On converting MT, TNE, T4, etc. to CT

[atpollard]

A question was raised recently about the 'blind spots' of CT players to great new rules available in the later editions that are ignored because people get distracted by 'The Rebellion' or 'The Virus'.

Being very familiar with CT and MT but generally much less familiar with the other versions, I have a question for those more familiar with other versions.

Can rules be easily ported to CT from other versions?

For example, the MT vehicle design system produces similar designs to LBB2 and LBB5. It can also be mined for 'chrome' on Starship bridges and new Power Plant types. The MT Starship design requires only minimal changes to be added to the CT starship design.

On the other hand, I was under the impression that TNE and T4 use radically different game mechanics. What broad areas of the rules are compatible, semi-compatible and incompatible?

 

[Zparkz]

To say t simply, TNE will not be easy to convert to CT at any levelbecause the details of the designs are far more richer in detail and in most cases also makes other assumptions than CT/MT once did.

Take for instance lasers. Ct hand held lasers penetrates most armors, but in TNE a hand held laser won't penetrate any armor if it is made of metal. On the other hand you know what damage a starship laser will do to vehicles and personell (usually vaporise them), but in Ct what effect does a UCP 4 laser do?

Characters will open another can of worms. TNE got fewer weapon skills. Rifleman, Combat Rifleman, SMG and so on is covered by the same skill. Conversion from CT/MT to TNE will be easier in most cases.

 

[Supplement Four]

MT to CT tasks...

I've got a simple system for converting MT tasks to CT throws.

The Rule is this: Lower target number by one point. Use indicated skill. DM is +2 for indicated stat at 10+.







Thus, if you see a MT task of: Routine, Navigation, EDU. The CT equivalent is: Throw 6+. DMs: +1 per Navigation skill; +2 if EDU 10+.

Or, if you see a MT task of: Difficult, Pilot, DEX. The cT equivalent is: Throw 10+. DMs: +1 per Pilot skill; +2 if DEX 10+..

 

[GypsyComet]

To say t simply, TNE will not be easy to convert to CT at any levelbecause the details of the designs are far more richer in detail and in most cases also makes other assumptions than CT/MT once did.

Don't think about the things you already have enough coverage of, but instead look for new answers to old head-scratchers.

TNE candidates for back-application include external grapples on starships, RCV, RP-scale starship damage via a unique hit location chart, wear values and maintenance times, Starship DMs during character generation, stellar class distribution more in line with RW observations, and TL requirements for particular environments, among others.

The "spinal mount of any size" is a neat idea conceptually, but CT/MT have Bays and Solomani-style fixed mounts to occupy the lower range of arc-fixed weaponry.

MT craft design maps *very* strongly back to Striker, by the way, including the section on starships in Striker being the root cause of MT ships being largely incompatible with CT.

 

[jec10]

MT craft design maps *very* strongly back to Striker, by the way, including the section on starships in Striker being the root cause of MT ships being largely incompatible with CT.

Don't know how much experience you've had with Striker craft design, but this statement is only half true. In fact, it is quite hard to re-create a MT craft design with CT/Striker design sequences. It usually comes out rather different if you try to faithfully recreate it. MT got rid of the separate armour ratings for separate faces of a vehicle, and got rid of slope effects. This has a big impact on craft overall weight. The various powerplants (hydrocarbon) for MT vehicles are far more powerful and fuel efficient compared with their namesakes in CT/Striker.

And anyway, the standard designs in MT are frankly rubbish. The "Trepida" with an armour of 40. What a joke - you'd never get anyone to crew it if that was all the protection you got! The Zho must be chuckling as they hose down a few dozen Trepida at a time.

 

[GypsyComet]

Don't know how much experience you've had with Striker craft design, but this statement is only half true. In fact, it is quite hard to re-create a MT craft design with CT/Striker design sequences. It usually comes out rather different if you try to faithfully recreate it. MT got rid of the separate armour ratings for separate faces of a vehicle, and got rid of slope effects. This has a big impact on craft overall weight. The various powerplants (hydrocarbon) for MT vehicles are far more powerful and fuel efficient compared with their namesakes in CT/Striker.

I bought Striker new, if that answers your question. I was not trying to imply that MT Craft Design be dragged backwards into CT. Striker handles that if you want that level of detail.

Striker weapon design sequences are, however, behind all of the MT design sequence weapons, and it's pretty easy to fill in gaps in the MT tables using the appropriate Striker process.

The conversion was done by DGP, who, it is apparent, only saw a fraction of the implications in the changes they made (and the ones they didn't) from Striker to MT Craft Design. The Gigawatt Free Trader was just an obvious example...

 

[robject]

Egads, don't even bother trying to back-convert MT starships. Just design them with CT (or steal someone else's redesign) and be done with it.

As I mentioned earlier, T4's personal combat (if you like it) and psionics can be grafted into CT with no change.

The T4 personal combat thing is different than CT and you either like it or you don't: armor absorbs damage dice equal to its protection rating. So Jack Armor, instead of having a DM-1 to hit, absorbs 1D damage if you're hit. That kind of thing.

 

[jec10]

I still think the best thing to graft onto CT (and it isn't really not CT still actually) is a variant of the AHL/Striker combat rules. Either the measures proposed in the JTAS article or your own modification of them. I find such a solution far more satisfying than the original CT combat, and you still get to use CT skills and DEX, STR, etc with your weapons.

I actually find it is easier to reverse-engineer a TNE/FFS vehicle back into CT/Striker terms than a MT/GT one - once you've got the armour sorted.

 

[tbeard1999]

I still think the best thing to graft onto CT (and it isn't really not CT still actually) is a variant of the AHL/Striker combat rules. Either the measures proposed in the JTAS article or your own modification of them. I find such a solution far more satisfying than the original CT combat, and you still get to use CT skills and DEX, STR, etc with your weapons.

I actually find it is easier to reverse-engineer a TNE/FFS vehicle back into CT/Striker terms than a MT/GT one - once you've got the armour sorted.

Agreed with all of the above. You can see my efforts in that direction in my Alarums and Excursions zine (email if you want a copy). If the material looks familiar, it is. I use COI as a sounding board for ideas and the better ones wind up in my zine. The COI entry is at http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=10755 (it's an earlier draft but nothing much changed).

The only thing I wouldn't do is take Striker's suggestion on converting wounds to damage dice -- 3d6 for a light wound and 6d6 for a heavy wound are too high IMHO (2d6 and 4d6 are better IMHO, with "dead" being 6d6 +1d per 3 points the final penetration roll exceeds 12). Of course, I ditch the hit points concept entirely, but not everyone is willing to go that far.

Also, the T4 combat system is pretty elegant (though it has one aspect I don't care for). It's easy to adapt to CT; my thoughts are at http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=11044

The aspect I don't like is that armor reduces the damage dice (and there's a nice mechanic that avoids the problems that usually ensue when penetration equals damage). Thus, the player has to know how well the target is armored, unless the referee wants to make all rolls secretly. And no, it won't work to convert armor to X points of damage (this disrupts the CT mechanism of allocating individual dice to stats; it also cripples the mechanic that prevents the problems that arise when penetration and damage are the same).

However, there's a relatively simple fix --

1. Have the player roll the maximum dice for the weapon (usually 3-4 IIRC)

2. If the referee can't see the rolls, have the player call out the numbers on his dice in order ideally -- "six, four, two, one".

3. The referee applies armor to the lowest die, then the highest die, then the lowest die, etc. In the above case, 2 points of armor would eliminate the 1 die and the 6 die.

 

[robject]

The aspect I don't like is that armor reduces the damage dice (and there's a nice mechanic that avoids the problems that usually ensue when penetration equals damage). Thus, the player has to know how well the target is armored, unless the referee wants to make all rolls secretly. And no, it won't work to convert armor to X points of damage (this disrupts the CT mechanism of allocating individual dice to stats; it also cripples the mechanic that prevents the problems that arise when penetration and damage are the same).

However, there's a relatively simple fix --

1. Have the player roll the maximum dice for the weapon (usually 3-4 IIRC)

2. If the referee can't see the rolls, have the player call out the numbers on his dice in order ideally -- "six, four, two, one".

3. The referee applies armor to the lowest die, then the highest die, then the lowest die, etc. In the above case, 2 points of armor would eliminate the 1 die and the 6 die.

I note that, in order to apply damage to characteristics individually, the referee will have to know the dice rolled by the player. So, I assume telling the dice rolls in order is no biggie?

And, you only have to play "hide the armor absorption" when it's important not to know the target's armor.

 

[tbeard1999]

I note that, in order to apply damage to characteristics individually, the referee will have to know the dice rolled by the player. So, I assume telling the dice rolls in order is no biggie?

And, you only have to play "hide the armor absorption" when it's important not to know the target's armor.

Agreed. And if I were gonna use the CT hit point system, I'd probably create a simplified damage sequence for most NPCs. One idea that comes to mind is to count dice, not hit points. You could replicate the CT system pretty well by saying that each figure has 6 hit points. On the first hit, 2+ dice will knock the figure out; 4+ will badly injure him and 6+ of course will kill him. (This replicates the "all damage on a single stat on the first hit" rule in CT). After that, 4 dice total knock him out; 5 badly wound him and 6 kill him.

Such an approach would make adapting the T4 combat system even simpler since the referee doesn't have to worry about which die the armor absorbs. Of course, I wouldn't let the players know I was using the simplified system...

 

[robject]

Agreed. And if I were gonna use the CT hit point system, I'd probably create a simplified damage sequence for most NPCs. One idea that comes to mind is to count dice, not hit points. You could replicate the CT system pretty well by saying that each figure has 6 hit points. On the first hit, 2+ dice will knock the figure out; 4+ will badly injure him and 6+ of course will kill him. (This replicates the "all damage on a single stat on the first hit" rule in CT). After that, 4 dice total knock him out; 5 badly wound him and 6 kill him.

Such an approach would make adapting the T4 combat system even simpler since the referee doesn't have to worry about which die the armor absorbs. Of course, I wouldn't let the players know I was using the simplified system...

Hey, isn't that called "MegaTraveller"?

 

[aramis]

MT gives 1 hit point per 3 points of Str/Dex/End... and post combat, each hit point of damage taken is 1d damage to stats.

 

[Supplement Four]

MT gives 1 hit point per 3 points of Str/Dex/End... and post combat, each hit point of damage taken is 1d damage to stats.

Good gawd, Wil. I can never understand why you liked the MT damage system. It always turned me off.

I do understand the attraction to AHL or Striker. But, gosh, the MT system? Yuck.

 

[aramis]

Because, in play, it is very fast for me, requires few table lookups (hit task), and produces a suitable range of results, unlike CT.

In CT, I will never, as written, Kill outright "Joe Normal" with a Rifle. In MT, it's quite possible.

And, like CT, long term impairment is handled by damage to stats.

It's not perfect, but it works well. Further, it adapts to miniatures play very well. The large scale combat extensions to the combat mechanics make it into an excellent (better than striker) way of resolving Merc games.

I have found it to be the most realistic combat system in Traveller, since a sniper (takes his time, Skill 3+, dex 10+, net DM+9...) can and does get some spectacular hits, and very like does kill a target either outright or within minutes, with a single shot. It works quite well for me.

Yes, it has wording issues; they are persistent throughout MT, not just combat. Yes, there is the "Who Goes First?" issue. I simply have a default order of highest to lowest dex.

The hits is basically the same as Ty's suggestion of "counting dice of damage" for NPC's; the modality is that, when the adrenaline wears off, the damage is then resolved to attribute damage. Works quite well.