Running Classic Traveller

[nats]

My feeling is that I just need a little bit more more structure than LBB1 combat. Rules for cover, moving, evasion, additional aiming and covering fire - that lind of thing.

It might be worth mentioning as well that the original LBB (1977) and Starter Traveller have extra rules in them that were missed out in the later edition of the LBB (1980s).

But also you could take a look at MgT Core Rules as they have rules for running, cover, aiming etc that you could employ (generally all just DMs to the dice throw to hit).

 

[aramis]

One of the biggest difficulties with MgT is the referee having to decide the difficulty and time required for a task in a second or two in order to keep the game flowing. I guess Traveller will always be like that because there are so many possibilities that will arise during a typical game.

Having spent decades winging it with 1st edition D&D (and OD&D) unclear wonkiness, I took to CT recently like an old friend. For a true old school rpg gamer, what is quoted above is a feature of a true classic rpg, not a negative. "Rulings not Rules." I'm really finding it's as simple as I want to make it. Sure I have to take into account and remember some basic duck and cover modifiers for combat for the sake of consistency, but for the most part I've been winging it with recent CT sessions. None of my players have seen the rules, and this helps a lot (no "hey, but the book sez...").

For non-combat skills it's even more open and fun. Apply mods at will! No two situations are ever exactly alike. I'm also finding it easy to hit on ideas for various ship personnel to make skill rolls for. Players love to roll for stuff, even if it's just the computer tech slapping cartridges in and out of the processor during an encounter.

I started in 1981... with AD&D and Moldvay Basic...

And the moment task systems appeared in products I had (Grand Survey), I never went back to the non-system that was CT RAW. Many of us "Grognards" found the lack of coherency a HUGE drawback, often, a fatal flaw. Especially once we got to systems with coherent single-mechanic designs, like BRP/RuneQuest, STRPG, MegaTraveller, Twilight 2000 1E, Hero System, Star Frontiers...
Even many other games kept it to two discrete mechanics - one for combat, and one for non-combat actions - with coherent difficulty systems in place, starting in the mid to late 1970's - Starships and Spacemen, Tunnels and Trolls, what would be later published in 1981 as Palladium's core engine for The Mechanoid Invasion.

Of the grogs I have gamed with who have gamed the entire time, most have come to despise the "Gygaxian Spew"... both the incoherency of the rules and the lack of organization, plus the so many digressions that should be sidebars... So many were looking for better that it turned into an industry...:devil:

Just because we've gray beards and have been playing for 3.5+ decades doesn't mean we actually liked the crappy rules of the era. We played them for lack of knowing anything better... until we did.

Some of the grogs do like it... but many more don't.

 

[rhialto]

Just because we've gray beards and have been playing for 3.5+ decades doesn't mean we actually liked the crappy rules of the era. We played them for lack of knowing anything better... until we did.

Some of the grogs do like it... but many more don't.

Interesting...my experience is of the full-circle kind: starting with D&D in 1978, then on to Traveller, RuneQuest, DragonQuest, Rolemaster, Harn, and endless other "evolved" rule sets, and now back to the simpler sets (of which there are many contemporary examples, too). My circle of grogs is firmly in the "rulings not rules" camp, but it is only my small circle.

 

[aramis]

Interesting...my experience is of the full-circle kind: starting with D&D in 1978, then on to Traveller, RuneQuest, DragonQuest, Rolemaster, Harn, and endless other "evolved" rule sets, and now back to the simpler sets (of which there are many contemporary examples, too). My circle of grogs is firmly in the "rulings not rules" camp, but it is only my small circle.

I, and most people I have played with, firmly reject "Rulings not Rules" ...
Most players I game with see choice of rules as part of the social contract. And they range from folks in their 50's to kids in their teens. (Some of my oldest players are now in their 70's, but I've not played with them since their 50's... but their favored systems are mono-mechanicals.)

I, for my part, found the task system liberating: it structured my improv to be more consistent.
The MT flowcharts likewise made the consistency of space travel much higher.

While CT is mechanically incoherent/semi-coherent (With/Without the adventures, books (4-8), and supplements), at least the text was well organized and easily used...

I'll note that Marc actually uses T5; T4 was a snapshot of the rules Marc was using in Early 1996... and the materials in CT show some hints of the T4/T5 multi-die task mechanics. (Several adventures call for 2d or 3d throws for attribute or less. The probability tables in Bk 0 go to 5d6...)

The MT PH is, for me, the second best supplement ever released for CT. MT IE is first...

 

[creativehum]

My feeling is that I just need a little bit more more structure than LBB1 combat. Rules for cover, moving, evasion, additional aiming and covering fire - that lind of thing.

Here are the rules you'll find in the Classic Traveller Consolidated Errata, rules dropped in one version or another but now part of the whole of CT.

Drawing: Weapons are usually carried holstered or slung, unless the characters specifically state the contrary. A character attempting to use a holstered or slung weapon in a combat round is subject to a DM of -3 when drawing. When two or more people draw against each other (assuming surprise is not a factor), each rolls two dice and adds his or her dexterity; the character with the highest modified throw thus achieves surprise for the purpose of a first shot.

Minor Accessories: Holsters, magazine carriers, belts, scabbards, cleaning kits, and other accessories are available for 10% to 20% of the base price of the weapon. They have effectively no weight (being included in the personal clothing group). Shoulder holsters may be worn to conceal pistols in public; otherwise, pistols are carries in hip holsters.

Throwing Blades: Daggers, blades, and bayonets may be thrown at a target at short range. Throw 18+ to hit; DM +dexterity,+blade skill, -target evasion DM if evading. If a hit is achieved, the wound is 2D. Retrieval of the thrown blade requires one combat round at close range with the target.

Full Automatic Fire: Submachineguns and automatic rifles fire four round bursts instead of single shots. The higher ammunition usage results in the hit probabilities shown on the table (auto rifle uses the rifle row on the table when firing single shots). In addition, automatic fire allows rolling to hit twice against the same target. Finally, the group hit rule applies against companions of the target.

Group Hits By Automatic Fire: Regardless of the designated target for automatic fire, non-evading individuals adjacent to the target are also attacked by the burst of automatic fire. No more than two adjacent targets may be attacked, but each is the subject of a to hit roll with a DM of -3, and all other appropriate DMs.

Group Hits By Shotguns: Each shot by a shotgun may attack up to three individuals adjacent to the original target, provided they are in a group (herd, pack, band, etc) and are each human-sized or smaller. In addition, when firing against flying targets (winged animals, flying vehicles) within range, a DM of +2 is allowed.

Coup De Grace: Any gun or blade may be used to administer a coup de grace and kill an unconscious or unstruggling individual (person or animal) at close range in one combat round if the character using the weapon so states. Ammunition is expended, but no die rolls are necessary. A coup de grace may be administered with hands or brawling weapons using special blows, but die rolls must be made.

Weapon Length Effects: Polearms (spear, halberd and pike) and similar long weapons use the Short range modifier only on the first combat round at short range. Thereafter, use the Close range modifier (even if the actual range remains Short).

Reloading: Technically, guns reload themselves after each shot. However, when the magazine capacity of a gun is exhausted, then the shooter must reload the gun with a fully loaded magazine. Unless otherwise stated, the process of reloading a gun with a full magazine takes one combat round, during which time the shooter is treated as evading. Revolvers do not use magazines, and so take two combat rounds (one combat round if not simultaneously evading) to reload.


Empty magazines are, of course, reusable. Ammunition for such magazines can be purchased for approximately half the price of a full magazine. The tedium of reloading empty magazines requires that it be done at leisure, rather than in combat. The process takes several minutes for each magazine.

Laser carbines and laser rifles do not use cartridges; their power packs must be recharged upon being exhausted. Such a laser weapon may be returned to service by replacing the power pack. Recharging a spent power pack requires approximately an hour at a high-energy power source. When done commercially, there is a cost of Cr200 or Cr300 for the service. Generally, such power packs can be recharged at a ship’s power plant at no cost.

Armor: With the exception of reflec, no armor may be worn with another type of armor. If reflec is worn in conjunction with another armor type and the wearer is attacked, the better type of armor provides the DM.

Darkness and Night: Poor lighting conditions may restrict the ability of an individual to see and attack. Total darkness restricts engagements to close and short range. Gun attacks at greater than short range are subject to DM of –9. Partial darkness (moonlit night, distant illumination, or other weak light sources) reduces visibility range to medium, and attacks with guns are subject to DM of –6. Electronic sights eliminate negative DMs due to darkness and poor lighting.

Cover and Concealment: Cover is any solid object between an attacker and defender capable of protecting the defender from a weapon attack. Concealment is any object that prevents viewing or sighting of the defender. Cover may also be concealment, concealment is not necessarily cover. 
 Targets are considered under cover if they are behind a solid object which a shot cannot penetrate (such as a wall, rock, or heavy bulkhead).

An individual under cover cannot be attacked; an individual in concealment cannot be attacked unless the attacker has some reason to shoot into the area. A target may be partially concealed by walls, objects, atmospheric conditions, or darkness. Targets are considered concealed if they cannot be viewed by an attacker. If fully concealed, a target cannot be attacked.


Individuals who attack from cover become visible and may themselves be attacked; because they retain partial cover they are eligible for a defending DM of –4. Individuals who attack from concealment provide reason to believe they are present, and may be attacked; because they remain partially concealed, they are allowed a defending DM of –1.

Zero Gravity: Virtually all weapons have recoil (except laser carbines and laser rifles) and in a zero-G environment, this recoil can disorient or render helpless individuals not trained to compensate for it. When fighting in a zero-G environment, any individual has a chance of losing control of his or her movement/position each combat round. Throw 10+ to avoid losing control.

Zero Gravity DMs
• If firing a weapon: –4
• If using a handhold: +5
• If performing a swing or blow: –6
• If Dexterity 9+: +2
• If Dexterity 11+: +4


Now, not everything you asked for is listed. But anything you asked for can be built out by situational modifiers.

Whether this is what you want is up to you. Aramis is here to assure that playing one way is "crappy." As for me I see it as a matter of taste, offering two different play styles and kinds of play that different people can enjoy.

 

[rhialto]

Whether this is what you want is up to you. Aramis is here to assure that playing one way is "crappy." As for me I see it as a matter of taste, offering two different play styles and kinds of play that different people can enjoy.

And I'm with you (on the matter of taste statement): fortunately, the game police agree.

 

[OldSalt]

Thank you very much, that was a very detailed run through.

I'm due a trip to my gaming archives this week and I'll assimilate rules, with reference to your superlative summary next week.

 

[creativehum]

Thank you very much, that was a very detailed run through...

You're welcome!

And note that I took many of the notes directly from the Classic Traveller Errata which Donald McKinney compiled and which is linked to in the post. I then massaged with the special considerations already listed in Book 1 so I could have them all in one place.

 

[kilemall]

Of the grogs I have gamed with who have gamed the entire time, most have come to despise the "Gygaxian Spew"... both the incoherency of the rules and the lack of organization, plus the so many digressions that should be sidebars... So many were looking for better that it turned into an industry...:devil:

Just because we've gray beards and have been playing for 3.5+ decades doesn't mean we actually liked the crappy rules of the era. We played them for lack of knowing anything better... until we did.

Some of the grogs do like it... but many more don't.

 

[kilemall]

Well that's all handled now.

And now the burning question- what the hell is the scout belt secret?

 

[Axe]

Howdy,

Don's errata v1.2 (March 2015) can be downloaded from the first post of the CT Errata Compendium thread (stickied).

It is worth going through the errata and writing it into the book. Examples of helpful fixes are the corrections to the combat tables:


Page 46, Weapons Matrix (correction): The modifier for Dagger against Combat armor should be –7 instead of –5. The modifier for Foil against Combat armor should be –6 instead of –8. The modifier for Carbine against Ablat should be –1 instead of +1. The modifier for Rifle against Cloth should be –3 instead of –2; the modifier for Rifle against Reflec should be +2 instead of +3, and the modifier for Rifle against Combat should be –5 instead of –4. A footnote is missing for Ablat armor: Each time that laser fire hits ablat armor, it decreases the ablat’s DM by 1.

Page 47, Range Matrix (correction): The modifier for submachineguns at Long range should be –3 instead of –6. Claws wound inflicted should be 2D; Cutlass wound inflicted should be 3D; Body Pistol wound inflicted should be 2D (note that cutlass and body pistol are listed correctly on page 17).

 

[welsh]

I never felt CT suffered too badly from the lack of a task system.

What it does suffer from....

- a combat system in which weapon and armour DMs can combine for instadeath. Somehow, as long as your opponent is unarmoured and you're using the right gun, you can't miss!

- a space combat system in which character skills, save a few, become essentially irrelevant and role-playing plays second fiddle to drawing vectors.

But CT has a lot going for it. Sometimes, simplicity is good. Consider what happens when someone hits a vehicle in first edition Twilight: 2000. Die roll hell.

 

[kilemall]

I never felt CT suffered too badly from the lack of a task system.

What it does suffer from....

- a combat system in which weapon and armour DMs can combine for instadeath. Somehow, as long as your opponent is unarmoured and you're using the right gun, you can't miss!

- a space combat system in which character skills, save a few, become essentially irrelevant and role-playing plays second fiddle to drawing vectors.

Hmm, that's where Striker, AHL and/or Snapshot come to the rescue. Don't leave the starport without them.

The space combat system skill situation I read more as an early solution that got reinvented in many spaceship build/fight computer games- ship modification through computer/program capabilities, as opposed to ship drive/engineering detail work.

Don't neglect the million credit sinkhole aspect of computer program upgrades. If you can spend an extra 3000 Cr per month to get a Gunner-4 that gets you enemy ship kills, why bother with spending 10MCr for more CPU and enhancements.

I like the vee system, one of the things that says 'we are in space rather then a TV/movie set'.

 

[flykiller]

If you can spend an extra 3000 Cr per month to get a Gunner-4 that gets you enemy ship kills, why bother with spending 10MCr for more CPU and enhancements.

'cause the computer program doesn't care if it's in harm's way. a gunner-4 facing any real expectation of laser and missile fire, for money, is going to demand a lot more than 3kCr/mo, and he might insist on no collateral duties.

 

[creativehum]

What it does suffer from....

- a combat system in which weapon and armour DMs can combine for instadeath. Somehow, as long as your opponent is unarmoured and you're using the right gun, you can't miss!

I have come to believe this view is overstated as a problem. (Not overstated as a fact.)

I've created the Weapon Cards that combine the distance and amor matrixes weapon by weapon, and it offer a clear view on the odds per weapon.

The fact is, the game rules suggest that yes, if you fight a automatic rifle, shotgun, or submachine gun at an unarmored target who is standing still 1-5 meters from you, you will, in fact, hit that target and deal horrible damage.

For some reason that doesn't strike me as strange.

I'm also keeping the following in mind:

Expertise
The person doing the shooting has been trained in the weapon. Characters who have no training in a weapon have a DM -5 to their Throw. Many NPCs will have training in one weapon, but suffer the DM -5 in other weapons. PCs often get an expertise of 0 in all weapons due to their military training which blows off that DM.

I want to be clear: In my reading of the rules, weapon expertise is handing a weapon in combat situations. Which, I'm sure don't have to mention to most folks here, is not the same thing as being at a shooting range or out hunting. So even a guy who has owned a rifle all his life on some backwater world and has used it to go out hunting will have that DM -5 the moment he's in a situation where someone is firing back at him.

So the PCs know what they are doing when handling a firearm in combat. And my thinking is: if a trained combatant fires at an unarmored opponent standing still 3 meters away I believe it is reasonable to assume the target will suffer horrible damage.


Evade
The base matrix values assume the target is standing still.

May I suggest boldly that if you are at short range and unarmored and someone is shooting at you you not do this?

The rules provide the option of Evade:

A combatant, at any range, may state evade as a status. The person may
not make any attack. He or she receives an advantageous DM in the defense, based on range from the attacker

• -1 if at short or close range
• -2 if at medium range
• -4 if at long or very long range

I am well aware that the DM -1 on the attack might not help at all. But here's the fact: If you try to avoid someone firing at you with a shot gun or submachine gun at three meters, trying to rush out of the way might not help.

In other case it will help... but just a little. The odds of the automatic rifle against an unarmored target at 1-5 meters moves from 100% to deal effective damage to 97.2%. Still horrible, of course. But what for goodness sake are you doing standing 3 meters from a man with an automatic rifle pointed out you who wants to kill you? At some point this is your fault.

Meanwhile, if you are are unarmored and out in the open at medium range (6-50 meters) even if you are evading, unless other circumstances intervene, you will will be hit by a man who knows what he's doing with an automatic rifle.

Because of this, might I suggest...


Cover and Concealment
The rules say:

Cover and Concealment: Cover is any solid object between an attacker and defender capable of protecting the defender from a weapon attack. Concealment is any object that prevents viewing or sighting of the defender. Cover may also be concealment, concealment is not necessarily cover. 
 Targets are considered under cover if they are behind a solid object which a shot cannot penetrate (such as a wall, rock, or heavy bulkhead).

An individual under cover cannot be attacked; an individual in concealment cannot be attacked unless the attacker has some reason to shoot into the area. A target may be partially concealed by walls, objects, atmospheric conditions, or darkness. Targets are considered concealed if they cannot be viewed by an attacker. If fully concealed, a target cannot be attacked.


Individuals who attack from cover become visible and may themselves be attacked; because they retain partial cover they are eligible for a defending DM of –4. Individuals who attack from concealment provide reason to believe they are present, and may be attacked; because they remain partially concealed, they are allowed a defending DM of –1.

If I may be bold: If you are unmarred and someone is hunting you with a powerful firearm, I would recommend getting to cover or hiding as quickly as possible.

If you must shoot back from cover, sort out the best range you can. For example, with the DM -4 for anyone shooting at you as you shoot from cover, if you attack someone with an automatic rifle his odds of his doing effective damage against you drop from 100% to 72.2%. Still terrible you say? Guess what? You're in a gunfight. Horrible things happen to people in close quarter gun fights.

Might I suggest, if these odds are still aren't working for you...


Be Clever
It's a roleplaying game. The rules are designed to put the squeeze on anyone in a fight. The Classic Traveller rules are not design to be a tabletop milsim where were move little men around knowing some might be sacrificed for the greater good. We care about the guy we are playing. And if he's unarmored and someone is coming after him with an automatic rifle it would behoove him to come up with some idea or plan which will let him get the hell out of there, get the drop on his assailant somehow, or otherwise turn the tables and increase his odds of survival.

The point is that the Player or Players better come up with something to shift the situation around. Not because this is the way the world really works... but because this is the way science fiction adventure fiction (which is what Classic Traveller was built to emulate) works: The protagonist is in a really tight spot, the odds are against him, and he has to come up with something interesting to turn things around. That interesting part? That's what makes the memorable moments. That's what makes memorable game sessions. You want the screws turning against the characters to make them sweat and come up with something smart.

Now, you might be saying, "I'm not talking about getting shot at. I think it's weird that I can take all these unarmored men down with one attack and never miss."

Well, first, you're playing an awesome dude who knows how to handle a weapon and handle it well. And second, you're firing against unarmored men. Which begs the question: Why are you firing against unarmored men? Do you need to kill them? (Because the system is going to let you kill them very easily. You are awesome after all.) But will they have friends or family who will come after you. Is killing actually the best plan forward? What do you need from them? From the situation?

Instead of spending -- Jeezus -- 35 minutes of ablative damage back and forth forth, the Classic Traveller system lets you move on. You want these sad sacks dead? They're dead. There. You did it. Tossing dice back and forth till one side finally drops isn't interesting. What's interesting is the fallout from the death. Or imprisoning them after you get them to surrender. Or negotiating with them after you don't kill them. Or whatever.

After all why spend a lot of time going back and forth rolling dice when ultimately one side is going to loose or not. Let's get to that. And then see, based on the choices the PCs made, what the fallout is.

Because for me, that's where (along with clever ideas and tactics and the genuine need to come up with plans for survival as describe above) things get interesting.

I know that may not be what some people focus on. But I'm talking about what's in the rules as applied. I completely understand someone might want something else.


First Blood
Final point. The Classic Traveller combatThrows aren't about "hitting" the target. They are about doing effective damage. The throw combine the chance to hit along with whether or not the armor protected against less effective hits.

With the First Blood rules (as written) in Book 1, the character may or may not die. All dice of Damage from the first effective hit is applied against one of the physical characteristics as determined by a random roll. (A 33% chance for each.)

The Damage dice might be enough to drive that characteristic to 0... or not.

It's a random roll. If the characteristic has a value of 6 and someone rolls 3D6 Damage and rolls a 5, the character is still up and fighting. Badly hurt... but still going.

If the Damage roll drives that characteristic to 0 the character drops. It might be from shock, from being unconscious, from a wound to the leg that is too painful for him to think about anything else... whatever.

But the point is, the character, per the rules in Book 1, is not dead.

The Traveller Book has these rules... but also muddies the matter with some additional text. For a variety of reasons, I prefer the rules from Book 1. They risk PCs getting knocked out of the fight fairly easily if someone targets them, but doesn't kill them. And I think this is elegant and clever for an RPG. (As a Referee I tend to bump off unnamed NPCs with one hit, but apply the First Blood rules for NPCs.)


So, there it is. I think in terms of gameplay and reasonable expectations of getting shot while unarmored by powerful firearms the system works just fine, creating tension and creativity and problem solving in RPG play.

 

[aramis]

Well that's all handled now.

And now the burning question- what the hell is the scout belt secret?

One of the 3rd party apocrypha (Paranoia Press' Scouts & Assassins)had the belt buckle be their IISS internal ID. It also had advanced scout gen and assassin advanced characters, as well as the first appearance of the Serpent class, with plans, and data for several stretched variants for which plans were not provided.

SCOUT SERVICE INSIGNIA
Normally, the ·'official" uniform of the Scouts consists of a dull, black coverall of finely-woven ballistic cloth, black, knee-high boots of soft leather, and a black cap. The only other distinguishing feature of the Scout uniform is the insignia, with its stylized, silver, winged serpent on a circular background - the color of which denotes the pay grade, or rank, of the Scout. The insignia, worn both by Scouts on active duty and on retired ("reserve-subject to call-up") status, is worn as a shoulder patch on the left shoulder and as a belt buckle.
The use of the word "buckle" is actually a misnomer; the belt insignia serves as an identification disc for the individual to whom it was issued. Coded on sub-miniature, micro circuitry within the device is the individual's retinal patterns, blood chemistry, finger and palm prints, DNA molecular structure and service history-or the corresponding identification data for non-carbon based lifeforms or non-Humaniti.
Should an individual other than the one to whom this device was originally issued and tuned attempt to make use of it, a shaped charge roughly equivalent to a standard service sidearm fired point-blank will be activated within 90 seconds after it is donned. This shaped charge feature can also be activated, at will, by the individual to whom the device was issued and has gotten many a Scout out of an otherwise "hopeless" situation.
Re-issues of "lost" ldentibuckles cost the Scout Cr5,000.
(PP, S&A, p. 0)​

It's the first place we confirm there are scout commandos...
It looks very much like an early draft of Bk 6 advanced scout gen...

 

[Willie Dewitt]

it would. but then they'll start saying "hey, but you said ....".

I've been around the GMing block enough times to know how to be fairly consistent. And if a player calls me out on a memory lapse, it ain't the end of the world. Not mine, anyway.

 

[welsh]

I have come to believe this view is overstated as a problem....

That was a remarkably patronizing post, in defence of a basically indefensible game mechanic. To wit:

The Classic Traveller combatThrows aren't about "hitting" the target. They are about doing effective damage. The throw combine the chance to hit along with whether or not the armor protected against less effective hits.

Of which I'm well aware. And it is an error, because in first conflating two separate probabilties -- hit and penetration -- and then attempting to balance the result, we arrive at outcomes that don't make sense.

Consider, for example, a character with skill-0 firing an auto rifle at two other characters, at medium range. One is naked, peeking out from behind a rock, and the other is standing still in the open wearing cloth armour, waving, and saying hello.

For the naked guy behind the rock, we arrive at +6 (no armour), +2 (range), and -4 (cover), for a total DM to hit of +4. We hit on 4+: 92%, give or take.

For the friendly fool in cloth armour, we get -1 (cloth), +2 (range), and no other DM, for a total DM of +1. We hit on 7+: 58%.

So we are more likely to do effective damage to a naked guy whose body, save his head and shoulders, is entirely hidden behind armour (a rock) that an auto rifle can't penetrate, than we are to a guy who is entirely exposed, standing still, wearing armour that an auto rifle (FN FAL) easily penetrates. Not only more likely, but far more likely.

That's indefensible.

 

[welsh]

Hmm, that's where Striker, AHL and/or Snapshot come to the rescue. Don't leave the starport without them.

I like Snapshot a lot, but it still suffers from the same essential problem.

 

[creativehum]

That was a remarkably patronizing post, in defence of a basically indefensible game mechanic. To wit:



Of which I'm well aware. And it is an error, because in first conflating two separate probabilties -- hit and penetration -- and then attempting to balance the result, we arrive at outcomes that don't make sense.

Consider, for example, a character with skill-0 firing an auto rifle at two other characters, at medium range. One is naked, peeking out from behind a rock, and the other is standing still in the open wearing cloth armour, waving, and saying hello.

For the naked guy behind the rock, we arrive at +6 (no armour), +2 (range), and -4 (cover), for a total DM to hit of +4. We hit on 4+: 92%, give or take.

For the friendly fool in cloth armour, we get -1 (cloth), +2 (range), and no other DM, for a total DM of +1. We hit on 7+: 58%.

So we are more likely to do effective damage to a naked guy whose body, save his head and shoulders, is entirely hidden behind armour (a rock) that an auto rifle can't penetrate, than we are to a guy who is entirely exposed, standing still, wearing armour that an auto rifle (FN FAL) easily penetrates. Not only more likely, but far more likely.

That's indefensible.

I'll leave to you to decide for me whether I was being patronizing. A bit of snark, yes. But only in the dark humor I found in setting up people to shoot at point blank range. Patronizing wasn't my intent, but it's the internet, so who knows. But I apologize for upsetting you. Really. It wasn't my intent.

As for Cloth Armor, please tell me more. (I'm asking sincerely.) The text says "A heavy duty body suit tailored from ballistic cloth. The fabric absorbs impact energy, distributing the blow over the body of the target and possibly resulting in bruising. Nevertheless, cloth armor is almost the best and the most versatile available."

With the words "the best" in the description and the values assigned on the Weapon/Armor matrix I assume cloth armor in a Traveller setting is effective in some manner. (The values on the matrix make it clear that in Traveller Cloth armor is very effective against ballistic weapons of all kinds in comparison to the other armors.)

But you say Cloth armor is ("easily penetrated") -- which makes it sound as if its ineffective.

I'm more than willing to believe I'm missing misunderstanding something, but clearly there's a split between what the rules are saying and what you're saying. So can you tell me more about how you see cloth armor's effectiveness or lack of effectiveness? Again, I'm genuinely curious about this.

On a side note (not as some clever "gotcha" but as a point I think is worth bringing up), the DM -4 advantage for partial cover is applied to someone firing from behind cover, not peeking around the cover. Someone firing from around cover would be more exposed than just head and shoulders. (If someone were peeking around cover I would offer more of a DM defense.)

I'm sure this won't alleviate your concerns with the system. But I thought that should be brought up.