Underwhelmed

[tbeard1999]

Now, I know CT was dangerous but if I have Gun-2 or more and decent range, I can take down pretty much any average unarmored Joe in one shot, guaranteed. Cloth armor does little to stop me from dropping a mu on the first shot.

The problem, as you figured out, is that weapon damage varies only by 1d6. This mechanic forces the designer to create weapons with very high base damage (so that they will be lethal).

In CT (for instance), a rifle will average 10.5 points of damage. But it can be as little as 3 points of damage and as much as 18 points. The MGT system would have a minimum of 8 points and a maximum of 13 points. It's also just as likely that 8 points will be scored as 10 or 11 or 13.

The problem is that *every* hit does serious damage. And when penetration equals damage, the result is even more damage inflation with higher tech weapons. Adding the to hit modifiers makes the problem worse.

A subtler problem will emerge IMHO. Armor will tend to be useless because armor values cannot be too large -- otherwise certain weapons will have no chance of damaging targets in certain kinds of armor. Given that most armor does not cover all locations (and even battledress will have weak areas), most weapons should be able to cause damage.

The result is a combat system with very predictable damage that has a very high minimum damage. Not at all to my liking.

This is a result of getting cute with the damage system and shoehorning it into the to hit roll. (This also makes it impossible to escape the fiddly task roll system).

The fix is simple -- ditch the damage system. Make a to hit roll. Then make a damage roll. I'd try the T4 damage system -- it handles the damage/penetration issue elegantly enough. I don't like the fact that a shooter must know the target's armor value for the system to work. But even with that flaw, it's a damnsight better than the current kludge.

Alternately, I'd use the Striker system.

If you simply *have* to keep the current task roll = to hit and damage variable, you can multiply the damage die by 1-6+ depending on weapon, then subtract armor. The multiple can be estimated by dividing current MGT damage by 3.5 and adding 1 (round off). So, a rifle (current damage of 8) gets a x3 damage modifier. This will make damage highly variable, which might (or might not) be to your taste.

I might well have said "you mean I got hit?" if someone rolled a low attack with a body pistol. That won't happen when you stack all the DMs in MGT.

I don't follow.

 

[tbeard1999]

The gauss pistol (under these circumstances) will always do 14 minimum damage and maximum 19. That's freaking HUGE damage against someone with an average 8 stat since the average is so high.

Your problem is not the average amount of damage. It's the incredibly high *minimum* damage, which rules out flesh wounds and makes every hit consistently devastating. The problem is using 1d6 for the random variation, yet having 21 total hit points average (and 7 per stat average).

And there's no way to fix it if you are wedded to 1d6 and these numbers. For a weapon to have an appropriate *average* damage, it will have a very high minimum damage. The only way to fix the problem is to increase the range of random results. The only way to do that is to use a larger die like a d10 or d20 (heresy) or to use multiple d6s.

I'm shocked that the designers didn't see this one coming...

 

[aramis]

Please explain the "you mean I got hit?" effect.

The minimum damage for a rifle in CT was 3 points, and it wasn't terribly uncommon to see an occasional 5-6... which would, BTW, be spread over 2 or 3 stats most of the time.

MoTrav instead uses 9-17+ damage for a rifle. (Remember, all DM's to hit also apply on effect, EXCEPT the stat bonus. So at optimal range with skill 2, it's 1/6 chance of a an 18 damage.) Further, that damage always goes to a single stat, until it's depleted, and then on to another.

MegaTraveller takes a very different means of generating the damage to stats, but handles it identically once assigned. Each MT hit is 1d to stat, "after the adrenaline wears off," if you will.

TNE also has the "just a flesh wound" effect of low damage rolls. Heck, my #1 complaint about TNE is the damages are WAY too low.

T4 had a bit more of a Shock effect than any of the others, but armor reduced what were essentially CT damages, and so many wounds wouldn't zap a single att on the first hit, and later ones could be spread.

T20 has the armor reduction of lifeblood, and also allows a far wider range of damage results.

In essence, they took and eleminated the entire lower half of the distributions of damage probabilities.

 

[Icosahedron]

Just my 2Cr, guys.
Until yesterday I hadn't even looked at MGT, then I followed Aramis' link from Lone Star/Far Future, read the playtest document once and I've just read this thread - that's the limit of my involvement.

Result - I like the look of the timing dice, if and only if I have a time-bound task, and I like the take on JoT, provided it is fairly rare. However, the remainder looks like just another set of Traveller house rules that seem to offer no significant advantage over the ones I've distilled for myself over the last 20 years, so I doubt whether MGT will have any noticeable effect on my game.

I've seen nothing so far that would make me pick it from the shelf and take it home to raid for ideas, and certainly nothing that would make me abandon my current system.

 

[opensent]

I assumed it was T5. In any case I'm too lazy to write out Mongoose Traveller. And MT is already taken.

Thus Moose Trav was born...

 

[rancke]

Your problem is not the average amount of damage. It's the incredibly high *minimum* damage, which rules out flesh wounds and makes every hit consistently devastating. The problem is using 1d6 for the random variation, yet having 21 total hit points average (and 7 per stat average).

And there's no way to fix it if you are wedded to 1d6 and these numbers. For a weapon to have an appropriate *average* damage, it will have a very high minimum damage. The only way to fix the problem is to increase the range of random results. The only way to do that is to use a larger die like a d10 or d20 (heresy) or to use multiple d6s.

How about the 1DD mechanic? I've used that on occasion for other purposes. It will require an extra throw, but it might be worth it. You throw one die and then throw the indicated number of dice for the final result. So if you throw a 1 on the first throw, you get a final damage of from 1 to 6. If you throw a 6 on the first throw, you throw 6D for the final damage (ouch!). The average result will be 10.5.

You could vary the first throw a bit, for instance, interpreting 3 as 1 and 6 as four gives the same average but a lesser spread. 1d+1 gives a higher average. Lots of ways to fine-tune. 1D+1, treat 6+ as 5; 1D, reroll sixes; etc.


Hans

 

[aramis]

Actually, the gauss rifle ranges from 11 (with a net -3) to 24 with a (net +5) with MoTrav.

The Success level is adjusted from the effect die by adding the skill and the difficulty DM's, but not the governing attribute. Since one can succeed with a DM total of up to -4 (actually up to -7, with an F attribute), one can wind up with SL's less than 1; since the numerical result is the one used for combat....

Assume shooting with GC(SlugPistol) 1 and Dex 11 (DM+1) at short (optimum, DM+2) range, having taken 2 tics to aim (DM+2), that's a DM to hit of +6, but to effect of +5. So in that circumstance, a gauss pistol will do base 7+5(from DM's)+(1-6 from effect die).

Now, same shooter, shooting at personal (-4), no aim, in a flightsuit while in a depressurizing room (not dressed for environment, -2), still gets +1 for skill, and +1 from dex, for net -4. He will need a pair of 6's to hit. SO Damage =7-5(Diff-4, cond-2, and skill+1)+6(die roll)=8

Now, his Dex F Brother is shooting from the other end of the ship, skill 1: Range -6, no aim. Needs 8+ with net dm-2, or a 10+, so minimum die is a 4. (since the rest of the 10 can be a 6 timing die). Lets assume just that he rols a 5: 5 & 5 rolled, as a 6 & 4 will result in a 1 timing either way. So base 7 + 5(die) - 6 (diff) +1 (skill) = 7. If for some stupid reason, he called the 4 the effect, he'd do 6 points.

 

[tbeard1999]

Just my 2Cr, guys.
...However, the remainder looks like just another set of Traveller house rules that seem to offer no significant advantage over the ones I've distilled for myself over the last 20 years, so I doubt whether MGT will have any noticeable effect on my game.

I've seen nothing so far that would make me pick it from the shelf and take it home to raid for ideas, and certainly nothing that would make me abandon my current system.

So far, I agree. I think that the problem is there are a finite number of ways to skin a cat. So when the designer is limited to a rigid set of parameters for his mechanics -- 2d6 resolution system, six attributes generated by 2d6, a hit point based combat system, etc. -- the universe of *effective* solutions can be quite small. Attempts to create "something new" usually wind up as fussy mechanics that are inferior (or no better and more trouble) to those that they replace.

And after 25+ years of modifying Traveller, I'm just not sure that there's much in the way of new, innovative, *useful* mechanics to be found if we constrain ourselves to the "Standard Traveller Parameters".*

*I guess I define "Standard Traveller Parameters" as D6 based, 2d6 resolution mechanics, hit point based damage system, no classes, skill levels that directly modify the task roll, etc. I also note that TNE deviated significantly from the Standard Traveller Parameters, as did T4 to a lesser extent.

I think that Mongoose would have been better off compiling whichever previous Traveller version they thought was best, editing it better, fixing serious flaws, filling obvious gaps, etc., rather than try to shoehorn a new game system into the same parameters.

I have a 2d6 based combat system that I'm very happy with, but it is not a hit points based system. So, to make a "Standard Traveller Parameters" compliant game, I'd take the T4 combat system, the CT "small number of skills and levels" system, and whatever task resolution system strikes your fancy. I'm happy with a "roll 8+ on 2d, + modifiers" system. Degrees of success and time taken can be easily inferred from the amount by which you exceed the task roll.

I'd also note that hit points are a particularly poor way of representing damage from bullets. And when penetration and damage are the same value, the distortion gets worse. FWIW, I think that damage from guns can be reduced to a few considerations -- short term effects (i.e., relevant to the current fight) and long term effect (i.e., issues that arise after the combat is over). My combat system -- derived from Striker for convenience and interoperability -- provides 4 effects:

1. Miss/No effect
2. Light wound -- minimal short term effect (but important to determine if a vacc suit is breached, or if poison gets into your system, etc.)
3. Serious wound -- probably out of the current fight; seriously impaired even if still in the fight. Serious long term issues.
4. Mortal wound -- gonna die without attention, out of current fight, serious long term issues. (If enough damage is done, this becomes simply "dead").

Consistent with what we know about firearms, these conditions are generally independent and binary. In other words, you can take any number of light wounds with a modest effect on the current fight. And a given shot can achieve any of these effects, especially if the target is unarmored. So in my system, you *can* kill an unarmored man with a rifle with one shot. Or, you can lightly wound him.

And my system appropriately distinguishes between penetration and damage. It requires 2 rolls -- one roll to hit the target (pretty much exactly like MGT) and one 2d6 roll (modified by penetration and armor) for the damage. Autofire gives a bonus to hit and it's possible to score several hits, each of which is resolved separately. I am working on a d10 based variant, but it isn't ready for prime time.

So it *is* possible to create a good combat system. MGT just ain't it.

 

[Jame]

I printed out part of the MongTrav playtest, ran through it again and didn't care.

I'll stick with my house rules, thank you.

 

[tbeard1999]

How about the 1DD mechanic? I've used that on occasion for other purposes. It will require an extra throw, but it might be worth it. You throw one die and then throw the indicated number of dice for the final result. So if you throw a 1 on the first throw, you get a final damage of from 1 to 6. If you throw a 6 on the first throw, you throw 6D for the final damage (ouch!). The average result will be 10.5.

You could vary the first throw a bit, for instance, interpreting 3 as 1 and 6 as four gives the same average but a lesser spread. 1d+1 gives a higher average. Lots of ways to fine-tune. 1D+1, treat 6+ as 5; 1D, reroll sixes; etc.

Hans

I like your idea better than my idea because it's a cleaner way to vary damage than multiplying the die. And I don't object to a separate damage roll. By the time all the fiddling is done, I think the current MGT system loses any speed advantage over a two roll system.

So if I understand your idea, you could use the effect die as the number of damage dice to roll (modified by weapon type -- pistols might reduce the roll by 2 [minimum of 1 die damage]), etc. The only problem with such a system is that it's awfully granular. There won't be much room to distinguish between weapons. You'll have "pistols", "rifles" and other broad categories. There won't be a meaningful way to distinguish between (say) the 9mm ACR and 7mm ACR. Of course, this is equally true of the multiplication idea.

 

[Plankowner]

Thus Moose Trav was born...

Or my personal favorite "Rikki Tikki Traveller" or "RTT"

Keeps the Mongoose reference without being MT.

 

[Jame]

Or my personal favorite "Rikki Tikki Traveller" or "RTT"

Keeps the Mongoose reference without being MT.

The only reason I get that is because someone on one of these forums explained it.

I have not read any of Kipling's work, as when I've tried it's come across dry.

 

[Supplement Four]

The problem, as you figured out, is that weapon damage varies only by 1d6. This mechanic forces the designer to create weapons with very high base damage (so that they will be lethal).

I still prefer my Updated Classic Traveller Combat System.

http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=10879&highlight=Combat

Where I have re-arranged the use of the CT combat tables.





Throw To-Hit: Roll 2D for 8+ to hit. Modify by Range, Skill, and Weapon DEX DMs (plus situational DMs).

Damage Roll: Roll Base Damage Dice. Modify with DMs for Armor Value and Weapon vs. Armor Type modifier.







So, Larri, DEX-7, with AutoRifle-1, would throw...

(+1 DM Skill; -2 DM DEX)

2D for 17+ at Close Range (Contact Range)
2D for 9+ at Short Range
2D for 7+ at Medium Range
2D for 8+ at Long Range
2D for 11+ at Very Long Range







Damage is neat because every armor type has a base value. But, on top of this, damage from each attack type is adjusted based on the attack and the armor (think of this as penetration).

So, if Larri, above, hits, his rifle will do a base damage of 3D, just like it says in the CT Damage Charts. BUT, this damage is adjusted for two things: (1) Base Armor Value of the armor; and (2) DM for attack type vs. the armor.

So, if Larri hits a target wearing the indicated armor, his damage is variable, based what armor type is struck.

Damage:

3D +6 vs. No Armor
3D +6 vs. Jack
3D vs. Mesh
3D -6 vs. Cloth
3D +6 vs. Reflec
3D +2 vs. Ablat
3D -11 vs. Combat
3D -13 vs. Battle Dress



Stats on that Damage look like this:

No Armor -- Avg. is 16 points. Range of 9-24 points.
Jack -- Avg. is 16 points. Range of 9-24 points.
Mesh -- Avg. is 10 points. Range of 3-18 points.
Cloth -- Avg. is 4 points. Range of 0-12 points.
Reflec -- Avg. is 16 points. Range of 9-24 points.
Ablat -- Avg. is 12 points. Range of 5-20 points.
Combat -- Avg. is 0 points. Range of 0-7 points.
Battle Dress -- Avg. is 0 points. Range of 0-5 points.





I think this is a much better system than what Mongoose is putting out. Plus, I already own all of CT.

So, why would I change to an inferior system?

If Mongoose wants my money, they're going to have to do better than what they're doing.

 

[sablewyvern]

I think this is a much better system than what Mongoose is putting out. Plus, I already own all of CT.

So, why would I change to an inferior system?

If Mongoose wants my money, they're going to have to do better than what they're doing.

I really don't think Mongoose has the mistaken belief that they are going to make sales to people who are perfectly happy with CT (with the exception of the not insignificant group of Traveller completists).

 

[Supplement Four]

I really don't think Mongoose has the mistaken belief that they are going to make sales to people who are perfectly happy with CT (with the exception of the not insignificant group of Traveller completists).

I am perfectly happy with CT. That said, the point I'm making is this: I'm a totally willing to jump ship from CT to Mongoose Trav or T5 if...BIG IF...the quality is there in the newer edition.

It's gotta blow me away. It's gotta be something GREAT! At the minimum, it's got to be better than what I'm already using.

I'm just not seeing that with Mongoose (and I had high hopes).

 

[Ptah]

....


I have a 2d6 based combat system that I'm very happy with, but it is not a hit points based system. So, to make a "Standard Traveller Parameters" compliant game, I'd take the T4 combat system, the CT "small number of skills and levels" system, and whatever task resolution system strikes your fancy. I'm happy with a "roll 8+ on 2d, + modifiers" system. Degrees of success and time taken can be easily inferred from the amount by which you exceed the task roll.

...

To jump in out of the blue, I think that is a good suggestion, but haven't run a play test or the numbers on the modifier applying to effect die.

I can see an approach where you beat the target number by 3, say, so you can choose how you want to divide those 3 points between effect and timing. Beating the number by small amounts gives lesser effect and harder task become harder to do well. Conversley very easy tasks have a higher chance of being done well and fast.

I'll go back to lurking now....

 

[tbeard1999]

I am perfectly happy with CT. That said, the point I'm making is this: I'm a totally willing to jump ship from CT to Mongoose Trav or T5 if...BIG IF...the quality is there in the newer edition.

It's gotta blow me away. It's gotta be something GREAT! At the minimum, it's got to be better than what I'm already using.

I'm just not seeing that with Mongoose (and I had high hopes).

FWIW, it doesn't have to blow me away. It merely has to be a decent game in its own right. If it meets that modest threshhold, I'll buy it. So far, here's how I rate it (all IMHO of course):

1. Character generation -- B-. Clearly the strongest part of the game so far. If they ditch the absurdly difficult survival and reenlistment rolls for the exciting careers, this improves to a B+. If they fix the defective points-based character generation system, this rises to an A-. They seem to have figured out the fact that a 2d6 system cannot handle lots of skill levels. Kudos for that.

2. Task resolution -- D. The advanced task resolution system is pointlessly fussy and does nothing useful that a far simpler task resolution system can't do. Too much wasted effort. That said, most of the various Traveller task system fetishes would get a C at best, so this one isn't that much worse.

3. Combat sequencing -- D-. The system requires far too much effort for little significant gain. It's fussy, non-intuitive and not particularly interesting. It seems to me to combine the worst aspects of highly detailed combat systems (like GURPS) and highly abstracted combat systems. Nor does it allow you to model real skirmish tactics very well -- a big deal for those of us who run military style campaigns. Oh, and while it's at least as much hassle as Snapshot or AHL, it's far less engaging and yields more questionable results.

4. Combat mechanics -- D. The weapon damage system is terrible IMHO. It's also fussy (an adjective that seems to apply to a lot of this game). The equating of damage and penetration means that higher tech weapons are unreasonably lethal against unarmored targets. The use of hit points means that (for instance) it's impossible to kill an average unarmored man with a rifle (and equally impossible to lightly wound him). In other words, it just doesn't do a reasonable job of modeling firearms--either real world firearms or TV firearms. The burst rule is particularly egregious. (While it can be said that CT didn't model firearms very well either, I'd point out that CT is 30 years old. I'd expect a game designed in 2007 to do at least as well as, say, Megatraveller.)

For me to buy this game, I'd want to see at least a C in #1. Since my games feature a lot of combat, a decent combat system is crucial. So I'd want a B- in #3 and #4. Starship design, world design, creature design and interoperability with CT and MT need to be C or better. If they use the CT systems, I'll give them a C. If the starship system is more complex than High Guard, it will get a D or worse.

#1 can be fixed pretty easily.

#2 can be ignored, so it isn't a deal breaker, unless the designer persists in shoehorning the task system into everything.

#3 and #4 have fundamental defects. The fixes that I have conceived will introduce other problems nearly as offensive. I cannot stress in strong enough terms that I think that the combat system and turn sequencing should be scrapped. In their current form, they *are* deal breakers for me. And I am extremely dubious that it can be fixed.

 

[tbeard1999]

To jump in out of the blue, I think that is a good suggestion, but haven't run a play test or the numbers on the modifier applying to effect die.

I can see an approach where you beat the target number by 3, say, so you can choose how you want to divide those 3 points between effect and timing. Beating the number by small amounts gives lesser effect and harder task become harder to do well. Conversley very easy tasks have a higher chance of being done well and fast.

As a GM, I do this all the time (in an unstructured way). If it just *had* to be defined, your suggestion is a reasonable start.

 

[tbeard1999]

The only reason I get that is because someone on one of these forums explained it.

I have not read any of Kipling's work, as when I've tried it's come across dry.

<GASP>

You poor, poor person...

 

[far-trader]

Or my personal favorite "Rikki Tikki Traveller" or "RTT"

Keeps the Mongoose reference without being MT.

The only reason I get that is because someone on one of these forums explained it.

I have not read any of Kipling's work, as when I've tried it's come across dry.

<GASP>

You poor, poor person...

When I first saw Jame's reply I was thinking maybe it was a Commonwealth thing. But you're from (or in now at least) Texas tbeard. Or maybe it's a generational thing. But it could just be what it is, you either get early exposure or you don't to a whole host of things and that forever colours our impressions

Like me and my friends as regards Philip K. Dick. I clicked to his style and loved it, the others just didn't get it.