How optional is Timing/Effect?

[Supplement Four]

I'm not saying I'm going to change any rules in any version of Traveller I play to reflect coolness under fire. That's way too deep for a game. Just something to think about.

Somtimes people forget that the skills in the book aren't the only "official" skills...at least in Classic Traveller. There's a section that guides GMs in making up their own skills. Coolness Under Fire could be made into a skill and used in a similar fashion to the Tactics skill or the Leadership skill. (I'm thinking in CT terms).

 

[Plankowner]

The Planet Mongoose page has the following information about Traveller Timing and Effect:

"Traveller has been heavily developed over the past month, with a lot of kinks and nuances ironed out. Combat is flowing a lot smoother, with a revised initiative system (that effectively removes Timing, except for detailed skill checks, and redefines Effect), and a new approach to damage. Space combat is following a similar mould (with arguments raging about whether it should be more like Harrington or Star Wars!), while Character Creation is as cool as ever. More detail is also going into the Encounters chapter, with the brief that is should be the sanctuary of lazy GMs! Basically, if you had some major concerns about certain areas of Traveller, you will likely find they have been answered in this phase." (emphasis mine)

Looks like the criticisms of the T/E die has been taken to heart and been redone.

TBeard Wins! :rofl:

 

[Supplement Four]

Looks like the criticisms of the T/E die has been taken to heart and been redone.

Excellent news! If they fix what's wrong with MGT, I'll reverse my opinion on it.

TBeard Wins! :rofl:

Cracks me up.

 

[Able Baker]

That sounds like good news, no?

 

[Klaus]

Seems most reasonable to make it optional. I liked it (you know that!), but it makes sense to have the basic game simple and then give folk tools to riff on it, according to taste, since Traveller seems built to act like that.


And back to the bullet wound discussion....

Isn't it true that the vast majority casualties in war are actually caused by bombs and artillery?

Are there any figures just for bullet trauma?

Seems a tricky one. Police data will reflect the neutralising of threats, where the object is not necessarily to kill the subject (or to do as much damage as possible), so possibly skew that figure towards lighter wounds, especially considering the properties of 9mil over .223 NATO.

In war situations extracting just the pure lead based injuries is probably to much to expect.

Maybe figures for gang/criminal gunplay would be the best set to look at?

 

[Echo]

The Planet Mongoose page has the following information about Traveller Timing and Effect:

"Traveller has been heavily developed over the past month, with a lot of kinks and nuances ironed out. Combat is flowing a lot smoother, with a revised initiative system (that effectively removes Timing, except for detailed skill checks, and redefines Effect), and a new approach to damage. Space combat is following a similar mould (with arguments raging about whether it should be more like Harrington or Star Wars!), while Character Creation is as cool as ever. More detail is also going into the Encounters chapter, with the brief that is should be the sanctuary of lazy GMs! Basically, if you had some major concerns about certain areas of Traveller, you will likely find they have been answered in this phase." (emphasis mine)

Looks like the criticisms of the T/E die has been taken to heart and been redone.

TBeard Wins! :rofl:

In the manner of a suicide bomber, perhaps!

Anyway, it's not much of a surprise that there is some detailed revisions going on in the game. That is the virtue of a decent, public playtest, even if some of the debating got a little heavy on the way. Personally, I actually liked the time/effect element of the game, as our group has pretty much got used to it and now know how to play it. Nevertheless, if it means that a few more people come on board in support, then all the better. I am glad that some thought has gone into the starships too though, as that was an area of concern for our group.

 

[DaddyDragon]

The Planet Mongoose page has the following information about Traveller Timing and Effect:

"Traveller has been heavily developed over the past month, with a lot of kinks and nuances ironed out. Combat is flowing a lot smoother, with a revised initiative system (that effectively removes Timing, except for detailed skill checks, and redefines Effect), and a new approach to damage. Space combat is following a similar mould (with arguments raging about whether it should be more like Harrington or Star Wars!), while Character Creation is as cool as ever. More detail is also going into the Encounters chapter, with the brief that is should be the sanctuary of lazy GMs! Basically, if you had some major concerns about certain areas of Traveller, you will likely find they have been answered in this phase." (emphasis mine)

Looks like the criticisms of the T/E die has been taken to heart and been redone.

This goes a long way toward restoring my faith in the Mongoose's Traveller project. Take that with a grain of salt, as they've all but abandoned nearly every other line they started that I've bought into. That said, they have a somewhat more reliable track record with their licensed properties. So, I'm back in the 'wait and see' mindset as opposed to the 'Jane, get me off this crazy thing!' track.

TBeard Wins! :rofl:

If EDG's diligent and somewhat slightly less vociferous work can get some aspects of the worldgen changed, it seems only fair that TBeard receive a nod of acknowledgement as well.

Now if they can get the whole starship power issue hammered out so that it more closely models Traveller combat as we've known it....

As ever, YMMV.

 

[Able Baker]

I wonder how the fangooses will rationalize this.

 

[Echo]

Possibly a lot more maturely than the "grognards" here have done so far!

 

[aramis]

But what if "handgun" skill includes the increased ability to remain calm under fire? [snip]

It might include that. (Then, again, it might not. I can see both sides of that argument. Especially in Classic Traveller, where skills are very broad in their scope.)

Quite obviously it doesn't since there are morale rules that do not include the weapon skills at all...

And AHL doesn't figure weapon skill into morale, either.

 

[castiglione]

And back to the bullet wound discussion....

Isn't it true that the vast majority casualties in war are actually caused by bombs and artillery?

Are there any figures just for bullet trauma?

I believe the biggest killer of infantry is artillery. I think this is also why a lot of tactical WWII games kind of minimize it - otherwise, the game would just involve a bunch of guys getting blown up by artillery.

I believe 9 mm's loaded with decent hollow points have around an 80% stop rate (stop doesn't necessarily mean kill). .45's with decent hollow points have around a 90% stop rate. With hard ball ammo, those figures drop. I think .45's with hard ball have around a 60% stop rate.

There's a lot of research out there on hand gun ammo effects. Lots of stuff on experiments done on goats, gelatin, etc. as well as real world stats.

 

[Sturn]

I believe the biggest killer of infantry is artillery. I think this is also why a lot of tactical WWII games kind of minimize it - otherwise, the game would just involve a bunch of guys getting blown up by artillery.

I believed the opposite was true myself. I wasn't able to find any stats to support my claim for WWII, but did find these casualty stats for Vietnam:

Gun, Small Arms: 18,518
Artillery, Rocket, or Mortar: 4,914

This is a large difference. This doesn't actually prove anything though. These are American casualties. The enemy didn't have much in the way of artillery, so these stats would not be the norm. WWII stats would be better for making such a case.

I also found these stats for American casualties in Vietnam that could help the bullet trauma debate:

KIA; Died in Combat: 38,502
KIA; Died of Wounds: 5,264

 

[Thuban]

This is a large difference. This doesn't actually prove anything though. These are American casualties. The enemy didn't have much in the way of artillery, so these stats would not be the norm. WWII stats would be better for making such a case.

Yes.

I also found these stats for American casualties in Vietnam that could help the bullet trauma debate:

KIA; Died in Combat: 38,502
KIA; Died of Wounds: 5,264

I don't know that those numbers illustrate bullet trauma so much as they point to the effectiveness of battlefield medical care. This is one of the reasons American KIA to WIA in Iraq and Afghanistan are lower proportionally to previous wars: battlefield medicine improved tremendously since Vietnam, which was itself a big improvement over WWII and Korea.

 

[Klaus]

May be time to reframe the current question.

What is the incidence of 'flesh wounds' in comparison to more debilitating wounds and serious to critical ones.

The initial concern was that Effect based damage tended not to offer small values, hence people concerned that flesh wounds would be rare (in comparison with a bell curve of 3D, for instance). My concern was that was it really true that flesh wounds (by bullet) were just as common as severe wounds.

Within the system of MGT, a flesh wound would be one that did not reduce End to zero, a serious wound would be one that reduced Str and/or Dex, and a critical wound one that reduced Str or Dex to zero (but not both). For game purposes, a flesh wound is a bad cut or bruise that gives pain but otherwise does not affect performance, apart from as part of the cumulative effect of damage.

On average, a weapon would have to inflict less than 7 damage to make a flesh wound (on an unarmoured opponent; armour would increase the incidence of flesh wounds, as is apparent by the data from recent conflicts involving western troops, along with better medecine).

Basically, I'm not sure flesh wounds would necessarily all that common compared to more debilitating ones - but would be more common from shrapnel. (and this is just my own imperfect speculations)

On another note, is it not true that bullet wounds occur more to the torso (largest target), but knife wounds tend to be more common to the arms (fending off an assailant), yet a (normal) bullet may penetrate the torso without doing serious damage (knocking the organs aside), whereas knife wounds to the torso are very likely to nick an artery or cut up an organ?

 

[Sturn]

On another note, is it not true that bullet wounds occur more to the torso (largest target), but knife wounds tend to be more common to the arms (fending off an assailant),......

I don't have stats, but a professional opinion (military or law enforcement for nearly all of my adult life).

[Don't Read if Below 18 years of age] :devil:

During both my military and law enforcement experience, aiming "center mass" has always been the norm in training. Of course that doesn't mean you are going to be accurate, but the torso is still the largest overall area. So it makes sense that torso is the most common hit. From gunshot wounds I have actually seen, this does seem the most common location, even head shots seem more common then limb shots. Of course that could be greatly influenced by my law enforcement experience, a.i. people that have been murdered tend to have shots in the torso and head, not limbs.

From the victims of knife wounds I have seen, wounds on arms and hands tend to be quite common, due to fending off the assailant as you said. But, I wouldn't say they are necessarily more common, just a result of the interaction. I haven't seen a person with knife wounds on the hands/arms, that didn't also have one in the torso (the unarmed person normally loses the fight - the hand wounds are before the knife finally made it to the torso, or after a torso hit when the victim kept trying to fend off repeated stabbing attempts). I have seen people with knife wounds in the torso, but not on the hands/arms, due to being surprised by the attack.

Again these are only "personal stats", I don't have a large statistic pool.

 

[Klaus]

Thanks Sturn. (Yup, this is rather a ghoulish topic...)

In game terms, you've tended to encounter those who 'lost the fight', yes?

Maybe medical data is another angle, ie: those who survived. Are there any medics with experience of A&E/ER?

The problem too with RL data is that it does not reflect a 'normal' game conflict. I mean, there's probably more knife fights on screen than ever occur in the everyday. And in most gun battles (outside crim on crim, and possibly even there too) one side probably has an overwhelming advantage (that is the proper use of tactics, yes?), whereas in game it is probably more even.

One other thing. Could not a flesh wound or scratch be considered a near miss rather than a success? In a firefight the objective of the task is to damage an opponent enough to take them out of the fight. A success should go some way to that goal; a flesh wound (1 or 2 pts) is not much of a success, after all. (Though with body armour such wounds will be more common even with a hefty roll).

Then again, it could be considered a successful shot if you at least make your opponent duck or in some other way miss their turn, even if you don't actually harm them.

This is probably over analysing the situation. My basic point was that the lack of low damage results using T/E is not necessarily a problem; it just depends how you rationalise it. Just because rpgs started out with random die based damage does not necessarily mean that is what they should always have.

Tis all moot now anyway; we'll have to see what the MGT damage system ends up looking like.

 

[rust]

Unfortunately it is almost impossible to develop a truly realistic combat system
for a roleplaying game.

In a real world combat scenario even a seemingly minor wound usually puts
the victim out of the action, either because of shock or because it needs to
apply first aid. The number of people who continue to "function" despite an
even minor bullet wound to the arm or the leg is extremely low - and many of
those only do so because they are under shock, which severely reduces their
"reliability" under fire.

So, in the real world, there really are no "minor wounds" in an RPG sense of
the term. In fact, even the sight and smell of blood, or of a wounded comra-
de, can shock and temporarily put out of action even a seasoned soldier. Re-
actions like these are almost impossible to foresee, what is no problem one
day can prove to be a devastating experience another day.

I have no idea how this could be "translated" into an RPG system, although I
think that the Harnmaster combat system once came very close - but this
is not very useful for Traveller.
Besides, almost all of us want to play "heroes", much closer to Hollywood than
to real world characters. A truly realistic system would doubtless spoil the fun
of roleplaying combat.

Therefore, from my point of view, it does not really make much sense to use
real world data for a roleplaying combat system. If you would succeed in de-
signing a truly realistic system, you would hardly enjoy to play it.
So, better go for something simple and symbolic.

And, yes, I know what I am writing about, I have been trained as a combat
medic and have served a couple of years, although never in combat. But I
have been in the medical field for thirty years now, and have seen enough
accidents and wounds to be convinced that my opinion is not very far from
the truth.

 

[castiglione]

Besides, almost all of us want to play "heroes", much closer to Hollywood than
to real world characters. A truly realistic system would doubtless spoil the fun
of roleplaying combat.

Well, there are different types of "fun".

There's the Hollywood variety, i.e. M-16 in one hand, .45 in the other, blazing away and not missing while the bad guys can't seem to shoot straight.

Then there's the other type of fun where you realize the other guys can shoot just as straight (or not straight) as you and you realize that if you want to survive, you either have to pick your fights or set up your fights so that the odds are stacked in your favor as much as possible. Of course, this second paradigm of fun only works if the GM adjusts the reactions of the NPC's to account for the fact that the NPC's are also going to be wary of violence (unless the NPC's are really stupid or sociopathic or have the odds in their favor); in this case, a big part in the final outcome of combat is probably going to rely on the "chess game" that occurs before the bullets even begin to fly (assuming both sides are being smart about it instead of just drawing down and blazing away).

 

[rust]

Of course, you are right.

What I meant was that in a "realistic" combat damage system the
consequences of even minor wounds could make it rather unattractive
to risk a fight, and that this could spoil some fun.

I have a tendency to play RPGs the "simulationist" way, and in my current
campaign any kind of combat is extremely rare - almost as rare as in the
real world. The players obviously have decided that it is prudent to avoid
high-risk situations and to find other ways to achieve their goals.

 

[Klaus]

Thanks Rust, very helpful.

That confirms my opinion that a lack of low damage rolls in T/E was irrelevant. When I hit I want it to count in some way. Armour will reduce damage to the level of 'flesh wounds'; basically, the trick is to wear that kevlar underwear...