mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
In T4 flexible armour would transmit 1 point of damage for every die of damage blocked, while rigid armour blocked the lot.
CT+ Personal Combat
- Thread starter robject
- Start date
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
You could make use of different parentheses to denote such things, like was done for MT only modified slightly.
() = armour value is halved against anything but melee/low velocity weapons, round down.
[] = armour value applies against laser weapons only.
I really want to chime in on this, but the only T4 item I have is Pocket Empires. I *do* own a copy of ACQ, so I will be taking a look at that tonight and responding then. Though I understand from Doug Berry's various postings that ACQ is meant to replace the T4 combat system, which in his words "sucked rocks".
Berg - come on, every game has some kind of charts for the weapons. It's unavoidable. I understand that the desire to minimize chart look-ups during combat, though.
Reminder for everyone - the way you & your group plays is not the way everyone plays. Some people prefer the extra crunchy bits which expand their tactical options. Some want to put minis on a detailed map and others just want to toss some dice and handle the rest with narrative.
- John
Berg - come on, every game has some kind of charts for the weapons. It's unavoidable. I understand that the desire to minimize chart look-ups during combat, though.
Reminder for everyone - the way you & your group plays is not the way everyone plays. Some people prefer the extra crunchy bits which expand their tactical options. Some want to put minis on a detailed map and others just want to toss some dice and handle the rest with narrative.
- John
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Yep, but a T20 version of armour rating using only d6 for weapon damage is awfully similar to the T4/ACQ way of doing it 
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Thanks for the invite Robject. Just got back from hols and haven't been following things lately.
The thread is certainly kicking up some good ideas. Stuff I like, in no particular order and apologies for not quoting people
1/ I prefer simple systems to complex ones.
2/ Combat should be a maximum of two rolls - one to hit and one to penetrate/damage.
3/ Damage should reduce stats and their bonuses.
4/ Scalability is nice but should be secondary to usability.
Looks like I'm drifting towards the T4/ACQ/T20 camp. As someone wrote, this also has the advantage of mirroring T20 which was Hunter's general idea for CT+.
The thread is certainly kicking up some good ideas. Stuff I like, in no particular order and apologies for not quoting people
1/ I prefer simple systems to complex ones.
2/ Combat should be a maximum of two rolls - one to hit and one to penetrate/damage.
3/ Damage should reduce stats and their bonuses.
4/ Scalability is nice but should be secondary to usability.
Looks like I'm drifting towards the T4/ACQ/T20 camp. As someone wrote, this also has the advantage of mirroring T20 which was Hunter's general idea for CT+.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Weapons have a damage vaue, which is the number of dice they roll if they hit.
Armour has an armour rating that subtracts damage dice.
High velocity projectile weapons can transfer no more than 3d of damage to a human because the rest blows though - although there are exceptions.
Flexible armour lets one point of damage though per damage die it stops, rigid armour just stops it.
Hitting in the first place is a task.
e.g. Bod fires a gauss rifle - damage 6 - against Pod, who is wearing flex armour (T4 term for CT cloth armour, or near enough) which has an armour value of 5.
Bod hits, but only gets to roll 1d for damage. He gets to add 1 point of damage for each removed damage die because the armour is flexible. So in total he inflicts 1d+5 on Pod.
This damage is then applied the same way it is in CT.
If Pod had been unarmoured he would have taken 3d of damage, the other 3 are wasted - but you wouldn't want to be standing behind him
If Pod had been wearing TL8 "plate" rigid armour with an armour value of 4 he would have taken 2d of damage.
Armour has an armour rating that subtracts damage dice.
High velocity projectile weapons can transfer no more than 3d of damage to a human because the rest blows though - although there are exceptions.
Flexible armour lets one point of damage though per damage die it stops, rigid armour just stops it.
Hitting in the first place is a task.
e.g. Bod fires a gauss rifle - damage 6 - against Pod, who is wearing flex armour (T4 term for CT cloth armour, or near enough) which has an armour value of 5.
Bod hits, but only gets to roll 1d for damage. He gets to add 1 point of damage for each removed damage die because the armour is flexible. So in total he inflicts 1d+5 on Pod.
This damage is then applied the same way it is in CT.
If Pod had been unarmoured he would have taken 3d of damage, the other 3 are wasted - but you wouldn't want to be standing behind him
If Pod had been wearing TL8 "plate" rigid armour with an armour value of 4 he would have taken 2d of damage.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
I prefer a more T20 version of this...
Doesn't that mean that armour can sometimes be counter-productive?Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
e.g. Bod fires a gauss rifle - damage 6 - against Pod, who is wearing flex armour (T4 term for CT cloth armour, or near enough) which has an armour value of 5.
Bod hits, but only gets to roll 1d for damage. He gets to add 1 point of damage for each removed damage die because the armour is flexible. So in total he inflicts 1d+5 on Pod.
This damage is then applied the same way it is in CT.
If Pod had been unarmoured he would have taken 3d of damage, the other 3 are wasted - but you wouldn't want to be standing behind him
Say in the above example the armour was of value 4, then the damage would be 2D+4 which averages slightly higher than the maximum 3D against unarmoured.
On the surface high damage dice weapons against highish level armour can work against the armour wearer.
Maybe that's just a rare situation? But it makes me worry about the system....
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
That's why I'd borrow from T20...
You roll all the damage dice, and then in the case of the 3d maximum damage you'd keep the highest numbers...
with armour, roll all the dice, take away the number of dice equal to AR - lowest to highest - until only one die remains. Any remaining AV is subtracted from that number.
Very high velocity weapons are armour piercing and halve the armour.
It all actually works very quickly in play, and there are loads of ways to make it even more complicated
You roll all the damage dice, and then in the case of the 3d maximum damage you'd keep the highest numbers...
with armour, roll all the dice, take away the number of dice equal to AR - lowest to highest - until only one die remains. Any remaining AV is subtracted from that number.
Very high velocity weapons are armour piercing and halve the armour.
It all actually works very quickly in play, and there are loads of ways to make it even more complicated
Fritz_Brown
Super Moderator
Oh, joy...Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
and there are loads of ways to make it even more complicated
OK, robject asked me to give a vote here. I have to say its a toss-up between Strikerish and MT-ish. I want to see 3 things:
1) Penetration values. It shouldn't count for/against hitting, but I would concede that in an otherwise elegant/easy/fun/realistic system. It (penetration v armor) should subtract from damage, but I'm not sure if it should subtract dice or points. It depends to a great deal, I suppose on the numbers involved: if Gauss rifle v Combat Armor reduces damage by 5 and a Gauss does 2D damage, ok for points; if it reduces 5 and a Gauss does 6D damage, points would be a little, well, pointless. I suppose another solution would be if Penetration > Armor, no reduction. But that is not necessarily realistic. (And, I agree w/ Zakrol that Sigg's idea could give some wierd results - sorry, Sigg.)
2) Roll to hit should give some measure of damage advantage for really GOOD rolls. (I suppose good is relative the side of the muzzle you are on....)
3) Some charts are inevitable, as you can't realistically hit a penny at 1000 yards with a body pistol (well, you can't really hit anything at 1000 yards w/ a body pistol...). And, some armors DO have different effects against different weapons. I don't mind range bands for weapons (on your char sheet) and penetration numbers against various types of armor (again, on your char sheet). If you have a munchkin, that's ok - it's up to him to maintain all his different weapons on his char sheet!
So, I guess it comes down to:
Roll to hit (range, skill, attribute/2-4, aids)
Roll for damage (penetration v armor, REALLY GOOD or REALLY BAD to hit rolls, STREN/2-4 for Melee weapons?)
Damage is allocated to stats with gruesome description by the referee (Sigg)
What is this T4 I keep hearing about?
Did that sufficiently muddy things, robject?
OK. Sounds like T4 / T20 have a lot in common with the combat system in Shadowrun, which I ran for several years and still half-way remember. I can't find my ACQ book at the moment but I'll be taking a look at the T20 rules tonight.
I think what we really need is a bunch of examples of play to see the various systems in action. I won't personally have time to do that until Friday or Saturday myself, but I'm happy to take a swing at it. Plus I can see if I can co-opt my 8-year-old to help me test.
It's not necessarily a problem that consensus hasn't been reached yet. This discussion is what, two days old? As someone said in another thread, it's early days.
- John
I think what we really need is a bunch of examples of play to see the various systems in action. I won't personally have time to do that until Friday or Saturday myself, but I'm happy to take a swing at it. Plus I can see if I can co-opt my 8-year-old to help me test.
It's not necessarily a problem that consensus hasn't been reached yet. This discussion is what, two days old? As someone said in another thread, it's early days.
- John
Maladominus
SOC-14 1K
Wow. It is hard for me to chime in on this, as my experience with Traveller is purely restricted to all classic items. I do not have any of the MT, T20, T4 or GT products.
So as an old-schooler, I can only say one thing that I think CT+ should NOT be: it should NEVER attempt to add a hideous level of complexity that Striker did. LOL
Striker was the Satan of the Classic Traveller Era. It really was. At one side, it provided the golden apple for all the gearheads and techie nerds to be satiated with all their military gearmongering cravings. At the other end of the spectrum it prolly scared away a LOT of casual-type gamers who are intimidated to even play a game that resembled a wargame.
Oh and wargames? I know what a wargame is extremely well. I've played them. Rise and Fall of the Third Reich 3rd Edition. I played it. Avalon Hill wargames. I loved them.
If I wanted to play a game with a 5-day learning curve and hugely detailed military gear and Orders of Battle and painful attention to realistic detail, then I will go back to playing my Avalon Hill wargames and those 120-page rulebooks.
If I want to play a simplified science fiction space game that can be learned and taught to new players in under 45 minutes.... then that's what Classic Traveller has always been to me. I do hope it never loses that appeal, no matter what revision it undergoes.
The best thing about a good RPG is NOT the ruleset or the rules. The best thing about RPG is about roleplaying, about the players being immersed in a fictional world of adventure and exploration. And that requires a terrific GM, who has a terrific sense of fairness and balance. And who has a terrific sense of creativity and imagination. The rules *should* be flexible enough that it does not restrict the GM. If the rules are too complicated and add too many layers of complexities and restrictions, then the GM does not have much leeway to make his game fun. He only has leeway to make it feel more realistic. But not fun.
I'll take a fun game over a realistic game any day!
my 6 Imperial cents are spent!
So as an old-schooler, I can only say one thing that I think CT+ should NOT be: it should NEVER attempt to add a hideous level of complexity that Striker did. LOL
Striker was the Satan of the Classic Traveller Era. It really was. At one side, it provided the golden apple for all the gearheads and techie nerds to be satiated with all their military gearmongering cravings. At the other end of the spectrum it prolly scared away a LOT of casual-type gamers who are intimidated to even play a game that resembled a wargame.
Oh and wargames? I know what a wargame is extremely well. I've played them. Rise and Fall of the Third Reich 3rd Edition. I played it. Avalon Hill wargames. I loved them.
If I wanted to play a game with a 5-day learning curve and hugely detailed military gear and Orders of Battle and painful attention to realistic detail, then I will go back to playing my Avalon Hill wargames and those 120-page rulebooks.
If I want to play a simplified science fiction space game that can be learned and taught to new players in under 45 minutes.... then that's what Classic Traveller has always been to me. I do hope it never loses that appeal, no matter what revision it undergoes.
The best thing about a good RPG is NOT the ruleset or the rules. The best thing about RPG is about roleplaying, about the players being immersed in a fictional world of adventure and exploration. And that requires a terrific GM, who has a terrific sense of fairness and balance. And who has a terrific sense of creativity and imagination. The rules *should* be flexible enough that it does not restrict the GM. If the rules are too complicated and add too many layers of complexities and restrictions, then the GM does not have much leeway to make his game fun. He only has leeway to make it feel more realistic. But not fun.
I'll take a fun game over a realistic game any day!
my 6 Imperial cents are spent!
Uh oh. I feel a mild rant. Please skip to the next post.
Yah, sure. The problem is that sides are drawn up, and nobody can move, because different playing styles are served by different rules. The talks are stalled at a philosophical level. Playtest will only underscore two main philosophies: MT/Striker-like and T20/ACQ-like.
The real problem is that unless we get something nailed down fast, CT+ -- well, what we have so far -- is more likely to be vaporware, wasted effort, grist for fourteen more days of endless wandering in an electronic topic wilderness before everyone loses interest and wanders off to more pressing topics-of-the-week.
Each was designed to solve a different problem. One may be more 'wargame' than another, but both can be used for roleplaying as well as wargaming. One may be faster than the other. One scales brilliantly.
If we don't have a consensus, then there is no CT+. This is reinforcing my opinion that CT+ is not a real thing, but rather a case of the grass being greener. It's too harsh to call it a pipe-dream, but I'm at a loss to give it a proper description.
This is a bit different from the Task System, because the TS is rather arbitrary, with qualities such as elegance, completeness, granularity -- none of which you really need, but are very nice to have, and can make a system easier to understand or use, or both. But it's still arbitrary.
It's also different from chargen, for largely the same, mechanical reasons, although chargen is even looser when it comes to elegance; after all, it's a state machine -- a boardgame without a board -- not an in-game play mechanic. Quirkiness can make it interesting or annoying. Non-quirkiness can make it boring.
Even more so worldgen. Not affecting chargen, tasks, or combat, worldgen turns on the level of detail and realism you want in your game, which CT may or may not meet. (I don't recall anyone really wanting a more abstract or unrealistic system).
So therefore, I am going out on a limb and declaring CT+ to be in a state of schism, hopefully not like the Roman and Eastern churches, but containing some dogmas distinct and incompatible. The only saving grace is that these dogmas are caused by preference rather than ego.
(Boy was that uncalled for.)
On the other hand, I have no authority to make proclamations, since we're actually an anarcho-syndicalist commune. I was sort of the chairperson of the day, but my vote doesn't count any more than yours, or yours, or yours. I'm just calling 'em like I sees 'em.
I honestly didn't know if there was going to be a stalemate for CT+, but combat is the one.
Yah, sure. The problem is that sides are drawn up, and nobody can move, because different playing styles are served by different rules. The talks are stalled at a philosophical level. Playtest will only underscore two main philosophies: MT/Striker-like and T20/ACQ-like.
The real problem is that unless we get something nailed down fast, CT+ -- well, what we have so far -- is more likely to be vaporware, wasted effort, grist for fourteen more days of endless wandering in an electronic topic wilderness before everyone loses interest and wanders off to more pressing topics-of-the-week.
Each was designed to solve a different problem. One may be more 'wargame' than another, but both can be used for roleplaying as well as wargaming. One may be faster than the other. One scales brilliantly.
If we don't have a consensus, then there is no CT+. This is reinforcing my opinion that CT+ is not a real thing, but rather a case of the grass being greener. It's too harsh to call it a pipe-dream, but I'm at a loss to give it a proper description.
This is a bit different from the Task System, because the TS is rather arbitrary, with qualities such as elegance, completeness, granularity -- none of which you really need, but are very nice to have, and can make a system easier to understand or use, or both. But it's still arbitrary.
It's also different from chargen, for largely the same, mechanical reasons, although chargen is even looser when it comes to elegance; after all, it's a state machine -- a boardgame without a board -- not an in-game play mechanic. Quirkiness can make it interesting or annoying. Non-quirkiness can make it boring.
Even more so worldgen. Not affecting chargen, tasks, or combat, worldgen turns on the level of detail and realism you want in your game, which CT may or may not meet. (I don't recall anyone really wanting a more abstract or unrealistic system).
So therefore, I am going out on a limb and declaring CT+ to be in a state of schism, hopefully not like the Roman and Eastern churches, but containing some dogmas distinct and incompatible. The only saving grace is that these dogmas are caused by preference rather than ego.
(Boy was that uncalled for.)
On the other hand, I have no authority to make proclamations, since we're actually an anarcho-syndicalist commune. I was sort of the chairperson of the day, but my vote doesn't count any more than yours, or yours, or yours. I'm just calling 'em like I sees 'em.
I honestly didn't know if there was going to be a stalemate for CT+, but combat is the one.
Fritz_Brown
Super Moderator
Oh, robject - chill.
I know we have some disagreements on this, but what is honestly the difference between T4 and MT and CT? (I know diddlysquat about T4, except that so many folks have bad-mouthed it.) I am remembering now that Striker was very grognard. But, how far apart are most of us on the Sigg/Aramis system?
As robject did earlier, let's see a show of hands:
* Sigg/Aramis variation
* Hardset for something else
I know we have some disagreements on this, but what is honestly the difference between T4 and MT and CT? (I know diddlysquat about T4, except that so many folks have bad-mouthed it.) I am remembering now that Striker was very grognard. But, how far apart are most of us on the Sigg/Aramis system?
As robject did earlier, let's see a show of hands:
* Sigg/Aramis variation
* Hardset for something else
Similar threads
