Traveller combat

[Jump6]

Combat in CT can be quite deadly, esp. for military/merc type adventures where combat can be an ongoing theme.

I wanted to know how others who run adventures handled situations where the player's adventuring group is on the losing side of a skirmish. In other words, if one or more of the characters is seriously wounded or unconcious, does the rest of the group bug out and leave the downed characters to thier fate? Or stay and fight until whole group is out of action, thus ending the game?

I'm trying to create adventures that make the players feel a sense of danger yet not have them roll for new characters at the drop of a hat.

As a simple comparison, this is not much of a prevalent issue for me in a high fantasy game: Fantasy cleric/priest "magically" heals characters or brings them back from the dead.

Any inputs would be appreciated.

 

[DrSkull]

The best way to keep the player characters alive is for them to have plenty of flunkies to catch the bullets for them (I mean what are those recruitment tables in Mercenary for anyway?).

Also, don't forget to use medical slow drug whenever possible. This allows your wounded characters to heal up in a day or so. If you plan your adventure so that there is not more than 1 major firefight every day, it should help things out a bit.

Well, other than that, Traveller character generation is a lot of fun anyway, so think of character deaths as an opportunity, not a set back.

------------------
Dave "Dr. Skull" Nelson

[This message has been edited by DrSkull (edited 04 April 2001).]

 

[Jump6]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Well, other than that, Traveller character generation is a lot of fun anyway, so think of character deaths as an opportunity, not a set back.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Definitely. I have fond memories back in early 80's simply speding evenings w/ friends rolling up Traveller characters and making ship designs and running out of time for the actual gaming session. Creating and designing stuff is for me "still" half the fun.

Thanks for the ideas.

 

[Gatsby]

Some options, depending on the 'Heroic Level' of your campaign...(from 'Starship troopers' and 'Aliens' throu 'Star Trek' and 'Babylon 5' to 'Star Wars' and 'Battlestar: Galactica':


1) Those CT supplements have a lot of quick replacement characters. Veterans, 101 Characters, etc. Won't keep those player's out of the action long, and the loss of 'creation control' teaches them not to die off.

2)Death teaches. Next time they'll try to be more tactical. 'Always have an exit strategy'. Had my character's left arm mostly blown off, but my pals got me out....it took me awhile to get a good replacement.

3) Npcs: Some NPC names? Adam Hitpoints, Ima Shield, K. N. Fodder, the brothers Duck and Cover.....

4) Rescue them via a major NPC...but make them really PAY for it in terms of role-playing... enslave them, etc. I remeber there was a Ct book about a Prison Planet. My character spent a 'year' there...finally escaped the prison complex, got onto the surface of the planet, stood around for about an hour, and turned around, went back into prison. Prison PLANETS s#ck....Finsihed out the sentence after another three months.

5) Give each player a 'Miraculous escape' card. They get one per campaign.

6) Heal them, but degrade their characteristics.....they'll wise up when they limp a lot.


Gats'

 

[BitKnot]

"No Death, No Glory!"

For those adventures where characters are likely to perish - have players play multiple characters. This way you're not too much part of the teams decision tree by playing lots of NPCs.

And don't kill Han Solo! In fantasy games characters can be resurrected, etc. In science games use a little more creativity (smoke clears - Luke is gone) and medical/bio reconstruction.

 

[MJD]

Combat is dangerous; guns are deadly. I like combat but it's lethal and that's how it should be. Without risk there are no heroics.

I'm a bit hard on characters, but it's the risk that makes it thrilling. And it's good to watch characters fighting smart or suing other means instead of just blasting their way through everything.

 

[Doctor Rob]

Hi Jump6, I have complete sympathy for your predicament. For example (an extreme one I confess), the VRF Gauss Gun can not EVER miss any target in range when compat is run according to the rules. PGMP's and FGMP's are equally deadly. IMHO, the system for personal combat in CT is badly boken. I personally do not regard the use of NPC's to soak up the incoming fire as a satisfactory solution. However, the up-side of the CT combat system is that it is easy and quick to administer.

Years ago, I hunted around for suitable set of SF skirmish rules for CT, but then got into later editions of Traveller which overcame many of the CT combat problems (as an aside, I loved the system in Traveller 2300. Any chance of reviving it for T5?). Try Close Quarters by BITS - this is a skirmish game for Traveller.
Rob.

[This message has been edited by Doctor Rob (edited 09 April 2001).]

 

[Jump6]

I will look at getting a copy of Close Quarters by BITS, thanks Rob.

Overall, the 2 main areas of combat I would like to use for my upcoming campaign are 1)skirmish rules for the characters (incorporating vehicle combat if possible) and 2)detailed ship combat for smaller vessels.

I plan on using Brilliant Lances for the latter (or variation thereof).

I also want to try out some of the other Traveller wargames that I have lying around like AHL, FFW, and Battle Rider. Maybe find ways of gaming them out and adding results as part of my own campaign history.

Thanks for everyone's input on this topic thus far!
Kosta

 

[Doctor Rob]

One more thing, being an old CT hand, I've started playing GURPS Traveller because that uses the CT background (i.e. it assumes the Emperor was not assassinated, etc). The background picks up from CT in the year 1120. My reason for mentioning GURPS is that it has a very developed combat system which, although complex at times, is detailed and nicely realistic.

Furthermore, the GURPS system includes detailed vehicle rules in the relevent supplement.

As an aside, GURPS also has good task and expereince systems. Because the backgrounds between CT and GURPS Traveller are completely complemenary, it is a relatively simple matter to convert CT scenarios and background (now thankfully in print again - thanks Avery!) into GURPS.

Cheers, Rob

 

[Ranger]

I think the issue revolves around what type of combat you want to model. The CT combat system is a resonable representation of a "gunfight at the ok corral" situation (a valid type of encounter in many situations). Two groups shooting it out standing up. The problem arises from using this system to model a military fire fight.
Based on my experiance (12 years as an infantry officer in the Army) what is missing from the basic combat system is a set of modifiers for military conditions. Most soldiers are trained to fight from the prone and to take maximum advantage of cover. My reccomendation would be the following modifiers for the "to hit" number based on target profile:

Kneeling +1

Prone +2

Behind partial cover +1

Behind full cover +2

Patial cover would be a tree or the corner of a building that provides some protection, but still leaves part of the target exposed. Full cover would be a window or very small opening the target can fire from and still be almost completely protected.

If the basic to hit is 8+, then a prone trooper behind a tree or the coner of a building (partial cover) would now have a to hit number of 11+ (8 +2 +1). I think this would give a more realistic result, enhance the sruvivability of military campaigns, and retain the simple and fast CT combat system.
It would seem to me that this type of system would have moral become the determining factor in military style confrontations rather than mass casualties.
As to vehicle combat, I ran across an old article from White Dwarf 43 from the 80s posted by Andy Slack (the author) on his web site (don't have the URL handy, sorry) that had a good basic vehicle combat system similer to the basic CT system.

Just my thoughts,

Rob



------------------
Traveller, if you go to Sparta, tell them you have seen us lying here as the law commands.

 

[Uncle Bob]

One of the attractions of Traveller combat was its lethality. We used the Azhanti High Lightning/Striker combat system, We were allowed to use cover, and were bloody careful to use every edge we could get. We were always pretty careful about routes, and were seldom amushed. Curiously, the only time my character was killed it was by another PC (the player was bored and my character had an annoying accent.)

 

[Gatsby]

Yes! My father once pulled an incredible sneaky move to get a promotion when he was serving on an interum base during the reveiw process: he snuck into the brass's 'war room' during a training excersise with the use of a coffee cart. He says: the barrel of a rifle looks two feet wide when it is pointed at you.
The players need to feel the same way when a gun is pointed at their characters. Heroics in an endless hit point game is fun - heroics in Traveller is HEROICS.

IMHO,
Gats'

 

[Murph]

My two centi-credits worth:

Original Traveller combat was not done very well. I understand (and agree) with Marc Miller and crew that the intent was NOT to have lots of fire fights.

Well with Azhanti High Lightning/Striker, combat became very much better. Striker (and my other favorite Cyberpunk 2020 Friday Night Fire Fight) combat became the deadly event that it was. We used the Striker system for years, and it was respected and feared by players.

Having observed close hand the actual results of gunshot wounds on the human body, I must say that for a game system, the only ones that really come close are Striker/AHL and Cyberpunk 2020 FNFF.

 

[Dedthom]

All Valid points, combat is deadly and dumb people die.
Unlike many system were players wade into a fight knowing they have an ungodly amount of hit points (Palladium is bad for this)CT combat is very deadly and should be a last resort for regular characters.
Games that have a combat edge should be played like modern military combat, and Traveller is modern military combat. Soldiers dont charge machine-gun nest nor do they sit behind cover wasting bullets on the enemies cover. Soldiers try to get the upper hand or call for heavy support, if they cant advance or are out gunned they bug out and wait for a better oppurtunity. Combat is all about advantage. Getting it and keeping it.

 

[Virus]

Well, it all depends on what kind of game you´re running. If it´s a realistic game, your PCs should be warned that getting into a firefight is very likely lethal. After all, if you catch a bullet with your teeth in real life you´re gonna be very dead, no matter how good your overall physical stats are

. If, however, you run a "fun"-oriented game where the characters are real heroes, not just ordinary belters, you don´t need to kill the characters just for the sake of realism. The best tatctic is: turn the battle into a nail-biter. Let the characters be wounded a bit in order to have them on the edge of their seat and moaning "that´s it, get out the character sheet blanks...", then start fudging rolls (you don´t have a gamemaster´s screen for nothing, you know

). Don´t overdo it though, or you´ll get that spaghetti-western-effect (one shot kills three bad guys

). Another strategy is to have a plausible explanation for the baddies suddenly letting up on your characters. Whatever you do, don´t let on that you just saved the characters´ skin; let the players think that they won all by themselves. It takes a bit of practice and a level of manipulation worthy of a hiver

, but it allways pays off in terms of player (and gamemaster) enjoyment.

 

[DonM]

Rob: I just wanted to thank you... You've helped my traveller combat out immensely.

BTW, you're in Champaign, and you play Traveller? Ever attend Winter War?


DonM.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ranger:
I think the issue revolves around what type of combat you want to model. The CT combat system is a resonable representation of a "gunfight at the ok corral" situation (a valid type of encounter in many situations). Two groups shooting it out standing up. The problem arises from using this system to model a military fire fight.
Based on my experiance (12 years as an infantry officer in the Army) what is missing from the basic combat system is a set of modifiers for military conditions. Most soldiers are trained to fight from the prone and to take maximum advantage of cover. My reccomendation would be the following modifiers for the "to hit" number based on target profile:

Kneeling +1

Prone +2

Behind partial cover +1

Behind full cover +2

Patial cover would be a tree or the corner of a building that provides some protection, but still leaves part of the target exposed. Full cover would be a window or very small opening the target can fire from and still be almost completely protected.

If the basic to hit is 8+, then a prone trooper behind a tree or the coner of a building (partial cover) would now have a to hit number of 11+ (8 +2 +1). I think this would give a more realistic result, enhance the sruvivability of military campaigns, and retain the simple and fast CT combat system.
It would seem to me that this type of system would have moral become the determining factor in military style confrontations rather than mass casualties.
As to vehicle combat, I ran across an old article from White Dwarf 43 from the 80s posted by Andy Slack (the author) on his web site (don't have the URL handy, sorry) that had a good basic vehicle combat system similer to the basic CT system.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

[Ranger]

Glad to know I was of assistance to someone. I found the link for the vehicle combat system I mentioned in my original post:
http://www.halfwaystation.freeserver.co.uk.html/red.html

The rules are on page 24 and 25 of the Rants, Rouges, and Rules download.
Funny you should mention Winter Wars, the only time I have been was the year before I moved to Champaign(1999). Taking classes has cut into my free time some, but if there is a Traveller group near by, I would be interested in checking it out.

Rob

------------------
Traveller, if you go to Sparta, tell them you have seen us lying here as the law commands.

 

[DonM]

Sad fact is, the traveller combat system I use is:

'Don's Traveller Combat System'

It says that right at the top. It's the old CT combat system, with MT tasks dropped in (cause I prefer the MT task system, that 2d6 stuff does it for me just fine), and some paragraphs dropped in from the T4 setting, and some SLIGHT modifications for accomodating things I liked in the T4.1 draft Marc sent me.

It's fairly fast, and I can run through the modifiers in one lookup.

Quick look...

MT tasks (oops, I said that)
CT modifiers for range for weapons (cause I think that individual weapon range modifiers give each weapon a better feel than "all handguns are Routine at Close range")
T4's order of events and initiative
Weapons from Mercenary (book 5) and Bows from Supp 4, and other weapons from JTAS or various GDW adventures, including the Laser Pistol, Gauss Pistol and Stun Carbine

Probably the most offensive thing is the "Required Dex", "Advantageous Dex" carry over from CT. I liked that - it really made the weapons distinctive.

Sigh. Don the Traveller Dinosaur...

"I like Scouts, Scouts like me, we're just one big fam.... ARGGH!"


DonM.

 

[Ranger]

Don,
I don't have any objection to tasks in combat per se, as long as it is not taken to extreem. In fact I was thinking recently that if you use cover as a modifier, then finding cover should probably be a task roll based on the eviroment of the combat. Finding good cover really isn't that easy, and experiance has a lot to do with it. Most new soldiers think they are well concealed when half their body it fully visable from the "bad guys" position. Might make them roll each time they move to close range as well. They should still be able to choose going to one knee or prone though.

Just some things to think about,

Rob

------------------
Traveller, if you go to Sparta, tell them you have seen us lying here as the law commands.

 

[Gatsby]

Ranger wrote: "Finding good cover really isn't that easy, and experiance has a lot to do with it. Most new soldiers think they are well concealed when half their body it fully visable from the "bad guys" position. Might make them roll each time they move to close range as well."

HA! Too true! My paint-ball buddies (as a lark) have determined our guys' individual Special Abilities:

One can and does catch paint-balls, unbroken, in the folds of his clothes...always nice to count the potential kills rolling off him after the whistle-

another is a DAMN good sneak-and-snipe (when I hear POP<WHACK>'Damn, I never saw you!', I know where he is)-

another is a natural leader and players we've never met follow his orders, blindly -

a fourth just looks GOOD(beret, neat trim,etc.) even AFTER a fall in the mud -

my power is to keep a large amount of the enemy occupied firing at my stupid ass while I am pinned behind absurdly small cover (one time it was REALLY just a very small (3' x 3") fallen tree branch). They NEVER get me, but it ties a lot of them up trying. Some newbies to our team tried to 'rescue' me once....they got pinned down and picked off...I tried to warn them: it's a SPECIAL POWER....hahaha.


If your in-house game system can get a good rule for laying down covering fire to supress enemy positons, then you 99% of the way to good and fun firefights.

Gats'