Let's talk about machine guns, And why Catalyst need to hire someone competent to talk to about guns. Options

[FuelDrop]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNAohtjG14c

Needs more dakka.

[Irion]

Yeah, it's kind of funny how the statistics become a bit less relevant when you're busy trying not to get dead. Also keep in mind how many firearms homicide cases (justifiable and otherwise) have statements from the perpetrator along the lines of, "Yeah, but I didn't mean to kill them..."

You are aware that people posses the ability to lie?
The normaly do it, if it is in their interest. Like beeing charged with murder.

I would argue if SR became totally realistic with suppression fire then SRs would carry 1 LMG per team. I am recalling my history about SEAL teams in the Mekong Delta with their famous Stoner LMGs. Part of the reason MGs are a bit silly is because there has never been a really satisfactory suppression fire mechanic.

Would not be so sure about that. Even with supression fire rules that work. You have totally differen engagement distances and of course different situations.
Espacially if you go all the way and make movement speed realistic with sprinting tests and so on.
(Or to make it short: Navy seals do not tend to have hitpoints and they tend not to have unlimited time to rethink what they are doing and perfect overview over the situation.)

[psychophipps]

You are aware that people posses the ability to lie?
The normally do it, if it is in their interest. Like being charged with murder.

Or it could simply be the fact that killing people is a pretty big thing and in the heat of the moment you just wanted the other person to stop being a threat.

[Umidori]

Needs more dakka.

I wonder what temperature you start getting cookoff at...

~Umi

[Irion]

Or it could simply be the fact that killing people is a pretty big thing and in the heat of the moment you just wanted the other person to stop being a threat.

Yeah, like every guy who cheated on his girlfriend/wive did not realy meant to cheat...He just wanted to have sex and she was not there... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

The point is, the guys who did not really wanted to kill, would probably have missed or never shot. (Hunting accidents are another thing)

[FuelDrop]

Yeah, like every guy who cheated on his girlfriend/wive did not realy meant to cheat...He just wanted to have sex and she was not there... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

The point is, the guys who did not really wanted to kill, would probably have missed or never shot. (Hunting accidents are another thing)

This is one of those things which can only really be judged on a case-by-case basis and generalizing isn't really going to help. I mean, I meant to kill all those people to feed my killer flying sharks but normal people...
wait, forget I said anything.

[Sendaz]

I mean, I meant to kill all those people to feed my killer flying sharks but normal people...
wait, forget I said anything.

Coming soon... 'I STILL Know What You Did Last Shadowrun' (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Sengir]

When someone pulls a gun on someone else, what did they expect as an outcome? It's not a toy, even if some folk do seem to treat it as one.

Assuming they expected anything. Fight-or-flight situations are not something where rational long-term planning gets too much CPU time...I wonder why nobody ever demands that fact to be accurately reflected by the combat rules (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Sendaz]

Assuming they expected anything. Fight-or-flight situations are not something where rational long-term planning gets too much CPU time...I wonder why nobody ever demands that fact to be accurately reflected by the combat rules (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

If the Defender was the gun user I might be inclined to agree in some circumstances, but when the gun user was the original aggressor in the situation that does not hold up so well.


As for in game, it is more difficult because by the time the GM describes everything you have had those precious moments to mull over and ascertain the situation so right there it is already different than RL.

For an example, Here is a little test, follow each step individually and do not scroll ahead to read it all ahead of time.






Get up and look out a window onto the street (AAAGGHH SUNLIGHT), take 1 second to look from left to right taking in the entire view.

















Now sit back down at your computer, we'll wait.









.














Ready? Let's find out....






.






.







.







How many cars were there (besides your own) and what colour were they?


Most people would not be able to recall all of them exactly, though they will be close, probably off by 1 -2 cars/colours


The point however, in game for that same 1 sec of a glance across the area every character would be reaching for perception rolls to answer that question and a surprisingly high number would be passing, much higher than would in real life as well as demanding more detail as they deem relevant so can decide their actions accordingly.

So it is a hard one to play up with out either rushing the players or losing details.

[Sengir]

If the Defender was the gun user I might be inclined to agree in some circumstances, but when the gun user was the original aggressor in the situation that does not hold up so well.

Depends on what the gun user actually thought to do with the gun, then plan often seems to be "make some aggressive gestures with no real plan for when the other side does not roll over". I mean, we're just nearing the centenary of one such act...

How many cars were there (besides your own) and what colour were they?

None, our office windows go out to a service road and a bunch of trees (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)


And I'd say the (described) perception is only a small part of it. The real point IMO is that players want to control their characters, split-seconds of absolute mayhem and then rolling Perception to see if you've been hit just sounds like poor fun.

[Sendaz]

Depends on what the gun user actually thought to do with the gun, then plan often seems to be "make some aggressive gestures with no real plan for when the other side does not roll over". I mean, we're just nearing the centenary of one such act...

Okay, yes on the grand scale they certainly did not expect to launch everyone into a Great World War, it could have just as easily been left at the national/local level for the police to handle. But the powers in play were looking for an excuse and seized the moment on that one.

But I think it was clear by the attempt that they did mean to kill someone, both by the original botched attempt with the grenade with the followup later by the gunman who did succeed in shooting the archduke and his wife.

I can not imagine the assailants there could have claimed they didn't mean to kill anyone.

Note to self: always check the expiration date on suicide pills when issuing these to the help. Also quit buying the ultra cheap knock off brands, you get what you pay for.

None, our office windows go out to a service road and a bunch of trees (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

I almost went with trees but then some poor sod next to a forest is basically shafted. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

And I'd say the (described) perception is only a small part of it. The real point IMO is that players want to controltheir characters, split-seconds of absolute mayhem and then rolling Perception to see if you've been hit just sounds like poor fun.

Why would they roll perception to see if they were hit? I was referring to taking the scene and reacting to it.

Counting cars was just a mind exercise, a shootist has to take in the scenario, assess threat levels and and prioritize targets while covering his own backside along the way.

But if a player gets shot from a corner because they didn't pay enough attention or just didn't see it(although that is sort of the reason for camouflage and players love it when it works for them but not when used against them) or you glossed over details it can play havoc...

I can certainly agree that forcing split seconds of mayhem where the characters are barely in control does indeed makes for poor fun, which is why it probably isn't touched on much game wise.

[Neraph]

I would argue if SR became totally realistic with suppression fire then SRs would carry 1 LMG per team. I am recalling my history about SEAL teams in the Mekong Delta with their famous Stoner LMGs. Part of the reason MGs are a bit silly is because there has never been a really satisfactory suppression fire mechanic.

To kinda build off of this idea, why is it that you have two people holding down a trigger (suppression fire) and yet one fires more bullets than the other, all other things considered equal? You have a guy with 1 IP doing suppression fire for a CT taking ten bullets, but the guy with 4 IP doing suppression fire for the same amount of time (1 CT) takes 40 bullets, even if fired from the same gun.

At the end of the day it's just a trigger being held down, so why the difference?

I'm toying with the idea that if someone declares suppression fire then they get their shots off for 4 or 5 IP but they can only change their field of fire or cease suppression if they have an IP remaining. For example, you have 2 IP, you fire twice your first then declare suppression the second, you continue firing each following IP but you can't change direction. Alternatively, if you had declared suppression that first IP, during the second you could have ceased suppression or changed the direction of your suppression.

[Irion]

I'm toying with the idea that if someone declares suppression fire then they get their shots off for 4 or 5 IP but they can only change their field of fire or cease suppression if they have an IP remaining. For example, you have 2 IP, you fire twice your first then declare suppression the second, you continue firing each following IP but you can't change direction. Alternatively, if you had declared suppression that first IP, during the second you could have ceased suppression or changed the direction of your suppression.

It would be reasonable, but it would ad an whole new layer to the game. You would need to adjust for the angle your looking. While making the game a lot more tactical (I know of a few computer games working that way (I think even the new Shadowrungame has this mechanic for overwatch))
It is definitly fun (judging from the games), but of course complicated if you do not already play with miniatures in the first place...

[Brazilian_Shinob...]

My idea of a machine gun is an A-10 or AC-130 on close air support, but I guess being Air Force makes you biased.

And they are getting ready/talking about retiring the Warthog. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/frown.gif)

Sad day this will be for american soldiers and a happy day for anyone who will be fighting american soldiers...

Funny. Again a case of nerdrage without first taking a look at the case in general...
To make "guns" realistic you first need to be able to simulate the differences.
To align a pistol is much easier/faster than to align an MG or even an assault rifle. (One of the reasons for SMGs)
The same thing with fireing while realigning etc. works much better with an SMG than with an MG.
Shooting while moving, same thing again.
This all does not exist in SR. (Not to talk about running around with it and then aiming with it (which was brought up in this threat)

So before you get in the face of the damage value (which has due to the lack of everything else address those things, too) you should think about that.
And to think you get balance into an game by making several values super realistic and ignoring other things completly is an interesting point of view, but definitly wrong.

So if you would start doing it realistically you will end up with Shadowrunners never using anything heavier than an assault rifle, not because everything else would be stupid to use and has no application in general, but simply because of the fact, that it is from a game perspective always better to have something you can use in 99% of cases with at least 70% effectivity than to have something which allows you 85% in 50% of the cases but can easy drop below 50% for 30% of the cases.

@psychophipps
The problem with the statistical argument is, that you normally do not count the bullet that missed or the one which was never shot.
Then there is the whole issue with knives as an improvised weapons with no intention to kill. (Which is quite pointless to argue with shooting a gun at somebody)

Well, gurps takes that into account.
Every turn is 1 second, and if you shoot without aiming the turn before (snap shot) you take a penalty according to the bulk of the weapon (bigger, heavier weapons have more bulk).
If you aim, the turn after that, if you have not been shot (which would demain a will roll to keep aiming) you shoot with the accuracy bonus of the weapon along with your skill, the distance of the target and its speed.
The problem is, not everyone likes to play GURPS. And GURPS would have serious balance problems between trolls and anyone else or the awakened characters.

[nezumi]

Wow, this got pounded in fast.

I'm still using the SR3R rules where, using a rifle halves all ballistic armor, to represent increased penetration. However, we didn't increase damage overall, because we'd like people to survive the first shot.

I'm a little surprised OP didn't complain about dodge rules.

[Wounded Ronin]

To kinda build off of this idea, why is it that you have two people holding down a trigger (suppression fire) and yet one fires more bullets than the other, all other things considered equal? You have a guy with 1 IP doing suppression fire for a CT taking ten bullets, but the guy with 4 IP doing suppression fire for the same amount of time (1 CT) takes 40 bullets, even if fired from the same gun.

At the end of the day it's just a trigger being held down, so why the difference?

I'm toying with the idea that if someone declares suppression fire then they get their shots off for 4 or 5 IP but they can only change their field of fire or cease suppression if they have an IP remaining. For example, you have 2 IP, you fire twice your first then declare suppression the second, you continue firing each following IP but you can't change direction. Alternatively, if you had declared suppression that first IP, during the second you could have ceased suppression or changed the direction of your suppression.

I've already thought of this. You'd have to re implement cyclic rates of fire, and then suppression fire is a full turn action. So you lose all your other actions but you spray out a full 3 seconds worth of rounds which would be a lot.

Or if you wanted to take into account shaving off fractions of seconds from reflex enhancements 2 seconds + some fraction of a second based on level of enhancement.

In a sense then it could be considered a waste to make the reflex enhanced guy suppress instead of a slower guy, which makes sense if you think about it. The reflex enhanced guy should be the designated marksman and the slower guy can be the suppression guy.

[Wounded Ronin]

Sad day this will be for american soldiers and a happy day for anyone who will be fighting american soldiers...



Well, gurps takes that into account.
Every turn is 1 second, and if you shoot without aiming the turn before (snap shot) you take a penalty according to the bulk of the weapon (bigger, heavier weapons have more bulk).
If you aim, the turn after that, if you have not been shot (which would demain a will roll to keep aiming) you shoot with the accuracy bonus of the weapon along with your skill, the distance of the target and its speed.
The problem is, not everyone likes to play GURPS. And GURPS would have serious balance problems between trolls and anyone else or the awakened characters.

Pheonix command made it take actions to get into a firing position, change posture, and so on. It was like Rainbow Six 3 before that game existed and in pen and paper.

[Sendaz]

I've already thought of this. You'd have to re implement cyclic rates of fire, and then suppression fire is a full turn action. So you lose all your other actions but you spray out a full 3 seconds worth of rounds which would be a lot.

By extension you could also create a Focus Fire action, using a full turn of cyclic rate fire against a stationary object(not players or items that could dodge/move, that takes regular attacks) with a stream of lead to chew it up.
Handy for making a hole in a wall or similar.

In a sense then it could be considered a waste to make the reflex enhanced guy suppress instead of a slower guy, which makes sense if you think about it. The reflex enhanced guy should be the designated marksman and the slower guy can be the suppression guy.

Which might indeed be something a normal mook might do when faced with heavily cybered/adept runners trying to move in on his position.

[RHat]

As far as the knife wound/pistol wound thing... I'm curious as to what the definition in play was for a knife wound in determining those percentages, and for that matter what the definition at play for a "knife" was. It seems to me that there's certain categories of wound (such as shallow surface cuts) and knives (particularly especially short blades) in order to truly make the comparison that's being aimed at here.

[Sendaz]

They say Chuck Norris with a knife has a 100% kill ratio, but then again he also has a 100% kill ratio without a knife, so the knife may not be adding much in this case. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

[Sengir]

Okay, yes on the grand scale they certainly did not expect to launch everyone into a Great World War, it could have just as easily been left at the national/local level for the police to handle. But the powers in play were looking for an excuse and seized the moment on that one.

But I think it was clear by the attempt that they did mean to kill someone, both by the original botched attempt with the grenade with the followup later by the gunman who did succeed in shooting the archduke and his wife.

I meant the diplomatic domino that followed: Many of those involved were not really planning to start a shooting war, they just thought that puffing up and waving armed power in somebody's face to demand concessions was a totally cool idea, without wasting any thought about what could (or would) happen if the other side did not just roll over and yield -- in other words, just like some punk knocking over a liquor store.

Why would they roll perception to see if they were hit?

Because that's how real fights work, and don't we want more realism? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[FuelDrop]

They say Chuck Norris with a knife has a 100% kill ratio, but then again he also has a 100% kill ratio without a knife, so the knife may not be adding much in this case. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

Mr T don't need no gun to put your punk ass down, sucker!

[Sendaz]

I meant the diplomatic domino that followed: Many of those involved were not really planning to start a shooting war, they just thought that puffing up and waving armed power in somebody's face to demand concessions was a totally cool idea, without wasting any thought about what could (or would) happen if the other side did not just roll over and yield -- in other words, just like some punk knocking over a liquor store.

Interesting.

The Nation/Thug is using the threat of violence to obtain a result, be it concessions or cash, and for sake of the argument not really thinking through the consequences of their actions, but when the other side refuses to yield and they choose to act/fire that intent changes.

They could have backed down/left, but instead chose the option of stepping up the level of aggression. The victim Nation/Storeholder didn't force them to take that final action, was not holding a gun to the head of the aggressor saying go ahead and shoot or else.

The intent is now less not meaning to kill and more along the lines of a disregard for what the results of that attack are.

This was not a spur of the moment crime of passion, but rather a result of actions building to this point.

Therein lies the subtle difference, one probably best argued by lawyers and admittedly well outside my skillset.

Or would one argue that the victim is at fault for being shot/killed since they chose to resist?

Afterall, if they had simply conceded/gave in there would have not been an attack/shooting in the first place.

Following in this line, most bigger business do have an official policy stating that in the case of a threat like this, they are supposed to simply hand over the cash. An actual weapon doesn't even have to be seen in this case.

But then that just sets the precedence for more instances of the threat being applied to gain whatever the aggressor wants, which sooner or later will result in the victim taking a stand against the aggressor which will in turn provoke the attack/shooting.

Because that's how real fights work, and don't we want more realism? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

I admit I had to ponder this one for a moment, then I recalled the time when my sister shot me with the .22, well winged me with a grazing shot anyway (note: never hit your sister with a BB gun, they can and WILL escalate), and didn't realize it at first.

So yeah, I blew that perception check initially. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

Although.... if you wanted that kind of realism, the GM could keep the health tracks for the players behind the screen with him and you only got vague notions of your current damage.

Certainly would make you a bit more cautious, plus making it a little easier for the GM to fudge the rolls a bit if a player is gets into a really unlucky circumstance. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Mr T don't need no gun to put your punk ass down, sucker!

Chuck Norris and Mr. T once walked into a bar together. The building instantly exploded, because that much raw awesome cannot be contained in one building.

[Brazilian_Shinob...]

I admit I had to ponder this one for a moment, then I recalled the time when my sister shot me with the .22, well winged me with a grazing shot anyway (note: never hit your sister with a BB gun, they can and WILL escalate), and didn't realize it at first.

Never had a little sister but I sure have a little brother and with me was the concept of shock and awe. If he did something to me I would come to him so fast and so hard that his only choices would be to yeld or keep getting pounded.
I would not say that I'm proud of that, but I was always of the philosophy that the best way to stop a fight is to make sure the other side won't be capable of fighting again (killing or maiming it), since it was my little brother and kinslaying is frowned upon by the Old Gods and the New, I had to come up with the next best thing that is to scare the shit out of him.

[Neraph]

...You'd have to re implement cyclic rates of fire...

They were a thing in previous editions?