 Canon Revision Project: Combat Mechanics, thread 2, I will lose you if you don't lose me. |
  |
 May 7 2004, 04:51 PM
Post
#26
|
|||
|
Shooting Target  Group: Members Posts: 1,685 Joined: 17-August 02 Member No.: 3,123  |
I tried using a hilighter on their sheets, it didn't really help. I bet they could be oblivious to the little man in the corner for an impressive amount of time. And I just recently started keeping copies of everyones pertinent information, but with 6 players it's a pretty time consuming task. |
||
 |
 
|
||
|
May 7 2004, 04:53 PM
Post
#27
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 153 Joined: 16-February 04 From: Ohio, USA Member No.: 6,083 |
I don't think you should drop the variable choke function of shotguns. The rules as written are pretty outrageous and unrealistic in the amount of spread but having variable chokes is sort of a nifty aspect to what makes shotguns fun in the game mechanics.
With our own game we simply changed the chokes from the old rating of 2-10 to 10-40 by increments of 5. When then use heavy pistol ranges when a shotgun is firing shotshells. The spread is still a bit larger than real life but it works pretty good and gives shotguns and interesting and unique niche in the game mechanics |
|
|
|
|
May 7 2004, 05:01 PM
Post
#28
|
|||||||||||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,901 Joined: 19-June 03 Member No.: 4,775 |
Yeah, I've seen the figures. Hell, it was designed to take out tanks, way back when. Be that as it may, consider this: that troll is now packing serious scavenged body armor and a huge assault rifle; he is part of a group of terrorists who've taken over an embassy, and you need to snipe his ass as the first movement in large operation. Me, I'd rather have a round that I know will fly dead on 500 meters and procede to punch through his security helmet and blow his skull into next Tuesday. Is it for everything? No. But given the level of personnel, vehicle, and structural armor avaiable in the 2060s, I think it'll be decently popular. I'm mostly worried about names, though. While I'm intending to limit Heavy Rifle ammunition to HMGs, Anti Matériel rifles, and vehicle weapons, I'm not sure what to name everything if not sticking to the classic Light/Medium/Heavy.
Fuck no. Not in this game. Expect revisions to cyberware.
And I disagree entirely. Abstraction is a tool to be used to keep games playable or achieve certain effects with players, but it is by no means a blanket ruling to be thrown over everything. Abstraction is also inversely proportional to immersion, and you need ot be careful where you use it. Detailed rules are definitely not a crutch, and a GM who can't deal with abstracted damage really isn't going to fare any better here. Being told I shot him in the eye is just as bland as being told I shot him and did Moderate damage.
Aigh. I don't know. Given what you've described, I'm thinking that this system wouldn't be any more damaging to playability than anything else.
I thought the same thing, really. Unfortunately, it's a bunch of messy complication that creates some very unbalanced and very inexplicably unrealistic situations. Ultimately, sticking to something a lot simpler won me over, and I haven't really seen much that compels me to reneg on that. |
||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
May 7 2004, 05:11 PM
Post
#29
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 173 Joined: 4-March 03 Member No.: 4,196 |
Yeah, I know what you said, but I'm guessing that's to avoid the standard arguments, which this isn't so...
I suggest going with one or the other instead of combining. Gaining a reach-type bonus/penalty is one thing, burning actions to counter is another, but combing them is too strong.
The CQB rules: I can't think in meters, so hopefully I converted right (and didn't embarrass myself). 15 meters is about 49 ft, right? Why do pistols become easier to use and assault rifles harder to use within that range? That's a bit far to be called "close quarters." I could understand if using TN modifiers when hitting the edges of melee range, but not out to almost 50 feet. I think the modifier should start at 5m if you're going to use them; even 10m (about 32ft) seems to far. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 7 2004, 05:18 PM
Post
#30
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,901 Joined: 19-June 03 Member No.: 4,775 |
Wehn I said I'd use a combination, should've explained that it'd be a toned down version of Speed Reach. I agree, using the original version I proposed in addition to requiring action would be far too much.
As for CQB, keep in mind that 15m really isn't all that much. That said, though, I think I'm starting to agree that it's too far to give CQB bonuses and penalties. I think I'm settline on 10m/1m, which is enough to cover most of what you'll find indoors without being too unbalancing. |
|
|
|
|
May 7 2004, 05:20 PM
Post
#31
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 614 Joined: 17-June 03 From: A safehouse about to be compromised by ninjas Member No.: 4,754 |
Honestly, if you want to rewrite the rules, youre going about it a strange way.
The problems of little rules inconsistencies or errors *pale* in comparison to the staggering statistical values for rolling the various TN numbers, due to the base 6 rolling unit. Smartlink, in any form, still is, was, and always will be the most broken thing in the game; and is the prime example of my above statment. ... But if youre going to use your rules set anyway, consider simply using the cyberlimb armor rules as a jump-off for hit locations. Head, Front, Back, Arms, Legs; 5 locations. For a FFBA full suit to give 4/1 it has to have 20/5 piecemeal, which is simply 4/1 to every location as long as the hood is worn. For Armor Jacket at 5/3 youd have to have 25/15 over the front, back, arms; so you might wind up with something like 7/3 arms and 9/6 front and back. Then you can just use the overall ratings as listed for normal shots, and the split values for called shots. Just be prepared to make rulings on things like whether or not the Securetech Long Coat is flying back anime style or taped to someones legs when that called shot to the knee comes up. RE:Shotgun rules: if you applied those rules in my game, realisitc or not, two things would happen. First Id hit you. Second Id quit. -1 dmg lvl? Hi never ever going to be used again weapon ever. *throws it in the same bin as light pistols, eye guns, etc*. If you want to play with guns to make them more real fine, but realize what youre doing. You make it easier to hit for lower damage codes, thats just like giving the shooter a smartlink and the target a smartlink for a damage test. Itll inflate everyones successes and result in little to no change. |
|
|
|
|
May 7 2004, 05:25 PM
Post
#32
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 173 Joined: 4-March 03 Member No.: 4,196 |
My comment about your CQB rules wasn't about the numbers so much as the reasoning. I'm not new with firearms, but I know jack and maybe some shit about combat shooting and SWAT/urban tactics. I remember in a previous thread when you first mentioned (as far as I know) adding CQ modifiers, it was about dragging an assault cannon into melee combat (if I'm remembering right). What's happening some 32 feet away to make it harder to use an assault rifle, but easier to use a pistol? What condition are you representing with those rules?
|
|
|
|
|
May 7 2004, 05:54 PM
Post
#33
|
|||||||||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,901 Joined: 19-June 03 Member No.: 4,775 |
And, like I said, it will be modified. Past complaining about Smartlink, though, I'm really not sure what you're saying.
No. While I am ok with potentially differentiating between armor on your chest and back, you'll ultimately be shooting at one side of your enemy or the other. There's no reason to roll for chest and back on the same shot. That aside, if you're already differentiating locations, I see no reason to not also differentiate between right and left appendages.
Uh, you do know that shotguns can fire a lot more than just shot, right? Besides, if you read further in the thread, you notice that I don't really like how impotent they are at -2 Power / -1 Damage Level per range category. But they shouldn't be hitting for Serious at 100m, and sure as hell not Deadly.
Basically, in sufficiently close quarters, you begin to run into problems with a situation that demands high maneuverability. You have to move your weapon a lot more to bring it on target for a precise shot, and that makes a heavier weapon a statics nightmare, which is why weapons for CQB are short (well, that, and you have trouble just fitting through doorways with an LMG). Also, keep in mind that a big weapon obscuring your field of view is going to be a massive liability in CQB, while at range, you don't have nearly the same problem. These two factors play a significant part in pistols and SMGs (and carbines) being the dominant weapons in CQB. [edit:typo] This post has been edited by Arethusa: May 7 2004, 06:48 PM |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
May 7 2004, 06:06 PM
Post
#34
|
|||
|
Traumatizing players since 1992 Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,282 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Las Vegas, NV Member No.: 220 |
If you're going to use hit locations then I definitely do. Standard level IV SWAT armor has reinforced armor on the shooters lead arm and not on the trailing arm, if you're shooting for decent hit locations I would think that would be a necessity. Also, what if they had already take a hit to one arm and the armor had degraded, that armor is not as good at stopping the next shot to that location. It also metters cause a hit to the primary hand is far more important than to the off hand.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 7 2004, 06:31 PM
Post
#35
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,408 Joined: 31-January 04 From: Reston VA, USA Member No.: 6,046 |
Using hit locations opens up another can of worms: how do you handle location-specific damage.
|
|
|
|
|
May 7 2004, 06:42 PM
Post
#36
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,632 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Portland Oregon, USA Member No.: 1,304 |
GURPS has already done the work on this. The changes to the combat system described are exactly the way GURPS combat works. There is already armor by location, hit location, and different damage for different locations.
Making the SR game system more like GURPS is kind of a waste of time. Just play gurps, and set it in the SR world. If not, just steal GURPS' system, and graft it on to SR, as it's already been playtested by thousands for many years. |
|
|
|
|
May 7 2004, 06:45 PM
Post
#37
|
|||||||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,901 Joined: 19-June 03 Member No.: 4,775 |
Erm, that was a typo, actually. Should've read that I see no reason to not also differentiate between limbs— largely for reasons similar to the ones you listed.
In response:
I think my main problem is that GURPS is very far removed from the way SR functions, with the exception of a few of the rules I've provided. And while my experience with GURPS is minimal, I have to say that what I've seen is completely fucking ridiculous. Far as I can tell, GURPS is a lot more lethal than real life for no good reason. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
May 7 2004, 06:48 PM
Post
#38
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
Then let's make one thing absolutely sure: Even without any smartlinks, everybody would always be taking headshots with +2 Power & +2 Damage Level if the TN modifier was only +4, unless the starting target number happens to be 2 or 8. At +2 Power & +3 DL, to properly balance it you'd need at least ~+8 modifier to call a shot to the head.
I've said before why I don't think +3 DL is even realistic, but it's your system. |
|
|
|
|
May 7 2004, 06:56 PM
Post
#39
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,901 Joined: 19-June 03 Member No.: 4,775 |
Thing is, the TN modifier's not only +4. You also have to factor in lighting, movement, and combat conditions. When you do all that, you shouldn't come out with a modifier that's equal to firing and closing your eyes, but you should also come out with something fairly prohibitive.
And, no, +3 isn't realistic when you consider that the head area includes neck and the lower face, which are squishy and important, but not nearly as much as your brain. If it were a more precise system, then I'd consider +3. |
|
|
|
|
May 7 2004, 07:12 PM
Post
#40
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
The other modifiers don't matter when you're deciding whether you call a shot to the face or not. In fact, when the TN is already rather large -- anything at 6 or higher but not 8 or 14 -- every single player will go for the headshot with those modifiers. Always. Since it's extremely unlikely you'll get the 4 successes to stage damage up 2 levels you'll always take your chances to get that one roll 4 higher and get a Deadly base damage to begin with.
Once you get to the really high TNs, you'll never see anything but headshots. Unless you make sure the modifier really is prohibitive, which usually means ~+6. |
|
|
|
|
May 7 2004, 07:14 PM
Post
#41
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,408 Joined: 31-January 04 From: Reston VA, USA Member No.: 6,046 |
My 2cents: Not all called shots are created equal. Called shot to the head should be +4, called shot to the eye is much tougher and therefore should be something like +8 or +10. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 7 2004, 07:26 PM
Post
#42
|
|||||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,901 Joined: 19-June 03 Member No.: 4,775 |
You may be right. I'm just a little annoyed at that, because +6 is really incredibly prohibitive to even shooting someone in the head when you're 2 meters away and he or she is at your mercy. I realize that's more an area for GM ruling than mechanics, but I'd prefer it if the mechanics were at least capable of handling the situation.
A called shot to eye, actually, would be illegal under this system. If you make it legal, you have to start worrying about occular armor, what part of your forearm is covered, etc. It's completely outside the scope of these rules. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
May 7 2004, 08:02 PM
Post
#43
|
|||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 214 Joined: 8-June 03 Member No.: 4,696 |
Uh, no. Player: I shoot him. GM: Let me solve these differential equations and I'll get back to you on the exact ballistic path of the bullet. Are we feeling involved yet?
I think the main effect here is to ensure that people attempt to keep at least a few dice in their pool for dodging. Even so, I'm in favor of an increased TN for headshots. +6 sounds reasonable. If you're dealing with really ridiculous TNs, you should not be trying to solve the problem by getting a randomly lucky headshot on the extreme range sprinting target in pitch blackness. You might have more luck with a FA weapon. I am interested in hearing how your rules deal with the problem of always HSing.
This is really not an issue, depending on what you mean by 'at your mercy'. If they're tied up or otherwise immobilized, they die via GM fiat. If you're covering them with a weapon, you have opportunity for multiple aim actions and a held action to shoot; not sure if more is necessary. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
May 7 2004, 08:28 PM
Post
#44
|
|||||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,901 Joined: 19-June 03 Member No.: 4,775 |
If you can calculate all of that in realtime and make use of it, abstracting from there does hurt immersion relative to that extreme. Ultimately, it's a balance to abstract to a level that is playable but maintain a level of realism that is immersive (not counting whatever effects the creator may wish to achieve through mechanics). Abstraction is not something to be thrown around lightly, however.
I'm thinking of something as simple as an unarmed person standing 2 meters away from a person with a pistol. Given that he's been told not to move and is within the 10m range for CQB, we're looking at -2TN, but that still leavs you with +8 to shoot him in the head at 2m. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
May 7 2004, 09:24 PM
Post
#45
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 614 Joined: 17-June 03 From: A safehouse about to be compromised by ninjas Member No.: 4,754 |
Let me clarify then. Due to using a 6 sided die, and rerolling on 6, the TN scale does NOT scale up in a linear fashion, giving disproportionate weight to any piece of gear that lowers TN values because the number of successes rolled it what ultimatley determines how successful your character is. Smartlink is just at the forefront of that situation because it comes up the most often.
And yes shotguns can fire things besides shot, but in that respect are really no different than any other gun. If you leave the rest of the weaponry unchanged youll simply have no reason to choose anything other than the gun with the biggest on paper value, eliminating some of the reasons you might want to use a variety of weaponry. And my armor reference wasnt talking about rolled hitlocations battletech style. It was a system for redistributing armor points for use during called shots. If you want to roll out the location for each hit then youre going to need an entire NEW set of TN mods. For example, a tn 4 at short range is the equivalent of aiming at a standing person, center mass. If you add hit locations, you need a modifier for what portion or lack theroff is behind cover based on the chance to hit each location, not neccessarily the amount of body behind cover. You need a called shot TN scale for each location. You need armor values for each of a dozen locations. You need to rewrite the wound effects tables from M&M to take that into account. You need to totally do away with the listed standard armor values, and shooting TNs, because theres almost no reason anyone would just take a standard shot anymore; the +2 TN for called shot tradeoff to avoid any cover by body position, avoid any armor except the targeted area, and possibly *increase* your guns damage code all in one manuver would beat out everything. And unless you really, really, really nerf smartlink into uselessness, the aboive shot wont really be that much harder than normal. I still think most everything youve said is about worthless because its not fixing anything. Its adding about 5 chapters of paperwork that is, at this point, just as broken as the stuff you claim to be fixing. Post back when youve a harder mechanic than "uh Im going to fix this ya" because what youve said so far entails the opposite of fixing. |
|
|
|
|
May 7 2004, 10:25 PM
Post
#46
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 376 Joined: 14-July 03 Member No.: 4,928 |
Players and Gms are going to be spending about 5 minutes trying to figure out armor and damage resistance with shotguns firing shot.
Let's see - two meter spread when it hits target, now you have to figure out the armor for head, torso, right arm, left arm, groin, right leg, and left leg - as every one of these have been hit. As a player, I always use two shotguns - one with shot, and one with slugs. However, we houserule that shotgun shot cannot be staged up with extra successes, and for every 3 meters of spread, the damage level is permanently reduced by 1 level, to a minimum of Light. Extra successes still have to be rolled off by defender. And the reason for this is the shot has spread so much at 3 meters, or 6 meters etc, as to reduce it's effectiveness for damage level. Power is also reduced as per canon (-1 for every meter of spread). Otherwise, a burst with shot still does Deadly damage at 100m (extreme Range), no matter how much it spreads, according to canon rules. Personally, I like simpler rules that keep the game going, rather than spending tons of time bean-counting. As for where the wounds happen - that can be GM's call. Last week I had a Phys adept take a serious would that involved shredded armor, shrapnel to the face and chest, severed and near severed fingers, and a mechanical arm from an exploding drone embedded through his knee. All from one 12D explosion, reflecting his serious wound. |
|
|
|
|
May 7 2004, 11:51 PM
Post
#47
|
|||
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
If the problem is that it's hard to compensate for movement, then why don't heavy weapons have increased *movement* penalties for CQB (whatever that stands for)? As a side note, I'm glad I'm not the only one with reservations about adding hit locations. For a second there I was worried that I was being an idiot newbie; a blond, if you will. :P |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 8 2004, 12:14 AM
Post
#48
|
|||||||||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,901 Joined: 19-June 03 Member No.: 4,775 |
Of course it's not linear. This is a core element of SR's d6 system. Nothing scales up linearly any more than it scales down linearly. But aside from stating an obvious statistical, fact I'm not seeing what your problem with this is. Of course lowering target numbers is a massive benefit. No shit. That's the point. Anyway, I don't think you understand where this system is going at all. You don't need to calculate depending on how much of the target is visible. Just apply cover modifiers and, if the roll hits something that's covered, apply the barrier rating first. Alternatively, you can just reroll for something that's not covered. You do not need armor locations for each of a dozen locations; you need armor ratings for the aforementioned head, chest, back, groin, arms, and legs. Unless I've somehow forgotten how to count, that adds up to 8, including differentiating between right and left appendages. And I don't udnerstand why you've assumed that calling a shot to head is going to be just as easy firing a normal shot. Given your massive ignorance of everything I've written thus far, I'm wondering if you actually bothered to read any of it at all before launching into a feverish tirade of invective.
Good lord, no. For simplicity's sake— and, hell for realism's— shot only hits in one area, just like anything else, unless there's a system to handle this elegantly that I haven't seen. I don't know how you came to the conclusion that shot would hit everywhere— especially considering that the opening post of the this thread specifically states that there's a calculable overall armor value, and that this is specifically for use in situations where armored locations are not easily applicable. Even though I'm not handling shot as you suggest, if I were, that'd obviously be the value to use. You've completely assumed that these rules are going to be far more complex than they actually would.
Because while your target may be stationary, you may need to swing your weapon around quite a bit to bring it to bear. Movement for everyone and everything in CQB is pretty significant, which is what makes it such a massive problem of statics.
Hey, I'm not suggesting that misgivings are somehow unjustified; I just felt that your specific objects didn't apply to Shadowrun's system. Certainly, there are concerns of playability (though, christ, not in the way ShadowGhost and White Dwarf seem to think); I just think it's ultiamtely quite feasible. |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
May 8 2004, 01:41 AM
Post
#49
|
|||||||
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
Neither of these suggestions work very well for cover. The first has cover playing double duty, which IMO should be greatly discouraged if you don't want security forces blowing you all away. The second, however, encourages some pretty stupid munchkining: the munchking will position himself so his target's torso, off-hand and legs are all behind that wall. That way he is gauronteed to hit either his head or shooting arm--effectively a called shot--without having to pay the large modifier for a called shot. That of course assumes that cover is not worth as much as called shot mods, in which case no runner will survive against a dedicated sec force either. I suggest that when you strike something behind cover you act as if you shot the cover instead, applying Barrier Ratings and such before any sort of Damage Resistance Test is made. It also has the benefit of being more realistic.
Doesn't this betray the whole spirit of these new rules though? If you're going to have hit locations anyway, then they damn well should apply every time someone is hit. Why should hitting someone with a grenade be more abstracted than hitting someone with a bullet?
Ah, but in this case we're dealing with an unweildly weapon, which is no less difficult to aim at a distant target than a close one. This particular "problem of statics" is really independent of the distance to the target so much as the angular distance between two different targets, which will not necessarily be greater the closer you are to the multiple targets. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
May 8 2004, 01:54 AM
Post
#50
|
|
|
Traumatizing players since 1992 Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,282 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Las Vegas, NV Member No.: 220 |
I really, really have to agree with Eyeless on the cover and Multiple Locations Hit from attacks like grenades.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 25th November 2024 - 10:35 PM |
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.