Easy Fix to CT Combat System -- Double Tap

[Shadowfax]

CT is a game and it will never come close to being realistic, if you want that in CT, the referee has to do that with his descriptions of how things go down in the firefight.

In combat every situation is different. There is no real way to say what happens. During the battle you are so scared and pumped up you don't know what's happening and afterwards you don't care. There aren't any baselines or statistics. You don't usually go back and analyze what happened and if you did, it would all probably be wrong anyway.

Every time that I want to say that things are one way or another way, I can come up with a thousand exceptions to those rules, so that it is impossible to piece it all together, even the memories are wrong. The feelings of fear stay with you though, so do the pictures.

If you want a more realistic system that is less abstract use something like striker or phoenix command or even Twilight 2000 or use the result of the abstract system as the basis for your (as referee) more realistic description of the combat and combat results, hell you don't even have to roll the dice. Of course it is fun to roll, but no system is going to ever be 100%, so decide what you want, pick the system that you think comes closest and fudge the rest.

It's a game. It's just a game.

 

[Golan2072]

Nice mechanic! How much was it tested in actual play?

By the way this is actually "triple tap":
1) Roll to-hit.
2) Roll penetration.
3) Roll damage.

AHL/Striker is:
1) Roll to-hit.
2) Roll penetration on a table which gives you abstract damage.

Which works better for you?

 

[Supplement Four]

CT is a game and it will never come close to being realistic, if you want that in CT, the referee has to do that with his descriptions of how things go down in the firefight.

(snip)

It's a game. It's just a game.

Yep, the CT combat system is abstract. It is very much like the system used in D&D.

When a D&D character with 22 hit points is hit by a foe wielding a longsword (1d8 damage), do we think that the stroke literally ran the guy through? Certainly not. It's abstract. All we know is that something happened to make the target less effective in combat.

The same is true for Classic Traveller. A lot is made of "automatic" hits. I say it's not an issue. First, defenders should take advantage of Cover & Concealment rules. Move from cover to cover while in combat. Use the Evade rule. Many times, just using those modifiers will turn an "automatic hit" into something that needs to be rolled and can be missed.

But, even when you get into the powerful military grade weapons in Book 4 and run across automatic hits, remember the D&D longsword example above.

If a CT character is hit with an automatic hit, and damage doesn't indicate anything serious (it doesn't knock the character unconscious or create a Serious Wound where two stats are at zero), then, like the D&D example, all we know is that something happened during the combat that made the character less effective in combat.

Refs can explain this away with combat descriptions of bullets slamming into the brick next to the character, spraying broken chips into his face--or some other interesting description.

But, the "automatic hit", in many cases, does not indicate that the target was actually shot--just like the D&D longsword stroke did not run the defender through.

I think the rules are fine as they are.

 

[tbeard1999]

Nice mechanic! How much was it tested in actual play?

By the way this is actually "triple tap":
1) Roll to-hit.
2) Roll penetration.
3) Roll damage.

AHL/Striker is:
1) Roll to-hit.
2) Roll penetration on a table which gives you abstract damage.

Which works better for you?

Depends on when you ask

For many years, I used a variant of Striker. But a few years back, I realized that players like hit points (at least mine do). Now I use my "Combat System C", which is a blend of Striker and CT (and particularly, T4's damage system). http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=17021

The Double Tap system was an idea I had when thinking how to use CT with as little modifications possible, but improving the combat system.

I did play a couple of playtest games. It seemed to work okay, but I'm sure there will be some odd parts.

 

[tbeard1999]

Yep, the CT combat system is abstract. It is very much like the system used in D&D.

When a D&D character with 22 hit points is hit by a foe wielding a longsword (1d8 damage), do we think that the stroke literally ran the guy through? Certainly not. It's abstract. All we know is that something happened to make the target less effective in combat.

...

But, the "automatic hit", in many cases, does not indicate that the target was actually shot--just like the D&D longsword stroke did not run the defender through.

I think the rules are fine as they are.

Well, obviously, I disagree. BUT...it is a matter of taste and I do believe that CT's combat system can work fine with Book 1/Supp 4 characters *and* if you avoid military weapons (especially Book 4 ACRs and better). Also, my games tend to have a lot of often-military-grade combat. (After all, my Combat System C has "John Woo" factors).

--Ty