Combat Rules

[Targan]

In Gunmaster/Harnmaster a roll against a multiple of your Will stat is used for "self control". Checks like this have four (or occassionally six) levels of success or failure - marginal success or failure and critical success or failure. MS on a Will check means the character can act as normal. CS means they actually get a bonus to their next combat check (say for an Initiative roll or a weapons skill check). MF means they are mildly panicking or distracted and usually means they will just repeat their last action. CF means they totally lose it and either attempt to flee blindly or maybe curl up in the foetal position and cry for their mum.

As a GM I like to have all these results as negotiable with the player. If they come up with a reaction that I think is appropriate and fits their Will check result I'll go with that.

[Marc]

You make the rule, we break it for you!

That's one of the true profits of a place like this forum.

Not sure I like tying your "self control" skill to intelligence. On the surface it seems like a good idea, but wouldn't it be more "realistic" for the more intelligent characters not to stick their heads out into incoming automatic fire

Well, it seems the obvious choice if we wanted to incorporate Self-Control in the v2.2 rule set without many tricks. Probably, as Paul mentioned a few posts ago while talking about Small Arms, the choice to tie certain skills to certain characteristics is not one of the good points of this system. But once accepted (the alternative is choose a different set of rules), choosing Intelligence as the ruling characteristic for Self-Control was the logical step. Others systems, like GURPS, uses the Intelligence as a way to measure the determination and the conscious control of instinctive reactions. Traveller The New Era, with the same system of Twilight:2000, has the skill of Willpower, ruled by character's Intelligence, too. Its not perfect, but we could say that with more intelligence and more combat experience (Initiative), the character have more capacity to overcome to fear and do what he/she thinks must be done.

How does it reflect the very low intelligence, low combat experience characters with more bravery than common sense or self preservation

Certainly a self-destructive combination! Well, if they are NPC it would be some kind of reason to throw themselves into battle in that way. Drugs, a messianic leadership, state of shock, or a blind, furious an immediate retaliatory reaction against the characters, etc. The GM can play accordingly with the difficulty level of the Self-Control check to interpret these situations. Even a Novice (7 in Self-Control)character has good chances to pass an Average or Easy roll if something exists to justify the difficulty reduction. Of course, if the character for some reason(PC or NPC) is totally unworried about his/her physical integrity and will be playing accordingly until the final consequence, no roll is needed.

How do you deal with the armchair soldiers who believe that just because they've seen movie action heros shrug off a dozen bullet wounds and keep going, they can do the same Sure they might change their mind after the first round rips into them, but what if they get lucky and don't get wounded until say their tenth or even hundreth combat

Well, if they get lucky and don't get wounded until the tenth or hundreth combat, they are not more "armchair soldiers", are they Again I think that playing with the difficulty level of the roll, the GM can face all the problems.

How would another character using Peruasion, or Leadership skill influence the "self control" roll

Mmmm... that's a good question. First the character trying to influence must announce what skill would be using. Leadership for a quick, categorical order that will have immediate effect in the next turn. Persuasion for a more emphatic and long argumentation that will take effect after perhaps 1d6 turns. In any case, the success of the task implies the reduction of one difficulty level in the Self-Control task of the influenced character, an outstanding success meaning that no Self-Controlroll is needed to perform the risky action. That's always assuming that the player (if a PC)wants his/her character to perform the action. No roll for another PC or NPC can force a playing character to do something against his/her will.

[headquarters]

initiative

in our group is viewed as the synthezis of balls,brains,presence of mind,chutzpah,courage,self control or what you might call it regarding combat .

If they try to do something counterintuitive like running INTO a burning building to get a shot with the RPG at the tank , then an initiative check is mandated -quite possibly modified by a penalty if the task is indeed extreme .(diving into a pool of sharks in a feeding frenzy to get the mission objective doohikey at teh bottom for instance etc etc .

I like the idea of a willpower stat to determine if the PC CAN stay away from the gorgeous woman who is potentially a decoy at the end of the bar or -in our campaign - manage to stay off the substance that he is abusing for long enough to be sober at the firefight etc etc .

AS initiative progresses I run fewer tests though,6 means that you are unafraid or at least collected and with wits about you when it goes down imho.When they have 5 or 6 I dont see the need to roll unless they get into something weird or unknown or totally suicidal .

Running from cover in a fight -I dont roll if the PC have a 5 or 6 .Less than that -maybe .

[Legbreaker]

Aimed bursts from the G11

Atiff and I nutted this house rule out a while ago and should work equally well for either 2.0 or 2.2.

The G11 (due to it's design) could also fire 3 round quick bursts. Same as the single quick shots in the BYB, but roll 1D3 per hit for number of rounds striking the target. Simplest way I can think of modelling the extremely high rate of fire in each burst (something like 2000 rpm I think).
The downside to this is ammo gets used up three times as fast and it's still random as to how many rounds actually strike the target. Recoil is also figured using the three round burst figure rather than single shots (3 recoil per burst rather than the 2 of single shots). This would mean a character with Strength 7 could fire either 3 single shots, 2x3 round bursts, or 1x5 round burst without recoil penalty. Put another way, shoot at 3 targets, 2 targets or 1 target respectively.
Recoil penalty for exceeding 2x3 round bursts would be to Skill/accuracy rather than a reduction in dice as it is for conventional automatic fire. Range would also effect accuracy rather than available dice (since the third round is out of the barrel before recoil occurs and therefore the aim point is barely effected).

[Marc]

Hmmmm... bumping an old thread!

I'm preparing a Traveller: The New Era Game (T2k v2.2 system) for the next month and, while I was reading the combat rules, I noticed a little detail about recoil that (I think) does not appear in T2K v2.2. May be it could be useful for someone:

Rifle Recoil: Rifles (and other two handed weapons) may also bre fired from braced positions. If standing erect, this requires an aim action (for a total of two aiming action to fire an aimed shot from a brace position.) I lying prone, this requires no additional action. Either way, reduce the printed recoil value (single shot or burst as appropiate) by 1

Have a nice day!

[Adm.Lee]

Nice.

I hesitate to introduce yet another element to the Recoil vs. Str. equation, but that's useful.

[Rabar]

Hey all, new to the forum and new to the game. I have the V1 rules and I'm confused and would like some help, figured it'd be better to ask here than start a whole new thread.

I've taken to the rules pretty well, but one aspect of the game is having trouble sticking. Rockets vs Armored vehicles.

I really cannot grasp how it works, if someone could post an example of an RPG hitting the side of a vehicle, it would help me understand this one last bit so I can finally get a game organized.

Thanks in advance!

[Targan]

Hi Rabar, and welcome to the forum. There are 3 different editions of Twilight: 2000 and then there's Twilight 2013. Please specify which edition of the rules you're using.

[Rabar]

Hi Rabar, and welcome to the forum. There are 3 different editions of Twilight: 2000 and then there's Twilight 2013. Please specify which edition of the rules you're using.

Sorry, when I said V1 I mean to say first edition of Twilight 2000.

[Targan]

Whoops, my bad! I missed the V1 part of your post