Increasing Wear Value

[ChalkLine]

The book tells us the following:

Increasing Wear: After a vehicle has suffered
10 actual breakdowns, its wear value is
increased by 1. A vehicle with a wear value of
10 which suffers its tenth breakdown at that
value is no longer repairable, and is good only
for salvaging parts.
Once the players and the referee are very
familiar with the game mechanics, they may
wish to keep separate track of the wear value
of the components of a vehicle. That is, a
vehicle which suffers repeated engine breakdowns
would end up having a very worn-out
engine but a sound suspension. In this case,
the tenth engine breakdown at wear value 10
would mean the characters need to find a
new engine, not a whole new vehicle. This
rule is not suggested for beginning use; players
and the referee have enough to keep
track of as it is.
If this rule is used, however, the wear value
10 vehicle need not be scrapped upon its
tenth breakdown, as it will undoubtedly fail
only in one or two key systems (engine or
suspension, perhaps). If a vehicle can be
found with a working engine, it could be
transferred to the worn-out vehicle and given
a new lease on life.

However this isn't how it happens in real life. In reality no matter how carefully you look after your vehicle it will wear out if you drive it forever. Some parts are designed with quite short lifespans such as the plastic and rubber elements of suspension. Now, even the mighty Monk of the rulebook making new rubber gaskets out old inner tyres is going to have to admit defeat at some point when the actual struts wear away. This isn't covered in the rules and I think we should come up with some for it.

Essentially it means we're going to have to work out how may hours of use a wear value correlates to. This is going to be sucky as not only does this vary with component it also varies with vehicle type.

So instead of a table or list we're going to need a rough formula that a GM can use to say when the vehicle has advanced another wear level.

My first thoughts is that it might relate to vehicle weight, but here I'm not so sure how to do it or even if that's right.
The second is obviously going to be time used rather than kilometres driven. However this starts to look suspiciously like someone's going to have to keep a log for the vehicles and no one wants to go there. (I have actual clinical OCD and I don't want to go there)

Any thoughts Is it just too hard and the GM might just make a call occasionally

[Legbreaker]

Given the game starts less than three years after logistic support has stopped (courtesy of the nukes mainly), and besides one, maybe two serious offensives (depending on theatre) I don't think getting down to that level of wear is all than needed.
If the game was set much later, absolutely, but after just a few years of relatively minimal use

[ChalkLine]

I'm not sure. I wore a few light trucks clean out using them every day when I was a FIFO in WA

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Not quite what you were probably after but at one time I tried the idea of having a piece of equipment, vehicle, etc. etc. suffer one more level of Wear for every critical failure that was suffered while using it - if the circumstances were appropriate (it doesn't make sense to give 1 Wear to a vehicle for a critical failure of Navigation on the part of one of the passengers for example).

The idea works but it means extra book-keeping, something that most players didn't want to do (so I did myself until that campaign ended).
And there lies the biggest hurdle, it seems that more so than in the previous three decades, players want to do as little actual work as they possibly can, they don't want to do any book-keeping if they can get away with it.
Now I know I'm making a broadsweeping generalization but except for old-school players and those few who like some "meat on the bone" in their rpg rules, the modern audience seems to have no interest in taking play to that level.

I like the idea of tracking individual Wear on the various vehicle parts and as mentioned in other threads I do like a more sophisticated rules set (without getting complicated or too granular) but I'd baulk at trying to keep track of Wear for the various types of vehicles and/or the amount of time they've been used for. So I agree, a single formula to calculate wear would be a more playable solution but I'm damned if I can think of one - other than running it along the lines of perhaps Fatigue
But then you'd have to track the hours of heavy, medium, light work...
More book-keeping but I like the idea of jumping off from a mechanic that's already in use in the game.

[Legbreaker]

...it seems that more so than in the previous three decades, players want to do as little actual work as they possibly can, they don't want to do any book-keeping if they can get away with it.
Now I know I'm making a broadsweeping generalization but except for old-school players and those few who like some "meat on the bone" in their rpg rules, the modern audience seems to have no interest in taking play to that level.

So true, so very, very true.
It seems to me anyone under 30 is that way inclined, having for the most part grown up with computer games where the majority of the back end admin is handled by the program itself. If they can't tap a button or two and have all the work done for them, they're not interested.
I have a hard enough time getting players to actually read the basic game rules let alone handle even the most minimal logistics and admin!

[Targan]

Many a time I've bemoaned right here on this forum the dumbing-down of TTRPGs. Ah well. I kick it old skool.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

At the risk of continuing my pissing & moaning about that state of affairs, modern console/computer games have bred into players the idea of "push button - get awesome" - meaning that they expect something magnificent to happen without actually doing much to justify getting such a reward.
Unfortunately this seems to have infiltrated into the table top gaming arena.

But again, I digress.
I still haven't any good suggestions for expanding the wear value mechanic

[Legbreaker]

That's one of the problems I have with many computer games. You gain a new power/skill/weapon and only get to use it once or twice before the next thing comes along making it obsolete.
Those that have come from that background seem to expect table top games to "reward" them just as quickly for doing nothing more than performing the basics of everyday life.

[Adm.Lee]

I'm a fan of the Wear system as it exists, at least in theory. "In theory" because I really cannot remember any game that had enough breakdowns (or play time) for a WV to increase. I'm sure I've never had a player group that cared to keep track of it. (I don't think I've ever had a group that would even track Fuel, for cryin' out loud!)

I've thought about introducing a similar rule in non-T2k games with ships/starships, but that's rarely gotten traction.

As to modifications:
"Time used" on a vehicle is surely included in the existing Wear rule, since breakdowns are only rolled for when a vehicle is driving around Perhaps the ref could keep the original system, but call for extra potential breakdown rolls for certain kinds of driving (like dragging a heavy trailer, for instance, or particularly bad roads). Or enforce penalties to the roll for such circumstances.

[ChalkLine]

I've had players who absolutely refuse to read the rules because 'Jim knows all that stuff'. Players who've been in the group for years but didn't know, and refused to know, how to do character advancement.

And this 'social combat' bullshit where rather than role play something you simply make a few rolls and give a half-arsed idea of what you want to say.

That and any game with more than a page of rules is criticised as 'way too crunchy' by younger guys on forums I simply don't go to any more.

But for real kick back Try and get someone to do some simple mathematics.
"MegaTraveller had formulas! Where is the fun in that!"
Like, the simplest bloody formulae you can imagine and they're too lazy to learn a vital life skill.

[swaghauler]

I like the idea of using distance driven too. I'm pressed for time so these numbers will be in miles.

A Semi Truck like my Pete can go 100k miles before needing a new set of tires (this is usually an annual expense). It can go 500K miles before needing an "in frame" rebuild of the rear end, top of the motor (head gasket) and throwout bearing in the tranny (at about 5 years of service). It will be worn out at 1 Million miles (about 8 to 10 years of daily driving/service).

A typical passenger car can go about 100k or 7 years (whichever comes first) before major component failure begins to occur. A medium-duty truck (5-Ton delivery style) can hit 250K miles or 10 years of daily use.

I think rating the Suspension (tires), Motor, Body, and any custom Electronics, Weapons, or Sensors would be appropriate. You simply DIVIDE the maximum Miles/Kilometers the vehicle can go by 10 to determine WHEN to check for a Wear Value Increase. For Electronics, I'd use HOURS OPERATED and a "ROUND COUNT" for cannon or missile launchers.

Getting a successful roll AGAINST a Wear Value Increase would reflect the vehicle getting the needed maintenance which can greatly increase service life. As we already discussed in the thread on suspension/track life, the tires and tracks are the "weak link" on vehicles (pun intended).

[StainlessSteelCynic]

You know, I think between the experiences of Swag and Chalk you could probably get a good set of distances (based upon the level of work the vehicle does, terrain encountered and so on) to make something out of this.

[pmulcahy11b]

The book tells us the following:



However this isn't how it happens in real life. In reality no matter how carefully you look after your vehicle it will wear out if you drive it forever. Some parts are designed with quite short lifespans such as the plastic and rubber elements of suspension. Now, even the mighty Monk of the rulebook making new rubber gaskets out old inner tyres is going to have to admit defeat at some point when the actual struts wear away. This isn't covered in the rules and I think we should come up with some for it.

Essentially it means we're going to have to work out how may hours of use a wear value correlates to. This is going to be sucky as not only does this vary with component it also varies with vehicle type.

So instead of a table or list we're going to need a rough formula that a GM can use to say when the vehicle has advanced another wear level.

My first thoughts is that it might relate to vehicle weight, but here I'm not so sure how to do it or even if that's right.
The second is obviously going to be time used rather than kilometres driven. However this starts to look suspiciously like someone's going to have to keep a log for the vehicles and no one wants to go there. (I have actual clinical OCD and I don't want to go there)

Any thoughts Is it just too hard and the GM might just make a call occasionally

This may -- may -- help flesh out a vehicle like the 577 that was my first vehicle on active duty -- an old 577 (I was in an FDC for a mortar platoon), which had an electrical system you couldn't overload if you tried (in the field we even hooked up a boom box to the intercom system via a skunked up interface module that one of our guys that was handy with electronics made), but is you were going down a steep hill, and you managed to reach 6 mph, you were zooming! Even repeated trips to 3rd Echelon maintenance could stamp out this problem. Components do wear out at different rates.

It's what really happens, but it would be a nightmare to keep track of in a game.