mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Well the best selling rpg of all time still sticks with armour making you harder to hit... 
Should I Stay or Should I Go Now???
- Thread starter tim_manley
- Start date
tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
The main use I've seen for purported "innovation" in RPGs is to excuse the designer's incompetence...
Well the best selling rpg of all time still sticks with armour making you harder to hit...
Very true. But what it really did was change that system a bit to where the armor gives you a target number for a hit that damages that enemy, as opposed to one that just glances off his shield or armor.
Understand, my point about the armor was not a value judgement. The CT system is perfectly viable...its just not the way that most games that are not D&D these days choose to handle armor...including pretty much every version of Traveller after CT (and I think, unless I am mistaken, that Azhanti High Lighting actually used armor as damage resistance as well). T20 sort of used both systems, for example, as does GURPS with its defense rolls and DR for armor.
Allen
We agree on something
A good example of this for me would be the initiative system in the first edition of Prime Directive...ouch...
Allen
Imperial Planetologist
SOC-12
AHL combat is built on the system presented in Striker.
Just by the way ...
My thesaurus defines "modern" as "according to the current time" and men-
tions "contemporary" as a synonym.
Since I have no English thesaurus at hand, you may accept the Wiktionary:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/modern
So, could this end the not exactly fruitful debate about "modern - not mo-
dern", please ?
My thesaurus defines "modern" as "according to the current time" and men-
tions "contemporary" as a synonym.
Since I have no English thesaurus at hand, you may accept the Wiktionary:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/modern
So, could this end the not exactly fruitful debate about "modern - not mo-
dern", please ?
tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
I don't necessarily object to a single roll to hit and to penetrate armor, so long as the designer mitigates the statistical problems endemic to such systems. I think that the main problem is what I call the "Shotgun Fallacy". Some weapons are extremely good at scoring a hit, but not very good at penetrating armor. In a single-roll system, such weapons will be unreasonably effective at damaging armored targets or unreasonably ineffective at damaging unarmored targets. And there just aren't a lot of ways to mitigate that problem in a playable manner. Ironically, CT does the best job by differentiating between different weapon and armor types. Of course, that approach radically limits the number of truly different weapons and armor you can have (though variants of existing types is pretty straightforward).
Of course, creative referees can rationalize such anomalies, but this doesn't alter the fact that the system produces an unreasonable result.
There are other problems as well -- some weapons (tasers for instance) or powers only require contact with the target. Many designers fail to provide useful guidelines on distinguishing between contacting the target and penetrating the target's armor.
All that said, one underappreciated aspect of CT combat (IMHO) is that it's very dramatic. A single hit can mess up your day, even if you're wearing armor. Systems in which armor absorbs damage often make combats into attrition battles, in which armored characters slowly wear down, but no single hit is really lethal.
I'd also note that armor-absorbs-damage systems often have serious flaws of their own. The worst IMHO is equating penetration with damage. Unless steps are taken to mitigate this problem, armor piercing weapons become unreasonably lethal against unarmored targets. MGT has this flaw.
Last edited:
Imperial Planetologist
SOC-12
Do you understand the difference between accuracy and precision?Just by the way ...
tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
I always thought that this was the most inexplicable omission in CT, especially given the decidedly military flavor of many Traveller campaigns. I almost suspect that there was a struggle within GDW as to whether to stay with the CT combat system or adopt a Striker derived system. In any case, there have been several workable CT vehicle combat rules ginned up by CT refs over the years.
Since I used Striker as soon as it came out, it wasn't much of an issue to me.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Other way around - AHL came first, Striker was based on it.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
I don't, and I'm meant to be able to teach it
I don't, and I'm meant to be able to teach it
For a start, "accuracy" uses one letter less than "precision" ...
Innovation Automation Tools...Modernized Gaming
When I mentioned innovation, I meant just that. Starting with automation of tools to speed up combat. When I played Twilight we created a fast play chart that allowed us to follow the scenario and move through the room quickly.
Players have provided the innovations I'm afraid. Spreadsheets for ship creation, simplified combat. How many ref's use a laptop when they ref? I did. Created MTU in web format and utilized everything off the laptop. A few maps we're table top. A few player documents we're paper.
At least we can get games in pdf format that is a start. But their development process should be simplified compared to the 1980s.
When I mentioned innovation, I meant just that. Starting with automation of tools to speed up combat. When I played Twilight we created a fast play chart that allowed us to follow the scenario and move through the room quickly.
Players have provided the innovations I'm afraid. Spreadsheets for ship creation, simplified combat. How many ref's use a laptop when they ref? I did. Created MTU in web format and utilized everything off the laptop. A few maps we're table top. A few player documents we're paper.
At least we can get games in pdf format that is a start. But their development process should be simplified compared to the 1980s.
In science, the analogy goes that accuracy is throwing a dart at the bullseye (after calling it, obviously), whereas precision is being able to repeatedly throw to the same area. the closer the area occupied by the most darts, the more precise it is.
The most precise you could get would be to repeatedly hit the exact spot hit by the previous dart thrown, but it wouldn't be accurate if they keep missing what you are aiming for.
A better way of using the dart analogy, might be to say that 'Precision' is how large or small the target is while 'Accuracy' is how many darts can hit the target. Hitting a 1' diameter target with 10 out of 10 darts is low precision but high accuracy. Hitting a 1" diameter target with 2 out of 10 darts is high precision but low accuracy.
[I sure hope that the original question was not rhetorical.]
Accuracy is a blast
Another good way to think of it is, a shot gun is very accurate. It is very, very like to hit what you are aiming at (a point most game desginers miss) It just is not very percise. "Nice job, Bob. You got that enemy agent allright alright. plus the winow of my car, that kid's dog and I thing you winged that little old lady as well."
Another good way to think of it is, a shot gun is very accurate. It is very, very like to hit what you are aiming at (a point most game desginers miss) It just is not very percise. "Nice job, Bob. You got that enemy agent allright alright. plus the winow of my car, that kid's dog and I thing you winged that little old lady as well."
tim_manley
SOC-12
Okay, any edition that generates this much traffic and communication is worth buying.
As to CT being unplayable.... not even close. As part of my "nostalgia" home-grown campaign I've begun re-reading B1-3 again as I'm going to run "by the book" games. I'm discovering the flexability of those 3 books is pretty hefty.
As to CT being unplayable.... not even close. As part of my "nostalgia" home-grown campaign I've begun re-reading B1-3 again as I'm going to run "by the book" games. I'm discovering the flexability of those 3 books is pretty hefty.
