This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.
NOTICE: Some online security services are reporting that information for a limited number of users from this site is for sale on the "dark web." As of right now, there is no direct evidence of this, but change your password just to be safe.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Kyle Aaron

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 593
My Conflict 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.

Anonymous macho posturing aside, calibres are irrelevant to this. Firearms are the means, but the offender - or rebel - needs opportunity and motive, too. Let's set aside opportunity for the moment and consider motive: age and physique indicate motive, or lack thereof.

Slimness, as was pointed out in Julius Caesar, indicates hunger - ambition and discontent. Fatness indicates contentedness and a lack of ambition.

Youth, too, are naturally rebellious and want to change things, and of course have no wealth or family to lose. Older people are naturally conservative, not wanting things to change, and have wealth and family to protect. The jobless unmarried 20 year old renting a house may riot; the 40 year old in secure employment with a spouse and two kids will probably not riot.

Thus: Violence is for 20 year old slim people, not 40 year old fat people. Now, old fat people may order slim young people to fight, but they will in general not themselves fight. And so as the number of slim young people declines and the number of old fat people increases, you get a lot of people talking about fighting, but not as many people actually fighting.

Which is why Kim's observation is correct, that the general trend of the last half-century in the West has been less violence, not more. There will occasionally be rises, but we are interested in the trend.

Thankfully, despite inflammatory rhetoric, we've seen less violence in recent years than in the 1960s, but the trend has been going up.
That's because the West is becoming older and fatter. Violence is for 20 year old slim people, not 40 year old fat people.

News and Adverts / Re: Crazy Gibberish Live
« on: Today at 01:05:29 AM »
Mail call day - I covered some recent book purchases, and we talked making play accessible, which of course means making play old school.

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.

Take a few steps back, then. Return to earlier editions.

A character who you cannot fit on an index card, or who you cannot remember off by heart, has too much detail.

Some statistics might be of interest here.

Even cops mostly miss [pdf link, lengthy, below is from pp14-15].

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 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.

Some think that a percentage of the most revered amid the stupidest wokes are actually sock puppets created by members of the alt-right.
I think it was Doonesbury who had the cartoon that Bush, Cheney et al were actually socialists in college, and developed a long-term plan to infiltrate the Republican party and so completely balls things up that the whole party would implode and the Democrats would introduce a socialist paradise. They kept being surprised that it didn't happen. "Jesus Christ, what the fuck do we have to do to make them hate us?!"

Team bickering is why Gygax invented the wandering monster check. A lot of GMs, especially the ones filming their games, don't understand the importance of keeping things moving.

say, for a hypothetical example, the characters best efforts still only puts them at a 50% chance of success.
Then their efforts are not their best, and they need to be better.

What think you? This really bugs my "player agency" part of my thinking, but then sometimes you just don't get a fair shake no matter what you do.
The dice are always right.

In the words of the great Dungeon Master Ivan Drago, "if he fails, he fails."

That bit where Picard says, "We have outgrown money, we work to better ourselves," I always wanted to say to him, "And yet you are still the Captain, people go to die on your orders, and you have a bigger cabin than everyone else."

Fuck you, Picard, you champagne socialist, you.
Now that's just social credits. Reputation in the sense that it replaces all currency is just effectively centrally planned socialism. It encourages corruption and shmoozing.
If 38 years of D&D has taught me anything, it's that a sufficiently-complex system will be gamed by its users to abuse its good intentions. :)

Humm. I think stuff can be unbearably boring to watch, while fun and enjoyable for the participants.
This is why you should never film you and your spouse having sex.

"We are mourning the loss of so many, and I have to be honest, if things had gone differently this past week in Minneapolis I may have traded in my heels for marching boots"

...Said Regina King while wearing a dress by Louis Vuitton with 62,000 Sequins and 3,900 Crystals. The speech (along with many other lectures) was given from Union Station, L.A., after the homeless living in the area were forced to relocate by the Police (lo!) who then erected a wall around it (the irony of this is off the scale).
That's beautiful :)

Even if you are a person of color, you are not allowed to question the narrative
Especially if you are a person of colour.

Done. For now, at least.

what do you think of players establishing facts about the world impromptu during play?
Players already have an inflated sense of their importance. I welcome player input into my game world about as much as George RR Martin welcomes people's input on his diet.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 593