Do You Like The T5 Combat System?

[Supplement Four]

This is not meant as a T5 bashing thread. I'm just curious, because T5's combat system is so foreign from most other RPG systems we've all experienced.

T5's system is very abstract. It's not meant to be played on a grid (even though allowances can be tracked). There's no specific time to a combat round. Ammo isn't tracked at all. A character can't multi-target unless he's using suppression fire, and even then, it's a reactive attack.

Plus, there are some interesting--some would say strange--rules. The combat round is broken up into non-intuitive phases that, to me, seem hard to govern as a Ref. For example, the system is not meant to be plotted, yet combat is played out in phases where everybody attacks, every moves, then everybody takes damage, and so on. To me, that seems jerky and hard to govern even if playing without a tactical map.

What's your thoughts on this system? Do you like it? Would you prefer a more traditional combat system (maybe something akin to that in T4?)?

I'm just looking for some honest opinion and debate...not a flame thread.

 

[thalassogen]

I don't like it.

I prefer detailed, playable combat systems (GURPS). I can enjoy more gamistic combat systems (Pathfinder, Savage Worlds). I also dearly like the abstract combat system of Fate, which - despite being abstract - is highly believable to me.

T5 tries to mix simulationist details (e.g. damage types) with gamistic effects (e.g. firing modes, suppression fire) and story-oriented abstractness (e.g. combat time, ranges) and thereby botched it all.

A sad case of over-ambitiousness.

 

[Licheking]

I like some of it but prefer detailed combat systems. I like what is written and have turned it into a very workable combat system akin to MT but i don't like the abstraction, if you take that out and put finite numbers to the combat round and use definite range bands then it works as a detailed combat system.

 

[andycowley]

I have now exercised the T5 personal combat system a total of three times 'for real' in my campaign ....

I like it because its abstract (allows me to inject a lot of storytelling 'colour' and flexibility)

I like it because its FAST (having experienced some horrifically detailed systems in other games which consume entire gaming sessions on a single combat scene)

I like it because its lethal for unprepared/poorly equipped players who recklessly get into a fight with well armed/armored opponents

I don't like it because of the lack of clarification on damage types and how they are supposed to be applied vs. Armor penetration

I don't like it because some aspects work in an awkward fashion like range bands & movement

I don't like it because melee/unarmed combat is not really considered or detailed

 

[Spaceresearcher]

Personally I'm having trouble even trying it as my Traveller group finds it too daunting and isn't interested in working out yet another error ridden set of Traveller rules.

 

[robject]

To hit: Difficulty < Skill + Characteristic. DMs for movement and cover. Apply damage whenever you like.


As with ALL rule systems, I read it until I can get the gist of it, and then just run it as best works for me. Where the details confuse me, I ignore them and move on.

If it sounds to you like I'm fairly free with combat, you're right. Combat is always exciting to me, but I get quite lost in the details of ANY combat system, including Book 1.

I suppose combat flow for us is more like CT: damage is calculated as soon as it hits. Because I want to track less, not more. I do use the rules which speed up combat. Combat needs to be fast and furious. It's funner that way.

So.

I never felt the need to keep time during combat, other than counting the rounds elapsed. One minute, six seconds, makes no difference to me. The players tend to COORDINATE AMONGST THEMSELVES for longer than six seconds per round, for crying out loud.

And, aside from launchers, I find that letting go of ammo counting speeds things up. I tell the players that they may track their ammo if the group decides to. They typically decline, for it's in their favor to have virtually unlimited rounds. Plus, exceptional failures can stop them for a round while they eject a jammed round, or try to put their gun back together because it fell apart, or perhaps switch weapons because some lucky shot broke their gun while leaving them intact. Etc.

If it sounds to you like I'm fairly clueless about real-world combat, you're right again. That's probably one reason I don't understand combat rules beyond the basics. My players know more about real combat than me -- one guy knows it quite well indeed -- but no one complains about combat in my games. So abstraction in this case probably helps.

 

[Supplement Four]

As for me, the abstraction of the combat system doesn't bother me. Traditionally, I run tactical combat in games. I like pulling out the graph paper and quickly sketching the scene in pencil or black marker. I think players like having the frame of reference.

But, I don't like having to count squares for range in the middle of combat and things like that. This is one of the reasons I like range bands.

I can easily run games without a map, too. Just describing the scene and playing it out through my description can be fun. I typically run space combat that way in Traveller, where everything is described from the point of view of the players inside their ship.

So, it's not the abstraction that bothers me about T5. It's the other things. The game specifies between single fire and auto fire, but it doesn't track ammo. If played as written, I find it quite hard to keep up with a situation with a number of PCs and NPCs first going through and having everybody fire, then having everybody move, then doing damage to everybody at the end of the round.

It doesn't make sense to me that a person can move and shoot during the round if he switches his gun on autofire, but if he switches it back to single fire, he can only fire or move, not both. It also doesn't make sense to me that one character, with one 30 round clip of ammo, can attack 15 NPCs that fire at the PCs, but none of the PCs can fire at more than one target if not using suppression fire.

An abstract system would be fine. I just need it to be smooth to handle in a game, and I need the logic to be consistent. T5 seems to pick some aspects to be detailed (number of attacks, type of attack made with weapon) yet glosses over others (ammo tracking).

In sum, I could accept what T5 is trying to do with combat, but I can't accept the way combat has been implemented in T5.

 

[David Johansen]

I don't know, I think I might love it.

I've run it a few times and the difficulties at short range always seem a bit low but it worked relatively well. The nd6 difficulty was introduced because people didn't like the system running differently for combat, it was 2d6 straight up when I got my first beta disc. The problem of 1d tasks at 15m or less is somewhat mitigated by the +1d for snap fire.

Anyhow, my favorite combat system is GURPS but it can bog down.

I want to do more with the T5 combat system. I think it could run on a grid or table top quite well. Personally the abstraction of range bands for movement is always more complex to use than simple concrete numbers. But in reality, realistic movement rates and ground scales are always a problem on any table top. It might be possible to do something really innovative in a table top game where you can move to within a given range band of a target rather than a fixed number of inches.

Anyhow, one thing I learned from runninng Rolemaster all these years is that the value of an action declaration phase is that it allows parallel processing of results. Instead of cycling through an initiative sequence one roll at a time you just have everyone roll and work out their results at once and then announce them in cycle.

 

[David Johansen]

I don't know, I think I might love it.

I've run it a few times and the difficulties at short range always seem a bit low but it worked relatively well. The nd6 difficulty was introduced because people didn't like the system running differently for combat, it was 2d6 straight up when I got my first beta disc. The problem of 1d tasks at 15m or less is somewhat mitigated by the +1d for snap fire.

Anyhow, my favorite combat system is GURPS but it can bog down.

I want to do more with the T5 combat system. I think it could run on a grid or table top quite well. Personally the abstraction of range bands for movement is always more complex to use than simple concrete numbers. But in reality, realistic movement rates and ground scales are always a problem on any table top. It might be possible to do something really innovative in a table top game where you can move to within a given range band of a target rather than a fixed number of inches.

Anyhow, one thing I learned from runninng Rolemaster all these years is that the value of an action declaration phase is that it allows parallel processing of results. Instead of cycling through an initiative sequence one roll at a time you just have everyone roll and work out their results at once and then announce them in cycle.

Oh, and people who think T5 is an organizational and erratta catastrophe should try Spacemaster: Privateers. It was released just before ICE's bankruptcy and got a hasty format change just prior to printing. I love it but man is it a mess.

 

[Draconian]

No, I don't like the combat-system. But if there is any aspect of the rules I can't interpret, I will declare a Rules-Light Holiday from it, to my players, with duly stamped and sealed certificates and a sacrifice of live pizza...

The # of Dice Rolled, or "dice pools," is not a system I ever liked. It hinders developing any sense of the odds in your mind. Ranges don't give me a good sense of distances in the game, although as a logarithmic scale it helps to see if you hear an explosion based on where it is, and things like that.

I like the clear percentile odds of STAR FRONTIERS (initiative 6-second turns) or RINGWORLD (point-costs for actions determining when action is made in lieu of random initiative). As you may know, I laid down the exact probability math to show a Spectacular Success or Failure is going to go UP in probability with the number of dice rolled, and then Spectacularly Interesting dice-results occur with 6 or more dice. A power-gamer may be tempted to deliberately make a difficult roll impossible to collect at least the (equal) chance of one of these rolls.

http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?p=456261#post456261

Number-crunching was the most fun I've had thinking about T5. But that says something about the rest of the rules...

Fortunately, I realized without a footnote in the tables that Hit/2 or Cut/3 = Severity has nothing to do with the final dealing of damage, only the effect on the healing-times for the Medic skill, but that makes many damage types having the same effect on C1 C2 C3.

An abstract rules system which is processed and perfected to run smooth is generally as acceptable to me as a concrete rules-system processed and perfected to run smooth. But T5 rules as they came out were not "smooth"; it seems to resurrect the worst of the old-school 70's-80's RPG rules where authors paid little heed to the development of unifying principles.

 

[Supplement Four]

Anyhow, one thing I learned from runninng Rolemaster all these years is that the value of an action declaration phase is that it allows parallel processing of results. Instead of cycling through an initiative sequence one roll at a time you just have everyone roll and work out their results at once and then announce them in cycle.

I don't want to derail my own thread, but what you say above makes me think of first edition D6 Star Wars, with no other rule upgrades--just the 1st ed. book.

Same thing happens there, and it's a beautiful system. The GM runs the game in "scenes" as is normal for non-combat in most rpgs. When combat occurs, the scene continues. Every character--it doesn't matter the order--declares what they are going to do. Dice are thrown. Again, it doesn't matter what order.

It's the results on the dice that determine when actions happen. For example, if a stormtrooper is shooting a a Rebel that is running away, then the stormtrooper rolls his attack, and the Rebel rolls his running task. If the stormtrooper's roll is higher, then the Rebel is shot at before starting the movement. If the Rebel's run task is higher, then the Rebel completes his movement before the trooper can get his shot off (the Rebel possibly increasing range for the trooper, making difficulty harder).

Lovely system. Easy to run. Intuitive. A pure blast to play. And, it captures the wham-bam feeling of Star Wars like no other. Plus, it's easy to run on a grid or more abstractly with the GM describing the action without any rule change.

Later rule upgrades and the second edition changed the combat system a few times so that, eventually, D&D like initiative is thrown at the beginning of the round. I like that OK, too, but there's nothing like the flying by the seat of your pants feel of the 1st edition.

I'm not sure they ever should have monkeyed with what they had.

 

[Supplement Four]

I don't want to derail my own thread, but what you say above makes me think of first edition D6 Star Wars, with no other rule upgrades--just the 1st ed. book.

I did learn that the key to running this kind of system, though was compartmentalization. I would only consider characters that could effect each other at a single time.

For example, three Rebels are in a cantina when three Stormtroopers walk in from the street. The GM describes how the troopers scan the crowd and quickly zero in on the people that they're looking for--the Rebels. The troopers must have good information.

This is all played out in a normal roleplaying "scene", and we don't go to combat until the GM describes the troopers breaking through the crowd, bee-lining to the Rebels. The Rebel players declare that they're going to scatter in the crowd, and the GM describes the troopers seeing this, raising their weapons, and blasting away--as troopers are known to do.

Now, the GM has three trooper attack throws, one at each Rebel, and each Rebel making a movement check.

The GM says that two successful movement checks are needed to exit the bar via the side or back entrance. (The troopers have the front covered.)

I learned early on that the way to play this system is not to have everybody roll, then jump around, going from the highest roll, to the next highest roll, and so on. Doing this might have the first Rebel move, then the third Trooper fire at the second Rebel, then the first Trooper fires....and it's a mess.

No, how to effectively and easily handle this is just to consider which characters can effect each other's actions. In the case in this example, there are three troopers, each firing at a different Rebel. So, how to easily handle this is to just consider the first Rebel and the first Trooper. Have both roll--the Rebel's move and the Trooper's blaster attack, resolve the actions. Then, move on to the second Trooper and the second Rebel. Resolve actions. Finally doing the third Trooper and the third Rebel.

That way, you're only dealing with two or a few rolls. Compartmentalizing like this makes the game flow like it's on hot grease, and GM description fills the player's head like cutting to scenes in a movie. Dice are thrown.

"The Rebel dash for the back door, half way there. The trooper's blaster bolt sizzles past his head, exploding into the wall. Then, close to the band, the second Rebel jumps through them. Instruments and legs go everywhere, and one frog looking alien gets plastered by the Trooper's blaster bolt. The poor singer goes down with its scaly green chest a smoking ruin."

Roll dice for Trooper 3 and Rebel 3. The Trooper wins this one.

"The last Rebel takes a graze to his thigh, and his movement is halved. He limps behind the bar for cover..."

It's definitely one of my favorite RPG systems.

 

[aramis]

I don't want to derail my own thread, but what you say above makes me think of first edition D6 Star Wars, with no other rule upgrades--just the 1st ed. book.

Same thing happens there, and it's a beautiful system. The GM runs the game in "scenes" as is normal for non-combat in most rpgs. When combat occurs, the scene continues. Every character--it doesn't matter the order--declares what they are going to do. Dice are thrown. Again, it doesn't matter what order.

It's the results on the dice that determine when actions happen. For example, if a stormtrooper is shooting a a Rebel that is running away, then the stormtrooper rolls his attack, and the Rebel rolls his running task. If the stormtrooper's roll is higher, then the Rebel is shot at before starting the movement. If the Rebel's run task is higher, then the Rebel completes his movement before the trooper can get his shot off (the Rebel possibly increasing range for the trooper, making difficulty harder).

Lovely system. Easy to run. Intuitive. A pure blast to play. And, it captures the wham-bam feeling of Star Wars like no other. Plus, it's easy to run on a grid or more abstractly with the GM describing the action without any rule change.

Later rule upgrades and the second edition changed the combat system a few times so that, eventually, D&D like initiative is thrown at the beginning of the round. I like that OK, too, but there's nothing like the flying by the seat of your pants feel of the 1st edition.

I'm not sure they ever should have monkeyed with what they had.

For every one person who loved WEG SW 1.0 sequencing, several hated it, and many were ambivalent. It was cumbersome, it damned near required everyone to have their own dice, and in my experience, was actually SLOWER to adjudicate, and less cinematic in feel, than the later initiative roll system from 2E.

 

[Schedim]

I have just begun to work out how to deal with combat, and I feel that the T5 system lacks a bit here and there.
I want a abstract system, as it is faster and deemphasise combat ... but I still want it to be a bit more exciting, than this.

I just have to run a couple of mock up fights to see what Tweaking I need to satsify my tastes. I shall check the Burning Wheel also as combat system also was abstact IRC.