Understanding Classic Traveller Combat Damage

[tbeard1999]

I've always interpreted the first blood rule as applicable to each combat, for the following reasons:

1. This interpretation is the most dramatic. In every combat, every participant can be knocked out when first hit.

2. This interpretation IMHO makes the most sense. Otherwise, I can see PCs inflicting 1 point of damage on themselves (or drawing minor attacks) to fortify themselves against being KO'ed later in the adventure.

3. This interpretation does not require the conclusion that the two sections quoted by atpollard are contradictory. I generally prefer the interpretation that harmonizes ambiguous rules over interpretations that require the conclusion that two rules are contradictory. also disagree that the two rules are contradictory. The first is, IMHO, ambiguous about whether it applies to each combat. The second is clear -- the first blood rule applies to the first combat. They would be contradictory if the first rule was clear that the first blood rule applies only to unwounded characters.

 

[atpollard]

also disagree that the two rules are contradictory. The first is, IMHO, ambiguous about whether it applies to each combat. The second is clear -- the first blood rule applies to the first combat. They would be contradictory if the first rule was clear that the first blood rule applies only to unwounded characters.

Read the paragraphs surrounding my first quoted paragraph. It mentions NOTHING about the combat at all. It simply states that the first blood rule applies to "The first wound received by any character". If the character is already wounded at the start of a combat round, then that is clearly not the first wound received by that character. Not until the Example (several paragraphs later on the next page) does it mention "in the combat".

I agree with your interpretation of the rules (for the same reasons that you listed), but I challenge you to read the rules without the example (with the eyes of an attourney and designer) and see whether it actually says what we think it was intended to mean. Examples are to clarify the written rules, not provide a major reinterpretation to the written text.

 

[tbeard1999]

Read the paragraphs surrounding my first quoted paragraph. It mentions NOTHING about the combat at all. It simply states that the first blood rule applies to "The first wound received by any character". If the character is already wounded at the start of a combat round, then that is clearly not the first wound received by that character. Not until the Example (several paragraphs later on the next page) does it mention "in the combat".

I still think that this renders the first statement ambiguous, not contradictory. For it to be contradictory with the second statement we have to supply (or infer) a missing condition -- that it is applicable to any wounded character.

I agree with your interpretation of the rules (for the same reasons that you listed), but I challenge you to read the rules without the example (with the eyes of an attourney and designer) and see whether it actually says what we think it was intended to mean. Examples are to clarify the written rules, not provide a major reinterpretation to the written text.

I just did and I call it like I see it.

The first statement does not explicitely state whether the first blood rule applies to each combat. One could reasonable infer that it doesn't, or that it does IMHO.

The second statement explicitely states that the first blood rule applies to each combat.

So IMHO, the first statement is ambiguous. And the most reasonable resolution of the ambiguity is to infer that the first statement applies to each combat.

As a game designer (and lawyer), I've certainly written rules that were ambiguous and unclear. That's all that we have here IMHO.

<smiles>

But please, gents, feel free to continue to do battle over this critical point

 

[sabredog]

As a game designer (and lawyer), I've certainly written rules that were ambiguous and unclear. That's all that we have here IMHO.

Well, this is why games like Traveller assume a referee will be there to act as a final arbiter and interpreter, and some games (worse ones IMHO) have 500+ pages of intricate rules which make me wonder why they need a referee at all.

I have always read the rule to mean that the first wound suffered in each, unique, and contained combat was when the first blood rule was applied. Said each unique and contained combat began and ended either when I decided it did - like if it was part of a series of "combat sequences" that were to be part of say, a getaway or pursuit then the whole thing would be the one combat rather everytime the players ditched one set of pursuers and were picked up by another...or it ended when there wasn't anyone left to shoot at or be shot at by.

It is just common sense that when one side is left standing the "combat" is over and the next time they get into one the first blood rule begins again regardless of the PC's condition.

Otherwise you could almost argue that every time you exchange fire for the first time with a different target within the same larger overall combat is a "first combat". And that's insane.

I see it as this...the PC's walk into a bar, the usual fight begins and someone gets shot/stabbed/poked in the eye. That is first blood. If the blooded PC is still on his feet and fighting then combat continues normally until one side is left standing.

But if after that one first poke/gunshot/stab a different NPC gets a hit in on the same PC that is not another first blood rule situation.

Otherwise the PC's would never be on their feet long to play the Big Damn Heroes they are supposed to be.

 

[sabredog]

2. This interpretation IMHO makes the most sense. Otherwise, I can see PCs inflicting 1 point of damage on themselves (or drawing minor attacks) to fortify themselves against being KO'ed later in the adventure.

It may be fairly miraculous, but I have never in over 30 years of running this game ever had anyone try to make that point. In fact, I have never had anyone read the first blood rule with anything other than the same conclusions I have about it.

The only point of confusion there has ever been is over what the wounding rules are all about: does each die in the damage roll go to a different attribute, or can the total damage just be distributed as the players sees fit (the way I do it because it takes less time for the easily confused players who can't decide where to put that odd die and keeps the combat action moving fast and wild)...but only after first blood has occurred.

 

[mike wightman]

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.

Is that the reduced by damage characteristic or the half way between full and damaged value?

 

[DonM]

I have a favor to ask of all interested parties. Please do this.

Consider this a request for a final summary of arguments... with a few rules:

1. Please site book and page of your source.
2. Do not quote any other post... use only CT sources, and logic o:
3. Identify all items you see as needing clarified, and where that clarification should go (book and page) in either a) LBB 81, b) TTB 82 or c) ST 83.

Thanks for being patient with a very confused reader. Of course, I've got High Guard jammed in my head at the moment, not the personal combat system, which probably doesn't help.

 

[atpollard]

Consider this a request for a final summary of arguments...

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.

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.

TTB, Page 35 can be interpreted that the first blood rule (all damage is applied to one attribute) only applies to UNWOUNDED characters. The combat example (TTB, Page 36) makes it clear that the "First Blood Rule" applies to the character's first wound IN THE COMBAT. The difference is whether a character who enters combat at less than full attributes is immune from the First Blood rule.

The correction is to alter TTB, Pg 35 as follows:

The first wound received by any character in the combat, however, can be sufficient to stun or daze him or her, and is handled differently.

 

[Gadrin]

Uh, for any of you CT Combat Wizards who are familiar with the
numbers/rules

http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=20012

I've only done the ACR and Gauss Rifle so far. I'll build an XML
Weapons Maker in the next few days (for the others, I did those
two by hand).

It's just the "rough draft" but see how it works, and any suggestions
or corrections speak up.

>

 

[tbeard1999]

I have a favor to ask of all interested parties. Please do this.

Consider this a request for a final summary of arguments... with a few rules/

Issue: Whether the First Blood Rule applies to the first time a PC is wounded in each combat. Alternatively, whether the first blood rule applies to a character who starts a combat already wounded.

Ruling Requested: Yes. The First Blood Rule applies to each new combat.

Changes Required:

Text from the Traveller Book, page 35 (add underlined words):

The first wound received by any character in any combat, 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. This rule applies for each combat, so a character that starts the combat already wounded is still subject to the rule.

Text from 1981 LBB1, page 34 (add underlined words):

The first wound received by any character in a given fight, 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. As a result, first blood may immediately incapacitate or even kill. This rule applies for each combat, so a character that starts the combat already wounded is still subject to the rule.

Text from Starter Traveller, page 21 (add underlined words):

The first wound received by any character in a given fight, 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. This rule applies for each combat, so a character that starts the combat already wounded is still subject to the rule.

Text from Snapshot, page 8 (add underlined words):

The first wound received by a character in a given fight, however, can be sufficient to stun or daze him or her, and is handled differently. This first wound received is applied entirely to one of the three physical characteristics (strength, dexterity, or endurance), determined randomly. As a result, first blood may immediately incapacitate or even kill.This rule applies for each combat, so a character that starts the combat already wounded is still subject to the rule.

Rationale for Change:

The only plausible alternative is to apply the "first blood rule" to characters who are unwounded.

The problem is that this alternative flatly contradicts the following text from The Traveller Book, page 36:

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.

1. The suggested interpretation is the most dramatic. In every combat, every participant can be knocked out when first hit.

2. The suggested interpretation IMHO makes the most sense. Otherwise, I can see PCs inflicting 1 point of damage on themselves (or drawing minor attacks) to fortify themselves against being KO'ed later in the adventure.

3. The suggested interpretation is consistent with the text on TTB page 36. It does not require the conclusion that the text on page 36 is wrong. I generally prefer the interpretation that harmonizes ambiguous rules over interpretations that require the conclusion that two rules are contradictory.

 

[aramis]

I have a favor to ask of all interested parties. Please do this.

Consider this a request for a final summary of arguments... with a few rules:

1. Please site book and page of your source.
2. Do not quote any other post... use only CT sources, and logic o:
3. Identify all items you see as needing clarified, and where that clarification should go (book and page) in either a) LBB 81, b) TTB 82 or c) ST 83.

Thanks for being patient with a very confused reader. Of course, I've got High Guard jammed in my head at the moment, not the personal combat system, which probably doesn't help.

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.​

Unconciousness One characteristic reduced to zero results in unconciousness for ten minutes. Upon recovery of conciousness, any wounded characteristics are placed midway between between their wounded and full levels; round fractions down.

Serious wound Two characteristics reduced to zero results in a serious wound and uncounciousness for three hours. Upon recovery of conciousness, any wounded characteristics remain at at the wounded level (or at 1, whichever is higher) until proper medical attention or recovery procedures are followed."​

(Emphasis mine) [TTB, p. 47]



page 35-36, whole example, especially the bottom line, implies wounds reduce the UPP:
"Adventurer Three is seriously wounded with a temporary UPP of 003777."


Requested ruling: characters use the wounded values after combat ends in lieu of full stat values until healed.

Resolve the disconnect between P36 LC ¶4 "Wounds do not affect characteristics as they are used to influence blows, swings or shots." and and p36 RC ¶9 "The number of blows and swings is based upon the individual's endurance at the beginning of the combat encounter; wounds suffered during the encounter do not reduce the total possible swings and blows, but will reduce the allowance accordingly." by changing P36 LC ¶4 to "Wounds received this combat do not..."

 

[Supplement Four]

2. This interpretation IMHO makes the most sense. Otherwise, I can see PCs inflicting 1 point of damage on themselves (or drawing minor attacks) to fortify themselves against being KO'ed later in the adventure.

First, how would a player do exactly 1 point of damage to his character?

GM: "What are you going to do to try and hurt yourself?"

Player" "I'm going to pull out my dagger and just cut my finger."

GM: "Fine. But, how do you know it's one point of damage? The dagger does 2D, but you're not trying to hurt youself a lot--just a little. So, I think, 1D is the least you can do, applied randomly to one of your stats."

1D damage, applied randomly to one's stats, is a decent deterrent to ever wanting to try this type of stupid action that I'd never allow a player to enact.

But, if that doesn't deter them, then just use the Coup De Grace rule, pg. 43, The Traveller Book.

 

[Supplement Four]

I have a favor to ask of all interested parties. Please do this.

Consider this a request for a final summary of arguments... with a few rules:

1. Please site book and page of your source.
2. Do not quote any other post... use only CT sources, and logic o:
3. Identify all items you see as needing clarified, and where that clarification should go (book and page) in either a) LBB 81, b) TTB 82 or c) ST 83.

CLARIFICATION NEEDED: All I am interested in is defining exactly what the Traveller Book says. I'm not looking to change any rules to my taste. I'm just looking for Traveller Book clarification of the rules as written.







QUESTION #1: If a character with 977 physical stats is wounded in a combat so that his stats are damaged to a level of 777 and does not received healing, is he considered as having STR-9 or STR-7 when skill checks, load calculation, and STR based blade combat modifiers are needed in later combat engagements?

POSITED ANSWER: I believe that the Traveller Book indicates the answer is STR-9, based on the two following sources.



Pg. 36 of The Traveller Book, under THE EFFECTS OF CHARACTERISTICS: Wounds do not affect characteristics as they are used to influence blows, swings, or shots. For example, a still-conscious character with strength reduced from 9 to 7 would still function as if he had strength 9.



Pg. 37 of The Traveller Book, under WEIGHT: Individuals carrying sufficient weight to become encumbered have their UPP values temporarily reduced; these reduced UPP values are used when computing wounds and unconsciousness.







QUESTION #2: Do the rules in Snapshot clarify the combat rules in The Traveller Book/Book 1?

POSITED ANSWER: Yes, based on the following source.



Pg. 1 of Snapshot, under INTRODUCTION: Snapshot is an adaptation of the personal combat rules given in Book 1 of Traveller, especially for combat at close ranges. The extent of the adaptation includes a conversion from a range-only system to a square grid, and the incorporation of both clarifications and enhancements.







QUESTION #3: Does the following quote from Snapshot apply to the combat rules provided in Book 1 and The Traveller Book?

Note that answering "Yes" to this question supports my Posited Answer to Question #1.

POSITED ANSWER: Yes.



Pg. 9 of Snapshot, under WOUNDING AND DEATH: It is important to note that the marking off of wounds against characteristics has no effect on the person's abilities as dictated by the characteristics. Thus, someone with a strength 11 who sustains wounds on his strength characteristic is still treated throughout the game as having a strength 11. Wounding of characteristics is simply a bookkeeping system.







QUESTION #4: If a character with physicals 977 is previously wounded so that his stats are reduced to 777, does the rule of first blood apply to him when he starts a new combat engagement?

POSITED ANSWER: No, it does not. The rule of first blood only applies to characters at full health. The rule of first blood is not used on the first round of combat of every combat engagement, rather, it is used when a character receives the first wound that will reduce him from full health to a damaged state.



Pg. 47 of The Traveller Book, under CRITICAL HITS: The first wound received by a character should be applied in its entirety to one (randomly determined) physical characteristic.



Pg. 35 of The Traveller Book, under WOUNDING AND DEATH: 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.








QUESTION #5: Are these statements both true?

- A character with physicals 977, reduced to 117 during combat, will return to 977 if he rests for three days. During his resting period, the character is considered to have STR-9 and DEX-7 for most purposes, but with physicals 117 for wounding calculations.

- A character with physicals 977, rendered unconscious to 057, is considered, after regaining consciousness, to have physicals 977 for most game purposes and 567 for wounding purposes while the character is resting.

POSITED ANSWER: Yes, both statements are correct, based on the following sources.

Note that, after being rendered unconscious, the character is in a better position to take more wounds than the character who suffered a Minor Wound but was not knocked unconscious.



Pg. 47 of The Traveller Book, under MINOR WOUNDS: The character is treated as having reduced characteristics until medical care or recovery has taken place.



Pg. 47 of The Traveller Book, under UNCONSCIOUSNESS: Upon recovery of consciousness, any wounded characteristics are placed midway between their wounded and full levels; round fractions down.









RECCOMENDATION: Don/Marc - If you find what I state above to be true, then I recommend including the very clearly written section from Snapshot (the quote from pg. 9 I cite above) in the Traveller Book/Book 1 errata. I'd place it in the WOUNDING AND DEATH paragraphs (pg. 35 of The Traveller Book).

 

[beowulf2044]

All of the past 18 pages of this discussion highlights the reasons I don't play Classic Traveller anymore.

 

[Colin]

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.

To me it sounds like nothing of the sort. If anything, I would say that you are badgering him on the basis of his Mod status. Attacking ghe Mods is a bad idea, especially in public.

For the record, hitting the report button will result in Hunter eventually seeing it. What he does with that information is up to him.

 

[Colin]

All of the past 18 pages of this discussion highlights the reasons I don't play Classic Traveller anymore.

Me neither, not for many, many years.

I think that this thread has outlived it's usefulness. As I don't have a dog in this fight, I have problems shutting it down.