Combat system?

[Reban]

Can you recall particulars that caught your eye?

I'm referring to the simple way combat against NPCs was resolved, 10+ rendering them out of combat.

In other words, detailed combat resolution applies to PCs. The way I'd like a combat system to work is that it tells me at a glance who wins a mass combat but when the game depends on the PC making a shot I can go into detail about the resolution.

There was also a brilliant one page summary on combat called "The Nuances of Combat" from the draft of November 2008 (13 Personal Combat.pdf).

 

[robject]

I'm referring to the simple way combat against NPCs was resolved, 10+ rendering them out of combat.

Oh heck yeah. I use that all the time now, even when I ran CT games at NT-RPG Con. I do remember writing that as a Suggestion Errata to Marc.

 

[robject]

Here's some of the notes I've made in the past on the combat system.


1. Have a SETUP section, where forex the Tactics Mod is rolled.

2. Organize the combat round.

a. sitrep
b. decision (Evade / Mode / Operate Vehicle, Heavy Wpn, Explosives, etc / Take Cover).
c. action
d. resolve attacks (if any)


"My" ranged attack task is:

Range[dice] < Char + Skill - Evade (- Weapon Burden)
Minimum dice is 2D.
Not possible if Range > Size.
Evade is target's DEX.

"My" melee attack task is:
Range[dice] < Char + Skill - Evade - Parry
Minimum dice is 1D; 2D if the opponent has a longer reach.
Lowest success wins.
Evade is target's DEX.


Then I have a bevy of special considerations.

 

[David Johansen]

You know, as I think about it, my favorite system for cover is cover as armor for specific hit locations. Shot them in the leg? It was behind the packing crate which has 10 armor. True it makes hit locations hard to dispense with but a lower armor rating for partial armor never feels right and cover making people harder to hit tends to mess with the to hit chance range. Again maybe it's just the ex-Warhammer player in me but -2 to hit on 1d6 is a big deal.

40k has used cover saves instead of modifiers since 3rd edition and it's a big improvement. Really that's all a hit location roll is, a cover save.

 

[robject]

Cover as armor is handy, since armor is already part of the system.

 

[David Johansen]

Exactly, why add a subsystem when an existing one already does the job?

Incidentally, the 10+ rule makes NPCs significantly tougher than PCs who only need 7 points on average and suffer cumulative damage. Really 7+ would work better with the numbers. I know PCs will generally be packing the biggest and nastiest hardware they can get but you still want the system to work when muskets are being used.

 

[robapol]

I'm referring to the simple way combat against NPCs was resolved, 10+ rendering them out of combat.

In other words, detailed combat resolution applies to PCs. The way I'd like a combat system to work is that it tells me at a glance who wins a mass combat but when the game depends on the PC making a shot I can go into detail about the resolution.

There was also a brilliant one page summary on combat called "The Nuances of Combat" from the draft of November 2008 (13 Personal Combat.pdf).

For me this is a poor rule. Its intent is good - simplify combat under certain circumstances. Though alas, the execution is poor.

With the old 5.0 ruleset, you could fire with a pistol at close range with pretty much a 100% chance but not end up doing the requisite 10+ damage (pistols are d6). And this is without taking Armour into account.

In fact I'm pretty sure many single shot rifles would fail to make a dent with this rule....

 

[Daddicus]

You know I've been thinking (a dangerous pastime, I know).

Let's leave this thread to continue discussing the complicated system and fixing it. I'll start a new thread for ideas on a simplified version. For this (the complicated thread), we should stay moderately close to Marc's design, or perhaps to his mindset. It seems unlikely we really want to tackle a complete replacement.

The new thread is here.

Jim

 

[Daddicus]

Next, melee. ... A skill-only check. But that still feels inadequate.

I'm not so sure. I'm mildly skilled with a couple of sword types (maybe 1 or 2 in Traveller terms), but in a for-real fight vs. an unskilled sword-wielder, they've got no chance unless I trip or something.

Now, skill vs. skill is different. If both sides are equally skilled, it will likely be decided on one hit, with about even odds as to who gets that strike. You spend most of your time defending until you see an opening. It's more a matter of how long it will take (5 seconds, a minute, maybe 2).

For unequally-skilled opponents, it's more tricky. In Traveller terms, if someone has double an opponenets skill, it seems like a one-sided fight, but not as simple as a sword-1 vs sword-0.

So, I'm thinking skill advantage translates into dice of damage. If you're twice as skilled, 2x normal dice. 3 times as skilled, 3x.Here I would say both roll C+S, and the lesser-skilled opponent has to get further under his C+S. The lesser-skilled opponent can only succeed at one die's worth of damage, while the greater-skilled gets XD, depending on the skill diff.

But, skilled vs. 0-level is a 100-to-1 shot in favor of skill. And, the skilled one can pretty much do anything he wants, from cutting off a head to nicking an extremity (just to make a point).

 

[David Johansen]

The pistol is d6 complaint makes me crazy.

A Standard pistol does 2d6. A Standard Heavy Pistol or Advanced Pistol does 3d6. The 1d6 pistol is a small caliber Luger. At the same TL a Standard Revolver does 2d6.

That said 10+ was always too high.

It's just that the 1d6 pistol almost doesn't exist. Even at the introductory TL you can get a heavy pistol that does 2d6.

 

[kilemall]

I'm referring to the simple way combat against NPCs was resolved, 10+ rendering them out of combat.

In other words, detailed combat resolution applies to PCs. The way I'd like a combat system to work is that it tells me at a glance who wins a mass combat but when the game depends on the PC making a shot I can go into detail about the resolution.

Be careful about detailed/dramatic PC resolution vs. NPC. I'm told it's impossible to have two such different systems in the same game.

 

[robapol]

I think a good point has been made. Trying to use two different systems in combat, simultaneously will always cause problems.

The issue is that if you balance one system (the 10+) system, then you are likely to unbalance the other and vice-versa.

I think if Marc wants to go for a simplified combat system to increase speed, then stick with that for everybody and then tune the rules to provide balanced combat.

 

[robapol]

The pistol is d6 complaint makes me crazy.

A Standard pistol does 2d6. A Standard Heavy Pistol or Advanced Pistol does 3d6. The 1d6 pistol is a small caliber Luger. At the same TL a Standard Revolver does 2d6.

That said 10+ was always too high.

It's just that the 1d6 pistol almost doesn't exist. Even at the introductory TL you can get a heavy pistol that does 2d6.

I think the reason this is brought up so often (myself included) is that the only pre-made pistols included in the T5 manual are all 1D. You would need to play with the gun-maker and appreciate how it works to understand that the 1d guns are pretty much bottom of the range.

 

[aramis]

Be careful about detailed/dramatic PC resolution vs. NPC. I'm told it's impossible to have two such different systems in the same game.

Hardly impossible -

• FFG Star Wars has 3 different levels - Minion, Rival, and Nemesis. They use one resolution mechanic, but stop counting at different parts.
• Feng Shui 2 has Mooks (any hit takes them out) and Named characters (who come in 3 flavors — Boss, PC, Featured Foe — by HP and penalty levels).
• Blood & Honor has two - Named characters and unnamed. Unnamed die from any hit; named die from a katana hit or from 5 levels of damage from anything else.

The thing is, this is a very non-simulationist approach, and Traveller tends towards simulationism.

 

[kilemall]

Hardly impossible -

• FFG Star Wars has 3 different levels - Minion, Rival, and Nemesis. They use one resolution mechanic, but stop counting at different parts.
• Feng Shui 2 has Mooks (any hit takes them out) and Named characters (who come in 3 flavors — Boss, PC, Featured Foe — by HP and penalty levels).
• Blood & Honor has two - Named characters and unnamed. Unnamed die from any hit; named die from a katana hit or from 5 levels of damage from anything else.

The thing is, this is a very non-simulationist approach, and Traveller tends towards simulationism.

Eek. I was just being a bit sarcastic about folks who insist it cannot be done when it darn well can.

If one thinks about it, historical wargaming will usually have stands with X amount of soldiers in some sort of formation/subunit. The moment the game has a stand with a leader with morale/action advantage and/or particularly lethal warrior, and rules to support it, the dual scale is in play, and is quite appropriate for simulating battlefields.

 

[pendragonman]

A suggestion for the NPC mechanic:

Make the "knockout" value vary with the athletic/military skill equivalent. Why athletic? They will average higher physicals than an office person.



Athletic/mititary skill level: knockout value equivalent npc type

Green/untrained 6+ average teenager/only background skills

average/basic training 7+ John Q Citizen, non athletic/no military training

Skilled/basic athlete 8+ A couple of terms reservist/amateur weekend athlete

Veteran/semi professional athlete 10+ A couple of terms regular military/college athlete

SpecOps/professional athlete 12+ Self explanatory


Thoughts?

 

[David Johansen]

I'd probably cut it down a bit but it's not a bad idea.

 

[Daddicus]

I think a good point has been made. Trying to use two different systems in combat, simultaneously will always cause problems.

The issue is that if you balance one system (the 10+) system, then you are likely to unbalance the other and vice-versa.

I think if Marc wants to go for a simplified combat system to increase speed, then stick with that for everybody and then tune the rules to provide balanced combat.

I agree. Two systems will work, but not together.

Note, however, that I'm speaking in terms of slow vs. fast. The ranged vs. melee vs. unarmed can still be 3 different forms of combat. (However, it IS possible to have a ranged vs. melee going on, so there might be some end-cases if those three are separated.)

 

[robject]

I'm going to try to organize my thoughts here.

Ignore MINOR Adjustments. In other words, *I* as referee can institute little twiddles easily without changing the actual STRUCTURE of combat. Initiative order; cover as armor; NPCs dropping when dealt 10+ points on a hit; etc). Even those horrid DMs against the to-hit task. EVEN HOW HIT LOCATIONS ARE ROLLED AND HITS DEGRADE ARMOR BY LOCATION. Some of us like them, some of us hate them, and they're NOT CENTRAL.

Let's not waste time on them. Identify likely candidates when they crop up, add them to a recommendation pile, but MOVE ON.

We might update the rules with ALTERNATE SUGGESTIONS. Sound wishy-washy? Meh.


This isn't about ORGANIZATION. A third of my errata on combat was about organization. We Will Fix That.



Ranged Combat

The essence of the combat task is

Difficulty (range dice) < Assets.

So the crux of things is how difficulty is adjusted, and how damage is rolled.

Difficulty is adjusted based on how careful you're firing -- that's very reasonable. You're trading off probabilities, and that makes sense.

However, I think here are the updates that helps fix the most pressing issues:


Burst and Full Auto. Here's something I think would be nice to clarify: burst fire doesn't double the amount of dice you roll, it doubles the result. Similarly with full auto. Is this the way it works now?

Minimum Ranged Task Difficulty is Always 2D It's ridiculous to think that your typical ranged combat tasks could be less than 2D, no matter how close you are and how long you take to aim. A referee can overrule this due to circumstances, but for the sake of game balance, the minimum should be noted as 2D.



EXAMPLE

Average Guy (AG): Dex 7 + Rifle 3 = Target Number 10.

PC: Dex 10 + Rifle 5 = Target Number 15

Targets are at Range=1 to one another.

          Adjusted Target
Range DM  AG PC
----- --  -----
  1    4  14 19
  2    3  13 18
  3    2  12 17
  4    1  11 16       
  5    0  10 15

Both targets are under full cover.
Cover DM for both is therefore -6 -3 = -9.

AG = 14 - 9 = 5.
PC = 19 - 9 = 10.

Aimed: -1D difficulty, 1 shot if stationary (BUT: minimum difficulty is 2D).
Standard: 2 shots if stationary.
Snap: +1D difficulty, 3 shots if stationary.


The task is 2D < Asset. 2D is the minimum dice rolled.


AG's best option is to fire standard. He gets two shots at the best possible probability. It is probable that one of the shots will hit.

PC's best option is to also fire standard. He has a 92% chance to hit both times. If he went for a snapfire, odds would dive down near 50%. Not worth it.


Summary

I see no particular problems with setting 2D as the minimum difficulty level, enforced after all other modifications are considered, and I see it resolving a potential issue.

I don't like DMs, but I am free to ignore them or consolidate them. Or, better, maybe my players will like them and use them. More power to them.

Initiative is easy for a referee to adjust. It's not a core brokenness of the rules.

Burst and Full Auto should multiply after damage is rolled; they do not increase the number of dice rolled.

Now where are we?

 

[robject]

Melee Combat - it looks like the closest fit I've seen so far to the T5 rolls is to treat this as an opposed task. Assuming opposed tasks is reasonably straightforward, not too stupid, gives everyone leeway to adjust and twiddle as needed, but happens to work okay, then that's that.

Perhaps several of those conditions fail.

Opposed Tasks
Characters in direct competition may jointly participate in an Opposed task, with the result determining who succeeds (and who fails). Each participant rolls to resolve the task, with the lowest result succeeding.

The Task Comment will say Opposed indicating how many characters may participate (n equals the numbers of characters). The lowest result is successful, provided that result is a success result; all other participants fail (regardless of the quality of their results).

To win a race.
Difficult (3D) < Str + Athletic
Opposed. Resolves the race in one task.

A more extended resolution of a race determines the loser of a specific round. The highest result (provided that result is unsuccessful) is the loser and is eliminated from the brawl. If no one is unsuccessful, repeat the task.

To resolve one round (or lap) of a competition.
Difficult (3D) < Str + Athletic
Opposed. Resolves one round of the competition.