Target Engagement Speed, Or: Big gunz iz slower dan little gunz is slower dan fists? |
Target Engagement Speed, Or: Big gunz iz slower dan little gunz is slower dan fists? |
Mar 2 2011, 06:06 PM
Post
#1
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,894 Joined: 11-May 09 Member No.: 17,166 |
Something I've been kicking around as part of my obsession with the guns of the 6th World that's now kinda spilled into combat, generally.
Here's the thing: ask anybody skilled / experienced at CQB (Close Quarters Battle) and they will tell you longer weapons are problematical. It takes longer to bring a full rifle up to ready as you round a doorway and acquire your sight picture than it would to do the same with a sidearm, and lots less time to just punch the guy who was waiting for you. In really close, that rifle may not even have space to come up to the ready. Hence, the US Army's conversion to the M4 carbine over the nearly identical M16 for fighting in The Sandbox where house-to-house and block-to-block firefights are the norm, and the re-issuance of VERY large/long battle rifles for The Rockpile where accuracy at long range is more at a premium in a lot of cases. Specialty weapons with quick-change upper receivers going from CQB barrel lengths (call it 10.5" / 275mm or so) and optics (Red Dot) to Precision Marksman / Sniper barrel lengths (up to 20" / 500mm+) and magnification scopes like Land Warfare Resource Corp's SABR and REPR battle rifle designs based on the venerable M10 (7.62x51mm version of the M16). My thinking runs like this: Is there a way to have longer weapons (lower Concealability / longer Reach) negatively impact your initiative slightly? The ability to shoot the guy who wants to punch you beyond 2 Meters is already nice enough, and the Reach Modifier for the opposed Melee Test already takes the advantage of the long blade into account. But the guy using his knuckles is arguably faster. Enough so to make a difference (in game terms)? That's why I'm tossing this out to you. Forget reality where they hyper-trained SpecOps guys disable pistol-packing Bad Guys from up close; All our action media is rife with the stuff. Heck, even the Fluff for the 1st Ed printing of Food Fight talked about ducking under the guy's shotgun to shove his sandwich up the Bad Guy's nose. I know a lot of people will say "It's a game, who cares?" If that's your feeling, save the thread space. If you think it's not worthy of making a game mechanic of it, then not only do I want to hear about it, I want to hear details of your reasoning against it. And if you like the idea generally, or think you have a better way to get to the same point, fire away. Thanks in advance! -Kerenshara |
|
|
Mar 2 2011, 06:25 PM
Post
#2
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,373 Joined: 14-January 10 From: Stuttgart, Germany Member No.: 18,036 |
my first thought popped up, when you mentioned "lower concealability"
substract half the concealability modifier from your initiative for CQC?! |
|
|
Mar 2 2011, 06:26 PM
Post
#3
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 302 Joined: 11-May 10 From: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada Member No.: 18,569 |
I think it makes an interesting concept, and pure fluff wise it's why my character uses an SMG (HK 227X with a foregrip, sling and a full load of modifications) instead of a full up Assault Rifle. I haven't got a clue how to model it though, but I think it would make smaller weapons more attractive options in the right situations, which is what they're designed for IRL.
Of course the only one in my current group it would affect for the most part is me unless we somehow throw spellcasting into the mix as well. |
|
|
Mar 2 2011, 06:26 PM
Post
#4
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 14,358 Joined: 2-December 07 From: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada Member No.: 14,465 |
Well, if the guy's in knife range, it's really hard to use that 2-metre long sniper rifle to shoot him, isn't it?
|
|
|
Mar 2 2011, 06:32 PM
Post
#5
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,373 Joined: 14-January 10 From: Stuttgart, Germany Member No.: 18,036 |
Well, if the guy's in knife range, it's really hard to use that 2-metre long sniper rifle to shoot him, isn't it? that's what the -3 penalty is for. which is ridiculous (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) and can be offset by Krav Maga and Firefight, which is even more ridiculous I reform my first proposal to: negative modifier to all combat tests in CQC equal to the concealability modifier. |
|
|
Mar 2 2011, 06:35 PM
Post
#6
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 14,358 Joined: 2-December 07 From: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada Member No.: 14,465 |
I got to go with Raven the Trickster, the right tool for the right job, even if the rules don't allow for things.
As for Krav Maga and Firefight, they were designed around modern combat situations. But that sniper rifle had better be a tough bugger, they're usually built to too tight tolerances to be used like a crude club, or even a bayonet-spear... |
|
|
Mar 2 2011, 06:44 PM
Post
#7
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 113 Joined: 2-September 08 Member No.: 16,303 |
Mmm, AD&D and weapon speeds. Nah, sounds reasonable, nice house rule to make some of them reconsider the Ares Alpha as being the start and end of it.
How about: Engaging in melee with an unsecured (i.e. on a loose strap, or rifle in one hand) weapon is a penalty of half Concealment mod unless you're using the gun as a melee. Rifles are -3, SMGs are -2, machine pistols and comparable are -1. Remember that a weapon not adapted for melee (reinforced butt or bayonet) has a chance of taking damage - you wallop the guy and break your gun, it's your problem. For initiative, same modifier, but only applies where one person is trying to get an interrupt or surprise, perhaps? Try it, see how it plays out. I'm hesitant to just say slap it on the base initiative score for fear of bearding in ways I haven't thought of. This way it can give you an edge to use a smaller (faster) weapon in a tight spot. |
|
|
Mar 2 2011, 07:19 PM
Post
#8
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 52 Joined: 9-March 06 Member No.: 8,351 |
Well, we use a quick little rule: each weapon category has a modifier, that is used as a penalty when firing from behind cover or on the move, I use the same modifier -2 for shooting while running and doubled for shooting in close combat:
- Pistols: -1 (the same for tasers and other small weapons); - SMGs: -2 (we also use this same modifiers for shotguns firing buckshot/flechette); - Assault Rifles: -3 (also used for shotguns firing solid slugs and for crossbows/bows); - Sniper Rifles: -4 (same modifier used for light machine-guns and medium machineguns); - Heavy weapons in general: -5 So, for example: shooting a pistol while behind cover is at -1 - it is small and don't hit the wall in front of your character. Firing an assault rifle is at -3, as it is longer and the character needs to bring it over the cover before begin aiming. Shooting a light machine gun while running is at -6 (-4 plus -2 for running). It is simple and not that realistic but the players are liking it so far and brings some more reasons to choose a SMG over an assault rifle in some situations. |
|
|
Mar 2 2011, 07:23 PM
Post
#9
|
|
Advocatus Diaboli Group: Members Posts: 13,994 Joined: 20-November 07 From: USA Member No.: 14,282 |
I know I've seen a thread about this before, specifically relating to sniper/longarms. Try a search and maybe there's something useful in it. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)
|
|
|
Mar 2 2011, 07:40 PM
Post
#10
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 206 Joined: 9-September 10 From: Minneapolis, MN Member No.: 19,032 |
A simple -1 to initiative might work well, although it would run into problems when the player decides to switch to a pistol.
Other options off the top of my head would include creating a 'minimum' range for each weapon type. I.e. 0 for Pistols, as they are sometimes used in melee. 1 meter for SMGs 3 Assault Rifles 10 Sniper rifles Firing them inside of the minimum range incurs a -2 die penalty. This penalty is removed if the user spends an action to Aim first. If you REALLY want to go hardcore into weapon balance, I'd factor-in the weapon's size AND all the fun accessories they've duct-taped onto it. Big heavy guns with lots of stuff hanging off of them are harder to use in CQBs. It would make sense to use the weapon + accessory weight to determine if penalties apply, but it doesn't look like the books have those numbers.... |
|
|
Mar 2 2011, 07:54 PM
Post
#11
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,083 Joined: 13-December 10 From: Rotterdam, The Netherlands Member No.: 19,228 |
All issues of gear weight have been dropped since SR3.
Liking suggestions tossed around so far. Are you guys thinking of these as modififers to Initiative, the Initiative roll or the Initiative Score? The latter would factor ina speed increase when switching to a smaller weapon in the same Combat Turn. However, -5 modifiers would be rather hefty. Also consider what this would do if it reduced Initiative Score to 0. ... But making called shots to the head, firing my sniper rifle from the hip was all I mostly did in UT! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif) |
|
|
Mar 2 2011, 07:56 PM
Post
#12
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,373 Joined: 14-January 10 From: Stuttgart, Germany Member No.: 18,036 |
|
|
|
Mar 2 2011, 08:14 PM
Post
#13
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 206 Joined: 9-September 10 From: Minneapolis, MN Member No.: 19,032 |
Well probably not defense. I donno, if I'm holding onto a big, unwieldy assault cannon, and someone attacks me hand-to-hand, or shoots at me, I'd be at a disadvantage to either get out of the way, OR defend myself. A defense modifier should be reserved for really heavy stuff, but it might help balance-out the guy-with-big-gun mentality that some players have. |
|
|
Mar 2 2011, 08:16 PM
Post
#14
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 14,358 Joined: 2-December 07 From: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada Member No.: 14,465 |
I thought that was just overcompensation?
|
|
|
Mar 2 2011, 08:17 PM
Post
#15
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 489 Joined: 14-April 09 From: Madison, WI Member No.: 17,079 |
All of the suggestions on offer in this thread seem reasonable, in and of themselves. What I worry about is adding yet another modifier to keep track of in a game already filled to the brim with modifiers and special combat subsystems. If that kind of crunch is your cup of tea, then by all means add in a modifier to initiative. My group, on the other hand, would question the benefit added by such a rule compared to the cost of implementing it.
|
|
|
Mar 2 2011, 08:22 PM
Post
#16
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,373 Joined: 14-January 10 From: Stuttgart, Germany Member No.: 18,036 |
All of the suggestions on offer in this thread seem reasonable, in and of themselves. What I worry about is adding yet another modifier to keep track of in a game already filled to the brim with modifiers and special combat subsystems. If that kind of crunch is your cup of tea, then by all means add in a modifier to initiative. My group, on the other hand, would question the benefit added by such a rule compared to the cost of implementing it. whether I have to add and substract 5 modifiers, or 6, doesn't really matter anymore. it's just one more row in the ranged combat modifiers table, where there are 26 already |
|
|
Mar 2 2011, 08:27 PM
Post
#17
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 206 Joined: 9-September 10 From: Minneapolis, MN Member No.: 19,032 |
whether I have to add and substract 5 modifiers, or 6, doesn't really matter anymore. it's just one more row in the ranged combat modifiers table, where there are 26 already Particularly since these sorta things would be on a per-weapon basis, and could be calculated into dice-pools for that weapon beforehand. (Usually) That and the OP's stated intention was to add crunch like Quarry Breakfast Cereal. |
|
|
Mar 2 2011, 09:15 PM
Post
#18
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 489 Joined: 14-April 09 From: Madison, WI Member No.: 17,079 |
Particularly since these sorta things would be on a per-weapon basis, and could be calculated into dice-pools for that weapon beforehand. (Usually) That and the OP's stated intention was to add crunch like Quarry Breakfast Cereal. The OP also said: If you think it's not worthy of making a game mechanic of it, then not only do I want to hear about it, I want to hear details of your reasoning against it. I don't think it's worthy of making a game mechanic of it, and I said why. |
|
|
Mar 2 2011, 09:25 PM
Post
#19
|
|
Advocatus Diaboli Group: Members Posts: 13,994 Joined: 20-November 07 From: USA Member No.: 14,282 |
For what it's worth, *I* think it's mistake to include more gun-nut stuff in the game. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) It distracts and slows things. Obviously, do what makes you happy.
|
|
|
Mar 2 2011, 09:25 PM
Post
#20
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,894 Joined: 11-May 09 Member No.: 17,166 |
That and the OP's stated intention was to add crunch like Quarry Breakfast Cereal. It's just that as things currently stand, the concealability of an AR isn't that much worse than an SMG (2 dice? Really? That's it?) I'm a little tired of seeing everybody carrying ARs because the Crunchy BitzTM say they should. There is really NO benefit to packing an SMG by the RAW. ARs are better Damage and AP, same skill, comparable Availability and legality, comparable or better magazine capacity, and on and on. So why would they still manufacture SMGs at all? Because there's a place for them. I just wanted to see things de-abstracted enough to reflect that. That's what this thread was supposed to be about. Note also: I originally included longer melee weapons too, and wondered about integrating them with unarmed modifiers as well. Reading responses so far, I kind of like the idea of it mattering more on a surprise test, for certain. And I know the "firer in melee" modifier hurts their shooting, but it also should slow them down somehow. Part of my complaint is that the older editions (ALL of them) diferentiated weapons even within their classes. So there were some Hold-Outs that were REALLY small, and some Heavy Pistols that were cannons. Bulpup weapons were nearly identical but like a point better in concealability to reflect the shorter overall length of the weapon. I'm looking at resurecting those varied numbers (most of the weapons are still around in new formats so we should be able to extrapolate) but even just using stock numbers in the books, we should be able to do something useful without blowing up the (already somewhat ponderous) combat system. Anyhow, game on and all that. I'm fascinated by the discussion so far. Keep going. When you bang things around long enough, something useful is bound to fall out eventually! -Kerenshara |
|
|
Mar 2 2011, 09:29 PM
Post
#21
|
|
Freelance Elf Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 7,324 Joined: 30-September 04 From: Texas Member No.: 6,714 |
If there's a need for initiative modifications based on weapon at all (and I'm not convinced the extra bookkeeping is worth it, personally), I'd rather see it as a bonus to small stuff than as a penalty to big stuff. I know that mathematically the end result would be the same (unarmed guy going faster than guy with an LMG, or whatever) -- but when in doubt I prefer to give bonuses than to saddle folks with penalties; let gamers have fun and roll lots of dice, let the new "Init Mod" stat on a weapon show varying sizes of boost rather than penalty, etc, etc...and it avoids the issue of someone getting a crazy low initiative just by not having min/maxed stats, and a big gun.
|
|
|
Mar 2 2011, 09:39 PM
Post
#22
|
|
Advocatus Diaboli Group: Members Posts: 13,994 Joined: 20-November 07 From: USA Member No.: 14,282 |
It sounds like you might just alter Conceal mods and ignore Initiative.
|
|
|
Mar 2 2011, 11:04 PM
Post
#23
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,894 Joined: 11-May 09 Member No.: 17,166 |
If there's a need for initiative modifications based on weapon at all (and I'm not convinced the extra bookkeeping is worth it, personally), I'd rather see it as a bonus to small stuff than as a penalty to big stuff. I know that mathematically the end result would be the same (unarmed guy going faster than guy with an LMG, or whatever) -- but when in doubt I prefer to give bonuses than to saddle folks with penalties; let gamers have fun and roll lots of dice, let the new "Init Mod" stat on a weapon show varying sizes of boost rather than penalty, etc, etc...and it avoids the issue of someone getting a crazy low initiative just by not having min/maxed stats, and a big gun. You're right, mechanically it plays out identcally, but ... Wait, current concealability is -4 to +6 right? Hmmm... Anyhow, stylisticaly I'm ok with it, but again, we're playing ping-pong with ideas still, so don't let me stop you. -Kerenshara |
|
|
Mar 2 2011, 11:23 PM
Post
#24
|
|
Moving Target Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 681 Joined: 23-March 10 From: Japan Member No.: 18,343 |
It sounds like you might just alter Conceal mods and ignore Initiative. I'm with Yerameyahu... I like the idea of making smaller weapons more viable... Double the concealability of all weapons, both positive and negative modifiers. As a house rule, it's simple, easy to track and makes the smaller more concealable weapons preferred most of the time. -D |
|
|
Mar 2 2011, 11:35 PM
Post
#25
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
Trying to shoehorn massive 'realism' rules into such a blatantly abstract game like Shadowrun is next to impossible. This sort of thing, for instance, really only works if you use an "action point" type of initiative system. Which, despite the previous statement, can be introduced to the game system. You just have to do lots, and lots, and lots of work, and make massive tables that account for more than just a gunfight.
Getting rid of Initiative Passes is the first step for making this work, so the way Initiative is calculated has to be rethought and converted into a single value. Once you have that figured out, your Initiative roll would determine how many Action Points you have each Combat Turn (total value of the roll, not hits). At that point, the counter starts at 0 and people declare their first action*. Each action then has a "speed" associated with it which not only determines how many of your Action Points you have to spend to perform that action, but when you get to resolve it compared to everyone else. * You can probably work Initiative Passes into this portion of the modified rules. Maybe letting players who have a higher Passes value declare their action last, so that they can actually react to what everyone else is doing.This way faster actions are actually faster, characters with better reflexes can potentially do more each turn (either a lot of fast actions or a few slow ones), and the latter can also react faster which is something the current rules don't address whatsoever. There's also room to grow, letting you introduce interrupt actions that are actually interrupts, delayed actions that are actually delayed, and so on and so forth. <shrugs> That's where I'd start if I were really concerned with this topic, anyway. It's worked well in other games, and it's the type of system I like to tinker with when I'm playing with game design. But as I said, trying to just cram a speed system into the current rules? Not gonna work, at least not in any sensible way that works with the rest of the system. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 29th March 2024 - 11:06 AM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.