Does Classic Traveller need an update?

[mike wightman]

Note that the Classic Traveller Facsimile edition is a cleaned up and error corrected version, but I still think it could be improved with two additions (there are several blank pages that could be turned into a referee's guide to dice rolls}:
the missing paragraph from CT LBB1 77 edition explaining how the skill list are just examples
the guide to using dice throws from The Traveller Adventure.

I would also like to see a return to the uncoupling of power plant to jump drive - make the x boat legal again

 

[Spinward Flow]

And the second one leads to that disappointing moment where you hit, but do little or no damage.

Um ... that's kind of the whole point of how armor is supposed to work ...?

Armor shouldn't act like a "force field" that deflects incoming attacks away such that they never hit you.
Armor doesn't turn you into a "dodge monster" that can't be hit.

What's supposed to happen is that something that would have hit you will still hit you regardless of whether you're wearing armor or not.
The difference is that the armor ought to mitigate some/all of the incoming damage, reducing its effect(s) on you when you're hit.

Armor = +Dodge is the wrong way to model the effects of armor (because it's all or nothing)
Armor = -Damage is the correct way to model the effects of armor (because it's mitigating damage taken when hit)

 

[Spinward Flow]

I would also like to see a return to the uncoupling of power plant to jump drive - make the x boat legal again

Easiest way to do that is to use LBB5.80.

100 ton hull
Jump-4 requires 5 tons and TL=13.
Power Plant-4 requires 8 tons.
Fuel requires 44 tons.
Bridge requires 20 tons.
Model/4 computer requires 4 tons.
1 Stateroom requires 4 tons.

5+8+44+20+4+4 = 85 tons

So ... what was your problem again?

 

[mike wightman]

Simply that HG is not the ship building or tech paradigm for LBB:2-3 and I don't want it to become so for a LBB1-3 universe

 

[Spinward Flow]

So ... the solution is sitting right there in front of you, perfectly usable ... but you don't want it ...?

Uh ... okay ...

 

[mike wightman]

It isn't a solution to use a different game...
and HG is a different game to LBB2-3.

Jump drive/m-drive size swap, totally different jump performance by TL paradigm, different combat system

Look I understand, you like HG and want to replace LBB2 with it.

I do not, and I don't see why it is such an issue for you.

Lest you misunderstand again, I like High Guard for High Guard related gaming, I find it useless for CT LBB:1-3 gaming except as a guide to the options that should be available to a military ship rather than the civilian/paramilitary designs of LBB:2.

I have a long list of things I have ported into LBB:2 from HG but maintain the core paradigm of LBB:2-3
eg - armour, screens, bay weapons, spinal mounts, meson and PA weapons.
To which I should add nuclear dampers, and plasma and fusion guns from LBB:4

No fuel purification plants as they make no sense whatsoever as presented in LBB:5 - they are cheap enough to build one at every starport regardless of type.

 

[whartung]

Over many combats, these are equivalent. For example, being hit 50% of the time but then taking 6 damage works out to an average of 3 damage, whereas being hit 100% of the time but then taking 50% damage works out to an average of 3 damage. So it's just a different route to the same place.

It only averages out over time. Instance to instance, 6 damage all at once (even if it's only once in 6 rounds) can be quite different than 1 damage every round for 6 rounds.

One is slowly wearing you down, the other can be a one-shot mechanic.

 

[aramis]

Um ... that's kind of the whole point of how armor is supposed to work ...?

Armor shouldn't act like a "force field" that deflects incoming attacks away such that they never hit you.
Armor doesn't turn you into a "dodge monster" that can't be hit.

What's supposed to happen is that something that would have hit you will still hit you regardless of whether you're wearing armor or not.
The difference is that the armor ought to mitigate some/all of the incoming damage, reducing its effect(s) on you when you're hit.

Armor = +Dodge is the wrong way to model the effects of armor (because it's all or nothing)
Armor = -Damage is the correct way to model the effects of armor (because it's mitigating damage taken when hit)

Personal Armor does several things...
1) sometimes, it DOES deflect, especially rigid in melee. But also quite well against arrows and thrusts.
2) often, it spreads the impact out over a wider area. This seldom stops all damage.
3) it protects against direct penetration, especially against thrusting weapons and bullets. This also almost always also spreads out the impact area.
4) the armor sometimes deforms while admitting the projectile or weapon, which eats some or even all the energy.

Which it does varies by type of weapon, type of armor, angle of attack, and exact target spot.

A spanish steel 18th C B&B plate is likely to deflect most small and medium pistol rounds and almost all arrows. It will be almost all-or-nothing vs most melee weapons. It can even deflect a high poundage English Longbow...
Meanwhile, a Spectra vest will still allow almost all the energy in, but it won't let the bullet or blade through... tho' it has shown in tests that the a single layer of spectra can stop the bullet, arrow, or blade, while trapping it on the inside of the ribcage, and transmitting all the energy to the two ribs.

BPVs use quilting to prevent the "pocket" phenomenon.... at the cost of becoming stiffer.

Getting it right in game is unplayably complex.

 

[whartung]

Getting it right in game is unplayably complex.

Sounds like something the Leading Edge games tried to tackle.

 

[daryen]

As to you deciding what 'we' want a lot of the 'we' on this thread do want it.

You misunderstand what I am saying on that. Let me try again.

Everyone wants their own version of CT with exactly their set of favorite rules versions include, their house rules included, and the rules they don't like excluded. Unfortunately, what that looks like is different for every single person. So, if that is ever made, it would sell one copy.

However, if a collated, errata adjust set of base rules was published, it would not sell to everyone, but everyone would be able to use it. The potential sales would at least be greater than one.

So I am not saying everyone would want what I am outlining. I am saying, however that what I am outlining would at least have a chance to sell multiple copies.

On the other hand, yes, lots of people would want some form of what you are outlining. But, the exact implementation of what you have outlined will pretty much apply to only you, as those that want such things will be looking for a different combination from what you are. Just like if I did the a version that included my personal favorite rules and combination of rules (which I have avoided stating) it would only apply to me.

And, to be clear, "everyone" applies to only those talking in this discussion. None of this will happen because there is no common consensus (meaning whatever was done would not make anyone happy, meaning no one buys it), and because the only people who can authorize this want us to instead buy current product, not rehash the past. (OK, they do like us rehashing the past, because they can sell the reprints to us. But the aren't going to spend time to make new-old material that takes more effort than just scanning the old stuff.)

 

[Spinward Flow]

A spanish steel 18th C B&B plate is likely to deflect most small and medium pistol rounds and almost all arrows. It will be almost all-or-nothing vs most melee weapons. It can even deflect a high poundage English Longbow...

Game mechanically speaking, all of the things you are talking about are "hits" which yield little to no damage (either to the armor or to the armor wearer). What is NOT happening is "magical blink displacement" such that because you're wearing armor an attack that otherwise would have hit you completely misses because "you're not there" anymore.

Armor does NOT do this for you, basically:

 

[whartung]

Is that some kind of action video from an egg tossing contest?

 

[aramis]

Sounds like something the Leading Edge games tried to tackle.

"They tried."
"Tried and Failed?"
"Tried and died."

 

[whartung]

"They tried."
"Tried and Failed?"
"Tried and died."

They definitely fell deep in to RPG Obscura. I have 4 of their books, I think. Used to chat them up at local cons.

 

[Grav_Moped]

Armor shouldn't act like a "force field" that deflects incoming attacks away such that they never hit you.
Armor doesn't turn you into a "dodge monster" that can't be hit.

What's supposed to happen is that something that would have hit you will still hit you regardless of whether you're wearing armor or not.
The difference is that the armor ought to mitigate some/all of the incoming damage, reducing its effect(s) on you when you're hit.

There's some of that in the "armor as dodge effect" paradigm, but it's subsumed in the random damage result.

Some "misses" in that paradigm represent technical hits (the attacking weapon contacts the target individual) that the armor completely stops.
Some "hits" represent nominal misses (very low damage could be ricochets or fragments from nearby projectile impacts rather than direct hits).

 

[HanleyTucks]

It only averages out over time.

Of course.

Legend has it that back in the days of proto-D&D, the combat system was one figure vs another, each throws a d6, the highest slays the lower one and is themselves unharmed. The players were unhappy with this, and so Arneson reached onto his shelf and brought down Ironclads - thus "armor class" and "hit points". Now, if each figure has 1d6 hit points and does 1d6 damage, over many figures and many combats, this averages out to the same result as "throw 1d6, highest slays the lower and walks away unharmed."

But of course a fraction of the time someone will take fewer hit points of damage than they can, and have the option of fleeing the combat - and even if this just happens some of time, it feels different.

Armor shouldn't act like a "force field" that deflects incoming attacks away such that they never hit you.
Armor doesn't turn you into a "dodge monster" that can't be hit.

It doesn't. But we are not generally interested in whether someone does some cosmetic damage to armour, we are interested in whether someone was wounded. In this article, the pseudonymous writer Charles Franklin gives us some real-world wounding results from wartime. He tells us,

"The HERO database indicates that 21% of all hits are scored on the head, 21% in the torso and 58% on the arms or legs."

His language here is imprecise. It's not X% of all hits, but X% of all hits which caused a wound requiring treatment which were recorded in a medic's report. It's quite possible that in fact (say) 50% of hits are on the trunk, but that the wound is so minor it never comes to the attention of a medic. In a boxing match, for example, each fighter will have blows physically connect with their opponent dozens of times in a match. If you're in the ring, blows which do not do physical harm are still exciting, because you're the one whacking and getting whacked. But if you're just throwing dice, "you hit... for 0 damage... you hit... 0 damage... you hit... 0 damage" will be very boring. We care about the ones which caused something to break or bleed, or knocked the guy out, and this is what a game system needs to simulate.

So this is my mindset. I am not interested in "just a scratch", or a round which went thunk and was squashed into your kevlar vest and didn't hurt you at all or interrupt your next action or the knife blow which just tore your leather jacket or something. That's just cosmetic, and we assume that after a combat you clean and reload your weapon, sew up holes in your armour or clothing, and that sort of thing. I'm interested in the stuff which might hinder or kill you.

Franklin's article greatly influenced my own game design. I write about this in Wounding and Wound Effects.

 

[Grav_Moped]

So this is my mindset. I am not interested in "just a scratch", or a round which went thunk and was squashed into your kevlar vest and didn't hurt you at all or interrupt your next action or the knife blow which just tore your leather jacket or something. That's just cosmetic, and we assume that after a combat you clean and reload your weapon, sew up holes in your armour or clothing, and that sort of thing. I'm interested in the stuff which might hinder or kill you.

Which is terrific for a miniatures wargame -- even one with only a few units, each representing individuals.

In a role-playing game with the players striving to stay in character and construct a mutual setting and narrative? If that round hit, but splashed into your armor and knocked you back, that kind of detail matters!

 

[infojunky]

The more I think about the less I think CT needs a Update. In that CT was very modular in it’s run, between the various Mini-games and third party materials one only had to pick and choose.

MT was CT with DGP’s favorite mods. Heck, the entirety of the 2d6 rules sets are mods of CT. The fluff from each edition is just that.

So a lot of the discussion here is about which mini-games you are using for your games, your preference. And slightly deep what changes you would like to see in your preferred mini-games.

Remember we all play a game called Traveller, yet no two Traveller games are the same.

 

[mike wightman]

Does anyone still use the combat matrices rather than some other system?

 

[whartung]

In a role-playing game with the players striving to stay in character and construct a mutual setting and narrative? If that round hit, but splashed into your armor and knocked you back, that kind of detail matters!

That can certainly be considered a "wound". It can be a "stun", "daze", or even a "knockback". The game effect being you lose a combat round recovering, or have a negative DM for a short time, or something like that.

The issue with most modern "armor" is that, as detailed above, even though it doesn't penetrate, it still causes trauma. It may or may not be incapacitating trauma. Who wants to delve in to adrenaline and other chemical effects. The "shoot to stop" world's goal is to stop the aggressor, typically through physiological means to the point that the aggressor can't "will" themselves through it. Traumatic blood loss, CNS damage, breaking a hip so they can no long move, etc.