Non-Ranged Combat, Does it really suck so much? Options

[Ravor]

Well considering that the cure for CANCER seems to be regular transfusions of hot lesbian elf stripper ninjas I ask if that is really such a bad thing? :cyber:

[Moon-Hawk]

touche

[mfb]

[Moon-Hawk]

Bullets are just a way to stab someone from really far away, anyway.* ;)

*no they're not: it's complicated and I don't know enough about it, this statement is not to be taken seriously. Thank you.

[psychophipps]

[Ravor]

Yes mfb, I AGREE with what you are saying about what the point of the "21 foot rule" really is, in fact I think that in the situation that it applies its a pretty damn good rule.

What i disagree with is when people try to claim that melee combat is/should be better then using a firearm and then tries to use such 'facts' as the existance of the "21 foot rule" or that some guy can chop off dead animal limbs with a sword in order to back it up.

Because remember, the context of this argument started like this:

[mfb]

okay, i see where you're coming from. it still goes back to what i said earlier--when you say 'X is better than Y', everyone will assume that you mean 'X always beats Y', which is almost never true.

the problem with 'all things being equal' is that the tiniest factors can skew the results one way or the other. sure, there's some theoretical perfect situation where all things except for the weapon being uses actually are equal--but it's impossible to differentiate that situation from any of a million situations that appear similar, but with one or two tiny details that have a huge impact on the outcome. a tiny defect in the pistol holster's snap, the presence of a piece of dust at the right time or place, the point in the inhale/exhale cycle that each combatant is at when combat starts--you will never, ever be able to say if a given situation is 'all things being equal'. if you decide to go with 'close enough', then you need to have a random factor to simulate all those tiny details. in that sort of 'all things being equal', one side might have a better chance, but nothing's guaranteed.

and really? seriously? if knife guy and gun guy are 21 feet apart when they decide to draw down, all else being equal, they're both going to the hospital, if not the morgue. knife guy's gonna take two to the chest and gun guy's going to be cleaning his guts off his boots. who gibbed who first doesn't really matter.

[Moon-Hawk]

[Demon_Bob]

[Spike]

Ravor: You do realize I was one of the people pointing out that the 21 foot rule was Holstered, yeah? Or are you in a reflexive 'everyone who remotely disagrees with me is a blind 'knives are always better' guy at this point? I'm buying the later since you don't seem to be reading too closely anymore.


As for the comments about 'they must be high or something' that someone else tossed out, the Platt/Matix shooting of 1986 which has been bandied about some, where Platt was hit some eight times PRIOR to killing to FBI agents at point blank range, and a dozen times total, the last line of the forensic study of the shooting points out that Platt and Matix were negative on toxicology for drugs or alcohol.

Platt apparently was running on pure meanness at that point.

Platt/Matix shootout


I think this link originally came from this thread, repeating it for convience.

[knasser]

[mfb]

yeah, that's the whole point of the Mozambique drill. not infrequently, shooting someone in the chest won't take them out of the fight for quite a while. in such cases, shooting them in the chest some more is not likely to have any further effect, so you put an aimed shot between their eyes. you don't have to be high, angry, insane, or anything else to not go down when you take a round in the chest. it just happens, sometimes.

[Dizzman]

Somewhere lost in this thread is the original thought - A GM looking for help for his player playing a melee character. Besides the intercept rule and the -3 dice for the shooter, you could also introduce Dikote. I imagine it will reappear in the arsenal book. Until then, you could use the old prices for Dikote and add a +2 dice to damage. It really is the melee combatant's smartlink. ;)

[Jack Kain]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'd rather get shot then impaled on a sword in the same place.

[Kyoto Kid]

[sunnyside]

Ah this thread was worth it for the Mozambique drill and the "practical shooting" stuff I ran into after that. Good stuff.


And yes back to SR.

In SR one should probably modify some of this real lifeish stuff to match the game realities.

For example I would imaging that LS officers would obey something more like a 25meter rule (35 for trolls) as the distance at which they can reliably fire before a target closes.

The Mozambique drill would probably be somewhat similar but for different reasons. In real life it's because lethal trauma can take a while to actual make someone drop to the ground. In SR a sammy or something may be able to soak regular body shots. So maybe by default an officer will simply fire a double tap with as many dice as they can. If the hits don't seem to be hurting the target switch to an aimed called shot.


Also for knife users out there. One other real life thing I seem to recall is that when the victime is aware of the attacker ahead of time knife attacks often result in slashed up hands and forearms as opposed to spilled entrals(or at least it starts with forearms and moves to entrals in later strokes).

In SR that means melee people have to be aware that the guy you closed with isn't by any stretch done for. Especially with a knife.


Now a question. If the attacker knocks the defender prone what penalties apply to the defenders buddies shooting up the attacker and what penalties would apply to the attacker dodging the shots. Assuming the attacker is standing I would apply the dodge penalty to the attacker as they still have someone right there and are trying to attack them, but maybe reduce it. I'd probably let the shooters fire freely as the person on the ground isn't in any way blocking their shot.

[Ravor]

[OSUMacbeth]

These threads always amaze me, to a degree. I mean no insult, but it really shows the impact that popular entertainment has had on our culture. People see a movie and you think that guns are these incredibly deadly weapons that kill instantly no matter where you hit. It is worth noting that this is not the case; in fact, when it comes to the act of actually killing, guns make for a fairly weak weapon unless you can put one in the CNS. Two interesting facts: The majority of people who are shot live through it, and the majority of people who die from bullet wounds die minutes (sometimes many minutes) later as they bleed out. A small minority not hit in the head or heart die almost instantly of shock (hydrostatic or otherwise.)

Guns did not replace melee weapons because they were more powerful, not at all. They replaced them because they are long ranged, moderately deadly, can be fired quickly at a variety of targets, and as someone else on this thread thoughtfully pointed out, the "boom." The psychological "boom" factor is the only reason that the earliest guns replaced the (then) more effective crossbow or bow. The psychological effect of 500 rifles firing at once cannot be overestimated.

My uncle was a police officer in Dallas, TX for over thirty years, and he would be the first to tell you that you don't bring a gun to a knife fight. Since I was 18 I've been training in classical European broadsword, and I get to see the argument from the other side of the fence. If I were within 15 to 20 feet of an assailant with a sword, or even a small knife, I'd take even a club over a gun every time. This is not like shooting outlines at the range. Someone is running at you, intent on doing you physical harm, your system is screaming with adrenaline, and you're aiming at one of two moving targets the size of a grapefruit or smaller. If you miss the head or heart, you're meat. Your assailant will pulp you long before he bleeds out. And even the heart isn't a sure bet.

Now, either weapon type can kill easily with a strike to the CNS, but outside that even a relatively large caliber round won't do the level of systemic damage a sword will do. In either case you bleed out or die of shock, but with even a knife you will do it far, far more quickly. More systemic damage = more bleeding = you die sooner. Another problem in this argument is that most people haven't seen what even a small knife can do in an incredibly short time. It's not pretty.

I know of course that my post won't change the minds of those already convinced. But if you've an interest, by all means try it out yourself (on slaughtered animals, pumpkins, ballistics gel, or whatever you like) or better yet, sit down and do the research. I think you'll be surprised.

Oh, and for the record, I personally enjoy guns more than swordplay. For that matter, I legally carry both a gun and a knife in my everyday life. But I try to keep a realistic view of their limitations.

OSUMacbeth

[Jagger]

I'd say firearms replaced melee weapons because crossbows can penetrate medieval platemail armor and it does not take ten years to train a peasant to use a crossbow. Further, I'd move to see you (a person) stab someone after taking a .45 in a pectoral.

[mfb]

[Jagger]

So... who here has ever been shot? Just curious on their take on it. :twirl:

[mfb]

i've been shot with paintballs! once, it was at such close range that they left circular pressure cuts in my skin, one of which actually scarred up. another time, a guy unloaded a ten-round full-auto burst into my back; the bruises didn't fade for two weeks. i dunno what getting hit with a bullet feels like, but if it's anything like getting hit with a high-speed paintball, most people are just going to want to lay down after getting hit.

[OSUMacbeth]

I'm not saying some joe-punk who thinks holding a switchblade makes him a man will go Rambo on you. What I *am* saying is that if someone is bent on harming you, and you stand your ground, you'd best drop him in one. The other thing is that if you both have your adrenaline pounding, you may not even notice wounds, his or yours, until later. It's not uncommon for people in life-or-death situations who've been shot to not realize until later. If someone is twenty or so feet away and charges you, they probably won't do an about face at ten even if you were to shoot them. We're talking a matter of only a second or two here. Even if they feel the hit, they're likely committed at this point. One's mind doesn't generally resume working logically until a life-or-death situation is over.

I haven't been shot, but my Uncle Bill knew people who had. I asked him about it once. His response was that everyone reacts differently. Whether in the adrenaline rush or not, some feel it, some don't. Some drop, some don't. Some scream or even weep, some don't. Same thing without adrenaline, except that you *will* feel it. But again, some go nuts and some just sit or stand there. This next bit isn't from my uncle, but is something I read in a handbook for firearm self-defense. It involved a man who accidently shot himself throug the upper-right chest while handling his weapon. He just said "Oh God, I shot myself. Then he calmly called 911 and sat on a nearby bench, waiting for the ambulance.

In contrast, my mother once knew a friend of her sister's who was doing something with his gun while he was on the phone with her. There was a loud retort, and he just said "I gotta go I'll call you back." He'd shot himself in the leg. He bled out before he completed the call to the hospital (this was before 911). I can only assume he hit the femoral artery.

But as I said before, I'm not trying to change minds here. I too once believed that guns were the end-all be-all of personal weaponry. But sometimes as you go along you get a different perspective. If you're really interested in this sort of thing, go on the net or get books written by those who have been there. In the final analysis, very few of us here have actual experience to back up our claims. The key then is to find these things out through the experiences of others.

OSUMacbeth

[WearzManySkins]

[OSUMacbeth]

But to get the thread back on topic, weren't we comparing the *lethality* of these two forms of weaponry? This seems to have degenerated into a topic about who would win a duel at twenty paces.

Thing is, even if you think guns are incredibly powerful, everyone knows that a knife, (or in Shadowrun, a sword) can still drop you real handily. *If* you get close. I'm interested to know why people think, in the game of shadowrun, it's okay that a moderately skilled user with a machine pistol will drop a large variety of things in one round, while a human with a greatsword, who pays around twice as much karma for the privilege, gets to do less damage with a weapon that is far more limited in its utility? We're talking around 100 more karma to get that strength 6, and what do you get for that? Well, gimped, actually. Does anyone think it's unreasonable, in a gameplay sense, to expect that someone with maxed out stats and a greatsword should be able to drop one person a round reliably? Heck, on average my AR wielding character out-kills our melee specialist (who rolls more dice than I do) 4:1 or more, since he has to have time to close.

Under the RAW guns have the following advantages:
*Most importantly, guns can attack at range in a game where most opponents will be at range.
*More concealable than a comparable melee weapon
*More damaging, if you count both shots vs. one melee attack
*Guns can fire at multiple targets in a round
*Guns can supress areas
*guns can fire through barriers
*Guns can be controlled remotely
*Guns cost around 150 karma for a human to fairly well max. (6agi, 6skill, spec) A melee build requires another *100* karma to get that strength up, and will still never do as much damage as a reasonably powerful gun

And there are probably more. Stacked against all of the above, is it unreasonable to think that melee should at least do decent damage without you having to be a melee specced troll adept wielding a weapon focus? Though even if you are a troll adept with maxed stats wielding a weapon focus, and using improved melee skill, you will still do noticeably less damage and be far more at risk than our 150 karma human with an AR. And what do you pay for this privilege? 350 karma or more, depending on build. Does anyone seriously think the system is balanced as it is? And this is without even getting into the fact that a monowhip wielder will always be a good deal more damaging than a human with a greatsword who actually pays that 100 karma to raise their strength and wield an unconcealable weapon.

I instituted the melee change at the request of our ork sammie. Or rather, I instituted it after he first switched characters. Why did he switch? Because our *mage* could kill more people by using guns as a backup offense than his melee specialist could with a mono-sword.

The melee system is SR4 is possibly the worst-balanced system of any kind that I've seen in any game, ever.

OSUMacbeth