hirch duckfinder
SOC-13
i play ct , but still buy stuff from other travs for ideas .
classic just has that pioneering feel .
classic just has that pioneering feel .
think combat system is fine . its simple and does the job with a minimum of fuss . no skills development is the problem - and its easily overcome . thats the point all the rules you need are there - its simple enough to improvise the rest .Originally posted by Exile on High Street:
CT is the game format I learnt twenty five years ago and so the one I am most familiar and comfortable with.
Many of its rules are less than ideal, particularly in combat resolution -vehicles spring to mind.
White Dwarf (a UK based role-playing magazine) published a hit location system for CT. I think the author was Andy Slack. Anybody know it? My copy was lost some time ago.
think combat system is fine . its simple and does the job with a minimum of fuss . no skills development is the problem - and its easily overcome . thats the point all the rules you need are there - its simple enough to improvise the rest .Originally posted by Exile on High Street:
CT is the game format I learnt twenty five years ago and so the one I am most familiar and comfortable with.
Many of its rules are less than ideal, particularly in combat resolution -vehicles spring to mind.
White Dwarf (a UK based role-playing magazine) published a hit location system for CT. I think the author was Andy Slack. Anybody know it? My copy was lost some time ago.
While I did like the penetration concept, we always made the unrealistic CT combat work well enough. To me, the biggest thing is to AVOID hit location charts and such. In an RPG, I think it is best to just go with whether or not it hit, and, if so, how much generic damage did the character take. If it is ever important (or just appropriate) for a specific body part to have been hit, just use GM fiat.Originally posted by hirch duckfinder:
think combat system is fine . its simple and does the job with a minimum of fuss . no skills development is the problem - and its easily overcome . thats the point all the rules you need are there - its simple enough to improvise the rest.
While I did like the penetration concept, we always made the unrealistic CT combat work well enough. To me, the biggest thing is to AVOID hit location charts and such. In an RPG, I think it is best to just go with whether or not it hit, and, if so, how much generic damage did the character take. If it is ever important (or just appropriate) for a specific body part to have been hit, just use GM fiat.Originally posted by hirch duckfinder:
think combat system is fine . its simple and does the job with a minimum of fuss . no skills development is the problem - and its easily overcome . thats the point all the rules you need are there - its simple enough to improvise the rest.
On Target. My Trav ref loved it and us players hated it. It really slowed down combats and did we really need to roll damage after getting someone in the eye with a Gauss rifle?Originally posted by Exile on High Street:
White Dwarf (a UK based role-playing magazine) published a hit location system for CT. I think the author was Andy Slack. Anybody know it? My copy was lost some time ago.
On Target. My Trav ref loved it and us players hated it. It really slowed down combats and did we really need to roll damage after getting someone in the eye with a Gauss rifle?Originally posted by Exile on High Street:
White Dwarf (a UK based role-playing magazine) published a hit location system for CT. I think the author was Andy Slack. Anybody know it? My copy was lost some time ago.
i do not "take" things too literally , and my tagline describes my heritage .Originally posted by Keklas Rekobah:
I do not "Love" CT, but my tagline says it all.
i do not "take" things too literally , and my tagline describes my heritage .Originally posted by Keklas Rekobah:
I do not "Love" CT, but my tagline says it all.