CT Only: Personal Combat Damage Values '77 vs. '81

[creativehum]

This is going a bit into the weeds here, but can any talk about why the damage values shifted between the 1977 edition and the 1981 edition?

For example:

1977
Body Pistol 3D–8
Automatic Pistol 3D–3
Revolver 3D–3
Carbine 4D–8
Rifle 3D
Automatic Rifle 3D
Shotgun 4D
Submachine Gun 3D–3

1981
Body Pistol 3D
Automatic Pistol 3D
Revolver 3D
Carbine 3D
Rifle 3D
Automatic Rifle 3D
Shotgun 4D
Submachine Gun 3D

It might have been that the math was proven to be wonky after more play experience with the rules. It might have been the handling time of the damage modifiers wasn't considered worth it. It might have been frustrating to make two rolls (one for hit, one for damage) only to find out you had done no damage after all. I don't know. But I'd love to know more about:

a) the intent of the original damage values in the 1977 rules
b) the intent of the change in the 1981 rules

Not looking for house rules, not looking for people to tell me to use Striker.

Just curious about this issue as it pertains to Traveller Book 1.

Thanks!

 

[aramis]

Actually, it's a change in the damage application methodology to one die at a time.

 

[ffilz]

Actually, it's a change in the damage application methodology to one die at a time.

Nope... again https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jsH-EgKvaR0mdbtJMj_Xj7X3TcYyZTqQGf-Gwu58PX0/edit?usp=sharing to the rescue...

Wound points are applied to the target’s (defending character’s) strength, dexterity and endurance on a temporary basis. Each die rolled (for example, each of the two dice rolled in a result of 2D) is taken as a single wound or group of hits, and must be applied to a single characteristic; further modifications may be distributed against, or added to, such wound groups as desired (players do this themselves; the referee does it for non-player characters).

Wound points are applied to the target's (defending character's) strength, dexterity, and endurance on a temporary basis. Each die rolled (for example, each of the two dice rolled in a result of 2D) is taken as a single wound or group of hits, and must be applied to a single characteristic.

The only difference is dropping the bold text referencing the damage DMs.

Interestingly, The Traveller Book clarifies the process somewhat:

Wound points are applied to the target's (defending character's) strength, dexterity, and endurance on a temporary basis. Each die rolled (for example, each of the two dice rolled in a result of 2D) is taken as a single wound or group of hits, and must be applied to a single characteristic. The wounded player may decide which physical characteristic receives specific wound points in order to avoid or delay unconsciousness for as long as possible.

The rules for first hit are almost the same between 1977 and 1981:

The first wound received by any character, however, can be sufficient to stun or daze him or her, and is handled differently. This first wound received is applied entirely to one of the three physical characteristics (strength, dexterity or endurance), determined randomly. As a result, first blood may immediately incapacitate or even kill.

The word "entirely" is dropped in 1981.

And changed for The Traveller Book

The first wound received by any character, however, can be sufficient to stun or daze him or her, and is handled differently. This first wound is applied to one of the three physical characteristics (strength, dexterity, or endurance) determined randomly. If that characteristic is reduced to zero, then any remaining hits are then distributed to the other physical characteristics on a random basis. As a result, first blood may immediatel y incapacitate or even kill.

 

[creativehum]

Well, my guess is that the whole the Damage As Dice is an elegant mechanic, those damage DMs ruin that elegance. It makes the Players make two calculations and an additional step
1. Which Damage Dice to subtract the DM from
2. Track those alterations per Damage Die
3. Choose which Damage Dice (some of which may now be altered) to apply to which characteristics

I think the Damage Dice mechanic is interesting enough in itself that losing the -DMs and simplifying the bookkeeping and steps makes a lot of sense.

 

[aramis]

To be more explicit - it results in unmodified dice being applied to characteristics in 2E and later, simplifying the process.

MGT reverts to the CT 1E methodology slowing things down considerably.

 

[ffilz]

As to the original question, my guess is that the DMs just proved confusing. Note that all Book 4 weapons just have whole dice damage. And, yea, obviously rolling no damage is disappointing (though one could rule a hit scores a minimum of 1 point of damage to bypass that issue).

Unfortunately, I think the 1981 damage lost something and in this document https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YEPiaXQZoWbvnrHohrB5U7iLrzmT4HGplGrLxusIhl0/edit?usp=sharing I have an alternative that tries to keep closer to the original damage average with a minimum of 1D for horns and hooves.

 

[creativehum]

I have my own thoughts as to why the '81 damages work great as is (it's about how many dice can be applied as whole Dice -- and how that matters more than the average value of the Damage roll.) But have time to type up now.

But I will say I am reaching a point where I might cobble together a Classic Traveller rules book for my own pulling text from '77, '81, and TTB to build a text that works as a whole and has the specific rules and elements I want for my game.

 

[ffilz]

I have my own thoughts as to why the '81 damages work great as is (it's about how many dice can be applied as whole Dice -- not the average value of the Dice -- which might not be applied. But have time to type up now.

But I will say I am reaching a point where I might cobble together a Classic Traveller rules book for my own pulling text from '77, '81, and TTB to build a text that works as a whole and has the specific rules and elements I want for my game.

I came up with my alternative whole dice damage when someone asked why anyone would ever use a foil. Then I noticed that 2D-3 dagger went to 2D while the better damage 1D+4 foil went to 1D. There are definitely other weapons that gained quite a bit or lost out in 1981, but the foil/dagger really stood out.

Though in the end, I may actually stick with the 1977 damages, but I look forward to your analysis.

 

[rhialto]

But I will say I am reaching a point where I might cobble together a Classic Traveller rules book for my own pulling text from '77, '81, and TTB to build a text that works as a whole and has the specific rules and elements I want for my game.

I've had the same thought, and if you haven't seen the editable Cepheus Engine I highly recommend it as a legal way to craft and print what you want.

 

[mike wightman]

But I will say I am reaching a point where I might cobble together a Classic Traveller rules book for my own pulling text from '77, '81, and TTB to build a text that works as a whole and has the specific rules and elements I want for my game.

That's pretty much what I have done over the years.

There is a lot to like about the 81 revised version, but some bits of 77 edition are better IMHO.
The core of my hybrid homebrew is:
Character generation tables - 81 edition
Damage dice - 81 edition
LBB2 drive table - 81 edition
LBB2 drive requirements 77 edition
Starter Edition finally explains that a pulse laser is -1 to hit but rolls for damage twice
LBB3 trade lanes from 77 edition

 

[creativehum]

I've had the same thought, and if you haven't seen the editable Cepheus Engine I highly recommend it as a legal way to craft and print what you want.

I appreciate the recommendation ... but CE is not Classic Traveller. At all.
I know that for some reason people keep thinking somehow CE is grown from CT. I have no idea where this idea comes from or why it persists. But really, there are enough differences that even using it as bones to build from would make little sense.

I'm glad people like it! But not what I'm looking for.

 

[infojunky]

But I will say I am reaching a point where I might cobble together a Classic Traveller rules book for my own pulling text from '77, '81, and TTB to build a text that works as a whole and has the specific rules and elements I want for my game.

Heh, that is the most common solution. In the course of one old campaign I managed to use three different versions of CT inadvertently. I only had one set of books for a revolving group of 10 or so players, over the course of a Cruise and a half the main books got worn out and replaced.

Right now I am migrating to two core books, The Traveller Book and Cepheus Engine. That way I have access to the two largest collections of related Traveller materials.

 

[rhialto]

I appreciate the recommendation ... but CE is not Classic Traveller. At all.
I know that for some reason people keep thinking somehow CE is grown from CT. I have no idea where this idea comes from or why it persists. But really, there are enough differences that even using it as bones to build from would make little sense.

I'm glad people like it! But not what I'm looking for.

Understood: it was merely a suggestion. As one who strongly favors CT over any of the other iterations I have an idea where my idea comes from, so it makes sense to me. Which is all that matters to me, and likely doesn't matter to anyone else.

 

[infojunky]

I know that for some reason people keep thinking somehow CE is grown from CT. I have no idea where this idea comes from or why it persists.

Well that is easy, evolution, CE looks and plays a lot like the CT I was running and playing in the 80's and early 90's. While there are some significant imports from other games within the MgT and CE fork, it isn't much of a stretch to insert CT and CT derived mechanics into those places where the new mechanics grate.

Note I am not saying your insistence on a pure CT derived game is bad. Just comparing and Contrasting your view with the one I am using. The key fact remains "Every Traveller Game is Different, yet still Traveller".

 

[creativehum]

Well that is easy, evolution, CE looks and plays a lot like the CT I was running and playing in the 80's and early 90's. While there are some significant imports from other games within the MgT and CE fork, it isn't much of a stretch to insert CT and CT derived mechanics into those places where the new mechanics grate.

Note I am not saying your insistence on a pure CT derived game is bad. Just comparing and Contrasting your view with the one I am using. The key fact remains "Every Traveller Game is Different, yet still Traveller".

I'm not sure I'm insisting on anything. Or, rather, I want to make clear I'm not laying claim on Traveller or any particular way of playing Traveller in any way.

Traveller is lots of things to lots of people. Keep in mind my blog grew out of coming here, wanting to talk about playing Classic Traveller and applying the Classic Traveller rules... and being interrupted with constant posts about how I was Doing Traveller Wrong because That's Not How the Third Imperium Works.

So, I have always been all about people playing the Traveller they want. I dug into the text of Classic Traveller to see if, in any way, what I was talking about and wanted to do was contradicted in Books 1-3... and nope, all was well. What I want through my efforts is to

1. Carve a little space for my Traveller.
2. Look at the Classic Traveller rules fresh, and see what they offer as is instead of assuming they need to be fix or were wrong out of the gate.

So far I have been delighted with what I've found.

I hope everyone carves space for their Traveller. It is, I believe, the way things should be -- either in terms setting or rules set. So much of what the blog has been about is prying this awesome game that was built to engender so many options and imaginative possibilities away from folks who keep insisting there is only one right way to play it. I want people to play it lots of ways.

My point regarding CE is:
1. CE is derived not from the Classic Traveller rules but from the Mongoose Traveller 1st Ed. SRD
2. Mongoose Traveller first edition is not Classic Traveller
3. Ergo...

It's not a big deal. And I honestly have nothing against either MgT or CE.

I'm simply baffled that people keep talking about how CE is a take on Classic Traveller specifically. When it is clear it is not.

Now, I'm more than willing to believe people might have played CT the way Mongoose Traveller plays -- or elements thereof. But the fact is if you laid out the rules side-by-side there'd be lots of differences.

Again, I really don't care in the sense of "People are doing things Wrong and must be Stopped." I'm just confused by it.

 

[infojunky]

I'm not sure I'm insisting on anything. Or, rather, I want to make clear I'm not laying claim on Traveller in any way.

Sorry it was a bad word choice on my part.

Traveller is lots of things to lots of people. Keep in mind my blog grew out of coming here, wanting to talk about playing Classic Traveller and applying the Classic Traveller rules... and being interrupted with constant posts about how I was Doing Traveller Wrong because That's Not How the Third Imperium Works.

So, I have always been all about people playing the Traveller they want. I dug into the text of Classic Traveller to see if, in any way, what I was talking about and wanted to do was contradicted in Books 1-3... and nope, all was well. What I wanted was to carve a little space for my Traveller. I hope everyone carves space for their Traveller. It is, I believe, the way things should be -- either in terms setting or rules set.

Yep, that is the goal, a chunk that is my own that is Traveller, whether or not it matches what some one else is doing...

My point is:
1. CE is derived not from the Classic Traveller rules but from the Mongoose Traveller 1st Ed. SRD
2. Mongoose Traveller first edition is not Classic Traveller

It's not a big deal. And I honestly have nothing against either MgT or CE.

I'm simply baffled that people keep talking about how CE is a take on Classic Traveller specifically. When it is clear it is not.

Now, I'm more than willing to believe people might have played CT the way Mongoose Traveller plays -- or elements thereof. But the fact is if you laid out the rules side-by-side there'd be lots of differences.

This is the point of they are commenting on the similarities rather than the differences. I tend to talk in forks of the game, which there are several. Or closer to the point a Cladistics map of Traveller, where we are looking at genetic similarities rather than direct descent. As far I understand it MgT is owes a lot to both CT and T5, with the major issue of it being limited to the 2d6 mechanic. Which solidly places it in the same arm as CT and MT.

With all that Jason Kemp took the MgT SRD and CT to write his take which is CE. i.e. it loops twice through the same source material.

 

[rhialto]

Traveller is lots of things to lots of people. Keep in mind my blog grew out of coming here, wanting to talk about playing Classic Traveller and applying the Classic Traveller rules...

1. Carve a little space for my Traveller.
2. Look at the Classic Traveller rules fresh, and see what they offer as is instead of assuming they need to be fix or were wrong out of the gate.
...
I hope everyone carves space for their Traveller. It is, I believe, the way things should be -- either in terms setting or rules set...

My point regarding CE is:
1. CE is derived not from the Classic Traveller rules but from the Mongoose Traveller 1st Ed. SRD
2. Mongoose Traveller first edition is not Classic Traveller
3. Ergo...
...
I'm simply baffled that people keep talking about how CE is a take on Classic Traveller specifically. When it is clear it is not.

Yes, I'm very well aware of your efforts and your inspirational blog: I'm very appreciative of the time you've taken (and S4 and ffilz, too) to do the work. But it is possible to take this statement in CE:
"The Cepheus Engine is inspired by classic science fiction games from the early days of roleplaying, and shares a lot of similarities with these gaming systems."
And sensibly interpret it as an homage to CT, even though it's the MgT SRD which makes CE possible. I guess some of us see more similarities in CE than any other version of "Traveller", CT aside. And since there is the text (rules) and the subtext (ethos) of CT LBB 1 - 3, one can easily import the latter into CE. At least, it appears easy to me, just starting on that effort...

 

[kilemall]

Getting back into Traveller, I remembered my old Judges Guild referee shield and reflexively ordered it as the range/armor thing always drove me nuts in conjunction with the STR/DEX mods.

When I got it, I was reminded that it had all the 77 damage values.

Taken altogether, the highly individual characteristic mods coupled with the modified damage 77 versions definitely made for weapons that had a specific 'feel'.

I don't see a zero point damage result as a negative, just a nick and a lucky target.

But it's not worth the hassle, instead I'm using my own homebrewed Striker version that deals in individual die for damage in the classic vein (but can be highly variable in how much damage based on what body part got hit, with what weapon, and how much pen/armor-cover).

 

[Makofan]

All they did in '81 was truncate the modifiers with no clue as to what that affected. Body Pistols 3D-8, average 2.5 dmg, now became 3D, avg 10.5, and the foil went from 1D+4, avg 7.5, to 1D, avg 3.5

The lost rules special supplement properly converted '77 damage, and is what I use

 

[aramis]

TTB has the BP at 2D in the stats and mods in CGen, and 3D on the weapon tables. So does CT-81.
Sup 4 also lists it at 2D.

The 3D on the weapon table is a typo.