mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
That last post was a bit tongue in cheek - but if wafer tech and makers are not in an updated version of CT then it would lack compatibility with the OTU 
CT Only: What One Thing Would You Change About Classic Traveller?
- Thread starter robject
- Start date
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
Traveller and Cyberpunk is an uneasy mix, and not quite digestible.
However, knowledge based skills are probably the easiest transferable as a sort of on call continuously online explainer and demonstrator, whether language translation, or howto Youtube videos; moving beyond that to hardwiring your body to carry out computer programmes at the physical level, it's no longer Jack of all Trades, then you specifically call upon a library or database of specific skills.
However, knowledge based skills are probably the easiest transferable as a sort of on call continuously online explainer and demonstrator, whether language translation, or howto Youtube videos; moving beyond that to hardwiring your body to carry out computer programmes at the physical level, it's no longer Jack of all Trades, then you specifically call upon a library or database of specific skills.
I missed that, I like it. Makes sense.
The one thing I would change is to switch to T4's armor model. Even though it's slightly harder to understand than straight up damage reduction, I think it handles armor piercing elegantly. I know that's maybe controversial, but I think we all agree that the D&D style "armor makes you harder to hit" model needs to be replaced with an "armor makes you harder to hurt" model.
If I had TWO things I could change, I would collapse some of the skills, assuming we're keeping the same number of skills in LBB1-3. I'd make "Engineering" one skill, and make GunCbt and Blade be by category rather than actual weapon. (Pistol, Rifle, Laser, Plasma, etc.) I might also replace Forgery with a more general "Deception" skill, and rely on Admin for faking documents. That's more controversial though.
I'd also emphasize in the rules that players make "task throws" not "skill checks", and that their skills are there to give bonuses for task throws, not be their "playbook". That's not a rules change, just a clarification that I've seen floating around for a while that makes the system make more sense, to me at least.
If I had TWO things I could change
, I would collapse some of the skills, assuming we're keeping the same number of skills in LBB1-3. I'd make "Engineering" one skill, and make GunCbt and Blade be by category rather than actual weapon. (Pistol, Rifle, Laser, Plasma, etc.) I might also replace Forgery with a more general "Deception" skill, and rely on Admin for faking documents. That's more controversial though.I'd also emphasize in the rules that players make "task throws" not "skill checks", and that their skills are there to give bonuses for task throws, not be their "playbook". That's not a rules change, just a clarification that I've seen floating around for a while that makes the system make more sense, to me at least.
That's the best expression of that idea that I've ever seen. And #2 on my list of "Changes to CT".
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
Not having seen or played T4 at all, this made me start wondering about an armor game mechanic that basically amounts to applying -Damage per die being rolled.
For example ... let's say that a weapon being used does 4D6 of damage, and the raw dice rolls for that are a nice even average spread of:
4D6 = 1, 3, 4, 6 = 14 base Damage
So far so good?
Now let's say that the armor mechanic applies a -Damage to each die in the damage roll an the armor type specifies the minimum damage allowed that die rolls can be reduced to.
So if the armor in question being hit applied a -2 Damage to each die being rolled, you wouldn't necessarily wind up with a -8 damage on 4d6.
4D6 = 1, 3, 4, 6 = 14 base
-2 Damage per die rolled, minimum 1 Damage allowed = 1, 1, 2, 4 = 8 damage taken through armor
-2 Damage per die rolled, minimum 0 Damage allowed = 0, 0, 2, 4 = 6 damage taken through armor
This system then lets you, as a game designer/developer in effect "tailor" armor damage reduction (etc.) in a way that can be highly effective without resulting in being absolutely impervious to all incoming damage. Basically, the armor "absorbs" some of the damage for you, but not necessarily ALL of the incoming damage.
This way you could do something like have Battle Dress be a -5 Damage per die, minimum 1 Damage per die type of armor for taking hits (so basically, on D6 all the dice yield 1 Damage per die). That way, when you get hit you'll "feel" the hit but it isn't necessarily debilitating, depending on the weapon type ... which sounds GREAT ... until you realize that FGMP-14/15 deal 16D6 at medium range and taking 16 damage to 1 physical attribute (strength, dexterity, endurance) is still very likely to put you out of commission, even while wearing battle dress (although it might not be an instant "vaporize you" kill in one shot).
Reflec armor could do something similar, such as being -0 Damage for non-energy weapons (slug throwers, grenades, etc.) and -5 Damage, minimum 0 Damage against lasers (but not plasma or fusion guns) to create a specialized anti-laser armor protection scheme.
4D6 = 1, 3, 4, 6 = 14 base
-0 Damage, non-energy = 1, 3, 4, 6 = 14 damage taken
-5 Damage, minimum 0 Damage allowed vs lasers = 0, 0, 0, 1 = 1 damage taken
Ablat armor could be something like -3 Damage per die rolled, minimum 1 Damage per die ... but as hits are taken from weapons, the -Damage per die rolled gets reduced by 1 after each hit (so -2, -1, 0 Damage) as the ablative bulk of the armor gets compromised by incoming damage. So Ablat is good for the first hit, but then its performance declines rapidly when taking additional hits as the armor ablates away.
4D6 = 1, 3, 4, 6 = 14 base
-3 Damage, minimum 1 Damage allowed = 1, 1, 1, 3 = 6 damage taken (first hit)
-2 Damage, minimum 1 Damage allowed = 1, 1, 2, 4 = 8 damage taken (second hit)
-1 Damage, minimum 1 Damage allowed = 1, 2, 3, 5 = 11 damage taken (third hit)
-0 Damage, minimum 1 Damage allowed = 1, 3, 4, 6 = 14 damage taken (fourth hit)
So as you can see from this very simplistic example, after taking 3 consecutive hits, Ablat is basically worthless as armor protection.
Mind you, I'm saying these are the ideal number to use if such a system were to be adopted ... merely that these number settings make the operation of the system easiest to grasp in terms of execution.
Spinward Flow - that's "spiritually" similar to the T4 system in that it keeps the actual dice numbers important.
In T4, armor is rated as either "hard" or "flexible", and stops a number of dice.
Hard armor blocks the damage completely, but Flexible reduces it to 1pt.
And to fix some holes in the system, there is a "blow through" rule where you can never take more than 3D of damage from a single shot. So in essence, more D of damage correspond to "armor penetration".
If you roll 4D damage against "Flexi 2" armor, it reduces to 2D+1, applied randomly in 3 pieces. (The dice, and the +1)
If you roll 16D against "Hard 3" armor, it reduces to 13D, and you discard 10D of it as it punches a 3D hole through you.
Of course things like combat armor have high enough ratings that they can't really be hurt by hand guns, though "normal" combat armor will likely reduce a 4D shot to 4pts of damage, each applied randomly.
The net effect is that if you have any "military grade" armor, you can get splattered by gunfire for quite a while before the concussions knock you down. But it also means that almost anyone hit by a plasma rifle is going to take 3D of damage, and most cover and armor won't help you. Better hope those negative to-hit modifiers are in your favor.
I have not actually had the opportunity to PLAY with this rule though. There are a lot of parts of T4 that sound great on paper but fall apart when you try to use them. Maybe this is one of them.
In T4, armor is rated as either "hard" or "flexible", and stops a number of dice.
Hard armor blocks the damage completely, but Flexible reduces it to 1pt.
And to fix some holes in the system, there is a "blow through" rule where you can never take more than 3D of damage from a single shot. So in essence, more D of damage correspond to "armor penetration".
If you roll 4D damage against "Flexi 2" armor, it reduces to 2D+1, applied randomly in 3 pieces. (The dice, and the +1)
If you roll 16D against "Hard 3" armor, it reduces to 13D, and you discard 10D of it as it punches a 3D hole through you.
Of course things like combat armor have high enough ratings that they can't really be hurt by hand guns, though "normal" combat armor will likely reduce a 4D shot to 4pts of damage, each applied randomly.
The net effect is that if you have any "military grade" armor, you can get splattered by gunfire for quite a while before the concussions knock you down. But it also means that almost anyone hit by a plasma rifle is going to take 3D of damage, and most cover and armor won't help you. Better hope those negative to-hit modifiers are in your favor.
I have not actually had the opportunity to PLAY with this rule though. There are a lot of parts of T4 that sound great on paper but fall apart when you try to use them. Maybe this is one of them.
Well, I never played T4 but this sounds hopelessly complex. I mean, that’s great if you’re into such detailed crunch but it wouldn’t fly with my group.
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
hallogallo
SOC-1
Would like rules for creating intelligent aliens, preferably connected to world generation in the same way that animal generation is made. Did a small hack of it that really just set a chance per animal generator for it to be intelligent, but would love to have more about their buildup, their culture, etc. But very abstracted like the animals just to start imagining things.
It's actually quite straightforward and fairly simple. As stated, each armor point eliminates one die of damage. (If its rigid armor, it eliminates each die "eliminated"completely; if its is flexible armor it reduces each die "eliminated" to a single damage point (i.e. bruising, etc)). You just remember that for all dice that don't get eliminated (i.e. go thru the armor), only a maximum of 3 dice effect the target, the rest are "over-penetration" and go thru the other side (some specific weapons may modify this in their individual descriptions).
Armor-piercing ammo just simply ignores a certain number of armor points when they hit, but otherwise work as above.
If you wanted, you could draw a line of sight out the other side of the target and let the remaining dice beyond 3D affect another target along the path (but this might be further reduced by the "back-plate" of the armor on the person's back as it exits).
You could also assign different armor protective values for a given type of armor to different types of attacks (i.e. laser, plasma, slug, etc.) if you wanted to.
It's fairly simple and elegant.
Oh ya, I think I replaced Forgery with Deception. Just seemed to be more expansive and the kinds of careers that got Forgery originally fits in perfectly with the bigger skill.The one thing I would change is to switch to T4's armor model. Even though it's slightly harder to understand than straight up damage reduction, I think it handles armor piercing elegantly. I know that's maybe controversial, but I think we all agree that the D&D style "armor makes you harder to hit" model needs to be replaced with an "armor makes you harder to hurt" model.
If I had TWO things I could change
I'd also emphasize in the rules that players make "task throws" not "skill checks", and that their skills are there to give bonuses for task throws, not be their "playbook". That's not a rules change, just a clarification that I've seen floating around for a while that makes the system make more sense, to me at least.
The one big thing that I have taken away from this forum on die rolling is to treat the rolls as to be used opposed/unusual/saving throw situations.
Didn't MgT1 with CSC ammo have that?
While most of the time it's military and tracking, I also use it for things like criminals casing a target or LE doing surveillance.
We all have our own tastes, but to me it's less trouble than cross-referencing armor and gun type and then adding in ammo mods, and gives me some damage reduction to keep players alive longer.
Though I'm an admitted "Space Opera" fan, and want my combats to be more like action movies than real combat, so "armor as damage reduction" works better for my purposes than "armor as cover" does.
To me, Fwd-Obs included surveillance drone ops, and Recon was much more 'first person'. I'm having a bit of trouble reconciling the merging of the two as I've seen discussed, but I don't really disagree.
MgT1 did something similar with the various AP ammo types. But MgT1 armor was direct damage-point armor reduction. So 5-point armor always absorbed 5 points of damage. T4 armor eliminates damage-dice instead of damage-points, so there was a little more abstraction to the results of a hit. For example, in MgT1 if you roll 18 points of damage (regardless of how it is rolled), 18 points of armor will absorb all of it. In T4 if you roll 18 points of damage, armor may absorb all of it depending on how the dice played out. For example, if you have 3-points of armor, 18 points of damage on 3D will be completely absorbed. However, 18 points on 4D vs. 3-point armor will NOT be completely absorbed. The armor-damage interaction is less certain.
Similar threads
MT Only:
Advantage in Tasks