Simple Weapons, Ever wish for a little MORE detail? Options

[Kerenshara]

I was reflecting recently on some of the things I miss from older editions of the game, and a couple comments in other threads convinced me to post this as a separate thread. Here's my question:

Is there more details you'd like about the weapons (and/or gear) in the Shadowrun 4(A) rules?

For myself, there are two items:

I miss the differential concealability modifiers, one pistol being just a bit more concealable, more maneuverable. Bullpup rifles having a slight advantage. That sort of thing.

I would like more definitive reliability information, especially with the emergency of the glitch and the critical glitch. Those kinds of considerations always drew my attention whenever I saw them in a game, and it's not a lot of extra stuff to keep track of, right?

I am sure there are other things people would love to bring up, but those are my two. Have at it, but try to play nice!

[kzt]

There way too many guns in SR. At the level of abstraction that the SR developers claim to be trying to achieve there should be one gun per type. And they should probably merge the light pistol and the heavy pistol, because that never did make any sense outside the game, and who the hell ever picks a light pistol as the gun they have?

And truthfully, the differences between guns in the real world is lot LESS than the differences between guns in SR. Mostly I get the feeling that whoever writes the rules doesn't actually play, so they don't actually realize that most of the guns they include are so greatly outclassed by a few models that only a total idiot would actually choose any of the rest.

[KCKitsune]

There way too many guns in SR. At the level of abstraction that the SR developers claim to be trying to achieve there should be one gun per type. And they should probably merge the light pistol and the heavy pistol, because that never did make any sense outside the game, and who the hell ever picks a light pistol as the gun they have?

The reasons to carry a light pistol are:

1. Cost
2. Concealment
3. Availablity

[Meatbag]

And truthfully, the differences between guns in the real world is lot LESS than the differences between guns in SR.

You're serious, aren't you?


Oh hell...

You mean to tell me that, based on the pictures provided, the Colt Manhunter is just as easily concealable as the Ruger Super Warhawk? Or that all double-taps from all arms should generate comparable recoil? This is what SR's doing now.

This is an SMG in 4.6x30mm

This is an SMG in 9x19mm

Do you consider these weapons even roughly "alike"? I don't. They'll both ruin your day, but one does it harder, the other does it sneakier.

I think SR4 does a reasonable job, hence my vote, but if anything? They aren't different *enough* to even vaguely approach reality.

That's fine, because I'm not really looking for realism in a game about freelance mercenaries raiding monolithic corporations in the magical cyberpunk future, but let's not bring up "guns in the real world" here.

[tsuyoshikentsu]

Because I really want to see a page per gun when Catalyst can publish things I actually care about. A blurb and a pic's perfect; some things about the older rules should stay dead and buried.

[kzt]

Do you consider these weapons even roughly "alike"? I don't. They'll both ruin your day, but one does it harder, the other does it sneakier.

Given how SR assumes that pistols=rifles, yes, in SR they should be the same.

They say they want an abstract game system in which wearing a bullet proof vest = lots of armor everywhere on your body and pistols do as much damage as assault rifles, they should stick with that level of abstraction everywhere. No more of the "But as the Ares Mk19 has special sauce so it has + 1 to damage and -1AP".

[Knight Saber]

I think there's just the right level now... there are some light pistols with heavy ranges, or heavy ones with light ranges (and better concealability), different firing modes, special silener, etc. I missed the concealability ratings at first... put a Browning Ultra-Power in a Concealed Holster under your Lined Coat for a conceal. of 14 and walk into the White House with it... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) I can still get a Secura Kompact if I want a smaller heavy pistol though.

Streamlining things to the current level makes the game faster and easier, and this from someone who started with SR1.

I'm very glad that they abstract calibers and the like. There's no consensus about how effective one type of bullet or gun is versus another and the people who are passionate about it will discuss it to death. That doesn't contribute to the value of play, where the important thing about your gun is "Is it to the Johnson's head?" or "Is it running low on ammo as the corpsec team comes through the door?"

[Zormal]

I like the current level of abstraction. More categories would just be confusing. I *really* like the fact that there are 'speciality' weapons with bonuses, like Morrissey Elite with its -1 Concealability.

I'd even like a bit more of those speciality weapons, though I'm not sure if that's just the player's desire for new cool things in me.

[Bob Lord of Evil]

That doesn't contribute to the value of play, where the important thing about your gun is "Is it to the Johnson's head?" or "Is it running low on ammo as the corpsec team comes through the door?"

Now that is funny! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

I should point out, that IMO, I like the extra detail but it doesn't cause me any consternation that it isn't included. There is enough ballistics data available that I went ahead and created a little manual for SR 3rd covering the various firearms and the calibers (i.e. damage and ammo capacity) that they come in.

[BullZeye]

I wouldn't mind reading bit more about the guns or having bit more variety on the weapon stats, but to keep things simple, it's cool. What's bit odd is that every gun in the same category has almost the same damage, even though there's huge differences on guns and their size/power. I would like to see more powerful but small guns, like those really short barreled revolvers that one can see in movies in woman's handbags (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Dr. Dodge]

I definitely like the abstraction, if one gun has better stats in the same class (concealability comes to mind) it leaves you scratching your head why anybody would take something else, other than to be contrarian (PB120??? my guy uses a light fire!! WEEEE! [hopefully those dont have the same SR3 stats, but you get the idea]). The big problem i had before was heavy pistols with the equivalent concealability of light pistols in previous editions, like the ultra power. That and the others like it made light pistols pretty much obsolete and a waste of space because nobody ever bothered to buy one. The new blanket concealability made me very happy. Obviously the stats arent the same for every individual gun, but the more generalized way they have it now is good to me.

honestly i would be happy if they all had the same stats, and we just have a bunch of pictures for different individual guns.

[Warlordtheft]

I miss the gun creation from cannon companion (made the tommy gun and m1 garand stats for a 2058 Sanfransico campaign).
They were alot of fun to use. But I think in arsenal, with the mod rules there, you can do pretty much the same thing. Alot of it starts out with a basic design (AK-97 for example), mod it's stats using the rules, and call it something else.

As for more detail-I would have liked more basic design to start from with different advantages and disadvantages. All properly balanced. I was also not sure why, in the rules the gas vent's, and smartlinks and such don't count toward the modification limit.

[Mäx]

I voted for blueprints, but only becouse those would be cool.

I'm fine with the current level of detail, i would like few more weapon types and generally more different weapons, especially melee weapons.

[DuctShuiTengu]

I like the way SR4 does it.

For the most part, weapons of one category are about equal with each-other outside of what modifications they have (and how much ammo they carry). And then you get the slightly odd weapons within the various categories (shotgun pistols, high-velocity SMGs and Assault Rifles, and the various light and heavy pistols that play with the trade-off between range, damage, and concealability). That said, I do occasionally wish that there were a little less random variation in the cost (the Colt M23 is half-again the cost of the AK-98 and has 1 higher availability with the only difference in stats being a clip that holds two more rounds).

It's not necessarily accurate, but it provides a reasonable level of simplicity and balance between the different firearms, with preference based on style and the desire to get the set of features you want, rather than ending up with only one SMG that anyone uses because it's always going to outperform the other 20.

Edit to Add: There's a part of me that would like a bit more "fluff" information on the various weapons - though more-so with the other gear - but having read through arsenal, there's not really anything in there that I'd be willing to see cut to make room for it (with the possible exception of some of the armored clothing, I could easily have done a few less versions of the armored business suit (throw in a brief blurb that X company produces something similar in Y style and move on)). Extra fluff would have been nice, but I either don't know enough to really miss what isn't there, or I do know enough to fill it in myself, depending on the category of gear.

[suppenhuhn]

I like the way they did the guns but would prefer some kind of display akin to the old street samurai catalogue.

[Zombayz]

I'm a weapons nut. I can field strip a Lee-Enfield, M1 Garand, SVT-40, and a pile of other things by memory. I also realize that SR can stat out the nitpicky bits, like the diference between a round of 7.62x51mm and 7.62x54r.

Still, blueprints please.

[paws2sky]

Is there more details you'd like about the weapons (and/or gear) in the Shadowrun 4(A) rules?

I'd like to see some examples of "comparable models" like they did for vehicles in Arsenal.

I'd have preferred a more free form version of the modding rules from Arsenal, but I can live with that system.

I miss the differential concealability modifiers, one pistol being just a bit more concealable, more maneuverable. Bullpup rifles having a slight advantage. That sort of thing.

Oh yeah, I definitely miss the old concealability rules.

The new ones could be workable, but I think the did it assbackwards. IMO, the more concealable a weapon, the bigger bonus your should get to your Palming roll.

I would like more definitive reliability information, especially with the emergency of the glitch and the critical glitch. Those kinds of considerations always drew my attention whenever I saw them in a game, and it's not a lot of extra stuff to keep track of, right?

I disagree on this point. I don't care much about reliability info and I like the freedom the GM is given to make up effects of glitched and critically glitched rolls. What's needed, IMO, is something like in the old Street Samurai catalog, when the shadow talkers mentioned what happen when their weapons when sour on them. (Like the SMG that shook itself into pieces while firing full auto...)

-paws

[Larme]

Poll nazi sez: why can't people just use simple language in poll questions??? Everything has to be a declarative sentence of ambiguous meaning. Pardon my agitation level, but what is the *bloody* difference between "a light pistol's a light pistol" and "I usually don't pay too much attention to the details?" What do those even mean? I could assume that one is more detail oriented than the other based on their order in the list, but how do I even know? So what if the thing is what it is? How much detail do I want in that case? Do I want all guns in that category to be identified as "light pistol" with one single statline? Or am I simply stating that I don't give a damn? How does "I don't pay attention" even answer the question? Is it saying that you have no opinion on this poll because you don't care? Or are you saying that you'd like for there to be less detail than their currently is? "I would like some more categories and details" is also ambiguous because it's a compound answer. Does everyone who picked it want both? Do some of them just want more details like getting concealability back? Do others of them actually want it to be categorized by ammo caliber, muzzle velocity, and trigger pull? We'll never know, because the answer is such a mishmash.

Here's an example of how this poll should be conducted if you want real answers: "How much detail should SR4 provide about firearms?" (Generic -- all guns should be identified by category only (i.e. light pistol, assault rifle). Simplified -- the system has too many options and details, there should be some variety, but less than there currently is. Same -- SR4A strikes the right balance in terms of firearm detail. More -- The system should include more details, such as concealability and weight. Much more -- The system should include as many weapon stats as feasible, up to and including such things as reliability, muzzle velocity, and time to break down, clean, and reassemble.)

As it is, you've got random, unreliable answers, based on ambiguously defined declarative statements which don't answer the question. Though I will give you one thing, the SR4A option is clear, so at least we know what proportion think the current system is about right. And no, I'm not going to shut up about polls until people pay some damn attention to how they're written! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/mad.gif)

[Kerenshara]

Poll nazi sez: *Snip*

Wow. I don't mean to sound like a complete bitch here, but I tell you what Larme. Do us all a favor and toss up a new thread with the questions the way you want them, your own take on a descriptive post, and let us know how that turns out for you. When you get enough people responding to represent a viable random sampling with a magin of error under 4%, get back to us. Thanks!

[Jaid]

if you are polling, it is presumably because you want to get data. presumably, you also want to get that data to be more accurate, not less accurate. as such, it makes perfect sense to ask better poll questions, even if you don't expect to get a large enough sample to get that low margin of error (in fact, i would say it's even more important, because you can ill afford anything that *increases* your innacuracy in a poll that is already going to be inherently innacurate).

or, to put it another way; someone who throws forty dice on a test can probably afford to lose 5. someone who throws 8 dice on a test probably can't afford to lose 5. thus making something that would help mitigate that 5 dice penalty more important for the person with 8 dice, not less important.

[Omenowl]

I like the abstration, but I would have preferred calibers rather than types of pistols.

Put large pistol, small pistol and calibre.

Ok large pistol has larger clip, less recoil and greater range
Small pistol has concealibility and less ammo.
Calibre determines damage and armor piercing, which is added to the type of ammo.

Sort of like this:
.22 round Damage 2 recoil -1
.32 Damage 3 recoil -2
9mm Damage 4 recoil -3
.44 magnum Damage 4 recoil -4
5.56 damage 6 recoil -5
7.62 damage 7 recoil -6
.50 damage 8 recoil -7

Then go by size for recoil subtract for each round and then add that to the previous. -1die for each round past the first, and if the ammo recoil exceeds the weapon recoil then (ammo recoil - weapon size) die penalty per round.
Hold out pistol 1
Light pistol 2
Heavy pistol 3
SMG 4
Assault rifle 5
LMG 5
MMG 6
HMG 7

Each point above recoil would be uncompensated recoil penalty for each round. So an Assault rifle firing .50 calibre shells would have a -2 for the 1st round, a -5 for the second, -8 for the third.
A light pistol firing 7.62 rounds would have -4 for the first round, -9 for the second and so on.

A bit too complicated, but does allow for sniper and big game style weapons with compensators to fire large rounds without penalty.

[Larme]

Wow. I don't mean to sound like a complete bitch here, but I tell you what Larme. Do us all a favor and toss up a new thread with the questions the way you want them, your own take on a descriptive post, and let us know how that turns out for you. When you get enough people responding to represent a viable random sampling with a magin of error under 4%, get back to us. Thanks!

All you have to do is think about the neutrality and comprehensibility of your poll answers, and poll nazi will go away (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif) I'm not proposing that Dumpshock polls must be scientifically accurate, or generate representative samples. I'm just saying, if you want a poll, please don't make it a useless poll! It hurts me to see those (IMG:style_emoticons/default/frown.gif) This is something that I'm interested in, and I think my views on the subject help more than they hurt, so no I'm not going to go away just because you'd prefer I did.

[tsuyoshikentsu]

Larme, shut up. Seriously. What you're basically saying is, "Unless you do things exactly my way, your poll is worthless." Which 1) it isn't, and 2) is a rather offensive and patently useless view to hold.

So unless you can actually contribute something to the conversation, please go away.

[Larme]

My posts are based on college courses in statistics. If you'd like to challenge the accuracy of my statements about the validity of a particular poll, please feel free, by PM if you feel that it's too off topic. I'm not making up a special my way of polling, I'm applying what I know about the standards that polling experts apply. If I'm in error, of course, I'd hate to go uncorrected.

[suppenhuhn]

We are all happy that you successfully completed you statistics 101 for social scientists. Congratulations. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

And now holler along and show your skills by making an unbiased poll about what people think of poll-trolls. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)