Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="aramis erak" data-source="post: 8193133" data-attributes="member: 6779310">Having run a bunch of CT  back in the day... that on its face feels fishy as hell.No corebook for CT has an 'equal to a .44 Magnum' pistol. In fact, Neither does Mercenary.In the editions I've run, only one pistol, a 5mm body pistol, can do 2 points, as it's a 2d6 damage; the two others are 9mm pistols doing 3d6, and there are no damage modifiers.So, I decided to do some rules archeology.The CT 1E damage and listed caliber for the 3 pistols: Body Pistol: 3d6-6 5mm; Autopistol 3d6-3 9mm; Revolver 3d6-3 9mm.The CT 2E LBBs as presented on the CT CD: Body Pistol 3d6 5mm; Autopistol 3d6 9mm; Revolver 3d6 9mm.CT's Traveller Book: Body Pistol 2d6 5mm; Autopistol 3d6 9mm; Revolver 3d6 9mm.So... you GM mis-described the weapon and/or made a poor choice in up-rating to reflect the redesignation.Not just yours...The thing is, the phrase "system matters" is the shortest phrase that holds the semantic connotations that rules influence play."Very little valid evidence, but tons of anecdotal support.It's not just the rules, tho' - if the group was a "barely uses the rules" GM and players who spent most of the session in character voice, it's going to be a different situation from a "D&D as a tactical miniatures game" with players who describe their characters in the 3rd person. It's not a straightjacket, but it does have lasting effects - both in terms of expectations, and of how relevant rules are to the playstyle. Not always good ones. For example, me... I started with AD&D ... and with a not-quite minis game approach, and dungeons as press-your-luck. I find that less than interesting these days.5E isn't "everything can be killed" in any way that all prior D&D's aren't. It is, however, far more forgiving of allowing yourself to stay in combat at low HP totals than all prior D&D editions...In prior editions, 0 HP is out and dying. In 5E, there's slightly better than 50% odds of survival without intervention or magic. That has lead to some seriously reckless play.I disagree that people are always capable of learning new approaches; it's sad to say, but there are some who are sufficiently inculcated to ways of thinking that they cannot escape their prior experiences' effects, and those experiences blind them to present room for change. There aren't that many of them, but... there are reasons the aphorisms "a lion cannot change his spots" and "you can't teach an old dog new tricks" have lasted a long time.Further, as age progresses, the ability to process text slows down, per recent research. (SciShow Psych ep in last 4 days.)In the case of learning a new game, it isn't always a fallacy, tho'.In any given case, the question is, "Can the old game do the new setting/campaign/path to an acceptable level?" If yes, then the sunk cost isn't a fallacy; one has a net time cost for the new system which is already paid for the old one.If no, then the sunk cost is irrelevant.But as general rule, the knowable answer is "maybe." And so the sunk cost still isn't a fallacy, and doesn't collapse to one until it is tried and fails.The title alone was enough to make me say, "Nope!" The hover-text blurb reinforced that; not a genre I'm interested in playing. My kids might... but only if they find it from persons other than me. Due to the name, I'm not even going to mention it to my teen nor 20-something.I really wish people would stop with the intentionally offensive titles and cover art. From where I sit, her work appears just as toxic as several noted OSR authors. Sufficiently so as to not bother looking any deeper.</blockquote>

Verification