This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Author Topic: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs  (Read 16715 times)

Steven Mitchell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 3770
Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
« Reply #15 on: April 26, 2021, 08:44:05 AM »
I think my approach is going the long way around to get to the same place Kyle advocates here:  The granularity should only be there to support either flavor of the setting or meaningful game play (or preferably, both).  The TL;DR version is go read Kyle's response again.

For the flavor of the setting, likely you don't have a crazy mix in any one area.  So if you've got a lot of real-world details on guns, then you want something to distill the list down into meaningful game play decisions for where the setting starts.  Yeah, I know, world-traveling mercs in modern or near future settings might be an exception.  Still, there are only so many options the characters can pack.  I don't know enough about guns to say where you'd draw the line.  In a merc type game, maybe you deliberately have 2 or 3 representative options just to play up the need for specific ammo and so the characters can argue about 9 mm versus .45 versus .38 in character.  Or the characters could be professionals that use standard equipment so that is one less thing to worry about in a firefight.

As for meaningful game play, I think you work backwards from what meaningful decisions there are in the game and then have the list reflect that.  Don't let "realism" be the tail that wags the dog.  That is, don't start with a list and then determine how to make game options.  Well, maybe as a brainstorming exercise, but be fully prepared to toss out details from the list that don't end up mattering.  Can you come up with a good game play reason to distinguish this class of guns from that class of guns?  Does it provide enough game play value to justify the added complexity?  Does it work well with the rest of the system?  If it's "Yes" down the line, that one might be worth keeping.  Otherwise, leave it out or at least collapse it into a broader category.

I went through this exercise in the last year when developing my weapon list for a early to mid medieval fantasy weapon list.  I was mostly satisfied, but there were a few edge cases that were expanding the list.  One of them was fine distinctions on throwing weapons.  Then I realized that all I was really doing was trying to make the list carry the weight of the difference between this weapon is designed to be thrown versus this weapon is balanced enough to throw well versus this weapon can be thrown in a pinch.  Which is really mostly about proficiency options, not the individual weapons on the list.     So then I revised the game system slightly, and my weapon list got considerably shorter.  (Some clunky weapons can be thrown but don't benefit from the throwing proficiency, which makes them an infrequent choice, which is the game play I wanted.)

As I said at the beginning, long way around to what Kyle said.


hedgehobbit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1287
Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
« Reply #16 on: April 26, 2021, 11:01:38 AM »
Years ago, back in the d20 days, I was working on a d20 World War 2 game and created a spreadsheet for bullet information. Taking the muzzle velocity, bullet weight to determine the kinetic energy then using the kinetic energy combined with the bullet caliber to calculate the wound cavity size (using data from the FBI). And then converting that wound information into a damage value for a d20-based game.

What surprised me the most is just how narrow the range of results actually was. That and the huge difference in power between pistol rounds and rifle round. If you are dealing in the 1920s and 30s, before the advent of the intermediate round, you could easily get away with firearms consisting of: Derringer, Pistol, and Rifle. For fun you could also add a super heavy rifle to represent elephant guns or the high powered round developed for anti-tank rifles (this includes the US .50 cal).

Vidgrip

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • V
  • Posts: 134
Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
« Reply #17 on: April 26, 2021, 11:30:37 AM »
For two games I'm prepping, one being Victorian adventure, the other being post-apoc:
Damage:
1) Light pistol: X
2) Heavy pistol: X+1
3) Carbines and SMG's that use a pistol round: X+2
3) Rifles: X+3
I see no benefit to specifying caliber, but that's just me.
Playing: John Carter of Mars, Hyperborea
Running: Swords & Wizardry Complete

Wntrlnd

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • W
  • Posts: 180
Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
« Reply #18 on: April 26, 2021, 11:32:58 AM »
Years ago, back in the d20 days, I was working on a d20 World War 2 game and created a spreadsheet for bullet information. Taking the muzzle velocity, bullet weight to determine the kinetic energy then using the kinetic energy combined with the bullet caliber to calculate the wound cavity size (using data from the FBI). And then converting that wound information into a damage value for a d20-based game.

What surprised me the most is just how narrow the range of results actually was. That and the huge difference in power between pistol rounds and rifle round. If you are dealing in the 1920s and 30s, before the advent of the intermediate round, you could easily get away with firearms consisting of: Derringer, Pistol, and Rifle. For fun you could also add a super heavy rifle to represent elephant guns or the high powered round developed for anti-tank rifles (this includes the US .50 cal).

I did something similar except I only went with the size of the bullet instead of weight. It does bring pistols and rifle ammo a bit closer with some overlap between bigger pistol rounds and weaker rifle rounds.

Of course, it made lighter and thus faster bullets make more "damage", so it wasnt the perfect solution to use to calculate different loads and type of ammunition. I solved it by giving faster bullets armor piercing abilities and hotloads do more damage.

Charon's Little Helper

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 689
Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
« Reply #19 on: April 26, 2021, 02:03:45 PM »
Unless it's a post-apocalyptic survival game, I don't want to track bullets. In the space western I'm making I just had a bit of fluff that bullets are much smaller to avoid having to even track for reloads. (I tried it in early playtesting - and it was way more trouble than it was worth IMO.) The only exception are things like rocket launchers which have the "single shot" special rule.

Here are all of the human guns I have in Space Dogs: A Swashbuckling Space Western

Hold-Out Pistol
Target Pistol
Pistol
Revolver
Machine Pistol
Assault Rifle
Chain Gun
Heavy Machine-Gun
Shotgun
Rifle
Sniper Rifle
Large Bore Rifle
AM (Anti-Mecha) Rifle
Rocket Launcher
AA (Anti-Aircraft) Missile Launcher
Grenade Launcher
Flamethrower
Underslung Launcher (attachment to rifle or assault rifle)

It seems like plenty of options to me, though without specific names/makes etc. I can't do 90s/00s style gun-porn - and if ammo was tracked I could easily triple the number of options with minor variation in how many bullets to reload and minor damage tweaks etc. But all of the above are significantly different - with different Brawn requirements (using heavier equipment without penalty is one of the advantages of a high Brawn score), different attack dice (vary by weapon in Space Dogs), and different damage dice, plus a few special abilities such as light/heavy/autofire/imprecise/etc.

GeekyBugle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7399
  • Now even more Toxic
Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
« Reply #20 on: April 26, 2021, 02:08:57 PM »
Unless it's a post-apocalyptic survival game, I don't want to track bullets. In the space western I'm making I just had a bit of fluff that bullets are much smaller to avoid having to even track for reloads. (I tried it in early playtesting - and it was way more trouble than it was worth IMO.) The only exception are things like rocket launchers which have the "single shot" special rule.

Here are all of the human guns I have in Space Dogs: A Swashbuckling Space Western

Hold-Out Pistol
Target Pistol
Pistol
Revolver
Machine Pistol
Assault Rifle
Chain Gun
Heavy Machine-Gun
Shotgun
Rifle
Sniper Rifle
Large Bore Rifle
AM (Anti-Mecha) Rifle
Rocket Launcher
AA (Anti-Aircraft) Missile Launcher
Grenade Launcher
Flamethrower
Underslung Launcher (attachment to rifle or assault rifle)

It seems like plenty of options to me, though without specific names/makes etc. I can't do 90s/00s style gun-porn - and if ammo was tracked I could easily triple the number of options with minor variation in how many bullets to reload and minor damage tweaks etc. But all of the above are significantly different - with different Brawn requirements (using heavier equipment without penalty is one of the advantages of a high Brawn score), different attack dice (vary by weapon in Space Dogs), and different damage dice, plus a few special abilities such as light/heavy/autofire/imprecise/etc.

That seems like more granularity than I might want and at the same time less granularity than I might want.

I mean "Revolver" sure, we all know what that is, but have all revolvers been standarized to use the same caliber?

Same for other firearms, but hey, thanks for reminding me of flamethrowers, I had totally forgoten about those!
Quote from: Rhedyn

Here is why this forum tends to be so stupid. Many people here think Joe Biden is "The Left", when he is actually Far Right and every US republican is just an idiot.

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”

― George Orwell

Charon's Little Helper

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 689
Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
« Reply #21 on: April 26, 2021, 02:37:34 PM »
That seems like more granularity than I might want and at the same time less granularity than I might want.

Oh sure - only put the granularity where it fits in you system - otherwise it's just useless cludge.

I mean "Revolver" sure, we all know what that is, but have all revolvers been standarized to use the same caliber?

As I said - I don't track ammo at all (fluff is that sci-fi ammo is so small you never have to reload mid-battle), so being different calibers is moot mechanically. "Revolver" could easily be renamed "heavy pistol", but I just like the flavor/style of having "revolver" for a space western (see my avatar for vibe of the game - he's the Warrior class iconic character). The difference between the pistol & revolver is that the pistol is a light weapon while the revolver does more damage and requires higher Brawn.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2021, 02:42:51 PM by Charon's Little Helper »

GeekyBugle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7399
  • Now even more Toxic
Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
« Reply #22 on: April 26, 2021, 02:48:09 PM »
That seems like more granularity than I might want and at the same time less granularity than I might want.

Oh sure - only put the granularity where it fits in you system - otherwise it's just useless cludge.

I mean "Revolver" sure, we all know what that is, but have all revolvers been standarized to use the same caliber?

As I said - I don't track ammo at all (fluff is that sci-fi ammo is so small you never have to reload mid-battle), so being different calibers is moot mechanically. "Revolver" could easily be renamed "heavy pistol", but I just like the flavor/style of having "revolver" for a space western (see my avatar for vibe of the game - he's the Warrior class iconic character). The difference between the pistol & revolver is that the pistol is a light weapon while the revolver does more damage and requires higher Brawn.

Right, now I understand why you did it like that. Sounds fair.
Quote from: Rhedyn

Here is why this forum tends to be so stupid. Many people here think Joe Biden is "The Left", when he is actually Far Right and every US republican is just an idiot.

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”

― George Orwell

Thondor

  • Superhero
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 243
    • https://www.composedreamgames.com
Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
« Reply #23 on: April 26, 2021, 03:11:03 PM »
I think it's often overlooked that a lot of shots fired in a fire fight are for suppression. -- Scare those people, keep them pinned down, don't let them maneuver where they can get a clear shot.

This is one reason why longer rounds, and not keeping track of the details (how many rounds you have, how many shots you've taken etc) can make more sense. I'd tend towards just assuming that someone will be reloading many times in a fight, at least in a game where players are expecting to be getting into gun fights.

I've played games of laser tag that track shots fired and accuracy. Having 30% is crazy high, but it is usually cause you aren't firing like mad like other players. Suppression fire must be way higher in real fire fights.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2021, 03:12:42 PM by Thondor »

Wntrlnd

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • W
  • Posts: 180
Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
« Reply #24 on: April 26, 2021, 04:33:18 PM »

I've played games of laser tag that track shots fired and accuracy. Having 30% is crazy high, but it is usually cause you aren't firing like mad like other players. Suppression fire must be way higher in real fire fights.

Never tried airsoft or paintball?

3% would be crazy high

oggsmash

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4009
Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
« Reply #25 on: April 26, 2021, 05:01:12 PM »
What the tin says, how granular would you make/like/prefer your gun tables? [...]

So how much granularity would you rather have in your games?
In Conflict I'm putting no granularity at all. The only difference between firearms - and indeed knives, etc - is whether the particular armour you're wearing offers any reduction of chance of serious wound.

Okay, there are two basic approaches. If you want to simulate each and every shot fired, then calibre etc probably matter to wound level... somewhat. Not as much as people think - I mean, I'd rather have a 7.62 in the meaty part of the thigh than a 5.56 in the eye. Where you're hit is a much bigger deal than exactly what you're hit with. I mean, assuming smallarms, obviously being hit with a rocket-propelled grenade or something is rather different. But within smallarms, and even with melee and brawling - doesn't matter much, where it hits is more important. Still, the calibre matters somewhat if you're simulating each and every shot.

But here's the thing. In an actual firefight, almost nobody fires just one shot. They keep shooting until they get enough hits that the guy falls down. In one big study of police-suspect shootings, the cops fired something like 5-6 rounds if the suspect was unarmed, and 10-14 rounds if he was armed. About 1 in 3 rounds hit when the guy was unarmed, and about 1 in 6 when he was armed. Either way it's 1-3 hits and he goes down.

This leads to the second possible approach, pioneered by D&D: relatively lengthy combat rounds where you're not rolling dice for each and every blow or shot, you're rolling dice for a hit which takes him down. You don't care about the ballistic trajectory of blah blah, you just care - what was the effect of all that noise? Whether that effect represents 1 round or 6 doesn't really matter.

Supporting this approach is the observation of every leader in combat, that if combatants have smaller calibre rounds, they fire more of them, and if they have larger magazines, they fire more, too. People just chuck stacks of lead at each-other until someone falls over.

So... granularity? None at all - all we want to know is: does it hit? and if it does hit, does the armour make any difference? Apart from that, we don't care.

  Shootings involving cops in the USA they call it the the rule of three, the average gun fight lasts 3 seconds, takes place at 3 yards, and involves 3 shots from each participant.   This could be old information, as i heard it in a class in 2014ish from a handgun close combat/use of force instructor/expert.

oggsmash

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4009
Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
« Reply #26 on: April 26, 2021, 05:04:25 PM »
GURPS has IMO a good deal of granularity for firearms and calibers of ammo.  Where you get hit matters a whole lot, but what you get hit with matters a whole lot too (a shot to the had with a .22cal may kill you outright, but is a good deal more survivable than a hit to the head with a .762mm).

Charon's Little Helper

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 689
Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
« Reply #27 on: April 26, 2021, 05:11:10 PM »
I think it's often overlooked that a lot of shots fired in a fire fight are for suppression. -- Scare those people, keep them pinned down, don't let them maneuver where they can get a clear shot.

This is one reason why longer rounds, and not keeping track of the details (how many rounds you have, how many shots you've taken etc) can make more sense. I'd tend towards just assuming that someone will be reloading many times in a fight, at least in a game where players are expecting to be getting into gun fights.

I've played games of laser tag that track shots fired and accuracy. Having 30% is crazy high, but it is usually cause you aren't firing like mad like other players. Suppression fire must be way higher in real fire fights.

A lot of that depends upon the ranges that you're talking about. Modern military firefights often take place at surprisingly long range where nobody but snipers are going to have a decent accuracy %.

If fights take place in buildings/starships/whatever - accuracy rates are going to be much better.

Kyle Aaron

  • high-minded hack
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9487
  • high-minded hack
    • The Viking Hat GM
Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
« Reply #28 on: April 26, 2021, 07:58:27 PM »
I mean "Revolver" sure, we all know what that is, but have all revolvers been standarized to use the same caliber?
Another point: in Conflict, my plan is to go ahead and use real-world weapons. But that doesn't mean they have much difference in wounding effects, range, etc. The US M-4 and Australian Austeyr are different weapons, but they both use 5.56x45mm, and the differences in performance would not be resolvable with a difference of +1 on a 2d6 throw. They might, perhaps, be resolvable with a +1 on a d100 throw.

So that's the other thing to consider. What's your dice mechanic? The differences have to be resolvable as equal or larger than +1 on whatever that range is. With this in mind, you can view the dice throw as like the level of resolution of a picture of some distant planet. We've got pretty good ones now, but a decade or two ago it was like, "shows all features 100m across or larger," that sort of thing.

Your dice are a bit like that. So if you're just using a single coin flip (d2) to resolve things, then you need a pretty big difference between firearms before it becomes worth giving this weapon a +1 and that weapon not. If you're using d1,000 then you can resolve some pretty fine differences between them.

However, with fine resolution you get more agonising over details, and that slows things down. Read about Phoenix Command, and lose 1d6 SAN.

In Conflict I've chosen to resolve things with 2d6, and four levels of smallarms and armour. Honestly, I think that's plenty. We've all played games where we have to spend hours looking up charts to see if our chance to hit can go from 43% to 45% - and then rolling 96 anyway. Lethal combat, I believe, should have a sense of urgency. Keep it simple, keep it moving.
The Viking Hat GM
Conflict, the adventure game of modern warfare
Wastrel Wednesdays, livestream with Dungeondelver

Philotomy Jurament

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1971
  • Prisoner 24601
Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
« Reply #29 on: April 26, 2021, 09:09:42 PM »
I'm in the "depends on the game" camp. For some games (e.g., Call of Cthulhu), I want a more abstract approach. For other games (e.g., The Morrow Project), I kinda like a more detailed approach.
The problem is not that power corrupts, but that the corruptible are irresistibly drawn to the pursuit of power. Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito.