Something I've been kicking around as part of my obsession with the guns of the 6^th World that's now kinda spilled into combat, generally.

Here's the thing: ask anybody skilled / experienced at CQB (Close Quarters Battle) and they will tell you longer weapons are problematical. It takes longer to bring a full rifle up to ready as you round a doorway and acquire your sight picture than it would to do the same with a sidearm, and lots less time to just punch the guy who was waiting for you. In really close, that rifle may not even have space to come up to the ready. Hence, the US Army's conversion to the M4 carbine over the nearly identical M16 for fighting in The Sandbox where house-to-house and block-to-block firefights are the norm, and the re-issuance of VERY large/long battle rifles for The Rockpile where accuracy at long range is more at a premium in a lot of cases. Specialty weapons with quick-change upper receivers going from CQB barrel lengths (call it 10.5" / 275mm or so) and optics (Red Dot) to Precision Marksman / Sniper barrel lengths (up to 20" / 500mm+) and magnification scopes like Land Warfare Resource Corp's SABR and REPR battle rifle designs based on the venerable M10 (7.62x51mm version of the M16).

My thinking runs like this:

Is there a way to have longer weapons (lower Concealability / longer Reach) negatively impact your initiative slightly? The ability to shoot the guy who wants to punch you beyond 2 Meters is already nice enough, and the Reach Modifier for the opposed Melee Test already takes the advantage of the long blade into account. But the guy using his knuckles is arguably faster. Enough so to make a difference (in game terms)? That's why I'm tossing this out to you. Forget reality where they hyper-trained SpecOps guys disable pistol-packing Bad Guys from up close; All our action media is rife with the stuff. Heck, even the Fluff for the 1st Ed printing of Food Fight talked about ducking under the guy's shotgun to shove his sandwich up the Bad Guy's nose.

I know a lot of people will say "It's a game, who cares?" If that's your feeling, save the thread space. If you think it's not worthy of making a game mechanic of it, then not only do I want to hear about it, I want to hear details of your reasoning against it. And if you like the idea generally, or think you have a better way to get to the same point, fire away.

Thanks in advance!

-Kerenshara

my first thought popped up, when you mentioned "lower concealability"

substract half the concealability modifier from your initiative for CQC?!

I think it makes an interesting concept, and pure fluff wise it's why my character uses an SMG (HK 227X with a foregrip, sling and a full load of modifications) instead of a full up Assault Rifle. I haven't got a clue how to model it though, but I think it would make smaller weapons more attractive options in the right situations, which is what they're designed for IRL.

Of course the only one in my current group it would affect for the most part is me unless we somehow throw spellcasting into the mix as well.

Well, if the guy's in knife range, it's really hard to use that 2-metre long sniper rifle to shoot him, isn't it?

that's what the -3 penalty is for. which is ridiculous and can be offset by Krav Maga and Firefight, which is even more ridiculous
I reform my first proposal to: negative modifier to all combat tests in CQC equal to the concealability modifier.

I got to go with Raven the Trickster, the right tool for the right job, even if the rules don't allow for things.

As for Krav Maga and Firefight, they were designed around modern combat situations.

But that sniper rifle had better be a tough bugger, they're usually built to too tight tolerances to be used like a crude club, or even a bayonet-spear...

Mmm, AD&D and weapon speeds. Nah, sounds reasonable, nice house rule to make some of them reconsider the Ares Alpha as being the start and end of it.

How about:

Engaging in melee with an unsecured (i.e. on a loose strap, or rifle in one hand) weapon is a penalty of half Concealment mod unless you're using the gun as a melee. Rifles are -3, SMGs are -2, machine pistols and comparable are -1. Remember that a weapon not adapted for melee (reinforced butt or bayonet) has a chance of taking damage - you wallop the guy and break your gun, it's your problem.

For initiative, same modifier, but only applies where one person is trying to get an interrupt or surprise, perhaps? Try it, see how it plays out. I'm hesitant to just say slap it on the base initiative score for fear of bearding in ways I haven't thought of. This way it can give you an edge to use a smaller (faster) weapon in a tight spot.

Well, we use a quick little rule: each weapon category has a modifier, that is used as a penalty when firing from behind cover or on the move, I use the same modifier -2 for shooting while running and doubled for shooting in close combat:

- Pistols: -1 (the same for tasers and other small weapons);
- SMGs: -2 (we also use this same modifiers for shotguns firing buckshot/flechette);
- Assault Rifles: -3 (also used for shotguns firing solid slugs and for crossbows/bows);
- Sniper Rifles: -4 (same modifier used for light machine-guns and medium machineguns);
- Heavy weapons in general: -5

So, for example: shooting a pistol while behind cover is at -1 - it is small and don't hit the wall in front of your character. Firing an assault rifle is at -3, as it is longer and the character needs to bring it over the cover before begin aiming. Shooting a light machine gun while running is at -6 (-4 plus -2 for running).
It is simple and not that realistic but the players are liking it so far and brings some more reasons to choose a SMG over an assault rifle in some situations.

I know I've seen a thread about this before, specifically relating to sniper/longarms. Try a search and maybe there's something useful in it.

A simple -1 to initiative might work well, although it would run into problems when the player decides to switch to a pistol.

Other options off the top of my head would include creating a 'minimum' range for each weapon type.

I.e.
0 for Pistols, as they are sometimes used in melee.
1 meter for SMGs
3 Assault Rifles
10 Sniper rifles

Firing them inside of the minimum range incurs a -2 die penalty. This penalty is removed if the user spends an action to Aim first.

If you REALLY want to go hardcore into weapon balance, I'd factor-in the weapon's size AND all the fun accessories they've duct-taped onto it. Big heavy guns with lots of stuff hanging off of them are harder to use in CQBs. It would make sense to use the weapon + accessory weight to determine if penalties apply, but it doesn't look like the books have those numbers....

All issues of gear weight have been dropped since SR3.

Liking suggestions tossed around so far. Are you guys thinking of these as modififers to Initiative, the Initiative roll or the Initiative Score?
The latter would factor ina speed increase when switching to a smaller weapon in the same Combat Turn. However, -5 modifiers would be rather hefty. Also consider what this would do if it reduced Initiative Score to 0.

...
But making called shots to the head, firing my sniper rifle from the hip was all I mostly did in UT!

I suggest ALL combat rolls. Well probably not defense. initiative and shooting

I donno, if I'm holding onto a big, unwieldy assault cannon, and someone attacks me hand-to-hand, or shoots at me, I'd be at a disadvantage to either get out of the way, OR defend myself. A defense modifier should be reserved for really heavy stuff, but it might help balance-out the guy-with-big-gun mentality that some players have.

I thought that was just overcompensation?

All of the suggestions on offer in this thread seem reasonable, in and of themselves. What I worry about is adding yet another modifier to keep track of in a game already filled to the brim with modifiers and special combat subsystems. If that kind of crunch is your cup of tea, then by all means add in a modifier to initiative. My group, on the other hand, would question the benefit added by such a rule compared to the cost of implementing it.

whether I have to add and substract 5 modifiers, or 6, doesn't really matter anymore. it's just one more row in the ranged combat modifiers table, where there are 26 already

Particularly since these sorta things would be on a per-weapon basis, and could be calculated into dice-pools for that weapon beforehand. (Usually)

That and the OP's stated intention was to add crunch like Quarry Breakfast Cereal.

The OP also said:


I don't think it's worthy of making a game mechanic of it, and I said why.

For what it's worth, *I* think it's mistake to include more gun-nut stuff in the game. It distracts and slows things. Obviously, do what makes you happy.

It's just that as things currently stand, the concealability of an AR isn't that much worse than an SMG (2 dice? Really? That's it?) I'm a little tired of seeing everybody carrying ARs because the Crunchy Bitz^TM say they should. There is really NO benefit to packing an SMG by the RAW. ARs are better Damage and AP, same skill, comparable Availability and legality, comparable or better magazine capacity, and on and on. So why would they still manufacture SMGs at all? Because there's a place for them. I just wanted to see things de-abstracted enough to reflect that. That's what this thread was supposed to be about.

Note also: I originally included longer melee weapons too, and wondered about integrating them with unarmed modifiers as well.

Reading responses so far, I kind of like the idea of it mattering more on a surprise test, for certain. And I know the "firer in melee" modifier hurts their shooting, but it also should slow them down somehow. Part of my complaint is that the older editions (ALL of them) diferentiated weapons even within their classes. So there were some Hold-Outs that were REALLY small, and some Heavy Pistols that were cannons. Bulpup weapons were nearly identical but like a point better in concealability to reflect the shorter overall length of the weapon. I'm looking at resurecting those varied numbers (most of the weapons are still around in new formats so we should be able to extrapolate) but even just using stock numbers in the books, we should be able to do something useful without blowing up the (already somewhat ponderous) combat system.

Anyhow, game on and all that. I'm fascinated by the discussion so far. Keep going. When you bang things around long enough, something useful is bound to fall out eventually!

-Kerenshara

If there's a need for initiative modifications based on weapon at all (and I'm not convinced the extra bookkeeping is worth it, personally), I'd rather see it as a bonus to small stuff than as a penalty to big stuff. I know that mathematically the end result would be the same (unarmed guy going faster than guy with an LMG, or whatever) -- but when in doubt I prefer to give bonuses than to saddle folks with penalties; let gamers have fun and roll lots of dice, let the new "Init Mod" stat on a weapon show varying sizes of boost rather than penalty, etc, etc...and it avoids the issue of someone getting a crazy low initiative just by not having min/maxed stats, and a big gun.

It sounds like you might just alter Conceal mods and ignore Initiative.

You're right, mechanically it plays out identcally, but ...

Wait, current concealability is -4 to +6 right?

Hmmm...

Anyhow, stylisticaly I'm ok with it, but again, we're playing ping-pong with ideas still, so don't let me stop you.

-Kerenshara

I'm with Yerameyahu... I like the idea of making smaller weapons more viable... Double the concealability of all weapons, both positive and negative modifiers. As a house rule, it's simple, easy to track and makes the smaller more concealable weapons preferred most of the time.

-D

Trying to shoehorn massive 'realism' rules into such a blatantly abstract game like Shadowrun is next to impossible. This sort of thing, for instance, really only works if you use an "action point" type of initiative system. Which, despite the previous statement, can be introduced to the game system. You just have to do lots, and lots, and lots of work, and make massive tables that account for more than just a gunfight.

Getting rid of Initiative Passes is the first step for making this work, so the way Initiative is calculated has to be rethought and converted into a single value. Once you have that figured out, your Initiative roll would determine how many Action Points you have each Combat Turn (total value of the roll, not hits). At that point, the counter starts at 0 and people declare their first action*. Each action then has a "speed" associated with it which not only determines how many of your Action Points you have to spend to perform that action, but when you get to resolve it compared to everyone else.

* You can probably work Initiative Passes into this portion of the modified rules. Maybe letting players who have a higher Passes value declare their action last, so that they can actually react to what everyone else is doing.

This way faster actions are actually faster, characters with better reflexes can potentially do more each turn (either a lot of fast actions or a few slow ones), and the latter can also react faster which is something the current rules don't address whatsoever. There's also room to grow, letting you introduce interrupt actions that are actually interrupts, delayed actions that are actually delayed, and so on and so forth.

<shrugs> That's where I'd start if I were really concerned with this topic, anyway. It's worked well in other games, and it's the type of system I like to tinker with when I'm playing with game design. But as I said, trying to just cram a speed system into the current rules? Not gonna work, at least not in any sensible way that works with the rest of the system.

Sounds like Exalted 2e. I remember a thread (or 3) about revamping SR4 initiative that touched on that. Don't forget to search a bit, Kerenshara.

I wasn't specifically looking to overhaul initiative, though I suppose that's how it looks and probably the simplest answer.

I'm really looking to examine if it's possible to shoehorn a little de-Munchkinism into things that currently favor Power-Rangerism (biggest possible gun). Put another way: why do LEOs fear people with martial arts training despite being armed with pistols, tasers, batons and subdual chemicals?

If somebody has a brilliant non-initiative answer that's less generic than the "shooter in melee" modifier, I am all over it.

-Kerenshara

Joint locks.

If you're good, you can incapacitate an opponent no matter his weapon in the proper joint lock, and leave him totally at your mercy. A couple of shots with the other hand to the trachea, and not only can't you bring your stun gun/baton/pepper spray/pistol into the confrontation, you also can't breathe.

Right. So here's my conundrum: how do you close that last two Meters to get the lock? Happens, right?

-Kerenshara

For that one, you'd have to ask someone with combat experience.

Last fight I was in had me hauled to the Vice Principal's office in High School.

It is all about the 21 Foot Rule...

Personally, I run with a house rule that if you are within reach of a person ready to attack in melee (as opposed to shoot) next round and you try to shoot him, he gets to block or parry by physically wrenching the barrel away from him. , rather than just dodge. I give each gun a reach modifier, which the enemy gets to use against the wielder in this case. (0 for pistols, 1 for smgs, 2 for shotguns and assault rifles, 3 for the barret and machine guns, and up for assault cannons and so on.)

I think this goes a long way to making melee worthwhile, at least once the melee combatant gets into range.

21 foot rule's based on someone who's got a pistol holstered at their side, not a gun in their hand and already mid-combat.

Also experience in drawing said firearm. Which has a lot to do with things as well...

Now THIS is more what I was looking for. OK, without having seen it in action, let's say it's good as-is. How do we extend this to people in a blind turn longarm vs sidearm? Can we use the same mechanic, just with a smaller relative penalty?

-Kerenshara

Are we talking El Pistolero and The Shotgun Saint turning a corner and suddenly running into each other, while each has their weapons holstered/slinged to their back, or when they have them out and ready? In the second case, honestly, It's hard to make any house rule hold up to the general abstraction of the game, seeing as the microcosm of these two gunmen's initiatives has to interact with a dozen other factors at the same time.

About the only viable solution I can come up with is using the same reach scale I proposed earlier and applying it as a negative init modifier at all times, applying it equally to assault rifles and spears. But even that runs into problems when Johnny Arsenal rolls initiative, and then chooses whether to draw his Fubuki, or his Ingram, or his Alpha.

I am assuming everybody is "ready"... mind you, "ready" and "on target" aren't the same thing. You can't really turn a corner and be "on target" even if the poor slag is physically in contact with your muzzle. If it's a question of draw, that makes it simpler... though I guess the exact same problems come to mind. But there ARE rules for quick-draw, and one COULD just make it an OPPOSED quick-draw roll.

-Kerenshara

Which is why Tony the Troll loves his Panther Assault Cannon, as he always has to carry it in his arms...

*shudders*

Uh, yeah. That's EXACTLY what I want on my side going room-to-room: a 1.5 Meter long weapon with 10+ kilos of inertia and whose rounds (game effect or not) have a noticable explosive radius when you get in that close.

"Tony, so help me, if you splatter another frackin' guard all over me and make me pick more shrapnel out of my hair, I will geek you myself!"

-Kerenshara

And that's why Tony the Troll gets no respect.

One could, as long as that little gun duel is the only thing going on at that moment in time. But if the rest of the team is around and trying to figure out how they can help, it gets a lot more complex than that.

Honestly, what you're talking about sounds like it would work best with some kind of minimal range mechanic, to represent that when targets are close enough it just takes more time to swing a longer barrel over to them.

I really, really strongly reccomend against messing with initiative for something as fiddly as this, because of all the ways in which houserules developed for dealing with this situation need to slot in neatly with the rules as they exist, and not be a tacked on "in this situation, these rules apply, unless I guess if something else happens and it gets too complicated."

Like Sammy the Samurai decides to put a couple of long-wide bursts through the cheap clapboard walls to "Suppress" the hallway... And the other rooms in the cheap squat...

Keeping the whole thing feeling "organic" is my personal pet peeve, but a "minimum range" area sounds attractive... "If you're closer than X, see if you can get the shot off". Sort of like *chokes* d20's "threat" area. I'll think about it and get back to you... but having that "threat box" certainly means you're not going to be checking for it nearly as often. Sort of becomes a "localized surprise" thing...

-Kerenshara

The Action Point system you propose sounds fabulous, but I wonder how it would work out compared to the stock SR system in terms of ease of use and speed of resolution.

It'd be a pain in the ass in comparison. That's the price you pay for more 'realism' though.

Just use the intercept rules for anything bigger than a submachine gun. I think it works fine.

I'd add a new action:



And a new ranged combat modifier:



I have strictly no experience with guns (except in arcades and Laser Tag) so I don't know how accurate this is.

Actually, these really aren't bad ideas in concept. I'm less concerned, however, with the ACCURACY of the shot than the "she who shoots first wins" aspect. If I'm still trying to get my rifle up and onto target and the scrag's already putting rounds into me, my WOUND MODIFIERS (assuming I survive) will be plenty bad enough on their own.

Make sense?

Your idea about "class" of weapon does dovetail with something I'm toying with re: replacing the current weapon tables. I don't want to really futz with the game mechanics, just how the weapons are "designed" and statted. And one of the Crunchy BitzTM I've decided on is actually related to your idea. And it's a low-order number... a Sniper Rifle would be a 7 while a Hold-Out would be a 1. Use it like a reach modifier and roll for local "surprise" between the folks in CQB range to each other. So the guy with the Hold-Out can either add 6 to their roll or take 6 away from the unfortunate scrag with the Sniper Rifle trying to clear rooms.

-Kerenshara