MGT Only: To SMG or Not - Comments Needed

[SpaceBadger]

I doubt iron-mongery will ever be pared down this far, but I generally agree ... K.I.S.S. ...

Handgun: Any weapon designed to be fired one-handed.
Longarm: Any weapon designed to be fired two-handed.
Support: Tripod-mounted Machine Guns, Mortars, etc.
Gunnery: Cannon, Howitzer, Turret, Bay, Spinal

I agree with ATP's list, although I sometimes waffle about separating Shotgun into its own skill.

My distinctions when a TL-10 soldier is handed a TL-3 weapon are on the roleplay level; unless it is loaded and ready to fire, he/she has to take time just to figure out how the thing works, and even then will have an unfamiliarity penalty until enough practice or combat has gotten him/her accustomed to this new/old weapon.

That is the other means I add a touch of realism to this simplified skill list, the unfamiliarity penalty; picking up a weapon you've never seen before, even if similar enough to your own weapons that it doesn't take much time to figure out, will impose a penalty of -1 or -2 (-3 in really extreme cases) until you've gotten used to it.

 

[atpollard]

I agree with ATP's list, although I sometimes waffle about separating Shotgun into its own skill.

My distinctions when a TL-10 soldier is handed a TL-3 weapon are on the roleplay level; unless it is loaded and ready to fire, he/she has to take time just to figure out how the thing works, and even then will have an unfamiliarity penalty until enough practice or combat has gotten him/her accustomed to this new/old weapon.

That is the other means I add a touch of realism to this simplified skill list, the unfamiliarity penalty; picking up a weapon you've never seen before, even if similar enough to your own weapons that it doesn't take much time to figure out, will impose a penalty of -1 or -2 (-3 in really extreme cases) until you've gotten used to it.

As long as I can dream ...
I like to view a skill as 2 years of work experience ... about 4000 hours of accumulated skill and knowledge ... so I paint skills with a broad brush. Where I like to throw detail is into expertise ... the higher the skill, the narrower the field of expertise. I like to use nested cascades to define that expertise.

HANDGUN-1
So using the weapons skills, I would expect someone with Weapon Skill-1 to choose one of the four broad classes of weapons [Handgun, Longarm, Support or Gunnery] ... So for the sake of argument, let's say he picks Handgun-1. IMO the character has about 4000 hours of experience handling handguns - some of it at the range, some in training seminars, some possibly in combat situations. He knows enough to pick up any handgun, point it at a target and get it to fire.

HANDGUN, PROJECTILE-2
For skill-2, the character will now be more familiar with handguns and has begun to specialize. Either Energy handguns (practicing line-of-sight shooting and energy management) or slug thrower Handguns (dealing with recoil and parabolic trajectories) ... and in either case familiarity with the basic weapon system internal components (part identification - strip and reassemble). So the character selects Handgun, Projectile-2. This gives him skill-2 with any projectile handgun and skill-1 with any other handgun.

HANDGUN, PROJECTILE, GAUSS-3
For skill-3, the character will need to specialize further. At this skill level, the difference between a traditional bullet, a self propelled gyroc round, and a gauss round has a significant impact on his performance and the character can probably perform simple repairs on handguns and may begin to request special modifications based on his 12,000+ hours of experience shooting handguns. So the character selects Handgun, Projectile, Gauss-3, which gives him skill-3 with any gauss handgun, skill-2 with any projectile handgun and skill-1 with any other handgun.

HANDGUN, PROJECTILE, GAUSS, TARGET-4
At Skill-4, the character will start to break the 2D6 curve, so at this level of skill mastery the specific weapon matters. 'Gauss' is no longer good enough, so the character needs to decide wheter he has further specialized with a compact "pocket gauss pistol", or a standard "service gauss pistol", or a competition "target gauss pistol". So the character selects Handgun, Projectile, Gauss, Target-4, which gives him skill-4 with a target gauss handgun, skill-3 with any gauss handgun, skill-2 with any projectile handgun and skill-1 with any other handgun.

HANDGUN, PROJECTILE, GAUSS, TARGET, LING STANDARD-5
At Skill-5, the character is a world-class marksman and using his gun or another gun makes a difference. At this point, he has a favorite make of Gauss Target Pistol, that gives him a slight edge over other brands. So the character selects Handgun, Projectile, Gauss, Target, Ling Standard-5, which gives him skill-5 with a Ling Standard target gauss handgun, skill-4 with any other target gauss handgun, skill-3 with any gauss handgun, skill-2 with any projectile handgun and skill-1 with any other handgun. The brand stuff is just chrome ... recognition of the character's skill achievement.

HANDGUN, PROJECTILE, GAUSS, TARGET, LING STANDARD, "BLACK MAMBA"-6
At Skill-6+, the curve is broken, you can do the impossible ... as long as you have your specific, custom made weapon ... which you named "Black Mamba".

So that's how I would do it, if I were king of the universe.

 

[McPerth]

As long as I can dream ...
I like to view a skill as 2 years of work experience ... about 4000 hours of accumulated skill and knowledge ... so I paint skills with a broad brush. Where I like to throw detail is into expertise ... the higher the skill, the narrower the field of expertise. I like to use nested cascades to define that expertise.

(...)

So that's how I would do it, if I were king of the universe.

Personally, I've always liked the broad skills. I'm afraid your system makes it quite difficult to have a carácter good in a skill, except for a very narrow part of it. The same way, an engineer (power plant) 3 will only be such in a specific PP, while if you change the ship (or refit the PP of his ship) it will work at lower equivalent skill, and a Pilot 3 will only apply his skill at fullest on a specific class of ship. And, as I understand your post, this penalti will last for about 2 years...

Should I have to choose, SpaceBadger idea of unfamiliarity penalty seems quite better to me:

I agree with ATP's list, although I sometimes waffle about separating Shotgun into its own skill.

My distinctions when a TL-10 soldier is handed a TL-3 weapon are on the roleplay level; unless it is loaded and ready to fire, he/she has to take time just to figure out how the thing works, and even then will have an unfamiliarity penalty until enough practice or combat has gotten him/her accustomed to this new/old weapon.

That is the other means I add a touch of realism to this simplified skill list, the unfamiliarity penalty; picking up a weapon you've never seen before, even if similar enough to your own weapons that it doesn't take much time to figure out, will impose a penalty of -1 or -2 (-3 in really extreme cases) until you've gotten used to it.

 

[atpollard]

Personally, I've always liked the broad skills. I'm afraid your system makes it quite difficult to have a carácter good in a skill, except for a very narrow part of it. The same way, an engineer (power plant) 3 will only be such in a specific PP, while if you change the ship (or refit the PP of his ship) it will work at lower equivalent skill, and a Pilot 3 will only apply his skill at fullest on a specific class of ship. And, as I understand your post, this penalti will last for about 2 years...

Should I have to choose, SpaceBadger idea of unfamiliarity penalty seems quite better to me:

I don't know, for Engineering, I would view the cascade as something closer to:

SKILL-1
Skill-1 becomes the broad, all encompassing skills similar in feel to the CT skills like JoT, Engineer, or Combat Rifleman.
ENGINEERING-1
Includes skills: M-Drive, J-Drive, Electronics, Life Support, Power & Mechanic
(Just a personal peeve, but I add Mechanic because the starship engineer should be able to repair a door lock.)

SKILL-2
Skill-2 becomes a group of similar skills.
ENGINEERING, STARSHIP-2
ENGINEERING, ELECTRONICS-2 (repair electronic items)
ENGINEERING, MECHANICAL-2 (repair mechanical items)

SKILL-3
At Skill-3, we hit the resolution of the CT skill list, which is about the highest skill level that gives a chance of failure for most tasks:
ENGINEERING, STARSHIP, M-DRIVE-3
ENGINEERING, STARSHIP, J-DRIVE-3
ENGINEERING, STARSHIP, POWER-3
ENGINEERING, STARSHIP, LIFE SUPPORT-3
ENGINEERING, ELECTRONICS-3 (modify electronic items)
ENGINEERING, MECHANICAL-3 (modify mechanical items)

SKILL-4
Specialization in a specific item doesn't generally kick in until Skill-4, which is where the tasks on a 2D6 system start to be broken by auto-success:
ENGINEERING, STARSHIP, M-DRIVE, M1-4
ENGINEERING, STARSHIP, M-DRIVE, M2-4
ENGINEERING, STARSHIP, M-DRIVE, M3-4
ENGINEERING, STARSHIP, M-DRIVE, M4-4
ENGINEERING, STARSHIP, M-DRIVE, M5-4
ENGINEERING, STARSHIP, M-DRIVE, M6-4
ENGINEERING, STARSHIP, J-DRIVE, J1-4
ENGINEERING, STARSHIP, J-DRIVE, J2-4
ENGINEERING, STARSHIP, J-DRIVE, J3-4
ENGINEERING, STARSHIP, J-DRIVE, J4-4
ENGINEERING, STARSHIP, J-DRIVE, J5-4
ENGINEERING, STARSHIP, J-DRIVE, J6-4
ENGINEERING, STARSHIP, POWER, PP1-4
ENGINEERING, STARSHIP, POWER, PP2-4
ENGINEERING, STARSHIP, POWER, PP3-4
ENGINEERING, STARSHIP, POWER, PP4-4
ENGINEERING, STARSHIP, POWER, PP5-4
ENGINEERING, STARSHIP, POWER, PP6-4
ENGINEERING, STARSHIP, LIFE SUPPORT, CHEMICAL-4
ENGINEERING, STARSHIP, LIFE SUPPORT, BIOLOGICAL-4
ENGINEERING, ELECTRONICS-4 (design/build electronic items)
ENGINEERING, MECHANICAL-4 (design/build mechanical items)

SKILL-5
At skill 5+, the 2D6 rolls are often auto success, so it seems only reasonable to grant auto-success with a item that the character is VERY familiar with. Here is where specific manufacturers kick in.



So, using the rules as written, an Engineer with 4 skills to allocate might have:
Mechanic-1
Engineer (M-Drive)-1
Engineer (J-Drive)-1
Engineer (Power)-0 [from Engineer (All)-0]
Engineer (Life Support)-0 [from Engineer (All)-0]

OR

Engineer (J-Drive)-3
Engineer (M-Drive)-0 [from Engineer (All)-0]
Engineer (Power)-0 [from Engineer (All)-0]
Engineer (Life Support)-0 [from Engineer (All)-0]



Using Classic Traveller, an Engineer with 4 skills to allocate might have:
Engineer-2
Electronics-1
Mechanical-1



Using my proposed cascade, an Engineer with 4 skills to allocate might have:
Engineering, Starship, J-Drive, J2-4 granting him
Skill-4 with (J2) Jump Drives
Skill-3 with all other Jump Drives
Skill-2 with M-Drives/Power/Life Support
Skill-1 with Electronics and Mechanic.

So the cascades grant low skill levels across a broad range of activities and high skill in the area of expertise.

 

[McPerth]

SKILL-4
Specialization in a specific item doesn't generally kick in until Skill-4, which is where the tasks on a 2D6 system start to be broken by auto-success:

<snip>

SKILL-5
At skill 5+, the 2D6 rolls are often auto success, so it seems only reasonable to grant auto-success with a item that the character is VERY familiar with. Here is where specific manufacturers kick in.

In fact I dont care too much if at skill 4+ routine tasks become auto-success. In fact is what you expect form who is a renown expert in this matter that he never (or nearly so) fails in tasks that are not at least difficult.

So, using the rules as written, an Engineer with 4 skills to allocate might have:
Mechanic-1
Engineer (M-Drive)-1
Engineer (J-Drive)-1
Engineer (Power)-0 [from Engineer (All)-0]
Engineer (Life Support)-0 [from Engineer (All)-0]

OR

Engineer (J-Drive)-3
Engineer (M-Drive)-0 [from Engineer (All)-0]
Engineer (Power)-0 [from Engineer (All)-0]
Engineer (Life Support)-0 [from Engineer (All)-0]

I see only 3 skill levels allocated in each case (unless you also count skill 0, but that's not usually counted in the number of skill levels). And you forgot (in both cases) Engineer (electronics)- 0 [from Engineer (All)-0], as electronics is a specialty of engineering in MgT (unlike CT/MT, where it was a different skill)

 

[atpollard]

I see only 3 skill levels allocated in each case (unless you also count skill 0, but that's not usually counted in the number of skill levels). And you forgot (in both cases) Engineer (electronics)- 0 [from Engineer (All)-0], as electronics is a specialty of engineering in MgT (unlike CT/MT, where it was a different skill)

I don't create that many MgT characters, so I could easily be misremembering, but I thought that the first skill slot does pay for Engineering (all)-0.

With the Electronics-0, oops, I forgot that one.

[With respect to Skill-4 and 2D6, that's why ice cream comes in flavors, different people like different things. ]

 

[Dagrill]

*Shotguns and SMG/PDWs are included in both light and heavy less as coverage and more to allow a civilian to get them when taking Personal weapons. So I suppose that they could be called "Ranged: Civilian" and "Ranged: Military."

I like the idea of 'Ranged Civilan' and 'Ranged Military', with an extremely large sub-set for the military to reflect training in all type of weapons they are likely to use (at their TL).

Someone also mentioned specialities in things like targeting, which is another excellent idea.


Kind regards

David

 

[mike wightman]

There is no difference firing a civilian version of the M-16 to firing the military version.

Military versus civilian for a skill is just plain stupid.

Requiring you to be in the military to learn a skill is a cultural thing - here in the UK if you want to learn to fire an smg join the army. In the US join a gun club, or just go shopping then head off to the woods and practice a bit.

 

[Vladika]

There is no difference firing a civilian version of the M-16 to firing the military version.

Military versus civilian for a skill is just plain stupid.

Requiring you to be in the military to learn a skill is a cultural thing - here in the UK if you want to learn to fire an smg join the army. In the US join a gun club, or just go shopping then head off to the woods and practice a bit.

Correct. But, do you really that Matt is either paying attention or even cares about logic, especially when it goes against his preconceived notions?

 

[McPerth]

I don't create that many MgT characters, so I could easily be misremembering, but I thought that the first skill slot does pay for Engineering (all)-0.

In MgT (at least if I understood it well), the first level of a cascade skill gives you one specialty at 1 and the resto of them at 0. So, if your carácter receive Engineering 1, it will have on of its specialties (let's say Engineering (power Plants)-1) and the rest of them at 0.

[With respect to Skill-4 and 2D6, that's why ice cream comes in flavors, different people like different things. ]

Agreed here.

 

[Jame]

There is no difference firing a civilian version of the M-16 to firing the military version.

Military versus civilian for a skill is just plain stupid.

Requiring you to be in the military to learn a skill is a cultural thing - here in the UK if you want to learn to fire an smg join the army. In the US join a gun club, or just go shopping then head off to the woods and practice a bit.

My first proposal was "personal" versus "heavy," which could be "smallarm" versus "longarm."

Support weapons is basically anything mounted on a vehicle or a heavy weapon.
There's also IMO Ranged/Turret and Ranged/Bay, but that's specialisations you get if you join the Fleet (wet or space!).

 

[pendragonman]

I think we need to differentiate between squad support type weapons and real heavy weapons.

When I think about squad support weapons I think of grenade launchers, RPGs, 30 cal/ 7.62mm to 50 cal/14.7mm machine guns, 40 mm and maybe 60 mm mortars. Basically if a couple of guys can carry everything it needs without a power assist and not be a pistol/PDW/rifle/ACR.

When I hear heavy weapons I keep picturing Anti tank artillery, howitzers, 22 mm cannon, PGMP/FPMG, etc. Basically if it requires a powered suit or vehicle to carry it is heavy.

Or am I splitting hairs to fine?

 

[JimMarn]

I think we need to differentiate between squad support type weapons and real heavy weapons.

When I think about squad support weapons I think of grenade launchers, RPGs, 30 cal/ 7.62mm to 50 cal/14.7mm machine guns, 40 mm and maybe 60 mm mortars. Basically if a couple of guys can carry everything it needs without a power assist and not be a pistol/PDW/rifle/ACR.

When I hear heavy weapons I keep picturing Anti tank artillery, howitzers, 22 mm cannon, PGMP/FPMG, etc. Basically if it requires a powered suit or vehicle to carry it is heavy.

Or am I splitting hairs to fine?

I'll go along with that. Squad and platoon weapons for the 30 cal, etc.

And company/regiment weapons for the smaller artillery and howitzers.

I remember the US Army had 8 inch guns, but I don't remember if those are Division or Corps level weapons.

 

[rancke]

This has already been proposed, but the words might express it better:

One-handed with recoil.
Two-handed with recoil.
One- or two-handed without recoil.
Tripod-mounted.


Hans

 

[pendragonman]

I'll go along with that. Squad and platoon weapons for the 30 cal, etc.

And company/regiment weapons for the smaller artillery and howitzers.

I remember the US Army had 8 inch guns, but I don't remember if those are Division or Corps level weapons.

Division level in the 80's.

 

[Dagrill]

There is no difference firing a civilian version of the M-16 to firing the military version. Military versus civilian for a skill is just plain stupid. Requiring you to be in the military to learn a skill is a cultural thing - here in the UK if you want to learn to fire an smg join the army. In the US join a gun club, or just go shopping then head off to the woods and practice a bit.

I would not say it's a stupid idea, just as I do not think it's stupid to disagree with this chap's idea.

Civilians have to find the time to practice, pay for their ammo and don't get to practice with people shooting back at them all of which you get for free in the military. This take says you may be an olympic champion shooter, but how good are you when someone is actually shooting back at you?

Also I believe different states have widely varying gun laws (this is from watching crime programmes so may not be accurate).

I personally like to keep the basics simple like CT, rather than T20

Kind Regards

David

 

[mike wightman]

Coolness under fire, small unit tactics etc are not covered by weapon skills.

The skill is used to resolve the to hit task.

In the USA civilians can buy and train on military weapons, police forces can buy and train on military weapons.

So do you make a rule that says in a warlike culture civilians have access to military skills?

 

[atpollard]

Coolness under fire, small unit tactics etc are not covered by weapon skills.

The skill is used to resolve the to hit task.

In the USA civilians can buy and train on military weapons, police forces can buy and train on military weapons.

So do you make a rule that says in a warlike culture civilians have access to military skills?

I think the intent behind the Civilian/Military split is ...

CIVILIAN: Weapons commonly used for hunting and recreational shooting, like bolt/lever action rifles, semi-auto rifles, revolvers, semi-auto pistols are all similar enough (at Traveller's task resolution level of detail) to be incorporated into a single skill that anyone might have learned.

MILITARY: The ability to control a weapon on full-auto fire (like an M-16 or an Uzi/Mac-10 SMG or a Glock 18 machine pistol) is not a skill that any civilian might have learned, but is a skill that most soldiers may have had an opportunity to learn. In addition, knowing how to use an under-barrel grenade launcher is probably more common among the typical infantry soldier than Mortar training (Heavy Weapon skill), so this might be another reasonable action tied to the MILITARY GUNNER skill that is not available with the CIVILIAN GUNNER skill.

Obviously, someone with MILITARY GUNNER-1 could use any civilian weapon at his normal skill level, it is the character with CIVILIAN GUNNER-1 who is at a disadvantage when he attempts to use Full Auto Fire or an Under-Barrel Grenade Launcher.

For your hypothetical 'warlike culture', yes, the civilians might have the opportunity to learn MILITARY GUNNER skill in place of CIVILIAN GUNNER, and the police in any society could have a chance to learn either MILITARY GUNNER (SWAT Unit) or CIVILIAN GUNNER (patrol officer).

[For the record, I still prefer a Handgun/Rifle/Energy skill split, I just see some merit in the Military/Civilian split ... it isn't TOTAL nonsense, as has been implied.]

 

[mike wightman]

It is total nonsense.

There is no difference shooting a military self loading rifle, bolt action rifle or automatic weapon to shooting the civilian version of the same weapon.

 

[hiro]

Coolness under fire, small unit tactics etc are not covered by weapon skills.

The skill is used to resolve the to hit task.

In the USA civilians can buy and train on military weapons, police forces can buy and train on military weapons.

So do you make a rule that says in a warlike culture civilians have access to military skills?

On the civilian/military thing, please, NO! A civilian can train to shoot in a combat situation as well as the military can, please don't make a physical skill out of a cultural/social issue.

Mike, how do you implement coolness under fire in MgT? I don't recall their being a specific rule for it. Personally (yes, I know this isn't in the rules) I use gun combat to include basic small unit tactics, squad or fire team level, not platoon, that'd be a Tactics proper skill. It's handy when your players want to run out of cover with no covering fire to remind them that their basic grasp of tactics says that's a bad idea!