TheRPGSite

Pen & Paper Roleplaying Central => Pen and Paper Roleplaying Games (RPGs) Discussion => Topic started by: GeekyBugle on April 25, 2021, 11:27:35 PM

Title: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 25, 2021, 11:27:35 PM
What the tin says, how granular would you make/like/prefer your gun tables?

Lets talk about ammo for instance (only the more common calibers tho)

Handguns:
.22
.22 long/rifle
.22 Magnum
.32
.32 Magnum? does it exist?
.38 short
.38
.38 super
9mm
.45
.45 Magnum

Shotguns:
.410
28
20
16
12
10

Rifles.... You get it.

So how much granularity would you rather have in your games?
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Jamfke on April 25, 2021, 11:54:37 PM
In my western game I had considered listing the various calibers available at the time for revolvers and rifles, but I didn't want to fill up my pages with list upon list just for a couple of groups of weapons. I chose instead to simply group the weapons as Small and Large caliber. I gave a range of .22 to .36 caliber as Small and .38 and up as Large for revolver rounds. Rifles, I didn't really differentiate because I only listed a Repeater, and most of them during the time period were large caliber. You could get .22s and such back then, but for the game I figured folks wouldn't be looking for a rifle unless it made a big bang. For shotguns I just listed some different types of damage and effects you can do with various shells; bird shot, rock salt, slugs. The main damage listing in the equipment section was for buck shot, and I listed the variances in the weapon description.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 26, 2021, 12:13:46 AM
In my western game I had considered listing the various calibers available at the time for revolvers and rifles, but I didn't want to fill up my pages with list upon list just for a couple of groups of weapons. I chose instead to simply group the weapons as Small and Large caliber. I gave a range of .22 to .36 caliber as Small and .38 and up as Large for revolver rounds. Rifles, I didn't really differentiate because I only listed a Repeater, and most of them during the time period were large caliber. You could get .22s and such back then, but for the game I figured folks wouldn't be looking for a rifle unless it made a big bang. For shotguns I just listed some different types of damage and effects you can do with various shells; bird shot, rock salt, slugs. The main damage listing in the equipment section was for buck shot, and I listed the variances in the weapon description.

That's the thing isn't it? How much can you put without being clutter that no one will use.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: HappyDaze on April 26, 2021, 12:20:59 AM
At most, I would accept category ammo. For example, heavy pistol ammo, light pistol ammo, light rifle ammo, heavy rifle ammo, shotgun ammo. A few weapons might have specialized or unique ammo, but most could easily fit into one of those categories.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Pat on April 26, 2021, 12:24:53 AM
Is there clearly one better option? At that point, any granularity you add will be moot because everyone will pick the best option. From a game standpoint, it's less about granularity and more about the range of effective/optimal options.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Kyle Aaron on April 26, 2021, 12:28:57 AM
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 (https://www.thevikinghatgm.com/search/label/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.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 26, 2021, 12:40:40 AM
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 (https://www.thevikinghatgm.com/search/label/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.

Thanks for your input, yes, where you're hit matters A LOT, but in some cases also with what you're hit, even with handguns, it's not the same getting a .38 in the shoulder as getting a .44 Magnum in the shoulder.

And even with "armor", even if the bullet doesn't penetrate, it will hurt a lot more a bigger caliber than a small one.

Yes, we care if we killed the other guy, but we also need to be able to immerse in the game, IMHO some ammount of, lets call it "realism" helps with the immersion by allowing the suspension of disbelief to kick in.

At least that's my take, but IF I interpret you correctly you would be happy with Small, Medium and Large as the distinction between handguns.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Kyle Aaron on April 26, 2021, 12:58:51 AM
I've got distinctions simply based on how likely they are to penetrate armour. In the link, see the Wounding article. Basically: weapons are rated +1 to +4, and armour +0 (clothing) to +3 (modern gear with plates etc). Technically EOD gear would be AC+4 but nobody's fighting in that.

Category 1 = very light rifles, light pistols, and all melee weapons including fist, etc.
Category 2 = heavy pistols, submachineguns and shotguns
Category 3 = rifles and machineguns
Category 4 = rifles with armour-piercing ammunition, or anti-material fire.

If the weapon class > armour class, then the victim is treated as unarmoured, throw for wounding effect in that column. If weapon class <= armour class, the victim is treated as armoured, throw for wounding effect in the frag or bullet/knife column.

Wounds are of three types, basically triage categories of how soon they have to be treated: immediate, delayed or minor. Immediate may kill you, delayed usually incapacitates you, minor you can fight on with a malus. Any of them gets worse eventually if untreated.

If you're unarmoured and you're hit you always get one of the three, if you're armoured then the worst results are less likely and you may suffer no effect at all.

If you're hit, though, you always lose an action, even if it has no wounding effect.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: moonsweeper on April 26, 2021, 02:29:58 AM
I've got distinctions simply based on how likely they are to penetrate armour. In the link, see the Wounding article. Basically: weapons are rated +1 to +4, and armour +0 (clothing) to +3 (modern gear with plates etc). Technically EOD gear would be AC+4 but nobody's fighting in that.

Category 1 = very light rifles, light pistols, and all melee weapons including fist, etc.
Category 2 = heavy pistols, submachineguns and shotguns
Category 3 = rifles and machineguns
Category 4 = rifles with armour-piercing ammunition, or anti-material fire.

If the weapon class > armour class, then the victim is treated as unarmoured, throw for wounding effect in that column. If weapon class <= armour class, the victim is treated as armoured, throw for wounding effect in the frag or bullet/knife column.

Wounds are of three types, basically triage categories of how soon they have to be treated: immediate, delayed or minor. Immediate may kill you, delayed usually incapacitates you, minor you can fight on with a malus. Any of them gets worse eventually if untreated.

If you're unarmoured and you're hit you always get one of the three, if you're armoured then the worst results are less likely and you may suffer no effect at all.

If you're hit, though, you always lose an action, even if it has no wounding effect.

I prefer more granularity in any sort of military/spy oriented game, but for rules-lite OSR type stuff this is excellent.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Wntrlnd on April 26, 2021, 03:59:46 AM
Looking at my own game, a 9mm is the "standard" with a damage value of 6, but lighter guns can go down to as low as 2, which is moderately better than punching someone, I guess.
.45s and magnums would go up to around 9 with only truly heavy pistols breaking into the double digits.

Double digits like the low 10s are for rifles and high tens for elephant guns. Once the gun hits the 20s, its more like a anti-material/monster rifle at that point.

Not gonna go into detail on what the numbers mean or how they are calculated but:
Pistol= you can take a few shots before dying even if unarmored.
Rifle= you can die from one shot if you're unlucky. Light armor ups the odds of only getting seriously injured
Elephant rifle =better hope you maxed out your armor
Anti-material= you maxing out your armor is the reason they brought this...
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Ratman_tf on April 26, 2021, 04:01:35 AM
I will say, I kinda like how Palladium does damage tied to caliber, and not directly to the weapon.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Wntrlnd on April 26, 2021, 04:19:22 AM
And then we have games that either goes:
"If you buy a box of ammunition for This gun it can only be used in This gun and not That gun, despite them being very similar in range and damage. And just forget about that Other gun that have the exact same stats"
(How hard is it to say that This gun is a .38. That gun is 9mm and the Other gun is .40 anyway?)

On the Other side we have games where "All Light pistols use the light ammo and all medium pistols use medium pistol ammo"
Government mandated standardization, I guess.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Mishihari on April 26, 2021, 05:59:23 AM
Long lists of firearms with authentic names and fiddly stats make my eyes glaze over, but I do like a variety with meaningful differences.  Depends on genre, but I'd probably go with a list like this, and yes I do realize some of these are based off different ammunition rather than the weapon itself:

Sidearms - light (.22), medium(9mm), heavy(desert eagle)
Rifle - light(.22), heavy (elephant gun)
Shotgun - sawed-off, bird gun, heavy pellets, slug
SMG - light (Uzi), heavy (grease gun)
Sniper - light (antipersonnel), heavy (anti-LAV)
Assault weapon - carbine, rifle
Machine gun - medium (bipod), heavy (crew-served)

Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Ghostmaker on April 26, 2021, 07:50:10 AM
It depends on the game. Something lighthearted or less than serious, like Feng Shui? Probably not a big deal.

Twilight 2000 though... yeah, you're gonna wanna track every bullet you have.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Kyle Aaron on April 26, 2021, 07:58:56 AM
I have to say, in 37 years of gaming, running out of ammo - bullets, arrows - has never really been a thing for me. I suppose it may have come up, but I don't recall. By the time we've fired 12 arrows the combat is over - the enemy are all dead or surrendered, or we are. And then we bugger off and resupply.

Perhaps I've just not had enough grand epic battles.

Magic, yeah, we've run out of that. But not mundane ammo.

Quote from: moonsweeper
I prefer more granularity in any sort of military/spy oriented game, but for rules-lite OSR type stuff this is excellent.
This is a military/spy-oriented game. I just don't believe it's that significant. And I've had a lot of discussions about these rules with an emergency physician and a couple of paramedics, and a number of military guys I know - and none of them think it's that significant, either.

It's kind of like distinguishing between all the different kinds of small city car. If you're repairing them then the differences are important, that Toyota radiator won't fit in the Honda. If you're driving them around town they're not just not different enough to justify having different numbers.

That study of the cops and how many shots they fired - it just didn't mention calibre. If you're not wearing body armour it doesn't matter, really. Or rather, over like 10,000 people being hit there'll be clear statistical trends, sure. But the variation between calibres etc are going to be more than swamped by the variation of hit placement and victim build etc - as expressed in-game by the random variation of the dice.

Years ago I used to be witness to fervent online arguments about .45 vs 9mm. It made me want to shoot them with one of each. Just to compare.

It's like those splatbooks nobody uses. Pure fanservice.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Steven Mitchell 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.

Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: hedgehobbit 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).
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Vidgrip 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.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Wntrlnd 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.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Charon's Little Helper 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.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: GeekyBugle 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!
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Charon's Little Helper 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.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: GeekyBugle 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.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Thondor 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.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Wntrlnd 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
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: oggsmash 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 (https://www.thevikinghatgm.com/search/label/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.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: oggsmash 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).
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Charon's Little Helper 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.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Kyle Aaron 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 (https://writeups.letsyouandhimfight.com/latwpiat/phoenix-command-small-arms-combat-system/), 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.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Philotomy Jurament 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.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 26, 2021, 09:27:14 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.

For a Pulp game?
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Kyle Aaron on April 26, 2021, 11:20:51 PM
My adult daughter's a paramedic and bit of a gamer, I just ran her through a Conflict scenario and we were discussing this thread.

She recently had a job where a guy had been assaulted with a crowbar. Both hands broken (defensive wounds), and the skull cracked, swollen - the intensive care paramedic couldn't intubate him, they had to take him to a hospital for an anaesthetist to do it. A crowbar.

She is the firm opinion that calibre doesn't mean shit. "You take one in the head and you're gone," she said.
"How about trunk?"
"Fifty-fifty. Half the time you're gone, the other half the time you're back after 18 months or so."
"Leg?"
"Your dancing days are over. Better hope you keep your balls."

Sorry, paramedics are brutal like that.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 26, 2021, 11:30:35 PM
My adult daughter's a paramedic and bit of a gamer, I just ran her through a Conflict scenario and we were discussing this thread.

She recently had a job where a guy had been assaulted with a crowbar. Both hands broken (defensive wounds), and the skull cracked, swollen - the intensive care paramedic couldn't intubate him, they had to take him to a hospital for an anaesthetist to do it. A crowbar.

She is the firm opinion that calibre doesn't mean shit. "You take one in the head and you're gone," she said.
"How about trunk?"
"Fifty-fifty. Half the time you're gone, the other half the time you're back after 18 months or so."
"Leg?"
"Your dancing days are over. Better hope you keep your balls."

Sorry, paramedics are brutal like that.

Yep, that's correct when you're talking only about ppl. Not the same thing when it involves vehicles made of real steel.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Kyle Aaron on April 27, 2021, 12:23:44 AM
Yes, that's vehicle combat. Another kettle of fish.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 27, 2021, 12:41:01 AM
Yes, that's vehicle combat. Another kettle of fish.

More like a can of worms, but hey, I already opened it, no turning back.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Kyle Aaron on April 27, 2021, 12:48:11 AM
In most roleplaying games - as opposed to pure tactical games - vehicle combat is irrelevant. That's because in personal combat we may have 1-2 PCs die, but in vehicle combat the whole damn party dies. When 1-2 PCs die, the players roll up another and the party moves on. When the whole party dies, the campaign ends - and maybe the game group, too.

The vehicle combat of most games forms a MARP - much-admired (or argued), rarely-played.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 27, 2021, 01:20:31 AM
In most roleplaying games - as opposed to pure tactical games - vehicle combat is irrelevant. That's because in personal combat we may have 1-2 PCs die, but in vehicle combat the whole damn party dies. When 1-2 PCs die, the players roll up another and the party moves on. When the whole party dies, the campaign ends - and maybe the game group, too.

The vehicle combat of most games forms a MARP - much-admired (or argued), rarely-played.

I agree, but I will still put the rules there, it's up to the GM to use them or not.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Kyle Aaron on April 27, 2021, 01:27:42 AM
One thing I'd encourage is "training scenarios." I'm putting this as referee advice in my game. Have the party run through training scenarios - just assume laser tag systems or whatever. They then get the feel of how the system works.

I just had my daughter run through one - a pair of PCs going into a building to take out a baddie. The baddie blew them both away. Now she can reconsider her tactics for the next training scenario. And once a few of those are done, into the "reality" - where the PCs can now die.

Do that for vehicle combat and the party will avoid vehicle combat :)
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 27, 2021, 01:33:32 AM
One thing I'd encourage is "training scenarios." I'm putting this as referee advice in my game. Have the party run through training scenarios - just assume laser tag systems or whatever. They then get the feel of how the system works.

I just had my daughter run through one - a pair of PCs going into a building to take out a baddie. The baddie blew them both away. Now she can reconsider her tactics for the next training scenario. And once a few of those are done, into the "reality" - where the PCs can now die.

Do that for vehicle combat and the party will avoid vehicle combat :)

LOL, that's actually not bad advice when dealing with new players or new systems.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Kyle Aaron on April 27, 2021, 03:06:12 AM
It's especially useful in settings where there are no cure light wounds or raise dead spells.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: oggsmash on April 27, 2021, 06:03:12 AM
My adult daughter's a paramedic and bit of a gamer, I just ran her through a Conflict scenario and we were discussing this thread.

She recently had a job where a guy had been assaulted with a crowbar. Both hands broken (defensive wounds), and the skull cracked, swollen - the intensive care paramedic couldn't intubate him, they had to take him to a hospital for an anaesthetist to do it. A crowbar.

She is the firm opinion that calibre doesn't mean shit. "You take one in the head and you're gone," she said.
"How about trunk?"
"Fifty-fifty. Half the time you're gone, the other half the time you're back after 18 months or so."
"Leg?"
"Your dancing days are over. Better hope you keep your balls."

Sorry, paramedics are brutal like that.

 Out of curiosity, how many gunshots does she see a year in your part of the woods?  I think her odds are a bit too skewed to death given I know a person who survived a point blank shot to the head,  a person who was back at work at a near point blank shot to the chest after 6 months, and several who function normally after shots to the leg.   Of course my perception could be skewed as the number of gunshot survivors in the USA from both civilian and military situations is likely astronomically higher than Australia.  Headshots do tend towards high fatality or vegetable status, but a surprising number of people do live.   People survive alot of shootings, but for certain there is a world of difference in surviving a shot to the head with a .22 and a 12 gauge slug.   Whether you want to represent this in a game or not is another matter.

   EDITED TO ADD:  I will also say sometimes people die from almost innocuous things like falling and bumping their head in their houses.   So I was not so much posting this to make an argument as much as real life can be a whole lot less predictable than we might want it to be.  I can also agree 100 percent with regard to combat effectiveness (which matters more in game maybe than actual survival) and probability of survival with no medical treatment gunshots are going to be combat enders.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Steven Mitchell on April 27, 2021, 08:57:03 AM
Out of curiosity, how many gunshots does she see a year in your part of the woods?  I think her odds are a bit too skewed to death given I know a person who survived a point blank shot to the head,  a person who was back at work at a near point blank shot to the chest after 6 months, and several who function normally after shots to the leg.   Of course my perception could be skewed as the number of gunshot survivors in the USA from both civilian and military situations is likely astronomically higher than Australia.  Headshots do tend towards high fatality or vegetable status, but a surprising number of people do live.   People survive alot of shootings, but for certain there is a world of difference in surviving a shot to the head with a .22 and a 12 gauge slug.   Whether you want to represent this in a game or not is another matter.

   EDITED TO ADD:  I will also say sometimes people die from almost innocuous things like falling and bumping their head in their houses.   So I was not so much posting this to make an argument as much as real life can be a whole lot less predictable than we might want it to be.  I can also agree 100 percent with regard to combat effectiveness (which matters more in game maybe than actual survival) and probability of survival with no medical treatment gunshots are going to be combat enders.

I think part of the issue in most games is how the damage ranges are made, as compared to what that amount of damage means.  Of course, the granularity of the damage compared to the target's ability to deflect/absorb it matter, but I mean specifically the range of the damage dice compared to expected outcomes.  To use a crude example, a crowbar wielded by a 30-year old slender geek is dangerous, but not nearly as scary as one by a 30-year old, 240 pounds of raging muscle.  Even if they are both proficient.  There's all kinds of scenarios where it doesn't matter (e.g. equally dead or get away), but others where it is the difference between minor bruises and death.  The same two people start shooting a .22 at you, proficiency is everything and after that survival chances get down to number of shots and where you get hit (i.e. how high the damage roll is).

This is one thing where I think the skeleton of early D&D is more correct than most later games.  Specifically, melee gets that bonus to damage from Strength but missiles get no bonus.  If you wanted to make that just a little more deadly and edge towards realism, I'd suggest a flat damage bonus to melee weapons and increase the range on missiles.  Maybe a dagger does 1d4+2 and a short bow goes from 1d6 to 1d8.  Even with the flat 1d6 damage option, use 1d6+2 melee and 1d8 or 1d10 for missile. 

Don't know what the gun values would be, but suggest that the system concerned about things enough to want to model them should have typical low-end damage values be higher than 1, leaving you with room to drop closer to 1 for the "lighter" weapons, whatever those are.  You might even have everyone ignore the first 2 or 3 damage points routinely.   A .22 might be modeled by using a range like 1d8 or 1d10 (assuming not using hit locations.  Someone might shoot you with a .22 and the hit would be so minor that it wasn't worth recording.  Or it might kill you. 

Of course, in a war game model, all that gets abstracted out into the chances to hit.  So it might be overly fiddly. 
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: oggsmash on April 27, 2021, 09:23:44 AM
Out of curiosity, how many gunshots does she see a year in your part of the woods?  I think her odds are a bit too skewed to death given I know a person who survived a point blank shot to the head,  a person who was back at work at a near point blank shot to the chest after 6 months, and several who function normally after shots to the leg.   Of course my perception could be skewed as the number of gunshot survivors in the USA from both civilian and military situations is likely astronomically higher than Australia.  Headshots do tend towards high fatality or vegetable status, but a surprising number of people do live.   People survive alot of shootings, but for certain there is a world of difference in surviving a shot to the head with a .22 and a 12 gauge slug.   Whether you want to represent this in a game or not is another matter.

   EDITED TO ADD:  I will also say sometimes people die from almost innocuous things like falling and bumping their head in their houses.   So I was not so much posting this to make an argument as much as real life can be a whole lot less predictable than we might want it to be.  I can also agree 100 percent with regard to combat effectiveness (which matters more in game maybe than actual survival) and probability of survival with no medical treatment gunshots are going to be combat enders.

I think part of the issue in most games is how the damage ranges are made, as compared to what that amount of damage means.  Of course, the granularity of the damage compared to the target's ability to deflect/absorb it matter, but I mean specifically the range of the damage dice compared to expected outcomes.  To use a crude example, a crowbar wielded by a 30-year old slender geek is dangerous, but not nearly as scary as one by a 30-year old, 240 pounds of raging muscle.  Even if they are both proficient.  There's all kinds of scenarios where it doesn't matter (e.g. equally dead or get away), but others where it is the difference between minor bruises and death.  The same two people start shooting a .22 at you, proficiency is everything and after that survival chances get down to number of shots and where you get hit (i.e. how high the damage roll is).

This is one thing where I think the skeleton of early D&D is more correct than most later games.  Specifically, melee gets that bonus to damage from Strength but missiles get no bonus.  If you wanted to make that just a little more deadly and edge towards realism, I'd suggest a flat damage bonus to melee weapons and increase the range on missiles.  Maybe a dagger does 1d4+2 and a short bow goes from 1d6 to 1d8.  Even with the flat 1d6 damage option, use 1d6+2 melee and 1d8 or 1d10 for missile. 

Don't know what the gun values would be, but suggest that the system concerned about things enough to want to model them should have typical low-end damage values be higher than 1, leaving you with room to drop closer to 1 for the "lighter" weapons, whatever those are.  You might even have everyone ignore the first 2 or 3 damage points routinely.   A .22 might be modeled by using a range like 1d8 or 1d10 (assuming not using hit locations.  Someone might shoot you with a .22 and the hit would be so minor that it wasn't worth recording.  Or it might kill you. 

Of course, in a war game model, all that gets abstracted out into the chances to hit.  So it might be overly fiddly.

  This is why I like GURPS alot, that crowbar is INFINITELY more deadly in the hulking brutes hands, and the .22 getting shot in the oblique is a flesh wound but shot in the head or heart is instantly life threatening.  GURPS I always thought did a decent job of offering people get dropped a good deal more easily than they get killed outright.  I think D&D type games do a pretty poor job of modeling the serious nature of combat with regard to threat of injury or death once characters get to around 3rd level.  But i do not think it was ever the intent of D&D or D20 to make a game terribly realistic with regard to combat and more akin to comic book type combat, which I am fine with.   Sometimes I am in the mood for whether a bullet or one sword stroke can kill me, and I play GURPS.  When i want more abstract I play D&D.  I did think the 3e Conan game represented a chance of a mighty blow killing even a high level character in one shot pretty well, but that can be powergamed to death by a smart player, but I think a decent GM can curb that.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 27, 2021, 10:54:02 AM
My adult daughter's a paramedic and bit of a gamer, I just ran her through a Conflict scenario and we were discussing this thread.

She recently had a job where a guy had been assaulted with a crowbar. Both hands broken (defensive wounds), and the skull cracked, swollen - the intensive care paramedic couldn't intubate him, they had to take him to a hospital for an anaesthetist to do it. A crowbar.

She is the firm opinion that calibre doesn't mean shit. "You take one in the head and you're gone," she said.
"How about trunk?"
"Fifty-fifty. Half the time you're gone, the other half the time you're back after 18 months or so."
"Leg?"
"Your dancing days are over. Better hope you keep your balls."

Sorry, paramedics are brutal like that.

 Out of curiosity, how many gunshots does she see a year in your part of the woods?  I think her odds are a bit too skewed to death given I know a person who survived a point blank shot to the head,  a person who was back at work at a near point blank shot to the chest after 6 months, and several who function normally after shots to the leg.   Of course my perception could be skewed as the number of gunshot survivors in the USA from both civilian and military situations is likely astronomically higher than Australia.  Headshots do tend towards high fatality or vegetable status, but a surprising number of people do live.   People survive alot of shootings, but for certain there is a world of difference in surviving a shot to the head with a .22 and a 12 gauge slug.   Whether you want to represent this in a game or not is another matter.

   EDITED TO ADD:  I will also say sometimes people die from almost innocuous things like falling and bumping their head in their houses.   So I was not so much posting this to make an argument as much as real life can be a whole lot less predictable than we might want it to be.  I can also agree 100 percent with regard to combat effectiveness (which matters more in game maybe than actual survival) and probability of survival with no medical treatment gunshots are going to be combat enders.

Well, in my Saturday's game once an enemy caster ran for her life, jumped a fence, triped with it, fell on her head and died.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Mishihari on April 27, 2021, 03:49:02 PM
My adult daughter's a paramedic and bit of a gamer, I just ran her through a Conflict scenario and we were discussing this thread.

She recently had a job where a guy had been assaulted with a crowbar. Both hands broken (defensive wounds), and the skull cracked, swollen - the intensive care paramedic couldn't intubate him, they had to take him to a hospital for an anaesthetist to do it. A crowbar.

She is the firm opinion that calibre doesn't mean shit. "You take one in the head and you're gone," she said.
"How about trunk?"
"Fifty-fifty. Half the time you're gone, the other half the time you're back after 18 months or so."
"Leg?"
"Your dancing days are over. Better hope you keep your balls."

Sorry, paramedics are brutal like that.

Something seems wrong with that argument.  Let's try a parallel one:  "It doesn't matter if it's a dagger or a claymore, a blade through your heart will make you dead."  Certainly true, but it doesn't capture the whole situation.

It kind of gets back to the reason for using hit points / whatever.  Realistically, a lethal/disabling wound is the end of the fight, and possibly then end of the adventure for that character.  Prolly the most realistic way to handle that would be that each attack has a certain chance of disabling/killing the character, a certain chance of impairing their function, and a certain chance of missing or not having appreciable effect.  But most players don't think that losing your character out of the blue is fun, and many don't think that modeling impaired capability is fun either - any time it's brought up there's all kinds of whining about "death spirals."  So we mostly use hp/whatever as ablative plot armor - characters keep fighting unimpaired until they've taken enough ineffective near-misses that the player isn't shocked when they're killed, or in other words, their death is dramatically appropriate.

And for some reason, folks seem to find it easier to take the hit point approach with archaic weapons than firearms.  I've heard "Oh, but if a bullet hits you in the face you're dead."  Guess what?  Take a lance or longsword through the face and you're just as dead.

So if you're going for a hit point rather than a realistic approach, it makes sense to ask if caliber makes a difference according to how you're thinking about it.  Will being non-lethally hit by a large caliber weapon bring you closer to death in the mind of a typical player than a small caliber?  Sure, unless they're a paramedic.  So having large caliber weapons do more damage totally makes sense if you're using hit point.

It also makes sense if you're having wounds impair capability.  With a .22 in the leg, you may still be able to limp along.  With a .45 magnum, not so much.  Hydrostatic shock gets into this too.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: moonsweeper on April 27, 2021, 04:36:39 PM
My adult daughter's a paramedic and bit of a gamer, I just ran her through a Conflict scenario and we were discussing this thread.

She recently had a job where a guy had been assaulted with a crowbar. Both hands broken (defensive wounds), and the skull cracked, swollen - the intensive care paramedic couldn't intubate him, they had to take him to a hospital for an anaesthetist to do it. A crowbar.

She is the firm opinion that calibre doesn't mean shit. "You take one in the head and you're gone," she said.
"How about trunk?"
"Fifty-fifty. Half the time you're gone, the other half the time you're back after 18 months or so."
"Leg?"
"Your dancing days are over. Better hope you keep your balls."

Sorry, paramedics are brutal like that.

Something seems wrong with that argument.  Let's try a parallel one:  "It doesn't matter if it's a dagger or a claymore, a blade through your heart will make you dead."  Certainly true, but it doesn't capture the whole situation.

Most of the arguments about firearms amongst actual shooters is based on the concept of ending the combat.  The final lethality or permanent damage is irrelevant to most actual firefights.  Unless you get the nervous system, adrenaline can keep pain/shock from stopping a firefight.  Sure the guy who just took a round to his shoulder may may immediately lose use of that arm but still be functional enough to shoot back.  In a firefight your objective is to end the shooting as quickly as possible.  Final bleed out 5 minutes later or permanent crippling of the bad guy won't stop him from killing you.  This is why there are arguments about what to use, etc.  If guns were that equal everybody would carry .22s because of accuracy, shootability, concealability, ammo capacity, and suppressability...but nobody recommends that as a standard sidearm or rifle to use for defensive purposes, do they?

Shot placement is king, but adrenaline fucks with accuracy which means a larger bullet has a better chance to hit the vital area you are aiming at.  This is why they train you to shoot center-of-mass.  For gaming purposes, model for whatever level of 'realism' you want, but any combat beyond a basic OSR approach pretty much needs penetration effects and hit location to be worth the effort of going beyond the system Kyle uses.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Kyle Aaron on April 27, 2021, 09:01:29 PM
Out of curiosity, how many gunshots does she see a year in your part of the woods?
Not many! I've seen a few myself, though.

Quote
I think her odds are a bit too skewed to death given I know a person who survived a point blank shot to the head,  a person who was back at work at a near point blank shot to the chest after 6 months, and several who function normally after shots to the leg.
I think you will find they have ongoing problems. In Conflict what I've done is say that if you survive what could have been a lethal wound, you lose a point of health (rated 0 sickly to +3 athletic).

In the game, if someone receives a possibly lethal wound - called "Immediate" because you need attention within minutes or you die - and is treated, they need 12+ on 2d6 to survive.

First aid skill gives +1. Physician +3. Let's say it's a cardiac arrest and you're doing CPR. A mask is basic equipment and gives +1. An AED gives +2. Full trauma ward gives +3. So the odds of survival become,

no training & no gear   3%
1st aid OR mask   8%
1st aid & mask, OR AED   17%
1st aid & AED   28%
Physician & no gear   28%
Physician & mask   42%
Physician & AED   58%
Physician & ER   72%

I've run those figures by a former ED doc and he says that looks about right - for one day survival. Longer-term is another matter.

And of course as I said, you lose a point of Health. That means even the super-athletic guy with Health+3 has 4 heart attacks and he's certainly dead. If you were sickly (Health 0) to begin with, you're put on palliative care and your family get to say goodbye.

Now, obviously not all possibly-lethal injuries, poisonings etc are the same as a cardiac arrest. But it's a reasonable approximation for a game.

Quote
Headshots do tend towards high fatality or vegetable status, but a surprising number of people do live.   People survive alot of shootings, but for certain there is a world of difference in surviving a shot to the head with a .22 and a 12 gauge slug.   Whether you want to represent this in a game or not is another matter.
Yes, people do survive. Most aren't in good shape later, though. I'm not sure any game needs to simulate, "He survived, and had to spend 18 months in physiotherapy learning to walk again, but he wears a diaper, walks with a cane and can't type or write anymore." For game purposes, that guy's dead.

As for the calibres, as I said exactly where the shot goes makes a big difference - bigger than the calibre. That's why we have random dice rolls.

Quote
I will also say sometimes people die from almost innocuous things like falling and bumping their head in their houses. 
Yes, I have falling damage rules!

Haha just as I am writing this I'm discussing it with my daughter and she got an email... the guy clobbered with the crowbar has, somehow, survived - they're extubating him today. She can't believe it and is very happy. There will presumably be some serious long-term effects, and maybe the guy should learn not to while drunk visit a caravan park to (we think) score drugs from a known violent guy.

He's alive, but he's out of combat, and nobody wants to roleplay his next 12 months. In a game we'd just call him KIA :)
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Mishihari on April 28, 2021, 02:41:28 AM
Hit location is being discussed, but I've always thought it's an unnecessary extra step unless you're allowing players to aim for specific locations.  It's far easier to just say that it was a head or heart shot if there's enough damage to kill, a lung shot if they'll die in a short time, etc etc down to "just a scratch" for a single point of damage. Same result, less work.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: S'mon on April 28, 2021, 03:08:03 AM
I thought the gun porn in Cyperpunk 2020 did a good job emulating the consumerist mentality; and Twilight: 2000 as a Survivalist game also benefitted from having detailed and granular gun rules - T:2000 2e is probably my favourite ruleset for firearms, I love the autofire and recoil rules; they remind me of army training (the only time most of us Brits get to shoot guns). :)

If the genre is say James Bond/Spy, you want a different approach from T:2000 - you want Bond's Walther PPK to be viable against goons armed with AK74s, say. Taking a realistic approach wouldn't work; Bond would soon be toting an assault rifle.

Likewise deadliness and lingering injuries needs to suit the genre. A zombie apocalypse game IMO ought to have deadly guns and lingering injuries; same for other survival genres. But maybe your zombie apocalypse is more a Doom-style shooter, in which case you want 'bigger is better' guns and minimal realism.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Kyle Aaron on April 28, 2021, 03:21:46 AM
Hit location is being discussed, but I've always thought it's an unnecessary extra step unless you're allowing players to aim for specific locations. 
I'm using hit location for all named characters and NPCs, and just the three wound conditions for the nameless masses :)
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: HappyDaze on April 28, 2021, 03:49:44 AM
I thought the gun porn in Cyperpunk 2020 did a good job emulating the consumerist mentality
While I normally prefer just having a few categories of guns, I did like CP 2020 and was really surprised that CP Red dropped so much of its gun porn.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Ghostmaker on April 28, 2021, 10:03:50 AM
Kyle, does Conflict have a luck mechanic to avoid fatal injury? Because wow, this looks pretty damned lethal.

I don't wanna harsh your mellow here cause I think you've done your homework. But hoo boy, it seems like characters would die off fast in a firefight if the dice don't go their way.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 28, 2021, 11:13:35 AM
I thought the gun porn in Cyperpunk 2020 did a good job emulating the consumerist mentality
While I normally prefer just having a few categories of guns, I did like CP 2020 and was really surprised that CP Red dropped so much of its gun porn.

How about a few categories of guns and a huge list on the back to allow for the Players/GM to use to add flavor?

Instead of "I take my heavy revolver and shoot at X" you can say "I take my .357 Magnum and shoot at X". Mechanically they are the same, you don't HAVE TO peruse a huge list of different items to find the one you want to buy.

BUT, you CAN peruse a huge list (IF YOU WANT TO) to add to your flavor/RP.

Of course this necesitates making all the guns that fall into category X mechanically the same, but hey we already do that with longbows, and there were a few different ones and they had different reach, draw power, impact power, etc.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Wntrlnd on April 28, 2021, 06:12:05 PM
Not only for flavour, but for a pulp detective game, calibers can be used as clues.

So the pulp hero kills a gunman before they can strike, but they're dead and so can't answer questions on who sent them.
The pulp detective examines the gun:
a .38 special or .45 acp -likely an american
a .455 webley revolver- british
a 7.62 nagant -russian
a 8mm lebel -french
a 9mm -most european

a .357mag -wait? arent those FBI issued?
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 28, 2021, 06:16:44 PM
Not only for flavour, but for a pulp detective game, calibers can be used as clues.

So the pulp hero kills a gunman before they can strike, but they're dead and so can't answer questions on who sent them.
The pulp detective examines the gun:
a .38 special or .45 acp -likely an american
a .455 webley revolver- british
a 7.62 nagant -russian
a 8mm lebel -french
a 9mm -most european

a .357mag -wait? arent those FBI issued?

Correct, and yet some of those would be the same mechanically. So it's not gun porn (or not only), it's also flavor and any other thing that can be useful for the campaign.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Kyle Aaron on April 28, 2021, 08:40:51 PM
Kyle, does Conflict have a luck mechanic to avoid fatal injury?
Yes, it's called the dice.

Quote
I don't wanna harsh your mellow here cause I think you've done your homework. But hoo boy, it seems like characters would die off fast in a firefight if the dice don't go their way.
That's why they plan.

In the book it's explained: there are only three kinds of fights.

So you want the first one. Get intel, scout, plan, work as a team. Rambo will die.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: oggsmash on April 29, 2021, 07:04:50 AM
Kyle, does Conflict have a luck mechanic to avoid fatal injury? Because wow, this looks pretty damned lethal.

I don't wanna harsh your mellow here cause I think you've done your homework. But hoo boy, it seems like characters would die off fast in a firefight if the dice don't go their way.

  It seems to set a tone of two tv shows I enjoyed a few years back.   Deadwood and Rome.  In both shows there are protagonists that are extremely capable in situations of violence.  However they also know that a violent situation is often lethal or crippling, so the tension of the chance at impending violence is palpable.   Every character thinks fairly long and hard before they engage in violence, and when they decide violence is going to happen, it becomes serious.   I think that tone makes combat much more meaningful in a sense, and as Kyle said, it makes all those who are looking at a possible violent outcome really consider negotiation or surrender before engaging in it if they cannot have some advantage.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Kyle Aaron on April 29, 2021, 07:52:45 AM
oggsmash has the right of it. I would add that the referee of a realistic-themed modern combat game should, just like the referee of any game, not be a stupid arsehole. Any referee can just have someone put a .50 cal in the head of some player-character from 1,000 yards, just as any DM can have an invisible magic-user fireball the party.

But that would be stupid and boring. The intelligent referee will offer players something which challenges them - scenarios which with a lot of scouting, gathering information, planning and scheming, and making use of the particular abilities their characters happen to have, have a fair chance of success.

That plus character generation should be quick.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Kyle Aaron on May 04, 2021, 11:20:44 PM
Some statistics might be of interest here.

Even cops mostly miss (http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/public_information/RAND_FirearmEvaluation.pdf) [pdf link, lengthy, below is from pp14-15].

Quote
Officers involved in gunfights fired, on average, 7.6 rounds, compared with an average of 3.5 for officers who fired against subjects who did not return fire.

Between 1998 and 2006, the average hit rate was 18 percent for gunfights.

Between 1998 and 2006, the average hit rate in situations in which fire was not returned was 30 percent.

Accuracy improves at close range, with officers hitting their targets 37 percent of the time at distances of seven yards or less; at longer ranges, hit rates fall off sharply, to 23 percent.
Against a suspect firing back, 18% of 7.6 rounds struck, or 1.37 rounds on average. Against suspect not firing back, 30% of 3.5 rounds struck, or 1.05 rounds on average. So essentially they're firing until they get one hit, maybe two.

As for survival rates, the Brady United (https://www.bradyunited.org/key-statistics) guys tell us,

34,566 are intentionally shot by someone else and survive, 14,062 are murdered - which is a 71% survival rate.

They also tell us that 521 are killed by legal intervention, and 1,376 are shot by legal intervention and survive, which is a 72% survival rate.

As well, 23,437 die from gun suicide, and 3,554 survive an attempted gun suicide - so even attempted suicide with a firearm has a 13% survival rate.

Going to the warfare side of things, about 90% of Americans who do die from combat wounds (not all or even mostly gunshot) do so before reaching medical care. Overall 92% of those wounded will survive. If the medic can keep you alive long enough to reach the hospital, you'll very probably make it.

In Conflict (which has now been published, see sig), if shot unarmoured then 78% of hits will be nonlethal; if armoured, 92% will be nonlethal. And "lethal" is just if you're untreated - treatment may save you, and if it's a proper physician with a trauma ward, very probably save you.

Honestly, the odds are better than for a 1st level AD&D character.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Spinachcat on May 05, 2021, 12:13:40 AM
Guns need kewl names.

Beyond that, the granularity only matters in terms of game stats. Attack bonus, damage, armor penetration, effective range, extreme range, price.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: GeekyBugle on May 05, 2021, 12:16:04 AM
Guns need kewl names.

Beyond that, the granularity only matters in terms of game stats. Attack bonus, damage, armor penetration, effective range, extreme range, price.

Yeah, limiting the granularity but including a list of kewl names related to the granularity.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Spinachcat on May 05, 2021, 12:21:07 AM
just as any DM can have an invisible magic-user fireball the party.

Don't knock that! One of my favorite convention games STARTS with the PCs chilling in their favorite Ye Olde Tavern when it gets nuked by an invisible mage. They were 5th level and it was 22 damage, 11 if saved so even the Mage survived-ish.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Ghostmaker on May 05, 2021, 09:19:55 AM
Some statistics might be of interest here.

Even cops mostly miss (http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/public_information/RAND_FirearmEvaluation.pdf) [pdf link, lengthy, below is from pp14-15].

Quote
Officers involved in gunfights fired, on average, 7.6 rounds, compared with an average of 3.5 for officers who fired against subjects who did not return fire.

Between 1998 and 2006, the average hit rate was 18 percent for gunfights.

Between 1998 and 2006, the average hit rate in situations in which fire was not returned was 30 percent.

Accuracy improves at close range, with officers hitting their targets 37 percent of the time at distances of seven yards or less; at longer ranges, hit rates fall off sharply, to 23 percent.
Against a suspect firing back, 18% of 7.6 rounds struck, or 1.37 rounds on average. Against suspect not firing back, 30% of 3.5 rounds struck, or 1.05 rounds on average. So essentially they're firing until they get one hit, maybe two.

As for survival rates, the Brady United (https://www.bradyunited.org/key-statistics) guys tell us,

34,566 are intentionally shot by someone else and survive, 14,062 are murdered - which is a 71% survival rate.

They also tell us that 521 are killed by legal intervention, and 1,376 are shot by legal intervention and survive, which is a 72% survival rate.

As well, 23,437 die from gun suicide, and 3,554 survive an attempted gun suicide - so even attempted suicide with a firearm has a 13% survival rate.

Going to the warfare side of things, about 90% of Americans who do die from combat wounds (not all or even mostly gunshot) do so before reaching medical care. Overall 92% of those wounded will survive. If the medic can keep you alive long enough to reach the hospital, you'll very probably make it.

In Conflict (which has now been published, see sig), if shot unarmoured then 78% of hits will be nonlethal; if armoured, 92% will be nonlethal. And "lethal" is just if you're untreated - treatment may save you, and if it's a proper physician with a trauma ward, very probably save you.

Honestly, the odds are better than for a 1st level AD&D character.
That's because contrary to popular belief, most police departments are not 'highly trained' in accuracy and firearm handling. At one point, one department (I want to say NYPD but I could be mistaken) was issuing ONE BOX of ammo to each officer to practice PER YEAR. As in, fifty rounds.

I'd also be very hesitant to take any data from Brady at face value. They have a vested interest in crapping all over legal firearms and self defense.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Kyle Aaron on May 05, 2021, 09:53:49 AM
You don't need desperate amounts of training to hit a man-sized target at under 7 yards 100% of the time on the range. Essentially anyone strong enough to hold up a pistol can do that. That's just adrenaline messing them up - plus, you know, it puts you off a bit when the other guy is trying to kill you. A wee bit distracting.

Soldiers get even worse hit rates, since their ranges are greater, and there are more people shooting back at them.

All I'm interested in here are survival rates from being shot. They've no reason to lie about that. And I'm not here to talk about firearms control, take your American politics elsewhere.

The point is simply that in combat people miss far, far more often than they hit with firearms, and that a surprising number of people survive gunshots, because modern medicine is awesome. And calibre etc really are not significant factors except when it comes to body armour.

Here is the most basic and realistic system for handgun combats,

Roll 1d6 for initiative.
+1 if you have extensive (2+ years) training, not just on the range.
+1 if you were lying in wait for him
+1 if there are more of you than the other guy

Roll 1d6 to hit. You hit on 6+
+0 if you've never fired in combat before
+1 if he is not shooting at you
+1 if you have extensive (2+ years) training, not just on the range
+0 at under 7 yards
- 1 at 7-14 yards, -2 at 15-21 yards, etc
-1 if he is wearing body armour.

Whoever is hit falls down and loses interest in proceedings. Go to hospital. Roll 1d6, on 1-2 you die, on 3-6 you live. Now roll 1d6 for how many months before you can return to duty - if you roll 6, roll again and add, and so on. If it's more than 12 months you retire with a disability pension.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Chris24601 on May 05, 2021, 01:01:32 PM
The only suggestion I’d make is to throw an extra +1 to hit if the target has no cover they can use (they call situations like that turkey shoots for a reason).
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Ghostmaker on May 05, 2021, 01:44:48 PM
Well, are we talking cover or concealment? I admit D&D did make a good point of distinguishing those two. I would argue cover grants a hard bonus or even immunity unless your weapon's penetrating capability exceeds its durability (at which point it becomes concealment). Concealment might grant a -1 or more to hit depending on how much of the person is concealed.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: oggsmash on May 06, 2021, 09:41:30 AM
You don't need desperate amounts of training to hit a man-sized target at under 7 yards 100% of the time on the range. Essentially anyone strong enough to hold up a pistol can do that. That's just adrenaline messing them up - plus, you know, it puts you off a bit when the other guy is trying to kill you. A wee bit distracting.

Soldiers get even worse hit rates, since their ranges are greater, and there are more people shooting back at them.

All I'm interested in here are survival rates from being shot. They've no reason to lie about that. And I'm not here to talk about firearms control, take your American politics elsewhere.

The point is simply that in combat people miss far, far more often than they hit with firearms, and that a surprising number of people survive gunshots, because modern medicine is awesome. And calibre etc really are not significant factors except when it comes to body armour.

Here is the most basic and realistic system for handgun combats,

Roll 1d6 for initiative.
+1 if you have extensive (2+ years) training, not just on the range.
+1 if you were lying in wait for him
+1 if there are more of you than the other guy

Roll 1d6 to hit. You hit on 6+
+0 if you've never fired in combat before
+1 if he is not shooting at you
+1 if you have extensive (2+ years) training, not just on the range
+0 at under 7 yards
- 1 at 7-14 yards, -2 at 15-21 yards, etc
-1 if he is wearing body armour.

Whoever is hit falls down and loses interest in proceedings. Go to hospital. Roll 1d6, on 1-2 you die, on 3-6 you live. Now roll 1d6 for how many months before you can return to duty - if you roll 6, roll again and add, and so on. If it's more than 12 months you retire with a disability pension.


 I agree about how many people survive is surprising and find it odd people use homicide as a metric of violent crime in the USA when people survive HORRIBLE injuries all the time (largely because the USA probably has the absolute best trauma doctors in the world, with a combination of experience a wealth of wartime tested methods and 1st world medicine) because of ever advancing medical tech.

   What I find really surprising is how many people survived gunshots in the civil war era and afterwards given the medical care they often got.  I think humans are incredibly resilient, and at the same time oddly fragile.  Which is hard to present in a game sometimes, but I think your mechanics are capturing the idea violence is very dangerous, but if lucky and good you can come out alright (which also makes for a very entertaining after game story). edited to add...A story I remember reading years ago was about how "Wild Bill" got his reputation cemented in the west.  He was in a gunfight with several men in a bar (I think 3 but memory is imperfect) and was shot several times and survived.  All three of the other men died, because Bill only shot for the head or the heart, and even under duress didnt miss.  He used a .36 navy, which was considered a pea caliber, but Bill liked it because he was accurate with it, and had balls of carbon steel. 
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Kyle Aaron on May 06, 2021, 10:46:44 AM
My Conflict (https://www.lulu.com/en/gb/shop/kyle-schuant/conflict-book-alpha/paperback/product-7wyg86.html) rules are more complex than that, since they must cover more than "cop meets suspect who is keen to die" scenarios, and the odds are slightly more generous than reality, since when I squished things to make a d6,d6 chart with unarmoured, armour vs frag and armour vs firearm columns, and when I made the first aid and physician rules to fit a 2d6 resolution mechanic, at each step I had to round odds up or down to fit the scale, and I rounded the death odds down in each case.

Nonetheless it's fairly deadly, though as I said less deadly than being a 1st level AD&D1e character. In both cases the player's choices can alter things.

An interesting video came out recently. It was an attempted heist (nobody in the video is physically harmed, though there is some profanity) on an armoured cash vehicle, which was foiled not by gunfire, but by aggressive driving from the driver. The driver is in fact a former police officer who instruct other police; his partner's name and experience has not been made public, but he is obviously younger and less experienced.

As the video goes on, you can see that he is obviously experienced and competent, nonetheless he becomes more erratic and agitated as his adrenaline builds up. He would be experiencing numbness, deafness, altered perception of distance etc - and tunnel vision. This explains his running the vehicle off the road and getting it stuck. His sidekick doesn't get amped up because he's obviously less experienced and doesn't know what to do - but he does exactly what he should do in this situation, which is not to bother the more experienced guy, and to do exactly what that guy tells him.

With a stuck vehicle, the driver gets out at the end ready to make a "last stand" - but the robbers had given up and fucked off. The driver was thus following the classic AD&D1e PHB advice: "Avoid unnecessary encounters."

Good life advice, really.



Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: oggsmash on May 06, 2021, 10:50:51 AM
My Conflict (https://www.lulu.com/en/gb/shop/kyle-schuant/conflict-book-alpha/paperback/product-7wyg86.html) rules are more complex than that, since they must cover more than "cop meets suspect who is keen to die" scenarios, and the odds are slightly more generous than reality, since when I squished things to make a d6,d6 chart with unarmoured, armour vs frag and armour vs firearm columns, and when I made the first aid and physician rules to fit a 2d6 resolution mechanic, at each step I had to round odds up or down to fit the scale, and I rounded the death odds down in each case.

Nonetheless it's fairly deadly, those as I said less deadly than being a 1st level AD&D1e character. In both cases the player's choices can alter things.

An interesting video came out recently. It was an attempted heist (nobody in the video is physically harmed, though there is some profanity) on an armoured cash vehicle, which was foiled not by gunfire, but by aggressive driving from the driver. The driver is in fact a former police officer who instruct other police; his partner's name and experience has not been made public, but he is obviously younger and less experienced.

As the video goes on, you can see that he is obviously experienced and competent, nonetheless he becomes more erratic and agitated as his adrenaline builds up. He would be experiencing numbness, deafness, altered perception of distance etc - and tunnel vision. This explains his running the vehicle off the road and getting it stuck. His sidekick doesn't get amped up because he's obviously less experienced and doesn't know what to do - but he does exactly what he should do in this situation, which is not to bother the more experienced guy, and to do exactly what that guy tells him.

With a stuck vehicle, the driver gets out at the end ready to make a "last stand" - but the robbers had given up and fucked off. The driver was thus following the classic AD&D1e PHB advice: "Avoid unnecessary encounters."



   I watched that last week, and it looked to me like the younger guy was doing all he could to control his breathing to not have a panic attack (which is natural).   The driver was a damned boss.  I would also say the version of "pull over" the hijackers used was pretty cold blooded (just opening up fire) in that they seemed to just be willing to murder the guys right off the bat.   I do not think the driver got out to make a last stand, I think he got out to take cover with his bullet proof van and kill the poor idiots who thought they were robbing a 7-11.  But I think the balls he showed stand up regardless of what was on his mind when he hopped out to meet his or their fates.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Ghostmaker on May 06, 2021, 10:52:47 AM
My Conflict (https://www.lulu.com/en/gb/shop/kyle-schuant/conflict-book-alpha/paperback/product-7wyg86.html) rules are more complex than that, since they must cover more than "cop meets suspect who is keen to die" scenarios, and the odds are slightly more generous than reality, since when I squished things to make a d6,d6 chart with unarmoured, armour vs frag and armour vs firearm columns, and when I made the first aid and physician rules to fit a 2d6 resolution mechanic, at each step I had to round odds up or down to fit the scale, and I rounded the death odds down in each case.

Nonetheless it's fairly deadly, though as I said less deadly than being a 1st level AD&D1e character. In both cases the player's choices can alter things.

An interesting video came out recently. It was an attempted heist (nobody in the video is physically harmed, though there is some profanity) on an armoured cash vehicle, which was foiled not by gunfire, but by aggressive driving from the driver. The driver is in fact a former police officer who instruct other police; his partner's name and experience has not been made public, but he is obviously younger and less experienced.

As the video goes on, you can see that he is obviously experienced and competent, nonetheless he becomes more erratic and agitated as his adrenaline builds up. He would be experiencing numbness, deafness, altered perception of distance etc - and tunnel vision. This explains his running the vehicle off the road and getting it stuck. His sidekick doesn't get amped up because he's obviously less experienced and doesn't know what to do - but he does exactly what he should do in this situation, which is not to bother the more experienced guy, and to do exactly what that guy tells him.

With a stuck vehicle, the driver gets out at the end ready to make a "last stand" - but the robbers had given up and fucked off. The driver was thus following the classic AD&D1e PHB advice: "Avoid unnecessary encounters."

Good life advice, really.


I saw that elsewhere.

My buttocks are still clenched so tight you couldn't hammer a straightpin up my ass with a sledgehammer. Jesus. Full credit to those guys.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Kyle Aaron on May 06, 2021, 09:35:57 PM
One improvement the company could make. The first is to have CB radios, so they can simply pick it up, press transmit, and check in or ask for backup - that was "call Josh and Robbie, see where they are" - asking for backup. That's quicker than picking up a mobile phone, scrolling through to get the number, etc. As well, CB can be used while still looking around, whereas the phone requires you look down while dialling. And a CB can have speakers so that both people in the vehicle can hear the conversation, or one can handle the handset while the other one talks. This isn't a huge difference, perhaps as much as a minute, but a minute can be a big difference in a situation like this.

The jackers could have improved their tactics, too. Firing at a vehicle from behind or the side is not going to make it stop - you need to block their front, the direction they're going in. One vehicle in front, one on the side, box them in. You also want to minimise shooting; if the target knows they're dead no matter what, they might take some of you with them. If they know you want the gear and not them, they may give up the gear.

Notice that the exact calibre etc of the weapons involved wasn't an issue here - only whether they were able to penetrate the armoured vehicle, which being smallarms they weren't. The driver told his partner to take the rifle not because of calibre or muzzle velocity, but because it has a larger magazine than the pistol, has a more rapid rate of fire (and so could suppress them until help arrives), is more accurate, and has a better chance of penetrating the jackers' vehicle, or body armour if any.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Kyle Aaron on May 07, 2021, 05:06:26 AM
This article gives more information, including a brief outward-facing dashcam in the vehicle.

https://taskandpurpose.com/news/armored-truck-heist-video-explained/

What's been interesting for me about this incident is that I hadn't realised the world had so many special forces ninja commando experts out there who could tell us what the guys did wrong. We're privileged to have these YouTube commenters with us.

In particular, they've attacked the partner, who did nothing wrong at all. Notice he handles his weapons safely, with trigger discipline etc, and doesn't panic, doesn't fill the air with stupid questions, just waits to be told what to do. He's obviously less experienced, but he does have some training, and he's smart.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Ghostmaker on May 07, 2021, 08:10:41 AM
This article gives more information, including a brief outward-facing dashcam in the vehicle.

https://taskandpurpose.com/news/armored-truck-heist-video-explained/

What's been interesting for me about this incident is that I hadn't realised the world had so many special forces ninja commando experts out there who could tell us what the guys did wrong. We're privileged to have these YouTube commenters with us.

In particular, they've attacked the partner, who did nothing wrong at all. Notice he handles his weapons safely, with trigger discipline etc, and doesn't panic, doesn't fill the air with stupid questions, just waits to be told what to do. He's obviously less experienced, but he does have some training, and he's smart.
What, you've never encountered Chairborne Rangers online, Kyle? They ALWAYS crawl outta the woodwork when something like this pops up.

Me, I will just say 'Any encounter like that where you can walk away is one where you won' and leave it at that :)
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: SHARK on May 07, 2021, 10:53:32 AM
This article gives more information, including a brief outward-facing dashcam in the vehicle.

https://taskandpurpose.com/news/armored-truck-heist-video-explained/

What's been interesting for me about this incident is that I hadn't realised the world had so many special forces ninja commando experts out there who could tell us what the guys did wrong. We're privileged to have these YouTube commenters with us.

In particular, they've attacked the partner, who did nothing wrong at all. Notice he handles his weapons safely, with trigger discipline etc, and doesn't panic, doesn't fill the air with stupid questions, just waits to be told what to do. He's obviously less experienced, but he does have some training, and he's smart.
What, you've never encountered Chairborne Rangers online, Kyle? They ALWAYS crawl outta the woodwork when something like this pops up.

Me, I will just say 'Any encounter like that where you can walk away is one where you won' and leave it at that :)

Greetings!

Indeed, the armoured Security Guards performed their duties very well. I'm not sure what the "arm-chair Commando's" somehow expect. The officers are driving in an urban, civilian environment, and are potentially outnumbered. They kept cool and calm, drove very well, and maintained the security of their vehicle, the money/goods, and their own lives. They should both receive commendations for their courage and professionalism.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Kyle Aaron on May 19, 2021, 11:19:32 PM
There's now come out an interview with Prinsloo (https://www.insidehook.com/article/crime/driver-evaded-heist-south-africa), which is pretty interesting. It reinforces what I said, that skills (in this case, offensive driving), experience (not panicking, being used to the adrenaline surge) and equipment (his vehicle, and the attackers' scrambler obscuring comms) are more important than things like firearms calibre.

I also found interesting:

Quote
The driver of the car jumped out and ran, which is when I jumped out with my rifle. I made the decision that he wasn’t a shootable target in that public place. He ran across the street and got away, to my great frustration. [...]

The majority of the industry sends their guys into a war zone with the very bare minimum of training; all they want to do is tick boxes on a form. On top of that, they are getting investigated and sometimes fired after they use their weapons. So before they pull their gun for protection, they are wondering if they will lose their job. That kind of hesitation can be the difference between life or death.

Which is to say that for the professional, the decision whether to fire is even more important than how good a shot they are, or their kind of weapon, etc. And that, of course, is part of roleplaying.

Roleplaying games should offer choices, and occasionally the choices should be difficult ones with no "right" answer. For example on the weekend we played a session of Conflict (https://www.thevikinghatgm.com/p/conflict.html) and the party became aware of insurgents planning a truck bomb in the market the next day - but if they stopped it, they might reveal they'd broken the insurgents' code, which would make them change their system, and they'd miss insurgent comms later. Stop it and hurt your ability to stop things in future, or let it happen and dozens of people die? There's no wrong or right answer.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Ghostmaker on May 20, 2021, 07:59:05 AM
There's now come out an interview with Prinsloo (https://www.insidehook.com/article/crime/driver-evaded-heist-south-africa), which is pretty interesting. It reinforces what I said, that skills (in this case, offensive driving), experience (not panicking, being used to the adrenaline surge) and equipment (his vehicle, and the attackers' scrambler obscuring comms) are more important than things like firearms calibre.

I also found interesting:

Quote
The driver of the car jumped out and ran, which is when I jumped out with my rifle. I made the decision that he wasn’t a shootable target in that public place. He ran across the street and got away, to my great frustration. [...]

The majority of the industry sends their guys into a war zone with the very bare minimum of training; all they want to do is tick boxes on a form. On top of that, they are getting investigated and sometimes fired after they use their weapons. So before they pull their gun for protection, they are wondering if they will lose their job. That kind of hesitation can be the difference between life or death.

Which is to say that for the professional, the decision whether to fire is even more important than how good a shot they are, or their kind of weapon, etc. And that, of course, is part of roleplaying.

Roleplaying games should offer choices, and occasionally the choices should be difficult ones with no "right" answer. For example on the weekend we played a session of Conflict (https://www.thevikinghatgm.com/p/conflict.html) and the party became aware of insurgents planning a truck bomb in the market the next day - but if they stopped it, they might reveal they'd broken the insurgents' code, which would make them change their system, and they'd miss insurgent comms later. Stop it and hurt your ability to stop things in future, or let it happen and dozens of people die? There's no wrong or right answer.
Ah, you discovered the Coventry problem.

And there are no easy answers to it.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Kyle Aaron on June 06, 2021, 06:07:26 AM
"There is no incremental gain you get moving up to a higher calibre that is going to overshadow your ability to shoot a smaller calibre better."

Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: oggsmash on June 06, 2021, 06:36:51 AM
"There is no incremental gain you get moving up to a higher calibre that is going to overshadow your ability to shoot a smaller calibre better."



   This is true, but a real expert is as accurate with a .44 mag with hot loads in it as a target shooter is with wadcutter .38 or even lighter calibers.  I would say I have seen plenty of people shoot the wrong handgun early in trying to learn to shoot (My father is and has been a firearms instructor for 40 years, and is the fellow I speak of regarding accuracy; certainly not me, when I shoot his hot loaded .44 (rounds going around 1750 FPS...which is rocket level for a hand gun) I flinch like a battered dog) and it is often even a "lighter" caliber like a 9mm.  .22 seems to be a best start for adults learning to shoot handguns, those flinches start even with a 9mm.   

 
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Kyle Aaron on October 21, 2021, 12:38:46 AM
This video was interesting (https://youtu.be/IMLSxDTNMZw) (age-restricted, shows some blood but no profanity etc). In this scenario, the police stop a guy, one cop gets out with his handgun and approaches the vehicle ready to shoot, the other apparently (he was off-camera) stayed by the vehicle with an AR-15. The suspect fired at the handgun officer, striking him in the arm, and the other officer fired his rifle and took the guy down. The shot officer had a tourniquet put on roughly and was choppered out and survived, the suspect died, though whether on-scene or late they don't say.

It's an interesting illustration of

There's a second encounter, too, and we should discuss that also. It's more complex to discuss, but we see,
which is why I put in rules like "don't roll to hit for each round, roll for an effective hit" and "low rolls mean stoppage, which means changing mags" and "to know where everyone is, you have to stop and take an action to orient - otherwise you just see what's right in front of you."
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Pat on October 21, 2021, 12:59:34 AM
It's a bit older, but anyone interested in realistic firearm battles should be familiar with the Miami gunfight:
https://web.archive.org/web/20070626133520/http://www.thegunzone.com/11april86.html
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Eric Diaz on October 21, 2021, 09:32:32 AM
Not specifically about guns, but when asked about granularity I usually say the correct answer is "seven".

Five works too - say, a d4 to d12, and maybe critical hits form guns multiply the damage by three or more, assuming you have 10 to 15 HP. For example, you could die from a .22 but it is unlikely unless it is a good shot.

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2015/12/granularity-ideal-level-of-detail.html
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Chris24601 on October 21, 2021, 10:55:38 AM
Not specifically about guns, but when asked about granularity I usually say the correct answer is "seven".

Five works too - say, a d4 to d12, and maybe critical hits form guns multiply the damage by three or more, assuming you have 10 to 15 HP. For example, you could die form a .22 but it is unlikely unless it is a good shot.

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2015/12/granularity-ideal-level-of-detail.html
I didn’t get it from that particular blog, but did reach pretty similar conclusions for my own system.

PC attributes range from -1 to 5 (a spread of 7). The range of conditional combat modifiers is effectively 5 (“disadvantage”+weakened effect, “disadvantage”, no modifiers, “advantage”, “advantage”+critical effect). Damage dice run d4 to d12 (5 steps). Monsters are built with one of 5 ratios for hit/damage relative to their level (very accurate, accurate, average, damaging, very damaging).

Overall, I think for variables (vs. constant modifiers) I think a range of 5 is probably best. I’ve read a lot of complaints about the relative lack of granularity in advantage/disadvantage where 1 advantage cancels all disadvantage and multiple advantages or disadvantages don’t matter… but in my play-testing add the two extra layers and making a sliding scale rather than one good completely countering all bad (and visa versa) did a lot to eliminate that feeling among those I tested it with.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: GeekyBugle on October 21, 2021, 11:55:39 AM
@Erik Diaz & Chris24601

Modifiers to hit : Untrained, Trained, Expert, range & RoF

Mofifiers to range: Calliber (not getting into 100's of guns/ammo) ex. Small, Medium, Large

Modifiers to Dmg: RoF, Calliber, Training & Range

Small guns are everything from .22 to .25, Medium .32 to .38s, Large .45 and up. Thinking of adding a "Magnum" type of gun, but it needs to be available to several callibers, so it would increase the price of the gun and ammo and the Dmg it does.

Might include "stingy" guns, this would be your derringer type guns with one or two shots before reloading.

Already did the research for the real range of all the firearms and bows, it's way larger than what you usually find on games that have modern firearms. What you usually find is ~1/10th of the real range and some times less than that (WTAFF!?).

The gun porn will maybe be an apendix.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Chris24601 on October 21, 2021, 12:14:55 PM
@Erik Diaz & Chris24601

Modifiers to hit : Untrained, Trained, Expert, range & RoF

Mofifiers to range: Calliber (not getting into 100's of guns/ammo) ex. Small, Medium, Large

Modifiers to Dmg: RoF, Calliber, Training & Range

Small guns are everything from .22 to .25, Medium .32 to .38s, Large .45 and up. Thinking of adding a "Magnum" type of gun, but it needs to be available to several callibers, so it would increase the price of the gun and ammo and the Dmg it does.

Might include "stingy" guns, this would be your derringer type guns with one or two shots before reloading.

Already did the research for the real range of all the firearms and bows, it's way larger than what you usually find on games that have modern firearms. What you usually find is ~1/10th of the real range and some times less than that (WTAFF!?).

The gun porn will maybe be an apendix.
My only suggestion for calibers is to instead do "muzzle energy" since that way you can more easily distinguish between pistol and rifle calibers (a 5.57mm rifle round is of lower caliber than a 9mm pistol round, but is longer and carries more energy.

My suggestion would be very low (for things like thrown knives and the like), low (.22LR and the like), medium (9mm pistol and comparable), high (large pistols, small rifles) and very high (large rifles).
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: GeekyBugle on October 21, 2021, 12:59:39 PM
@Erik Diaz & Chris24601

Modifiers to hit : Untrained, Trained, Expert, range & RoF

Mofifiers to range: Calliber (not getting into 100's of guns/ammo) ex. Small, Medium, Large

Modifiers to Dmg: RoF, Calliber, Training & Range

Small guns are everything from .22 to .25, Medium .32 to .38s, Large .45 and up. Thinking of adding a "Magnum" type of gun, but it needs to be available to several callibers, so it would increase the price of the gun and ammo and the Dmg it does.

Might include "stingy" guns, this would be your derringer type guns with one or two shots before reloading.

Already did the research for the real range of all the firearms and bows, it's way larger than what you usually find on games that have modern firearms. What you usually find is ~1/10th of the real range and some times less than that (WTAFF!?).

The gun porn will maybe be an apendix.
My only suggestion for calibers is to instead do "muzzle energy" since that way you can more easily distinguish between pistol and rifle calibers (a 5.57mm rifle round is of lower caliber than a 9mm pistol round, but is longer and carries more energy.

My suggestion would be very low (for things like thrown knives and the like), low (.22LR and the like), medium (9mm pistol and comparable), high (large pistols, small rifles) and very high (large rifles).

Oh, rifles are their own beast, as in they have their own range, Dmg and "calliber". Off course I'm doing the same (Small, Medium, Large) with the sniper added to increase range.

Same for Machineguns, etc.

Only stuff like flamethrowers, bazookas have only one "size".

Yeah, small calibers should do less damage, my thinking is that in a crit the damage increases by a factor of 2? And include the roll to see what you hit table.

Or maybe do it by how much did you overcome the target's AC? This is faster, so for every X ammount you overcome the AC the damage increases by factor Y.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: PsyXypher on October 23, 2021, 02:36:27 AM
I like to mix action with a dash of realism. So what I did was that I gave a bunch of guns generic names but modeled them after real guns. I had some for Handguns, Rifles, Submachineguns and Shotguns, and gave them damage based off of their caliber. Shotguns were the odd ones out as they did very varying damage (2d20) and unlike most games, I didn't go for the "spread" mechanic.

I didn't go too far, though. I only added a few different calibers for say, Handguns. 9mm and 44. Which I called 11.5mm. Rifles got a few more.

I also added a lot of fantastical weapons. Lasers, Ionic weapons, Plasma Rifles, etc. Lasers are and have continued to be a bitch and a half because I wanted to do a thing where they ran off power cells that would be interchangeable with energy provided from other sources. This has, among other things, a weird side effect of making it so the "Magazine" for a Laser Pistol is much larger than that of a Rifle, since the Rifle uses more power. Turns out that trying to balance that is difficult, because it can bypass reloading and such. Makes it harder to make a "Kit" of equipment.

Don't even get me started on shared power pools or calculating things like taking power from municipal sources. I could probably bypass this with "It's an action game, you can loot ammo off the people you beat."
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Ocule on October 23, 2021, 10:10:30 AM
Haven't read the thread yet wanted to give my thoughts before reading others. I love guns, I own two and have shot just about every common size of round out there for rifles and pistols. So generally when I think of firearms in games i think there should be a number of factors to consider for one so

Cartridge size or type should be the biggest deciding factor when it comes to damage and armor penetration of the weapon.

Weapon model should be the biggest determining factor for range, capacity and recoil.

Generally a heavier round should do more damage, for the sake of playability in most games I would probably go with a small, medium and large size damage category when designing weapons with the most common benchmarks for handguns being the .22 (if this is even worth statting out), 9mm, and .45. Rifles being .22, 5.56 and 7.62. There are plenty more between them but usually I found that the actual differences in performance are sort of minor.

Variations should include ball ammo (basic benchmark), Hollowpoint (high damage, low AP) and AP (low damage, high AP).

One thing that more games should touch on is rate of fire, recoil and weight. Contrary to popular belief, ammo is freakin heavy and reloading is an action at least. To draw another mag, drop your mag, replace it and slide the bolt forward. Ammo weight adds up quick so if you want some reason to go with a lighter round this is a good place to put it. Also smaller rounds = more magazine capacity usually. My 9mm holds 17+1, a .45 of the same size holds only 7+1 and has more recoil. Either can double tap just fine but you're going to get more consistent accuracy with a 9mm if you fire in quick succession. Games with firearms should allow for multiple shots, with recoil factoring in cumulatively. Smaller weapon frames = more recoil. a compact .45 is going to kick a hell of a lot harder than a full size.

Also if your game has any kind of wealth or requisition, then you can get more bang for your buck. Ammo isn't cheap, especially hollow points. Most civilian characters shouldn't be carrying more than one spare mag usually. It's not a law or anything but  if you need more than 2 mags you're in some deep shit. Military characters in full battle kit will be carrying realistically around 7 mags. And you have to make it last, but mil characters don't usually get a choice in what they get.

Side note on shotguns... they should get a bonus to hit, and have a longer range than a pistol but not a multi target and do a devastating amount of non armor piercing damage. Also they usually have more range than people give em credit for.

Weapon : Range : Recoil/RoF : Ammo Type : Capacity : Special

Example: Medium Pistol: Short Range : High Recoil/High Rate of Fire: 9mm Ammo: 17+1 round magazine
9mm Hollow Point (Medium Damage/No AP)

Concealability is another factor as well.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Theory of Games on October 23, 2021, 07:11:05 PM
The BS with bullets, knives, swords or anything that causes BLEEDING in real-life is it doesn't translate well to TTRPGs. I suppose the key is keeping the PCs upright ... BUT ... I have to suspend my disbelief when a PC/NPC gets hit with an axe and takes X HP loss AND NO MORE LOSS FOR THE CONTINUED BLOOD LOSS because they continued to fight rather than bandage the wound.


D&D has always been, from the beginning, an arcade game. GURPS and Hero System addressed bleeding. Made it something to deal with. But, man --- to hear players whine about it. Most players just want to be comic book superheroes stomping through an adventure. This whole culture of gaming --- I mean it is what it is.

Let me run you through Phoenix Command or a gritty game of GURPS where, YEAH, your PC can bleed out and die from an injury. It forces a player to prioritize what's important. Attack? Okay but you lose another X HP. Stop and handle the wound? You're out of combat a round or two.

Bleeding wounds change the game. But, so many players look at that as "adversarial". Heaven forbid the game has a certain level of verisimilitude.

I get D&D damage is abstract. It's nonsense damage. Okay. No wounds, no bleeding. This is why D&D is a "Gateway Game" to more sophisticated systems like GURPS & HERO. D&D is playing with your Invisible Barbie.

Enjoy.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: PsyXypher on October 23, 2021, 11:25:35 PM
The BS with bullets, knives, swords or anything that causes BLEEDING in real-life is it doesn't translate well to TTRPGs. I suppose the key is keeping the PCs upright ... BUT ... I have to suspend my disbelief when a PC/NPC gets hit with an axe and takes X HP loss AND NO MORE LOSS FOR THE CONTINUED BLOOD LOSS because they continued to fight rather than bandage the wound.


D&D has always been, from the beginning, an arcade game. GURPS and Hero System addressed bleeding. Made it something to deal with. But, man --- to hear players whine about it. Most players just want to be comic book superheroes stomping through an adventure. This whole culture of gaming --- I mean it is what it is.

Let me run you through Phoenix Command or a gritty game of GURPS where, YEAH, your PC can bleed out and die from an injury. It forces a player to prioritize what's important. Attack? Okay but you lose another X HP. Stop and handle the wound? You're out of combat a round or two.

Bleeding wounds change the game. But, so many players look at that as "adversarial". Heaven forbid the game has a certain level of verisimilitude.

I get D&D damage is abstract. It's nonsense damage. Okay. No wounds, no bleeding. This is why D&D is a "Gateway Game" to more sophisticated systems like GURPS & HERO. D&D is playing with your Invisible Barbie.

Enjoy.

I mean, if you're going with a hyper-realistic sort of game, then yes, D&D doesn't do that. But if you want a game that runs off rule of cool, D&D's Hit Points do that pretty well. Not everyone wants a game like Cyberpunk 2020 where the only thing between you and death is rolling lower on your initiative than your opponent. I personally like a good slugfest between characters.

I very much disagree that this breaks verisimilitude. Those wounds should have a chance to get infected too, but that's not really fun, is it? Not for most people. There's nothing wrong with wanting a sort of comic book superhero physics to the world. That's why some games have more realistic wounding systems than others.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: GeekyBugle on October 24, 2021, 02:06:01 AM
The BS with bullets, knives, swords or anything that causes BLEEDING in real-life is it doesn't translate well to TTRPGs. I suppose the key is keeping the PCs upright ... BUT ... I have to suspend my disbelief when a PC/NPC gets hit with an axe and takes X HP loss AND NO MORE LOSS FOR THE CONTINUED BLOOD LOSS because they continued to fight rather than bandage the wound.


D&D has always been, from the beginning, an arcade game. GURPS and Hero System addressed bleeding. Made it something to deal with. But, man --- to hear players whine about it. Most players just want to be comic book superheroes stomping through an adventure. This whole culture of gaming --- I mean it is what it is.

Let me run you through Phoenix Command or a gritty game of GURPS where, YEAH, your PC can bleed out and die from an injury. It forces a player to prioritize what's important. Attack? Okay but you lose another X HP. Stop and handle the wound? You're out of combat a round or two.

Bleeding wounds change the game. But, so many players look at that as "adversarial". Heaven forbid the game has a certain level of verisimilitude.

I get D&D damage is abstract. It's nonsense damage. Okay. No wounds, no bleeding. This is why D&D is a "Gateway Game" to more sophisticated systems like GURPS & HERO. D&D is playing with your Invisible Barbie.

Enjoy.

Don't quote me on this cuz I could be remembering wrong, but there's one edition, I think, that does take bleeding into account. Now, I might be missremembering and confusing a clone with D&D.

I do agree that no, bleeding is BS tho. Not because of "realism" but because of verisimilitude. But it depends on the type of game. In a platemail is a thing kinda game, then you take 8 DMG and might not bleed because the armor stoped the Axe and it dealt only concusive damage.

It also depends on what type of game is in a different sense, are you aiming for "realism", cinematic, Pulpish, what?

That should dictate how "Realistic" stuff needs to be in the game.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: PsyXypher on October 24, 2021, 02:11:25 AM

Don't quote me on this cuz I could be remembering wrong, but there's one edition, I think, that does take bleeding into account. Now, I might be missremembering and confusing a clone with D&D.


I wanna say it's the Unearthed Arcana for 3.5...lemme check. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/vitalityAndWoundPoints.htm (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/vitalityAndWoundPoints.htm) Here we go.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Kyle Aaron on October 24, 2021, 03:32:42 AM
It's notable that the people who you'd think care - police and military - simply don't pay attention to calibres in statistics of death and wounding among their people.

From the FBI collation of officers feloniously killed (https://ucr.fbi.gov/leoka/2019/topic-pages/officers-feloniously-killed):

2010-19         
Type of weapon, Incidents,   WIA,   KIA
Firearms - 22,088 - 2,032 - 471
Knife   - 10,008 - 1,201 - 3
Personal (fists etc) - 436,630 - 127,059 - 5
There were also 32 homicides with a vehicle, but they don't record how many assaults. For injuries they don't record firearm type at all, but for homicides they break it down into handgun, rifle or shotgun.

In the military stats mentioned (https://web.archive.org/web/20200425103701/http://www.mindspring.com/~ernestm/wt&d/issue1/htwih1.html) by the pseudonymous Charles Franklin, calibre is likewise not considered at all, all that matters is whether the body armour stops it. In his proposed alteration of GURPS rules, he has just a few modifiers to wound severity, and a lot more to armour penetration.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Chris24601 on October 24, 2021, 08:58:21 AM
The BS with bullets, knives, swords or anything that causes BLEEDING in real-life is it doesn't translate well to TTRPGs. I suppose the key is keeping the PCs upright ... BUT ... I have to suspend my disbelief when a PC/NPC gets hit with an axe and takes X HP loss AND NO MORE LOSS FOR THE CONTINUED BLOOD LOSS because they continued to fight rather than bandage the wound.

D&D has always been, from the beginning, an arcade game. GURPS and Hero System addressed bleeding. Made it something to deal with. But, man --- to hear players whine about it. Most players just want to be comic book superheroes stomping through an adventure. This whole culture of gaming --- I mean it is what it is.

Let me run you through Phoenix Command or a gritty game of GURPS where, YEAH, your PC can bleed out and die from an injury. It forces a player to prioritize what's important. Attack? Okay but you lose another X HP. Stop and handle the wound? You're out of combat a round or two.

Bleeding wounds change the game. But, so many players look at that as "adversarial". Heaven forbid the game has a certain level of verisimilitude.

I get D&D damage is abstract. It's nonsense damage. Okay. No wounds, no bleeding. This is why D&D is a "Gateway Game" to more sophisticated systems like GURPS & HERO. D&D is playing with your Invisible Barbie.

Enjoy.
This only applies though if hit points are entirely meat. You envision the axe hit as landing dead center and penetrating into flesh. I envision the axe hitting armor and glancing off, leaving maybe a bruise to the flesh underneath, or where the target blew a bunch of their stamina reserves on a desperate evasion… both of which diminish your durability, but not in a wat that means you’re bleeding out from an axe in the middle of the skull.

If anything, the idea that PCs are running around with dozens of arrow, sword and axe holes in their flesh because every hit must look like a direct penetrating blow is what is video-gamey. Instead of always going “the axe cleaves into his gut for X damage” try “the axe connects but glances off as the target maneuvers so his armor deflects most of the blow; its clearly winded him though… he won’t be able to keep it up for long.”
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: deadDMwalking on October 24, 2021, 09:55:44 PM
I'm putting together an old west game, and my players don't really want to have to learn about different calibers and especially not about different clambering.

As a result we'll distinguish between small pistols (.22), medium pistols (.38), and large pistols (.44).  We'll have buffalo rifles (.50) but probably won't specify the size.  Some rifles (like a Winchester) will use the same ammo as pistols.

In fantasy we give crossbows a STR bonus to damage.  I'm still going to finalize the damage of each type, but am leaning toward 1d6+4 for a Derringer with Armor Penetration 0 and scaling up, possibly 2d6+6, 2d8+8 and maybe 4d6+12. 

We're not tracking individual shots in most cases.  If a player didn't reload a revolver they'll roll a d6 before they can attack the following round.  A 1 will indicate that they either spent all of their ammunition in the preceding round or suffered a misfire.  Players will have an incentive to reload every round to avoid potentially having their pistol fail at a critical moment.  A box of ammunition will represent a certain number of 'reloads' rather than a specific cartridge count.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Ghostmaker on October 25, 2021, 07:59:55 AM
It's notable that the people who you'd think care - police and military - simply don't pay attention to calibres in statistics of death and wounding among their people.

From the FBI collation of officers feloniously killed (https://ucr.fbi.gov/leoka/2019/topic-pages/officers-feloniously-killed):

2010-19         
Type of weapon, Incidents,   WIA,   KIA
Firearms - 22,088 - 2,032 - 471
Knife   - 10,008 - 1,201 - 3
Personal (fists etc) - 436,630 - 127,059 - 5
There were also 32 homicides with a vehicle, but they don't record how many assaults. For injuries they don't record firearm type at all, but for homicides they break it down into handgun, rifle or shotgun.

In the military stats mentioned (https://web.archive.org/web/20200425103701/http://www.mindspring.com/~ernestm/wt&d/issue1/htwih1.html) by the pseudonymous Charles Franklin, calibre is likewise not considered at all, all that matters is whether the body armour stops it. In his proposed alteration of GURPS rules, he has just a few modifiers to wound severity, and a lot more to armour penetration.
Possibly because caliber isn't as much of a issue as muzzle velocity/force, except at the far ends of of the curve? Just speculating here.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: jhkim on October 25, 2021, 02:01:29 PM
D&D has always been, from the beginning, an arcade game. GURPS and Hero System addressed bleeding. Made it something to deal with. But, man --- to hear players whine about it. Most players just want to be comic book superheroes stomping through an adventure. This whole culture of gaming --- I mean it is what it is.

Let me run you through Phoenix Command or a gritty game of GURPS where, YEAH, your PC can bleed out and die from an injury. It forces a player to prioritize what's important.
This only applies though if hit points are entirely meat. You envision the axe hit as landing dead center and penetrating into flesh. I envision the axe hitting armor and glancing off, leaving maybe a bruise to the flesh underneath, or where the target blew a bunch of their stamina reserves on a desperate evasion… both of which diminish your durability, but not in a wat that means you’re bleeding out from an axe in the middle of the skull.

I feel both of these are missing some things.

(1) Not dying from bleeding isn't just a video game trope - it's also true of a lot of the fiction. It's not just superheroes - loads of fantasy and genre films have characters taking wounds and continuing with just a grimace or similar. Even movies based on real life often have unrealistic handling of guns, wounds, and similar. (I think of Black Hawk Down, for example.)

(2) Conversely, bleeding rules do make a concrete difference in the game that is different than D&D hit points. With D&D hit points, it's impossible that you be up and fighting now, but then collapse later without more damage being done to you.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Theory of Games on October 25, 2021, 07:49:59 PM
The BS with bullets, knives, swords or anything that causes BLEEDING in real-life is it doesn't translate well to TTRPGs. I suppose the key is keeping the PCs upright ... BUT ... I have to suspend my disbelief when a PC/NPC gets hit with an axe and takes X HP loss AND NO MORE LOSS FOR THE CONTINUED BLOOD LOSS because they continued to fight rather than bandage the wound.


D&D has always been, from the beginning, an arcade game. GURPS and Hero System addressed bleeding. Made it something to deal with. But, man --- to hear players whine about it. Most players just want to be comic book superheroes stomping through an adventure. This whole culture of gaming --- I mean it is what it is.

Let me run you through Phoenix Command or a gritty game of GURPS where, YEAH, your PC can bleed out and die from an injury. It forces a player to prioritize what's important. Attack? Okay but you lose another X HP. Stop and handle the wound? You're out of combat a round or two.

Bleeding wounds change the game. But, so many players look at that as "adversarial". Heaven forbid the game has a certain level of verisimilitude.

I get D&D damage is abstract. It's nonsense damage. Okay. No wounds, no bleeding. This is why D&D is a "Gateway Game" to more sophisticated systems like GURPS & HERO. D&D is playing with your Invisible Barbie.

Enjoy.

I mean, if you're going with a hyper-realistic sort of game, then yes, D&D doesn't do that. But if you want a game that runs off rule of cool, D&D's Hit Points do that pretty well. Not everyone wants a game like Cyberpunk 2020 where the only thing between you and death is rolling lower on your initiative than your opponent. I personally like a good slugfest between characters.

I very much disagree that this breaks verisimilitude. Those wounds should have a chance to get infected too, but that's not really fun, is it? Not for most people. There's nothing wrong with wanting a sort of comic book superhero physics to the world. That's why some games have more realistic wounding systems than others.
Exactly. Certain systems brings varying degrees of verisimilitude. My point was using "Guns" for anything D&D wasn't akin to reality since D&D HP loss has nothing to do with actual ballistic injury. As Tim Kask has repeatedly stated, D&D HP loss is an "abstract" --- an "ouchy" rather than bleeding wounds that result in long-term damage and scarring.

And yeah, that arcade-style damage does break verisimilitude with some players looking for something more "real". Thus, I suggested GURPS or Phoenix Command or any other system that accommodates those kinds of groups. "FUN" is up to each and every group, not one non-existent overriding body of Twitterati trying to tell the rest of us we're playing games wrong.

I'm sure you agree no one outside your group can tell you how to run or play your games/stories.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Kyle Aaron on October 25, 2021, 10:01:29 PM
Possibly because caliber isn't as much of a issue as muzzle velocity/force, except at the far ends of of the curve? Just speculating here.
The main difference is between handguns and rifles. Past 1,200fps you get a lot, lot more damage.

That, and shot placement - which is essentially just chance on the two-way firing range. And that's why in police-suspect shootouts, from around the world as I said,
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Kyle Aaron on October 30, 2021, 01:09:05 AM
This reminds me of some game designers, and some gamers.

Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: GeekyBugle on October 31, 2021, 02:34:55 AM
I'm putting together an old west game, and my players don't really want to have to learn about different calibers and especially not about different clambering.

As a result we'll distinguish between small pistols (.22), medium pistols (.38), and large pistols (.44).  We'll have buffalo rifles (.50) but probably won't specify the size.  Some rifles (like a Winchester) will use the same ammo as pistols.

In fantasy we give crossbows a STR bonus to damage.  I'm still going to finalize the damage of each type, but am leaning toward 1d6+4 for a Derringer with Armor Penetration 0 and scaling up, possibly 2d6+6, 2d8+8 and maybe 4d6+12. 

We're not tracking individual shots in most cases.  If a player didn't reload a revolver they'll roll a d6 before they can attack the following round.  A 1 will indicate that they either spent all of their ammunition in the preceding round or suffered a misfire.  Players will have an incentive to reload every round to avoid potentially having their pistol fail at a critical moment.  A box of ammunition will represent a certain number of 'reloads' rather than a specific cartridge count.

Just saw this, I've got a nice set of old west equipment tables if you want them. Not to brag but more complete than any I have seen anywhere, while leaving the gunporn out.

3 sizes of guns, 3 of rifles, 2 different loads for shotguns, smooth bore guns and muskets included too. And a lot of other equipment you might need. Send me a DM if you want the pdf.

For a taste:

Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: HappyDaze on October 31, 2021, 06:16:50 PM
Recently picked up the new Stargate SG-1 RPG. I'm not a fan of their very abstracted weapons. You have "sidearm" as a weapon entry, along with "longarm" and "shotgun." Sure, there are a few traits to customize certain weapons (and a couple of examples, like the P90), but it's seriously underwhelming.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: PsyXypher on October 31, 2021, 06:40:59 PM
One thing I've never seen done too well with guns is gun modification. Scopes, stocks, underbarrel grenade launchers. I think it's because there's only so many different effects of weapon mods.

Also really hate that "Smartgun" crap that cyberpunk games tend to have. It strains my suspension of disbelief that the technology would become popular in a world overrun with criminals. There's a reason there's no significant push for smartguns from any gun owner.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: HappyDaze on October 31, 2021, 07:49:59 PM
One thing I've never seen done too well with guns is gun modification. Scopes, stocks, underbarrel grenade launchers. I think it's because there's only so many different effects of weapon mods.

Also really hate that "Smartgun" crap that cyberpunk games tend to have. It strains my suspension of disbelief that the technology would become popular in a world overrun with criminals. There's a reason there's no significant push for smartguns from any gun owner.
The FFG Star Wars games had a lot of fun customization options. you had attachments and modificatioms. Some were well done, others less so. Overall, the customization rules were pretty good. There were also rules for scratch building guns (and other gear), but they were crap.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Kyle Aaron on October 31, 2021, 07:54:26 PM
Bleeding I consider a bit of a non-issue. Yes, bleeding out is the leading cause of death both in modern combats and accidents. But it's not like the guy is toodling around happily while blood's gushing out of him and then suddenly falls over dead. If the injury is serious enough that he might bleed out - he falls over and is no longer taking part in proceedings.

And so, hit points or wound levels are a good enough abstraction here, all you do is put in some rule about the wound getting worse, with it being less likely with more and better treatment. But either way, the vast majority of the time - if it was serious enough that it might kill them, they're out of this current combat at the very least. And that's what players really care about.

But if you go that way, then you start thinking about rehab. Hank the fighter lies in bed at the inn for six months screaming at his wife, "They're not rocks, Marie, they're minerals!" and that's not that much fun, so we tell his player to play his henchman, instead.

One thing I've never seen done too well with guns is gun modification.
It's not done that well in reality, either. As part of my Conflict research I found a US study of their firearms stoppages in Iraq and Afghanistan. Some things which surprised me:
Now, this is all based on real data. And so if you as GM told the player that their rifle would jam up more often if they put on a scope or a grenade-launcher, you'd be completely accurate - but you'd really piss off the player.

But bleeding... calibres... look, if you want to talk about what's really missing from RPGs - it's noncombatants as possible victims. Look at this breach scene, and tell me if you've ever had your characters assault somewhere and have to try to avoid harming noncombatants.

Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: PsyXypher on October 31, 2021, 11:43:41 PM

One thing I've never seen done too well with guns is gun modification.
It's not done that well in reality, either. As part of my Conflict research I found a US study of their firearms stoppages in Iraq and Afghanistan. Some things which surprised me:
  • Only 60% or so of soldiers were issued with cleaning kits at all
  • Soldiers who cleaned their firearms more often had more stoppages - though causality, they suggested, might lie the other way, with soldiers who kept getting stoppages cleaning it more often to try to make it work properly
  • Firearms with modifications and add-ons had more stoppages
  • and many, many more stoppages if the add-ons had been put there by the soldier themselves
Now, this is all based on real data. And so if you as GM told the player that their rifle would jam up more often if they put on a scope or a grenade-launcher, you'd be completely accurate - but you'd really piss off the player.

I don't think that last part is accurate (since I don't know how scopes would cause jamming) but I'll take your word for all the info you gave me. That's kinda sad. Some of those gun modifications are cool. And I love rule of cool. Luckily TTRPGs aren't reality and rule of cool can be applied.

The biggest problem I found with writing a system of gun mods is that 1, there's no good reason to NOT use mods, 2, how many mods can fit into one gun and how to determine that.

There's also questions that have to be answered about other weapons, mainly lasers. For example, if you can mod your laser weapon to be more efficient energy wise, why weren't these cutting edge weapons not using that system in the first place?

Many questions. Making your own system in my experience is great practice for staring down an eldritch horror. Can't go insane if you're already there!
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Kyle Aaron on November 01, 2021, 12:14:20 AM
I don't think that last part is accurate (since I don't know how scopes would cause jamming) but I'll take your word for all the info you gave me.
It's going on the reports of the soldiers involved. I can easily see it - basically, each accessory is more shit to take care of. The more pieces you have the more things can go wrong, and while you're busy fiddling with one piece, something else goes wrong.

Quote
And I love rule of cool. Luckily TTRPGs aren't reality and rule of cool can be applied.
Exactly. If you want a game where everyone gets blinged up in all the Gucci gear, you can do that.

Quote
The biggest problem I found with writing a system of gun mods is that 1, there's no good reason to NOT use mods, 2, how many mods can fit into one gun and how to determine that.
Just look at the real reasons. For those who are permitted to carry firearms daily, why don't they have silencers, scopes and lights on them all? Because that shit gets in the way, and the chances of it fucking up something basic and simple you want to do is much greater than the chances of it being useful. But games don't simulate that "gets in the way and fucks up" thing, so players will inevitably bling it up.

What you can do is give things relative or situational advantages. For example, rifles are more deadly, and are more likely to get through any body armour. So why don't all cops carry rifles? And why do soldiers sometimes carry pistols or SMGs?

Well, rifles will go through everything - but that can be a disadvantage when there are a lot of noncombatants around, and the chances of coming across a criminal with body armour are much, much lower than the chances of putting a round through drywall and taking out grandma living next door to the meth lab. So for the cops it's handguns or SMGs.

As for the soldiers, well rifles penetrate better, but SMGs and handguns are quicker to bring to bear, and don't take up as much space. So if you're out on the moors of the Falklands, okay rifles - but if you're going through a close jungle or urban area, you don't need something with an effective fire range of 600 metres. In Conflict I have put it as adjusting the chances when initiative (d6 vs d6 with some modifiers) is tied:

Ranged combat ties are resolved in favour of ascending order of weapon size, thus for example fist, then knife, then handgun, and finally longarms.
Melee and brawling combat [everything closer than 6m] ties are resolved in reverse order of weapon size.
In mixed combat, ranged fire wins initiative over 6m, and melee and brawling under 6m.

Thus, about 1 in 6 times your choice of weapon will matter, with longarms going before handguns and others at 6+m, and handguns before rifles at under 6m, and indeed the guy with the knife before the guy with the handgun - when close.

Of course, other things will matter, too - like rules of engagement. If you're not meant to fire unless fired upon, then whatever weapon you have, a combatant you only encounter at closer than 6m has a very good chance of acting first, achieving surprise. And he goes whack, whack, or stab, stab, or blam, blam - and well I hope your personal affairs are in order.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: PsyXypher on November 01, 2021, 12:23:45 AM
I am very sure that the main reason people don't use silencers with regularity is that there's an extreme amount of paperwork as well as a $200 stamp to get what is essentially a muffler for your gun. Otherwise they'd be a ton more popular.

Generally, I split guns into the following categories: Handguns, Rifles, Shotguns, Submachineguns, Launchers (stuff like Flamethrowers and Rocket Launchers) and Lasers. Rifles is by far the most extensive category as it involves most machine guns and stuff like Coilguns and Railguns.

Shotguns tend to deal wildly variably damage (2d20), while all the others deal damage in multiples of 1d6. Handguns are considered "Holdout" weapons, meaning they can be used in melee range without issue. Everything else, bar a few things like a Laser Pistol, can be knocked away if used in melee range.

Lasers deal more damage and use interchangeable batteries as ammunition (which has caused so many problems by its own) but basically lack any sort of armor piercing.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Kyle Aaron on November 01, 2021, 12:33:24 AM
I am very sure that the main reason people don't use silencers with regularity is that there's an extreme amount of paperwork as well as a $200 stamp to get what is essentially a muffler for your gun.
Soldiers don't, either, including the special forces who commonly can pick and choose what they use - at least as a unit.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: PsyXypher on November 01, 2021, 02:03:23 AM
I am very sure that the main reason people don't use silencers with regularity is that there's an extreme amount of paperwork as well as a $200 stamp to get what is essentially a muffler for your gun.
Soldiers don't, either, including the special forces who commonly can pick and choose what they use - at least as a unit.

Soldiers tend to be in a different boat than people who don't want to blow their ears out when defending against a home invasion. Civilians also don't usually have automatic weapons, but we can't say if that's by preference because for all intents and purposes, those are illegal for a civilian to have.

I just twisted around my setting and said anything less up to a rocket launcher is street legal, to avoid all this. It's more fun that way, IMO.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Kyle Aaron on November 01, 2021, 02:18:00 AM
Soldiers tend to be in a different boat than people who don't want to blow their ears out when defending against a home invasion.
Yes. Civilians will fire a few rounds and then spend the next two years of their lives without a firearm and churning through the legal system. Soldiers will fire buckets of bullets, and end up with permanent partial hearing loss.

But they still don't bother with silencers.

It's like how in the 1980s in the movies every weapon had a laser on it. Because lasers are cool. Now? No, because it's this much clutter and shit to take care of, and this much use.

Now, if you want the players to be running around with lasers and scopes and silencers strapped to them, and bayonets on their pistols, put rules for it, go for it. But if it's based on reality?

Well... in reality:-
inexperienced people will have all sorts of useless junk,
experienced people will have whatever the brass issue them, and
special forces will have the absolute minimum, and all of that useful.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Ghostmaker on November 01, 2021, 07:49:51 AM
One thing I've never seen done too well with guns is gun modification. Scopes, stocks, underbarrel grenade launchers. I think it's because there's only so many different effects of weapon mods.

Also really hate that "Smartgun" crap that cyberpunk games tend to have. It strains my suspension of disbelief that the technology would become popular in a world overrun with criminals. There's a reason there's no significant push for smartguns from any gun owner.
Smartgun systems in cyberpunk genres are something entirely different from what they're pushing IRL.

In Cyberpunk and Shadowrun, a smartgun system consists of an integrated module that tracks your ammo and targeting, projecting it onto your field of vision (via eyewear or cybereyes). One player I know humorously refers to it as 'FPS-vision'.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Charon's Little Helper on November 01, 2021, 09:51:00 AM
Just look at the real reasons. For those who are permitted to carry firearms daily, why don't they have silencers, scopes and lights on them all? Because that shit gets in the way, and the chances of it fucking up something basic and simple you want to do is much greater than the chances of it being useful. But games don't simulate that "gets in the way and fucks up" thing, so players will inevitably bling it up.

I found the same thing when researching various attachments. I didn't want to get too granular, so I came up with a pretty simple way to try to show that.

Basically in Space Dogs weapons are either light/normal/heavy - which affects how fast they are to draw and how much equipment space they take up. (A character 6 weapon slots total' a pair of light weapons take 1 slot, and heavy weapons take 2.) Each addition you add to a weapon increases the level by 1. So you add a bayonet or an underslung grenade launcher to an assault rifle? It becomes a heavy weapon. If you add a scope to a pistol? It goes from light to normal. And if you add them to weapons that are already heavy you start taking accuracy penalties.

It makes adding a single attachment to be situationally useful, but it's a bad idea to go crazy with it. And more often than not you're better off having no attachments.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: 3catcircus on November 01, 2021, 12:00:23 PM
@Erik Diaz & Chris24601

Modifiers to hit : Untrained, Trained, Expert, range & RoF

Mofifiers to range: Calliber (not getting into 100's of guns/ammo) ex. Small, Medium, Large

Modifiers to Dmg: RoF, Calliber, Training & Range

Small guns are everything from .22 to .25, Medium .32 to .38s, Large .45 and up. Thinking of adding a "Magnum" type of gun, but it needs to be available to several callibers, so it would increase the price of the gun and ammo and the Dmg it does.

Might include "stingy" guns, this would be your derringer type guns with one or two shots before reloading.

Already did the research for the real range of all the firearms and bows, it's way larger than what you usually find on games that have modern firearms. What you usually find is ~1/10th of the real range and some times less than that (WTAFF!?).

The gun porn will maybe be an apendix.

This.  I would urge anyone who wants to use firearms in their games to go spend some time looking through Twilight:2000 forums. 

I've got the first 3 versions of the game and prefer the Twilight:2013 rules because they are "realistic" without being unwieldy (one of the designers shared the firearms building rules which are based on actual ballistics calculations - give me any firearm from a little pocket .25 to a .50 anti-material rifle and I can stat it up in the TW:2013 rules.  *Most* firearms have nearly the same stats if they have similar bullet mass and muzzle velocity - to the point that a generic "9mm handgun" and a "Glock 17L" and a "Browning HP-35" are going to essentially have the same stats. 

I also recommend their combat and damage rules.  No "100% effective anywhere from 100 down to 1 hp and then suddenly you shut down at 0 hp." Wound levels/locations that affect mental/physical abilities, shock, death due to blood loss are all in there and it's not unwieldy.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: PsyXypher on November 01, 2021, 06:06:19 PM
One thing I've never seen done too well with guns is gun modification. Scopes, stocks, underbarrel grenade launchers. I think it's because there's only so many different effects of weapon mods.

Also really hate that "Smartgun" crap that cyberpunk games tend to have. It strains my suspension of disbelief that the technology would become popular in a world overrun with criminals. There's a reason there's no significant push for smartguns from any gun owner.
Smartgun systems in cyberpunk genres are something entirely different from what they're pushing IRL.

In Cyberpunk and Shadowrun, a smartgun system consists of an integrated module that tracks your ammo and targeting, projecting it onto your field of vision (via eyewear or cybereyes). One player I know humorously refers to it as 'FPS-vision'.

Everything I've heard about it was "Make sure your gun only fires when you want it to" which to me sounded like it would mess up at the worst possible time. If it doesn't effect the firing mechanism, that's completely different. Thanks.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Kyle Aaron on November 01, 2021, 07:19:10 PM
It makes adding a single attachment to be situationally useful, but it's a bad idea to go crazy with it. And more often than not you're better off having no attachments.
That's a neat solution, very good.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Ghostmaker on November 01, 2021, 08:38:32 PM
One thing I've never seen done too well with guns is gun modification. Scopes, stocks, underbarrel grenade launchers. I think it's because there's only so many different effects of weapon mods.

Also really hate that "Smartgun" crap that cyberpunk games tend to have. It strains my suspension of disbelief that the technology would become popular in a world overrun with criminals. There's a reason there's no significant push for smartguns from any gun owner.
Smartgun systems in cyberpunk genres are something entirely different from what they're pushing IRL.

In Cyberpunk and Shadowrun, a smartgun system consists of an integrated module that tracks your ammo and targeting, projecting it onto your field of vision (via eyewear or cybereyes). One player I know humorously refers to it as 'FPS-vision'.

Everything I've heard about it was "Make sure your gun only fires when you want it to" which to me sounded like it would mess up at the worst possible time. If it doesn't effect the firing mechanism, that's completely different. Thanks.
I have commented myself on the irony of a half-assed biometric lockout system (which, I might add, has not been successfully sold to police yet -- which should tell you a lot) being called the same thing as the fictional system which effectively makes you a better shooter in most cyberpunk-genre RPGs.

I dunno about the Cyberpunk systems, but 'advanced safety' was an option in SR4 onward and acted like the aforementioned biometric system.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Shawn Driscoll on November 01, 2021, 11:22:06 PM
What the tin says, how granular would you make/like/prefer your gun tables?

Pistol
Rifle
Shotgun
Machinegun

And what their best combat range use is (rifles probably don't work well in personal range combat), along with what their maximum shooting range is.

Using a particular weapon is just a skill roll, rolling equal or over a difficulty number to succeed in hitting a target.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: 3catcircus on November 02, 2021, 06:54:40 AM
What the tin says, how granular would you make/like/prefer your gun tables?

Pistol
Rifle
Shotgun
Machinegun

And what their best combat range use is (rifles probably don't work well in personal range combat), along with what their maximum shooting range is.

Using a particular weapon is just a skill roll, rolling equal or over a difficulty number to succeed in hitting a target.

Too broad.  A .25 pocket pistol and a .44 Magnum have vastly different effective ranges.  Likewise an M4 is not taking out targets at a half-mile like a dedicated sniper rifle in the hands of a skilled marksman.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Charon's Little Helper on November 02, 2021, 09:46:27 AM
What the tin says, how granular would you make/like/prefer your gun tables?

Pistol
Rifle
Shotgun
Machinegun

And what their best combat range use is (rifles probably don't work well in personal range combat), along with what their maximum shooting range is.

Using a particular weapon is just a skill roll, rolling equal or over a difficulty number to succeed in hitting a target.

Too broad.  A .25 pocket pistol and a .44 Magnum have vastly different effective ranges.  Likewise an M4 is not taking out targets at a half-mile like a dedicated sniper rifle in the hands of a skilled marksman.

I'm using:

Small Arms:
Assault Rifle
Chain Gun
Hand cannon
Heavy Machine-Gun
Hold-Out Pistol
Large Bore Rifle
Machine Pistol
Pistol
Rifle
Shotgun
Sniper Rifle
Target Pistol

Specialty:
AA (Anti-Aircraft) Launcher
AM (Anti-Mecha) Rifle
Flamethrower
Grenade Launcher
Rocket Launcher


I feel like I could cut a few, but they all play pretty differently - in large part due to different weapons using different attack dice. (Ex: Assault Rifle: 2d10 / Pistol: 2d8 / Shotgun: 4d6 / Rocket Launcher: 2d6 - all with different range penalties & Brawn requirements.)

And I definitely don't want to go full-on gun porn like a lot of 90s cyberpunk games seemed to.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Ghostmaker on November 02, 2021, 09:51:28 AM
What the tin says, how granular would you make/like/prefer your gun tables?

Pistol
Rifle
Shotgun
Machinegun

And what their best combat range use is (rifles probably don't work well in personal range combat), along with what their maximum shooting range is.

Using a particular weapon is just a skill roll, rolling equal or over a difficulty number to succeed in hitting a target.

Too broad.  A .25 pocket pistol and a .44 Magnum have vastly different effective ranges.  Likewise an M4 is not taking out targets at a half-mile like a dedicated sniper rifle in the hands of a skilled marksman.

I'm using:

Small Arms:
Assault Rifle
Chain Gun
Hand cannon
Heavy Machine-Gun
Hold-Out Pistol
Large Bore Rifle
Machine Pistol
Pistol
Rifle
Shotgun
Sniper Rifle
Target Pistol

Specialty:
AA (Anti-Aircraft) Launcher
AM (Anti-Mecha) Rifle
Flamethrower
Grenade Launcher
Rocket Launcher


I feel like I could cut a few, but they all play pretty differently - in large part due to different weapons using different attack dice. (Ex: Assault Rifle: 2d10 / Pistol: 2d8 / Shotgun: 4d6 / Rocket Launcher: 2d6 - all with different range penalties.)

And I definitely don't want to go full-on gun porn like a lot of 90s cyberpunk games seemed to.
>small arms
>chain gun
>heavy machine gun

Yeah, I'm not sure that works.

I'd use:

Small Arms:
Light pistol
Heavy pistol
SMG
Rifle and Shotgun

Support Arms:
Machine Gun (SAW, LMG)
Grenade Launcher
Chemical Projector (flamethrower or other weirdness)
Heavy Launcher (covers man portable or semi-portable missile weapons)

Gunnery can cover vehicle-mounted or heavier weapons.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Charon's Little Helper on November 02, 2021, 09:55:57 AM
>small arms
>chain gun
>heavy machine gun

Yeah, I'm not sure that works.


Fair enough - I just added "Small Arms" to my post - it's not in the system. In-game the separation is only due to the weapons which can scale up/down (so a mecha wielding a chain gun would work the same as infantry - just with higher damage scale) versus infantry only weapons.

There's no skills for either. Combat rolls are entirely Attribute(s) + weapon dice. So anyone can pick up any weapon, though with too low of a Brawn score they'll take penalties.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: GeekyBugle on November 02, 2021, 11:07:41 AM
@Erik Diaz & Chris24601

Modifiers to hit : Untrained, Trained, Expert, range & RoF

Mofifiers to range: Calliber (not getting into 100's of guns/ammo) ex. Small, Medium, Large

Modifiers to Dmg: RoF, Calliber, Training & Range

Small guns are everything from .22 to .25, Medium .32 to .38s, Large .45 and up. Thinking of adding a "Magnum" type of gun, but it needs to be available to several callibers, so it would increase the price of the gun and ammo and the Dmg it does.

Might include "stingy" guns, this would be your derringer type guns with one or two shots before reloading.

Already did the research for the real range of all the firearms and bows, it's way larger than what you usually find on games that have modern firearms. What you usually find is ~1/10th of the real range and some times less than that (WTAFF!?).

The gun porn will maybe be an apendix.

This.  I would urge anyone who wants to use firearms in their games to go spend some time looking through Twilight:2000 forums. 

I've got the first 3 versions of the game and prefer the Twilight:2013 rules because they are "realistic" without being unwieldy (one of the designers shared the firearms building rules which are based on actual ballistics calculations - give me any firearm from a little pocket .25 to a .50 anti-material rifle and I can stat it up in the TW:2013 rules.  *Most* firearms have nearly the same stats if they have similar bullet mass and muzzle velocity - to the point that a generic "9mm handgun" and a "Glock 17L" and a "Browning HP-35" are going to essentially have the same stats. 

I also recommend their combat and damage rules.  No "100% effective anywhere from 100 down to 1 hp and then suddenly you shut down at 0 hp." Wound levels/locations that affect mental/physical abilities, shock, death due to blood loss are all in there and it's not unwieldy.

Hunting down the game rules, thanks.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Mishihari on November 02, 2021, 02:49:50 PM
Bleeding I consider a bit of a non-issue. Yes, bleeding out is the leading cause of death both in modern combats and accidents. But it's not like the guy is toodling around happily while blood's gushing out of him and then suddenly falls over dead. If the injury is serious enough that he might bleed out - he falls over and is no longer taking part in proceedings.

That's not actually true from my admittedly limited reading on the topic.  (And I I'll admit I don't care enough to do further research)  There are plenty of true life stories about someone fighting on after being wounded then dying later of blood loss.  If you're trying to emulate fiction, they they're all over the place.  It can simplify play a lot though to assume that when you're wounded you're down and then sort out dead or not later, though, so it's an okay approach.  It's actually pretty much what I chose to do for my game.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Ghostmaker on November 02, 2021, 03:51:04 PM
Bleeding I consider a bit of a non-issue. Yes, bleeding out is the leading cause of death both in modern combats and accidents. But it's not like the guy is toodling around happily while blood's gushing out of him and then suddenly falls over dead. If the injury is serious enough that he might bleed out - he falls over and is no longer taking part in proceedings.

That's not actually true from my admittedly limited reading on the topic.  (And I I'll admit I don't care enough to do further research)  There are plenty of true life stories about someone fighting on after being wounded then dying later of blood loss.  If you're trying to emulate fiction, they they're all over the place.  It can simplify play a lot though to assume that when you're wounded you're down and then sort out dead or not later, though, so it's an okay approach.  It's actually pretty much what I chose to do for my game.
Actually, that might make for an interesting mechanic. The tendency for adrenaline to temporarily negate wound effects until the fight ends. Wouldn't work for systems without wound penalties or some such, but I guess you could simulate it in a hit point system with temporary HP that vanish at the end of the fight (recall how the 3E barbarian ran the risk of keeling over after combat ended).
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Kyle Aaron on November 02, 2021, 06:06:11 PM
There are plenty of true life stories about someone fighting on after being wounded then dying later of blood loss.  If you're trying to emulate fiction, they they're all over the place. 
If you're trying to emulate fiction, do whatever the fuck you want. There are a thousand different fictions. If you're trying to emulate reality, then you just have them make a roll, and if they get a critical success, they can ignore the wound and carry on. But most of the time they're just going to fall over.

However, if you want to argue that in reality some guy can get shot in the head, be gushing blood and fight on, then to be fair you have to balance that with the reality that some other guy can get shot in the leg and require 6 months of physiotherapy to be able to walk again, and he'll end up on a disability pension. Careful with that "but in reality" argument, you might not end up where you'd like to.

What we actually do in practice is pick and choose from reality and fiction. Most times the "realistic" game isn't really, it's just realistic-themed. It's reasonable.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: 3catcircus on November 02, 2021, 06:13:51 PM
@Erik Diaz & Chris24601

Modifiers to hit : Untrained, Trained, Expert, range & RoF

Mofifiers to range: Calliber (not getting into 100's of guns/ammo) ex. Small, Medium, Large

Modifiers to Dmg: RoF, Calliber, Training & Range

Small guns are everything from .22 to .25, Medium .32 to .38s, Large .45 and up. Thinking of adding a "Magnum" type of gun, but it needs to be available to several callibers, so it would increase the price of the gun and ammo and the Dmg it does.

Might include "stingy" guns, this would be your derringer type guns with one or two shots before reloading.

Already did the research for the real range of all the firearms and bows, it's way larger than what you usually find on games that have modern firearms. What you usually find is ~1/10th of the real range and some times less than that (WTAFF!?).

The gun porn will maybe be an apendix.

This.  I would urge anyone who wants to use firearms in their games to go spend some time looking through Twilight:2000 forums. 

I've got the first 3 versions of the game and prefer the Twilight:2013 rules because they are "realistic" without being unwieldy (one of the designers shared the firearms building rules which are based on actual ballistics calculations - give me any firearm from a little pocket .25 to a .50 anti-material rifle and I can stat it up in the TW:2013 rules.  *Most* firearms have nearly the same stats if they have similar bullet mass and muzzle velocity - to the point that a generic "9mm handgun" and a "Glock 17L" and a "Browning HP-35" are going to essentially have the same stats. 

I also recommend their combat and damage rules.  No "100% effective anywhere from 100 down to 1 hp and then suddenly you shut down at 0 hp." Wound levels/locations that affect mental/physical abilities, shock, death due to blood loss are all in there and it's not unwieldy.

Hunting down the game rules, thanks.

Yep.  Different rules than d20/D&D, but they can be adapted.

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/m/product/58794
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: GeekyBugle on November 02, 2021, 06:16:11 PM
@Erik Diaz & Chris24601

Modifiers to hit : Untrained, Trained, Expert, range & RoF

Mofifiers to range: Calliber (not getting into 100's of guns/ammo) ex. Small, Medium, Large

Modifiers to Dmg: RoF, Calliber, Training & Range

Small guns are everything from .22 to .25, Medium .32 to .38s, Large .45 and up. Thinking of adding a "Magnum" type of gun, but it needs to be available to several callibers, so it would increase the price of the gun and ammo and the Dmg it does.

Might include "stingy" guns, this would be your derringer type guns with one or two shots before reloading.

Already did the research for the real range of all the firearms and bows, it's way larger than what you usually find on games that have modern firearms. What you usually find is ~1/10th of the real range and some times less than that (WTAFF!?).

The gun porn will maybe be an apendix.

This.  I would urge anyone who wants to use firearms in their games to go spend some time looking through Twilight:2000 forums. 

I've got the first 3 versions of the game and prefer the Twilight:2013 rules because they are "realistic" without being unwieldy (one of the designers shared the firearms building rules which are based on actual ballistics calculations - give me any firearm from a little pocket .25 to a .50 anti-material rifle and I can stat it up in the TW:2013 rules.  *Most* firearms have nearly the same stats if they have similar bullet mass and muzzle velocity - to the point that a generic "9mm handgun" and a "Glock 17L" and a "Browning HP-35" are going to essentially have the same stats. 

I also recommend their combat and damage rules.  No "100% effective anywhere from 100 down to 1 hp and then suddenly you shut down at 0 hp." Wound levels/locations that affect mental/physical abilities, shock, death due to blood loss are all in there and it's not unwieldy.

Hunting down the game rules, thanks.

Yep.  Different rules than d20/D&D, but they can be adapted.

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/m/product/58794

When you find a better hammer you switch hammers.

Bolting on mechanics is the least of my problems, don't get me started trying to populate, Venus, Mars, Mercury?, The Moon and the jovian moons...
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: 3catcircus on November 02, 2021, 06:17:25 PM
There are plenty of true life stories about someone fighting on after being wounded then dying later of blood loss.  If you're trying to emulate fiction, they they're all over the place. 
If you're trying to emulate fiction, do whatever the fuck you want. There are a thousand different fictions. If you're trying to emulate reality, then you just have them make a roll, and if they get a critical success, they can ignore the wound and carry on. But most of the time they're just going to fall over.

However, if you want to argue that in reality some guy can get shot in the head, be gushing blood and fight on, then to be fair you have to balance that with the reality that some other guy can get shot in the leg and require 6 months of physiotherapy to be able to walk again, and he'll end up on a disability pension. Careful with that "but in reality" argument, you might not end up where you'd like to.

What we actually do in practice is pick and choose from reality and fiction. Most times the "realistic" game isn't really, it's just realistic-themed. It's reasonable.

To be fair, a lot of the time (fatal head or chest shot or severed arteries aside), cops and soldiers who get shot with a non-fatal wound fall over incapacitated because that's what they see on tv and that is what they expect, which more often than not leads to their dying when they would have survived had they continued to fight.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: 3catcircus on November 02, 2021, 06:19:47 PM
@Erik Diaz & Chris24601

Modifiers to hit : Untrained, Trained, Expert, range & RoF

Mofifiers to range: Calliber (not getting into 100's of guns/ammo) ex. Small, Medium, Large

Modifiers to Dmg: RoF, Calliber, Training & Range

Small guns are everything from .22 to .25, Medium .32 to .38s, Large .45 and up. Thinking of adding a "Magnum" type of gun, but it needs to be available to several callibers, so it would increase the price of the gun and ammo and the Dmg it does.

Might include "stingy" guns, this would be your derringer type guns with one or two shots before reloading.

Already did the research for the real range of all the firearms and bows, it's way larger than what you usually find on games that have modern firearms. What you usually find is ~1/10th of the real range and some times less than that (WTAFF!?).

The gun porn will maybe be an apendix.

This.  I would urge anyone who wants to use firearms in their games to go spend some time looking through Twilight:2000 forums. 

I've got the first 3 versions of the game and prefer the Twilight:2013 rules because they are "realistic" without being unwieldy (one of the designers shared the firearms building rules which are based on actual ballistics calculations - give me any firearm from a little pocket .25 to a .50 anti-material rifle and I can stat it up in the TW:2013 rules.  *Most* firearms have nearly the same stats if they have similar bullet mass and muzzle velocity - to the point that a generic "9mm handgun" and a "Glock 17L" and a "Browning HP-35" are going to essentially have the same stats. 

I also recommend their combat and damage rules.  No "100% effective anywhere from 100 down to 1 hp and then suddenly you shut down at 0 hp." Wound levels/locations that affect mental/physical abilities, shock, death due to blood loss are all in there and it's not unwieldy.

Hunting down the game rules, thanks.

Yep.  Different rules than d20/D&D, but they can be adapted.

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/m/product/58794

When you find a better hammer you switch hammers.

Bolting on mechanics is the least of my problems, don't get me started trying to populate, Venus, Mars, Mercury?, The Moon and the jovian moons...

Stage I rules for the game are free.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: GeekyBugle on November 02, 2021, 06:21:43 PM
@Erik Diaz & Chris24601

Modifiers to hit : Untrained, Trained, Expert, range & RoF

Mofifiers to range: Calliber (not getting into 100's of guns/ammo) ex. Small, Medium, Large

Modifiers to Dmg: RoF, Calliber, Training & Range

Small guns are everything from .22 to .25, Medium .32 to .38s, Large .45 and up. Thinking of adding a "Magnum" type of gun, but it needs to be available to several callibers, so it would increase the price of the gun and ammo and the Dmg it does.

Might include "stingy" guns, this would be your derringer type guns with one or two shots before reloading.

Already did the research for the real range of all the firearms and bows, it's way larger than what you usually find on games that have modern firearms. What you usually find is ~1/10th of the real range and some times less than that (WTAFF!?).

The gun porn will maybe be an apendix.

This.  I would urge anyone who wants to use firearms in their games to go spend some time looking through Twilight:2000 forums. 

I've got the first 3 versions of the game and prefer the Twilight:2013 rules because they are "realistic" without being unwieldy (one of the designers shared the firearms building rules which are based on actual ballistics calculations - give me any firearm from a little pocket .25 to a .50 anti-material rifle and I can stat it up in the TW:2013 rules.  *Most* firearms have nearly the same stats if they have similar bullet mass and muzzle velocity - to the point that a generic "9mm handgun" and a "Glock 17L" and a "Browning HP-35" are going to essentially have the same stats. 

I also recommend their combat and damage rules.  No "100% effective anywhere from 100 down to 1 hp and then suddenly you shut down at 0 hp." Wound levels/locations that affect mental/physical abilities, shock, death due to blood loss are all in there and it's not unwieldy.

Hunting down the game rules, thanks.

Yep.  Different rules than d20/D&D, but they can be adapted.

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/m/product/58794

When you find a better hammer you switch hammers.

Bolting on mechanics is the least of my problems, don't get me started trying to populate, Venus, Mars, Mercury?, The Moon and the jovian moons...

Stage I rules for the game are free.

Right on! Does that include the gun rules?
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Kyle Aaron on November 02, 2021, 06:57:24 PM
a lot of the time (fatal head or chest shot or severed arteries aside), cops and soldiers who get shot with a non-fatal wound fall over incapacitated because that's what they see on tv and that is what they expect
"You too can ignore bullet wounds with the power of positive thinking!"

Um, no.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: HappyDaze on November 02, 2021, 08:07:48 PM
a lot of the time (fatal head or chest shot or severed arteries aside), cops and soldiers who get shot with a non-fatal wound fall over incapacitated because that's what they see on tv and that is what they expect
"You too can ignore bullet wounds with the power of positive thinking!"

Um, no.
I think that was an actual power in Scion. There was definitely one where you couldn't be hurt by an attacker you were unaware of because, to you, they effectively didn't exist until you acknowledged them.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Kyle Aaron on November 02, 2021, 08:39:56 PM
No reports on whether the accused is a large Irish man.

No firearms, sorry. But hitting someone in the head with a cinder block and then stabbing them repeatedly will do the job.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/man-killed-his-daughter-s-boyfriend-selling-her-sex-trafficking-n1282968
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Ghostmaker on November 02, 2021, 09:19:37 PM
a lot of the time (fatal head or chest shot or severed arteries aside), cops and soldiers who get shot with a non-fatal wound fall over incapacitated because that's what they see on tv and that is what they expect
"You too can ignore bullet wounds with the power of positive thinking!"

Um, no.
People have been known to survive ridiculous damage. Granted, that's with top medical aid given within the hour (hence the 'golden hour').
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Kyle Aaron on November 02, 2021, 09:24:27 PM
Yes. Not with positive thinking - with well-trained and well-equipped professionals. And they weren't running and gunning while in the hospital waiting room.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: 3catcircus on November 02, 2021, 09:30:12 PM
@Erik Diaz & Chris24601

Modifiers to hit : Untrained, Trained, Expert, range & RoF

Mofifiers to range: Calliber (not getting into 100's of guns/ammo) ex. Small, Medium, Large

Modifiers to Dmg: RoF, Calliber, Training & Range

Small guns are everything from .22 to .25, Medium .32 to .38s, Large .45 and up. Thinking of adding a "Magnum" type of gun, but it needs to be available to several callibers, so it would increase the price of the gun and ammo and the Dmg it does.

Might include "stingy" guns, this would be your derringer type guns with one or two shots before reloading.

Already did the research for the real range of all the firearms and bows, it's way larger than what you usually find on games that have modern firearms. What you usually find is ~1/10th of the real range and some times less than that (WTAFF!?).

The gun porn will maybe be an apendix.

This.  I would urge anyone who wants to use firearms in their games to go spend some time looking through Twilight:2000 forums. 

I've got the first 3 versions of the game and prefer the Twilight:2013 rules because they are "realistic" without being unwieldy (one of the designers shared the firearms building rules which are based on actual ballistics calculations - give me any firearm from a little pocket .25 to a .50 anti-material rifle and I can stat it up in the TW:2013 rules.  *Most* firearms have nearly the same stats if they have similar bullet mass and muzzle velocity - to the point that a generic "9mm handgun" and a "Glock 17L" and a "Browning HP-35" are going to essentially have the same stats. 

I also recommend their combat and damage rules.  No "100% effective anywhere from 100 down to 1 hp and then suddenly you shut down at 0 hp." Wound levels/locations that affect mental/physical abilities, shock, death due to blood loss are all in there and it's not unwieldy.

Hunting down the game rules, thanks.

Yep.  Different rules than d20/D&D, but they can be adapted.

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/m/product/58794

When you find a better hammer you switch hammers.

Bolting on mechanics is the least of my problems, don't get me started trying to populate, Venus, Mars, Mercury?, The Moon and the jovian moons...

Stage I rules for the game are free.

Right on! Does that include the gun rules?

Unfortunately, the *design* rules are not part of the game rules, but you should be able to see them in action in the Stage I rules.

And I misspoke - they're $5.99 for Stage I rules.

I'll ask if I can post the link to the firearms design guidelines.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Ghostmaker on November 02, 2021, 09:32:10 PM
Yes. Not with positive thinking - with well-trained and well-equipped professionals. And they weren't running and gunning while in the hospital waiting room.
Well, PCP is also an option but it's not really one for continued survival.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: 3catcircus on November 02, 2021, 09:48:57 PM
a lot of the time (fatal head or chest shot or severed arteries aside), cops and soldiers who get shot with a non-fatal wound fall over incapacitated because that's what they see on tv and that is what they expect
"You too can ignore bullet wounds with the power of positive thinking!"

Um, no.
People have been known to survive ridiculous damage. Granted, that's with top medical aid given within the hour (hence the 'golden hour').

Here's where I remembered reading about this:

http://nononsenseselfdefense.com/activeshooter.html#gunshotwound

Needless to say, the entire site is a wealth of info about getting shot, stabbed, etc., and more importantly, avoiding it in the first place.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: oggsmash on November 02, 2021, 09:58:07 PM
  Surviving trauma is an odd thing in real life.  Some people survive insane punishment with little medical treatment, and others die from getting punched in the head once.   I think trying to simulate reality in a game is complete folly.  I think having consistent rules for emulating the Game's reality will be much more useful. 
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: GeekyBugle on November 02, 2021, 10:41:22 PM
  Surviving trauma is an odd thing in real life.  Some people survive insane punishment with little medical treatment, and others die from getting punched in the head once.   I think trying to simulate reality in a game is complete folly.  I think having consistent rules for emulating the Game's reality will be much more useful.

In any game IMHO the search for realism is utter bollocks, much better to search for internal consistency and verisimilitude within the game.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Charon's Little Helper on November 02, 2021, 10:43:17 PM
a lot of the time (fatal head or chest shot or severed arteries aside), cops and soldiers who get shot with a non-fatal wound fall over incapacitated because that's what they see on tv and that is what they expect
"You too can ignore bullet wounds with the power of positive thinking!"

Um, no.
I think that was an actual power in Scion. There was definitely one where you couldn't be hurt by an attacker you were unaware of because, to you, they effectively didn't exist until you acknowledged them.

Is that Looney Tunes rules? You don't fall until you look down, and you don't bleed until you notice the shooter?
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: PsyXypher on November 03, 2021, 12:16:48 AM
a lot of the time (fatal head or chest shot or severed arteries aside), cops and soldiers who get shot with a non-fatal wound fall over incapacitated because that's what they see on tv and that is what they expect
"You too can ignore bullet wounds with the power of positive thinking!"

Um, no.
I think that was an actual power in Scion. There was definitely one where you couldn't be hurt by an attacker you were unaware of because, to you, they effectively didn't exist until you acknowledged them.

Is that Looney Tunes rules? You don't fall until you look down, and you don't bleed until you notice the shooter?

2nd Edition had a similar psionic power called "Subjective Reality". Basically, if you disbelieve in something hard enough it can't hurt you.

Sorta like this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5-vt38GiA0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5-vt38GiA0).
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Mishihari on November 03, 2021, 02:14:56 AM
  Surviving trauma is an odd thing in real life.  Some people survive insane punishment with little medical treatment, and others die from getting punched in the head once.   I think trying to simulate reality in a game is complete folly.  I think having consistent rules for emulating the Game's reality will be much more useful.

In any game IMHO the search for realism is utter bollocks, much better to search for internal consistency and verisimilitude within the game.

I could not possibly disagree with this statement more.  IMO a game should be as realistic as possible except where necessary to 1) simplify play or 2) accommodate any fantastic conceits of the system and setting.  Things are always adjudicated by common sense because it's impossible to have a rule for everything, and the closer to reality the game is, the better our common sense and RL intuition work.  I also find that the more realistic a game is, the more I care about the results.  TOON is fun and all, but I just can't take it seriously.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Mishihari on November 03, 2021, 02:16:20 AM
There are plenty of true life stories about someone fighting on after being wounded then dying later of blood loss.  If you're trying to emulate fiction, they they're all over the place. 
If you're trying to emulate fiction, do whatever the fuck you want. There are a thousand different fictions. If you're trying to emulate reality, then you just have them make a roll, and if they get a critical success, they can ignore the wound and carry on. But most of the time they're just going to fall over.

However, if you want to argue that in reality some guy can get shot in the head, be gushing blood and fight on, then to be fair you have to balance that with the reality that some other guy can get shot in the leg and require 6 months of physiotherapy to be able to walk again, and he'll end up on a disability pension. Careful with that "but in reality" argument, you might not end up where you'd like to.

What we actually do in practice is pick and choose from reality and fiction. Most times the "realistic" game isn't really, it's just realistic-themed. It's reasonable.

To be fair, a lot of the time (fatal head or chest shot or severed arteries aside), cops and soldiers who get shot with a non-fatal wound fall over incapacitated because that's what they see on tv and that is what they expect, which more often than not leads to their dying when they would have survived had they continued to fight.

Do you have a source for this?  It sounds right, but I'd be interested in seeing the support.  EDIT:  I just read on and saw your source.  Do you have anything else?
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Mishihari on November 03, 2021, 02:20:55 AM
Yes. Not with positive thinking - with well-trained and well-equipped professionals. And they weren't running and gunning while in the hospital waiting room.

Pretty sure he's not actually talking about eventual survival - he's talking about being able to continue to operate for a while.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: 3catcircus on November 03, 2021, 11:15:36 AM
There are plenty of true life stories about someone fighting on after being wounded then dying later of blood loss.  If you're trying to emulate fiction, they they're all over the place. 
If you're trying to emulate fiction, do whatever the fuck you want. There are a thousand different fictions. If you're trying to emulate reality, then you just have them make a roll, and if they get a critical success, they can ignore the wound and carry on. But most of the time they're just going to fall over.

However, if you want to argue that in reality some guy can get shot in the head, be gushing blood and fight on, then to be fair you have to balance that with the reality that some other guy can get shot in the leg and require 6 months of physiotherapy to be able to walk again, and he'll end up on a disability pension. Careful with that "but in reality" argument, you might not end up where you'd like to.

What we actually do in practice is pick and choose from reality and fiction. Most times the "realistic" game isn't really, it's just realistic-themed. It's reasonable.

To be fair, a lot of the time (fatal head or chest shot or severed arteries aside), cops and soldiers who get shot with a non-fatal wound fall over incapacitated because that's what they see on tv and that is what they expect, which more often than not leads to their dying when they would have survived had they continued to fight.

Do you have a source for this?  It sounds right, but I'd be interested in seeing the support.  EDIT:  I just read on and saw your source.  Do you have anything else?

https://www.personaldefenseworld.com/2018/01/gunshot-wounds-defensive-gunfire/

https://www.wildernessarena.com/supplies/weapons/gunshots-wounds-stopping-power-myth-vs-fact

https://www.wired.com/2015/12/what-really-happens-when-you-get-shot/

https://www.police1.com/officer-shootings/articles/why-one-cop-carries-145-rounds-of-ammo-on-the-job-clGBbLYpnqqHxwMq/
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: deadDMwalking on November 03, 2021, 03:21:15 PM
  Surviving trauma is an odd thing in real life.  Some people survive insane punishment with little medical treatment, and others die from getting punched in the head once.   I think trying to simulate reality in a game is complete folly.  I think having consistent rules for emulating the Game's reality will be much more useful.

In any game IMHO the search for realism is utter bollocks, much better to search for internal consistency and verisimilitude within the game.

I could not possibly disagree with this statement more.  IMO a game should be as realistic as possible except where necessary to 1) simplify play or 2) accommodate any fantastic conceits of the system and setting.  Things are always adjudicated by common sense because it's impossible to have a rule for everything, and the closer to reality the game is, the better our common sense and RL intuition work.  I also find that the more realistic a game is, the more I care about the results.  TOON is fun and all, but I just can't take it seriously.

In the real world, groups of individuals solve problems.  In the game, a single individual handles everything.  Effectively, instead of the LAPD you're John McClane or Jack Bauer.  That's not REALISTIC nor should it be.  Realism doesn't work well for a game that includes any elements of danger.  Getting in a car accident is bad news in real life, but it's usually survivable in movies or other media.

Consistency is good; knowing how the physics of the game is also important.  Falling from a 10-story building is nearly always fatal in real life.  In a game, if that's always fatal, that's fine.  If it's survivable, that's fine.  The important thing is that players KNOW and the results are consistent with expectations.  If that involves a certain amount of suspension of disbelief, that's a GOOD THING.

For example, a space-faring game that doesn't include Faster-than-Light travel isn't worth playing.  It doesn't matter AT ALL whether it is realistic - it just matters that it SEEMS realistic in the game.  Likewise, any system that includes MAGIC should not aim for realism.

Verisimilitude is king. 
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: GeekyBugle on November 03, 2021, 03:36:34 PM
  Surviving trauma is an odd thing in real life.  Some people survive insane punishment with little medical treatment, and others die from getting punched in the head once.   I think trying to simulate reality in a game is complete folly.  I think having consistent rules for emulating the Game's reality will be much more useful.

In any game IMHO the search for realism is utter bollocks, much better to search for internal consistency and verisimilitude within the game.

I could not possibly disagree with this statement more.  IMO a game should be as realistic as possible except where necessary to 1) simplify play or 2) accommodate any fantastic conceits of the system and setting.  Things are always adjudicated by common sense because it's impossible to have a rule for everything, and the closer to reality the game is, the better our common sense and RL intuition work.  I also find that the more realistic a game is, the more I care about the results.  TOON is fun and all, but I just can't take it seriously.

In the real world, groups of individuals solve problems.  In the game, a single individual handles everything.  Effectively, instead of the LAPD you're John McClane or Jack Bauer.  That's not REALISTIC nor should it be.  Realism doesn't work well for a game that includes any elements of danger.  Getting in a car accident is bad news in real life, but it's usually survivable in movies or other media.

Consistency is good; knowing how the physics of the game is also important.  Falling from a 10-story building is nearly always fatal in real life.  In a game, if that's always fatal, that's fine.  If it's survivable, that's fine.  The important thing is that players KNOW and the results are consistent with expectations.  If that involves a certain amount of suspension of disbelief, that's a GOOD THING.

For example, a space-faring game that doesn't include Faster-than-Light travel isn't worth playing.  It doesn't matter AT ALL whether it is realistic - it just matters that it SEEMS realistic in the game.  Likewise, any system that includes MAGIC should not aim for realism.

Verisimilitude is king.

Exactly, 100% of the time.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: 3catcircus on November 03, 2021, 04:54:29 PM
  Surviving trauma is an odd thing in real life.  Some people survive insane punishment with little medical treatment, and others die from getting punched in the head once.   I think trying to simulate reality in a game is complete folly.  I think having consistent rules for emulating the Game's reality will be much more useful.

In any game IMHO the search for realism is utter bollocks, much better to search for internal consistency and verisimilitude within the game.

I could not possibly disagree with this statement more.  IMO a game should be as realistic as possible except where necessary to 1) simplify play or 2) accommodate any fantastic conceits of the system and setting.  Things are always adjudicated by common sense because it's impossible to have a rule for everything, and the closer to reality the game is, the better our common sense and RL intuition work.  I also find that the more realistic a game is, the more I care about the results.  TOON is fun and all, but I just can't take it seriously.

In the real world, groups of individuals solve problems.  In the game, a single individual handles everything.  Effectively, instead of the LAPD you're John McClane or Jack Bauer.  That's not REALISTIC nor should it be.  Realism doesn't work well for a game that includes any elements of danger.  Getting in a car accident is bad news in real life, but it's usually survivable in movies or other media.

Consistency is good; knowing how the physics of the game is also important.  Falling from a 10-story building is nearly always fatal in real life.  In a game, if that's always fatal, that's fine.  If it's survivable, that's fine.  The important thing is that players KNOW and the results are consistent with expectations.  If that involves a certain amount of suspension of disbelief, that's a GOOD THING.

For example, a space-faring game that doesn't include Faster-than-Light travel isn't worth playing.  It doesn't matter AT ALL whether it is realistic - it just matters that it SEEMS realistic in the game.  Likewise, any system that includes MAGIC should not aim for realism.

Verisimilitude is king.

re: magic.  Doesn't this sorta still matter?  What I'm getting at is there is nothing wrong with making it so that someone who gets hit with a fireball and saves manages to get somewhat burned but lives to tell the tale if they manage to put out any flammable items on their person that are still on fire after the initial blast but someone who fails is going to have 3rd/4th degree burns and probably die soon after the blast. 

That's the disconnect - things that we have a real-world basis for need to feel realistic.  Things like fire damage, falling damage, drowning, asphyxia, a stabbing, etc. we have a better understanding of then what a mace could do to a skull or the insidiousness of a hydrofluoric acid exposure death or being transmuted by aboleth slime.

If you can Google image search it on Documenting Reality, having the game emulate it might not be a bad thing...
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Mishihari on November 03, 2021, 05:07:39 PM

For example, a space-faring game that doesn't include Faster-than-Light travel isn't worth playing.  It doesn't matter AT ALL whether it is realistic - it just matters that it SEEMS realistic in the game.  Likewise, any system that includes MAGIC should not aim for realism.

Verisimilitude is king. 

Since you apparently missed half of a very short post, I'll repeat it ...

Quote from: Mishihari

... except where necessary to 1) simplify play or 2) accommodate any fantastic conceits of the system and setting ...


If your setting requires FTL, then put it in there, but anything that isn't important to the game premise should be kept realistic.  Far too often, I see arguments that because not everything is realistic then realism isn't important for anything.  Which leads to lousy game design, IMO.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: GeekyBugle on November 03, 2021, 05:54:48 PM

For example, a space-faring game that doesn't include Faster-than-Light travel isn't worth playing.  It doesn't matter AT ALL whether it is realistic - it just matters that it SEEMS realistic in the game.  Likewise, any system that includes MAGIC should not aim for realism.

Verisimilitude is king. 

Since you apparently missed half of a very short post, I'll repeat it ...

Quote from: Mishihari

... except where necessary to 1) simplify play or 2) accommodate any fantastic conceits of the system and setting ...


If your setting requires FTL, then put it in there, but anything that isn't important to the game premise should be kept realistic.  Far too often, I see arguments that because not everything is realistic then realism isn't important for anything.  Which leads to lousy game design, IMO.

So basically gravity, night day cycles, needing water/food and little else most of the time?

Lets get back to guns:

A handgun, has the following variables (modifiers) in the real world: Revolver/semi-auto, calliber, barrel lenght, ammo type, training, under pressure yes/no (I'll pretend I'm not missing any).

All of those have a real impact in the real world on range, accuracy, RoF and damage. Although not all of the variables impact all the things or to the same extent.

So I would need a huge ass table just for the handguns alone, plus the rules/mechanics to manage all of that.

IF I was trying to model reality, most of the time for most of the systems and most of the tables you're not, you're trying to model a pseudo reality, more like Hollywood action movies than real life.

So the real important thing here is consistency and verisimilitude. So the players KNOW how the world works and can suspend their disbelief to enjoy the game. For most of the stuff/people.

If you want to model real reality in some parts of your game that's fine, I know a guy that drived a DM nuts by using his accountant skills on a Traveller game.
Title: Re: Lets talk guns and granularity in RPGs
Post by: Mishihari on November 03, 2021, 09:57:28 PM
A handgun, has the following variables (modifiers) in the real world: Revolver/semi-auto, calliber, barrel lenght, ammo type, training, under pressure yes/no (I'll pretend I'm not missing any).

All of those have a real impact in the real world on range, accuracy, RoF and damage. Although not all of the variables impact all the things or to the same extent.

So I would need a huge ass table just for the handguns alone, plus the rules/mechanics to manage all of that.

IF I was trying to model reality, most of the time for most of the systems and most of the tables you're not, you're trying to model a pseudo reality, more like Hollywood action movies than real life.

So the real important thing here is consistency and verisimilitude. So the players KNOW how the world works and can suspend their disbelief to enjoy the game. For most of the stuff/people.

If you want to model real reality in some parts of your game that's fine, I know a guy that drived a DM nuts by using his accountant skills on a Traveller game.

I basically agree that one can't model everything.  First, there's a lot of things we don't know how to model well mathematically (and I can say this because it's one of my areas of professional expertise), and second because even if we could it would make the game incredibly slow.  However, I actually already addressed that; I'll quote half of my very short excerpt above for emphasis:

Quote from: Mishihari

... except where necessary to 1) simplify play ...


I like a game that's realistic to the extent possible while still being fun to play, as in not bogged down by calculations.  There are tradeoffs, but it can be done.

And to the point of Hollywood vs RL combat, that gets back to the point of realistic "except where needed where needed to support the fantastic premise ..."  If Hollywood combat is an important element of a game, then put it in and I'll think it's great.  If it's not, then I want combat as realistic as possible.  ("As possible" meaning within the playability constraint I just discussed)