Quote from: Kyle Aaron;724154Nobody wants realism. They think they do, but they don't. Keep it abstract and unrealistic.

Kyle Aaron, official spokesperson for everybody.

Aftermath.


Just kidding!


Actually, I would suggest Hero for rules that can simulate guns with some semblance of reality.

Quote from: dragoner;724061For me, from what I have seen, I liked Classic Traveller the best, it is rather elegant in being quick and deadly, though for some people I know it falls too close to being too abstract and too deadly. But basically it is a (2d6) to hit with mods, then straight weapon damage. It is also adapted into a board game with Snapshot, which is not so bad. Neither satisfy the crunch fiends though.

The CT system is highly elegant - it manages to capture an enormous amount of complexity in a few pages of text and tables, as each shot is influenced not only by skill and ability, but also by the interplay of armour and range. The aim of the game here is to use the right tool for the right situation, as some combinations automatically hit and almost automatically incapacitate the target; for example, against an unskilled, unarmoured opponent in Short range, a Cutlass always hits (hits on 2+ on 2d6, and there aren't any auto-failures in CT) and does 2D damage, which, if this is the first hit on the target, likely to incapacitate the average target. However, if your target manages to get into Close range, you lose that advantage and only hit on 8+ (skills still apply). Similarly, a Shotgun at Short range against an unarmoured target always hits (2+ again), but in Close range, it rarely hits (11+), and at Long range you won't hit easily (9+).

The main weakness of that system is the lack of initiative (except for surprise, that is), which means that both sides could slaughter each other at once.

The trick in CT is to be prepared - wear armour, know how to parry (melee weapon skill serves as a constant negative modifier to attacks against you), bring the right tool for the right situation, and ambush your foes in such a way that you'll be at optimum range and have surprise. Then you'll slaughter him.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;724154An ordinary old hit point system will do this. He hits 0HP, he drops, exactly why who cares, he's down. You don't to simulate the whole physiology, just the effects.

While Classic Traveller is more or less a hit points system, in that there is a finite "points of damage" you can take, I'm not a huge fan of hit points because it's a resource that runs out as opposed to a chance each time of a hit "hurting" enough to matter (which was one reason why I noted that I thought Savage Worlds might have been objectively better).

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;724154And of course, if you have physical reality, why not legal and psychological? And then we get into self-defence shootings being looked into by homicide investigations, and post-traumatic stress disorder, and all that kind of thing.

That depends on the game of course.  I've run and played games where the second firefight was with the authorities.   :-)

As for psychological trauma and PTSD, if it's a game of horror, they probably should be checking for sanity loss or making a fear check.  But if it's a more cinematic game, those kinds of things should probably be left up to the player, who might be willing to add or trade a disad (like trading off that enemy they just killed for something else if the group likes to keep point accounting tidy).

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;724154Nobody wants realism. They think they do, but they don't. Keep it abstract and unrealistic.

As The Ent said, we want "versi-whatchacallit".  

And as I noted, that's pretty much where I started and ended up with my Classic Traveller and Savage Worlds preferences.  Even though neither really models all I want, they each manage to do it well enough without getting bogged down too much.

I think the thing we miss in games is how it can be exciting/scary even if no one actually hits.  Like you say, and I was referencing with my cop and robber at ten feet comment, most shots do miss, even up close.  While it's extra book-keeping and perhaps not always worth it, I think CT's idea of only allowing so many full strength hits in melee could be extended somehow into firefights, to represent the fatigue and stress involved, and to give an incentive to not shooting it out for long periods of time until one side or the other is down.

QuoteThat depends on the game of course. I've run and played games where the second firefight was with the authorities. :-)

As for psychological trauma and PTSD, if it's a game of horror, they probably should be checking for sanity loss or making a fear check. But if it's a more cinematic game, those kinds of things should probably be left up to the player, who might be willing to add or trade a disad (like trading off that enemy they just killed for something else if the group likes to keep point accounting tidy).

Except that leaving out the psychological element is exactly what RPGs get most wrong about a firefight.

I cited Stargrunt II up there for a reason: no it's not actually an RPG, but it's the closest I've ever seen to how actual fire combat tactics work, because the engine is all about suppression and morale.

Getting in a gun fight is very rarely about shooting the other guy. It's about scaring the other guy into giving up. Actually hitting anyone is pretty much secondary in all but a few very specific scenarios usually left to guys who spend their whole lives training to kill. And even they'd rather not have to actually do so. GSG 9 are one of the best counter-terrorist organizations in the world, and they've only actually discharged weapons 5 times in 1,500 operations.

5 times.

The simple fact of the matter is that most people don't want to die, and most people who aren't at least a little bit cracked don't want to kill. Most soldiers in WWII never even fired their weapon, and not because they didn't see action. Even after months of training, when faced with the actual need to do so they still couldn't bring themselves to actually shoot at someone. A lot who did would just fire wild.

Most fire in combat is panic fire or suppression fire, firing in the direction of the enemy but probably only making it difficult or scary for them to move from their position in any direction except the hell away. People still get killed of course, it's still gun fire, but the point-and-click attitude of most RPGs bears more resemblance to first-person shooter games than the dynamics of most actual real-world combat.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;724154Nobody wants realism. They think they do, but they don't. Keep it abstract and unrealistic.

No, people want it.  They just don't want to put forth the effort in what's required to capture it.  And I don't blame them.  Not for a TTRPG

I'm not a ballistics expert by any means, but I do know quite a bit.  There's a lot that goes into what effect a bullet will actually have.

For example, a .22 and a .223 are miles apart, despite looking nearly identical in caliber from just that information.  Bullet shape, powder load, length of the barrel, bullet material composition, bullet weight, range, atmospheric conditions, density of target, material of target, etc all have MAJOR impacts to the result you're going to have.

But we've had this dicussion before, and I don't want to rehash it now.  Suffice to say, that while realism is nice, you'd need charts that would make Rolemaster look like child's play in order for it to work in an RPG.  And who wants to spend 5 minutes figuring out the effects of a single attack?

Come up with rough guidelines and move on.  I can't tell you how many times I've designed game mechanics to cover many of these factors, only to toss them out during playtests.

Quote from: J Arcane;724266Getting in a gun fight is very rarely about shooting the other guy. It's about scaring the other guy into giving up. Actually hitting anyone is pretty much secondary in all but a few very specific scenarios usually left to guys who spend their whole lives training to kill. And even they'd rather not have to actually do so. GSG 9 are one of the best counter-terrorist organizations in the world, and they've only actually discharged weapons 5 times in 1,500 operations.

5 times.

Been in many gunfights have you?  I have.  Well, not many.  And nothing super major I'm afraid.  But you're way off on this.  Everyone I personally know who's been in combat doesn't try to scare the other people.  They try to take out the threat as fast as possible.  That means destroying the threat.  You keep shooting until you aren't worried that they will shoot back.

QuoteThe simple fact of the matter is that most people don't want to die, and most people who aren't at least a little bit cracked don't want to kill. Most soldiers in WWII never even fired their weapon, and not because they didn't see action. Even after months of training, when faced with the actual need to do so they still couldn't bring themselves to actually shoot at someone. A lot who did would just fire wild.
.

Sorry, totally debunked.

Quote from: J Arcane;724266I cited Stargrunt II up there for a reason: no it's not actually an RPG, but it's the closest I've ever seen to how actual fire combat tactics work, because the engine is all about suppression and morale.

Stargrunt II is, no argument, one of the best squad level games out there.

Morale is something that has fallen out of favor in RPGs, especially as applied to the PCs.  Most of the time when I run games, the end result is a bunch of people surrendering (to the PCs).  Mostly I think it's because players (me included) want to play brave heroes, not real people.  I'll happily deviate from that for one-shots or for horror games, but in general, even I, who wants more verisimilitude, still want to play a brave hero.

Quote from: J Arcane;724266Getting in a gun fight is very rarely about shooting the other guy. It's about scaring the other guy into giving up. ...

I think in RPGs a potential problem is they typically have the PCs get in so many battles the game might end up an exercise in managing prisoners (or committing atrocities).  It's just easier if the antagonists fight to the death.

Quote from: J Arcane;724266The simple fact of the matter is that most people don't want to die, and most people who aren't at least a little bit cracked don't want to kill. Most soldiers in WWII never even fired their weapon, and not because they didn't see action. Even after months of training, when faced with the actual need to do so they still couldn't bring themselves to actually shoot at someone. A lot who did would just fire wild.

That data may have been fabricated and/or exaggerated dramatically.  
"Convincing evidence pointed to his having fabricated his World War II ratio-of-fire values, still so widely accepted at the time." (also from link below)

And even Marshall (the origin of that statistic) noted that the figure rose from his earlier notes:   "He concluded that much had changed since those earlier conflicts and that it was not unusual for close to 100 percent of American infantrymen to engage the adversary during firefights in Vietnam."
http://www.historynet.com/men-against-fire-how-many-soldiers-actually-fired-their-weapons-at-the-enemy-during-the-vietnam-war.htm

Quote from: J Arcane;724266... RPGs bears more resemblance to first-person shooter games than the dynamics of most actual real-world combat.

It's that pesky "versi-whatchacallit" (love that phrasing Ent).  Most RPGs in my experience are more about emulating action movies than historicals or dramas as such.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;724274Been in many gunfights have you?  I have.  Well, not many.  And nothing super major I'm afraid.  But you're way off on this.  Everyone I personally know who's been in combat doesn't try to scare the other people.  They try to take out the threat as fast as possible.  That means destroying the threat.  You keep shooting until you aren't worried that they will shoot back.



Sorry, totally debunked.

Fair enough, dude, no need for the hostility. I have the know-how that I've been taught and some of it is even from other service personnel. I would never claim to real world experience, and I learned a while ago that I hope never to have it.

I actually didn't know that the WWII thing had been fully debunked. It seemed plausible given what I've read of grunt action elsewhere in time and place alike. My apologies for citing incorrect information.

On balance, I don't even think I'd probably disagree with you on much.

Quote from: J Arcane;724266Except that leaving out the psychological element is exactly what RPGs get most wrong about a firefight.

Except CT does have rules:

Quote from: LBB 1MORALE
A party of adventurers which sustains casualties in an encounter will ultimately
break or rout if it does not achieve victory.
At the point in time when 20% of a party is unconscious or killed, the party
must begin making morale throws. For an average party, 7+ is the throw to stand,
or not break and run. Valiant parties may have a higher throw. DMs are allowed: +1
if the party is a military unit; +1 if a leader (leader skill) is present; +1 if the leader
has any tactical skill; -2 if the leader is killed (for two rounds at least, and until a
new leader takes control); -2 if casualties (unconscious and dead) exceed 50%.

Quote from: dragoner;724287Except CT does have rules:

Morale rules are definitely an important start.

Suppression is next, but I think it's something most actual gamers would balk at putting up with in play.

Which goes back to the whole 'gamers don't actually want realism' thing.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;724154Nobody wants realism. They think they do, but they don't. Keep it abstract and unrealistic.

I think that this would be better stated as, "People want an acceptable  suspension of disbelief that does not seem implausible."

Quote from: J Arcane;724286Fair enough, dude, no need for the hostility. I have the know-how that I've been taught and some of it is even from other service personnel. I would never claim to real world experience, and I learned a while ago that I hope never to have it.

I actually didn't know that the WWII thing had been fully debunked. It seemed plausible given what I've read of grunt action elsewhere in time and place alike. My apologies for citing incorrect information.

On balance, I don't even think I'd probably disagree with you on much.

Sorry, that came off as more hostile than I intended.

And FWIW, I agree with you on supression rules.  I am in favor of them, but I suspect in TTRPGs, players want to be the couragous heroes, so things like the natural human reaction to get the fuck out of the way always fall second fiddle to "I want to still attack."

Players don't like things that mess up their ability to attack

I don't know Phoenix Command, but my question is this: how does that hold up with the old WarpWorld system? As in, is it more byzantine?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;724295Sorry, that came off as more hostile than I intended.

And FWIW, I agree with you on supression rules.  I am in favor of them, but I suspect in TTRPGs, players want to be the couragous heroes, so things like the natural human reaction to get the fuck out of the way always fall second fiddle to "I want to still attack."

Players don't like things that mess up their ability to attack

Precisely.

At best, you can set up the way fire combat works in such a way that you just have to hope that the players are smart enough to keep their heads down when they need to. d20 Modern tried to do it this way, but failed because combat was so non-lethal. I have heard some good things about how the 40kRP system does things, because it's so lethal that players are more likely to stick to cover. In H&H, I just incentivised being in cover by making it work automatically sort of like overwatch did in the old Space Hulk game.

A morale-based system I think would butt heads with most players outside of maybe certain very specific historical settings and scenarios. We start getting into 'fear check' territory, and well, that is not a non-controversial method even in horror games.