 Ranged Combat, the SR3R way |
  |
 Jun 7 2005, 02:11 PM
Post
#76
|
|
|
Running Target  Group: Members Posts: 1,109 Joined: 16-October 03 From: Raleigh, NC Member No.: 5,729  |
Bingo. I like the idea, but I think it would be way too cumbersome a rule to implement. And honestly, the only purpose of it would be to satisfy our morbid sense of firearm reality rather than for any actual gameplay balance/purpose.
Heck, you might even break it down this way: Rating 1-4: General Skill (ie. Longarms) Rating 5-7: Specialization (ie. Shotguns) Rating 8+ : Specific Weapon (Remington 990) Again, you'd have to do this with all the skills in the book to keep consistancy. For now, I think this part of the discussion needs it's own thread. <ceasing thread hijack operations> |
 |
 
|
|
Jun 7 2005, 06:36 PM
Post
#77
|
|||||||||
|
Mostly Harmless Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 937 Joined: 26-February 02 From: 44.662,-63.469 Member No.: 176 |
The thing about how you learned in the military is that you were concentrating on assault rifles and machine guns, which are taught differently than general riflecraft is otherwise (how I learned it from a hunting background). With assault rifles, you learn both short range techniques that would apply more to submachine guns and mid-range techniques that apply to rifles. Marrying the two techniques into one weapon was the entire conception behind the assault rifle. It is a more generalized skill set than people tend to learn otherwise.
To be fair, I didn't say that you don't spend any time at all engaging moving targets in rifle training (I get my practice on gophers). But I would like to have a better idea of how much time you spent on engaging moving targets and at what ranges this training took place from a military standpoint. My guess is that when you're learning techniques that are more akin to submachine gun skills than riflecraft, close range engagement and the ability to engage fast moving targets at short range are likely to be taught a lot sooner and more intensely than they are otherwise.
Well, in respect to riflecraft, yes. I would agree. In shotgunning, you really don't tend to think about it much other than, "gee, out that far, my pattern is going to be way too big to do much of anything." I guess my example on this point had more to do with the generalized skill being called "rifles" rather than "longarms". I didn't think riflecraft should be that generalized.
That's true. But that kind of thing I would associate more with very low skill levels (1-2). They're even things that can be taught without real application (i.e. sitting in your living room). By the time you get to be at an "average" level, you're likely to have that down to the subconscious. Learning how to handle the weapon does come first. But learning how to engage the target, being conscious of what's beyond it, and how you are likely to affect it are the important parts. Hell, I've really taken this too far. It's really not that big of a deal. Just wanted to voice my concerns. |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Jun 7 2005, 06:47 PM
Post
#78
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,006 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
No problem, gives me things to chew on while I'm figuring out exactly where I want to go with all this. Despite the fact that some of the divisions are silly, I'm leaning towards leaving them the way they are at least for now, but keep right on discussing if desired—if something really grabs my fancy as intuitive and sensible (and balanced), I'll open the floor to the idea of putting it in.
Another sub-question on the topic, though: if we work with the assumption that normal firearms are still going to be divided into Pistols, SMGs, Rifles, Assault Rifles, etc., how can we best get rid of skills that apply to only one weapon (or only a very small class of weapons)? For example, Laser Weapons (this one isn't quite so much an issue, necessarily) and the separate skills for bracers, gun canes, etc.? ~J |
|
|
|
|
Jun 7 2005, 07:30 PM
Post
#79
|
|
|
Freelance Elf Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 7,324 Joined: 30-September 04 From: Texas Member No.: 6,714 |
"Exotic Weapons" or something? Link it to Pistols, if anything (since that's what most of them are -- lasers, gyrojets, etc).
If nothing else, though, I really would like to see Rifles and Assault Rifles folded together. It really rubs me the wrong way. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 7 2005, 07:40 PM
Post
#80
|
|
|
Man In The Machine Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,264 Joined: 26-February 02 From: I-495 S Member No.: 1,105 |
The only thing I can think of is to somehow fudge the 'strange' weapons cost to learn. But on the other hand I must admit that some weapons are just so damm strange (oral slasher, eye guns, ect) that they almost NEED their own skills.
Besides, an 'exotic weapon' sounds too much like That Other Game... |
|
|
|
|
Jun 7 2005, 08:10 PM
Post
#81
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,006 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
I'll say up-front that changing the costs of some skills is not an option. I'm not going to make them work differently from the rest of the weapon skills.
You are right that it's difficult to solve sensibly, though. I'm just wondering if there's any way to stretch some other skills to incorporate them, or at least have the "strange" skills cover a few weapons instead of just one… ~J |
|
|
|
|
Jun 7 2005, 08:51 PM
Post
#82
|
|||||||||||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,109 Joined: 16-October 03 From: Raleigh, NC Member No.: 5,729 |
Good point. I never did sniper/DM school, so I suppose I never really learned any of the kind of riflecraft that most hunters learn. Got any way to summerize what I missed out on and what separates "riflecraft" from "SMG/ARcraft"?
ARM was really only a few weeks, and we shot at moving, man-sized silhouettes at short-medium range (50m - 200m). However, I don't think these qualified as "fast-moving" targets. It was certainly nothing like trying to take a flying duck with your 12-guage. Human beings don't tend to move that fast across your line of fire during an engagement, so I don't suppose those skills were a part of the curriculum. Again, what's the difference between riflecraft and SMG skills. Apparently, I've been ignorant about this my whole life. Then again, maybe if I actually had the patience to hunt when I was a kid, I'd probably know.
That low, eh? Maybe I just overestimate my shooting skill. I suppose my limited experience is the culprit here. I suppose when I think about these skills, I develop a sort of "range mentality". Here is the idea. I can take somone who's never fired a firearm in their life, then spend a few weeks with them on the range shooting an M-16, then after that, if they aren't complete idiots, they can pick up a 12-guage pump action, 30-06 bolt action, or .308 semi-auto and once the learn how it feeds, they should have the same ability to knock down targets as they did with the M-16. At the very least, that's how it's worked for me. I will say, however, I've never had to use anything in combat other what I've trained with.
Indeed. And they are all very valid. Apparenlty my experience is severely limited when it comes to the skillsets applicable to different firearms. And that's why we have these boards...to educate dumbasses like me. ;-) |
||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
Jun 8 2005, 07:16 AM
Post
#83
|
|||||||
|
Mostly Harmless Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 937 Joined: 26-February 02 From: 44.662,-63.469 Member No.: 176 |
Generally, what you would learn during assault rifle training would probably represent the best all-around firearms skill for a shadowrunner to have, as it covers close range and medium range engagement as well as automatic fire. That should make it relatively easy to default to similar tasks with different firearms, such as submachine guns and general rifle. About the only things that appear to me to be left out in assault rifle training are the things that you would apply in especially long range engagements. Far more in depth training regarding ballistics and environmental factors that affect long range ballistics, as well as the use and maintenance of magnifying optics (manual rangefinding and such). In other words, pretty near all of Chapter 3 of US Army Field Manual 23-10 (as well as a few other bits and pieces regarding marksmanship and equipment). Most of the problems I have with these very generalized classifications comes from the other direction. While assault rifle training would cover most of the bases, other training may not cover the first thing about the judicious use of automatic fire, close range engagement, or long range engagement. To me, a "Rifle" skill would have very little to do with close range engagement and six pounds of dick to do with automatic fire (battle rifles would use the "Assault Rifles" skill). A "Shotgun" skill would have absolutely nothing to do with long range engagement and only under very specialized circumstances, automatic fire. The use of automatic fire is not rocket science, but it takes some getting used to in order to keep yourself from using it excessively and in situations that don't call for it, which is probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 85% of all ground combat situations. Case in point: Vietnam. The whole reason why the M16A2 was limited to 3-round burst fire. A mechanical solution to a simple lack of training. When people "go Rambo", they don't tend to hit a god damn thing they meant to. When they control themselves, autofire can get very nasty. Of course combat in SR, especially full autofire, tends to be ruthlessly efficient, so that hardly matters from the point of view of application in the game... Bah. Bit of a left turn here... I guess what I'm getting at is that the application dictates the skill used rather than the "weapon class". A person could use a slug-loaded shotgun with the "Rifle" skill without penalty. Or a submachine gun with the "Assault Rifle" skill. Or vice versa, so long as they weren't attempting to engage anything beyond 200m. So something like... Pistols (Automatic) Shotguns (Automatic) Submachine Guns Assault Rifles Rifles (Long Range) Machine Guns Launch Weapons Basically the only thing that would change from canon is how defaulting works.
Yeah, but the minute they try to knock something over at (gee... that black speck? what is that? it's pretty far out there... how far is that?) with only iron sights or a red dot, they're going to run into trouble. Different skills and equipment. If you come at it from the other direction, teaching them on a range with the .30-06 bolt or .308 first, then you send them into a stressful, close quarters environment with an assault rifle, they're likely to end up blazing away, with target discipline turning to shit in about a minute and a half, shooting in the general direction of things they didn't have the skills to identify first because everything is happening so fast.
Well, I don't know how limited your experience is. You seem to be coming at it from the opposite direction of me. My experience with automatic firearms is sadly limited, but I have made it my business to learn how to operate with them, even if what I have is limited to semi-auto. And I do tend to hunt a bit, so there's that... But what I'm getting really rusty at, what with not really having the opportunity to sit down and play SR anymore, is how to apply the things I've learned to the game in a practical, useful manner. I do tend to overanalyze these things, obviously. So in that respect, I'm as big of a dumbass as anyone else. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Jun 8 2005, 07:33 AM
Post
#84
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
As I've said before in threads like this, thank goodness Dumpshock isn't filled by MDs, or we'd have 9 skills where we now have Biotech. ;)
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 9 2005, 02:44 PM
Post
#85
|
|||||||||||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,109 Joined: 16-October 03 From: Raleigh, NC Member No.: 5,729 |
Ahhhh...VERY good point. The only time I ever engaged targets out past about 300M was on the M-60 range. And of course, long range rifle shooting has about as much in common with machinegunning as apples have in common with buicks.
"6 pounds of dick..." That is priceless! I gotta add that to my vocabulary. The rest of the above is spot on. You better be careful...if you continue being right, people are gonna start expecting that of you all the time. ;-)
I think you can compress those skills a bit more, and maybe come from an application standpoint rather than a weapon class standpoint. How about: Format = Skill (Specializations) CQB (Pistols, Shoulder Fired, Automatic fire) Shotguns (Automatic Fire, Shot Rounds) Riflecraft (Specific Weapon) Launch Weapons Gunnery (Machine Guns, Specific Weapon System) Basically, CQB would incompass pretty much all uses of your handguns, close quarter and short range uses of Shotguns/Carbines/SMGs/Assault Rifles/Battle Rifles, and automatic fire from said weapon systems. Shotguns would cover...well...shotguns being used in CQB and just about any other circumstance under which one would use a shotgun. Little bit of overlap here, but that is to be expected, I suppose. Also, you learn how to better engage targets using various types of shot ammunition. Riflecraft will include all of your medium and long range, single shot, target engagement. This is the skill you would use when trying to hit that corporate sentry from 400 meters away with your 6.8 SPC Assault Rifle. A good rule of thumb here is engaging any target that is so far away as to appear smaller than your weapon's front sisight post will require the use of this skill. Launch Weapons...duh. Gunnery apparently means something different for me than it does to anyone else. Here are the practical experiences I have with what I consider would fall under Gunnery: Suppressive fire/group target engagement w/M-60 from prone or on tripod. Suppressive fire/target enegagement w/M2 .50 cal from Hummvee turret. Suppressive fire/target enegagement w/Mk 19 40mm grenade launcher. Suppressive fire/target enegagement w/25mm main gun on Bradley IFV. Suppressive fire/target enegagement w/7.62mm coax on Bradley IFV. While all slightly different weapon systems, they we pretty much all used the same way, at least the way I was trained. You know what? To hell with this. It's too complicated and requires too much input from the GM. Why do I always try to make things so complicated???
Indeed. So how do we better represent that in SR?
Yeah...there is something to be said for familiaty with rules and actual game flow. Still, maybe someone will get inspired by this mish-mash of info and put it all into a concise, simple game mechanic. Kage, you up for that? ;-) |
||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||
 Jun 9 2005, 02:47 PM
Post
#86
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,109 Joined: 16-October 03 From: Raleigh, NC Member No.: 5,729 |
Killjoy. :-P |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jun 9 2005, 02:53 PM
Post
#87
|
|||||
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
Heh. One *does* wonder how Firearms managed to become like two dozen different skills, yet Computers or Biotech still remain basically single skills (with that *weird* nonsensical differentiation between Electronics, Electronics B/R and Computer B/R). :) |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jun 9 2005, 04:18 PM
Post
#88
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 316 Joined: 18-July 03 Member No.: 4,963 |
I think Computer belongs as one skill. It's not all that often that you find someone that can only, for example, admin a server and nothing else. I've found that people who are good at one aspect of computers tend to have a solid knowledge of all aspects. Biotech is one skill because it is used, in typical SR games, for exactly ONE reason and that is first aid. I'll also note that if you read the medical rules in SR closely, you get the hint that they intended for you to take specialties(In various types of surgeries) and that you needed them to perform certain operations. This was never made very clear and honestly everyone ignores this. --- If you want few skills The default assumption in SR is that you are specialized in one aspect of a skill(Obviously, skills would need to ALL be broad skills for this to work). You are considered to be defaulting(Or just some TN mod, the point is that you aren't as good outside of your specialty) any time you do something outside of this UNLESS you buy a speciality. Thereafter, you can instead opt to roll your specialty ranks for that for no TN mod. Also, you'd start off by buying new specialties at a rank equal to your original skill. If you want to JUST be good at one thing, you can do the specialty rules as usual or something. I'm really tired and just rambling ATM. The idea here is that instead of having Rifles, Shotguns, and Assault Rifles, you'd have Long Arms(6) and say your initial skill is in assault rifles. Then you'd later decide "I want to wield shotguns effectively too", so you'd pick up a specialty in shotguns at specialization costs. I think I'm getting my point across. You start off specialized, then you choose to take more specialties. Got it? We'd probably merge some skills, maybe lower karma costs some across the board. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jun 9 2005, 04:32 PM
Post
#89
|
|||
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,006 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
I disagree. I know power users who can't program to save their lives. I know sysadmins who don't know how to program their way out of a box in anything but scripting languages. I know programmers/CS professors whose explanation for why they put an unsecured wireless access point in their office when being questioned because someone had used it to anonymously distribute hacked software was "I didn't think anyone would do anything like that". I know people who sling assembly who don't necessarily recognize the sudo command on sight. There's a lot to computers, and while proficiency in one area generally translates into basic competency most other places, it doesn't necessarily translate into anything like proficiency. ~J |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jun 9 2005, 04:46 PM
Post
#90
|
|
|
Why oh why didn't I take the blue pill. Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,545 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Gloomy Boise Idaho Member No.: 2,006 |
I like the idea of dividing it by application but I think that would be impractical. You could do this.
Small Arms (anything from Pistols to Assualt Rifles) Long Arms (Hunting and Sniper Rifles) Heavy Weapons (LMG's etc) Launch Weapons (rockets, AT4's, TOW's, Grenade Launchers, etc) Then each one could use standard specialazation as it is now. Small Arms/Ares Pred Long Arms/M-1 Heavy Weapons/Are Valiant |
|
|
|
|
Jun 9 2005, 04:48 PM
Post
#91
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 179 Joined: 8-June 05 From: Montréal, République du Québec Member No.: 7,433 |
Indeed. Ask me about protocols, no matter how obscure... and I know it. Networking is in me. Ask me to program, though, and... well, you're on your own. I dabble in Python & Perl, but... I hate coding. Networking, and securing those networks, has always been my only "Skill". Is this a specialization, or is it how most people work? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jun 9 2005, 04:55 PM
Post
#92
|
|
|
Why oh why didn't I take the blue pill. Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,545 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Gloomy Boise Idaho Member No.: 2,006 |
I think it is how most people work. For instance I am a trouble shooter. I can find and Identify problems with software and hardware in a heartbeat. But I can't program and I have a limited knowledge of scripting.
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 9 2005, 05:09 PM
Post
#93
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 668 Joined: 15-February 05 From: Ontario, Canada Member No.: 7,086 |
Not sure I agree.
Admittedly I'm not immensely good at most things, but I've got an understanding of a broad area of computing. Mostly software, some hardware. Moderate networking, database management, lots of programming and scripting. They aren't all equal, but they're all there. The thing is, that's all from memory. Give me my reference materials? Whole other ball game. To my mind, any of the 'technical' skills make sense as broad skills. General ones mean knowing what reference to grab and can use it appropriately, specializations mean you don't even need the reference anymore. I wouldn't want to jump back into networking without grabbing a reference to double check things, for instance, but programming (language dependent)? Different matter entirely. I don't know about firearms or how it would apply to them though -- although I expect it would be similar to a large degree. A lot of similar principles spread across groups of weapons, different enough to matter (ie/specialization is reasonable) but similar enough that there's no impedement to using them (No penalty to using whatever skill applies to handguns on any handgun). |
|
|
|
|
Jun 9 2005, 06:45 PM
Post
#94
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,109 Joined: 16-October 03 From: Raleigh, NC Member No.: 5,729 |
Well, I happen to be one of those oddballs who did a stint with the Army (Mech Inf) for a while, and left to become an IT guy. Now I do sysadmin work. So I have a pretty unique perspective on these skill sets.
For one, I agree with Kage. I'm a good sysadmin, and I know hardware and OSs, but I'm not worth a shit at programming. Login scripts is about my limit there. I also don't know much about DB, and can barely fumble my way through using Access. A good buddy of mine is a web developer and programs in VB, C (and various iterations of) Java, and .Net, but needed my help to setup a simple wireless network in his house. Basically a skill like Network Administration has "6 pounds of dick™" to do with Programming. I think here you have a clear cut case of a normal skill defaulting to an attribute. However, when it comes to firearms, things are quite a bit different, at least IMHO. Here's a good example. When I was in Infantry School, most of my "shooting" training was with an M-16A2. Shadowrun classifies this as an Assault rifle. Not long after getting to my unit, we went out to the range and some MPs were out there shooting their MP5/40s. They happened to be gracious enough to let me squeeze off a few rounds. Shadowrun classifies an MP5/40 as a Submachine Gun. It took me all of half a magazine to be able to consistantly put lead on target with the MP5, though I had never fired/trained with one, nor even touched one before that day. Like the discussion Raygun and I were having, quite a few weapons, when used in a certain way, all use the same skill. If I'm doing MOUT, and just about all the targets I engage are closer than 100m, then it doesn't matter if I'm using an M-16, M4, G36, MP5, or AK-47. All it would take is a few minutes of familiarization and a few rounds fired. I think that a lot of people have general knowledge in their chosen profession. However, I think that general knowledge is best reflected in defaulting from a specialization to a general skill. And I like the idea of having multiple specializations inside of a single skill. Maybe we should make general skills much more expensive to purchase/improve, and specializations much cheaper. That way if you want points in more than one spec, it's cheaper to do that than just increasing the base skill. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 9 2005, 07:28 PM
Post
#95
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,133 Joined: 3-October 04 Member No.: 6,722 |
Pardon me skipping this back to damage codes:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but have I correctly interpreted the comments from our various firearms experts to mean: the primary difference in real terms between a heavy pistol round and a rifle round is that the rifle penetrates better? If that's the case, then instead of messing with damage codes, would it not perhaps be more logical to apply an armour modifier, much like the old APDS ammo does? So you would have all Heavy Pistols and Assault Rifles (by which I exclude 7.62 weapons) running at 7M-9M, but the AR's reduce ballistic armour by X. Even if X=1, that's a perceptible advantage, although from what I hear X=2 might be better. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 9 2005, 07:33 PM
Post
#96
|
|
|
Freelance Elf Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 7,324 Joined: 30-September 04 From: Texas Member No.: 6,714 |
Well, the "power" half of a damage code has pretty much just always meant "penetrates better" (in my mind, at least). I'd rather see modifications made to that, than modifications made to armor itself (IE, why change armor when it's really power you're out to influence, and you can change power instead?).
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 9 2005, 07:38 PM
Post
#97
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,006 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
The problem is it doesn't really mean that, or rather not just that. Compare a bullet to a 5µm needle of some unidentified substance traveling at 10% of c. Penetrates most things, but barring wake effects it isn't going to be difficult to resist meaningful harm from it at all.
~J |
|
|
|
|
Jun 9 2005, 07:41 PM
Post
#98
|
|
|
Freelance Elf Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 7,324 Joined: 30-September 04 From: Texas Member No.: 6,714 |
Which is where the other half of the damage code comes in. Light base damage isn't fantastically scary, because shot placement then becomes terribly important. And, well, if the shot was placed well, I could see aforementioned needle pretty easily ruining my day.
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 9 2005, 07:45 PM
Post
#99
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,133 Joined: 3-October 04 Member No.: 6,722 |
I'd disagree, at least partially. To me it means "harder to resist". My point was that since the opinion seemed to be that an assault rifle and a heavy pistol would be similarly effective against an unarmoured opponent but that the rifle would shine against an armoured one, that the difference might be better reflected by armour reduction (for which there is a precedent, albeit only the one I think) than by amendments to the power or damage level. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jun 9 2005, 07:53 PM
Post
#100
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 179 Joined: 8-June 05 From: Montréal, République du Québec Member No.: 7,433 |
Seconded. My system has 'Heavy' Pistols at 7-9M, with Assault Rifles at 9-12M. They deal roughly the same wound in the end, but Assault Rifles both have higher armour penetration, AND much better range. Edit: And, of course, an Assault Rifle at 9-12M deals more damage in Burst/Full Auto; just talking about single rounds, here. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 29th November 2024 - 02:30 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.