Full Version: Full Auto/burst
I'm currently working on adapting/rewriting the SR3 rules for a modern day campaign, realism being one of my major concerns. That said, I'm curious what attempts there have been to make the full auto and burst fire rules more realistic (ie, resolving every round individually), as well as how these attempts have fared in being useful and not overly complex. Any information would be appreciated.
If you're going for realism, and plan on using hit locations and armor by locations too (because that's far greater a concern realism-wise than breaking 3-round bursts down to individual rounds), resolving burst and autofire 1 round at a time will lead to extreme deadliness. At long ranges, hitting people on burst or full auto is a bit too easy, and 3 different 1-round hits generally do more damage than a 3-round burst, especially if said burst is part of fully automatic fire.
If that's the way you want it, however, there should be no rules-wise problem rolling the hits 1 round at a time. The recoil for each round should be calculated as for semi-auto fire, because the first round should never be significantly influenced by recoil. I don't see any problems with this, although I think there are people on this forum who use this as a house rule, so they can elaborate.
A few additional important bits about full auto, if you really aim for realism. I suggest giving all FA-capable firearms a RoF based on their real world RoFs per 3 seconds. If someone can act on 2 Initiative Passes in a Combat Turn, he could only fire half of the full RoF per Pass. And I hope you've got a lot of patience, because rolling all those 60 sets of dice when someone decides to go cyclic with an MG3 is going to take a long, long time.
I also suggest putting a recoil cap at ~7-11, depending on how useful you wish extended fully automatic fire to be, from e.g. LMGs & GPMGs, without Suppressive Fire. I have a maximum recoil of 7 before modifiers, +3 at Long/Extreme (the latter cannot be compensated for). At Short/Medium, a SMG with RC3 would not have more than a +4 recoil modifier, no matter how many rounds it fires in a Combat Phase. A vehicle-mounted GPMG with RC7 would still have +3 Recoil Modifier for all bursts/full auto fire at Long and Extreme Ranges. 1 round at a time, the same GPMG would have +1 on second, +2 on third and +3 on the fourth and all consecutive rounds in that Phase, again only at Long or Extreme.
That said, I think you don't need to resolve full auto as individual rounds for a decent balance of simplicity and realism. Breaking full auto down to 10 bursts of equivalent size, or into bursts of 3, which ever is higher, is enough. It also maintains the spirit of SR3 rules. But that's just down to personal preference. If you really like the idea of 1-round-at-a-time, try it out by all means.
If that's the way you want it, however, there should be no rules-wise problem rolling the hits 1 round at a time. The recoil for each round should be calculated as for semi-auto fire, because the first round should never be significantly influenced by recoil. I don't see any problems with this, although I think there are people on this forum who use this as a house rule, so they can elaborate.
A few additional important bits about full auto, if you really aim for realism. I suggest giving all FA-capable firearms a RoF based on their real world RoFs per 3 seconds. If someone can act on 2 Initiative Passes in a Combat Turn, he could only fire half of the full RoF per Pass. And I hope you've got a lot of patience, because rolling all those 60 sets of dice when someone decides to go cyclic with an MG3 is going to take a long, long time.
I also suggest putting a recoil cap at ~7-11, depending on how useful you wish extended fully automatic fire to be, from e.g. LMGs & GPMGs, without Suppressive Fire. I have a maximum recoil of 7 before modifiers, +3 at Long/Extreme (the latter cannot be compensated for). At Short/Medium, a SMG with RC3 would not have more than a +4 recoil modifier, no matter how many rounds it fires in a Combat Phase. A vehicle-mounted GPMG with RC7 would still have +3 Recoil Modifier for all bursts/full auto fire at Long and Extreme Ranges. 1 round at a time, the same GPMG would have +1 on second, +2 on third and +3 on the fourth and all consecutive rounds in that Phase, again only at Long or Extreme.
That said, I think you don't need to resolve full auto as individual rounds for a decent balance of simplicity and realism. Breaking full auto down to 10 bursts of equivalent size, or into bursts of 3, which ever is higher, is enough. It also maintains the spirit of SR3 rules. But that's just down to personal preference. If you really like the idea of 1-round-at-a-time, try it out by all means.
So what is your idea of realism?
Having played phoenix Command (now long out of print from the defunct Leading Edge Games) that is what I considered to be a realistic system and also a very slooooow system (we still had fun though). The running joke we had about that system was...'Just how important is it that Mack Bolan had a burrito for lunch'.
But if I was going to modify SR I would...
Get rid of the D6's and go with D10's. Statistically speaking I like the distribution of the D10 to virtually any other dice type (especially D20s).
Karma pool would be calculated 1 Karma Pool for every 40 Good Karma.
Mandate Willpower checks once shooting begins to determine NPC's and PC's initial reaction (Fight or Flight). If you want realism...once lead starts flying most people make themselves into the smallest target possible versus leaping into the thick of things.
Mandate Willpower checks for poor bastards wearing body armor (without trauma plates) that gets shot...from not falling to the floor and whimpering...TN 16. If you want a visual imagine pushing a pencil eraser two inches into your sternum.
Weapon ranges and damage ratings aren't really bad from a broad view...figure your assault rifles are shooting 5.56mm rounds, sniper rifles 7.62mm up to .50 cal., heavy pistols are using .357 Magnum up to .50 Desert Eagle (and the full sized 10mm round), medium pistols .38 caliber to .45 ACP, and light pistols .22 cal up to .32 cal. A decent reference is The Shooter's Bible they have basic ballistic data...I suggest using the round's foot-pound energy for determining what class a round should be placed in for damage.
Unarmed combat...that one is really difficult and I tend to think that SR has a very workable system. I have heard a lot of different arguments over the years about Tae Kwon Do vs. Kempo Karate and so on and so forth. My opinion goes along the lines of...trained vs. untrained fights should normally go to the trained combatant. Then there is the Mad Dog I philosophy where the more motivated (i.e. vicious) combatant will win. I don't really know how to model this effectively or consistently...so I say stick with SR.
That is about it...
John
Having played phoenix Command (now long out of print from the defunct Leading Edge Games) that is what I considered to be a realistic system and also a very slooooow system (we still had fun though). The running joke we had about that system was...'Just how important is it that Mack Bolan had a burrito for lunch'.
But if I was going to modify SR I would...
Get rid of the D6's and go with D10's. Statistically speaking I like the distribution of the D10 to virtually any other dice type (especially D20s).
Karma pool would be calculated 1 Karma Pool for every 40 Good Karma.
Mandate Willpower checks once shooting begins to determine NPC's and PC's initial reaction (Fight or Flight). If you want realism...once lead starts flying most people make themselves into the smallest target possible versus leaping into the thick of things.
Mandate Willpower checks for poor bastards wearing body armor (without trauma plates) that gets shot...from not falling to the floor and whimpering...TN 16. If you want a visual imagine pushing a pencil eraser two inches into your sternum.
Weapon ranges and damage ratings aren't really bad from a broad view...figure your assault rifles are shooting 5.56mm rounds, sniper rifles 7.62mm up to .50 cal., heavy pistols are using .357 Magnum up to .50 Desert Eagle (and the full sized 10mm round), medium pistols .38 caliber to .45 ACP, and light pistols .22 cal up to .32 cal. A decent reference is The Shooter's Bible they have basic ballistic data...I suggest using the round's foot-pound energy for determining what class a round should be placed in for damage.
Unarmed combat...that one is really difficult and I tend to think that SR has a very workable system. I have heard a lot of different arguments over the years about Tae Kwon Do vs. Kempo Karate and so on and so forth. My opinion goes along the lines of...trained vs. untrained fights should normally go to the trained combatant. Then there is the Mad Dog I philosophy where the more motivated (i.e. vicious) combatant will win. I don't really know how to model this effectively or consistently...so I say stick with SR.
That is about it...
John
To a degree, I like the idea of doing it one round at a time, but I also see a major problem with pacing for obvious reasons. Still, just upping the damage code and power seems to be oversimplification, for my tastes. There's also the issue of handling armor whose ballistic protection has been negated due to previous impacts; to Shadowrun's credit, upping the power does this to some degree. Could always consider upping the power by 1 per hit (ie, first hit does 8M, second hit does 9M, etc), but this could be significantly imbalancing.
As far as range is concerned, I think I'll be doubling recoil at medium, tripling at long, etc. Admittedly, I have yet to test this, numbers-wise, but I think it would go a long way to cutting down on any sort of automatic fire at longer ranges.
For extreme rates of fire, may have to resolve per set of rounds (for something along the lines of a Mac10, MG3, MG42, maybe per 5 rounds; for something like a G11, possibly per 10; for an M134 or Metalstorm, resolve combat as a chainsaw with range). As noted, I really am worried about how cumbersome this could get.
I have been putting a lot of thought into handling recoil and I do agree with capping somewhere between 7 and 11. Also considering making recoil not refresh and requiring a simple action to steady the gun after having fired down to the base TN to hit (likely 4) + 2, and another simple action to steady it back to the base TN. Have some more ideas for rewriting initiative entirely, but that can wait until I have things more finalized.
I consdered switching to d8s, but that may just make the rewrite too cumbersome, and, to be honest, there's a stylistic issue with d6s that I just enjoy. Still, d10s do open up more opportunity to refine probabilities; I'll consider it.
Though the game I intend to run will be tossing a number of rules to the wind (including karma) in favor of being freeform, I do like the idea of making karma pool progression slower. Then again, this is largely a GM call.
As for Willpower checks: I don't mind the idea, though, personally, I feel it should be a GM fiat call, and, as for players, a roleplaying issue. At the very least, I'd prefer it an optional rule.
I liked a number of the range charts, though, overall, they could use some refinement. Also need to rework all of the weapon designs for modern calibers. One thing I did consider was a rewrite to include three part damage codes, the additional number being penetration (ie, .45ACP might have 9M-4 where as 9mm might have 6M+2), but, again, this is more idle musing than definite planning, and, as always, may easily prove far more cumbersome than enjoyable.
Unarmed combat worries me, but I think a lot of the suggestions for unarmed house rules could be put to good use. I do think that it needs to be broadened up to allow for a combat phase being a draw, but the specifics of how to do that remain to be seen. That said, I do like a fair amount of the current unarmed system, though it could stand to be a bit less simplistic— especially, in my experience, for melee weapons. Still, I should get more familiar with the melee rules before I start to suggest any changes, much less make any substantial judgements.
As always, any comments are welcome. And, for the hell of it— and since this is already getting slightly off topic— might as well open up discussion to a modern and more realistic adaptation of the current SR3 rules.
As far as range is concerned, I think I'll be doubling recoil at medium, tripling at long, etc. Admittedly, I have yet to test this, numbers-wise, but I think it would go a long way to cutting down on any sort of automatic fire at longer ranges.
For extreme rates of fire, may have to resolve per set of rounds (for something along the lines of a Mac10, MG3, MG42, maybe per 5 rounds; for something like a G11, possibly per 10; for an M134 or Metalstorm, resolve combat as a chainsaw with range). As noted, I really am worried about how cumbersome this could get.
I have been putting a lot of thought into handling recoil and I do agree with capping somewhere between 7 and 11. Also considering making recoil not refresh and requiring a simple action to steady the gun after having fired down to the base TN to hit (likely 4) + 2, and another simple action to steady it back to the base TN. Have some more ideas for rewriting initiative entirely, but that can wait until I have things more finalized.
I consdered switching to d8s, but that may just make the rewrite too cumbersome, and, to be honest, there's a stylistic issue with d6s that I just enjoy. Still, d10s do open up more opportunity to refine probabilities; I'll consider it.
Though the game I intend to run will be tossing a number of rules to the wind (including karma) in favor of being freeform, I do like the idea of making karma pool progression slower. Then again, this is largely a GM call.
As for Willpower checks: I don't mind the idea, though, personally, I feel it should be a GM fiat call, and, as for players, a roleplaying issue. At the very least, I'd prefer it an optional rule.
I liked a number of the range charts, though, overall, they could use some refinement. Also need to rework all of the weapon designs for modern calibers. One thing I did consider was a rewrite to include three part damage codes, the additional number being penetration (ie, .45ACP might have 9M-4 where as 9mm might have 6M+2), but, again, this is more idle musing than definite planning, and, as always, may easily prove far more cumbersome than enjoyable.
Unarmed combat worries me, but I think a lot of the suggestions for unarmed house rules could be put to good use. I do think that it needs to be broadened up to allow for a combat phase being a draw, but the specifics of how to do that remain to be seen. That said, I do like a fair amount of the current unarmed system, though it could stand to be a bit less simplistic— especially, in my experience, for melee weapons. Still, I should get more familiar with the melee rules before I start to suggest any changes, much less make any substantial judgements.
As always, any comments are welcome. And, for the hell of it— and since this is already getting slightly off topic— might as well open up discussion to a modern and more realistic adaptation of the current SR3 rules.
This is all completely off-topic, but what the heck:
If you like D10s more, you like D10s more. However, that doesn't make a system more realistic...
Karma pool has nothing to do with realism. But I do agree that for a realistic game, you might want to limit the speed at which it is gained. I personally like Diminishing Returns, ie. 10 karma for the first pool, 20 more for the second (30 total), 30 more for the third (60 total), etc.
A combat-oriented game gets boring quickly if all the PCs keep running away all the time because of bad luck with dice. And the GM should play NPCs smart, no need to roll Willpower there. If you think a NPC would run, make him/her run.
There are already the rules for Knockdown. If you wish, you can make the TNs higher for the Knockdown Test. But even if you think getting hit while wearing flexible body armor hurts a lot, I'm quite certain getting hit while NOT wearing body armor hurts even more. Making armored opponents more likely to fall down when shot than unarmored opponents makes no sense.
For realism with damages and ranges, go to Raygun's site. All you need in the way of damage codes and ranges can be found there, as well as several good rules to make ranged combat more realistic (like the sudden shock rules). There's also a nice amount of modern firearms there, so you don't have to do as much translation-work. I suggest you do NOT just pick up a Guns&Ammo magazine and give weapons damage codes depending on the muzzle energies - that's not a perfect indicator to begin with, and there's just too much that can go wrong. It's much better to use the data provided by people who know more than you do. I should know, I made that mistake once.
If you like D10s more, you like D10s more. However, that doesn't make a system more realistic...
Karma pool has nothing to do with realism. But I do agree that for a realistic game, you might want to limit the speed at which it is gained. I personally like Diminishing Returns, ie. 10 karma for the first pool, 20 more for the second (30 total), 30 more for the third (60 total), etc.
A combat-oriented game gets boring quickly if all the PCs keep running away all the time because of bad luck with dice. And the GM should play NPCs smart, no need to roll Willpower there. If you think a NPC would run, make him/her run.
There are already the rules for Knockdown. If you wish, you can make the TNs higher for the Knockdown Test. But even if you think getting hit while wearing flexible body armor hurts a lot, I'm quite certain getting hit while NOT wearing body armor hurts even more. Making armored opponents more likely to fall down when shot than unarmored opponents makes no sense.
For realism with damages and ranges, go to Raygun's site. All you need in the way of damage codes and ranges can be found there, as well as several good rules to make ranged combat more realistic (like the sudden shock rules). There's also a nice amount of modern firearms there, so you don't have to do as much translation-work. I suggest you do NOT just pick up a Guns&Ammo magazine and give weapons damage codes depending on the muzzle energies - that's not a perfect indicator to begin with, and there's just too much that can go wrong. It's much better to use the data provided by people who know more than you do. I should know, I made that mistake once.
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator @ Aug 19 2003, 09:54 AM) |
| This is all completely off-topic, but what the heck: If you like D10s more, you like D10s more. However, that doesn't make a system more realistic... Karma pool has nothing to do with realism. But I do agree that for a realistic game, you might want to limit the speed at which it is gained. I personally like Diminishing Returns, ie. 10 karma for the first pool, 20 more for the second (30 total), 30 more for the third (60 total), etc. A combat-oriented game gets boring quickly if all the PCs keep running away all the time because of bad luck with dice. And the GM should play NPCs smart, no need to roll Willpower there. If you think a NPC would run, make him/her run. There are already the rules for Knockdown. If you wish, you can make the TNs higher for the Knockdown Test. But even if you think getting hit while wearing flexible body armor hurts a lot, I'm quite certain getting hit while NOT wearing body armor hurts even more. Making armored opponents more likely to fall down when shot than unarmored opponents makes no sense. For realism with damages and ranges, go to Raygun's site. All you need in the way of damage codes and ranges can be found there, as well as several good rules to make ranged combat more realistic (like the sudden shock rules). There's also a nice amount of modern firearms there, so you don't have to do as much translation-work. I suggest you do NOT just pick up a Guns&Ammo magazine and give weapons damage codes depending on the muzzle energies - that's not a perfect indicator to begin with, and there's just too much that can go wrong. It's much better to use the data provided by people who know more than you do. I should know, I made that mistake once. |
d10s are not inherently more realistic, but they do allow numbers to be more fine tuned than d6s.
Karma pool is a gimick I'm somewhat fond of, and while complete realism obviously would toss it aside, I do like it as an interesting measure of luck and experience outside of normal skills.
No disagreement on the Willpower check thing. I really am one to favor roleplaying over numbers whenever possible (and sane).
There actually is an argument for armor making you fall over more easily; a person wearing armor is not only more encumbered and less able to hold onto his/her balance, but is also going to absorb all of the delivered energy of the round. An unarmored person stands a chance of the round penetrating and depositing only some of its energy, making falling over arguably less likely.
I'm aware of Raygun's site, and while it does have a lot of great stuff, I don't plan on following everything exactly. I do have a number of disagreements with his rules, though I will admit almost all of it is just minor quibbling. Muzzle energy isn't a good indicator of damage, but it is a starting place. If I were going to give damage codes, however, I'd do it from wound profiles found in ballistic gelatin tests. It's not perfect, but it seems to be potentially the best route.
Pheew, getting busy here...
Basic flexible body armor, like kevlar et al, do not degrade when hit as long as they aren't penetrated. After all, the bloody things are tested every once in a while by shooting live rounds at them, then worn a couple of years, and then shot at again. For penetrated rounds, how about just reducing the armor rating of the piece of armor for every N Power that has penetrated?
Say you've got a light kevlar vest (e.g. 4/2 in torso only) and you get hit with an assault rifle (e.g. 8M). That's four points of penetrating Power. If you ruled that armor degrades 1 point/10 penetrated Power, the vest would drop to 3/1 after 3 hits, 2/0 after 5, 1/0 after 7 and 0/0 after the 8th hit. That's still complicated, but you can't do it much more simply than that if you want to be at least slightly realistic at the same that.
I suggest you don't make recoil penalties that harsh at longer ranges. At least the in the "Medium" range category, using canon SR recoil compensation methods, you can fire long (~10) bursts on full auto with a LMG on a bipod quite accurately. If you doubled recoil, that would just not happen. Doubled recoil at Extreme I can understand, even at Long it might be overdoing it.
It's going to get really whacky if you solve 1200rpm fire 5 rounds at a time, but 1000rpm fire 1 round at a time. I find it a lot easier to solve 600rpm fire 3 rounds at a time, 800rpm fire 4 rounds at a time, 1000rpm fire 5 rounds at a time, 1200rpm fire 6 rounds at a time, etc. Oh and the cyclic RoF of the G11 on full auto is, what, 240rpm? That translates to 12 rounds per Combat Turn, about as slow as you can get with a fully automatic weapons. It's really fast (2000rpm or 2200rpm, I keep forgetting) only on 3-round bursts, and you never have to solve those more than 3 rounds at a time.
Ooh ooh! Good to see my Penetration rating idea is finally catching on. I can tell you that it's certainly more enjoyable than cumbersome. And if you want my full list of calibers with Damage codes and Penetration ratings, feel free to ask.
[Edit]The kind of rounds that will get stopped by flexible body armor (HP/frangible rifle rounds, pistol rounds) are unlikely to overpenetrate much anyway, so that point is rather moot.
There just aren't wound profiles to be found for that many calibers and bullet types on the internet. If you can find a comprehensive list, I'd be interested. I have only ever seen profiles for the most common military rifle rounds, a few types of shotgun rounds and .22LR, .38, 9mmP, .45ACP and perhaps I few others.
And there's still the problem of how you interpret each kind of wound profile. It's not certain that a round which immediately spreads and causes an extremely wide but shallow wound is more lethal than a round which penetrates deeped but with a narrower wound. If someone's hands get in the way, the former might never reach the torso. So it all depends...[/Edit]
Basic flexible body armor, like kevlar et al, do not degrade when hit as long as they aren't penetrated. After all, the bloody things are tested every once in a while by shooting live rounds at them, then worn a couple of years, and then shot at again. For penetrated rounds, how about just reducing the armor rating of the piece of armor for every N Power that has penetrated?
Say you've got a light kevlar vest (e.g. 4/2 in torso only) and you get hit with an assault rifle (e.g. 8M). That's four points of penetrating Power. If you ruled that armor degrades 1 point/10 penetrated Power, the vest would drop to 3/1 after 3 hits, 2/0 after 5, 1/0 after 7 and 0/0 after the 8th hit. That's still complicated, but you can't do it much more simply than that if you want to be at least slightly realistic at the same that.
I suggest you don't make recoil penalties that harsh at longer ranges. At least the in the "Medium" range category, using canon SR recoil compensation methods, you can fire long (~10) bursts on full auto with a LMG on a bipod quite accurately. If you doubled recoil, that would just not happen. Doubled recoil at Extreme I can understand, even at Long it might be overdoing it.
It's going to get really whacky if you solve 1200rpm fire 5 rounds at a time, but 1000rpm fire 1 round at a time. I find it a lot easier to solve 600rpm fire 3 rounds at a time, 800rpm fire 4 rounds at a time, 1000rpm fire 5 rounds at a time, 1200rpm fire 6 rounds at a time, etc. Oh and the cyclic RoF of the G11 on full auto is, what, 240rpm? That translates to 12 rounds per Combat Turn, about as slow as you can get with a fully automatic weapons. It's really fast (2000rpm or 2200rpm, I keep forgetting) only on 3-round bursts, and you never have to solve those more than 3 rounds at a time.
Ooh ooh! Good to see my Penetration rating idea is finally catching on. I can tell you that it's certainly more enjoyable than cumbersome.
And if you want my full list of calibers with Damage codes and Penetration ratings, feel free to ask.[Edit]The kind of rounds that will get stopped by flexible body armor (HP/frangible rifle rounds, pistol rounds) are unlikely to overpenetrate much anyway, so that point is rather moot.
There just aren't wound profiles to be found for that many calibers and bullet types on the internet. If you can find a comprehensive list, I'd be interested. I have only ever seen profiles for the most common military rifle rounds, a few types of shotgun rounds and .22LR, .38, 9mmP, .45ACP and perhaps I few others.
And there's still the problem of how you interpret each kind of wound profile. It's not certain that a round which immediately spreads and causes an extremely wide but shallow wound is more lethal than a round which penetrates deeped but with a narrower wound. If someone's hands get in the way, the former might never reach the torso. So it all depends...[/Edit]
Flexible armor still has an issue with being easily penetrable in the same area as a previous shot. If I recall correctly a IIA vest may not be penetrated by a 9mm round, but a second round shot in the same spot immediately after stands a significantly better chance of punching through.
You're probably right about double and triple recoil penalties at longer ranges being too harsh, though I do plan on making bipods singificantly more effective.
Forgot the G11 was only 240 rpm on full auto. In case it wasn't obvious, haven't slept in a while and I've got a lot on my mind. If I'm lacking coherency, there's why.
Also, wasn't aware the pentration rating idea had been fielded before, but please, if You've got this more worked out than I do, feel free to post that up. I'm definitely interested.
Fair enough about HP and the like being unnecessarily accounted for in overpenetration/armor penetration, but there's still the possibility of a rifle round being stopped by a trauma plate, and a full metal jacket 9mm round definitely can overpenetrate, if not necessarily often.
I have seen lists I personally considered comprehensive, but I also don't plan on worrying about more esoteric calibers. And, yes, I am aware that wound profiles are hardly an end all, and it's certainly arguable that ballistic gelatin just doesn't pass for real people, but it's still useful information and one of the better sources for judging abstract damage codes, if not necessarily a good one. May ultimately be all I have to go on, and, as for calibers that ballistic profiles aren't available for, like everything else, comes down to a (potentially very rough) judgement call off of as much information as I can get my hands on. Far from perfect, but I don't think it's damning.
You're probably right about double and triple recoil penalties at longer ranges being too harsh, though I do plan on making bipods singificantly more effective.
Forgot the G11 was only 240 rpm on full auto. In case it wasn't obvious, haven't slept in a while and I've got a lot on my mind. If I'm lacking coherency, there's why.
Also, wasn't aware the pentration rating idea had been fielded before, but please, if You've got this more worked out than I do, feel free to post that up. I'm definitely interested.
Fair enough about HP and the like being unnecessarily accounted for in overpenetration/armor penetration, but there's still the possibility of a rifle round being stopped by a trauma plate, and a full metal jacket 9mm round definitely can overpenetrate, if not necessarily often.
I have seen lists I personally considered comprehensive, but I also don't plan on worrying about more esoteric calibers. And, yes, I am aware that wound profiles are hardly an end all, and it's certainly arguable that ballistic gelatin just doesn't pass for real people, but it's still useful information and one of the better sources for judging abstract damage codes, if not necessarily a good one. May ultimately be all I have to go on, and, as for calibers that ballistic profiles aren't available for, like everything else, comes down to a (potentially very rough) judgement call off of as much information as I can get my hands on. Far from perfect, but I don't think it's damning.
I've mentioned it before in other posts but the SLA industries system is good for resolving autofire quickly and in a balanced manner. You roll once on your weapons skill to see if you hit with at-least one bullet or not, with bonuses from high rates of fire, and then roll a second check using an autofire control skill called Auto/Support plus your weapons skill. The Auto/Support roll is used to determine how many rounds hit and has bonuses/penalties based on # of rounds/recoil.
Off the top of my head; roll the skills as an open test, subtract any TN penalties like recoil/vision/cover/range, then add the number of bullets fired. The amount over 6 is the number of bullets that hit (up to the rate of fire of the gun). that seem OK?
Off the top of my head; roll the skills as an open test, subtract any TN penalties like recoil/vision/cover/range, then add the number of bullets fired. The amount over 6 is the number of bullets that hit (up to the rate of fire of the gun). that seem OK?
| QUOTE (Arethusa) |
| Flexible armor still has an issue with being easily penetrable in the same area as a previous shot. If I recall correctly a IIA vest may not be penetrated by a 9mm round, but a second round shot in the same spot immediately after stands a significantly better chance of punching through. |
I'm not doubting you, but I've never heard of this before. Could you point me in the right direction? The National Institute of Justice "Selection and Application Guide to Police Body Armor" does not mention this. It does, however, state that all flexible body armor is tested to provide equal protection to 6 consecutive shots at the same vest, although all the shots are to different spots. Type IV armor is another matter completely, only designed to protect against 1 hit. Trauma plates, of course, will generally be far easier to penetrate with 2 successive hits to the same spot.
And, sorry about the nitpicking, IIA shouldn't really be considered good protection vs 9mmP threats, since FMJ+P rounds from handguns might penetrate (the standard claims protection up to 124gr/1090fps, while certain commercially available rounds can manage up to 124gr/1200fps).
| QUOTE (Arethusa) |
| Fair enough about HP and the like being unnecessarily accounted for in overpenetration/armor penetration, but there's still the possibility of a rifle round being stopped by a trauma plate, and a full metal jacket 9mm round definitely can overpenetrate, if not necessarily often. |
With (semi-)rigid body armor vs rifle rounds, it is certainly true that in many cases you will absorb more energy than you would without armor. The original point was purely about flexible body armor, however, because (semi-)rigid armor doesn't deform anywhere near as much (thus making the "imagine pushing a pencil eraser two inches into your sternum" point moot). And yes, certain threats stopped by flexible armor might overpenetrate, but the difference in energy absorption is hardly significant.
| QUOTE (Arethusa) |
| I have seen lists I personally considered comprehensive, but I also don't plan on worrying about more esoteric calibers. And, yes, I am aware that wound profiles are hardly an end all, and it's certainly arguable that ballistic gelatin just doesn't pass for real people, but it's still useful information and one of the better sources for judging abstract damage codes, if not necessarily a good one. May ultimately be all I have to go on, and, as for calibers that ballistic profiles aren't available for, like everything else, comes down to a (potentially very rough) judgement call off of as much information as I can get my hands on. Far from perfect, but I don't think it's damning. |
I agree completely. I just wanted to make sure no one goes off and makes up new Damage figures, trusting just some sort of data blindly. Since you obviously won't, no problem. But even if you want to make your own decisions on all the Damage codes, it's good to know you've always got a reference point.
My Damage/Penetration system can be found here. During that discussion, it was still a work in progress. The complete list as used in my games looks like this now:
Ammunition Dmg (VC) Pen (VC)
.22LR 5L (5L) +2
.22Win 6L +2
9x19 7M (6M) +2
9x23 9M +3
.357Mag 9M +3
.357Sig 9M +3
.40SW 8M (8M) +4
.44AutoMag 10M +3
.45ACP 9M (9M) +5
.454Casull 8S +1
.50AE 8S +1
.500 S&W Magnum 9S +2
4.6 HK 6M (5L) -2 (+2)
5.7 FN 7M (6L) -1 (+2)
5.45x39 7M (6L) -2 (+2) **
5.56x45N 7M (6L) -2 (+2) **
5.8x42mm Chinese 7M (6L) -2 (+2)
7.62N 9S (6M) -3 (+1)
.300Win 9S -4
.338Lapua 11S -3
.375HH 12S -2
.50BMG 14D -10
12.7x108 14D -10
10G Magnum 12S +4
12G 11S +3
(VC = Velocity Controlled)
**The AR damage and penetration codes are discussed in the Old Forums thread as well, but I finally decided that, for simplicity's sake, fragmenting FMJ rounds were a thing of the past, made obsolete by smarter armor technology, and 2060s FMJ rounds do not fragment. This is how I justified 7M for the ~5.5mm AR calibers. For modern games, however, you probably should use 9M/- for all three.
For pistol rounds:
Type Damage Penetration
HP +1/- +2
FMJ -1/- -2
AP -2/- -4
APDS -3/- -6
Gel -2/- Stun +1
I assume Soft Points for pistols as standard. None of the Armor Piercing rounds can be Velocity Controlled (or you could, but then you'd get no bonuses). APDS is pretty much moot for modern pistols, and Gel should probably be toned down (because rubber bullets really aren't that good for knocking people out).
For rifle rounds:
Type Damage Penetration
HP/Frang +1/- +4
AP -1/- -3
APDS -2/- -5
HEIAP -2/+1 -8
Gel -2/- Stun +2
Ditto here, AP can't be VC'd, Gel should be toned down a bit. HEIAP is only for the .50BMG.
Velocity Controlled pistol rounds have 0.75x normal range, unless they are subsonic by default (.40S&W, .45ACP). Velocity Controlled rifle rounds have 0.5x normal range (no calibers subsonic by default on that list...).
Shotgun shot rounds are -/+1 +4 (11S/+3 -> 11D/+7), steel AP slugs are -2/- -4 (11S/+3 -> 9S/-1), lead slug by default.
The system is built from ground up for a game in the 2060s, so there might be some quirks (like the AR FMJ damages), and it lacks certain calibers that it probably shouldn't (notably the 7.62x39 Soviet M43).
The armor values to go with it:
Type I, Armor 3
Type II-A, Armor 4
Type II, Armor 5
Type III-A, Armor 6
Type III, Armor 10
Type IV, Armor 12
These values work so that each type of armor drops an attack with a round that it's supposed to stop to TN 2 to resist, which is considered a non-penetration in my games. Each point by which armor would drop the DamRes TN below 2 adds a die for the DamRes test. So if Pvt Smith (with an Interceptor vest /w plates, type III) gets hit in the torso with a 9mmP FMJ at Short range, his DamRes TN is 2 with 6 extra dice (the modified TN would actually be -4).
I drop the Power of all rounds by 1 per Range category beyond Short. In the thread in the Old Forums I use varied different methods of dropping Power and Penetration at different Ranges, but I decided it was too complicated. -1 at Med, -2 at Long, -3 at Extreme works well enough and is very quick to calculate.
This msg will probably not make much sense, so just ask about everything that was left unclear (ie everything).
[Edit]God damn, no more [pre]tags. This sucks. This message now includes ~10,000 useless spaces.
And the whole thing still is work in progress, the list has a habit of changing about at least once a week, so feel free to comment. However, because of the huge amount of discussion and solitary pondering that has gone into that list, I'm not going to go to great lengths to justify the numbers, nor is it likely that I will change them for my games.[/Edit]
Austere Emancipator...
Unarmored people who get shot in my games ALWAYS fall down.
D10's are more intuitive for me, given that I think in base 10. The possible range of results is broad enough for me without being so random as to negate a low rating skill.
As for the Willpower checks... I get tired of players who always run these bad asses that are sniper/martial artists that have no fear. Their idea of roleplaying is to take a cookie cutter and a sheet of cardboard to create their characters. The only thing that really changes is the names. Having gone with the carrot method and then the stick method...I have opted for the probability method.
I believe that muzzle energy is a pretty good indicator of damage potential. However, if you want to get more involved and start dealing with different types of projectiles, barrel lengths, powders and primers...that is certainly your perogative.
Karma pools and realism? I never actually claimed that my suggestions would MAKE SR modern MORE realistic. They were simply personal things that I would change if running SR modern.
If you don't like my ideas so be it. It is simply PERSONAL tastes and perceptions of the world that I reside in.
All the best...
John A. Schmidt
Unarmored people who get shot in my games ALWAYS fall down.
D10's are more intuitive for me, given that I think in base 10. The possible range of results is broad enough for me without being so random as to negate a low rating skill.
As for the Willpower checks... I get tired of players who always run these bad asses that are sniper/martial artists that have no fear. Their idea of roleplaying is to take a cookie cutter and a sheet of cardboard to create their characters. The only thing that really changes is the names. Having gone with the carrot method and then the stick method...I have opted for the probability method.
I believe that muzzle energy is a pretty good indicator of damage potential. However, if you want to get more involved and start dealing with different types of projectiles, barrel lengths, powders and primers...that is certainly your perogative.
Karma pools and realism? I never actually claimed that my suggestions would MAKE SR modern MORE realistic. They were simply personal things that I would change if running SR modern.
If you don't like my ideas so be it. It is simply PERSONAL tastes and perceptions of the world that I reside in.
All the best...
John A. Schmidt
I mentioned realism in the comments to all the points you made because Arethusa originally asked for realistic house rules. And with the rules that realism has little to nothing to do with, I only offered my personal tastes, just like you offered yours.
And for the knockdown stuff, it would have helped if you had mentioned that everyone who gets hit in your games always fall down. Do note that that is not exactly realistic, since people have been known to get hit, both armored and unarmored, and not fall down. It is not, in fact, all that rare even, or so claims the book Black Hawk Down (ie so claim US Army Rangers and 1st SFOD-Delta operators with actual combat experience).
Muzzle energy certainly is a "pretty good indicator of damage potential". But I certainly wish to get more involved, because using only muzzle energy as basis for damage codes, you get some rather silly results. And because I rather people not run silly games and call them "realistic", I rather other people got more involved too.
For example, based purely on muzzle energy, you should get 1.5-2x the damage potential by simply cutting the weights of pistol bullets down to less than a half. Since velocity is so much more important a factor in energy than mass, a 77gr .40S&W bullet traveling at 2100fps has ~1.89 times the energy of a 180gr at 1000fps. Certainly you agree that the former should definitely not be almost twice as deadly as the latter? If you wish, I can give you tons more examples of this.
Barrel length influences (mostly) the muzzle velocity, which is already considered in muzzle energy. Powders don't matter a damn as long as they propel the bullet at the same velocity, which again is already considered in muzzle energy. And neither do primers (as you certainly know, but someone else might not).
What I'm talking about are things like caliber and bullet type. By making a bullet smaller in diameter and longer, while retaining the same mass, you can probably make it leave the barrel faster ceteris paribus. However, smaller bullet diameter meaning more tissue damage is quite counter-intuitive, is it not? And while saboted AP rounds generally have more energy than similar FMJ rounds, it is generally accepted that they do less tissue damage.
So, you see, I'm not talking about tiny, inconsequential things. In reality, things like diameter of the bullet and bullet type make one helluva difference. Otherwise, why would anyone who wants to kill/maim/cripple something (unarmored at close range) with a firearm pack anything but extralight saboted steel bullets?
And for the knockdown stuff, it would have helped if you had mentioned that everyone who gets hit in your games always fall down. Do note that that is not exactly realistic, since people have been known to get hit, both armored and unarmored, and not fall down. It is not, in fact, all that rare even, or so claims the book Black Hawk Down (ie so claim US Army Rangers and 1st SFOD-Delta operators with actual combat experience).
Muzzle energy certainly is a "pretty good indicator of damage potential". But I certainly wish to get more involved, because using only muzzle energy as basis for damage codes, you get some rather silly results. And because I rather people not run silly games and call them "realistic", I rather other people got more involved too.
For example, based purely on muzzle energy, you should get 1.5-2x the damage potential by simply cutting the weights of pistol bullets down to less than a half. Since velocity is so much more important a factor in energy than mass, a 77gr .40S&W bullet traveling at 2100fps has ~1.89 times the energy of a 180gr at 1000fps. Certainly you agree that the former should definitely not be almost twice as deadly as the latter? If you wish, I can give you tons more examples of this.
Barrel length influences (mostly) the muzzle velocity, which is already considered in muzzle energy. Powders don't matter a damn as long as they propel the bullet at the same velocity, which again is already considered in muzzle energy. And neither do primers (as you certainly know, but someone else might not).
What I'm talking about are things like caliber and bullet type. By making a bullet smaller in diameter and longer, while retaining the same mass, you can probably make it leave the barrel faster ceteris paribus. However, smaller bullet diameter meaning more tissue damage is quite counter-intuitive, is it not? And while saboted AP rounds generally have more energy than similar FMJ rounds, it is generally accepted that they do less tissue damage.
So, you see, I'm not talking about tiny, inconsequential things. In reality, things like diameter of the bullet and bullet type make one helluva difference. Otherwise, why would anyone who wants to kill/maim/cripple something (unarmored at close range) with a firearm pack anything but extralight saboted steel bullets?
| QUOTE |
| So, you see, I'm not talking about tiny, inconsequential things. In reality, things like diameter of the bullet and bullet type make one helluva difference. |
Did you even bother to read my post?
I NEVER said that bullet diameter, weight, or type don't make a difference.
| QUOTE |
| I believe that muzzle energy is a pretty good indicator of damage potential. However, if you want to get more involved and start dealing with different types of projectiles, barrel lengths, powders and primers...that is certainly your perogative. |
For those in the cheap seats...a pretty good indicator...doesn't mean it is the BEST or MOST realistic.
If I want to get serious about all of the variables I do it with my hunting handloads. And powder and primer choices are used to alter ballistic results...other wise there would only be ONE type of powder and primer.
| QUOTE |
| And because I rather people not run silly games and call them "realistic" |
So who appointed you the Reality Gaming Police?
Another thought is that ultimately you are talking about a game...not brain surgery or finding a cure for cancer...a game.
| QUOTE |
| I rather other people got more involved too. |
I am sorry...at some point I seem to have given you the mistaken impression that I actually give a SHIT what you want. Let me state for the record that I REALLY DON'T.
| QUOTE (mckay421) |
| Did you even bother to read my post? |
Of course not. I never read anything, I just type random shit and hope they hit the mark. Actually, I'm illiterate. And blind. And quadraplegic. And dead.
| QUOTE |
| I NEVER said that bullet diameter, weight, or type don't make a difference. |
Even though I obviously didn't read anything you wrote, I know you didn't mention bullet diameter, weight and type. Which, surprisingly, is the exact reason why I did. You only mentioned muzzle energy, and I suggested other variables to consider as well, or perhaps just ignore the variables and use what other people have done before, because they might not get realistic results (which, again, is what was originally asked for) otherwise.
| QUOTE |
| And powder and primer choices are used to alter ballistic results...other wise there would only be ONE type of powder and primer. |
Do you agree, though, that it doesn't matter what powder propelled the bullet to a certain velocity after it has left the barrel? Then do you also agree that I might have been, to a degree, correct in stating that the powder type doesn't matter, terminal ballistics-wise, if it fires the bullet at the same velocity? Same goes for the primer.
| QUOTE |
| So who appointed you the Reality Gaming Police? |
God did, who else.
Or then there's the possibility that when I said "I rather people not run silly games and call them "realistic"", I only meant exactly that. It might be worth considering that perhaps I have never, not for one moment, thought that I have any kind of authority whatsoever on what kind of games others run. Mayhaps I simply find it slightly offensive when people use the term "realistic" when talking about silly games while knowing full well that it is my problem and no one else's. Maybe I just thought that on an open discussion forum, I'm allowed to say I find something offensive, even if it's stupid.
Blah, forget it, that doesn't sound feasible even to me.
| QUOTE |
| Another thought is that ultimately you are talking about a game...not brain surgery or finding a cure for cancer...a game. |
A good thing that got said.
| QUOTE |
| I am sorry...at some point I seem to have given you the mistaken impression that I actually give a SHIT what you want. Let me state for the record that I REALLY DON'T. |
Yes yes, shout some more obscenities at me, it's quite amusing. Good thing you cut out the tongue-showing smiley out of the quote, or someone might have noticed that I wasn't serious. And then they would also have noticed that you are only shouting that you don't give a shit because you...
...
Actually, why are you shouting that you don't give a shit about what I want? That's like stating that "I breath every now and then", or "I've got 2 lungs and a heart". Although it would in fact be more likely for you to have just 1 lung than to give a shit about what some bugger who happens to frequent the same forum as you wants.
| QUOTE |
| Do you agree, though, that it doesn't matter what powder propelled the bullet to a certain velocity after it has left the barrel? |
No...
If you don't stabilize that bullet by the time that it LEAVES the barrel I don't give a damn how fast it is traveling...that bullet is going to tumble, shedding energy/velocity at a greater rate nor is it going to be as accurate the further away from that muzzle it travels. WHICH is why you have DIFFERENT powders and primers.
In my FIRST post I asked..."So what is your idea of realism?"
Because your idea of realism and my idea of realism MAY NOT BE THE SAME as mine. Nobody ever came back and gave me answer so I was willing to move on. My thoughts on changes to SR were simply musings until I got an answer to the first question...since I don't like one sentence posts for the most part.
I wrote...
| QUOTE |
| I believe that muzzle energy is a pretty good indicator of damage potential. However, if you want to get more involved and start dealing with different types of projectiles, barrel lengths, powders and primers...that is certainly your perogative. |
You respond...
| QUOTE |
| Even though I obviously didn't read anything you wrote, I know you didn't mention bullet diameter, weight and type. Which, surprisingly, is the exact reason why I did. |
So what the f**k did I MEAN when I wrote "if you want to get more involved and start dealing with different types of projectiles"????
| QUOTE |
| You only mentioned muzzle energy |
Wrong...as illustrated by READING the quotes or my other posts.
| QUOTE |
| Maybe I just thought that on an open discussion forum, I'm allowed to say I find something offensive, even if it's stupid. |
Does this sentece really make sense to you?
Yes...you are allowed to say that you find something offensive.
"even if it's stupid."????????
What is stupid? What you find offensive?
| QUOTE |
| Mayhaps I simply find it slightly offensive when people use the term "realistic" when talking about silly games while knowing full well that it is my problem and no one else's. |
Another sentence that seemingly makes NO sense.
| QUOTE |
| Good thing you cut out the tongue-showing smiley out of the quote, or someone might have noticed that I wasn't serious. |
I took the tongue-showing smiley to mean screw you. So I didn't feel the need to include it.
Ok...this has taken up more time and energy than it is worth. I am done with it.
| QUOTE (Arethusa) |
| I'm currently working on adapting/rewriting the SR3 rules for a modern day campaign, realism being one of my major concerns. That said, I'm curious what attempts there have been to make the full auto and burst fire rules more realistic (ie, resolving every round individually), as well as how these attempts have fared in being useful and not overly complex. Any information would be appreciated. |
Hmmm...I haven't read through the whole thread, because somehow it spun off into a slightly different direction, but I'm going to try a variant rule in a game soon.
Statistically speaking, when you roll a certain number of dice, the mediated result will be the same each time you roll the same number of dice. So chances are that one roll with, for example, 8 dice, covers the range pretty nicely. Instead of rolling the same 8 dice for each bullet, roll those 8 dice once and count them as if they were rolled for all bullets.
Example: Cat Who Walks Through Walls is in a nasty firefight with one flatfoot. Aiming her trusty ingram Smartgun, switching to autofire, she tries to hose down the cop who is crouching behind a trash bin. Her base TN is 4+4 (Partial Cover, still too high in my eyes) for a total of 8. She fires off 6 rounds. This raises the TNs for each bullet to 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13. Note that I didn't apply recoil to the first bullet, as it wouldn't recieve any. Her player rolls 6+4 CP dice and ends up with 2, 3, 3, 4, 5, 5, 8, 8, 10, 12. Applying this to every bullet, each bullet gets the following amount of successes: 4, 2, 2, 2, 1, 0. From that, damage can be calculated.
Resisting can be done the same way, one roll for the whole slew of bullets, detracting the successes from each bullet until you have the ones that really hit and cause damage.
A bit more complicated than the canon way, but maybe a bit more realistic and still easy to follow?
| QUOTE (mckay421) |
| If you don't stabilize that bullet by the time that it LEAVES the barrel I don't give a damn how fast it is traveling...that bullet is going to tumble, shedding energy/velocity at a greater rate nor is it going to be as accurate the further away from that muzzle it travels. WHICH is why you have DIFFERENT powders and primers. |
Okay, I had no idea powder types and primers had a significant effect on the stabilization of the bullet. If this truly is the case, then I admit to being in the wrong about this.
Which reminds me, remember to give huge penalties to anyone firing a new NATO standard 5.56x45 FMJ (is it M855? I keep forgetting) from a weapon meant to fire the old NATO standard round - the old amount of rifling isn't fast enough to stabilize the bullet, I believe. (Disclaimer: This is a suggestion, not an order. I do not seriously claim to have a divine mandate on game policing.)
| QUOTE |
| So what the f**k did I MEAN when I wrote "if you want to get more involved and start dealing with different types of projectiles"???? |
I suppose that's the exact fuck you meant. However, you did not actually mention the different aspects of what that means (ie diameter, weight, build), so I decided to mention those in case someone does not know about how the stuff works. In internet discussions, if you don't know the other person, it's generally better to assume he doesn't know much and just explain everything thoroughly. I'm sorry if that offends you.
| QUOTE |
| Wrong...as illustrated by READING the quotes or my other posts. |
There are so many types of right and wrong... You mentioned "different kinds of projectiles, barrel lengths, powders and primers", certainly. However, not everyone can automatically read from this how much of a difference bullet diameter, weight and type make. In fact, I'm willing to bet there are great many people out there, reading this forum, who won't understand from "different kinds of projectiles" that you meant things like bullet diameter, weight and type. I elaborated. Apparently, I managed to offend you while doing so. I'm sorry I did, that was never my intention.
| QUOTE |
| Does this sentece really make sense to you? Yes...you are allowed to say that you find something offensive. "even if it's stupid."???????? What is stupid? What you find offensive? |
If it helps, try adding a bit to the end:
Maybe I just thought that on an open discussion forum, I'm allowed to say I find something offensive, even if it's stupid that I find it offensive.
It only makes the kind of sense that can be expected from a non-native English speaker after 3 in the morning.
In the future, if you want to ask me things, you don't need to add a dozen question marks. I spot questions from the first one, even though I'm illiterate, blind and dead.
| QUOTE |
| Another sentence that seemingly makes NO sense. |
Mayhaps I simply find it slightly offensive when people use the term "realistic" when talking about silly games, while knowing full well that it is my problem and no one else's.
As in, I know it's my problem and no one else's, but I still do take offense at the fact that people call their silly games realistic. Kind of like: I know it's my problem and no one else's, but I still do take offense at the fact that they market HIM as metal music.
Does that make sense to you?
| QUOTE |
| I took the tongue-showing smiley to mean screw you. So I didn't feel the need to include it. |
If I had meant "screw you", I would've said "screw you". If I put in a smiley that shows its tongue kiddingly, that's probably what I mean. You shouldn't take every laugh, or grin, or smile to mean "screw you". As hard as it is to believe at times, there are people out here that are not trying to insult you, or offend you, or hurt your feelings, or anything.
| QUOTE |
| Ok...this has taken up more time and energy than it is worth. I am done with it. |
I refuse to believe that, on account of you being Homo economicus. Homo economicus never use more time or energy on anything than it is worth.
Personally, I think it would be a huge loss if you decided to stay out of discussions because of this - this tiny little imagined incident.
Turtle:
That seems simple enough to be workable. Somehow I get the feeling that it might not give the same kinds of results accuracy and damage wise as the canon rules. Intuitively I feel that it might make autofire a whole lot more deadly. However, with my poor math skills I am quite incapable of proving that.
It certainly does make autofire more believable in some ways (gets rid of the All Or Nothing problem). Can't say anything for sure about it, but it seems like solid House Rule material. On the HC Realism - Simplicity curve it's a bit closer to the latter than my rules are, which in turn are bit more simple than rolling 1 shot at a time.
Lilt's suggestion didn't get enough attention. It has got potential, but it would need some testing (either in game or some math). I know it wouldn't work in my game, because extremely high RoF weapons would become too deadly, but it could easily work in a game with canon RoFs.
| QUOTE (Turtle) |
| Example: Cat Who Walks Through Walls is in a nasty firefight with one flatfoot. Aiming her trusty ingram Smartgun, switching to autofire, she tries to hose down the cop who is crouching behind a trash bin. Her base TN is 4+4 (Partial Cover, still too high in my eyes) for a total of 8. She fires off 6 rounds. This raises the TNs for each bullet to 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13. Note that I didn't apply recoil to the first bullet, as it wouldn't recieve any. Her player rolls 6+4 CP dice and ends up with 2, 3, 3, 4, 5, 5, 8, 8, 10, 12. Applying this to every bullet, each bullet gets the following amount of successes: 4, 2, 2, 2, 1, 0. From that, damage can be calculated. Resisting can be done the same way, one roll for the whole slew of bullets, detracting the successes from each bullet until you have the ones that really hit and cause damage. |
I like this, and use something quite similar myself.
Edit: Doesn't Cat Who Walks Through Walls have a Smartlink to use with that Ingram though?
My House rules for Full Auto are as follows.
The Character states that they are going full auto, and tell me just how many rounds that entails. and then we go from there.
Then the player rolls ONE roll, using any/all of their combat pool and any other dice that they can scrounge into the roll. They make the roll, and leave the dice alone.
The fisrt three round burst has its own target number, and the dice results are compared against the target number. Then the same dice are comapred against the target number for the second three round burst....and so on until the dice roll fails. ONce the target numbers are too high for the dice roll, then you simply tally up the rounds that hit, and apply the damage modifiers. The rest of the rounds are expended and go wild.
That is what works for me.
The Character states that they are going full auto, and tell me just how many rounds that entails. and then we go from there.
Then the player rolls ONE roll, using any/all of their combat pool and any other dice that they can scrounge into the roll. They make the roll, and leave the dice alone.
The fisrt three round burst has its own target number, and the dice results are compared against the target number. Then the same dice are comapred against the target number for the second three round burst....and so on until the dice roll fails. ONce the target numbers are too high for the dice roll, then you simply tally up the rounds that hit, and apply the damage modifiers. The rest of the rounds are expended and go wild.
That is what works for me.
I think Turtle's system maybe a bit more realistic than it would at first appear. Now, I'm just thinking of this as I type, so bear with me, and I may have something completey, utterly wrong, but this thought jsut occurred to me.
When you are firing on full-auto, it's not like you are squeezing the trigger X many times and X many bullets. you are holding down the trigger and letting loose. As this is the case, rolling for each individual shot suddenly seems kinda silly to me, since it doesn't seem reasonable that the first shot might get 6 successes and the 2nd shot will be a botch. I don't know about you, but I think I would have difficulty shooting some dude in the head and then myself in the foot while on full-auto if I was trying to, let alone by accident! the recoil is gonna start sending latter bullets a little farther off than the first ones, but your gun probably isn't going to be doing a 180, or even a 90 or a 45 or a fragging 11.25. As such, just rolling once for the whole thing and increasing the TN as each bullet leaves the barrel, but leaving the roll the same, make sense, and I would prospose, even more sense than rolling each shot individually.
If you are allotting bullets to seperate targets then I would say make a seperate roll for each target, since you are basically taking aim again for each individual target, but once again, just one roll per target, and use turtle's system.
This is just something I thought of just now. Throwing it out there to see what you think.
When you are firing on full-auto, it's not like you are squeezing the trigger X many times and X many bullets. you are holding down the trigger and letting loose. As this is the case, rolling for each individual shot suddenly seems kinda silly to me, since it doesn't seem reasonable that the first shot might get 6 successes and the 2nd shot will be a botch. I don't know about you, but I think I would have difficulty shooting some dude in the head and then myself in the foot while on full-auto if I was trying to, let alone by accident! the recoil is gonna start sending latter bullets a little farther off than the first ones, but your gun probably isn't going to be doing a 180, or even a 90 or a 45 or a fragging 11.25. As such, just rolling once for the whole thing and increasing the TN as each bullet leaves the barrel, but leaving the roll the same, make sense, and I would prospose, even more sense than rolling each shot individually.
If you are allotting bullets to seperate targets then I would say make a seperate roll for each target, since you are basically taking aim again for each individual target, but once again, just one roll per target, and use turtle's system.
This is just something I thought of just now. Throwing it out there to see what you think.
Turtle's system seems good in my opinion (some hit some don't). I'll use it as opposed to the rules or my current "divide into bursts" houserule.
Though I do like the simplicity inherent in that approach, it is still somewhat lacking, as rolling for ever round does allow the possibility of the shooter regaining control temporarily in the middle of a burst. A possible midpoint might be allowing rerolls for every three rounds, but I dislike the fact that it then forces the player for fire in denominations of three round bursts.
As for botching during a full auto burst, any GM who'd make a judgement call and say you shot your foot needs a plank swung into the back of his or her head. Botches should be believable, not ridiculous. In that case, a jam or tripping over debris would be acceptable. Swinging your gun 90 degrees opposite of the direction recoil is pushing it and landing a bullet right in your foot? Not so much.
As for botching during a full auto burst, any GM who'd make a judgement call and say you shot your foot needs a plank swung into the back of his or her head. Botches should be believable, not ridiculous. In that case, a jam or tripping over debris would be acceptable. Swinging your gun 90 degrees opposite of the direction recoil is pushing it and landing a bullet right in your foot? Not so much.
First...
I appologize for going off on a tangent. I should have stuck with the main theme of realistic resolution for full auto and burst fire. My view on the actual theme of this thread is that realistic resolution for rapid firing is that it is far more complicated than I am willing to delve into. And I fear that the end result would drag down ranged combat considerably. As a game designer the trade off between realism and ease of play is NEVER an easy one. However...if you desire to create such house rules I for one will NOT naysay your efforts.
Second...
Rather than respond to Austere Emancipator about the tangent points I will create a new thread.
All the best...
John A. Schmidt
I appologize for going off on a tangent. I should have stuck with the main theme of realistic resolution for full auto and burst fire. My view on the actual theme of this thread is that realistic resolution for rapid firing is that it is far more complicated than I am willing to delve into. And I fear that the end result would drag down ranged combat considerably. As a game designer the trade off between realism and ease of play is NEVER an easy one. However...if you desire to create such house rules I for one will NOT naysay your efforts.
Second...
Rather than respond to Austere Emancipator about the tangent points I will create a new thread.
All the best...
John A. Schmidt
Well yes there are clear problems such as gaining back control of the weapon, something I thought of and couldn't really see a way around except for the gm to look at the person's successes and decide to apply those successes to the middle of the fire rather than at the beginning, because granted, always having any successes occurring at the beginning of the turn is pretty dumb, and so this would just be for overall successes, and it would then be the gm's perogative to decide which bullets they were. Or at least that was the only way I could see to get around the problem. But more in line with my question, do you think that it is more or less realistic than rolling for every single shot due to the nature of full-auto gunfire?
[edit] yeah, shooting myself in the foot, turning 90 degrees, etc. were just hyperbole to get the point across that your barrel is going to stay in more or less the same direction, and that if you start off aiming mid-body it shouldn't stray far from that, and that if you start off aiming 3 feet above his head it shouldn't stray far from there either. [/edit]
[edit] yeah, shooting myself in the foot, turning 90 degrees, etc. were just hyperbole to get the point across that your barrel is going to stay in more or less the same direction, and that if you start off aiming mid-body it shouldn't stray far from that, and that if you start off aiming 3 feet above his head it shouldn't stray far from there either. [/edit]
First of, thanks a lot for all the positive feedback 
I didn't think my suggestion would meet that kind of approval If you're trying this out in your game, I'd love to hear how it worked out for you
@Fortune: Not really with the Smartlink...Cat Who Walks Through Walls was a shaman...she never really liked the cyber-stuff
@Arethusa & Jin: Keeping control of your fire can be simulated by using the optional rule of recoil compensation by Strength. Usually, if you fire a burst of autofire, you aren't fast enough to regain control against the recoil at the end of your burst...at least that's my experience with autofiring. Walking your fire would simply spend a bullet per meter you walk your fire towards your new target, applying your successes to the bullets that actually hit the new target. The newer Smartlink rules avoid "wasting" bullets during a walk, AFAIK.
I didn't think my suggestion would meet that kind of approval If you're trying this out in your game, I'd love to hear how it worked out for you @Fortune: Not really with the Smartlink...Cat Who Walks Through Walls was a shaman...she never really liked the cyber-stuff
@Arethusa & Jin: Keeping control of your fire can be simulated by using the optional rule of recoil compensation by Strength. Usually, if you fire a burst of autofire, you aren't fast enough to regain control against the recoil at the end of your burst...at least that's my experience with autofiring. Walking your fire would simply spend a bullet per meter you walk your fire towards your new target, applying your successes to the bullets that actually hit the new target. The newer Smartlink rules avoid "wasting" bullets during a walk, AFAIK.
| QUOTE (Turtle) |
| @Fortune: Not really with the Smartlink...Cat Who Walks Through Walls was a shaman...she never really liked the cyber-stuff |
Ah, I see. That was kind of what I first thought, when I read the name. Strange choice to be using a Smartlink-equiped weapon then, instead of one with say, a laser sight.
| QUOTE (Fortune) |
| Ah, I see. That was kind of what I first thought, when I read the name. Strange choice to be using a Smartlink-equiped weapon then, instead of one with say, a laser sight. |
Uhm...okay, you caught me.
For some reason, the Ingram Smartgun is one of the SMGs that stuck in my head until today, probably because the SSC nettalk discussed it's ad as "The Street Samurai's sidekick"
If you ask me for a SMG, you'll get to hear "Ingram Smartgun" most of the time *rustles old character sheets*
Hmmm...she used to pump lead with a Remington Roomsweeper, usually...nix on the autofire...ah well, that was what she had all those nifty combat spells for
LMAO!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.