T5 game experiences

[Murdoc]

So I've been running a game now for about 6 sessions, and I thought I'd present some of my (and my player's) thoughts and experiences so far.

First let me say that most things are good, things generally tend to work out. There have been some problems so far though. The first is with the task system. As I anticipated, I don't like having to tell the player the difficulty every time I roll. I've learned to get around this by using "uncertainty" dice. I have them roll a certain number of dice, then I roll some as well. So I might tell them to roll 2D, while I roll 3 more, for a total difficulty of 5D. For as long as I can hide my dice, they don't know. So this isn't a big problem.

Another is Personals. Myself, I really like the system, but it is lacking in two things (or am I just missing them?): One is there is no room for skills. If a PC has Acting and wants to use it in a situation, I haven't been able to find where in the Personals rules to add it. I can only find the generic tasks in the Skills section of the rules. The second is that it doesn't account for the relative difficulty of dealing with a particular person. Convincing a clerk to help you is different from doing the same with a surly marine guard, for example. If I can't find out where in the rules account for these things, I think I'm going to have to house rule it to make it more believable.

Then there is combat. The first thing my players noticed (as others on here and myself have) is that it is weird not to resolve damage at the time of attack, but instead after the movement phase. Perhaps this is due to the abstracted system saying that perhaps the other party has moved before you had a chance to pump all your bullets into them, but it does make it even harder to imagine the action. Not a huge deal, just very different that what we're used to.

Then there's the V1 hit system. Fighting first some slow-moving zombie-like scientists and then battle-hardened marines is weird because they are both equally hard to take out. So I've house ruled this one so that NPCs can have different values depending on how hard they are to take out, instead of all of them having 10. A scientist might only have 5 for example, while a well-armored marine might have 20 or more.

Then there's beasts. Plenty of monsters in my game, but only when it came time for combat did I realize that two things were missing (that again I can't find in the rules, help me out if you know): 1) What do beasts roll to attack? I mean, I know they have a strength and weapon stats (from BladeMaker) to determine damage, but what about to-hit? They don't seem to have a C2 or skill. Second is: How much damage does it take to bring one down? I know that one can have an armor stat, but regardless of that, how many points of damage must one inflict for them to go down, or even decide to flee? Some animals will fight to the death, while others will run with the slightest pain. I know there are rules for fleeing at the start of the encounter, but what about after they decide to attack, can they change their minds? Ok, so that's like three things I guess. Anyway, to handle the damage issue, I've been using the modified V1 system I mentioned above. Actually, for very large and tough beasts, I've modified it more by giving some the ability to have their "hit points" reduced by damage, so I can have a 100 hit-point monster gradually whittled down by gun fire or what have you. For my own purposes I'm calling this system V2, to differentiate the ones that can have their points reduced and those that can't (V1).

The abstracted rounds are certainly doable, but so far my players aren't liking it. I'm making them finish this adventure with them in case its just a matter of acclimation, but they keep wanting to do things, describe the actions of their characters during combat, and I have to keep telling them that there is no way to do that, that perhaps their PC did that during combat, we just don't know (except perhaps after all the rolls are made). The system is indeed quicker, but I don't know if its enough to make up for this loss of detail that we're used to.

The biggest problem they've encountered so far is the only being able to hit one target at a time during a round. Having 10 zombie guys headed for you makes you want to mow them down pretty quick, and the idea of being able to shoot many times, even with automatic fire, but only at one target, puts the PCs in significant danger. Then we found the "Suppressive Fire" loop-hole. This lets you attack as many targets as make themselves available, without regard to where they are. One of my PCs was then able to take out all 10 zombies in one turn, with the understanding that it probably could have been 100 and it wouldn't have made any difference (which makes the lack of ammunition tracking weird). But wasn't there a chance to miss? That brings me to the next one...

Most of our fights have taken place at range 2 or less (being indoors), meaning most of the time, my players don't even have to roll to hit, it's automatic, even after factoring in all mods. This again has speeded up combat quite a bit, both for lack of rolling, and for all the damage being done (since everyone's hitting). But the downside has been 1) seeming less realistic, and 2) making combat that much more dangerous to the players (since even the NPCs can't miss most of the time). If it weren't for their armor, they'd likely all be dead by now. Well, that and the Hasty attack rule (if you ignore the idea that the NPCs might want to do that as well).

Then there is medicine. Aside from Medical Slow drug, nothing really seems to affecting healing times other than whether one is successful on the roll or not. Not TLs, not skill, available equipment, etc. Shouldn't a patient have a better time in a hospital than the ship's infirmary? Just seems a little odd. Thank goodness for that MSD, or several sessions would have been seriously derailed waiting for PCs to heal.

And my players definitely hate the new experience system. Yes, I know it's supposed to be more realistic, but I think it goes too far the other way. 1 level of skill is supposed to equal 1 year of learning it, but can a person really learn nothing useful in some skills in the meantime? One of my players has decided he really needs to learn some Stealth, but can't learn anything useful unless he dedicates himself to it for a whole year, and then he gets a whopping +1. I can see it for maybe science skills and the like, but practical stuff should be able to be learned a lot faster than that. At least that's our opinion anyway.

The lack of ammunition thing is weird too. Not a big deal, but does make it a bit more unrealistic and more space-opera.

Anyway, that's about all for now I think. Like I said, despite these problems, we're still enjoying it; we just want some problems resolved, whether it's learning the rules better, or having to house-rule them. I see big changes to the combat system coming to our next game though.

 

[Draconian]

Another is Personals. Myself, I really like the system, but it is lacking in two things (or am I just missing them?): One is there is no room for skills. If a PC has Acting and wants to use it in a situation, I haven't been able to find where in the Personals rules to add it.

Up to 2 Mods are allowed in a Personal check, although some Mods may be mandatory depending on the type of encounter. If a skill fits in there, like Acting skill (not to be confused with "Actor", the term for the active agent in the Personal encounter), use it as a Mod. Convincing someone that false information is true, or impersonating someone else to use the Personals, however, is not one of the Personals. Those are Actor skill tasks, I suppose.

Page 184, Personals examples, actually was printed ahead of the Personals chapter.

Most of our fights have taken place at range 2 or less (being indoors), meaning most of the time, my players don't even have to roll to hit, it's automatic, even after factoring in all mods. This again has speeded up combat quite a bit, both for lack of rolling, and for all the damage being done (since everyone's hitting). But the downside has been 1) seeming less realistic, and 2) making combat that much more dangerous to the players (since even the NPCs can't miss most of the time). If it weren't for their armor, they'd likely all be dead by now. Well, that and the Hasty attack rule (if you ignore the idea that the NPCs might want to do that as well).

This reintroduces to roleplaying the fact that even people unskilled with weapons are as dangerous as all get-out at close range.
Remember that the Range distances measured are actually the MIDDLE of the range and extend halfway to the neighbouring ranges. Actual ranges expressed in bounds are:

R=0 (includes R and T): 0 to 3 m (I assume that's melee weapon range, 1D, still a chance to fail if C+S<6 on 1D roll)
R=0 (includes R and T) and 1: 0 to 25 m (still a chance to fail if C+S<6 on 1D roll)
R=2 (2D): 25 to 100 m
R=3 (3D): 100 to 300 m
etc.

Make sure to count the Speed and Evasion mods (which can introduce negatives) and the This is Hard! rule (if #dice > #levels in a fighter skill, add 1D to dice rolled. This is not explicitly mentioned on p. 218, Attack step but it's still there in all the Tasks). If you still get a total as great as the maximum roll of the number of dice, then, yes, many attacks will appear to be automatic, especially over the course of a one-minute round (if at first you don't succeed, try, try again), and armor (& hit location) becomes the determining factor of whether you hit or not.

However, I could be mistaken on some point as the whole Personal Combat chapter struck me as murky. Any possible rule reducing characters' chances at close-range should be invoked if possible.

3D rolls or greater introduce the possibility of Spectacular Success (3 1's), Spectacular Failure (3 6's) or Spectacularly Interesting (both, if 6D or more!)

I have a feeling that vital information may be separated between the Tasks section, the Skills (e.g. the Fighter skill) and the Personal Combat chapter, and we need to bring it all together and maybe add to the charts.)

 

[Original_Carl]

The biggest problem they've encountered so far is the only being able to hit one target at a time during a round.

I've been considering letting players attack additional targets after the first by adding a difficulty die to each subsequent attack. Give your and my experiences with suppressive fire, I think I'm going to implement it there as well.

And my players definitely hate the new experience system. Yes, I know it's supposed to be more realistic, but I think it goes too far the other way.

When I started my game I told the players that there was no experience system, per se. Their character at the end of career resolution would be their character for the duration of the campaign, with the possibility of adding 1 skill point at the end of each game year. Traveller goals for character advancement should revolve around the acquisition of money and power and discovering the unknown. Think big. Try to take over a planet. Too easy? Try a subsector. Build a fleet of research vessels. Discover an alien life form. Build an AI and install it as the Emperor. The universe is your oyster. Slurp it up!

If I had a player who wanted some stealth skills and was troubled that he couldn't XP his way to that goal, I'd recommend getting a wafer jack and some new brain software. How about a new piece of equipment? Stealth suit, handheld invisibility device, or a portable Somebody Else's Problem field would do the trick. If you were interested in something more exotic, you might suggest he look into consciousness transfer and merging his persona with one that had stealth skills in a new genetically engineered body. Maybe a chimera is more his style. He could get a new body with puma DNA. He could be Spiderman. There's always cybernetic enhancement, too. It only costs money, right?

I've always enjoyed Traveller for starting adventuring at the point most RPGs would call the end game. You have a bunch of skills, some money, a starship -- maybe a lot of money and a really nice starship depending on your career resolution. You don't have to level up to go do cool stuff. You just go do it. You're already prepared to do cool stuff. You never have to kill goblins for 6 levels before you go after the dragon in Traveller. You just power up the forward batteries and give the old boy what for.

 

[Original_Carl]

I have a feeling that vital information may be separated between the Tasks section, the Skills (e.g. the Fighter skill) and the Personal Combat chapter, and we need to bring it all together and maybe add to the charts.)

Combat and Personals are variants on the task resolution system. This has helped me adjudicate them more effectively than when I thought they were separate systems.

 

[Murdoc]

Up to 2 Mods are allowed in a Personal check, although some Mods may be mandatory depending on the type of encounter. If a skill fits in there, like Acting skill (not to be confused with "Actor", the term for the active agent in the Personal encounter), use it as a Mod. Convincing someone that false information is true, or impersonating someone else to use the Personals, however, is not one of the Personals. Those are Actor skill tasks, I suppose.

Page 184, Personals examples, actually was printed ahead of the Personals chapter.

Ok, that works. I don't like having separate rules to do two tasks that are basically the same. There are factors in the Personals I'd like to use when bluffing, for instance (which is still a type of Persuasion). So yes, using skills as mods works for me. Now to just figure out a mod for how initially amenable a person is (like in MT).

This reintroduces to roleplaying the fact that even people unskilled with weapons are as dangerous as all get-out at close range.
Remember that the Range distances measured are actually the MIDDLE of the range and extend halfway to the neighbouring ranges. Actual ranges expressed in bounds are:

R=0 (includes R and T): 0 to 3 m (I assume that's melee weapon range, 1D, still a chance to fail if C+S<6 on 1D roll)
R=0 (includes R and T) and 1: 0 to 25 m (still a chance to fail if C+S<6 on 1D roll)
R=2 (2D): 25 to 100 m
R=3 (3D): 100 to 300 m
etc.

Make sure to count the Speed and Evasion mods (which can introduce negatives) and the This is Hard! rule (if #dice > #levels in a fighter skill, add 1D to dice rolled. This is not explicitly mentioned on p. 218, Attack step but it's still there in all the Tasks). If you still get a total as great as the maximum roll of the number of dice, then, yes, many attacks will appear to be automatic, especially over the course of a one-minute round (if at first you don't succeed, try, try again), and armor (& hit location) becomes the determining factor of whether you hit or not.

However, I could be mistaken on some point as the whole Personal Combat chapter struck me as murky. Any possible rule reducing characters' chances at close-range should be invoked if possible.

3D rolls or greater introduce the possibility of Spectacular Success (3 1's), Spectacular Failure (3 6's) or Spectacularly Interesting (both, if 6D or more!)

I have a feeling that vital information may be separated between the Tasks section, the Skills (e.g. the Fighter skill) and the Personal Combat chapter, and we need to bring it all together and maybe add to the charts.)

Yup, we accounted for all that, and still virtually all rolls were automatic hits.

I've been considering letting players attack additional targets after the first by adding a difficulty die to each subsequent attack. Give your and my experiences with suppressive fire, I think I'm going to implement it there as well.

I did a similar sort of thing actually, except the difficulty for all rolls was raised by 1D for each additional target, so you had to choose how many targets to start with.

When I started my game I told the players that there was no experience system, per se. Their character at the end of career resolution would be their character for the duration of the campaign, with the possibility of adding 1 skill point at the end of each game year. Traveller goals for character advancement should revolve around the acquisition of money and power and discovering the unknown. Think big. Try to take over a planet. Too easy? Try a subsector. Build a fleet of research vessels. Discover an alien life form. Build an AI and install it as the Emperor. The universe is your oyster. Slurp it up!

If I had a player who wanted some stealth skills and was troubled that he couldn't XP his way to that goal, I'd recommend getting a wafer jack and some new brain software. How about a new piece of equipment? Stealth suit, handheld invisibility device, or a portable Somebody Else's Problem field would do the trick. If you were interested in something more exotic, you might suggest he look into consciousness transfer and merging his persona with one that had stealth skills in a new genetically engineered body. Maybe a chimera is more his style. He could get a new body with puma DNA. He could be Spiderman. There's always cybernetic enhancement, too. It only costs money, right?

I've always enjoyed Traveller for starting adventuring at the point most RPGs would call the end game. You have a bunch of skills, some money, a starship -- maybe a lot of money and a really nice starship depending on your career resolution. You don't have to level up to go do cool stuff. You just go do it. You're already prepared to do cool stuff. You never have to kill goblins for 6 levels before you go after the dragon in Traveller. You just power up the forward batteries and give the old boy what for.

Hmm, yeah, that is basically what I was trying to go with initially, you just explained it better. A large part of the resistance is simply that every other game we play has an experience system, so the players are used to it (they're not Traveller veterans, and what little they have played before was MT, which had the Action Tallies thing). Still, it does bug me as unrealistic that some skills can't be learned a lot quicker than others. For instance I don't know how long people spend in police training to use a pistol, or exactly how good they get, but I bet it is not four years of exclusively that just to get the equivalent of a level-4 skill. When a person takes Medic for four years in school they are in fact learning many, many skills (and knowledges for that matter), a lot more that a person learning just pistol does. I know that this line of reasoning is just leading to separate skill costs, and I'm trying to avoid that level of complexity, so I'm just trying to figure out if there is a more realistic (and satisfying for the players) solution without doing that.

 

[daltoncalford]

The whole 1-2 skills per year in T5 just does not represent reality. The lack of growth or reduction in skills is not represented either. Even the biggest elephant in the room, TL limits on skill levels and environmental familiarity is not addressed in the rules. (a modern surgeon who is a world class expert with robotic surgery would be hard pressed to be able to use half his skills/knowledges on a tl 3 battlefield)

From various articles, guides, (hockum) and other such sources, the following can be gleamed. It may not be exactly right, but it is close.

It takes about 4 guided (trained) hours to get basic concepts of a skill. So, lets call that level 0 skills.

It takes about 20 guided (trained) hours to become passable on simple tasks with the skill. Lets call that level 1

200-400 hours (about a month) of training/apprenticeship will get you operating like average, non-commital worker. Lets call that level 2.

A further year of training will get you a basic acceptable level in a profession, ie basic tradesman, nurse, etc. Lets call that level 3

An intern in a professional field has spent the time and energy to get to level 3 and normally spends a further 1-2 years as an intern - lets call that level 4.

Average Professional, finished their 'training' with a few years experience - level 5. Think average lawyer, average general practitioner etc..

So, Level 0 - 1 day
Level 1 - 1 week
Level 2 - 1 month
Level 3 - 1 year
Level 4 - Four years
Level 5 - Up to Eight years

Some bright people happen to think 10,000 hours (around 10 years) of practise gets you to be world class in a field, where a field may encompass a variety of skills/knowledges.

Some people learn faster, others, slower.
General knowledge will aid in learning new skills as you have some basic understanding of related material.

So, from a game perspective, lets say you can have as many level 0 skills as your education, beginning with the homeworld pre-requisites. (not in addition to).

This will give a basic starting character with some knowledge but not enough to really unbalance the game.

Higher skill levels would need Attribute tests, Game time and Learning materials to achieve.

Basically, learning materials/environment set the difficulty for the learning task.
The attribute in question would be the controlling attribute for the skill.
Game time would be based upon target skill level and learning materials/environment.
Cost would be based upon learning materials/environment.
I would have the attribute reduced by the target skill level to make higher skills harder to achieve.

Total number of skills would be limited to the combination of int and edu. (not skill levels).

Skills that are not used, are lost over time. Every term, make aging rolls based on the skills controlling attribute - if it fails, reduce the skill by one level to a minimum of 0. If your total number of level 0 skills is greater than your edu, eliminate skills until the count matches your edu.

The above will allow someone to cram for a level 1 skill, but not level 2. etc.

I just knocked this off quickly but, you may find it helpful for your games.

 

[Murdoc]

lol, Where were you last night when one of my players and I spent 3-4 hours hashing all this stuff out? (btw, we really should replace the second ROTFL emoticon with just a lol one).

Yeah, we touched on a lot of what you've covered there, just went in slightly different directions. We've got the basics worked out for how we like it, it just needs a lot of polishing. The main thing we came up with (even though I had tried to avoid it like I said) was having two different types of skills based on how easy they are to learn, or more accurately how long they take to learn. The example she gave (because she knows about these things) was First Aid, which you can learn the basics of in a couple of days, and become a senior paramedic within year, but that only applies to stabilizing people for future healing by a doctor, and being a doctor requires years of learning. So either you make stabilizing a person easy enough for a Medic-1 in most circumstances (which in turn makes it too easy for those that are untrained), or you make a separate skill (like First Aid), and have the skill levels learned at different rates. This allows someone who's only taken basic first-aid to not be completely useless (after a few days training), but also makes a senior paramedic (say skill 6-8) be a lot more effective, particularly for more rare and difficult cases (like industrial accidents as opposed to say, a skiing accident).

Yes, this did raise all sorts of problems of how to handle the different rates, but we've got something simple enough it shouldn't drag anything down, and now characters can learn simple stuff like First Aid, basic shooting, or elementary stealth in a reasonable amount of time, without making Quantum Physics too easy to pick up as well. When I get all this polished enough I'll post it as an addition to my existing house rules.

Even the biggest elephant in the room, TL limits on skill levels and environmental familiarity is not addressed in the rules. (a modern surgeon who is a world class expert with robotic surgery would be hard pressed to be able to use half his skills/knowledges on a tl 3 battlefield)

You saw that too, huh? Yeah, this is addressed in the rules (p144), just addressed wrongly. I've already house ruled it myself, along with an explanation why (see in the link in my sig), but you know why already.

Total number of skills would be limited to the combination of int and edu. (not skill levels).

I never understood the point of such a limit. Has anyone lived long enough IRL and not suffered from mental ageing and yet still seen this effect? Besides, all it means is that you just have to increase your Edu (and/or your Int, since that's possible too) to raise the limit, so why bother with it at all?

Skills that are not used, are lost over time.

Yeah, I've seen this one before, and yes, it is realistic. My players wouldn't accept it though. Preventing them from getting something is one thing, taking it away is far more painful for them (not to mention the work into figuring out how long you haven't used every skill!). And besides, I've never had a game go long enough to do rolls every four years anyway.

Thanks for the info!

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

Holy cows!

Really, Murdoc, I understand that certification for an EMT-P (Emergency Medical Technician-Paramedic) may be easier where you live, but here in the States is a bit longer than a year. It took a friend of mine over a year to get from EMT-Basic to EMT-Advanced and from there to EMT-P. So you aren't going to be a senior paramedic inside a year here unless that is all you are studying.

Basically, being a Medic or a decent shot or even usefully stealthy are skills that require months to years of practice to be any good at them. So having a Skill-1 is pretty damned basic and still requires months of training and even more for a Skill-2+.

Honestly, I don't see a problem with the way Skills are set up in T5. Then again, maybe I am just a slow learner because it has taken me years to learn and perfect my skills.

Basically life and Traveller are about trade offs and to get good at a skill you trade a butt load of time and study. Also, to be an EMT is only about Medic-2 and that is for EMT-P, you can do advanced field medicine, some limited field surgery and push drugs (with authorization and oversight by an MD (Medic4+)). Medic-0 is your First Aid level skill, you can stop bleeding, maybe set a basic limb bone break or do CPR.

 

[Murdoc]

Basically life and Traveller are about trade offs and to get good at a skill you trade a butt load of time and study. Also, to be an EMT is only about Medic-2 and that is for EMT-P, you can do advanced field medicine, some limited field surgery and push drugs (with authorization and oversight by an MD (Medic4+)). Medic-0 is your First Aid level skill, you can stop bleeding, maybe set a basic limb bone break or do CPR.

It's hard for me to answer this specifically because it is not my area of expertise, but I think what you are talking about, like "limited field surgery" and such would be closer to Medic skill than what we see as First Aid skill. So the difference could just be that where you live they simply require EMTs to have some Medic under their belt as well as First-Aid.

But that was not the only example we were basing our decisions on. Compare Computer skill (just dealing with applications) to say, computer science. Compare Riding skill to veterinary science. Yes, it can take a long time to get really good at these things too, but not very long to become competent at them. We've accounted for that in our rules and have a escalating cost for both types of skills, at least as far as during game play goes. There's something similar in the works for prior education and an explanation that keeps both rates the same during career resolution.

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

Well. Yeah.

It's hard for me to answer this specifically because it is not my area of expertise, but I think what you are talking about, like "limited field surgery" and such would be closer to Medic skill than what we see as First Aid skill. So the difference could just be that where you live they simply require EMTs to have some Medic under their belt as well as First-Aid.

But that was not the only example we were basing our decisions on. Compare Computer skill (just dealing with applications) to say, computer science. Compare Riding skill to veterinary science. Yes, it can take a long time to get really good at these things too, but not very long to become competent at them. We've accounted for that in our rules and have a escalating cost for both types of skills, at least as far as during game play goes. There's something similar in the works for prior education and an explanation that keeps both rates the same during career resolution.

Yeah, here you don't have EMTs without Medic, and First Aid isn't a skill. First Aid is minimal training to hopefully keep someone alive till people with skill get there and take over.

Now, as to Computer skill, I figure that means you have some idea how things actually work in the computer and maybe able to mess with command line or for my fellow Mac Classic users, ResEdit. Computer Science is the equivalent of Trade: Programmer in T5. And you can't compare Animals: Riding to Veterinary Medicince the only thing they have in common is the animal. One is using the animal for transportation and the other is diagnosing and treating illness.

Last, I think we may have differing ideas on what the word "competent" means. To me it means more than a couple of days or hours of training (in my old school, worked very hard for years to get where I am) that in no way qualifies one to claim to be competent. You can to be competent when you have been doing something for months minimum, not before.

 

[rancke]

Here in Denmark the time it takes to become a qualified doctor is greater than the time it takes to become qualified in most other university subjects (8 vs. 5 years IIRC). So the medical profession seems to be an exception to a general rule.


Hans

 

[Draconian]

Yup, we accounted for all that, and still virtually all rolls were automatic hits.

Yes, I am trying things out with Rob Eaglestone's Task Roll utility. Things often seem automatic.

I can only suggest mandatory use of the SnapFire rule at close-range (adds 2D difficulty, 1D more damage). When I played Cyberpunk 2020 RPG, they wrote about examining "actual police data" that most firefights take place at an average of 8 feet, in poorly-lit night conditions between furiously running opponents, so most shots go wild.

 

[Murdoc]

Yeah, here you don't have EMTs without Medic, and First Aid isn't a skill. First Aid is minimal training to hopefully keep someone alive till people with skill get there and take over.

That's pretty much how I viewed it until I talked to my friend about it. Here "first-aid" means just that, any aid given by the first person to do it. That's pretty much a paramedic's job, and it can encompass a lot of things, a wide range of skills.

Now, as to Computer skill, I figure that means you have some idea how things actually work in the computer and maybe able to mess with command line or for my fellow Mac Classic users, ResEdit. Computer Science is the equivalent of Trade: Programmer in T5.

For most people using a computer, they don't really need to know how the thing works at all. They know how to access their applications, use them, and that's it. My mother has been using one for what, 15 years now? And she still doesn't even get file directory structures. But there is still a lot she can learn to use it, including directories, file management, more applications, even the old command line, and for most people they can easily learn all that stuff in less than a year. Again, a wide range of skills and abilities, but they don't need to take years and years to learn if you concentrate on them, not like programming/computer science does.

And you can't compare Animals: Riding to Veterinary Medicince the only thing they have in common is the animal. One is using the animal for transportation and the other is diagnosing and treating illness.

Uh, yeah, you can compare them. They have something else in common: They are both skills that take time to learn, just very different amounts of time. I only picked them because they were similar in theme. I could have picked Chemistry and Comms. I was only talking about the relative time it takes to learn them.

Last, I think we may have differing ideas on what the word "competent" means. To me it means more than a couple of days or hours of training (in my old school, worked very hard for years to get where I am) that in no way qualifies one to claim to be competent. You can to be competent when you have been doing something for months minimum, not before.

Ok, what I mean by 'competent' is something like "being able to perform most tasks of average difficulty most of the time." I was not saying "only a couple of days or hours of training."

Let me try to explain what I mean better. A person taking a week-long course in first-aid/CPR stands a much better chance of saving someone than someone with no training at all. Now taking a month-long course gives them a noticeable improvement as well. As does the six-month paramedic course, or the year-long industrial first-aid course. But according to the rules, only a person with the last type of training will get a +1 to their roll, the others get nothing. And I think that not only is that unrealistic, but I think that the year-long person should get more than just +1 for their efforts, because they can handle a wide variety of circumstances, and stand a pretty good chance to succeeding. Now this is just for first-aid only I am speaking of, the task of "stabilization", they are not trained for actually healing, which is where the medic skill would come in. The same thing applies for things like computers, where just learning to use applications can happen a lot more quickly and cover a wider range in that time than learning programming in that same time. I hope that makes it clearer.

 

[nats]

they keep wanting to do things, describe the actions of their characters during combat, and I have to keep telling them that there is no way to do that, that perhaps their PC did that during combat, we just don't know

This comment alone makes me realise this system is not something I will ever want to play. Although CT is pretty basic in terms of combat as well I always felt that the simplicity meant characters could do anything they want. That CT combat is not a set of rounds that begin and end with a definitive point. CT to me has always been about just providing rules as a backbone to aid in structuring combat.

If T5 combat rounds are so rigid they leave no room for roll playing during combat this is very bad. D&D 4th ed suffers from a very similar problem and it is very dull to play, I found.

 

[Midgardsormr]

I don't find the abstract combat rules to be terribly restrictive to role playing. My players still improvise and describe their actions in very detailed terms. What happens in my games, though, is that the complex maneuvers and stratagems they come up with are resolved with fewer rolls.

For instance, in a recent session a PC tackled a guard, jammed a handful of syringes in his face, and wrested a gun away from him. In a game with a more tactical mindset, that would have required at least five rolls (three attacks, two damage). In my game it was only two: attack and damage. I allowed the quality of the attack roll to determine the overall outcome (guard prone, PC has gun).

I can't claim to be satisfied with the T5 rules as they stand right now, but I don't think they stand in the way of roleplay. My opinion is that the abstraction is a point in T5's favor. Now, the execution of that abstraction leaves much to be desired, and I'll certainly be house ruling plenty, but I think when I'm done my combat system will still be recognizable as having come from T5.

 

[Draconian]

R=3 (3D): 100 to 300 m
etc.

I made a mistake. Range 3 covers 100m - 325 m