Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
I'm sure they were. I just sorta lost my head in the heat of battle
No worries.
Discussing the vanilla CT combat system...
- Thread starter Supplement Four
- Start date
No worries.
WJP: Your base assumption of a limit of 2 terms is not in line with any GM I've known, even when character death is enforced.
My experience as a GM is, in fact, just the opposite. Players are more likely to go for more terms in such an environment due to the fact that they percieve such "wimpy" characters as unworthy of being played, and they can just move on to try number two.
The only way I've ever found to get players playing 1 or 2 term characters, in 22+ years of GMing, has been to have them restricted to rolling one character, and converting death to short term. If the one character restriction is lifted, they will reject a character short termed by failed reenlistment (or instead, use brownie points to be retained, since it's pretty low numbers). In if the "One character, unless he dies in generation" is taken, most still go for at least 4 terms. Many will shoot for 5, and most will save brownie points for reenlistment.
To be blunt: your player groups, based upon your descriptions, are severely abnormal by comparison to my own and several others groups.... Your players are content to play "young & dumb" characters, while Ty's appear to be wanting midlevel NCO's or better, and mine want Sergeants Major and Colonels.
The only reason I have a party of 3-termers right now is that I used the point based system in MoTrav.... and I simply fiated that. (And still, one player showed up with a 7 term Navy Chief.)
Traveller has often been described as "Young Guys playing Old Fogies", and while I don't count as old, save to my students and children, almost every party I've seen that isn't an "in service" game has been "old fogies in space".
Given the propensity for gaining CRM within Bk4, it is quite likely that the average PC will in fact be CRM 2-4... Even if "Joe Normal PFC" is CRM 1 and one specialty skill.
My experience as a GM is, in fact, just the opposite. Players are more likely to go for more terms in such an environment due to the fact that they percieve such "wimpy" characters as unworthy of being played, and they can just move on to try number two.
The only way I've ever found to get players playing 1 or 2 term characters, in 22+ years of GMing, has been to have them restricted to rolling one character, and converting death to short term. If the one character restriction is lifted, they will reject a character short termed by failed reenlistment (or instead, use brownie points to be retained, since it's pretty low numbers). In if the "One character, unless he dies in generation" is taken, most still go for at least 4 terms. Many will shoot for 5, and most will save brownie points for reenlistment.
To be blunt: your player groups, based upon your descriptions, are severely abnormal by comparison to my own and several others groups.... Your players are content to play "young & dumb" characters, while Ty's appear to be wanting midlevel NCO's or better, and mine want Sergeants Major and Colonels.
The only reason I have a party of 3-termers right now is that I used the point based system in MoTrav.... and I simply fiated that. (And still, one player showed up with a 7 term Navy Chief.)
Traveller has often been described as "Young Guys playing Old Fogies", and while I don't count as old, save to my students and children, almost every party I've seen that isn't an "in service" game has been "old fogies in space".
Given the propensity for gaining CRM within Bk4, it is quite likely that the average PC will in fact be CRM 2-4... Even if "Joe Normal PFC" is CRM 1 and one specialty skill.
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
I didn't posit a limit of 2 terms. I said the enforcement of the Survival Rule is a limiting factor--that some players will protect characters they like if the risk is that character will be scrapped when a Survival throw is bricked.
I don't disagree with that. Player are more likely to try to get characters they don't like killed by going extra terms.
My players typically play one character, which is why I see them protect the characters they like when I enforce the Survival Rule.
That makes no sense why your players wouldn't go for three terms if you're using the Optional Surival Rule. There's no risk. The risk begins when the ageing table is required. So, with the Optional Survival Rule, three terms and 30 years old is, for most players I would guess, more the norm.
Book 4 doesn't have "Brownie Points". That was added later, in a magazine article for CT, then used in MT.
I suspect your "brownie points" are the reason for this in your experience. If you play Book 4 by-the-book, you don't get brownie points, and with 5 terms, the character could face as many as 20 Survival Throws...and failing any one of them leads to the death of the character.
Odds are, the character won't make it five terms, having to roll 10 Survival Throws (on average).
I suspect because your experience typically includes brownie points and Optional Survival, which will munkin-ize the system a bit, resulting in higher skill levels for the characters.
Try it with a straight, enforced Surival Rule (no brownie points), and see what happens.
Again, the average PC with Combat Rifleman 2-4 only happens when the Optional Survival Rule or Brownie Points or a House Rule is used.
If you play Book 4 as written, by the book, where bricking Survival means character death, and there are no Brownie Points to help you survive...I suspect you'll begin to see that what I claim is true.
(You'll begin to see characters generated akin to what you see in Sup 13...not what you're describing with common Combat Rifleman at Skill-3 or better.)
Last edited:
I have, and it never did. Your experience is abnormal. Only by "force" have I ever had ANYONE play a character with less than three terms, no matter which rules are in force.
I've never had a player willingly play a 1 or 2 term character. I've had players walk rather than play a 1 or 2 term character.
Your argument that it's rare to see significant skills doesn't hold any weight... simply because in my experience, and if I read Ty correctly, his, players won't play short-service characters.
And what is in play by PC's is far MORE important that what "Joe Normal" is in a roleplay context.
And it isn't hard to get CRM 2, and CRM 3 isn't that rare, either.
The irreconcilably high levels of skill in PC's in advanced gen are a problem for the core CT combat system, and are not too hot for AHL/Striker adaptations, either.
ANd it is possible (not likely, but not uncommon, either) to have players generate a 1 term character with CRM2 under Bk 4... It's entirely possible to have a 1st year infantryman with CRM2... Basic is 1 level gun combat, and the MOS Table roll for advanced is a 1/3 chance of gun combat, as well. That means that the Initial Entry Phase Graduate in the Army infantry averages level 1.33.
Given that it is normative to gain at least one extra skill per term, that puts the average infantryman somwhere above that; since 2 tables are available, we'll assume half of them are on the other table, so the 1st term average is 1.5 levels, and the range is 1-3 levels for 1st term infantry.
It is possible (albeit unlikely) to have a 1st term character with 5 levels of CRM: 1 basic (auto), 1 AIT (1/3), & 3 skills rolled in assignments.
I've never had a player willingly play a 1 or 2 term character. I've had players walk rather than play a 1 or 2 term character.
Your argument that it's rare to see significant skills doesn't hold any weight... simply because in my experience, and if I read Ty correctly, his, players won't play short-service characters.
And what is in play by PC's is far MORE important that what "Joe Normal" is in a roleplay context.
And it isn't hard to get CRM 2, and CRM 3 isn't that rare, either.
The irreconcilably high levels of skill in PC's in advanced gen are a problem for the core CT combat system, and are not too hot for AHL/Striker adaptations, either.
ANd it is possible (not likely, but not uncommon, either) to have players generate a 1 term character with CRM2 under Bk 4... It's entirely possible to have a 1st year infantryman with CRM2... Basic is 1 level gun combat, and the MOS Table roll for advanced is a 1/3 chance of gun combat, as well. That means that the Initial Entry Phase Graduate in the Army infantry averages level 1.33.
Given that it is normative to gain at least one extra skill per term, that puts the average infantryman somwhere above that; since 2 tables are available, we'll assume half of them are on the other table, so the 1st term average is 1.5 levels, and the range is 1-3 levels for 1st term infantry.
It is possible (albeit unlikely) to have a 1st term character with 5 levels of CRM: 1 basic (auto), 1 AIT (1/3), & 3 skills rolled in assignments.
Last edited:
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
According to Sup 13, those few hundred characters were created using Book 4. Take a look at those characters and tell me that you think Combat Rifleman-3 "isn't that rare".
You can barely find a CRM-3 character among the couple hundred characters generated.
I'd say that's some pretty strong evidence that I'm correct and what you say above is not.
If you follow the rules as written, you don't get this skill bloat.
I agree, if you use Brownie Points, or the Optional Surival Rule, or some other House Rule, then you'll get the problem you cite above.
That problem is not there if you use the rules as written.
Absolutely. I never said it wasn't.
Look earlier in the thread. I generated a two-term Marine with Combat Rifleman-4.
But, I was also very "hot" on the dice (I created him by hand). I targeted the Combat Rifleman skill, and I rolled 6 times on the table that gave the character the best chance of getting Combat Rifleman. Even then, I needed a 1 on a 6 sider.
So, I rolled 6 times on the table, and rolled a "1" to get the skill half of the time. That's statistically not probable, but I did it.
That's what's cool about the CT system. Typically, you'll get a character with Skill-1 or Skill-2 skills. But, there's room for gaining a highly skilled character too (although not likely).
It's a good system. That's what I've been saying.
I do agree the true average for skills with Book 4 characters is somewhere higher than Skill-1 and somewhere lower than Skill-2. Chosing either Skill-1 or Skill-2 as a primary main skill is not bad guess at all.
What about what I've been writing makes you think I don't know the possibilities of the CT systems?
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
BTW, Aramis, this uber character I rolled up earlier is a good example of why a smart player would end character generation early.
After two terms, using Book 4 by-the-book (and rolling very hot), the character ended up like this:
Marine Sergeant, 26 years old, with 5,000Cr.
8C7C75
Combat Rifleman-4, Heavy Weapons-2, Computer-1, BattleDress-1, Electronics-1
Had this character gone another term, he'd face a potential four extra Survival Throws. Statistically, he's face an average of two more Survival Throws.
Any failure on any one Surival throw means this neat character with the whopping Combat Rifleman-4 will be deceased.
What's the chance a character with those stats and a Skill-4 skill will be generated? Not likely.
So, a player has a decision to make. Risk killing a fairly powerful character in order to gain more skills. Or, take the character as-is, end chargen, and play him like this.
The smarter play is to end character generation while you're ahead.
You see, the big difference between Basic and Advanced Character Generation is the number skills awarded on average. Typically, the Advanced Character will have more skills.
But, this is actually balanced out by the Surival Rule. The Basic character only has to face one Survival throw per term, thus the Basic character will typically go a bit longer than an Advanced Character.
The Advanced Characters get more skills, but they also have to face a lot more Survival throws.
If you use Brownie Points or the Optional Survival Rule, Basic and Advanced characters are no longer balanced...because you amended the rule that balances them.
It's very important, in CT, to enforce the Survival Rule and not allow House Rules, Brownie Points, or the Optional Surival Rule that modify it.
If you do, you end up with the skill bloat tasking the 2D mechanics system you mentioned in the post above.
After two terms, using Book 4 by-the-book (and rolling very hot), the character ended up like this:
Marine Sergeant, 26 years old, with 5,000Cr.
8C7C75
Combat Rifleman-4, Heavy Weapons-2, Computer-1, BattleDress-1, Electronics-1
Had this character gone another term, he'd face a potential four extra Survival Throws. Statistically, he's face an average of two more Survival Throws.
Any failure on any one Surival throw means this neat character with the whopping Combat Rifleman-4 will be deceased.
What's the chance a character with those stats and a Skill-4 skill will be generated? Not likely.
So, a player has a decision to make. Risk killing a fairly powerful character in order to gain more skills. Or, take the character as-is, end chargen, and play him like this.
The smarter play is to end character generation while you're ahead.
You see, the big difference between Basic and Advanced Character Generation is the number skills awarded on average. Typically, the Advanced Character will have more skills.
But, this is actually balanced out by the Surival Rule. The Basic character only has to face one Survival throw per term, thus the Basic character will typically go a bit longer than an Advanced Character.
The Advanced Characters get more skills, but they also have to face a lot more Survival throws.
If you use Brownie Points or the Optional Survival Rule, Basic and Advanced characters are no longer balanced...because you amended the rule that balances them.
It's very important, in CT, to enforce the Survival Rule and not allow House Rules, Brownie Points, or the Optional Surival Rule that modify it.
If you do, you end up with the skill bloat tasking the 2D mechanics system you mentioned in the post above.
The D&D rules don't mention such abstractions, but took it literally and the bloated HP count represented heroes of film and literature lasting through to the final reel. HP work extremely well in creating that. So, the arrow did a flesh wound. That's our reasoning, or the guy is just tough!
But CT isn't D&D, our heroes are 'realistic' and not fantasy heroes suffering damage and endless combats to get to the treasure.
In your Autopistol example? I don't know, I'd probably describe it as a lucky escape from a potentially fatal gunshot wound, not "you hit the deck and get grit in your knees".
It seems to me that staying in any service just to rack up skill levels is pure munchkinism. Also, the limit of int+ed is also a cap on skill levels making multiple terms useless. At some point, the player is going to have to decide what skill to keep and what skill to toss....AND have to make up a story as to why the player dropped one skill in favor of another. So what if a player has CRM-2 or even 6?..with this limit, it just means he propbably sucks at other things.
I no longer have CT rules, so I don't know if this limit was in them. If not, then maybe the int+edu limit was to prevent such skill-hoarding.
my .02
I no longer have CT rules, so I don't know if this limit was in them. If not, then maybe the int+edu limit was to prevent such skill-hoarding.
my .02
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
So, in D&D, a guy with 40 hit points, hit 20 times by 20 arrow hits, doing a total of 30 points of damage (1d6 each). In your game, this hero is walking around like a porkupine pin-cushion with 20 arrows in him?
There is some truth there. CT is more realistic than fantasy D&D, but it's still unrealistic in areas. There is still an abstract quality to CT damage.
For example, the average weapon does 3D damage, right? The average of 3D is 10 points of damage. The physicals of an average character is 777. Apply the first blood rule, and what happens, on average?
The character is knocked unconscious for 10 minutes, but is completely healed in 30 minutes if he sees a medic (not a doctor).
Does that reflect realistic gunshot damage based on what we know of the real world?
Of course not. It's a game design decision made to keep player characters alive, just like hit points in D&D. It just does it a little differently. It's a different mechanic.
Well, then you're doing exactly what I'm advocating! You said your group wouldn't accept that.
See what you did? The AutoPistol shot, with a 100% chance to hit, doing maximum damage, did not end up being a gunshot wound by your own description.
That's the way abstract damage works. It's up to GM interpretation.
Me? I'd probably call it a graze since the damage was so good. "You see a short spray of blood as your...you think your bullet grazed his shoulder. You're not sure, but there might have been a small piece of skin that disconnected itself from your enemy. In any case, you see him favor his arm and disappear around the corner..."
Last edited:
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
Ah...another great point. I wasn't thinking about that one.
The CT system is just that. It's a system with very intricate parts.
The Experience Limit...the Survival Rule...these are all designed to balance the game. GMs that ignore them, ignore them at their own peril, doing damage to the game that they don't realize.
Sure, players are happy when these rules are tweaked. They get characters with higher skills. Then, at some point, an intelligent GM looks at his game and realizes the stress he's put on the 2D6 system...he complains about how unrealistic the system is, espeically with automatic weapons (when it's not uncommon for his PCs to get Skill-3 or better).
The GM has to realize that he created that problem by ignoring some of the CT rules that were put into place to limit characters and keep the entire game system balanced.
If a GM is using LBB1 Basic Chargen, and his characters don't look like those presented in 1001 Characters, then he's not following the rules correctly.
Likewise, if a GM is using LBB4 Advanced Chargen, and his characters don't look like those presented in Sup 13 Veterans, then he's not following the rules correctly either.
Also, a character will be more successful rasing low skills to a higher point than continuing to raise a single skill. Skill-3 is a good target. After Skill-3, the law of diminishing returns kicks in.
So, a character with Skill-3, Skill-2, and Skill-1 is a much better way to go than a Skill-6 character. If the Skill-3 is the same skill as the Skill-6, they'll both, typicaly, always be successful on their throws.
It's in there.
tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
Supplement Four, I've reviewed your arguments in favor of the CT combat system.
First, I yield to no man in my admiration for CT. In ~72 printed pages, MM gave us the tools to allow us to run a RPG in any time and in any place. That accomplishment has never been equalled. But the game is 30 years old and some design decisions have aged better than others. Additions were made that I feel were poorly conceived that broke some systems. The CT combat system is the system that broke in my opinion. So here are my critiques:
1. Unarmored Characters Are Too Easy To Wound In CT
I have agreed that the system works reasonably well with CT characters and CT weapons. I don't care for the fact that unarmored characters can be hit with most weapons virtually automatically. In my mind, evading doesn't alter this calculus for two reasons. First, the evading modifier is only -1 or -2 at most combat ranges. This is will barely offset the +1 or +2 that characters typically get from weapons skills and/or DEX modifiers. Second, an evading character does not get to shoot back. So your characterization of an unarmored character as standing in the open, defenseless, does not fairly describe the condition. He may simply be returning fire.
Accounts of real world gunfights supoprt my contention that CT greatly overstates weapon accuracy. In the famous Gunfight at the OK Corral, about 25 shots were fired, mostly from pistols at 10 feet or less. There were 9 hits (not including the shotgun blast that hit Tom McClaury), implying an overall hit rate of about 40%. However, the real "to hit" percentage might be lower, as Billy Clanton was hit 5 times in rapid succession (he probably wasn't dodging effectively after the first hit) and Tom McClaury was shot once while collapsing from the shotgun blast. So the real hit proportion might have been as low as 20%. In CT these men would have hit their target 83% of the time (5+ on 2d), before adding any skill or advantageous DEX modifiers. Assuming that they had skill levels of 1, they'd hit 92% of the time, or 2-4 times as often as they did historically.
Frank Chadwick, in "Lethality in Roleplaying Small Arms Systems", analyzed a number of very close range gun battles (revolvers and shotguns) between US police and Mexican gangs on the US/Mexico border. The police fired 90 shots and hit with 29. So well-trained officers (surely pistol-2 on average, hit about 33% of the time). Their CT counterparts would have hit 3 times as often.
Nor does your appeal to the purported "abstractness" of CT weapon damage seem to help. In fact, the evidence supports the CT damage system in that most bullet wounds don't kill the target. Billy Clanton died after taking 5 wounds (though he might have died from fewer wounds). Tom McLaury was mortally wounded by a shotgun blast to the chest. Morgan and Virgil Earp were hit by one bullet each and wounded. Doc Holliday was grazed by one bullet. So, no one at the OK Corral died from a single bullet wound.
Chadwick's article has similar statistics. A "...total of fifteen officers and suspects were wounded ...and they were hit by a total of 32 bullets. Most of the injured men were struck by a single bullet; four were struck by multiple bullets, and of these one was struck by eight bullets. Of these fifteen casualties, 2 were killed almost instantly while the other thirteen survived and recovered." This means that 32 hits only killed 2 men. CT's damage model would probably yield the same results (through statistically rare combinations of very high damage rolls and very low attribute totals). So it appears that CT's damage model holds up fairly well, statistically. Thus, your abstraction argument is an unnecessary gloss -- the system performs adequately if we assume that is not highly "abstracted".
As an aside, the system fails in its depiction of the effects of multiple wounds. As Chadwick says, "[a]ll of those who suffered multiple gunshot wounds recovered. That is, none of the fatalities were caused by a cumulative build-up of trauma, but rather were due to a single, almost instantly fatal, wound." In terms of fatality, only 1 of the 11 chest wounds were fatal (!), the single head wound was fatal, and none of the 4 abdomen wounds were fatal. However, all hit point systems fail this test and I can certainly see the case for hit points -- they are a resource management issue for players.
So at the end of the day, it seems clear to me that unarmored characters are unreasonably vulnerable in the CT combat system.
However, it is easy to address this -- simply put everyone in cloth armor. If a referee is comfortable with this solution, then this problem is solved.
2. Book 4 Characters Can Often Get Skill Levels High Enough To Hit Cloth Armored Targets Most of the Time
As noted earlier, a +4 or +5 modifier will result in Cloth being penetrated almost all the time on average. There are 4 ways that Book 4 characters can access high modifiers.
A. Book 4 characters average about twice as many skills on average as their CT counterparts. This fact alone means that they will average twice the weapon skill, all else being equal.
B. Most useful weapons are available with a single skill, Combat Rifleman. Thus, a well rounded CT character with 3 levels of gun combat skill will have to divide them among Rifle, Automatic Rifle, and Carbine. But his Book 4 counterpart gets a level 3 (or 6) in all of them (and also in SMG, assault rifle, ACR and Gauss Rifle). In my experience, buttressed by recent experiments, the average Cbt Rifleman skill is about 3 for characters that serve 3-4 terms.
C. Book 4 weapons like the ACR have alarmingly high to hit modifiers against cloth armored targets -- +2 and +7 at medium range. So such weapons will almost invariably result in nearly automatic hits on armored targets.
D. Book 4 weapons like the ACR, assault rifle and gauss rifle have +2 to hit modifiers for a DEX of 8+. That means that around half of the characters will have +2 with such weapons.
So at then of the trail, it looks to me like the combination of twice as many skills and including lots of weapons in Cbt Rifle will result in skill levels of 3+ quite often. As many as half the characters will have DEXs of 8+, giving an additional +2 modifiers. And ACRs and Gauss Rifles completely break the bank.
You respond that the average Book 4 skill levels are far lower, and use Supplement 13 to support your argument. The problem with this argument is that there is no guarantee that Supplement 13 characters are representative of player characters generated by Book 4. There might be a number of characters that are mustered out early, to provide younger NPCs, for instance. Nor is it necessary to invoke Supplement 13, as the Book 4 system stands on its own and can be tested. My own experience and recent tests prove conclusively to me that Cbt Rifleman skills are very common with Book 4 characters. I am unable to explain why your experience is so different.
You also claim that characters are unlikely to get high skill levels because they'll muster out early to preserve their high skill levels. Do you see the logical problem with this argument?
And in 27 years of playing Traveller (and yes, enforcing the survival rule for a lot of that time) I have never had a player voluntarily muster out at the end of the second term. Nor has an equally experienced DM buddy of mine. Again, I am unable to explain why your experience is so different. I am convinced that you have a very atypical group.
Nor does limiting skill levels to INT + EDU help. CT characters get at most 4 skills in the first term and 1-2 each successive term. It would take a CT character 6-10 terms to get 14 skill levels (average INT + EDU). In a "normal" 3-4 term career, the Book 4 characters will get and keep twice as many skills as their CT counterparts.
3. The CT Combat System makes it difficult to add new weaponry and armors.
Because of the fact that each weapon has separate range and armor models, it's quite a hassle to add new weapons, other than by the bland "Cloth +1" or "Revolver -1" approach. If the combat system delivered a tremendous benefit in some other way, I might be willing to keep it. But it really doesn't provide any great benefits to me.
Of course, you might well find the variety of weapons in CT perfectly adequate for your needs, so YMMV.
4. Vehicles cannot be easily integrated into the CT combat system.
Granted that Andy Slack's rules are a valiant attempt to do that, but the result is still quite a kludge when compared with Striker or Megatraveller. Again, if the combat system delivered a tremendous benefit in some other way, I might be willing to keep it. But it really doesn't provide any great benefits to me.
So despite your spirited and eloquent defense of the CT combat system, I just don't find enough benefits to outweigh its defects. To the extent that you agree with my tastes, you should agree with my criticisms. The reverse is true of course.
On factual issues like the relative frequency of skill levels, I'm not interested in further debate. It's clear to me that my mind is made up on this.
Now, if I *had* to keep it, I'd fix it this way:
1. Reduce DEX mods to +1 and make them available at DEX 10.
2. Reduce all positive to hit modifiers on the weapons chart to +1. This will give unarmored targets a chance in combat. Or, just put everyone in Cloth.
3. Eliminate Combat Rifleman skill and use the CT gun combat skill rules. Limit Book 4 characters to the same *number* of skills as Book 1 characters. The player discards excess skills each term (his choice).
4. Make burst modifiers for the assault rifle, ACR and Gauss Rifle +1 over the single shot modifier.
But I'd rather use my combat system. It works better for me. How could it be otherwise? I designed it for me.
First, I yield to no man in my admiration for CT. In ~72 printed pages, MM gave us the tools to allow us to run a RPG in any time and in any place. That accomplishment has never been equalled. But the game is 30 years old and some design decisions have aged better than others. Additions were made that I feel were poorly conceived that broke some systems. The CT combat system is the system that broke in my opinion. So here are my critiques:
1. Unarmored Characters Are Too Easy To Wound In CT
I have agreed that the system works reasonably well with CT characters and CT weapons. I don't care for the fact that unarmored characters can be hit with most weapons virtually automatically. In my mind, evading doesn't alter this calculus for two reasons. First, the evading modifier is only -1 or -2 at most combat ranges. This is will barely offset the +1 or +2 that characters typically get from weapons skills and/or DEX modifiers. Second, an evading character does not get to shoot back. So your characterization of an unarmored character as standing in the open, defenseless, does not fairly describe the condition. He may simply be returning fire.
Accounts of real world gunfights supoprt my contention that CT greatly overstates weapon accuracy. In the famous Gunfight at the OK Corral, about 25 shots were fired, mostly from pistols at 10 feet or less. There were 9 hits (not including the shotgun blast that hit Tom McClaury), implying an overall hit rate of about 40%. However, the real "to hit" percentage might be lower, as Billy Clanton was hit 5 times in rapid succession (he probably wasn't dodging effectively after the first hit) and Tom McClaury was shot once while collapsing from the shotgun blast. So the real hit proportion might have been as low as 20%. In CT these men would have hit their target 83% of the time (5+ on 2d), before adding any skill or advantageous DEX modifiers. Assuming that they had skill levels of 1, they'd hit 92% of the time, or 2-4 times as often as they did historically.
Frank Chadwick, in "Lethality in Roleplaying Small Arms Systems", analyzed a number of very close range gun battles (revolvers and shotguns) between US police and Mexican gangs on the US/Mexico border. The police fired 90 shots and hit with 29. So well-trained officers (surely pistol-2 on average, hit about 33% of the time). Their CT counterparts would have hit 3 times as often.
Nor does your appeal to the purported "abstractness" of CT weapon damage seem to help. In fact, the evidence supports the CT damage system in that most bullet wounds don't kill the target. Billy Clanton died after taking 5 wounds (though he might have died from fewer wounds). Tom McLaury was mortally wounded by a shotgun blast to the chest. Morgan and Virgil Earp were hit by one bullet each and wounded. Doc Holliday was grazed by one bullet. So, no one at the OK Corral died from a single bullet wound.
Chadwick's article has similar statistics. A "...total of fifteen officers and suspects were wounded ...and they were hit by a total of 32 bullets. Most of the injured men were struck by a single bullet; four were struck by multiple bullets, and of these one was struck by eight bullets. Of these fifteen casualties, 2 were killed almost instantly while the other thirteen survived and recovered." This means that 32 hits only killed 2 men. CT's damage model would probably yield the same results (through statistically rare combinations of very high damage rolls and very low attribute totals). So it appears that CT's damage model holds up fairly well, statistically. Thus, your abstraction argument is an unnecessary gloss -- the system performs adequately if we assume that is not highly "abstracted".
As an aside, the system fails in its depiction of the effects of multiple wounds. As Chadwick says, "[a]ll of those who suffered multiple gunshot wounds recovered. That is, none of the fatalities were caused by a cumulative build-up of trauma, but rather were due to a single, almost instantly fatal, wound." In terms of fatality, only 1 of the 11 chest wounds were fatal (!), the single head wound was fatal, and none of the 4 abdomen wounds were fatal. However, all hit point systems fail this test and I can certainly see the case for hit points -- they are a resource management issue for players.
So at the end of the day, it seems clear to me that unarmored characters are unreasonably vulnerable in the CT combat system.
However, it is easy to address this -- simply put everyone in cloth armor. If a referee is comfortable with this solution, then this problem is solved.
2. Book 4 Characters Can Often Get Skill Levels High Enough To Hit Cloth Armored Targets Most of the Time
As noted earlier, a +4 or +5 modifier will result in Cloth being penetrated almost all the time on average. There are 4 ways that Book 4 characters can access high modifiers.
A. Book 4 characters average about twice as many skills on average as their CT counterparts. This fact alone means that they will average twice the weapon skill, all else being equal.
B. Most useful weapons are available with a single skill, Combat Rifleman. Thus, a well rounded CT character with 3 levels of gun combat skill will have to divide them among Rifle, Automatic Rifle, and Carbine. But his Book 4 counterpart gets a level 3 (or 6) in all of them (and also in SMG, assault rifle, ACR and Gauss Rifle). In my experience, buttressed by recent experiments, the average Cbt Rifleman skill is about 3 for characters that serve 3-4 terms.
C. Book 4 weapons like the ACR have alarmingly high to hit modifiers against cloth armored targets -- +2 and +7 at medium range. So such weapons will almost invariably result in nearly automatic hits on armored targets.
D. Book 4 weapons like the ACR, assault rifle and gauss rifle have +2 to hit modifiers for a DEX of 8+. That means that around half of the characters will have +2 with such weapons.
So at then of the trail, it looks to me like the combination of twice as many skills and including lots of weapons in Cbt Rifle will result in skill levels of 3+ quite often. As many as half the characters will have DEXs of 8+, giving an additional +2 modifiers. And ACRs and Gauss Rifles completely break the bank.
You respond that the average Book 4 skill levels are far lower, and use Supplement 13 to support your argument. The problem with this argument is that there is no guarantee that Supplement 13 characters are representative of player characters generated by Book 4. There might be a number of characters that are mustered out early, to provide younger NPCs, for instance. Nor is it necessary to invoke Supplement 13, as the Book 4 system stands on its own and can be tested. My own experience and recent tests prove conclusively to me that Cbt Rifleman skills are very common with Book 4 characters. I am unable to explain why your experience is so different.
You also claim that characters are unlikely to get high skill levels because they'll muster out early to preserve their high skill levels. Do you see the logical problem with this argument?
And in 27 years of playing Traveller (and yes, enforcing the survival rule for a lot of that time) I have never had a player voluntarily muster out at the end of the second term. Nor has an equally experienced DM buddy of mine. Again, I am unable to explain why your experience is so different. I am convinced that you have a very atypical group.
Nor does limiting skill levels to INT + EDU help. CT characters get at most 4 skills in the first term and 1-2 each successive term. It would take a CT character 6-10 terms to get 14 skill levels (average INT + EDU). In a "normal" 3-4 term career, the Book 4 characters will get and keep twice as many skills as their CT counterparts.
3. The CT Combat System makes it difficult to add new weaponry and armors.
Because of the fact that each weapon has separate range and armor models, it's quite a hassle to add new weapons, other than by the bland "Cloth +1" or "Revolver -1" approach. If the combat system delivered a tremendous benefit in some other way, I might be willing to keep it. But it really doesn't provide any great benefits to me.
Of course, you might well find the variety of weapons in CT perfectly adequate for your needs, so YMMV.
4. Vehicles cannot be easily integrated into the CT combat system.
Granted that Andy Slack's rules are a valiant attempt to do that, but the result is still quite a kludge when compared with Striker or Megatraveller. Again, if the combat system delivered a tremendous benefit in some other way, I might be willing to keep it. But it really doesn't provide any great benefits to me.
So despite your spirited and eloquent defense of the CT combat system, I just don't find enough benefits to outweigh its defects. To the extent that you agree with my tastes, you should agree with my criticisms. The reverse is true of course.
On factual issues like the relative frequency of skill levels, I'm not interested in further debate. It's clear to me that my mind is made up on this.
Now, if I *had* to keep it, I'd fix it this way:
1. Reduce DEX mods to +1 and make them available at DEX 10.
2. Reduce all positive to hit modifiers on the weapons chart to +1. This will give unarmored targets a chance in combat. Or, just put everyone in Cloth.
3. Eliminate Combat Rifleman skill and use the CT gun combat skill rules. Limit Book 4 characters to the same *number* of skills as Book 1 characters. The player discards excess skills each term (his choice).
4. Make burst modifiers for the assault rifle, ACR and Gauss Rifle +1 over the single shot modifier.
But I'd rather use my combat system. It works better for me. How could it be otherwise? I designed it for me.
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
Cool. Well then, let's see what cha got...
Ditto for me (goes without saying).
I've read that too. And, some other stuff.
One thing you're not considering, though...as I said before. Damage.
Any damage that does not take two stats to zero is considered Minor damage that can be healed, if attended by a nurse or paramedic (not a doctor), in 30 minutes.
I'll ask you something I asked another poster earlier in the thread.
You've got an AutoPistol. DMs work out to where there is a 100% chance to hit with +6 on the dice. Maximum Damage is thrown: 3D = 6,6,6. The target has already suffered a First Blood wound this fight, and his current stats are 5D9.
The defender takes the damage in the normal fashion, reducing his stats to 513.
The Medic-1 crewmember from the dude's ship attends him.
And...half an hour later, this dude is at full stats, walking around like nothing happened.
...100% chance to hit.
...Max Damage rolled.
...Target undamaged in half an hour.
Now, you tell me...was this guy shot?
Or...or we dealing with a damage system that has an abstract side to it?
tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
Obviously, every RPG is abstracted to some degree. I just don't see how claiming damage is "abstracted" somehow solves the problem.
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
I don't think it's necessary, but if you want what I think would be a better "fix" to what you perceive as a problem, then consider simply upping the Range DMs a bit.
That would make the to-hit much harder, and the DM would make a lot more sense than having people in Cloth armor all the time.
Do something like this (off the top of my head): -1 DM to targets at Close Range; -2 DM to Short Range; -4 DM to Medium Range; -8 DM to Long Range.
Or: 0 at Close, -1 at Short, -2 at Medium, -4 at Long.
Or...something like that. You'll have to play with the numbers a bit to get them where you want them.
Easy fix, though, to the "problem" you see with the system.
Average about twice? I'm not sure I'd agree with that. I do think Book 4 gives more skills, but I wouldn't say twice.
Compare Sup 13 with 1001 Characters. It's not twice.
You keep forgetting that Book 4 characters have to face up to 4 times as many Survival Throws as Book 1 characters.
So, what you end up with is Book 4 characters gaining more skills per term than Book 1 characters, but Book 1 characters tend to go more terms.
An analysis of Sup 13 and 1001 Characters will bear me out on this.
And...you used the program that doesn't replicate Book 4 rules very well, too, didn't you.
I mean, what do you want? Supplement 13 clearly states that the Book 4 character generation system was used.
You're disputing that. You're saying that claim is false. But, the book does say exactly that Book 4 chargen was used.
And, it does clearly state that the characters contained therein are suitable for use as player characters.
The book says both of those things. I've quoted it to you verbatim earlier in the thread.
I can only shrug at this. You keep disputing the Book's blatant claim.
I can only guess that you weren't running Book 4 as-written. When I generate Book 4 characters (and I go "by the book"), they look like the ones in Sup 13.
Likewise, when I generate Book 1 characters by the book, they look like the ones in 1001 Characters.
In other words, when I run through the generation systems, using the correct rules, Sup 13 and 1001 Characters are very representative of what the system generates.
If you aren't generating characters like that, then you're not following the rules closely enough.
When I generated the two Mercenary characters the other day, the Marine had a 1-in-6 chance of getting Combat Rifleman if he rolled good enough for a skill during the term.
That's because I followed the rules and used the +1 DM because the character was from a TL 12+ homeworld.
Not if you play the Survival Rule correctly. Not if you enforce the Experience Limit.
See...I think you're not enforcing these important rules when going through chargen.
If a character rolls hot, like I did with the Marine the other day, getting a Combat Rifleman-4 by the end of term 2, why would the player risk killing that charcter in Term 3?
On the next character, he might not even get into the Marines!
Why would a player risk it?
If he did get into the Marines, he might not have the high stats I rolled the first time around...or he might end up with a character with Combat Rifleman-1.
See...your statement above tells me you haven't been running Traveller Chargen as written.
A player that wants to play a Marine doesn't automatically get to play him...he's got to roll enlistment. A player with a character he likes will cease character generation if the Survival Rule is enforced, because the next character may not be to his liking as much.
Now, if you're talking about altering the CT chargen rules by (A) letting players play characters they want rather than what they roll; or (B) you're ignoring or modifying the Survival Rule or the Experience Limit; then, I do understand where you're coming from above.
But, you've got to understand, the problems you cite with CT don't exist if you don't monkey around with those important rules.
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
How it relates to your perceived problem is that it changes your "givens" in the things you state as fact.
For example, you say that CT has a lot of situations where there is a 100% chance of a person shooting a target.
Well, I've pointed out that a 100% chance of being successful on the to-hit dice does not mean that the weapon has a 100% chance inflicting a gunshot wound.
You can't think of the to-hit roll as a successful gunshot wound on a victim each and every time. It's abstract. It's just like a longsword "hitting" a D&D character without rendering the defender to zero hit points.
The longsword blow that reduces a 40 hit point defender to 35 points is no more a deep cut into the victim than a gauss rifle shot that reduces a character with 777 physicals with total damage of 4 points.
It's the damage that describes what happens to the victim in both D&D and Traveller. It's not the "hit".
Going back to your statement above, that's how the abstract system "solves the problem".
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
See..I don't understand this at all.
You've got several different armor types in CT to use as a "base". Penetration on these base armor types is represented by the DMs used based on weapon and ammo type.
What's so hard about picking the base armor type that is closest to what you want to add to the game, and then modifying it, up or down, from there?
Let's say you want to add stormtrooper armor from Star Wars to your game. You look at the base armor types and chose one to begin with.
I'll pick Combat Armor, because, in reading the description, it's the closest to stormtrooper armor. Now, stormtrooper armor seems a bit "lite" to me, so I'll make the armor weaker. Let's call it Combat Armor +2.
Boom. All done.
If you want to get a little more detailed about it, you could say something like: Stormtrooper Armor serves as Combat Armor +2, except with regard to lasers. That way, the armor is less resistant to slug throwers but keeps its full protection against lasers.
Or, whatever.
The point is, I just made this up, the the amount of time it took me to type this, and I'm done.
So, I don't understand why you think it's difficult to add things to the CT combat system.
Ever read LKW's process in JTAS to create a laser pistol? Take a base in the game. Make some assumptions. Boom, you're done in a couple of minutes.
You can do it in the middle of a game and never break stride.
"Hey, this company is known for its sniper rifles!" Then simply allow a +1 DM at Long Range with the sniper rifle in question..all other stats stay the same.
Why is that hard?
Last edited:
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
Again, I don't understand. There are loads of ways to handle vehicles in CT.
You've mentioned two.
Striker can easily be used as a vehicle combat system for CT.
Andy Slack's rules aren't a bad choice.
There's the system used in Across the Bright Face. That one works well. I like it.
You can use something like what is described under the Ship's Boat skill....or what is described under the Air/Raft skill. Both of those methods would work fine.
Or...
Or...
Why not just play it using the vanilla Traveller rules?
Use Range Bands to keep track of distance. Just like a character on foot can change distance each round (close a band and such), then just transpose that to vehicles.
If you've got two vehicles, out on the open road, in a chase, with the PCs firing at the bad guys in the other vehicle, why not just run it as you would a foot chase?
If one vehicle as significant performance characteristics that give it an advantage over the other vehicle, then simply give it an advantageous DM when necessary. A +2 DM works well.
So...(and this is straight off the top of my head)...
1. Use the Range Band rules to keep track of distance between the vehicles as described in the Traveller rules.
2. Each round, the characters in both vehicles can fire at each other.
3. Throw in some obstacles that need to be overcome with Driving checks every so often.
4. And, if you want, quickly make up a six item Damage Chart for each vehicle (tires shot out, engine block holed, gas tank punctured...things like that). Either make the vehicle hard to hit (really, it's hard to damage) with small arms, or take a que from Across the Bright Face and rule that every X amount of points of small arms damage allows a throw on the vehicle's damage chart.
And...that's it. You've got a vehicle combat system...and a rip-roaring good time at the gaming table!
(You know, I write things like this, and I wonder: When did GMs get snowed into thinking everything had to come with official rules that can be looked up in a book somewhere? ...???
What happened to the creativity???)
Last edited:
tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
Hadn't considered that, but I don't know why it would be better than addressing the problem where it exists. The issue is that guns are unreasonably lethal against unarmored targets and Book 4 characters and weapons are unreasonably lethal against armored targets. Seems to me that the simplest and most effective approach is to deal with the armor modifiers.
Then we disagree. I'm not interested in debating the point.
Since I do not consider Supp 13 or 1001 Characters to be representative of PCs generated by Books 1 and 4, I see no reason to waste time doing this. The statistical qualities of Books 1 and 4 are easy to analyze and it's trivial to generate characters in both systems and compare them.
In any case, the fact that Cbt Rifleman covers the same ground as FIVE different CT skills (rifle, assault rifle, ACR, Gauss Rifle and carbine) allows a Book 4 character to easily concentrate gun combat skill levels. (I always allow autorifle to work with Cbt Rifleman on the basis that the M-14 is listed as a real world equivalent to the autorifle).
But really, appeals to 1001 Characters, Supplement 13 or any other lst of pregenerated characters is wasted on me.
In the case of the Army, the difference is noticeable, but not gigantic. 83% of Traveller characters will have an EDU of 5+, which gives a +2 to Army survival rolls in Book 1. So most Book 1 Army characters will survive a term on a 3+ (97%).
Book 4 is more complex.
On 1-2 assignments, the character will draw garrison, which is an automatic success. On 2-3 assignments, the character will draw a survival roll of 4+ or 5+. It isn't too hard to get 2 levels in an MOS skill (a character starts with one level, and possinly two), so I'll assume the +1 survival modifier. The dangerous Raid comes once per 3 terms statistically. But even it is a 6+ success (5+ for MOS skill). About 1 year per term, officers will go to a school, with no survival roll (and often the chance for 2-5 skills). After a tedious series of calculations, it looks to me like the average army infantryman in Book 4 will survive about 90% of the time each term.
A Book 4 character will last 4 terms about 66% of the time, a Book 1 character will last 4 terms about 88% of the time. Given that the sole penalty for dying in character generation is that you must roll a new character, only a fool would choose Book 1 over Book 4 for Army characters.
Marines are more interesting. Book 1 Marines survive 72% of the time. An END of 8+ gets a +2, so I'll assume no modifier. Book 4 Marine life is more dangerous due to having Ship's Troops assignments instead of several Garrison assignments. They survive each 4 year term about 87% of the time.
So Marine life is actually more dangerous in Book 1 than in Book 2 for most Marines. Even if the END 8+ modifier is applied, the mortality as about the same (91% vs 87%). Again, only a fool would select Book 1 over Book 4 (assuming he knew the probabilities).
Certainly, no knowledgable player in my campaign has ever picked Book 1 over Book 4 (or 5 or 6).
Last edited:
tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
Just none that are worth messing with.
I think the volume of expansion material and system mods that I've posted here demonstrates that I don't mind creativity. (I'm also a miniature wargame designer). I just don't think the CT combat system is worth the effort. YMMV of course.
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
OK, then. Why not just go down the "No Armor" column on the weapon matrix and make non-armored characters harder to hit.
You could...say...reduce all the numbers in the column by -2.
Similar threads
