Understanding Classic Traveller Combat Damage

[Supplement Four]

Given the differing interpretations we've seen in this thread, are there some "clarifications" that are identified that we should add to the official CT errata pile?

Yes, I believe so.

I think, given the controversy, that you should get Marc's blessing at first. But, if Marc validates what I've been saying about Classic Traveller, then, heck yes, I think you need to add to the CT clarifications pile the quote from Snapshot.

If Marc does validate what I've said here on this thread, then there are a lot of old time players who have just learned something new about Classic Traveller (as I suspected originally).

 

[far-trader]

Quite aside yes but...

...You've always been a bit sensitive and quick to flare up in the past (which is why I questioned you becoming a Mod...but that's another discussion).

That's good for a chuckle. If only you knew how restrained I've always been, just how far it takes to push me too far. But do and yes even I get tired enough of some antics that I have to fire back. And when I blow it's all the more spectacular for the holding back. I think, like in this discussion, you've got some blinders there and simply don't see the whole picture.

You may want to keep that in check with your new duites.

Is this where I say... or perhaps everyone should tread much more carefully now :devil:

 

[far-trader]

...This thread isn't about discussing house rules. I started it because I suspected a lot of people--people who think they know Classic Traveller--don't know it as well as they think they do.

I wanted to increase understanding of Classic Traveller rules as written in the book.

Your intent is laudable. But let me point out what you just aren't getting even after all this discussion.

1 - We aren't discussing house rules either. We honestly believe as strongly as you do that we are right and you are wrong. We are trying to explain that maybe you don't know CT as well as you think you do.

2 - We took issue because we feel you're reading it wrong and want to correct you so you don't lead others away from the very thing you are trying to do.

3 - The fact that there are at least two supportable interpretations* of the rules as written seems proof only that they could do with better explaining and that they are not clear enough for an honest definitive reading one way or the other.

* of course I get the idea you are certain there is only one way to read it and that it is not your interpretation but simply the only way

4 - Frankly your attitude throughout this has at times been elitist and condescending, especially towards anyone who disagrees with you. Perhaps you don't intend it, but it's hard to believe you could imagine some of your remarks to be taken any other way. Certainly on this side of the discussion they come off as insulting and you don't seem to realize how close you're treading the line at times. If this reinforces your opinion of me as short-fuse moderator then take it as fair warning.

 

[Supplement Four]

Your intent is laudable. But let me point out what you just aren't getting even after all this discussion.

I do understand that you believe you are "right" as well.

4 - Frankly your attitude throughout this has at times been elitist and condescending, especially towards anyone who disagrees with you.

The intent is not there. What you're probably reading is me, for the umpteenth time, trying to show you something that I see is very clear, given the quotes from The Traveller Book and Snapshot.

Your mentioning that you wouldn't even believe it if Marc Miller told you what I've been saying is correct exasperating a bit. It told me that you weren't open to any other interpretation but your own. That's probably where you saw "the attitude".

But, on the whole, I feel like this has been a pretty good discussion with two sides strongly believing in what they are positing.

If this reinforces your opinion of me as short-fuse moderator then take it as fair warning.

This sounds like a threat of moderator abuse to me, and I'll be honest with you, I won't tolerate it. Moderators need to be fair and even handed with mild temperments. If you feel you have a short-fuse, you really should second-think being a moderator.

 

[far-trader]

I have proven it, with several quotes from both the Traveller Book and from Snapshot.

You just refuse to accept the evidence.

No, your interpretations are simply not convincing me. Your quotes are (largely) evidence out of context imo. You have failed to prove it to me. Your are convinced you've shown proof of course, but that's not the point of argument or the burden of proof. Again, the argument is pointless because the RAW is open to interpretation because it is incomplete. Neither argument/interpretation is convincing. I can admit that even if you can't.

You, yourself, said earlier in the thread that you're not sure if Marc Miller himself told you I was correct...

you missed the "that I would be convinced" bit that goes at the end of that, and yes, I did

That tells me you're not really looking at what I'm saying objectively.

No, I've told you more than once I have read your posts, I have looked at it objectively, and I'm still not convinced. I am not closed minded. I can be convinced. You simply haven't. I've (tried to) explain why but you keep hammering the same points that aren't convincing me, as if repetition will sway me.

Again (? - or did I have to stop myself a few times earlier on this point) you have misinterpreted what I said (re Marc W Miller), or maybe I wasn't clear.

If Marc W. Miller himself said simply "S4 is correct" that alone would not be enough to convince me. Why? Because your arguments have not convinced me.

Why should I credit Marc W. Miller more than you?

Because he wrote the rules? Over 30 years ago and with a few other versions with different twists under his belt between then and now. No his simple answer won't be enough at this point. Not to convince me.

As a ruling though, certainly. He could even say we're all wrong and (insert some totally different way to play it) as a ruling and that would be unequivocally the rule. But it would not convince me I had read the rules unfairly or that my interpretation wasn't better (unless his totally different way to play it did come out better to me).

 

[far-trader]

This sounds like a threat of moderator abuse to me, and I'll be honest with you, I won't tolerate it. Moderators need to be fair and even handed with mild temperments. If you feel you have a short-fuse, you really should second-think being a moderator.

I don't believe I have a short-fuse. You did. I said if my words reinforce your (incorrect as I pointed out) assessment of me as having a short-fuse you should take it as a fair warning.

But by all means if you believe I am threatening you or abusing my moderator standing, and you won't tolerate it you have a recourse, report me. The other moderators will rule on it and I'll accept whatever they say.

 

[rust]

The system is not broken because it doesn't implement wound effects.

Sorry, but from my point of view it is.

Some of the "military guys" among the roleplaying fans consider a game
broken when it has a ridiculous concept of military hardware, and I as a
"medical guy" consider a game broken when it has a ridiculous concept
of human biology.

As for D&D, well, I am in the Harnworld camp when it comes to fantasy
combat systems ...

 

[Icosahedron]

Fight #2
One is hit and takes a total of 10 points of damage. He is able to take that off his END, keeping himself consicous, but wound points are now at 111*

*Note that this is akin to having 1 hit point in D&D. You still operate at full stats.

That's how it's played by the book.

Well, like the others, I'm not convinced that is how it's played by the book, but if I were Marc, called upon to mediate this discussion, even if that is what I originally intended, I'd make a new ruling to correct the earlier mistake now that it's been pointed out!

In the example here, we have some badass hunk who has been so severely shot up that he is at death's door. Somehow, by sheer luck and determination, he remains on his feet, but the Grim Reaper is following this guy around the battlefield sharpening his scythe. He is so gravely wounded and exhaused that if somebody merely trips him up, doing one point of damage, he'll stay down for the count. You could literally knock him down with a feather.

And yet this guy can carry a full bergen, give his mate a piggy-back, scale a wall, jump a ravine, fire with deadly accuracy and engage in melee after melee, ad infinitum so long as he doesn't get hit again...

Now if this guy is some cinematic Swarzenegger character, or a Fantasy Conan, or the Black Knight from Monty Python, then maybe, but Traveller is supposed to be more realistic than that. I just can't believe that this was the original intent for a set of rules that claims to make combat realistically deadly.

Sorry, but either Marc or S4 has made a mistake, and my vote goes to...

 

[rancke]

*Note that this is akin to having 1 hit point in D&D. You still operate at full stats.

D&D is not as (ostensibly) realistic as Traveller. What you claim to be the One True Way of doing CT combat is just about as realistic as D&D, you're right about that at least, but Traveller OUGHT to be considerably more realistic than D&D.

Note that the alternate explanation is not a poster child for realism either. I'm not saying it is. I'm just saying that it's somewhat more realistic.


Hans

 

[Ishmael]

In the example here, we have some badass hunk who has been so severely shot up that he is at death's door. Somehow, by sheer luck and determination, he remains on his feet, but the Grim Reaper is following this guy around the battlefield sharpening his scythe. He is so gravely wounded and exhaused that if somebody merely trips him up, doing one point of damage, he'll stay down for the count. You could literally knock him down with a feather.

And yet this guy can carry a full bergen, give his mate a piggy-back, scale a wall, jump a ravine, fire with deadly accuracy and engage in melee after melee, ad infinitum so long as he doesn't get hit again...

S4, this is exactly the situation that fails a reality check for me and thus causes me to feel that your interpretation is broken. therefore, I'd invoke the section of the rules that discuss modifying/ignoring the rules and 'fix' it. If your interpretation is the correct one, then CT itself is broken (imho) and should be changed.

but then again, people should play the rules as makes them happy regardless of what others ( even MWM ) say.

 

[Gadrin]

S4, this is exactly the situation that fails a reality check for me and thus causes me to feel that your interpretation is broken. therefore, I'd invoke the section of the rules that discuss modifying/ignoring the rules and 'fix' it. If your interpretation is the correct one, then CT itself is broken (imho) and should be changed.

but then again, people should play the rules as makes them happy regardless of what others ( even MWM ) say.

Well, I wouldn't envision the entire picture myself.

If the fellow has the equivalent of 1-1-1 in characteristics (and unless
it's obvious meaning an experienced soldier or medic can tell with a
glance); you ignore the stats and anyone who's still moving and conscious, is just that: still moving and conscious. Not everyone can
tell at a glance. Gamers are using an objective method to qualify
reality, which isn't always realistic.

I remember reading a book called Mob Star, and how many references
there were to people being shot multiple times -- and living. I'd have
to think the battlefield sees that routinely if not occaisionally.

>

 

[atpollard]

Forgive me for my laziness of not wanting to read through all 150 previous "you are not listening" posts, but assuming that the contention is whether the first blood rule (all damage applied to one stat) applies to "the first wound that a character receives" or "the first wound that a character receives IN THAT COMBAT", then I read TTB as clearly ambiguous.

The First Blood Rule

"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 immediately incapacitate or even kill."

clearly implies that it applies only to "The first wound received by any character" - which would mean only unwounded characters. Interpreting this statement as "The first wound received by any character (IN THAT COMBAT)" requires stretching the context well beyond what is written.

On the other hand, the Example

"For example, in a firefight, three adventurers (each with UPP 777777) are hit by rifle fire. A rifle inflicts 3D hits. The attacker is unlucky against Adventurer One and rolls 1, 1, 1. Because this is One's first wounding in the combat, all three hits are applied against one characteristic, and the referee, rolling randomly, applies the hits against strength. Adventurer One is temporarily reduced to UPP 477777 for wounding purposes only."

just as clearly states that it is the "first wounding in the combat" and not merely the first wounding. This clearly implies that a character wounded one hour or two days ago and still not fully healed would still be subject to another 'First Blood' attack at the start of each new combat. To attempt to read "in the combat" any other way is to ignore the context.

The two paragraphs quoted are clearly worded and clearly contradictory. There can be no "obviously right" interpretation. To claim otherwise is to be self-deceiving.

 

[rancke]

Couldn't find any rule about what happens when you end a fight still concious (eg. that guy with his physical stats reduced to 111). How fast does he recover? Instantly?


Hans

 

[atpollard]

WHY THIS IS BRILLIANT

This system is brilliant because, at any time, damage can take a character out. Yet, this is unlikely to happen most of the time. So, a fine balance is maintained keeping PCs alive but facing the prospect that, in response to any attack, the PC can be laid out unconscious, severely wounded, or even dead.

To apply the First Blood Rule at the start of EACH Combat, adds another layer of "brilliance" since the Stat affected is determined randomly. Thus the previously wounded character could have First Blood applied against a perfectly undamaged stat (placing him on a level combat field with any other character) or he could have First Blood applied against his wounded stat (greatly increasing his risk). This makes each combat BOTH dangerous AND survivable.

Applying damage per die at the victim's discretion removes the 'risk' from combat if the first blood rule does not apply to that combat. It makes no sense to reward a character with one point of damage over a fully healthy individual by granting the wounded man an exemption from the risk of First Blood. It makes more sense that the wounded character has a 1 in 3 risk that First Blood will exacerbate his previous wound and a 2 in 3 chance that it will not.

 

[mike wightman]

Couldn't find any rule about what happens when you end a fight still concious (eg. that guy with his physical stats reduced to 111). How fast does he recover? Instantly?


Hans

At the end of the combat the stats are raised to halfway between the wounded level and the original value.
Medical treatment or three days of rest returns the stats to full.
This applies so long as only 1 stat has been reduced to 0 or lightly wounded.

For a serious wound the stats at 0 are treated as being at 1 and no recovery is possible without medical aid.

Wounding, wound effects and healing are definitely an area of the rules that require house ruling to make playable IMHO.

 

[far-trader]

Couldn't find any rule about what happens when you end a fight still concious (eg. that guy with his physical stats reduced to 111). How fast does he recover? Instantly?


Hans

At the end of the combat the stats are raised to halfway between the wounded level and the original value.
Medical treatment or three days of rest returns the stats to full.
This applies so long as only 1 stat has been reduced to 0 or lightly wounded.

Yes, but Hans is asking about someone who has taken wounds but without any characteristic going to 0 and he's right, it's not mentioned. I'd forgotten that. Another bit of clarification needed. I seem to recall we just treated it the same as being unconscious only without the 10 minute wait. However...

...adding this to the rest gains S4 points in the debate, though not quite as he imagines. He's failed to figure this bit out. The RAW would seem to imply that if you don't go unconscious (one characteristic temporarily reduced to 0) or worse, then your characteristics ALL revert to full value at the end of combat.

I'm losing even more respect for the RAW in this revelation. This simply muddies the field even more.

Wounding, wound effects and healing are definitely an area of the rules that require house ruling to make playable IMHO.

QFT

 

[mike wightman]

Emm - that last quote is actually me not Hans

And you are right - the rules don't clearly state the healing rate for someone who isn't rendered unconscious - I just assumed that the light wound rule would apply.

Murkier and murkier - glad I have house rules for all this lol

 

[rancke]

Emm - that last quote is actually me not Hans

That's all right. I don't mind taking cred... assuming responsibility for it. It matches my own opinion very closely.


Hans

 

[far-trader]

Ack, sloppy hasty cut-n-paste on my part. Sorry, fixed it.

(hmmm, or should I just edit all the posts and claim it as my own... evil lol)

 

[aramis]

And you are right - the rules don't clearly state the healing rate for someone who isn't rendered unconscious - I just assumed that the light wound rule would apply.

actually, they do... in the synopsis on TTB Page 47, which reads:

Minor Wounds​

Any wound points applies to a character which do not reduce more than one physical characteristic to zero are considered minor wounds. The character is treated as having the reduced characteristics until medical care or recovery has taken place.
TTB, p47, LC. Colors mine, bolding original.​

It also says the character is treated as having the reduced characteristics... which to me, means, new combat, it applies.