To bring this back to an earlier point in the discussion:

What would represent Suppressive Fire well?

• Fear Check?

• Cool Under Fire? (Or less over-developed version thereof?)

• Morale rules?

• Sufficiently lethal firearms rules? (This, despite the apparently whiffy nature of real-world pistol combats, as exemplified by the NYPD study linked earlier?)

Something else?

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;749106To bring this back to an earlier point in the discussion:

What would represent Suppressive Fire well?

• Fear Check?

• Cool Under Fire? (Or less over-developed version thereof?)

• Morale rules?

• Sufficiently lethal firearms rules? (This, despite the apparently whiffy nature of real-world pistol combats, as exemplified by the NYPD study linked earlier?)

Something else?

I think it kinda boils down to the group, really.

Are they smart enough to actually respond logically to the consequences presented by the system?

To risk an analogy, this subject kinda reminds me of my experiences playing the old Call of Duty II multiplayer at a local shop.

Up until this point in my life, most of the FPS I'd played was either the Quake-style variety, or single-player stuff, and the idea of a shooter that at least LOOKED like real life was still kinda new to me.

Naturally, my instinct when playing the game was often to treat it very much like I'd expect actual fire combat to go. I tried things like suppressing fire, tried to set up defensive positions for myself, etc. etc.

Thing was, most all of that just got me killed. Suppressing fire was a particularly good example: it works in real life because people are afraid of being shot. No one gives a shit about that in a video game, because they'll just respawn anyway, and while COD2 was pretty lethal by the standards of the day, a few stray rounds wasn't gonna do squat. Instead, it just wound up being a really quick way of giving away your position to the guy who knows how to get scope kills while jumping off a Soviet tower block.

Even in games like Rainbow Six I have played, they work great in co-op, but in MP they fall apart, because the expectations are all wrong.

RPGs DO have the advantage that there's a lot more investment though, so just making getting shot a good way to have to roll a new character can be a start.

If the players still don't give a shit though, maybe some fear checks or morale rules might indeed be necessary to get the same effect.

Quote from: Simlasa;724590Which again has me questioning why we choose to make combat into such focus of 'fun', when IRL it isn't any more fun than cancer or car accidents. Something to be avoided. A last resort.
I guess it's back to that wargames ancestry... where again, men die like flies... and not fun for the individual soldier.

Because combat *is* fun, to lots of people. It's the ultimate physical competition. If no one enjoyed combat, then we wouldn't have millions of people worldwide enjoying combat sports - fencing, MMA, Tae Kwon Do, SCA. And even the least violent sports are abstracted combat and hunting skills in one form or another. (Neolithic hunting used hurled stones to kill animals...)

What's not fun are the consequences of combat and the misery of military campaigning before and after combat. Neither of which an RPG player has to endure, and both of which get abstracted mechanically.

That is some cogent, well thought out shit. Thanks.

Quote from: J Arcane;749126I think it kinda boils down to the group, really.

Are they smart enough to actually respond logically to the consequences presented by the system?

To risk an analogy, this subject kinda reminds me of my experiences playing the old Call of Duty II multiplayer at a local shop.

Up until this point in my life, most of the FPS I'd played was either the Quake-style variety, or single-player stuff, and the idea of a shooter that at least LOOKED like real life was still kinda new to me.

Naturally, my instinct when playing the game was often to treat it very much like I'd expect actual fire combat to go. I tried things like suppressing fire, tried to set up defensive positions for myself, etc. etc.

Thing was, most all of that just got me killed. Suppressing fire was a particularly good example: it works in real life because people are afraid of being shot. No one gives a shit about that in a video game, because they'll just respawn anyway, and while COD2 was pretty lethal by the standards of the day, a few stray rounds wasn't gonna do squat. Instead, it just wound up being a really quick way of giving away your position to the guy who knows how to get scope kills while jumping off a Soviet tower block.

Even in games like Rainbow Six I have played, they work great in co-op, but in MP they fall apart, because the expectations are all wrong.

RPGs DO have the advantage that there's a lot more investment though, so just making getting shot a good way to have to roll a new character can be a start.

If the players still don't give a shit though, maybe some fear checks or morale rules might indeed be necessary to get the same effect.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;748292Well, life is short, and while personally testing every accepted notion is a good policy if you are a professional scientist, I feel it is a questionable use of limited hobby time in gaming. Yes, sometimes I am led astray by the opinions of others, but sometimes I am saved a lot of trouble.

Perhaps you could stop parroting others uncritically, maybe keep a bit of healthy skepticism, ask for other opinions?

Or you could keep filling your head with crap by accepting whatever you read as fact. Your call.

RQ6, no really

Quote from: elfandghost;749248RQ6, no really

Thanks for noticing.  I specifically designed the Firearms rules to incorporate psychology, difficulty of accurate aiming and potential lethality.

After we published them, one of my group ran a short post-apocalyptic campaign in which I had to suffer my own mechanics. From first hand experience, once bullets started to fly everyone became extraordinarily cautious and there was a lot of surrendering!

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;749106To bring this back to an earlier point in the discussion:

What would represent Suppressive Fire well?

• Fear Check?

• Cool Under Fire? (Or less over-developed version thereof?)

• Morale rules?

• Sufficiently lethal firearms rules? (This, despite the apparently whiffy nature of real-world pistol combats, as exemplified by the NYPD study linked earlier?)

Something else?

One approach I remember reading which I liked - think it was from either Unisystem or Savage Worlds - was that suppressive fire imposes a to-hit penalty on the people being suppressed (as they're less able to stand still and aim).

Quote from: Black Vulmea;749243Perhaps you could stop parroting others uncritically, maybe keep a bit of healthy skepticism, ask for other opinions?

Well yes, which is why I started and continue to read this thread.

RE: Suppression Fire
Here is how the HERO System handles it:

From Hero System 6th Edition Volume 2, page 89

QuoteSUPPRESSION FIRE
Characters may only use this Maneuver with attacks capable of Autofire. Basically, a character uses this Maneuver to “hose down” an area with bullets, energy bolts, or what have you so that anyone coming into that area is automatically attacked. Suppression Fire simulates the classic “Cover me!” situation in movies, where one character sprays a hail of bullets at the enemy to give another character a chance to move without being fired at.

USING SUPPRESSION FIRE
To use Suppression Fire, the character defines an Area that he’s firing through. Find his OCV to hit that Area, taking into account the normal modifiers for using Autofire over an Area (6E2 42). In addition, he suffers a -2 OCV penalty for performing Suppression Fire.

Suppression Fire takes a Half Phase and is an Attack Action. The character must fire into the defined Area the maximum number of shots he can fire with the Autofire power/weapon being used, unless the GM rules otherwise. The shots aren’t equally divided into the Area; they’re considered to be fired into the defined Area as a whole. Since Suppression Fire can last until the character’s next Phase, the character fires that many shots each Segment, not just in Segments when he has a Phase. He must use the same number of attacks in every Segment in which he uses Suppression Fire. He must expend END or Charges for each shot made. (If he’s using an attack that costs END instead of Charges, the character should declare how many “shots” he’s firing, with a minimum of one per 1m radius “zone” in the Area.)

Anyone (or anything) who enters the Area covered by Suppression Fire is automatically attacked once for each 1m radius “zone” he moves through. There’s no way to “sneak” through a zone, move through a Area on a Segment in which the attacker does not have a Phase, or run through any part of the Area without getting attacked. Several targets may take damage, even if they enter the area on different Segments. The attacker must roll to hit; he makes one Attack Roll per 1m radius zone the target moves through. The attacker’s OCV is determined by the number of zones being fired into, plus the -2 OCV Maneuver penalty. The target’s DCV is normal, and each target can only be hit once per zone per Segment.

The maximum number of hits a character can obtain with Suppression Fire in a Segment equals the number of shots fired in that Segment. Once he rolls that many successful Attack Rolls against targets moving through the affected Area, by definition he cannot hit any more targets. A character using Suppression Fire cannot decline to make an Attack Roll against a target in the area — in each Segment, he must make one roll per 1m radius zone that every target moves through until he’s used up all his hits for that Segment. However, if two targets enter the “Suppression Fire zone” at the same time, the character can choose which one to make his Attack Rolls against first. If any issues of timing arise, the GM determines which targets the character can (or must) attack first.

A character cannot “overlap” his Suppression Fire so he can attack a target more than once per zone. Autofire Skills have no effect on Suppression Fire.

Pinning Targets Down
To be hit by Suppression Fire, a target has to move into, out of, or through the “Suppression Fire zone,” or take some other Action that indicates movement (such as attacking the character who’s using Suppression Fire, or most other targets). If he doesn’t move in any way, the fire has him “pinned down” — which is often the point of the maneuver anyway. The GM determines what Actions, if any, a “pinned down” target can take without exposing himself to the Suppression Fire.

If a target is "immune/invulnerable" to whatever Autofire Advantaged attack that is being used for the Suppression Fire (bullets, lasers, etc..) then they can of course ignore it.

Quote from: J Arcane;749126Thing was, most all of that just got me killed. Suppressing fire was a particularly good example: it works in real life because people are afraid of being shot. No one gives a shit about that in a video game, because they'll just respawn anyway, and while COD2 was pretty lethal by the standards of the day, a few stray rounds wasn't gonna do squat.

That's part of what I enjoyed about America's Army when I played it. Players didn't respawn when they died, they were out for the round (though they could watch the cameras of their side's remaining players). Getting shot would start you bleeding and there wasn't a quick/easy way to get that health back. People surely still played in a more gung ho manner than they would with real bullets... but there was something more like actual suppression going on... staying out of fire lanes... because you wanted to stay in the game as long as possible.