Boom! your dead..

[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.