Boom! your dead..

[Tirisilex]

I have the v1.0 box set and I'm a little disappointed with the combat rules. One shot usually kills you even with armored plating which doesn't help much in the first place. I thought of multiplying the armor ratings by 2.. But I'm not sure about it.. What does anyone else think?? It's just characters don't survive very long.. which makes for a frustrating game..

[Cpl. Kalkwarf]

Well usually in real life that is pretty true, one shot can easily put you out of action. The whole Idea is to use cover and concealment, try to be the first one to shoot to get the advantage. Cover will help protect you(walls, ditches, trees, vehicles etc). Concealment will help you from being spotted but does not protect you from bullets( tall grass, bushes etc.)

Try to be the Indian scout, or sniper, not Rambo or a D&D warrior. (if that makes sense)

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Tirisilex

I have the v1.0 box set and I'm a little disappointed with the combat rules. One shot usually kills you even with armored plating which doesn't help much in the first place. I thought of multiplying the armor ratings by 2.. But I'm not sure about it.. What does anyone else think?? It's just characters don't survive very long.. which makes for a frustrating game..

What game systems are you more familiar with? T2K should use a reasonably deadly combat system as it is meant to emulate a realistic World War III environment. In real life bullets kill you. In T2K players should play their characters realisticly, using cover, flanking, generally acting smart and trying not to get shot. If you are looking for a playing style that is more like a Rambo movie maybe T2K isn't the game for you.

[Matt W]

Try to find later versions of the game. They were less lethal and based on the GDW "house system" (as used in Traveller: TNE and Dark Conspiracy)

[headquarters]

dont be afraid to tweak the rules to suit you .Most in here have some sort of mod done -some even play with totally different rulesystems using the same game setting .

I use V2.0 and have added /tweaked this game in understanding with my players in many fields.

have fun .

[TiggerCCW UK]

Welcome to the forum. Try modifying the damage rules a bit. I use a heavily modded V2.2 myself. The players actually asked me to make it a bit more lethal as they felt there wasn't a feeling of danger in a firefight.

[Tirisilex]

Thank you for the response.. I think I may tweek the rules a little to fit my needs.. I may also ask my players what they think to be sure all is well with everyone.

One of my problems was that they have armor but the armor is useless against most of the weapons.. Might as well not wear it at all..

[pmulcahy11b]

Well, this is the opposite of most complaints about the T2K damage system -- most GMs and players think it's not lethal enough. I don't think it's lethal enough, but that may be a bias since I've been to real combat, as have some other members of this board. But you're right -- the GM needs to balance realism vs. playability. I just think the damage system is over-balanced towards playability.

Another possibility is to enforce rules that a lot of GMs (including me, I must admit) tend to gloss over -- knockdown, shock, wound infection, and suchlike.

[leonpoi]

Originally Posted by Tirisilex

Thank you for the response.. I think I may tweek the rules a little to fit my needs.. I may also ask my players what they think to be sure all is well with everyone.

One of my problems was that they have armor but the armor is useless against most of the weapons.. Might as well not wear it at all..

It's a game and it should be fun, so if you don't think it feels right then change it until is does .

It's been a while since I've played v1 but if I recall the damage scales with range (which it doesn't in later versions in which penetration does but not damage). Leaving aside that each 'hit' is caused by up to 3 bullets in the 'shot' it's still not fun getting hit once and being screwed. My memory of playing v1 is me running across an open yard, getting shot in the arm, and spending the rest of the campaign dying from infection. That and grenade fishing.

Could you post the damage rules and hits per location equation so that I can refresh?

[Tirisilex]

Would that be a breach of Copyright? if not then I will

[leonpoi]

Originally Posted by Tirisilex

Would that be a breach of Copyright? if not then I will

I doubt it would be a breach, especially for such a small part.

I remember it being something like damage:
Short = 4Xbase + 4d6
Med = 3xbase + 3d6, or was it 2x and2d?

something along those lines. I can't remember hits, but I assume it was based on stature.

[Tirisilex]

Thats it.. I didn't even have to tell you..

[HorseSoldier]

One of my problems was that they have armor but the armor is useless against most of the weapons.. Might as well not wear it at all..

The version 1.0 rules were written pre-"modern" body armor, and so they probably should make players wonder whether they're worth wearing at all. The PASGT vest that is the real world equivalent of the "kevlar vest" in the rules isn't ballistically rated for anything beyond fragmentation. It's ability to stop a 9mm round at close range and a decent chance to stop an AK round inside 100 meters is unrealistic.

I thought of multiplying the armor ratings by 2..

I wouldn't necessarily do that, but you could certainly update the armor options in the game to reflect modern hard plate/soft armor combos that will stop rifle rounds, etc (if that works for the timeline of the game you're looking at -- my recollection is that all that stuff is a little anachronistic, at least in widespread use in 1996 -- RBA was in service by then, I think -- but the war may have altered that some).

As for the lethality of the rules, it's been a while since I ran a game of T2K, but my recollection is that it wasn't too bad, but I remember between the chances of NPCs getting a hit in the combat rules and the use of cover, I had occasional trouble with PCs thinking they were a little on the invulnerable side.

You could always do what I did in response to that different problem -- fudge things a bit whenever it helps with the plot line.

[copeab]

Originally Posted by HorseSoldier

You could always do what I did in response to that different problem -- fudge things a bit whenever it helps with the plot line.

Ah, fudging Started a new thread on this.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by copeab

Ah, fudging Started a new thread on this.

Fudging is a time-honored GM tool, used since the earliest days of RPGs. I see no need to stop using it in modern role-playing.

[headquarters]

as a GM ,rack up a body count to have the players respecting your efforts and put the fear of God into them.

One pr 2-3 sessions is good if you have say 5 players.

I am still working onmy "handicap" but getting there...

[Caradhras]

I found it pretty well balanced albeit obviously being pretty deadly as the scenario should be. If you are hit by an AK at short range you are in serious trouble - if the rules made this not the case then I wouldnt be wanting to play it. My PCs were warned before we started how fatal it can be and leanred fast to do as other posters state and avoid actions unless they had the advantage. Usually those who fire first from cover tend to come away relatvely unscathed.

I ran a campaign once a week for over a year and had no fatalities without fudging...which is pretty amazing really. I was generous with them having a top medic with plenty gear and they did have players out of action for long periods at time - the body armour saving the fatality too on more than one occassion.

[pmulcahy11b]

One problem that can develop in a campaign (I've especially seen it in D&D campaigns where the characters were high-level) is that if combat does not carry a significant risk of danger, the players can get cocky, arrogant, and reckless. To an extent, the characters (as played by their players) have a right to be -- they've survived World War 3. But campaign-wise, I think it's better if they think that almost any moment could be their character's last.