cover
---
+4 DM

Using the autofire rule, that's two rolls of 2D for 4+. That's a 92% chance on each throw.

Chances are, your Marine will do 6D damage on the target....and 3D of it may be governed by the first blood rule.

I'd say that sounds just about right, don't you?

 

[Supplement Four]

And even cloth armored targets are in trouble if the system easily allows high skill and DEX modifier totals.

Again, I think your assessment is off. I believe I used to make the same assesssment as you are making now.

But, when you consider the average Book 4 marine is: 777777 Combat Rifleman-1, what you're saying doesn't hold up.

I believe you're lumping circumstances together--circumstances that make sense--by just looking at the weapon matrix DMs and not considering what those numbers are trying to represent.

For example:

Marine with ACR fires burst at unarmored, unprotected target, at Medium Range, using high explosive rounds.

--Marine Attack--
+1 DM Skill
+0 DM DEX
+1 DM Medium Range
+4 DM No Armor
-----
+6 DM

Well, this is an automatic hit. This is what you're talking about. But, c'mon! This is an unarmored target standing out in the open! No protection! And, we're firing a burst of ammo that explodes in a radius that can effect the person standing next to the target!

Shouldn't the chances be great that the target is severely affected?

And...remember, we still have damage to consider. If damage ends up being: 4D = 1, 1, 3, 1 on a First Blood hit, and 4D = 2, 1, 3, 1, then a target with stats 777777 could easily end up as 143777.

This is why I'm saying your assessment is "off". You're looking strictly at the DMs on the table, disregarding what those DMs represent. And, you're not considering the effect of damage in the game (which has to be considered).

See, our marine, with the 100% chance to hit, did not inflict a gunshot wound on the target. As a GM, I'd say the round landed extremly close, and the damage he suffers is from the explosive effects (GM's are always trying to make the abstract system "seem" real).

But, see the point? You're saying, "It's a 100% hit, and that's not realistic!" And, I'm saying, "But, look at the whole picture...reality is better represented than you're giving it credit for!"







And...

A more likely scenario is that the target will be armored, and he won't be out in the open. He'll be taking cover. Now, what happens?

--Marine Attack--
+1 DM Skill
+0 DM DEX
+1 DM Medium Range
-1 DM Cloth Armor
-4 DM Cover
-----
-3 DM


Put the marine in a more likely combat scenario, where the enemy is both aware of his existence and using body armor, and all of sudden our 100% chance to hit becomes a much lower probability.

2D for 11+, rolled twice for the autofire rule.



I stand by my comments. I think it's easy to look at the combat matrix in Book 4, do some averaging, and say Book 4 breaks CT.

I'm not saying CT is perfect (LBB4 or no), but I'm also saying that CT is not near as broken with LBB4 included as you are positing.

Ya gotta look at what the numbers represent, not just the blanket numbers. And, you've got to consider damage in the assessment.

Given that, I think CT with Book 4 works well, as I've indicated above.

 

[Supplement Four]

@tbeard1999

TBeard,

I've got an idea that I think will help our discussion. Instead of you posting some stats, and then me countering with an example, and back and forth...

...let's narrow the discussion a bit.

How about you post an example of where you think the CT combat system breaks (LBB4 or no), and then I can counter or agree.

One of the weak points to the CT system, I believe, is the wide Medium range category, expecially when speaking to a single shot weapon like a revolver.

Or...whatever you choose. But, I think, in order for our discussion about the CT combat system to continue to be productive, we've got to narrow the examples a bit, specifically focussing on where you think it's broken.

 

[tbeard1999]

Again, I think your assessment is off. I believe I used to make the same assesssment as you are making now.

But, when you consider the average Book 4 marine is: 777777 Combat Rifleman-1, what you're saying doesn't hold up.

There is no reasonable basis for this statement. Every Book 4 marine *starts* with Combat Rifleman-1, so it's statistically absurd to claim that this is the average skill level for marines.

And in any case, my analysis regarding unarmored targets stands even if you only assume Combat Rifleman-1 and no DEX modifier. In those cases, the average to hit mods at Medium and Short range will be +5. That's a >99% chance of hitting.

With Cloth armor, the average modifier is -1, so a +5 outside modifier would be necessary to get us into the realm of virtually automatic hits. Unless, of course, you use ACRs or Gauss Rifles. Then, automatic hits are virtually guaranteed.

And getting high modifiers is nowhere near as difficult as you claim it is. Relying on pregenerated characters is dubious; we have no guarantee that the GDW actually sat around and devoted scores of man-hours to rolling up thousands of characters. And in this day of computerized character generation programs, it's easy to generate the characters quickly.

To test your claims, I ran out 6 Army characters using the book 4 system. 1 lasted 2 terms, 1 lasted 3 terms and the others I mustered out at 4 terms. One had Combat Rifleman-2, 3 had Combat Rifleman-3, 1 had Combat Rifleman 4 and 1 had Combat Rifleman 5. Also, 3 of them had a DEX of 8+, which gives them a +1 with rifles (or +2 with military rifles). And I let the program choose all skills, cascades and MOSs. So, I am satisfied that your claim that the average Book 4 character has Combat Rifleman-1 is false.

And 25+ years of playing Traveller gives me no reason to doubt this.

Nor do I find persuasive your argument that a hit is somehow not *really* a wound. And even if I did, my critique wouldn't change. Under the CT system, it's easy for a character to guarantee that he will wound his target almost all of the time. If the target is unarmored (and not necessarily standing still in the open as you imply), then hits are guaranteed. If the target is cloth armored, most Book 4 characters will be able to get there either through high skill levels (Combat Rifleman 3 seems about average to me), relatively easy DEX modifiers or using ACRs or Gauss Rifles.

And regardless of how you choose to rationalize a "hit", the reality is that a "hit" affects the target. And 2-3 of them will usually kill the target. In the CT system, it's way too easy to virtually guarantee that you will succeed on each attempt to wound the target. Nothing you've argued, and no evidence you've produce rebuts this fact.

I'm sorry, but the numbers are what they are. Book 4 characters have a very easy time of getting automatic hits in combat, especially if shooting at unarmored target. If you don't mind that, then bully for you. But I do mind it. And until you can show me that the numbers or math I've cited are inaccurate, I am not interested in continuing this.

There is a relatively simple fix to this problem, by the way. But there's no point in discussing it until it's conceded that there's a problem.

 

[Supplement Four]

There is no reasonable basis for this statement. Every Book 4 marine *starts* with Combat Rifleman-1, so it's statistically absurd to claim that this is the average skill level for marines.

Take a look through Sup 13 Veterans. It says that supplement "contains over two hundred characters generated using the rules in Book 4". How many characters do you see there that are Skill-3 or better?

As you can see, most are Skill-1 or Skill-2.

So, my statement isn't statistically absurd. As you should know, it's easy to go trough CT chargen, obtain a skill, and then never improve it further.

And in any case, my analysis regarding unarmored targets stands even if you only assume Combat Rifleman-1 and no DEX modifier. In those cases, the average to hit mods at Medium and Short range will be +5. That's a >99% chance of hitting.

You keep ignoring the effects of damage, and cover, and evasion.

Your statistics and what you claim are "off" because of that.

The CT mechanics are really very sound because the designers considered, "What happens if the target just stands there...what happens if he's evading...what happens when the target remains behind cover?"

Your stats are off because you're not considering circumstances and you're not considering the effects of damage.

Relying on pregenerated characters is dubious; we have no guarantee that the GDW actually sat around and devoted scores of man-hours to rolling up thousands of characters.

Well, I wasn't there watching, but the quote above came directly from Sup 13.

And in this day of computerized character generation programs, it's easy to generate the characters quickly.

Have you looked a lot of those character gen programs? I have. Many of the authors take liberties with the rules and do not accurately reflect the true rules.

I've been looking for a CT computer program that accurately uses the rules, so, if you know of one, I'd like to obtain it.

To test your claims, I ran out 6 Army characters using the book 4 system. 1 lasted 2 terms, 1 lasted 3 terms and the others I mustered out at 4 terms.

Which program?

I've used several, and not one have I found that will exactly replicate the rules.

For example, the MTCG program, by Greg Svenson, claims to have "advanced character generation for Mercenary", but, according to the readme file also uses "the MegaTraveller concept of brownie points is used throughout the program
to increase the chances for gaining skills, awards, survival, reenlistment, etc."

That skews the results from CT Mercenary.

If you're using the CTUtility by Stephen S. Koo, then it states that the "generator uses a variant of the character generator to simplify the coding process". And, that would skew results as well.

Hugh Foster's TravGen (Ace & The Dog) program also takes some liberties with the PC generation system according to the author himself, in e-mail, to me personally (because I contacted him about this a couple of years ago).

So...if not one of these programs, which one are you using?

And 25+ years of playing Traveller gives me no reason to doubt this.

BTW, I have as much experience playing Traveller as you do.

And until you can show me that the numbers or math I've cited are inaccurate, I am not interested in continuing this.

I'm just having a discussion here. I hope you're not getting upset. I see your side clearly. I used to believe that way, and then I saw the "error" of my ways, so to speak.

Can you give me a specific example of where you think the rules are broken? I'm not talking about these general stats you're using, because I think you're off base there, not considering all factors.

So, give me a game example, and let's discuss it.

 

[Mithras]

Continued from the previous thread ..... Vehicle combat. Andy Slack wrote an exceptional article on vehicle combat for Bks 1 + 4 in White Dwarf magazine (43 I think, and I downloaded a PDF from Andy's site a couple of years ago...her we go: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/andyslack/pdf/ctrrr.pdf). Boiling down to essentially 3 paragraphs of simple rules you can memorise. The Across the Bright Face rules are neat, BUT I am not going to create hit location charts for the myriad craft in the Third Imperium. In keeping with the rules and the attitude, I need something generic.

One way (not THE way) to resolve this is how it is presented in Across the Bright Face. A damage table for an ATV is presented, not unlike starship combat. This table is meant for vehicle-to-vehicle combat. But, a rule is presented for small arms fire too.

 

[Mithras]

S4, on 'suffering damage doesn't necesarily mean a gunshot...', what about Cutlass, Sword and Broadsword, which gain a huge +4, +3 and +5 against unarmoured characters. Are they hit?

I think your abstract interpretations of the Bk1 combat rules are too nebulous for the year they were published. I like your abstract modern spin on them that seems to make the rules on armour make sense, but what I disagree with is your notion that 'it was built into the rules all along'. No, I think you should take credit for this interpretation yourself. Your explanations do work from the kind of game standpoint you are comfortable with, my players would certainly struggle to grasp a concept where characters are not 'hit' even when the dice roll say so, but also not 'hit' even when damage is rolled and applied, but also not 'hit' even when that damage reduces them to 0 in a characteristic. It may smooth over the waters in your current games, but nothing that counter-intuitive and backwards would work with the bunch of enthusiastic and down-to-earth players that I GM. So I tweak, I always have.

 

[Mithras]

S4... I always read the auto fire rules as being that a single roll was made for a target (the high DMs taking care of the huge amounts of bullets). Extra rolls are only made for adjacent targets, not the primary target. Am I reading the Bk 1 and Bk 4 rules wrongly?

 

[Supplement Four]

Just for grins...

Just for grins (and because I'm off a week for Christmas with some time on my hands), I ran through the Book 4 chargen sequence twice, by hand, rolling dice.

I stuck to the rules verbatim. My goal was to get the Combat Rifleman skill up as high as possible. So, I'd roll on that chart when possible. But, if any stat was 4-, that would take precedence until it was raised to 5+. I used the by-the-book enlistment rules (and the draft, if enlistment failed). And, I used the optional Survival rule that effectively stops chargen when survival is failed rather than killing the character and having to start over. For Mustering Out, the first roll would always go towards cash to get some credits in the character's pocket. The other rolls, if any, would go to benefits.

Since I'm familiar with Aramis (big naval base there, and its the captial of the subsector), I used that as all of the characters' homeworld.

Now, I only did two characters (it does take some time), so this is not a scientific study by any stretch of the definition. I just wanted to see what would happen if I rolled up two characters, given the parameters above.

I enjoy Traveller character creation, and I can always just slap these in my GM book for the PC's to meet later.

OK, on to the first character....







6B2534 were the stats I initially rolled. I didn't want to risk the high enlistment of the Marines, so I chose the Army (the Army will take just about anybody...and they did).

Year 1: Rank E-1. Basic Training. Combat Rifleman-1 and Grav Vehicle-1 as the MOS skill.
Year 2: Infantry Training. +1 END.
Year 3: Infantry Training. +1 END. Promoted to E-2.
Year 4: Raid. +1 END.

Re-enlisted into Army Infantry.

Year 5: Administration School. Admin-1.
Year 6: Protected Forces Training. Zero-G Combat-1.
Year 7: Police Action. Failed Survival.

Muster Out: +2,000 Cr.

Final Character
---------------
Army Lance Corporal, 25 years old, with 2,000Cr.
6B5534
Combat Rifleman-1, Grav Vehicle-1, Admin-1, Zero-G Combat-1







Now, the second character, I was on FIRE. The dice where HOT.

Get this: The character made every skill throw. And, of the 6 times I rolled on the table to get the Combat Rifleman skill (had a 1-in-6 chance each time), this character rolled it a staggering 50% of the time! Yep, out of the six rolls, I rolled a "1" on three of them.

So, this character is a bit of a CT powerhouse. But, he deserves it! I was rolling like a Mutha!.

Here's how it went....

8C7A75 were my initial stats. I could have gone automatically into the Army, but I was feeling lucky with this character, even at this early stage of the game. Now, remember, I'm playing strictly by the rules with the preferences listed at the top of this post. If I miss the Marine enlistment, then I don't get to automatically try for the Army. I've got to submit to the draft (where I have a 1-in-3 chance of getting into either the Army or Marines...or scrap the character because he didn't make it into the desired career).

I felt lucky, and I went for the Marines. And, got in. No problem.

Year 1: Rank E-1. Basic Training. Combat Rifleman-1. Heavy Weapons-1 in MOS.
Year 2: Ship's Troops. Combat Rifleman-2. Promoted to E-2.
Year 3: Electronics Specialist School. Electronics-1.
Year 4: Ship's Troops. BattleDress-1. Promotoed to E-3.

Re-enlisted in Marine Infantry.

Year 5: Marine Infantry Training. Combat Rifleman-3. Promoted to E-4.
Year 6: Computer Specialist School. Computer-1.
Year 7: Counter Insurgency. Heavy Weapons-2. Awarded MCUF.
Year 8: Ship's Troops. Combat Rifleman-4. Promoted to E-5.

Declined re-enlistment.

This was such a great character, that I decided not to continue him. His Combat Rifleman-4 is overkill. He'll hit anything he aims at. In a real game, especially using the Optional Survival Rule, I'd probably take him one more term because there is a lot to gain and little to lose.

BTW, this is a perfect example of why the original Survival Rule, where characters are killed during creation, should be used in a CT game. I real player, on a hot streak like this, might (wisely) chose to end character creation after the second term--or risk losing this beautiful character.

This is why I say the Survival Rule is the great "limiter". This, more than anything else, keeps skills low. Because players have to balance the risk of dying in chargen to the gain of getting more skills.

Because of this, I'm a big proponent of not using the Optional Survival Rule in CT chargen.

Kill off those characters who fail the roll, and have the players make some real choices during chargen.

Anyway, on to finish off this character...

When mustering, he received 5,000 Cr, and a whopping +2 INT. So, the final character looks like this...

Final Character
---------------
Marine Sergeant, 26 years old, with 5,000Cr.
8C7C75
Combat Rifleman-4, Heavy Weapons-2, Computer-1, BattleDress-1, Electronics-1







My Point: TBeard has been throwing around some statistics, and from what I've seen, his math is fine. The problem is that he's not considering circumstances in his comments on CT combat or CT character generation.

If you use the Survival Rule (not the Optional Rule), then players will be less risky with characters they want to keep. They won't automatically go the usual three terms all the time, with every character, because of the risk of losing the character during chargen.

Heck, if I wasn't using the Optional Rule above, there's a decent chance that the awesome Combat Rifleman-4 character would have ended character generation after the first term (making him 8C7A75, Combat Rifleman-2, Electronics-1, BattleDress-1).

So, I stand my my statement that Combat Rifleman-1 is an average skill level for characters generated using Book 4 chargen. The characters presented in Sup 13 Veterans support my statement on this.

You can't ignore the Survival Rule, though. And, the Optional Survival Rule is a bit of a crutch because most players will take their characters to three terms before mustering out (because there is little risk in not doing so).



If CT is played by-the-book, without monkey-ing around with the mechanics, it's still a damn sound system.

The problems start to occur when house rules and tweaks are applied to the system (such as ignoring the Survival Rule).

This is one of the main reasons I've dropped my house rules and gone back to CT as-written.

 

[Supplement Four]

Boiling down to essentially 3 paragraphs of simple rules you can memorise. The Across the Bright Face rules are neat, BUT I am not going to create hit location charts for the myriad craft in the Third Imperium.

I agree. I like Slack's stuff too. I said there is more than one way to do it.

Personally, I like either. I mean, you wouldn't have to create hit location charts for every vehicle ever concieved for the Third Imperium. You'd only have to do it for the vehicles important to your next game.

I mean, how long does it take to wing it, making up six items for a hit location chart and deciding how many small arms damage points equal a throw on the chart when you ad lib a vehicle in the middle of a game even if you're not prepared?

In my game, this is actually a "fun" part about it. I might say, "OK, guys, let's make up a quick six item damage chart for the Air/Raft buzzing about..." And, off we'd go, a little table discussion. Somebody scribbles down the quick damage chart. And, we're playing again.

My players actually like this kind of thing. They like the "inclusion", and it doesn't always feel like "it's the GM agains the players" because they had a vote.

The next time we meet an Air/Raft and have combat with it, I might whip out the previous chart we made during the previous game...or I might just make up a new chart. Maybe the air/raft is a different model. Maybe this one doesn't have an open top.

I make the "creativity" of it part of the game.

Either system (Slack's or this one) is fun. Either system is fine. I don't have a lot of vehicle combat in my games, but if I did, I might use Slacks rules for one encounter, and maybe use Across the Bright Face as a pattern for another encounter.

That's the fun of CT, isn't it?

 

[Supplement Four]

I think your abstract interpretations of the Bk1 combat rules are too nebulous for the year they were published.

I disagree. Remember, the most popular rpg of the day was D&D (as it is today), and it had hit points. Look over old magazine articles written during the day. You'll find talk, here and there, about "what hit points mean".

If you fired an arrow at an enemy in D&D, doing 1d6 damage, reducing the hitpoints of your human opponent from 40 hit points to 38 hit points....what happened? Did you really stick an arrow in your opponent?

If so, then why can he move around and act like he's not damaged?

The Traveller system is (and was) very close to this. There's certainly an abstract aspect to it.

That "abstract aspect" leads to GM interpretation, just like it did when I was learning to game rpg's in the 80's.

No, I think you should take credit for this interpretation yourself.

I appreciate that, but it's not my original idea by a long shot. Like I said, it's been around as long as D&D has.

Even in the 70's, when D&D first appeared, a player would swing his longsword, hit, do maximum damage of 8 points, reducing his victim from 30 to 22 points, and wonder, "Why isn't my opponent's life's blood squirting out of him as he dies?"

And, the DM would say, "Because you smacked up against his shield and didn't hit him. But, you do notice he's getting tired, though."

No, I'm not the original thinker of that idea by a long shot.

Your explanations do work from the kind of game standpoint you are comfortable with, my players would certainly struggle to grasp a concept where characters are not 'hit' even when the dice roll say so, but also not 'hit' even when damage is rolled and applied, but also not 'hit' even when that damage reduces them to 0 in a characteristic.

Question, then...

One player fires his AutoPistol, hitting an enemy. He rolls 3D, max damage: 3D = 6,6,6.

Now, the enemy has high stats, and he's been damaged before (so, this isn't subject to the First Blood Rule). The target's original physical stats were: 9D9. After the First Blood Rule was applied in the previous round, they became: 5D9.

So, now, the target takes your max damage from your autopistol shot, applying the damage dice as per the rules: 513.

What happened? What do you explain to your player when he says, "Hey! I just shot that dude with my pistol, doing maximum damage! Why isn't he lying on the pavement?"

What do you say to your player when, about an hour later he runs into the same enemy, and now his stats are fully healed (because the enemy spent some time with a medic)!

How do you explain that to your enthusiastic, down-to-earth players?

 

[Supplement Four]

S4... I always read the auto fire rules as being that a single roll was made for a target (the high DMs taking care of the huge amounts of bullets). Extra rolls are only made for adjacent targets, not the primary target. Am I reading the Bk 1 and Bk 4 rules wrongly?

Yes.

Check out pg. 42 of LBB1. It's the Full Automatic Fire rule. "...fire four round bursts instead of single shots. The higher ammunition usage results in the hit probabilities shown on the table.... In addition, automatic fire allows rolling to hit twice against the same target."

So, if you've got an AutoRifle and fire it semi-automatically, your single shot attack will use the Rifle DMs.

If you fire a four round burst, you use the AutoRifle DMs, and you get to throw twice for attack.



BTW, one thing that is not clear in the rules is the use of the First Blood Rule plus the AutoFire Rule.

One interpretation sees the First Blood Rule applied to only the first attack from a autofire hit. Thus, the AutoRifle burst that hits does 3D damage for the First Blood Rule, and then the second 3D damage is handled normally. This is how I interpret the rule.

Since it's not clear at all in the rules, and there is no example, it can easily be argued that the First Blood Rule is mean to inflict 6D damage from an AutoRifle hit (which is certainly more deadly than my interpretation).

It's up to the GM, and it depends on how deadly he wishes his game to be.

As the vanilla rule reads, I can see either as being "correct".

 

[Supplement Four]

Mithras wrote (in the other thread)...

S4 - I like your return to CT but I hope you are keeping an open mind about the rules as they stand. I played them from 1980 onwards for years, and houserules were necessary I can tell you. By houserules I mean, slight changes to the rules as written - at least to get the gritty kind of game I was after. I don't want to see you slowly turn into a CT evangelist! Someone who reads the LBBs as a Bible without deviation, interpretation or amendment...

I never left CT (I just tweaked it a lot). And, I'm a huge "tweaker", as most people know. But, I only like to tweak "when needed".

I used to see (as many people seem to still do) that CT needed a lot of tweaks to make it "modern". But, examining it closely, it really doesn't need a lot of tweaking at all.

In fact, I think the tweaking is why some people think CT is "broken".

CT is a "system", not just a mechanic. A tweak in character generation (like ignoring the Survival Rule) has huge reprecussions in personal combat (because characters will be higher skilled, on average, than the combat system was designed for).

When we tweak, we don't always look this far "ahead".

There's a nice section on modifying CT on pages 34-35 of Book 0. There, it states, "The rules are interlinked to a great extent. If you change one section, you must also be willing to change all other sections which are then rendered inconsistent."

See, many, many people change chargen and don't think about the problems this will make in combat. Even using the Optional Survival Rule, you'll see things like Book 4 characters easily obtaining Combat Rifleman-3 or higher, when, if you use the original Survival Rule, Book 4 characters will average Combat Rifleman-1.

Yes, I still tweak. But, I think it's important with CT to be a minimalist when it comes to tweaks.

My tweaks?

I'm using Initiative instead of vanilla simultaneous combat. I'm using the Stun Rule. And, I'm enforcing reduced DMs for damaged stats (which is ignored in vanilla CT). And, that's about it.

The rest of the game, I'm using vanilla CT as written.

 

[tbeard1999]

Take a look through Sup 13 Veterans. It says that supplement "contains over two hundred characters generated using the rules in Book 4". How many characters do you see there that are Skill-3 or better?

As you can see, most are Skill-1 or Skill-2.

Since I addressed this exact issue, it's getting hard for me to conclude that you aren't being intentionally obtuse. As I noted, there is no assurance that the characters in Sup 13 were actually generated by the Book 4 character generation system. Indeed, I think it's very unlikely that GDW would spend the man hours necessary to do so -- at 20 minutes per character (I know I've spent longer than that), you're talking about 78 man hours on that alone. Nor is there any evidence that Supplement 13 is a representative sample of *player characters*.

In any case, Supplement 13 is irrelevant; the Book 4 character generation system speaks for itself. And we can simply run the characters through the systems ourselves (and with computers, we can do it *far* faster). And such exercises invariably generate characters with combat rifle skills higher than level 1.

And as I noted, since *every* Book 4 character starts with Combat Rifleman-1, it is patently absurd to claim that the average Book 4 character will have Combat Rifle-1. It is disengenous to ignore the Book 4 character generation system in favor of Supplement 13.

You keep ignoring the effects of damage, and cover, and evasion.

No, I keep noting that these objections are irrelevant to my contentions.

You have not rebuted any of my statistical analyses, nor have you effectively disputed my central point -- it is too easy in CT to produce characters who can automatically wound unarmored targets, and in the case of Book 4 characters and weapons, armored targets.

Your main attempt to rebut this has been to misrepresent the average level of weapon skill in Book 4 character generation. You even attempt to replace Book 4's statistical model with the one in Supplement 13. I am fast losing any interest in continuing this discussion in the face of such tactics.

 

[Supplement Four]

Since I addressed this exact issue, it's getting hard for me to conclude that you aren't being intentionally obtuse.

So, because you addressed it, I'm supposed to take it for fact?

As I've pointed out, you're missing some important aspects of CT with your comments.

As I noted, there is no assurance that the characters in Sup 13 were actually generated by the character generation systems of Book 4 and 5.

You're stating that the direct claim on the book itself that the characters were created using Book 4 is false.

I can believe your "very unlikely" comment, or I can believe GDW's direct claim.

Nor is there any evidence that Supplement 13 is a representative sample of *player characters*.

Pg. 5, second sentence of Sup 13 says, "...may be used as player characters or non-player encounters..."

And we can simply run the characters through the systems ourselves (and with computers, we can do it *far* faster). And such exercises invariably generate characters with combat rifle skills higher than level 1.

I asked, in a previous post, which computer program you're using as everyone I've seen doesn't replicate exactly the chargen method presented in Book 4.

Plus...

In practice, if the Survival Rule is enforced, the tendency will be for players to halt chargen early (not going three terms all the time) for fear of losing their characters.

As I showed above, this is a big limiter in keeping skills low.

Now, sure, if you ignore the Survival Rule, or you use the Optional Survival Rule, you'll munkin the system a bit, resulting in higher level skills, on average, for characters.

Don't forget, though, that Book 4 is designed to use the Survival Rule, and a character must throw up to 4 Survival throws per term using Book 4.

I'm telling ya, because this, your thoughts on characters using Book 4 to reach Skill-3 or higher on a regular basis is plain false.

I don't think you math is incorrect. I just think you're not considering all the variables.

And as I noted, since *every* Book 4 character starts with Combat Rifleman-1, it is patently absurd to claim that the average Book 4 character will have Combat Rifle-1.

It's not absurd at all. In any CT chargen system, it's very likely (more often than not) that a Skill-1 will not be improved.

Is it possible? Heck yeah. Is it common? Nope, not if you follow the rules as written.

You have not rebuted any of my statistical analyses, nor have you effectively disputed my central point -- it is too easy in CT to produce characters who can automatically wound unarmored targets, and in the case of Book 4 characters and weapons, armored targets.

I don't think there's anything wrong with your statistical analyses except that you aren't considering all factors (as your claim that Skill-3 or higher is common with Book 4...that's incorrect).

And, here too, in your comment above, your statistics speak to a character standing out in the open, not taking cover, not evading.

Those targets should be easy to hit and damage.

You're not considering the -4 DM for cover nor the DM for evasion. You're not considering that a 100% chance of a hit does not mean that the target will be damaged to the point where two stats are reduced to zero, inflicted with a serious wound.

In other words, a weapon that has a 100% chance of a hit and only does 5 points of damage against a character with physicals of 777 isn't as big a deal as you're making it out to be. It's akin to a D&D character with 10 hit points taking a blow from a dagger doing 1d4 damage.

Your statistical analysis is just not considering things like that.

That's why I suggested you give me a specific example where you think the rules are not justified.

Let's talk about a specific issue instead of these statistics that don't take into account all aspects of a CT fight.

Your main attempt to rebut this has been to misrepresent the average level of weapon skill in Book 4 character generation. You even attempt to replace Book 4's statistical model with the one in Supplement 13.

I'm not mis-representing anything! As I said, if you've got a program that will run Book 4 as written, then let me see it. I'll run 100 or 1000 or 10,000 characters, and we'll see which of us is more correct.

But, it's got to be a program that is faithful to Book 4. I haven't seen that yet, anywhere on the net.

I am fast losing any interest in continuing this discussion in the face of such tactics.

Sounds like you're getting pissed. I'm just discussing this here. (And, I'm actually enjoying the discussion.) I don't know what you're "reading" in my tone, but believe, from my side, it's just two Traveller gamers discussing an issue.

If you want to drop out of the discussion then so be it.

As for me, I'm just stating my side of things, supporting what I say with examples and official material.

I think your view of CT is a bit crooked, and I was trying to correct that.

Argument is not the point. Friendly discussion of CT is.

 

[Supplement Four]

By resorting to disengenuous arguments and outright misrepresentations? Sorry, not interested.

There is nothing disingenuous about my arguments. I'm very sincere about them.

And, I haven't misrepresented anything.

If you want to go, then go. But, part friends. As I said, I'm just discussing Traveller here. It's nothing to get upset about.

 

[tbeard1999]

There is nothing disingenuous about my arguments. I'm very sincere about them.

And, I haven't misrepresented anything.

If you want to go, then go. But, part friends. As I said, I'm just discussing Traveller here. It's nothing to get upset about.

Perhaps not. I realized that I was overly pissy and deleted my post, but unfortunately you already read it. I apologize for the pissy tone, though I still strongly disagree with you. I will review your arguments with the presumption that they are made in good faith, and respond accordingly.

 

[Supplement Four]

You can't be serious. In all the years I've played Traveller, I have *never* had a player voluntarily halt character generation at two terms. This is a desparate stretch.

Player has rolled a bad-assed character. High Stats. Promotions. Skills every term.

The character goes two terms using Book 4, and he beat 5 survival throws, total.

But, the last one was close.

You've never had a player decide to keep the uber character he has rather than risk him again with survival throws? Another term with Book 4 could mean up to four more survival throws. Odds are, he'll brick one of the rolls...and lose the awesome character he's created, having to start again, from scratch.

When I've enforced the Survival Rule over the 25 years I've been playing Traveller, then I've had a player halt character generation often.

When I've allowed the Optional Survival Rule or used a House Rule Tweak, players will go (almost 100% of the time) three terms or more. Why? Because there's no risk. Bricking the survival throw means keeping that character and ending chargen.

If you enforce the Survival Rule, smart players will have a tendency to stop character generation on their own rather than risking losing the character they like.

But...you've got to enforce the Survival Rule, as Book 4 was written. Failing Survival means that character is dead. Player has to start, anew, with a fresh character.

If you haven't had that happen in 20+ years of gaming Traveller, I'd speculate that you never enforced the Survival Rule properly.

The Survival Rule is a key component to Traveller chargen. It is a neccessary component. It limits skill levels.

 

[Supplement Four]

I will review your arguments with the presumption that they are made in good faith, and respond accordingly.

Sounds good. As I said, I'm enjoying the discussion (and I've enjoyed your point of view in the past).

I assure you, all of my statements in this thread have been made in good faith.

So, I'm looking forward to your response.

 

[tbeard1999]

Sounds good. As I said, I'm enjoying the discussion (and I've enjoyed your point of view in the past).

I assure you, all of my statements in this thread have been made in good faith.

I'm sure they were. I just sorta lost my head in the heat of battle