S4 was WRONG about CT Combat!

[rancke]

If that were the case, then the bit about half way would be under Minor Wounds and not Unconsciousness specifically.

It is the case. Otherwise, the text would read "Any wound points that does not reduce any characteristic to zero". But it does not. It reads "Any wound points which does not reduce more than one physical characteristic to zero".

The bit about half way should, indeed, be under Minor Wounds. OR the bit about half way shouldn't have been under Unconciousness. That's what makes the two rules discrepant. That's why the rules need to be clarified. Maybe this would be a retcon, maybe it would be a affirmation of the original intent. You can't tell from the text, and no matter how many times you repeat the one statement of the two that supports your argument, you're not going to make the other one go away, and you're not going to prove your claim.


Hans

 

[Supplement Four]

You can't tell from the text, and no matter how many times you repeat the one statement of the two that supports your argument, you're not going to make the other one go away, and you're not going to prove your claim.

Brother, I'm not even going to try.

Read it as you may.

 

[DonM]

All of which proves the need to have an official set of clarifications and errata...

I'm about 50% ready to propose flipping the whole thing over into the MT errata format, because I'm starting to identify places where there are impacts on editions going forward.

For example, the checklist clarification in Book 3 impacts MT and TNE.

You're claiming retcon when I'm seeing a missing paragraph after 30 years. Think about an actual item that's incorrect that has survived three completely separate editions over those 30 years and is still incorrect.

This is why I'm going with the MT errata format for the TNE project. Traveller really needs a robust mechanism for stating errata/addenda/clairifications, and if MT has anything, it definitely has the most developed errata system.

:rofl:

 

[Supplement Four]

You're claiming retcon when I'm seeing a missing paragraph after 30 years. Think about an actual item that's incorrect that has survived three completely separate editions over those 30 years and is still incorrect.

Not 100% claiming...just saying, "Smells like..." :smirk:

Is this lost paragraph included in any of the later editions?

This is why I'm going with the MT errata format for the TNE project. Traveller really needs a robust mechanism for stating errata/addenda/clairifications, and if MT has anything, it definitely has the most developed errata system.

Not being an MT enthusiast, I'm not sure I know the difference.

What's the difference in what you've been doing (and already posted) and the MT errata?

 

[DonM]

Is this lost paragraph included in any of the later editions?

It would appear to be how MT handles it, but I'm boggled with juggling multiple editions at the moment. I'll check when I get a chance.

What's the difference in what you've been doing (and already posted) and the MT errata?

If you look at the MT errata, there's a structure to each errata piece, and there are categories: correction, omission, clarification, or addition. Sometimes one piece of errata is catagorized like "clarification and addition", or "clarification and correction".

So, for example, the current clarification (for TTB-82):

Unconscious, p. 36, 47: Characters who are wounded when a combat ends but never go unconscious (because no characteristic ever is reduced to zero) have their characteristics reset to halfway between the wounded and full strength values. Unconscious characters with only one characteristic going to zero also get their characteristics reset to halfway between the wounded and full strength values after regaining consciousness. However, unconscious characters with two characteristics at zero, do not receive the halfway reset after regaining consciousness. In this case, the rule on p. 36 applies: "Their characteristics remain at the wounded level (or 1, whichever is higher). Recovery is dependent on medical attention (a medical facility and an individual with Medical-3 skill; recuperation to full strength without medical attention is not possible)."

This would look like this in the MT errata format:

Page 36, Wounding and Death, left column, first paragraph (clarification and addition): Characters who are wounded when a combat ends but never go unconscious (because no characteristic ever is reduced to zero) have their characteristics reset to halfway between the wounded and full strength values. The individual is considered to have sustained minor wounds. For example, a character with a strength of 8 who is wounded to a strength of 4 (and remains conscious throughout the combat) becomes strength 6 at the end of the combat and remains so until recovered. Round fractions against the character. A return to full strength for the character requires medical attention (30 minutes with a medical kit and an individual with at least medical-1 skill) or three days of rest.

But that just feels a bit too formal for Classic Traveller. It strikes me that CT clarifications need to remain informal.

 

[far-trader]

I always liked the MT format for a few reasons. Never really saw it as "formal" so much as informative. Nice to know the reason behind the fix. I wouldn't mind seeing it for the CT errata, if we're voting

 

[Supplement Four]

This would look like this in the MT errata format:

I agree with Dan. I'd like to know what was clarified and what was added.

But, good god, Don, that's a lot of work, there. I'd certainly understand if you just left CT informal (and be glad for the work you did do).

 

[aramis]

I always liked the MT format for a few reasons. Never really saw it as "formal" so much as informative. Nice to know the reason behind the fix. I wouldn't mind seeing it for the CT errata, if we're voting

I did, as well. It is the most informative errata mode I've encountered.

 

[beowulf2044]

Classic Traveller, like any game, should have rules that are clear and consistant. Who wants to argue with that statement?

 

[tbeard1999]

It strikes me that CT clarifications need to remain informal.

No problem with that, so long as "informal" doesn't mean "unclear".

 

[Johnny_Pharaoh]

I'm for whatever results in the least amount of complication. I haven't read this thread very thoroughly, but I will chime in to say I just ignore that "First Blood" thing. I just let 'em divvy up the damage as they see fit from the get-go, and combat is STILL pretty deadly. However, I do apply the rule to minion-type NPCs, just because it's simpler for me and knocks 'em out of the fight quicker. Of course, I like that Savage Worlds mentality that most bad guys are there to be killed and make the PCs feel like badass heroes, and not all GMs share that opinion. For important NPCs, I ignore First Blood in the same way I let characters do. This keeps them in the fight longer and separates them from their minions. This has never created any problems that I'm aware of. As to whether it's the "right" way or not, I don't care. It is interesting to read everyone's takes on it, though, and makes me think a bit.

 

[dean]

I'm for whatever results in the least amount of complication. I haven't read this thread very thoroughly, but I will chime in to say I just ignore that "First Blood" thing. I just let 'em divvy up the damage as they see fit from the get-go, and combat is STILL pretty deadly. However, I do apply the rule to minion-type NPCs, just because it's simpler for me and knocks 'em out of the fight quicker. Of course, I like that Savage Worlds mentality that most bad guys are there to be killed and make the PCs feel like badass heroes, and not all GMs share that opinion. For important NPCs, I ignore First Blood in the same way I let characters do. This keeps them in the fight longer and separates them from their minions. This has never created any problems that I'm aware of. As to whether it's the "right" way or not, I don't care. It is interesting to read everyone's takes on it, though, and makes me think a bit.

That's the beauty of CT, though. Pretty much Rule One in the book is: Whatever the ref says, is the rules. Playing it the way you want/like/fell is right is all that matters, for your own campaign.

The discussion and outcome and creation of the clarification/errata is a good thing though. A lot of material in 3 x 64 page small format books, there were/are a number of things which could have used clarity 20 years ago.. except for Rule One making all that unnecessary. That's why CT is still my favorite. I dislike the munchkinism of the point systems. But, that's just me.

 

[rancke]

That's the beauty of CT, though. Pretty much Rule One in the book is: Whatever the ref says, is the rules. Playing it the way you want/like/fell is right is all that matters, for your own campaign.

The discussion and outcome and creation of the clarification/errata is a good thing though. A lot of material in 3 x 64 page small format books, there were/are a number of things which could have used clarity 20 years ago.. except for Rule One making all that unnecessary. That's why CT is still my favorite. I dislike the munchkinism of the point systems. But, that's just me.

Nothing special about that. Rule #1 applies to every RPG rules set I've ever heard of. IMO Rule #1 is what distinguishes roleplaying games from wargames, boardgame, cardgames, etc. whether it's explicitly mentioned or not.

And munchkinism is a result of Munchkins, not rules. You can munchkin CT just as easily as you can munchkin point-based systems.


Hans

 

[Johnny_Pharaoh]

Yeah, I think it was Steve Jackson who said with a good GM, even a bad set of rules can be fun. I have always said "system doesn't matter," although I have been chased off other boards by fussy oldsters for saying so. I'm a first edition AD&D guy, for example, but when I mentioned on a board related to that game that I played 3e also, you'd think I just urinated on Gygax's grave or something.

I agree that the clarification I've found here is a Good Thing, though. I've had the main three little books since the mid-80s, and I always adored the simplicity, the lack of art that left a lot to my imagination, and so on. It seemed so elegant and neatly bundled but there were things I just couldn't put my fingers on. I didn't get around to actually playing Traveller until I was in my late 20s, and found that those things I didn't get caused me trouble. I was unable to give good rationales to my players. They're good enough players that they know what I say goes, but I do like to give them answers that make sense.

Thanks to the boards here, which I've just discovered, I now understand a lot more about how things work, especially the combat system (I never, EVER understood initiative until I learned here that there is no initiative, for example. I always thought I was just missing something).

It's GREAT to find folks here who share my love for the game, even if some of you seem rather litigious, heh. But in general folks here seem pretty civil - always a surprise and a joy, since most gaming-related boards I've visited (especially ones devoted to older games) seem to have devolved into anti-youth bitterness and screaming matches over things like level limits for non-humans or whatever.

But that's history! I'm now armed with the reprints and ready to go storming off across the Spinward Marches, and I'll be a better referee thanks to the discussions I've read here.

 

[aramis]

Hans:
Rule 1 only applies if they players accept it and trust the GM. If not, it's a recipe for disaster.

Johnny:
System does matter, or we'd all still be playing OE...

 

[rancke]

Hans:
Rule 1 only applies if they players accept it and trust the GM. If not, it's a recipe for disaster.

Rule #1 doesn't mean a GM shouldn't have rules that he sticks to. It just means he doesn't have to stick to any printed rule but can make up rules of his own if he thinks they make better sense.

In any case, the need for trust applies equally to a CT campaign and a BESM campaign. I just don't think CT scores any extra points for having Rule 1 explicit. It might have 30 years ago, but nowadays it really goes without saying. To me, anyway.


Hans

 

[aramis]

Rule #1 doesn't mean a GM shouldn't have rules that he sticks to. It just means he doesn't have to stick to any printed rule but can make up rules of his own if he thinks they make better sense.

In any case, the need for trust applies equally to a CT campaign and a BESM campaign. I just don't think CT scores any extra points for having Rule 1 explicit. It might have 30 years ago, but nowadays it really goes without saying. To me, anyway.


Hans

Having seen players walk because the GM decided not to use the rules as written, deleting it from the rulebooks is no loss. I've played with far too many rules lawyers...

 

[tbeard1999]

Yeah, I think it was Steve Jackson who said with a good GM, even a bad set of rules can be fun. I have always said "system doesn't matter," although I have been chased off other boards by fussy oldsters for saying so. I'm a first edition AD&D guy, for example, but when I mentioned on a board related to that game that I played 3e also, you'd think I just urinated on Gygax's grave or something.

My experience has been the same -- an excellent GM can make an abysmal system fun. Good players help a lot as well. So IMHO, the quality of the GM might count for 50%, the players 30% and the system 20%. So, if (say) 60%+ is a good game, then an excellent GM + even mediocre players can make it.

However, system can still matter a lot, for the following reasons:

1. Most GMs (in my experience) are not excellent. A depressing percentage of them are mediocre. In such cases, a good system can cover a lot of mediocrity.

2. Even good GMs have limited time and energy. I never have a hard time getting a group together and my players apparently consider me a good GM. But I have an (ever increasing) unwillingness to expend energy to beat a crappy game system into useable shape.

3. Crappy systems give certain types of players opportunities to be pains in the ass. While this can usually be managed, it consumes energy that could otherwise be spent improving the game.

All IMHO.

 

[beowulf2044]

Good 'ol Rule #1, without which game publishers would have to produce games with actual, working rules rather than risk the return of the mechandise as defective.

 

[dean]

Good 'ol Rule #1, without which game publishers would have to produce games with actual, working rules rather than risk the return of the mechandise as defective.

Well, I suppose the point of my mentioning rule #1 is that with the space they had to work with, Mr Miller and co. did a fabulous job of giving us a framework upon which to work. However since all contingencies could not possibly be covered, and with the foresight that things change and they aren't always as they seem to be, rule #1 was brilliant.

In addition, we now take rule #1 for granted, but 32 years ago it had to be explicitly declared, because the concept that no rule was cast in stone was a radical, relatively new thought. And, with Traveller coming out of a company that had previously been known for it's War Games, where rule #1 cannot possibly be useful, but hoping to draw from that audience that was more technologically inclined / rules inclined, stating rule #1 was very necessary.

Now, I know many younger players who have adopted the attitude that the games must be run strictly as the rules are written. Sometimes it's a desire to participate in Munchkinism. Sometimes it's because the want to be rules-lawyers. Sometimes it's because that's just the way their regular gaming group always was. My response is: You want to play by the rules? See Rule #1! I love Traveller, but in some things, I simply don't like how things work out. I don't use the ship rules at all. Make it up as I go, based on The Beyond setting of CJ Cherryh's writing. First Blood, nope. But since it's always fair, fun, and friendly, no one cares too much.

And that's what gaming ought to be about, anyway.