Quote from: gleichman;566829There are three parts to this- first up is if you believe that there are in fact real world practical differences between the PPS and the 92F. You don't seem to believe that, and in that case the whole discussion is really moot, there is no need to represent that which you flatly reject.

I've already said that there are real world differences.

QuoteSecond, there's the question that if you do believe in the differences. Are you willing to pay the increase complexity (of some type even if just more possible choices in firearms) to reflect them in the game design? I think that the answer for you is also no, making the subject moot.

I believe the differences exist, just that in the context of an RPG, they are not significant enough to create a set of modifiers for the differences in muzzle velocity, recoil, etc for a PPS and 92F.

That's why I asked you how you would do it.  In a d20 system?  In a % system?  Use whatever generic mechanic you want.  I'd be very curious to see what kind of modifiers you establish between a PPS and 92F for things like muzzle velocity and recoil and range, and then to see how that extrapolates out when you start including every other weapon.

In my opinion, that level of minutia is better suited for a computer game, and not for tabletop role-playing.  Remember, you only have 6 types of dice to work with.  But that doesn't mean I'm not curious to see how you would implement it.  You seem very adamant in your position, so I'd like to know what your solution is.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;566844I believe the differences exist, just that in the context of an RPG, they are not significant enough to create a set of modifiers for the differences in muzzle velocity, recoil, etc for a PPS and 92F.

That's why I asked you how you would do it.  In a d20 system?  In a % system?  Use whatever generic mechanic you want.

OK, but I'll make a new thread to kept yours clean and more on the purpose you intended it for.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;566844In my opinion, that level of minutia is better suited for a computer game, and not for tabletop role-playing.  Remember, you only have 6 types of dice to work with.  But that doesn't mean I'm not curious to see how you would implement it.  You seem very adamant in your position, so I'd like to know what your solution is.

I agree, I love a good gunfight as much as the next man but there's a limited amount of complexity that can be meaningfully represented by dice in a useful way.

The differences between one 9mm semi auto pistol and another are entirely academic compared to the differences between a 9mm pistol and a fully automatic assault rifle or a shotgun, as far as they can be emulated on a 1-10, 1-6 or 1-20 scale. If your system is to include a wide variety of weapons, a lot of the finer details need to be smoothed out.

Aaanyway Sacrosanct its a good system but a little too complex for me. I lay out my weapons so:
pistols:
light
medium
heavy

rifles:
light
medium
heavy

Different brands might give a bonus to accuracy or range, different ammo to damage, etc.

Quote from: The Traveller;567241Aaanyway Sacrosanct its a good system but a little too complex for me. .

No worries.  One of the things that added complexity it the wide range of technology that is covered.  Depending on where you're at in the game world, technology ranges from early 1800s all the way to the 2200s or so.  So that weapon creation chart has to be inclusive to everything from a black powder long rifle to a heavy plasma machine gun.

If I kept it just to modern weapons, those charts would be about half the size they are now.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;566779I was talking more about the 92F and PPS.  

No,  you weren't, otherwise you would've typed it down. We can't read your thoughts, we're not telepathic.

Quote from: Phantom Black;567269No,  you weren't, otherwise you would've typed it down. We can't read your thoughts, we're not telepathic.

Prior to your post I typed this:

Quote from: Sacrosanct;566638I won't disagree that there is a difference, but in the context of an rpg, what is the significant difference between a Walther 9mm PPS and a Beretta 9mm 92F?  

Quote from: Sacrosanct;566331This is an idea I've been tinkering with for years, and am leaning towards implementing it into my Bleeding Sky game.  The general gist is that rather than have a table of pre-made weapons, I'll have a mechanic in place where players create their own weapons.  This is primarily because there isn't any significant difference in a RPG between a Beretta 9mm and a Walther 9mm other than cosmetic, and it allows the players to have some customization. I will probably have a weapon chart anyway, just as an example and for quick-start purposes, but the focus will be on individual weapon design.

I had the same idea for my game, including having a sample list of weapons for those who don't want to make their own. Due to differing taste, my system is far simpler (though also far from complete). In short, the player chooses a range (Close, Reach, Short, Medium, Long) and damage rating to create custom weapons and then flavor them into whatever they want. (Precisely how they pay for them is yet to be decided.)

In my case the idea was to come up with a system that is simultaneously simple yet provides a wide variety of weapons to suit the players' whims. So yours is way too finicky for my taste, but certainly looks like it would get the job done for people who want that much detail. It also takes care of something I've thus far neglected: financial cost.

EDIT: Just realized that was a bit of a necro. Sorry about that.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;567273Prior to your post I typed this:

The Walther is shorter and built for concealed carry it has a shorter barrel length and a smaller magazine capacity (6,7 or 8 round compared to 10 - 32 for a Barretta 92F).

So in damage terms there is no difference (MV of 350 vs 380 m/s & same ammo) but there are a number of differences I might like to see in a game that wanted a gunsy feel.
I would go for giving the Walter an additional -1 to hit (on a d20) at long range owing to the reduced barrel length and an increase in concealment say a +1 (on a d20 or a -1 to an attempt to spot a concealed weapon). In addition to the extra magazine capaicty.

Quote from: jibbajibba;583967The Walther is shorter and built for concealed carry it has a shorter barrel length and a smaller magazine capacity (6,7 or 8 round compared to 10 - 32 for a Barretta 92F).

So in damage terms there is no difference (MV of 350 vs 380 m/s & same ammo) but there are a number of differences I might like to see in a game that wanted a gunsy feel.
I would go for giving the Walter an additional -1 to hit (on a d20) at long range owing to the reduced barrel length and an increase in concealment say a +1 (on a d20 or a -1 to an attempt to spot a concealed weapon). In addition to the extra magazine capaicty.

The effective range of a Walther PPK 9mm and a Beretta 92f 9mm is pretty much the same in the real world (25 yards eff, 50 y max).  Certainly not significant enough to warrant a modifier otherwise you end up with literally hundreds of extra modifiers you have to account for.  Magazine capacity is handled differently (you just buy what size you want since there are things like extended magazines).  And there really aren't any rules for spotting a concealed weapon.  That's just however the group wants to handle it on the fly since it's something that would hardly come up in game play, and lord knows there are enough values already assigned to weapons you don't need any more

Quote from: Sacrosanct;583979The effective range of a Walther PPK 9mm and a Beretta 92f 9mm is pretty much the same in the real world (25 yards eff, 50 y max).  Certainly not significant enough to warrant a modifier otherwise you end up with literally hundreds of extra modifiers you have to account for.  Magazine capacity is handled differently (you just buy what size you want since there are things like extended magazines).  And there really aren't any rules for spotting a concealed weapon.  That's just however the group wants to handle it on the fly since it's something that would hardly come up in game play, and lord knows there are enough values already assigned to weapons you don't need any more

Just suggesting some options based on real world differences between the actual weapons.

I would agree that effective range on both is 50m but the Walter has a barrel length of 3.2 inches compared to 4.9 for the Baretta. That is a substantial difference.

It just depends on how much crunch you want.

I think I may have mentioned previously that FGU games like Aftermath and Daredevils used a formula for computing the damage of a gun. Now basically they worked out the kinetic energy of the round (Mass x Speed squared) divided it by a constant and generated a number that led to dx + bonus.

I adopted this in a modern war game I made years ago but used bullet momentum because the text books I read on gun trauma damage seemed in indicate that it was the effectiveness in the transfer of momentum that did damage (The Butcher might want to comment if he is interested). With high speed rounds passing through the target and keeping a lot of their momentum so I used  momentum (Mass of bullet x velocity) to generate a damage score that was then converted to d10s + bonus. I used speed and ammo type to generate a penetration score V armour.
All this seems complex but its away from play so in play you just know a Colt M1911A1 does 2d10 +3 and has a penetration score of 1 (or whatever) how the score are generated really doesn't matter in actual play so it adds very little complexity to the actual game play itself.

There's really a lot of ways to handle it, and pretty much every one comes down to what you're going to include and what not to include because there are so many factors.

For example, a bullet of the same grain weight, at the same velocity, could have very different effects when hitting an unarmored fleshy target depending on how the bullet is made.  Is it a flat tip, or a pointed FJM?  Does it tumble?  What kind of gun was it fired from?

You'd have to have a really complex ruleset to factor in all of these variables, and it just isn't feasible to do so in a game where a big part of it isn't per-generated tables but player designed weapons.

If you want to see how I handled all these, I actually created a thread a while ago about my release of the playtest packet.  You can download it here.  It covers how I do weapon creation as well as accounting for most of the common ammunition types.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;584013If you want to see how I handled all these, I actually created a thread a while ago about my release of the playtest packet.  You can download it here.  It covers how I do weapon creation as well as accounting for most of the common ammunition types.

Very nice!  I was going to post a few lines about just taking a hundredth of the bullet weight in grains as a baseline for damage, with the modulus as a bonus.  Like AD&D monster hit dice, a bonus higher than the average for the die would push the rolls into the next category, so the bonus should be calculated against the average for the die.  So, a bullet weighing 148gr would be divided by 100 for 1.48.  If the base damage die is 1d10, .48 x 5.5 is about 2.6, dropping decimals would work best for a bonus of 2, giving 1d10+3 for a common bullet around .30 to .38 calibre.

I know you already have your system in place, so this isn't a suggestion for changes to yours, but as a baseline, would that be reasonable?  Assume mooks have between ten and fifteen hit points, the PCs have something like 10-30 hit points or something like that.  Those hit points seem a bit low for PCs in a marginally heroic kind of game.  Maybe 25-50 would work better.

Awesome layout on the document itself, too.

Quote from: StormBringer;584093Very nice!  I was going to post a few lines about just taking a hundredth of the bullet weight in grains as a baseline for damage, with the modulus as a bonus.  Like AD&D monster hit dice, a bonus higher than the average for the die would push the rolls into the next category, so the bonus should be calculated against the average for the die.  So, a bullet weighing 148gr would be divided by 100 for 1.48.  If the base damage die is 1d10, .48 x 5.5 is about 2.6, dropping decimals would work best for a bonus of 2, giving 1d10+3 for a common bullet around .30 to .38 calibre.

.

I think I have what you're going at.  The only problem I can think of is when you run into a .22 LR bullet at 40 grains, and a .223 (5.56) at 55 grains.  We all know that a .223 will do exponentially more damage than a .22 LR.  When you start getting into different materials in bullet composition (lead is heavier than copper for instance), and velocity behind the bullet (a 100 grain bullet being fired from a rifle compared to a 100 grain bullet being fired from a pistol) it gets even more wonky.

I'm not saying my way is perfect by any means.  I think it just comes down to, "What do we want to happen in the game, and let's build our model to achieve that."

Quote from: Sacrosanct;584013There's really a lot of ways to handle it, and pretty much every one comes down to what you're going to include and what not to include because there are so many factors.

For example, a bullet of the same grain weight, at the same velocity, could have very different effects when hitting an unarmored fleshy target depending on how the bullet is made.  Is it a flat tip, or a pointed FJM?  Does it tumble?  What kind of gun was it fired from?

You'd have to have a really complex ruleset to factor in all of these variables, and it just isn't feasible to do so in a game where a big part of it isn't per-generated tables but player designed weapons.

If you want to see how I handled all these, I actually created a thread a while ago about my release of the playtest packet.  You can download it here.  It covers how I do weapon creation as well as accounting for most of the common ammunition types.

yeah agree with all that i will take a look at your dodad.
Tumbling rounds really are quick tricky to scientifically accomodate so a fudge like swapping range or accuracy for damage is about the best i came up with.

Quote from: jibbajibba;584117yeah agree with all that i will take a look at your dodad.
Tumbling rounds really are quick tricky to scientifically accomodate so a fudge like swapping range or accuracy for damage is about the best i came up with.

Hey, if it works for what you want, go for it.