Let's talk about DAMAGE!

[Supplement Four]

http://lists.travellerrpg.com/pipermail/tml2004/2004-June/011721.html

That's a thread I started on the TML back in June of 2004. Hunter was on the list at that time (I think he still is), and, well, you can check out the entire system I posted--which was all about modernizing Classic Trav.

Maybe it's a case of "great minds thinking alike", but it sure looks like my complete posting of modernization rules for CT, in a system called "CTPlus", pre-dates any mention of it Hunter may have made.

I just recently started following CotI, so I never knew the CT+ thread existed. [/QB]

Something else that's interesting--I can't seem to find anything else in the TML archives except that first intro to CTPlus. There were SEVERAL posts that followed it, detailing the rules (not unlike my CTI posts recently)...and either I'm not searching correctly...

...or they've been removed.

 

[Supplement Four]

http://lists.travellerrpg.com/pipermail/tml2004/2004-June/011721.html

That's a thread I started on the TML back in June of 2004. Hunter was on the list at that time (I think he still is), and, well, you can check out the entire system I posted--which was all about modernizing Classic Trav.

Maybe it's a case of "great minds thinking alike", but it sure looks like my complete posting of modernization rules for CT, in a system called "CTPlus", pre-dates any mention of it Hunter may have made.

I just recently started following CotI, so I never knew the CT+ thread existed. [/QB]

Something else that's interesting--I can't seem to find anything else in the TML archives except that first intro to CTPlus. There were SEVERAL posts that followed it, detailing the rules (not unlike my CTI posts recently)...and either I'm not searching correctly...

...or they've been removed.

 

[mike wightman]

Most of th CT+ stuff we did can be found in the In my Traveller Universe sub-forum.
Just look for CT+ in a title.

This is what Hunter originally posted here on CotI:

If it happens what you'd see is an updated version of the CT rules with a slightly modified MT task system that is compatible with the T20 task system on 'terms of difficulty' (ie: Easy, Hard, Average, etc.).

The personal combat system would be changed over to be compatible with the task system. Armor and Damage would likely be very similar to T20's system.

Characters would not change much as far as background goes, but the randomness would be optional meaning you could randomly generate your character pretty much like original CT or you can pick and choose everything instead. Adding optional rules like Advantages and Disadvantages is something I would also consider.

Vehicles, Starships, etc. would use the T20 systems which are already CT compatible, though these systems might get updated slightly.

New techs would also probably be added, but noted that some campaign settings may only use some of the technological concepts detailed in the rulebook. This would allow us to specify for example in the OTU, nanobots, cybernetic enhancements, FTL communications and such are not used. If a referee wanted to use them, they of course could but the referee would know that the published material for the OTU will not be written with these technologies in mind.

The main idea would be to update the more 'dated' game mechanics and streamline things a bit more, but keep it 100% compatible with the original CT and make it easy to dual stat supplementary for both the updated CT rules and T20.

I'm not looking to dump T20, but I do see a potential market for a more streamlined set of mechanics like what the original CT had to offer.

I've now tracked down what he originally called revised CT:
http://www.travellerrpg.com/cgi-bin/Trav/CotI/Discuss/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=001197#000001

As I said earlier, I don't read or post to the TML.

 

[mike wightman]

Most of th CT+ stuff we did can be found in the In my Traveller Universe sub-forum.
Just look for CT+ in a title.

This is what Hunter originally posted here on CotI:

If it happens what you'd see is an updated version of the CT rules with a slightly modified MT task system that is compatible with the T20 task system on 'terms of difficulty' (ie: Easy, Hard, Average, etc.).

The personal combat system would be changed over to be compatible with the task system. Armor and Damage would likely be very similar to T20's system.

Characters would not change much as far as background goes, but the randomness would be optional meaning you could randomly generate your character pretty much like original CT or you can pick and choose everything instead. Adding optional rules like Advantages and Disadvantages is something I would also consider.

Vehicles, Starships, etc. would use the T20 systems which are already CT compatible, though these systems might get updated slightly.

New techs would also probably be added, but noted that some campaign settings may only use some of the technological concepts detailed in the rulebook. This would allow us to specify for example in the OTU, nanobots, cybernetic enhancements, FTL communications and such are not used. If a referee wanted to use them, they of course could but the referee would know that the published material for the OTU will not be written with these technologies in mind.

The main idea would be to update the more 'dated' game mechanics and streamline things a bit more, but keep it 100% compatible with the original CT and make it easy to dual stat supplementary for both the updated CT rules and T20.

I'm not looking to dump T20, but I do see a potential market for a more streamlined set of mechanics like what the original CT had to offer.

I've now tracked down what he originally called revised CT:
http://www.travellerrpg.com/cgi-bin/Trav/CotI/Discuss/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=001197#000001

As I said earlier, I don't read or post to the TML.

 

[mike wightman]

So did Hunter post more details about all of this on the TML?

 

[mike wightman]

So did Hunter post more details about all of this on the TML?

 

[mike wightman]

WJP, have you seen this site?

http://crucible.cc/traveller/tplus.htm

 

[mike wightman]

WJP, have you seen this site?

http://crucible.cc/traveller/tplus.htm

 

[Jame]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Do you use the armour table DMs or an armour as damage reduction system Jame?

Nope. I have the ones in the CT Starter Set, but could never make heads or tails of them (not that I've tried).

 

[Jame]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Do you use the armour table DMs or an armour as damage reduction system Jame?

Nope. I have the ones in the CT Starter Set, but could never make heads or tails of them (not that I've tried).

 

[Supplement Four]

This is what Hunter originally posted here on CotI: (snip)

As I said earlier, I don't read or post to the TML.

Interesting. Well, maybe it's a co-inky-dink. I do find it interesting that the several posts I made to the TML about CTPlus in late June of '04 can't be found now--only the first post (almost like someone deleted all the posts that started with CTPlus 1, CTPlus 2, ....CTPlus 15, etc, but forgot there was a CTPlus 0, which I usually use when I'm posting long lists of stuff to introduce what I'm posting).

Mabye it had something to do with the fact that I put a copyright line at the bottom of those posts (that's the only time I've ever done that, and I've posted more than a few task systems and long-lists of rules to the TML in the past).

No harm done, though. I'm just going to forget about it.

 

[Supplement Four]

This is what Hunter originally posted here on CotI: (snip)

As I said earlier, I don't read or post to the TML.

Interesting. Well, maybe it's a co-inky-dink. I do find it interesting that the several posts I made to the TML about CTPlus in late June of '04 can't be found now--only the first post (almost like someone deleted all the posts that started with CTPlus 1, CTPlus 2, ....CTPlus 15, etc, but forgot there was a CTPlus 0, which I usually use when I'm posting long lists of stuff to introduce what I'm posting).

Mabye it had something to do with the fact that I put a copyright line at the bottom of those posts (that's the only time I've ever done that, and I've posted more than a few task systems and long-lists of rules to the TML in the past).

No harm done, though. I'm just going to forget about it.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
So did Hunter post more details about all of this on the TML?

Not that I saw. I've never heard of another CTPlus other than the one I created and posted to the TML in June of 2004.

Now, if you go back and look at the archive, though, there is a thread there, that I started (as Communique) stating how my preference would be for GT and T20 materials to include CT stats and rules--I thought they'd sell more that way.

It turned into a bit of a flamewar, but I do remember Hunter posting on this.

Maybe all that interest in CT got him to thinkin' "Hmmm...maybe there is a marked for improved CT stuff..."

Don't know. Maybe my CTPlus rules and the discussion about CT being included in new Traveller products had an influence in Hunter's interest to come up with a CT-improved game.

If it did, then I'm glad.

Heck, I'd like to see T5 be just an improvement over CT. Add a task system (something like CTI...or maybe MT), improve a tug here, a tweak there...

...kinda what you guys were talking about in the CT+ thread.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
So did Hunter post more details about all of this on the TML?

Not that I saw. I've never heard of another CTPlus other than the one I created and posted to the TML in June of 2004.

Now, if you go back and look at the archive, though, there is a thread there, that I started (as Communique) stating how my preference would be for GT and T20 materials to include CT stats and rules--I thought they'd sell more that way.

It turned into a bit of a flamewar, but I do remember Hunter posting on this.

Maybe all that interest in CT got him to thinkin' "Hmmm...maybe there is a marked for improved CT stuff..."

Don't know. Maybe my CTPlus rules and the discussion about CT being included in new Traveller products had an influence in Hunter's interest to come up with a CT-improved game.

If it did, then I'm glad.

Heck, I'd like to see T5 be just an improvement over CT. Add a task system (something like CTI...or maybe MT), improve a tug here, a tweak there...

...kinda what you guys were talking about in the CT+ thread.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
WJP, have you seen this site?

http://crucible.cc/traveller/tplus.htm

No, I haven't. Interesting. I'm going to peruse it right now.

Thanks for tipping me on that.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
WJP, have you seen this site?

http://crucible.cc/traveller/tplus.htm

No, I haven't. Interesting. I'm going to peruse it right now.

Thanks for tipping me on that.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by WJP:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
WJP, have you seen this site?

http://crucible.cc/traveller/tplus.htm

No, I haven't. Interesting. I'm going to peruse it right now.

Thanks for tipping me on that. </font>[/QUOTE]Checked it out. It is interesting. They did some nice work. And, I see that we think alike in many areas--I see some of the same rationale popping up in CTI.

I've got some real problems with what they did, though (mostly taste thingys).

For example, they completely ignore a character's stat in most of their task roll. Skill based task rolls only rely on skill. Stat based task rolls only rely on an attribute.

When a character makes a task roll, I'm a firm believer that natural ability and trained experience work hand-in-hand and should be reflected in the task roll.

Also, I believe one of the strengths of Traveller is its incredible character generation system. It's a form of short-hand role playing. You discover your character as you roll him up. It forces a player to get-to-know the character he's playing through his successes and failures during chargen.

I've played plenty of point-based-chargen games, and they're OK. I played the heck out of WEG's STAR WARS game (it's a GREAT game). But, nothing, no-other-other game, compares to characters that are generated the Classic Trav way.

To take that away from Traveller is a crime.

Now, I realize that's a bit strong--but it reflects how strongly I feel about the subject. I realize, though, that there are players out there who want to design their characters from the ground up (usually giving their characters the best stats in key areas), and that's fine for them.

I just like what the Classic Trav chargen system brings to a game in the way of roleplaying.

In my experience, my CT games have sure been a lot more memorable than some of the point-based-chargen games we've played.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by WJP:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
WJP, have you seen this site?

http://crucible.cc/traveller/tplus.htm

No, I haven't. Interesting. I'm going to peruse it right now.

Thanks for tipping me on that. </font>[/QUOTE]Checked it out. It is interesting. They did some nice work. And, I see that we think alike in many areas--I see some of the same rationale popping up in CTI.

I've got some real problems with what they did, though (mostly taste thingys).

For example, they completely ignore a character's stat in most of their task roll. Skill based task rolls only rely on skill. Stat based task rolls only rely on an attribute.

When a character makes a task roll, I'm a firm believer that natural ability and trained experience work hand-in-hand and should be reflected in the task roll.

Also, I believe one of the strengths of Traveller is its incredible character generation system. It's a form of short-hand role playing. You discover your character as you roll him up. It forces a player to get-to-know the character he's playing through his successes and failures during chargen.

I've played plenty of point-based-chargen games, and they're OK. I played the heck out of WEG's STAR WARS game (it's a GREAT game). But, nothing, no-other-other game, compares to characters that are generated the Classic Trav way.

To take that away from Traveller is a crime.

Now, I realize that's a bit strong--but it reflects how strongly I feel about the subject. I realize, though, that there are players out there who want to design their characters from the ground up (usually giving their characters the best stats in key areas), and that's fine for them.

I just like what the Classic Trav chargen system brings to a game in the way of roleplaying.

In my experience, my CT games have sure been a lot more memorable than some of the point-based-chargen games we've played.

 

[Golan2072]

Back to the subject of damage.
My current approach is to let the attacker roll the damage dice; the defender's player decides to which of the three physical attributes each of them goes.

I ignore the "first blood" rule; instead, a "sneak attack" (D20 terminology) - that is, attacking an unaware target, uses these rules. When a character is subjected to an attack to which he is not aware (e.g. stabbed in the back or shot by a hidden sniper), ALL the damage dice apply to ONE characteristic - the LOWEST. If damage remains after the characteristic is reduced to zero, it goes to the next lowest characteristic, then to the third. The limit to this rule is that the attacker must have time to aim - atleast one turn (30 seconds). Just snap-shooting at someone from ambush doesn't count for this; you have to pick a weak spot.

I'm also leaning towards Striker combat, integrated into CT in ways similar to those in JTAS #16 - that is, doing CT-style damage to personnel. I'll post my exact rulings later on.

 

[Golan2072]

Back to the subject of damage.
My current approach is to let the attacker roll the damage dice; the defender's player decides to which of the three physical attributes each of them goes.

I ignore the "first blood" rule; instead, a "sneak attack" (D20 terminology) - that is, attacking an unaware target, uses these rules. When a character is subjected to an attack to which he is not aware (e.g. stabbed in the back or shot by a hidden sniper), ALL the damage dice apply to ONE characteristic - the LOWEST. If damage remains after the characteristic is reduced to zero, it goes to the next lowest characteristic, then to the third. The limit to this rule is that the attacker must have time to aim - atleast one turn (30 seconds). Just snap-shooting at someone from ambush doesn't count for this; you have to pick a weak spot.

I'm also leaning towards Striker combat, integrated into CT in ways similar to those in JTAS #16 - that is, doing CT-style damage to personnel. I'll post my exact rulings later on.