Ok, so let's get one thing out of the way first: canon has many problems, but no section so glaringly problematic, so enourmously flawed, so ridiculously broken as the rules governing weapons. Everything from weapon concealability to capacity to damage to armor to recoil has been the subject of countless debates over realism and sanity. And it's about time someone did something.
Yes, I'm aware of Raygun's work. I like it very much, despite a few fairly minor disagreements. I'm also aware of Austere's work, to some degree, though much less so, given that he doesn't have a pretty website to host it or even any other sort of digital publication. But, in any case, I think there's another way to do it that preserves as much of canon as possible while still maintaining levels of internal consistency and realism that Mulvihill couldn't even dream of. And I'm giving it a shot, but I'd also like to get some opinions on what directions I should work in, as I'm not planning on only using this personally.
That said, if there's anything you'd like to see remedied as a piece of quasi/pseudo canon, do let me know. But, for now, one specific question:
Would you prefer to leave armor values as full body abstractions as they are currently (eg FFBA is 2/1 for a shirt while 4/1 for a full body suit), despite errata stating that body parts can be targeted to bypass armor, or would you prefer armor values by body region (eg arms, torso, head, etc)?
In any case, any comments, suggestions, or opinions on this are welcome. I'd definitely like some feedback on this, and it would be nice to know if there's anyone out there who'd actually give a damn about such a project.
Full Version: Rewriting Canon
While it's always extremely interesting to see what kind of discussions springs up about these issues, I must say that I am not as enthusiastic anymore. I certainly do give a damn, I give several, but I probably won't be posting any of those 10-page-messages. On the other hand, I don't think you really want me to anyway. 
I'm disqualified from answering your first question, because I already use Hit Locations. Sorry.
I'm disqualified from answering your first question, because I already use Hit Locations. Sorry.
Hey, feel free to post the system you use for hit locations. Assuming I do go that direction, could use some direction in piecing together a system that works.
One addendum to what I did say: as much as I'd like to preserve canon as much as possible, I'm not opposed to new mechanics. Autofire, for example, could benefit from something that didn't work on the canon all-or-nothing approach, but I've yet to find something elegant enough to be worthwhile. Still, I'd very much like to hear any suggestions, and that goes for everything.
One addendum to what I did say: as much as I'd like to preserve canon as much as possible, I'm not opposed to new mechanics. Autofire, for example, could benefit from something that didn't work on the canon all-or-nothing approach, but I've yet to find something elegant enough to be worthwhile. Still, I'd very much like to hear any suggestions, and that goes for everything.
Called shots have always been the bane of pretty much any gaming system I've been played in. Heh, I remember the worst offense (though fun in small doses) are the called shots/crit-tables of gurps. "I am for the eyes! No armor!"
As for SR. I still feel that piece of errata about totally bypassing armor, did more harm than good. Anyhoo. I still like the idea of abstract full body applications, just for ease and 'speed' of combat.
However, for arguments sake, lets look at area specific protection/combat.
I'd change the modifiers for called shots. First off, I'd make calling a shot a simple action, not a free one. Next I'd vary the modifier (typically +4) based on the size of the area you're aiming for. I'm not sure, maybe another +1 or 2 for legs, an additional +2/+3 for arms, a huge modifier adjustment for hands/feet/head. Like another +4. So base, +4 for a called torso, +5 or 6 for a called leg, a plus +6 or 7 for a arm shot, and a whopping +8 for a head shot.
As for protection: Maybe a base rule that armored limbs have half the rating (round up) of the basic torso abstract. Security/Military grades maybe have same ratings regardless of location?
Dunno how to incorporate helmets for composite/piecemeal armors.
As for damage. I personally think its kinda cheesy for you to call a shot on a guy's arm, and manage to kill him with a roll. I'd say that there should be a 'damage cap' per area location based on weapon type. Maybe a called shot to a particular location can stage up its damage rating by one, but will never increase beyond that even if the attacker ends up rolling a bazillion successes on that limb shot. So its still possible to kill someone from total health with a limb shot if you're using a shotgun, but not going to happen using a heavy or light pistol.
More thoughts later, this is getting a bit long
As for SR. I still feel that piece of errata about totally bypassing armor, did more harm than good. Anyhoo. I still like the idea of abstract full body applications, just for ease and 'speed' of combat.
However, for arguments sake, lets look at area specific protection/combat.
I'd change the modifiers for called shots. First off, I'd make calling a shot a simple action, not a free one. Next I'd vary the modifier (typically +4) based on the size of the area you're aiming for. I'm not sure, maybe another +1 or 2 for legs, an additional +2/+3 for arms, a huge modifier adjustment for hands/feet/head. Like another +4. So base, +4 for a called torso, +5 or 6 for a called leg, a plus +6 or 7 for a arm shot, and a whopping +8 for a head shot.
As for protection: Maybe a base rule that armored limbs have half the rating (round up) of the basic torso abstract. Security/Military grades maybe have same ratings regardless of location?
Dunno how to incorporate helmets for composite/piecemeal armors.
As for damage. I personally think its kinda cheesy for you to call a shot on a guy's arm, and manage to kill him with a roll. I'd say that there should be a 'damage cap' per area location based on weapon type. Maybe a called shot to a particular location can stage up its damage rating by one, but will never increase beyond that even if the attacker ends up rolling a bazillion successes on that limb shot. So its still possible to kill someone from total health with a limb shot if you're using a shotgun, but not going to happen using a heavy or light pistol.
More thoughts later, this is getting a bit long
Concerning auto-fire, to me the point os a fully automatic weapon was to compensate for a lack of truly immersive and extensive training (say, 9 months doing nothing but shooting the eyes out of life size targets 200 yds down range in a cross wind) this means to me that auto-fire should make it easier to hit your target, and do significant damage. not harder and do significant damage.
Does this make sam's more dangerous? Slightly as a professional shooter would use short controlled bursts in most situations.
Does this make the average street punk with an uzi more dangerous? Extremely since your average piece of street trash is barely above a civilian in terms of weapon use skill, this would compensate greatly for their lack of skill, which was the point in the design of the weapon.
Does this make sam's more dangerous? Slightly as a professional shooter would use short controlled bursts in most situations.
Does this make the average street punk with an uzi more dangerous? Extremely since your average piece of street trash is barely above a civilian in terms of weapon use skill, this would compensate greatly for their lack of skill, which was the point in the design of the weapon.
What should be redesigned?
Autofire
I would like a complete overhaul on the auto-fire rules. Perhaps that you add 1D6 to your attack test for each bullet fired and reduce 1D6 per point of recoil. The amount of bullets fired on a 3 second combat turn should vary from weapon to weapon dependant upon the rpm of the weapon. Any weapon capable of FA should at least be able to fire 30 rounds per combat turn or a specified amount per combat phase.
The weapons shouldn’t gain any bonus to damage code or power for every three rounds fire but should instead be modified per the normal rules for staging. A character with a skill of SMG 6 firing a 30 round FA against a target would have a base damage of 6M and make the attack with 6+15 Dice. Let’s assume that the character has 5 points of RC which means that the amounts of D6’s are reduced by 5. Total amount of D6 for the attack is 6+15-5=16D6. Base damage 6M, Total damage 12D.
Weapons would make less damage but that also brings us to the second point, armor.
Armor Values
Abstract armor values are nice and all but I’d like a more realistic approach. A formfitting armor would cover the chest, arms, legs and possibly the head, this would also mean that instead of average armor values we would get lower armor values on specific locations. The layering rules are impossibly silly since the poor Lonestars can’t even MOVE due to their armor value. A hit location table would be nice.
Hitting the target
A different targeting system. Instead of the usual 4+ to hit the target I would like a base target number depending on where you aim.
Center mass: 4+ (Upper body, chest area)
Legs/arms: 6+ (Smartlink 2 reduce modifier by -1)
Head: 8+ (Smartlink reduce modifier by -2)
Tiny 9+ No further smartlink bonus ( eyes, mouth, ear )
Autofire
I would like a complete overhaul on the auto-fire rules. Perhaps that you add 1D6 to your attack test for each bullet fired and reduce 1D6 per point of recoil. The amount of bullets fired on a 3 second combat turn should vary from weapon to weapon dependant upon the rpm of the weapon. Any weapon capable of FA should at least be able to fire 30 rounds per combat turn or a specified amount per combat phase.
The weapons shouldn’t gain any bonus to damage code or power for every three rounds fire but should instead be modified per the normal rules for staging. A character with a skill of SMG 6 firing a 30 round FA against a target would have a base damage of 6M and make the attack with 6+15 Dice. Let’s assume that the character has 5 points of RC which means that the amounts of D6’s are reduced by 5. Total amount of D6 for the attack is 6+15-5=16D6. Base damage 6M, Total damage 12D.
Weapons would make less damage but that also brings us to the second point, armor.
Armor Values
Abstract armor values are nice and all but I’d like a more realistic approach. A formfitting armor would cover the chest, arms, legs and possibly the head, this would also mean that instead of average armor values we would get lower armor values on specific locations. The layering rules are impossibly silly since the poor Lonestars can’t even MOVE due to their armor value. A hit location table would be nice.
Hitting the target
A different targeting system. Instead of the usual 4+ to hit the target I would like a base target number depending on where you aim.
Center mass: 4+ (Upper body, chest area)
Legs/arms: 6+ (Smartlink 2 reduce modifier by -1)
Head: 8+ (Smartlink reduce modifier by -2)
Tiny 9+ No further smartlink bonus ( eyes, mouth, ear )
I like the idea of calling a shot being a simple action, though I may make that optional. I do feel your modifiers are a bit much, though I'll have a look at the probabilities later and see what strikes me as reasonably realistic. Again, suggestions and comments are very welcome.
As for damage, was planning on dropping a damage level for arm shots, two points of power for limb shots, possibly increasing a damage level for upper torso, and adding two or three damage levels for head shots. That's very tentative, at the moment, however. Should also note that unlike soaking damage, if a damage level is to be dropped from light, two points of power would be droped instead.
I'll also need to rework the rules for deadly damage/incapacitation/bleeding to death, but in regards to a single pistol shot to the arm knocking you out, could just make tests going over deadly twice or three times as hard, but, again, I'd like to strike a balance between realism and playability.
[edit]
I'm certainly willing to overhaul the autofire rules, and, to some degree, I do like the idea of tossing on dice per round(s) fired, but past that, in your system, each round fired counteracts itself without recoil compensation. It also has some other probabalistic issues that I'm not comfortable with and don't find especially realistic. Still, that's not to say the concept is lost, but I don't like it as is. Completely dwarfing the effects of skill on a shooters ability is just one of the many issues I have with it.
As for rounds fired varying per weapon RPM, I'll consider adding it, but it's hard to keep that sort of thing elegant. Still, if I do decide to do this, it'll just be one more weaon stat, and a welcome way to differentiate weapons past concealabity, capacity, and damage rating. Would also add in max recoil values, while I'm at it. Any opinions?
I personally didn't really have any issues with the layering rules; cuold use some explanation in that area.
One last addendum: considering that an average person, 2 meters away from you with a pistols skill of, say, 3, is pointing a Predator at your head. His target number to his should simply not be 12. +8 for a headshot is getting to be a bit much, and I'd like to avoid rules for extremely close range, if possible. Since this is all being redesigned, no need to get byzantine.
As for damage, was planning on dropping a damage level for arm shots, two points of power for limb shots, possibly increasing a damage level for upper torso, and adding two or three damage levels for head shots. That's very tentative, at the moment, however. Should also note that unlike soaking damage, if a damage level is to be dropped from light, two points of power would be droped instead.
I'll also need to rework the rules for deadly damage/incapacitation/bleeding to death, but in regards to a single pistol shot to the arm knocking you out, could just make tests going over deadly twice or three times as hard, but, again, I'd like to strike a balance between realism and playability.
[edit]
I'm certainly willing to overhaul the autofire rules, and, to some degree, I do like the idea of tossing on dice per round(s) fired, but past that, in your system, each round fired counteracts itself without recoil compensation. It also has some other probabalistic issues that I'm not comfortable with and don't find especially realistic. Still, that's not to say the concept is lost, but I don't like it as is. Completely dwarfing the effects of skill on a shooters ability is just one of the many issues I have with it.
As for rounds fired varying per weapon RPM, I'll consider adding it, but it's hard to keep that sort of thing elegant. Still, if I do decide to do this, it'll just be one more weaon stat, and a welcome way to differentiate weapons past concealabity, capacity, and damage rating. Would also add in max recoil values, while I'm at it. Any opinions?
I personally didn't really have any issues with the layering rules; cuold use some explanation in that area.
One last addendum: considering that an average person, 2 meters away from you with a pistols skill of, say, 3, is pointing a Predator at your head. His target number to his should simply not be 12. +8 for a headshot is getting to be a bit much, and I'd like to avoid rules for extremely close range, if possible. Since this is all being redesigned, no need to get byzantine.
the suppressive fire rules are fairly useable as-is, but one major change needs to be made: remove the TN mods for cover. suppressive fire should be able to be used for things like shooting at people on the other side of a wall, hiding in the bushes, etc.; as it stands, that's simply not possible. granted, suppression through a barrier will reduce the power of the attack, perhaps drastically, but it should still be possible. the whole damn point of spray-and-pray suppression is that you don't have to know exactly where your target is! if full darkness doesn't affect your ability to shoot someone, why should tall grass?
That certainly gets my approval, though I'd like a way to increase damage dealt with the suppression fire rules. As it is, you only sort of get this through staging, and I don't personally find it's effective enough to reflect what good suppressing fire's likely to do. Also, will be modifying it to allow for suppressing fire from semi automatic weapons. As usual, details later; comments now.
| QUOTE (Arethusa) |
| feel free to post the system you use for hit locations. |
Okay, you asked for it...
Separately armored locations are: Head, Face, Torso, R/L Arm, R/L Leg. I generally discourage people from armoring just one limb instead of in pairs, but the system can handle either just as well. Torso covers the area around the hips for the sake of simplicity, you might as well decide that basic armored vests do not.
No Over-Damage ever occurs from hits to limbs -- drop the DL of any such hit to Deadly after all other modifiers and tests. Hits to limbs drop the Damage Level by one after all other modifiers and tests are made. This never drops the Damage Level below Light. If someone gets hit in the arm with a Deadly + 6 net successes shotgun blast, s/he just takes a Serious (first dropping to Deadly, then -1DL), but I record the original DL (Deadly + 3 Over-Damage) for wound effects on the arm. My usual guideline is that a limb with a Deadly damage before the above modifiers is completely useless, and a limb with enough damage to kill the character is permanently useless -- severed, for example.
Hits to the head and a few special torso locations raise the Damage Level by one before any other modifiers. Basically, an Assault Rifle (8M) hit to the face would be calculated as if the base weapon Damage Code was 8S.
Melee combat, explosions, spells, etc do not roll hit locations and are calculated as in canon without any damage modifiers. Armor against such attacks ("overall armor") is calculated as 0.2xHead + 0.5xTorso + 0.15xArms + 0.15xLegs. This takes into consideration the fact that even though arms and legs are more likely to be damaged than your head, any damage that you do receive in your head or torso is more dangerous than damage received in the limbs.
Hit locations are rolled with 3d6.
3 - Trachea/Spine/Heart (+1 DL)
4 - Trachea/Spine/Heart (+1 DL)
5 - Trachea/Spine/Heart (+1 DL)
6 - Left Leg (-1 DL, No OD)
7 - Left Leg (-1 DL, No OD)
8 - Left Arm (-1 DL, No OD)
9 - Right Leg (-1 DL, No OD)
10 - Left Upper Torso
11 - Right Upper Torso
12 - Abdomen
13 - Right Arm (-1 DL, No OD)
14 - Hip-area
15 - Hip-area
16 - Head, Excl Face (+1 DL)
17 - Face (+1 DL)
18 - Eyes (+1 DL)
Currently, the called shot modifiers are +2 to torso and +4 to limbs and head -- +1/+2 with SL-2. This is not very good for game balance, however, and results in too many called shots to the head in my experience. Thus I'm probably going to change it to +3/+6, +2/+4 with SL-2. If necessary, roll 1d6 when a shot is called to the head to determine where exactly it hits: 1-3 Not-Face, 4-5 Face, 6 Eyes. The torso has, in my games, even armor in all locations, so a separate roll when a shot is called to torso is not required.
Distinctions in the table above such as Left/Right Upper Torso have no in-game function at the moment. The Eyes-location might, if someone uses a protective mask with eye-holes, or other similar protective gear.
That's about it. My take on auto-fire can be found e.g. here.
| QUOTE (The Jopp) |
| Autofire I would like a complete overhaul on the auto-fire rules. Perhaps that you add 1D6 to your attack test for each bullet fired and reduce 1D6 per point of recoil. The amount of bullets fired on a 3 second combat turn should vary from weapon to weapon dependant upon the rpm of the weapon. Any weapon capable of FA should at least be able to fire 30 rounds per combat turn or a specified amount per combat phase. The weapons shouldn’t gain any bonus to damage code or power for every three rounds fire but should instead be modified per the normal rules for staging. A character with a skill of SMG 6 firing a 30 round FA against a target would have a base damage of 6M and make the attack with 6+15 Dice. Let’s assume that the character has 5 points of RC which means that the amounts of D6’s are reduced by 5. Total amount of D6 for the attack is 6+15-5=16D6. Base damage 6M, Total damage 12D. |
Not a bad way to do that, but I hesitate to add dice because you're adding bullets in the air. The dice represent a person's skill with a weapon. Perhaps, if you wanted to say that you were specialized in using SMGs on FA mode, I would probably allow that to get a few more dice, but not per bullet in the air.
The way I've always done autofire is to slightly modify canon, as I read it. IIRC the TN for your autofire burst at someone determines whether you hit or miss with ALL of your burst. I never liked that. So, I just said that the calculated TN is the TN for the last bullet and each one before it is -1 from it. Gets a little hairy when people change targets, but it's not too bad if you take a moment to think it through. Then, they roll the dice. If they make the last TN then all the bullets hit. Otherwise, they hit with all bullets up to their highest roll. Recoil, visibility, and distance all count to modifiy the TNs.
Example:
Jonny Dark is firing his 6M SMG at two people. He's at medium range (base TN 5) for the first one, but the second one is closer to him (base TN 4). He's firing 5 bullets at the first person and 5 bullets at the second. We'll say he has 3 points of recoil compensation. He's unwounded and the bad guys aren't under cover and there are no visibility penalties. Therefore, to hit the first guy, the TNs are 5, 5, 5, 6, 7 because the recoil from the first three shots is compensated for. Then, he switches targets to the second guy, but he's a little closer, so the next set of TNs are 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13. Now, we roll the dice. With his SMGs skill of 6 he gets: 07 04 03 02 02 01. Aparently it's not his lucky day. That roll of a 7 means that he has one success for the first guy and none for the second. The first guy can try to dodge, but if he gets hit with the 5 round burst, then he's looking at 11S damage (+1 to power per bullet, +1 to DL for every 3, just like canon (I think)).
Also, I should be noted, that I don't usually stage the damage for more than one success at a person since you're already shooting at them in full auto and I don't think I've ever had anyone that didn't put at least a three-round burst in the direction of a single target. If Jonny had rolled a 9, let's say, then he would have sent two bullets at the second guy but the last three were misses. Then, the second guy would be facing an 8M shot, because it's only two bullets and not three.
No one ever seems to have mentioned one area that I think causes a lot of problems in SR combat: the combat pool! The combat pool has always been the justification for putting insanely high target numbers (12, 13) into the system and for throwing out weapons that are way beyond anything that a normal person could stage. Consider: where else in the system do you ever roll against a target number of 10? Availability on some of the rare weapons? Resist a Force 10 Powerbolt?
The combat pool lets even a fairly mild starting character (weapon skill of 5, say) throw a 10 die attack, more than once per round!
Why not remove that pool and lower the target numbers in combat all around? You'd need to rework armor to a huge degree, but armor already needs work, right?
The combat pool lets even a fairly mild starting character (weapon skill of 5, say) throw a 10 die attack, more than once per round!
Why not remove that pool and lower the target numbers in combat all around? You'd need to rework armor to a huge degree, but armor already needs work, right?
| QUOTE (Clyde) |
| Consider: where else in the system do you ever roll against a target number of 10? |
I see you've never played a decker.
| QUOTE (Pistons) | ||
I see you've never played a decker. |
Or tried to learn a high force spell.
For called shots, I've always used Blackjack's system where the number of points you are trying to negate is the modifier. It's located at the bottom of the page. I feel it represents "finding the kinks" in armor fairly well, and doesn't require a major system overhall.
Blackjack's rule
As for suppression fire, I allow the application of the "lead-air" theory with any SA/BF/FA weapon, the number of rounds is determined by the player. Each die rolled represents 1 round fired, treating the resulting damage as a burst. The target number for this test is usually based on the size of the area that is being suppressed (4 for a 1 meter area, +1 for each additional meter), plus 1/2 lighting modifiers, standard range modifiers apply.
Example: Lemonhead is ambushing two rival gang member in an alley, since he didn't have time to bring his SMG, he;s forced to rely on his trusted colt manhunter. Knowing that he's not that attacking the gangers is more important than actually killing the, Lemonhead sneaks up to a dumpster 5 meters away from the gangers, stepping out from behind cover he begins firing 8 rounds into the first gangers space (1 meter). His target number is 6 (4 base + 2 for lighting) and he rolls 8 dice: 1,1,3,4,5,7,7,15 giving him 3 success or a 12S attack.
Blackjack's rule
As for suppression fire, I allow the application of the "lead-air" theory with any SA/BF/FA weapon, the number of rounds is determined by the player. Each die rolled represents 1 round fired, treating the resulting damage as a burst. The target number for this test is usually based on the size of the area that is being suppressed (4 for a 1 meter area, +1 for each additional meter), plus 1/2 lighting modifiers, standard range modifiers apply.
Example: Lemonhead is ambushing two rival gang member in an alley, since he didn't have time to bring his SMG, he;s forced to rely on his trusted colt manhunter. Knowing that he's not that attacking the gangers is more important than actually killing the, Lemonhead sneaks up to a dumpster 5 meters away from the gangers, stepping out from behind cover he begins firing 8 rounds into the first gangers space (1 meter). His target number is 6 (4 base + 2 for lighting) and he rolls 8 dice: 1,1,3,4,5,7,7,15 giving him 3 success or a 12S attack.
Bear in mind also that if you raise the acceptability and canon effectiveness of called shots (simple action or otherwise), the parallel change should be to remove a degree of injury abstraction.
If you have the option to shoot for the arm, with or without a damage cap, damage becomes to a much greater extent specific to that arm. While most of us, I suspect, had already been playing fast and loose with these concepts (and some have made extensive relevant charts ), do you really want to get into canon details of how difficult it is to take an action with one arm v. generally, or even specific limitations of arm movement of a shattered ulna?
Do you really want to start looking at possible parallel damage tracks for different parts of the body?
If you have the option to shoot for the arm, with or without a damage cap, damage becomes to a much greater extent specific to that arm. While most of us, I suspect, had already been playing fast and loose with these concepts (and some have made extensive relevant charts
), do you really want to get into canon details of how difficult it is to take an action with one arm v. generally, or even specific limitations of arm movement of a shattered ulna?Do you really want to start looking at possible parallel damage tracks for different parts of the body?
| QUOTE (Talia Invierno) |
| Do you really want to start looking at possible parallel damage tracks for different parts of the body? |
I've used the above method for hit locations through at least ~50 firefights, and it has never come up that anyone would want separate damage tracks. Reducing abstraction in that instance does not mean that you have to reduce it in a whole lot of other places too.
Personally, I feel that separate damage tracks aren't very sensible anyway. The human being is still one complete piece of machinery, and one part failing leads to lowered efficiency all around. Blood-loss, shock and pain affect every aspect of your actions.
Sure you could argue that it should be more difficult to fire a pistol when your shooting arm has taken a Serious wound compared to having taken a Serious in your right leg. But considering how far you have to suspend your disbelief with the canon rules considering penetration, armor and called shots, I simly cannot see how this could be any worse.
Did anyone ever play the old Top Secret SI???? I have to say the the damage system there worked nice. The previous post broke it down nicely...One problem..
Does each area recieve a L, M, S or D wound??? and at what point is it disabled.
This is the only downfall that i can see...and how do y ou apply wound mods??
Does each area recieve a L, M, S or D wound??? and at what point is it disabled.
This is the only downfall that i can see...and how do y ou apply wound mods??
My take on how different locations get wounded is already explained a few posts back. Although it is not mentioned separately, Wound Modifiers work exactly like in canon with my system, and there is only one damage track.
One idea I've been toying with is to divide full-auto fire into bursts. From there, roll for each burst as if the character was firing that many bursts. If the character misses on of the bursts, all the later bursts miss. It's a bit chunky with all the rolling, but hey FA fire is relatively rare in Shadowrun and no new rules where made. The only question is to make the bursts 2 round or 3 round bursts. 3 rounds makes FA really deadly, but 2 round seems somewhat odd.
| QUOTE (Hida Tsuzua) |
| One idea I've been toying with is to divide full-auto fire into bursts. |
My system, as described in the thread to which I linked above, does exactly this. The extra rolling isn't that bad, since there usually isn't much Combat Pool used there and the TNs are easy to calculate after the first. I do not make follow-up bursts miss if one misses, though, because correcting your aim should be possible. I set the minimum burst size at 3, because it just seems a nice number and fits well with the rules.
Just following up the earlier post, per question of suspended belief:
Called shots are something most often used by PCs against NPCs, if only because the GM isn't supposed to take the easy sniping potshots against the PCs (because the GM can always kill a character). Thus, introducing called shots makes a huge difference specifically to PCs: basically allowing a PC to target something specific to obtain an effect specific to that body part and cause "abstract" damage marked on the damage track as a whole while being able to ignore armour as a whole.
That inherent bias is another major reason why called shots introduced into the SR system in order to fix a "broken" abstract approach to causing damage probably should also take the equally abstract damage track into consideration. Let's face it: a broken, unusable arm to one of five team members is a much greater deal than the same broken, unusable arm to one of Renraku's standard security response team with backup on the way. Abstract damage helps the PCs proportionately more than it does the NPCs. By itself, this is not a problem ... but when cumulated with called shots?
Called shots are something most often used by PCs against NPCs, if only because the GM isn't supposed to take the easy sniping potshots against the PCs (because the GM can always kill a character). Thus, introducing called shots makes a huge difference specifically to PCs: basically allowing a PC to target something specific to obtain an effect specific to that body part and cause "abstract" damage marked on the damage track as a whole while being able to ignore armour as a whole.
That inherent bias is another major reason why called shots introduced into the SR system in order to fix a "broken" abstract approach to causing damage probably should also take the equally abstract damage track into consideration. Let's face it: a broken, unusable arm to one of five team members is a much greater deal than the same broken, unusable arm to one of Renraku's standard security response team with backup on the way. Abstract damage helps the PCs proportionately more than it does the NPCs. By itself, this is not a problem ... but when cumulated with called shots?
| QUOTE (Talia Invierno) |
| Thus, introducing called shots makes a huge difference specifically to PCs: basically allowing a PC to target something specific to obtain an effect specific to that body part and cause "abstract" damage marked on the damage track as a whole while being able to ignore armour as a whole. |
Very rarely does it happen that someone calls a shot "to obtain an effect specific to that body part", unless the fact that people tend to die easier when shot to the head counts as an effect specific to the head. Being shot in the arm causing an overall modifier to all your actions isn't only an abstract simplification. If you get shot in the arm, everything does become more difficult to you IRL because of several reasons, some of which I mentioned earlier.
As for ignoring armor, if the modifiers for calling a shot are properly balanced it should be no problem. You have to set the numbers so that calling shots to unarmored and vulnerable spots only happens when it would happen IRL. I am fairly sure this will happen in my games once I start using the slightly stricter modifiers mentioned above -- at the moment, called shots are used slightly more often in ranged combat than I would like. Nevertheless, in my games the majority of shots called to the head occur in situations where it might be plausible to do so IRL.
| QUOTE (Talia Invierno) |
| Abstract damage helps the PCs proportionately more than it does the NPCs. By itself, this is not a problem ... but when cumulated with called shots? |
Seems I'm even more stupid than normal today. I just don't get this. Why would this be more of a problem with called shots?
I wouldn't consider this a problem anyway. If there was an simple way of doing realistic, non-abstract damage in a RPG, I'd use it regardless of whether a broken arm is a bigger deal for a small group than it is for a larger group. Of course it's always worse to get wounded for a small team that cannot depend on anyone but themselves, but if NPCs are played reasonably, then going from the abstract method of handling a bullet shattering someone's femur to a non-abstract method shouldn't change the balance significantly in any direction.
But the fact remains that there aren't any simple ways of reducing abstractions from damage in RPGs. Most such methods are horribly bulky and extremely time-consuming. Yet they often do not provide results any more realistic than what you get with an abstract system, such as that used by SR. Even with such a system, you should still be getting similar over-all negative modifers to your actions as you already get from hits to specific body locations with a HitLoc system such as the one I described above.
Sorry about hijacking your thread, Arethusa. It seems you don't have to be enthusiastic to write damn long messages.
Is it hijacking to question the original parameters of the original question?
I am guessing that your experience must be different from mine, Austere Emancipator: most of those with whom I have gamed would gleefully seize the opportunity to take a more damaging shot to the head, were such allowed. Then again, to some extent, the same re difference of experience can be said for everyone. Especially reading this board, I am beginning to doubt that any two people read the same core book
I am guessing that your experience must be different from mine, Austere Emancipator: most of those with whom I have gamed would gleefully seize the opportunity to take a more damaging shot to the head, were such allowed. Then again, to some extent, the same re difference of experience can be said for everyone. Especially reading this board, I am beginning to doubt that any two people read the same core book
| QUOTE |
| Abstract damage helps the PCs proportionately more than it does the NPCs. By itself, this is not a problem ... but when cumulated with called shots? - Talia Invierno Why would this be more of a problem with called shots? - Austere Emancipator |
Called shots bias toward the PCs, for overall game reasons I have stated and which you have not refuted. Keeping the results of damage abstract while allowing called shots reinforces that pro-PC bias - since abstract results of damage allows the PC to basically ignore any specific (and thus potentially immobilising) damage in favour of a general modifier, and such generalisation benefits the PCs (who are on their own) more than the NPCs (who have an on-site support structure, and thus don't need to worry so much about such things as whether they can still walk).
Still, the only thing I had intended by my post was to note that I don't think (pseudo or otherwise) canon de-abstracted causing of damage is a game-balance desireable thing without also de-abstracting results of damage. If both are broken, then they are currently broken in balance against the larger game setting: the isolated case of - well, call it ridiculous NPC survival against the PC's weapons - against the PCs' sometimes ridiculous parallel survival against what the NPC's can throw against them. (Deadlier Overdamage, I think, remains an optional rule.)
The original intent of the SR damage rules, stated in the rulebooks, was that no PC could die as a result of a single attack. This is not realistic. What you note is absolutely true: it is much easier in game mechanics to maintain abstract results of damage than to follow realism. Certainly it would be possible to make the system as a whole more realistic - and, appropriately applied, more PCs will die. Whether or not any individual GM finds this a problem: these are changes which work to change the original SR intent.
That's all.
| QUOTE (Talia Invierno) |
| Is it hijacking to question the original parameters of the original question? |
No, but that's not what I'm doing.
I'm simply using the thread to discuss my views of the matter, while I've got a feeling that Arethusa would like to have some more specific questions answered, in which I'm not helping in the least.| QUOTE |
| I am guessing that your experience must be different from mine, Austere Emancipator: most of those with whom I have gamed would gleefully seize the opportunity to take a more damaging shot to the head, were such allowed. |
If the TN modifier is left too low, then this might occur. That's why I strongly suggest that every GM personally tunes the numbers of any House Rule he adapts to fit into his own game and group. I know that the +6/+4 with SL-2 I mentioned will balance it sufficiently for my games. In most situations where shots are fired in both directions it is more advantageous to fire un-called shots with those modifiers. Balance is retained, and called head-shots only occur when they might IRL.
| QUOTE (Talia Invierno) |
| Called shots bias toward the PCs, for overall game reasons I have stated and which you have not refuted. |
Either I still haven't quite understood, or there is some sort of disagreement on a very basic level.
Have I got this straight: 1) The ability to call shots is biased towards the PCs because GMs rarely use that ability. 2) Abstract damage is biased towards the PCs because non-abstract damage would hurt the PCs more. 3) These together might be too biased towards the PCs. Is that it? Well, as they say, Not In My Game. My NPCs call shots when it is reasonable that they would do so, even if that sometimes means that stupid PCs get killed.
If my NPCs did get non-abstract damage I would act out the penalties of it, as I suppose any GM would. I have no problem whatsoever with the fact that a broken arm would bother a runner team more than it would a company of mooks. Same goes for all kinds of losses: A small group of SF operators might not have as much to gain by blowing up the radio of a company of infantry they run into behind enemy lines, but they have a whole lot to lose if they lose their own radio.
But a single guy on Serious also bothers a runner team a lot more than a single secguard on Serious bothers the secteam of 30. If the rules are sensible, it does not matter whether getting shot in the arm nets you an abstract Serious wound or a set of non-abstract penalties to all kinds of stuff. If both the abstract and the non-abstract systems are reasonable, they will cause exactly the same level of problems to the character on the receiving end as well as to the team that the character belongs to.
I'm fairly sure Arethusa is prepared to for example use Deadlier Overdamage, because his whole point seems to be the extreme un-realism and illogicality of ranged combat aspects of SR rules. If characters can survive getting hit squarely with an ATGM, then that is a great example of that lack of realism and logic. Making the system reasonable will also make it reasonably lethal. If you don't want realism as much as you want reason, you can always tweak the numbers in such a way as to increase survivability across the board while keeping the rules the same.
And I'm still not at all sure we're talking about the same thing.
Although sometimes getting the answers one seeks depends on asking the right questions first
| QUOTE |
| Have I got this straight: 1) The ability to call shots is biased towards the PCs because GMs rarely use that ability. 2) Abstract damage is biased towards the PCs because non-abstract damage would hurt the PCs more. 3) These together might be too biased towards the PCs. Is that it? |
Although I did divide those two into "cause of damage" and "result of damage", that's about the gist of it.
| QUOTE |
| Well, as they say, Not In My Game. My NPCs call shots when it is reasonable that they would do so, even if that sometimes means that stupid PCs get killed. |
I think I would enjoy playing in your games
However, judging by the various posts I have read on this board, and bearing in mind that any sweeping revision would have to find a mode somewhere close to median between all those responses, as well as allow for the inevitable attempts to number-crunch at the expense of the spirit of the story (I do not say the game in general!): maybe such revision is something best left to the expertise and individual experience of the individual gamemaster within their specific game environment?
| QUOTE (Talia Invierno) |
| maybe such revision is something best left to the expertise and individual experience of the individual gamemaster within their specific game environment? |
In many cases, maybe yes. Revisions such as what I've done with the game, or what Raygun has done, or many others, certainly. After all, these have mostly spawned from our own experiences with our own groups.
I'm quite certain that, if necessary, we here could come up with a number of revisions to the ranged combat rules that would both make them more reasonable and realistic, and would be well received by the Dumpshock crowd.
However, that has never really been our intention, and there's no real point when the majority of those who wouldn't mind the tweaking of the rules to a more reasonable and realistic direction wouldn't bother changing the rules of the game they've played so long. Those who do want to change the rules often go for something more radical, such as the many systems devised by people frequenting this board.
And I'm sure the SR designers do not want to change the rules based on the ideas of fans. Not when the majority of those fans don't really care much either way. So there's no real motivation to devise "compromised" sets of rules on our part.
Wow. I go to sleep for a couple hours and this thing's already twice as long. Best get responding, so here goes:
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator) |
| Separately armored locations are: Head, Face, Torso, R/L Arm, R/L Leg. I generally discourage people from armoring just one limb instead of in pairs, but the system can handle either just as well. Torso covers the area around the hips for the sake of simplicity, you might as well decide that basic armored vests do not. |
I'm not sure how I feel about this, really. I'm ok with not splitting the torso into upper and lower portions for the sake of simplicity, but as for groin and hip level armor, I think I'd prefer to treat that as a separate area. Allows for armor in the style of the first GitS movie to be more effective than a simple vest, anyway, which is cool by me. As a caveat to everything in this thread, though, as always, if anyone has a different take, I'd like to hear it.
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator) |
| No Over-Damage ever occurs from hits to limbs -- drop the DL of any such hit to Deadly after all other modifiers and tests. Hits to limbs drop the Damage Level by one after all other modifiers and tests are made. This never drops the Damage Level below Light. If someone gets hit in the arm with a Deadly + 6 net successes shotgun blast, s/he just takes a Serious (first dropping to Deadly, then -1DL), but I record the original DL (Deadly + 3 Over-Damage) for wound effects on the arm. My usual guideline is that a limb with a Deadly damage before the above modifiers is completely useless, and a limb with enough damage to kill the character is permanently useless -- severed, for example. |
For the most part, I quite like this. I'd though about dropping Over Damage from limb hits, but figured it wasn't realistic enough because it didn't factor in the possibility of hitting, say, a femoral artery. Didn't realize until after I'd woken up from going to sleep at 11 in the morning that the game already has bleeding out rules at Deadly damage and that OD kills you instantly. With some tweaking, this is a mechanic I'm quite comfortable with. One thing I have considered doing is applying additional penalties (eg called shot to your arm hits, doing Moderate damage; all actions you take suffer the +2 Moderate damage penalty, but all actions with the damaged arm suffer an additional penalty; perhaps simply doubling the modifier would work), but I'm not sure what I think of this yet.
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator) |
| Hits to the head and a few special torso locations raise the Damage Level by one before any other modifiers. Basically, an Assault Rifle (8M) hit to the face would be calculated as if the base weapon Damage Code was 8S. |
This really isn't lethal enough for me. I'm pretty set on bumping up two damage levels for head hits. As for hit locations, as much as I like the 3d6 setup you have, it seems a bit much. May just opt for something more along the lines of Raygun's 2d6 chart, which is not too much different and more appropriate, I think, if I'm not going to be going into extreme detail (eg no mechanically specified upper/lower torso hits).
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator) |
| Melee combat, explosions, spells, etc do not roll hit locations and are calculated as in canon without any damage modifiers. Armor against such attacks ("overall armor") is calculated as 0.2xHead + 0.5xTorso + 0.15xArms + 0.15xLegs. This takes into consideration the fact that even though arms and legs are more likely to be damaged than your head, any damage that you do receive in your head or torso is more dangerous than damage received in the limbs. |
This is a bit more cumbersome than I'd like, though it's at least helped by only needing to be calculated once. I'd somewhat prefer a more elegant solution, however.
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator) |
| Currently, the called shot modifiers are +2 to torso and +4 to limbs and head -- +1/+2 with SL-2. This is not very good for game balance, however, and results in too many called shots to the head in my experience. Thus I'm probably going to change it to +3/+6, +2/+4 with SL-2. If necessary, roll 1d6 when a shot is called to the head to determine where exactly it hits: 1-3 Not-Face, 4-5 Face, 6 Eyes. The torso has, in my games, even armor in all locations, so a separate roll when a shot is called to torso is not required. |
As much as I felt +8 for a headshot was far too extreme, +4 is absolutely not enough. Headshots need to be a fair bit harder than limbs, and I think I'm settling on +2 for center mass, +4 for limbs (though I did consider +3 for legs and +4 for arms), and +6 for headshots and groin shots (though I did consider +5). Thing is, it's not that hard to pop someone directly in the chest at close range, and, hell, it's not that hard to shoot them in the face, either. I'm not comfortable with the +6 when I'm two meters away, and I'd kind of like a way to get around that without resorting to very hackish rules. +4 or +5 might very well be enough if the GM pays attention to cover and movement modifiers. I'm not sure, at the moment.
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator) |
| If a guy with actions in only 1 init pass attacks someone with 3 actions with a SMG on FA and fires the full amount, he will roll for the attacks separately in all the three init passes, at the point where he would act if he did have actions in that pass. Recoil is capped at +7, although in a game where all those moronic RC bonuses like Shock Pads and GV4s are allowed +10 is better. All autofire is divided into bursts of 1/10th the FA rate, divided by the amount of actions the character firing has, or 3, whichever is higher. An init 5 guy with a 1200rpm gun fires in bursts of 6, 10 times in a row if none of the combatants have 11+ inits. An init 41 guy with a 600rpm gun fires 2 bursts of 3 in every init pass when going FA. |
I completely agree about shock pads and gas vents. Those are absolutely on their way out. But more on that later.
As for your take on autofire, I have to say that while I'm not completely opposed to factoring in ROF, I am opposed to doing in as complicated a fashion as you have. I'd much prefer a more elegant mechanic.
| QUOTE (Dashifen) |
| The way I've always done autofire is to slightly modify canon, as I read it. IIRC the TN for your autofire burst at someone determines whether you hit or miss with ALL of your burst. I never liked that. So, I just said that the calculated TN is the TN for the last bullet and each one before it is -1 from it. Gets a little hairy when people change targets, but it's not too bad if you take a moment to think it through. Then, they roll the dice. If they make the last TN then all the bullets hit. Otherwise, they hit with all bullets up to their highest roll. Recoil, visibility, and distance all count to modifiy the TNs. |
I'm not sure I like sticking to the canon +1 power per round, +1 Damage Level per three rounds. I also don't think I really like the mesh of variable staging and multiple rounds being calculated on one roll, though I do see the direction you're coming from. Could potentially adapt some elements of this. Not really sure.
| QUOTE (Chance359) |
| For called shots, I've always used Blackjack's system where the number of points you are trying to negate is the modifier. It's located at the bottom of the page. I feel it represents "finding the kinks" in armor fairly well, and doesn't require a major system overhall. |
It's an attractively elegant rule, but only applicable if sticking to a completely abstract armor system. And, at this point, I think I'm pretty set on using armor locations.
| QUOTE (Chance359) |
| As for suppression fire, I allow the application of the "lead-air" theory with any SA/BF/FA weapon, the number of rounds is determined by the player. Each die rolled represents 1 round fired, treating the resulting damage as a burst. The target number for this test is usually based on the size of the area that is being suppressed (4 for a 1 meter area, +1 for each additional meter), plus 1/2 lighting modifiers, standard range modifiers apply. |
As for this conception of suppressing fire, it has many of the problems that the aforementioned skill + rounds fired = dice rolled method of autofire, and I have the same issues with it.
| QUOTE (Talia Invierno) |
| Bear in mind also that if you raise the acceptability and canon effectiveness of called shots (simple action or otherwise), the parallel change should be to remove a degree of injury abstraction. If you have the option to shoot for the arm, with or without a damage cap, damage becomes to a much greater extent specific to that arm. While most of us, I suspect, had already been playing fast and loose with these concepts (and some have made extensive relevant charts ), do you really want to get into canon details of how difficult it is to take an action with one arm v. generally, or even specific limitations of arm movement of a shattered ulna? Do you really want to start looking at possible parallel damage tracks for different parts of the body? |
It does remove a degree of injury abstraction, I agree, but I feel that removing it doesn't hurt playability and may, in fact, greatly enhance it, as all the old debates over whether a called shot to the face bypasses armor or not no longer apply and no longer hold back the game. And, on top of that, the ability to define one's actions ingame in greater detail always leads to more immersion and believability. If that can be done without damaging the playability of the game, I am absolutely for it.
I should also point out that I agree with Austere: even if you take a moderate wound to the arm, you'll be getting that modifier no matter what limb you're using. As for actions specifically with that arm, may be additional penalties, assuming it can be kep elegant enough.
And, no, parallel damage tracks for various body parts are insane and out of the question.
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator) |
| Personally, I feel that separate damage tracks aren't very sensible anyway. The human being is still one complete piece of machinery, and one part failing leads to lowered efficiency all around. Blood-loss, shock and pain affect every aspect of your actions. Sure you could argue that it should be more difficult to fire a pistol when your shooting arm has taken a Serious wound compared to having taken a Serious in your right leg. But considering how far you have to suspend your disbelief with the canon rules considering penetration, armor and called shots, I simly cannot see how this could be any worse. |
I agree. As I've said, however, I do feel that modifiers for actions specifically pertaining to the wounded arm should be increased.
| QUOTE (Hida Tsuzua) |
| One idea I've been toying with is to divide full-auto fire into bursts. From there, roll for each burst as if the character was firing that many bursts. If the character misses on of the bursts, all the later bursts miss. It's a bit chunky with all the rolling, but hey FA fire is relatively rare in Shadowrun and no new rules where made. The only question is to make the bursts 2 round or 3 round bursts. 3 rounds makes FA really deadly, but 2 round seems somewhat odd. |
As Austere pointed out, his system does this, though it's more fully formed as a mechanic. And I'm still not sure I'm comfortable with the concept.
| QUOTE (Talia Invierno) |
| Called shots are something most often used by PCs against NPCs, if only because the GM isn't supposed to take the easy sniping potshots against the PCs (because the GM can always kill a character). Thus, introducing called shots makes a huge difference specifically to PCs: basically allowing a PC to target something specific to obtain an effect specific to that body part and cause "abstract" damage marked on the damage track as a whole while being able to ignore armour as a whole. |
What I'm trying to achieve is a system where called shots are realistically easy and still realistically poor choices in the heat of combat. At the moment, I'm thinking that this can really just be achieved by paying attention to movement and lighting modifiers, as well as potentially including a set of conditional modifiers that increase the difficulty of doing anything in worsening battlefield (or similarly stressful and invasive) conditions.
With such a system, emergent difficulty will be making called shots about as likely on either side, assuming roleplaying is the first priority of all the players, as it should be, though if I can get this system right, it will be enjoyable and playable as a simple tactical sim.
That said, I do agree that a useless limb is a bigger issue for runners than for regular security forces simply because the former are on hostile territory, but I'm really ok with that. The combat mechanics may work out to be generally less forgiving, but not unplayably so, and there is always the GM present to shift things around to best suit the story. But the rules should be sane first and GM fiat second.
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator) |
| Sorry about hijacking your thread, Arethusa. It seems you don't have to be enthusiastic to write damn long messages. |
Hell, are you kidding? This may be more specific to one topic than I'd wanted but I do want an open debate. The more ideas that get tossed out, the better chance this has of working.
| QUOTE (Talia Invierno) |
| I am guessing that your experience must be different from mine, Austere Emancipator: most of those with whom I have gamed would gleefully seize the opportunity to take a more damaging shot to the head, were such allowed. |
Again, if the system's set up right, it's my belief that they'll learn quickly that there's little point in doing this in the heat of combat. I just feel that this dynamic should be emergent as opposed to simple mechanical fiat.
| QUOTE (Talia Invierno) |
| The original intent of the SR damage rules, stated in the rulebooks, was that no PC could die as a result of a single attack. This is not realistic. What you note is absolutely true: it is much easier in game mechanics to maintain abstract results of damage than to follow realism. Certainly it would be possible to make the system as a whole more realistic - and, appropriately applied, more PCs will die. Whether or not any individual GM finds this a problem: these are changes which work to change the original SR intent. |
I am not taking issue with your opinions— in fact, I largely agree— but I do disagree that these intended changes necessarily change the original intent of the game, reason being that the canon rules are so lamentably inconsistent that discerning an intended direction short of sheer stupidity is quite debatable.
Yes, the canon rules won't let you die, even if you get shot in the face with a shotgun. They also ensure you will absolutely never be afraid of a ganger with a Predator. But almost anyone sane will admit that this is quite silly, and it is absolutely undeniable that this design has caused more pointless debate, bickering, confusion, and extreme annoyance than it ever could have hoped to avoid. Surviving because that pistol only lightly shot you in the back of the head was never a compelling game mechanic.
As for balance, I'm not very worried. This isn't a move towards extreme realism, nor a move towards a single element of realism that vastly unbalances other unrealistic dynamics in the game. Creating a hostile environment for the PCs is something I'm entirely comfortable with, assuming that environment remains playable. As it stands, running environments are far too comfortable, and comfort in runners creates a boring and entirely uncompelling game.
And, ultimately, as I pointed out above, the GM is present to ensure that as realistic as situations get, the world will always run on his or her terms, and if the results of a mechanic don't create the dynamics he or she desires, it doesn't ever have to stay that way. What I'm attempting to do is create a system that preserves the familiar and pleasant elements of canon while ensuring that GM fiat is the exception rather than the rule that patches a ridiculously broken system at every turn.
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator) |
| No, but that's not what I'm doing. I'm simply using the thread to discuss my views of the matter, while I've got a feeling that Arethusa would like to have some more specific questions answered, in which I'm not helping in the least. |
Don't worry about it. I'm glad this is getting discussed, and, besides, those questions are coming at the end of this absurdly long post.
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator) |
| But a single guy on Serious also bothers a runner team a lot more than a single secguard on Serious bothers the secteam of 30. If the rules are sensible, it does not matter whether getting shot in the arm nets you an abstract Serious wound or a set of non-abstract penalties to all kinds of stuff. If both the abstract and the non-abstract systems are reasonable, they will cause exactly the same level of problems to the character on the receiving end as well as to the team that the character belongs to. I'm fairly sure Arethusa is prepared to for example use Deadlier Overdamage, because his whole point seems to be the extreme un-realism and illogicality of ranged combat aspects of SR rules. If characters can survive getting hit squarely with an ATGM, then that is a great example of that lack of realism and logic. Making the system reasonable will also make it reasonably lethal. If you don't want realism as much as you want reason, you can always tweak the numbers in such a way as to increase survivability across the board while keeping the rules the same. |
I agree with this. What I think it comes down to is the fact that, as it stands, the rules are set up, despite popular belief, in favor of the runners, and making things more realistic will inherently make the situations runners jump into comparatively more dangerous. Do some people want to be able to suck up an ATGM rocket to the face? I guess they might. They can also stick to canon. And I guess they can stick to absinthe, as that is certifiably fucked up.
In more serious terms, it's the distinction between watching a cornball action movie like The Transporter and watching something like Band of Brothers. Yes, Transporter was amusing. Yes, it was hilarious how he parachuted down to a moving truck and kicked ass on said truck. And, yes, the rockets they fired into his house that he dodged were hilarious because they had teeth painted on them. But hilariously bad does not make for a compelling, immersive experience. No one care when one more thug dies in an action movie. Yes, it may be a little fun for a little while, but if that is all you can manage, you have failed as a storyteller to craft anything remotely compelling.
In addition to this, a rule system that is as illogical, irrational, and inconsistent as SR's canon is inherently aggravating and errodes the player's trust in his own actions. When what you do has little connection with what you expect it to do, you begin to stop caring.
And, on that note, why, yes, I am prepared to use Over Damage. How ever did you know?
| QUOTE (Talia Invierno) |
| However, judging by the various posts I have read on this board, and bearing in mind that any sweeping revision would have to find a mode somewhere close to median between all those responses, as well as allow for the inevitable attempts to number-crunch at the expense of the spirit of the story (I do not say the game in general!): maybe such revision is something best left to the expertise and individual experience of the individual gamemaster within their specific game environment? |
I should make it clear that while I am interested in community response and feedback, and would very much like to see widespread use of this once it's finished, I am not planning on putting it together as a giant compromise of popular house rules, and I am not expecting everyone to love it. And, of course, while I intend this to essentially replace a decent chunk of canon, it's always up to the end GM to change things as he or she needs. I would just like to provide a much more solid and genuinely not-psychotic platform to work from, as opposed to what we have currently.
And, 'sides, I've only played in one short game in my life that ended horribly, and will not likely be playing again for at least many months. This town does not have much of a game population, and I won't get to college until September. So I don't have a game to do this with, which means I'm shoving it down all your throats! Too bad!
And, after all, as Austere pointed out, Raygun did a similar thing (though in a very different direction), and the intent is never to compromise for the community so much as to provide a much better resource out of your own knowledge and experience.
And now that's the end of responses (rocktastic). On to my own questions:
- Are there any issues or disagreements pertaining to explosives? I know I'm planning on adding in C2, but other than that, there seems to be little disagreement over the realism of the way explosives are handled (though I heard at one point that the rules governing thermobarics were silly somehow), but if there are issues, I definitely would like to do something.
- Any complaints about creating a new class of pistols and SMGs? I specifically had in mind creating medium pistols to bridge the gap of uselessness between Light and Heavy, as well as explain where SMGs and their 6M damage ratings are coming from. And, as for SMGs, a Heavy variety using Heavy pistol damage, naturally.
- Any takes on rewriting the crazy weapons (narcojet, etc)?
- Any suggestions for alternatives to the canon +1 power per round, +1 damage level per three rounds?
- Any suggestions for a more realistic alternative to hardened personnel armor?
- Any suggestions for rewriting the armor mechanics so that it is not the default status of everyone to pack as much armor as possible? As it is now, no penalties are incurred up to a certain point, which in turn effectively enforces a certain level of protection at all times. This is wrong, as there is then no reason to ever not wear armor, which is just an awful dynamic and is akin to replacing walking with driving in cars. This one's something of a priority for me.
- Any suggestions for fixing shotguns and spread? I know there was a thread that came to a fairly definitive fix, but I never kept a link to it.
- Any suggestions for mechanics specifically dealing with maneuverability of weapons in close quarters? I'd like to give pistols the edge they should have in very confined spaces without getting too deep in hackish game mechanics.
- Any issues with melee combat that should be dealt with? I'm generally less familiar with this than ranged combat.
That's about all for now, and, with any luck, not done yet.
I have a suggestion on the Armor.
First of all Quickness shouldn't relate to how well you can wear armor. It's completely idiotic that a Str 12 Qck 4 Troll can't wear as much armor as a Str 1 Qck 7 Elf. Strength or body should determine armor-carryability.
I suggest adding another attribute to all armors, encumbrance. A Securetech vest might have 1 encumbrance, A riot Shield 5, and FFBA 0. Armor-building rules will allow armors with the same defensive value to have different encumbrances, representing how advanced armors will be lighter and less restrictive. Naturally they'lll cost much more. Milspec armor, despite it's massive defensive value, may well have a relatively low encumbrance due to SOTA construction and materials.
The player will add up the value of all their armor's encumbrances combined. At the beginning of any battle each character rolls either a Strength or possibly an Athletics test against their Encumbrance (Or perhaps an armor-bearer skill should be created). There should be a threshhold or some way to make multiple successes better. If they fail to pass this test, a nasty penalty is slapped on all physical-attribute linked actions for the duration of the battle as their armor is snagged, or a snap get's caught around the arm, or something similar that interferes with the actions in combat. For a complex Action a player may attempt to fix whatever's wrong with their armor, making another test against their encumbrance.
First of all Quickness shouldn't relate to how well you can wear armor. It's completely idiotic that a Str 12 Qck 4 Troll can't wear as much armor as a Str 1 Qck 7 Elf. Strength or body should determine armor-carryability.
I suggest adding another attribute to all armors, encumbrance. A Securetech vest might have 1 encumbrance, A riot Shield 5, and FFBA 0. Armor-building rules will allow armors with the same defensive value to have different encumbrances, representing how advanced armors will be lighter and less restrictive. Naturally they'lll cost much more. Milspec armor, despite it's massive defensive value, may well have a relatively low encumbrance due to SOTA construction and materials.
The player will add up the value of all their armor's encumbrances combined. At the beginning of any battle each character rolls either a Strength or possibly an Athletics test against their Encumbrance (Or perhaps an armor-bearer skill should be created). There should be a threshhold or some way to make multiple successes better. If they fail to pass this test, a nasty penalty is slapped on all physical-attribute linked actions for the duration of the battle as their armor is snagged, or a snap get's caught around the arm, or something similar that interferes with the actions in combat. For a complex Action a player may attempt to fix whatever's wrong with their armor, making another test against their encumbrance.
| QUOTE (Arethusa) |
| I'm ok with not splitting the torso into upper and lower portions for the sake of simplicity, but as for groin and hip level armor, I think I'd prefer to treat that as a separate area. |
Fortunately, the hitloc table I use allows for this without any trouble. The beauty of 3d6 is that allows for complete symmetricality and accuracy. However, I understand why 2d6 with fewer areas might be more tempting.
| QUOTE |
| eg called shot to your arm hits, doing Moderate damage; all actions you take suffer the +2 Moderate damage penalty, but all actions with the damaged arm suffer an additional penalty; perhaps simply doubling the modifier would work |
The main problem there is deciding exactly what actions are "with the damage arm". Shooting a pistol with that arm is a no-brainer, but what about a long-arm with that as the main hand? As the off-hand? What about completely 2-handed actions such as many Electronics tests, Demolitions, Biotech?
I never wanted to draw those lines, so I stuck with the simple modifiers. If you can draw simple, reasonable lines, it may well work.
| QUOTE |
| This really isn't lethal enough for me. I'm pretty set on bumping up two damage levels for head hits. |
Understandable. However, you should then be very careful about balancing the up- and downsides of called shots to the head. The ability to ignore torso armor in addition to +2 Damage Levels is extremely powerful, and should thus come with enough penalties for the shooter to keep the amount of shots called to the head realistic. That balance is obviously a priority for you, I just thought I'd repeat that once again.
| QUOTE |
| This is a bit more cumbersome than I'd like, though it's at least helped by only needing to be calculated once. I'd somewhat prefer a more elegant solution, however. |
I can understand that. If you do go for some sort of averaged armor, you can always do something like "6 body parts, torso counted twice", or even "5 body parts", it's just finding your own preferred balance between simplicity and realism.
| QUOTE |
| As for your take on autofire, I have to say that while I'm not completely opposed to factoring in ROF, I am opposed to doing in as complicated a fashion as you have. I'd much prefer a more elegant mechanic. |
I should warn you that there doesn't appear to be a way to keep the principle the same (doing RoF like running) without making it at least as complicated as I have. If you want to keep it simpler, you are pretty much forced to go with one of the mechanisms that play with the TNs to provide the amount of hits or the different dice-amount mechanisms.
| QUOTE |
| Are there any issues or disagreements pertaining to explosives? |
Blast radius(!), Ratings, modifier Barrier Ratings and the Demolitions skill. The Blast Radius should be the same for all explosives, my current favorite is -2/meter for all straigh explosives. Explosive ratings should start higher, C-12 should not be 16 times as powerful as TNT -- a scale of 6-12 or 8-12 or something like that would be more preferable. Explosives should always check against 1x Barrier Rating, not 2x: As it stands, 1kg of TNT will not break a good window if a non-skilled person straps it on the windowsill. Demolitions skill to increase Power should work with a percentage or fraction instead of +1, I currently use +25%.
The skill-bit might be too complex compared to the actual effect it has (very little in most games), but the other few things are extremely simple to correct and make explosives far more reasonable and realistic.
| QUOTE |
| Any complaints about creating a new class of pistols and SMGs? |
I'm of the school of thought that it'd be better to simply change the base Damage Code of Light Pistols to 6M. "Heavy SMGs" should probably be few and far between, considering the calibers involved.
| QUOTE |
| Any suggestions for mechanics specifically dealing with maneuverability of weapons in close quarters? I'd like to give pistols the edge they should have in very confined spaces without getting too deep in hackish game mechanics. |
I think the rules in these areas work fine as they are in canon. The damage and armor rules are easy and fast and ballanced unless you start messing with hit locations or alow to much layering of armor.
The autofire rules are the best I´ve encountered in any roleplaying game. Your basic roleplaying game has extremely complicated rules for autofire (rolling dice for every round etc). Also, it´s not uncommon that it gets easier to hit your target when you fire more rounds, witch I think is far from reality. The people I know who have done military service (I´ve never fired a gun in my life) testify that autofire is for support fire only. You just don´t hit ANYTHING when firing full auto. Unless someone with some serious knowledge comes along and says how these things could be done differently, I´m with the developers on this one.
The autofire rules are the best I´ve encountered in any roleplaying game. Your basic roleplaying game has extremely complicated rules for autofire (rolling dice for every round etc). Also, it´s not uncommon that it gets easier to hit your target when you fire more rounds, witch I think is far from reality. The people I know who have done military service (I´ve never fired a gun in my life) testify that autofire is for support fire only. You just don´t hit ANYTHING when firing full auto. Unless someone with some serious knowledge comes along and says how these things could be done differently, I´m with the developers on this one.
Thing is, the majority of Dumpshockers who have fired weapons on fully automatic think the autofire rules aren't reasonable nor realistic. See here for several reasons why. I don't know what counts as "serious knowledge", but I've fired several thousands of rounds on fully automatic with an assault rifle, a LMG and a HMG. Many others have fired untold numbers of rounds with all kinds of weapons and agree.
| QUOTE (Arethusa) |
| Any suggestions for mechanics specifically dealing with maneuverability of weapons in close quarters? I'd like to give pistols the edge they should have in very confined spaces without getting too deep in hackish game mechanics. |
We use a house rule...
Any firearm that is longer then your forarm get get a +2 TN in Melee AND the other party get an opposed rolled with his unarmed combat. And yes if he win he can shoot you wiht your gun!
This works pretty good concidering if you put the full gambit of hardware on a Pred. II it IS bigger than your forearm( for elves, human, and dwarves). So if a human is wrestling with an elf sec guard and trys to geek him with his pistol its not an easy task. Base TN 6 vs. Unarmed TN 4 (no reach).
The only problems ive run into is if the Unarmed person wins, what does he need for a disarm?
| QUOTE (Moonstone Spider) |
| First of all Quickness shouldn't relate to how well you can wear armor. It's completely idiotic that a Str 12 Qck 4 Troll can't wear as much armor as a Str 1 Qck 7 Elf. Strength or body should determine armor-carryability. I suggest adding another attribute to all armors, encumbrance. A Securetech vest might have 1 encumbrance, A riot Shield 5, and FFBA 0. Armor-building rules will allow armors with the same defensive value to have different encumbrances, representing how advanced armors will be lighter and less restrictive. Naturally they'lll cost much more. Milspec armor, despite it's massive defensive value, may well have a relatively low encumbrance due to SOTA construction and materials. The player will add up the value of all their armor's encumbrances combined. At the beginning of any battle each character rolls either a Strength or possibly an Athletics test against their Encumbrance (Or perhaps an armor-bearer skill should be created). There should be a threshhold or some way to make multiple successes better. If they fail to pass this test, a nasty penalty is slapped on all physical-attribute linked actions for the duration of the battle as their armor is snagged, or a snap get's caught around the arm, or something similar that interferes with the actions in combat. For a complex Action a player may attempt to fix whatever's wrong with their armor, making another test against their encumbrance. |
I agree, Quickness is going and it's going to be replaced by Strength and/or Body. Perhaps an average of the two. But I don't like the idea of adding an encumbrance value to all armor. Or, I do, but not here. I want to avoid adding more values for guns and armor if I can help it, though I'm a little worried, at this point, that I can't. If there's a solution that can be reached without going that way, I'd like to do it. That said, I don't like the idea of making an armor test every time combat starts. Too cumbersome, too hackish. I'd prefer a straight system of using armor encumbrance and leaving failures— armor, gun jam, whatever— to the GM.
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator) |
| Fortunately, the hitloc table I use allows for this without any trouble. The beauty of 3d6 is that allows for complete symmetricality and accuracy. However, I understand why 2d6 with fewer areas might be more tempting. |
Yeah, I see what you mean. I guess I might just stick both in their and leave the choice up to whoever uses it. Jury's pretty much out on this one.
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator) |
| The main problem there is deciding exactly what actions are "with the damage arm". Shooting a pistol with that arm is a no-brainer, but what about a long-arm with that as the main hand? As the off-hand? What about completely 2-handed actions such as many Electronics tests, Demolitions, Biotech? I never wanted to draw those lines, so I stuck with the simple modifiers. If you can draw simple, reasonable lines, it may well work. |
I think it can potentially be quite simple, really:
Actions with the injured arm: double penalty.
Actions with both arms, one injured: half of above (eg already at +2 from a Moderate to the left arm; firing an assault rifle is +2 from the wound and +1 for using the injured arm, but not exlusively; for simplicity's sake, let this ignore what's your off hand or on hand)
Actions from unwounded arm: no additional penalty.
Personally, I feel this strikes a solid balance between realism and playability.
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator) |
| Understandable. However, you should then be very careful about balancing the up- and downsides of called shots to the head. The ability to ignore torso armor in addition to +2 Damage Levels is extremely powerful, and should thus come with enough penalties for the shooter to keep the amount of shots called to the head realistic. That balance is obviously a priority for you, I just thought I'd repeat that once again. |
Yeah, I completely agree, it does merit some precise balancing. It's the specific numbers that have me a little lost, at the moment, and I'm not entirely sure where to find the right balance between clean headshots all the time and +8 to smack someone in the face.
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator) |
| I can understand that. If you do go for some sort of averaged armor, you can always do something like "6 body parts, torso counted twice", or even "5 body parts", it's just finding your own preferred balance between simplicity and realism. |
Hm. I really might go for that, actually.
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator) |
| I should warn you that there doesn't appear to be a way to keep the principle the same (doing RoF like running) without making it at least as complicated as I have. If you want to keep it simpler, you are pretty much forced to go with one of the mechanisms that play with the TNs to provide the amount of hits or the different dice-amount mechanisms. |
Yeah, I have noticed that. At least, under Shadowrun, there seems to be no way, and, at this point, I think I'll just have to accept that that's how it is. I don't want to have the GM figuring out rates of fire every combat turn for every character firing. It may be simple math, but it adds up in play and really hampers the flow of the game (or would, at least, short of the GM being very experienced with the system). At least for the moment, only way I can see that this is doable is translating max number of rounds that can be loosed in 3 seconds at the weapons rate of fire and telling the player that that's all he or she gets until the next combat round. Which, come to think of it, I kind of like for its simplicity.
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator) |
| Blast radius(!), Ratings, modifier Barrier Ratings and the Demolitions skill. The Blast Radius should be the same for all explosives, my current favorite is -2/meter for all straigh explosives. Explosive ratings should start higher, C-12 should not be 16 times as powerful as TNT -- a scale of 6-12 or 8-12 or something like that would be more preferable. Explosives should always check against 1x Barrier Rating, not 2x: As it stands, 1kg of TNT will not break a good window if a non-skilled person straps it on the windowsill. Demolitions skill to increase Power should work with a percentage or fraction instead of +1, I currently use +25%. The skill-bit might be too complex compared to the actual effect it has (very little in most games), but the other few things are extremely simple to correct and make explosives far more reasonable and realistic. |
Give me specific numbers on what should be what. You've pretty much already got me convinced.
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator) |
| I'm of the school of thought that it'd be better to simply change the base Damage Code of Light Pistols to 6M. "Heavy SMGs" should probably be few and far between, considering the calibers involved. |
I've considered that, but while I'm willing to up light pistols to 8L, I kind of like the idea of converting something like the Light Fire to doing 6M per shot. I'm open to other ideas, really, but I don't want to completely remove pistols that do light damage from the game. As for heavy SMGs, yeah, I realized that they'd be quite powerful. Would naturally need a number of limiting factors to make them as specialized as they should be. As it stands, I've been thinking of them as something along the lines of a Thompson, though, for clarity's sake, I will not be touching specific calibers for this.
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator) |
| I've often considered breaking Initiative ties with the Concealability of the character's weapon. It's not much, but it's something. I don't think there is any simple way of large weapons significant penalties. |
It's not much, and, for me, it's not enough. I've considered a straight penalty to weapon use in close quarters based on its concealability, but I've found no way to really do this elegantly. Was thinking something along the lines of +1 for anything bigger than a pistol, and additional +1 for anything bigger than a carbine, and an additional +1 or +2 beyond that. I do not like the idea of someone dragging a PAC into CQB, and you damn well deserve at least a +4 or +5 if you try. I just want to also be wary of going too far with it.
| QUOTE (Aesir) |
| I think the rules in these areas work fine as they are in canon. The damage and armor rules are easy and fast and ballanced unless you start messing with hit locations or alow to much layering of armor. The autofire rules are the best I´ve encountered in any roleplaying game. Your basic roleplaying game has extremely complicated rules for autofire (rolling dice for every round etc). Also, it´s not uncommon that it gets easier to hit your target when you fire more rounds, witch I think is far from reality. The people I know who have done military service (I´ve never fired a gun in my life) testify that autofire is for support fire only. You just don´t hit ANYTHING when firing full auto. Unless someone with some serious knowledge comes along and says how these things could be done differently, I´m with the developers on this one. |
They may be easy and fast, but they're nonsensical, internally inconistent, incompatible with a world view that includes reality, and absolutely, blitheringly insane. They are not balanced, and this is not debatable. They are also designed around dynamics (eg armor wearing lacking penalties to a certain point) that promotes everyone doing the same thing to a certain level of lethality, which is absolutely unacceptable.
As for autofire being the best you've ever run into, well, hell, me too. But I've only played DnD and Shadowrun, and I've never fire a gun, and I still know they're absurd and unreal. The fact that everyone on the boards with similarly extensive firearms and military knowledge and far more experience than I've ever had agrees tends to have me convinced that the rules are in need of some major work. I think Austere pretty much agrees, though we each have our personal tastes and values in designing mechanics.
| QUOTE (lspahn72) |
| Any firearm that is longer then your forarm get get a +2 TN in Melee AND the other party get an opposed rolled with his unarmed combat. And yes if he win he can shoot you wiht your gun! This works pretty good concidering if you put the full gambit of hardware on a Pred. II it IS bigger than your forearm( for elves, human, and dwarves). So if a human is wrestling with an elf sec guard and trys to geek him with his pistol its not an easy task. Base TN 6 vs. Unarmed TN 4 (no reach). The only problems ive run into is if the Unarmed person wins, what does he need for a disarm? |
I can't say I like this, as I'm not thinking of melee ranges, necessarily. In fact, you could be dealing with something like a Vietnam war-era rat tunnel, in which case hand to hand conflict is out of the question, but so is anything larger than a pistol. This is the sort of case where I'd like to give pistols the benefit they deserve through mechanics, as opposed to where it is now with GMs just ruling that nothing bigger than a pistol fits. As I've said, emergent dynamics: you're free to do what you like, but you also get to see why people before ou have done it the right way and dragging your assault rifle inside is not it.
Re:Armor, -1 Combat Pool per every (Body)kg of armor or part thereof? Obviously would require some tweaking of the armors to make sure they're balanced, but would also allow playing around with the Armor Ratings and weights of the armors to produce different levels of quality. Exact penalties can be fiddled with (-QUI for movement, +TN for QUI-related tests might be added), BOD can be replaced by STR or (BOD+STR)/2, and the modifier can be changed (1.5xBOD, round down, or something similar), whatever strikes a good balance.
Just a suggestion. My rules still go with the "always pack armor to a limit" mentality.
Re:Explosives, it could be as simple as this:
*All straight explosives ("Commercial Explosives") have a Blast of -2/m.
*All straight explosives compare against 1x Barrier Rating, not double.
*Commercial-grade explosives have a Rating of 6, C-4 has a rating of 8, C-12 has a rating of 12.
Re:Long-arms in CQB, the real problem, in my mind, is what to consider CQB. Any combat within 5 meters of the opponent, or with a wall or large object within 2 meters? With a simple definition for that, I might give a +1 TN to shoot with any long-arm (Conc-4 or smaller), +2 TN with anything of Conc 1 or smaller. After all, even if there are walls close to you, you might still have plenty of room to maneuver with that full-size AR. This has the problem of not differentiating between full-size ARs and carbines, but you can't have everything with the rather strict TN scale. Even +1 to TN is plenty in many cases.
In very cramped spaces, like narrow corridors (=< 1m), and while moving around, these penalties could easily be doubled or even tripled.
Just a suggestion. My rules still go with the "always pack armor to a limit" mentality.
Re:Explosives, it could be as simple as this:
*All straight explosives ("Commercial Explosives") have a Blast of -2/m.
*All straight explosives compare against 1x Barrier Rating, not double.
*Commercial-grade explosives have a Rating of 6, C-4 has a rating of 8, C-12 has a rating of 12.
Re:Long-arms in CQB, the real problem, in my mind, is what to consider CQB. Any combat within 5 meters of the opponent, or with a wall or large object within 2 meters? With a simple definition for that, I might give a +1 TN to shoot with any long-arm (Conc-4 or smaller), +2 TN with anything of Conc 1 or smaller. After all, even if there are walls close to you, you might still have plenty of room to maneuver with that full-size AR. This has the problem of not differentiating between full-size ARs and carbines, but you can't have everything with the rather strict TN scale. Even +1 to TN is plenty in many cases.
In very cramped spaces, like narrow corridors (=< 1m), and while moving around, these penalties could easily be doubled or even tripled.
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator) |
| Re:Armor, -1 Combat Pool per every (Body)kg of armor or part thereof? Obviously would require some tweaking of the armors to make sure they're balanced, but would also allow playing around with the Armor Ratings and weights of the armors to produce different levels of quality. Exact penalties can be fiddled with (-QUI for movement, +TN for QUI-related tests might be added), BOD can be replaced by STR or (BOD+STR)/2, and the modifier can be changed (1.5xBOD, round down, or something similar), whatever strikes a good balance. Just a suggestion. My rules still go with the "always pack armor to a limit" mentality. |
I'll have to take a look at the specific numbers and how they play out, but this seems to be the general direction I'd like. I'm not a fan of always packing as much armor as possible, though; for a full on, open firefight, wearing as much armor as strikes a balance between facility and function is right, but there should also be situations that merit far less, and, in fact, these should be the norm.
Ultimately, what this should create is a dynamic that realistically reflects the fact that different armor is called for for different specializations. Infiltrators won't be wearing much while professional soldiers will be wearing quite a bit more, as their intended tasks are going to make it a good idea.
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator) |
| Re:Explosives, it could be as simple as this: *All straight explosives ("Commercial Explosives") have a Blast of -2/m. *All straight explosives compare against 1x Barrier Rating, not double. *Commercial-grade explosives have a Rating of 6, C-4 has a rating of 8, C-12 has a rating of 12. |
Sounds fine to me. Think C-2 should also have a rating of 6, out of curiosity? Also, any take on the non conventional explosives?
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator) |
| Re:Long-arms in CQB, the real problem, in my mind, is what to consider CQB. Any combat within 5 meters of the opponent, or with a wall or large object within 2 meters? With a simple definition for that, I might give a +1 TN to shoot with any long-arm (Conc-4 or smaller), +2 TN with anything of Conc 1 or smaller. After all, even if there are walls close to you, you might still have plenty of room to maneuver with that full-size AR. This has the problem of not differentiating between full-size ARs and carbines, but you can't have everything with the rather strict TN scale. Even +1 to TN is plenty in many cases. In very cramped spaces, like narrow corridors (=< 1m), and while moving around, these penalties could easily be doubled or even tripled. |
Yeah, I do hear that. I'd like something a little more precise than just relying on what the GM thinks CQB is. As for the TNs, yeah, I understand that too. I don't want to get too extreme, though while I'm ok with, say, +2 for dragging and M249 into CQB, I'm not ok with anything bigger only getting +2. As for rifles getting +1, that's pretty understandable. As much as I'd like differentiation between carbines and rifles, +2 is too much. What I am thinking of, however, is giving pistols -1 in all CQB applications, which I think gets the point across without being unbalancing. The -1 may be nice, but bursts are better.
As for defining CQB, could go with certain room sizes or a <=5m of range. Come to think of it, I'm starting to like the latter. In <= 1m of range, I'm ok with doubling these modifiers.
| QUOTE (Arethusa) |
| Think C-2 should also have a rating of 6, out of curiosity? |
Did some Googling, and I couldn't find any good reference on C-2. This PDF has great TNT equivalence figures for most common explosives, which gives us the following:
C-4 is 1.19 - 1.37 times the equivalent of TNT, depending on the application. Because of the square-root system in SR, this is about the difference of Rating 6 and Rating 7 explosives. Most common explosives range between 0.8 and 1.2 TNT equivalence, which is not enough to warrant a change in Rating, except perhaps downwards with some rather weak explosives.
C-12 is supposed to be some kind of über-explosive, so it's not too bad if it remains several times more powerful than TNT. Still, my revised ratings are:
TNT 6, C-4 7, C-12 10.
That still makes C-12 2.8 times as powerful as TNT, but balances the figures to reasonable ratings.
By non-conventional explosives you mean e.g. FAEs and Thermobaric explosives? I like something like this:
Constant Damage Code Blast Radius: Rating x (kg/10)^0.5
Damage Code: (Rating x 2)D
Beyond this, -2 per meter.
Cost & Avail: Rating^2 x 3
, Rating x 2/7 days, Min Rating 2, Max Rating 6.Again, you can fiddle around with the numbers a bit. Large amounts of low-rating FAEs should be rather cheap, or at least not significantly more expensive than conventional explosives. The Blast Radius should absolutely be based on the square root of the weight of the explosive. I checked the above numbers with a few examples, and they should work out.
I don't think there's any reason to do separate rules for Thermobaric and FAEs. I'm not even 100% sure myself what the difference between the two is.
| QUOTE (Arethusa) |
| What I am thinking of, however, is giving pistols -1 in all CQB applications, which I think gets the point across without being unbalancing. |
I'm not sure this is a good idea, simply because the point of this is mainly to make the rules consistent and reasonable. It is not much of either that it would be easier to fire pistols in CQB applications. Unless, of course, you do define CQB as shooting at ranges up to 5 meters, in which case it does make sense.
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator) |
| Did some Googling, and I couldn't find any good reference on C-2. |
You know, did that myself, and you're right. Just something I'd been told about years back (when I was much littler, no less), and though it seems to probably exist, composition C-2 is nothing I'll bet money on.
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator) |
| C-4 is 1.19 - 1.37 times the equivalent of TNT, depending on the application. Because of the square-root system in SR, this is about the difference of Rating 6 and Rating 7 explosives. Most common explosives range between 0.8 and 1.2 TNT equivalence, which is not enough to warrant a change in Rating, except perhaps downwards with some rather weak explosives. C-12 is supposed to be some kind of über-explosive, so it's not too bad if it remains several times more powerful than TNT. Still, my revised ratings are: TNT 6, C-4 7, C-12 10. That still makes C-12 2.8 times as powerful as TNT, but balances the figures to reasonable ratings. |
These number seen about right to me. Would also kind of like to include som rules for shaped charges for blowing doors and the like that would remain exclusive to plastiques.
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator) |
| By non-conventional explosives you mean e.g. FAEs and Thermobaric explosives? I like something like this: Constant Damage Code Blast Radius: Rating x (kg/10)^0.5 Damage Code: (Rating x 2)D Beyond this, -2 per meter. Cost & Avail: Rating^2 x 3 , Rating x 2/7 days, Min Rating 2, Max Rating 6. Again, you can fiddle around with the numbers a bit. Large amounts of low-rating FAEs should be rather cheap, or at least not significantly more expensive than conventional explosives. The Blast Radius should absolutely be based on the square root of the weight of the explosive. I checked the above numbers with a few examples, and they should work out. |
I'll take a closer look at the numbers later, but these seem fine to me. As for a difference between FAEs and thermobaric explosives— if there are any— I don't know them.
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator) |
| I'm not sure this is a good idea, simply because the point of this is mainly to make the rules consistent and reasonable. It is not much of either that it would be easier to fire pistols in CQB applications. Unless, of course, you do define CQB as shooting at ranges up to 5 meters, in which case it does make sense. |
Indeed, for a rule like this, I would be using them. In fact, I'm pretty set on it, at this point, and I'm thinking that all modifiers should be doubled <= 1m. This had originally seemed rather inelegant to me, but it's really grown on me since.
And now, one quick question:
Any suggestions for alternate ways of handling seraching fire? As it stands, I sort of like it, but would prefer it to be capable of doing more damage than what is essentially a single round, though this is remedied slightly by lower target numbers making staging easier.
Also, earlier questions still up in the air.
my biggest problem with shadowrun firearms is recoil I like the fact that it simple, but it is so unrealistic. A .22 long rifle and 12g shotgun have the same basic layout so in shadowrun they have the same recoil.
Ignoring for the moment that CC gave us something like 12 different ways to reduce recoil. I would like to see this
L base damage code weapons generate 1 point of recoil per 3 rounds
M base damage code weapons generate 1 point of recoil per 2 rounds
S base damage code weapons generate 1 point of recoil per 1 rounds
D base damage code weapons generate 2 point of recoil per 1 rounds
That is pretty simple
also it would be nice to change the Str. and recoil rules back to the fields of fire chart. I dont have my FoF and CC out right now but I think it lowered it by half what it use to be. The steeps just seem real big now, but thats just me.
It not that I need or want more recoil comp but my troll was horribly offended when it got cut in half and elves started sticking 3 of the new accessorie on their guns and getting the same effect he had before.
Ignoring for the moment that CC gave us something like 12 different ways to reduce recoil. I would like to see this
L base damage code weapons generate 1 point of recoil per 3 rounds
M base damage code weapons generate 1 point of recoil per 2 rounds
S base damage code weapons generate 1 point of recoil per 1 rounds
D base damage code weapons generate 2 point of recoil per 1 rounds
That is pretty simple
also it would be nice to change the Str. and recoil rules back to the fields of fire chart. I dont have my FoF and CC out right now but I think it lowered it by half what it use to be. The steeps just seem real big now, but thats just me.
It not that I need or want more recoil comp but my troll was horribly offended when it got cut in half and elves started sticking 3 of the new accessorie on their guns and getting the same effect he had before.
I certainly prefer the FoF Strength-based Recoil Reduction chart. CC definately made the steps a little too big.
Although I like the idea of recoil based off of the weapons damage code, I think if you're going to move in that direction you might want to base it off of the weapons power instead.
Although I like the idea of recoil based off of the weapons damage code, I think if you're going to move in that direction you might want to base it off of the weapons power instead.
oh this is a little off topic but I thought I would share the trick since there has been so much talk about hit locations. It isn't my trick. I believe it from cybergeneration. If your players have those nice 36 d6 sets of matching color have them replace 2 with different color dice, they can trade with each other, and roll them with there attack roll the result of these 2 counts for both the test and hit location.
example TN 4 Skill 6
3, 1, 4, 5, (3), (6)
result
3 successes hit location 9
it speeds things up.
example TN 4 Skill 6
3, 1, 4, 5, (3), (6)
result
3 successes hit location 9
it speeds things up.
As much as I'm willing to give out heavier recoil for specific weapons (shotguns, battle rifles), the system really doesn't allow for much more fine tuning. Maybe SMGs and pistols getting two points of recoil and the third round for free, but I don't like how hackish that is, and I don't like the prospect of loading an SMG with light pistol ammunition and getting three round bursts for recoil of a single shot. d6 just doesn't do precision well.
| QUOTE (Connor @ Apr 15 2004, 01:47 AM) |
| Although I like the idea of recoil based off of the weapons damage code, I think if you're going to move in that direction you might want to base it off of the weapons power instead. |
I thought power at first to but that would end up needing devision and rounding....
so I tried damage and kinda liked the numbers.
edit/ to respond to Arethusa who snuck one in on me
I was thinking base damage code so it would need to be an under powered SMG to get the free burst. If that makes a difference. Also it might work better if you round it up to the nearest recoil point
example M damage code 3 round burst = 2 points recoil
Power level is far too inelegant and a measure of more than simple muzzle velocity or recoil. Damage level's better, but not byt a hell of a lot. Best to just do it by the round fired, but, as I said, aside from heavy weapons, it can create too many dangerously unbalanced messes and is an incredible mess as far as mechanics are concerned. Unless there's a better way to do it under d6, double recoil for heavier calibers (tripple for stuff in the range of a .50 cal) is where it stops.
| QUOTE (Arethusa) |
| Would also kind of like to include som rules for shaped charges for blowing doors and the like that would remain exclusive to plastiques. |
If you use something like the +25% Power per success on Demolitions I mentioned earlier, there's no real need for a separate rule on shaped charges. The Power gain should only count against one object the demo-guy is trying to destroy/penetrate/break open, not for all of the surroundings. I can't think of a really simple mechanism for it, but every such success could simultaneously add -1/m to the Blast of the charge. 1kg of C-4 + 4 successes on Demolitions = 14D against one object, 7D -6/m Blast for all other purposes.
I'm not sure, but I can't think of a solid reason why it should be plastiques-only that could benefit from these rules. Most commercial explosives can be molded to an extend, AFAIK. Stuff like sticks of dynamite probably shouldn't get the benefit of such a test, or maybe just use a higher TN for the Demolitions test with such explosives that are more difficult to shape.
And for recoil of different weapons, I am still of the opinion that the issue is easiest to handle with weapon weights and inherent Recoil Compensation values. Battle rifles and most hunting rifles should probably have doubled recoil, like you said. I personally use normal (not doubled) recoil for MMGs, reason being that I think the way a machinegun internally handles recoil and the size/mass of such weapons is sufficient to bring the recoil down to what you might get with a light carbine. Couldn't check this because I still haven't got a good source for powder weights in common cartridges, and am willing to revise this estimate if I can calculate the recoil.
Responses first:
| QUOTE (Egon) |
| was thinking base damage code so it would need to be an under powered SMG to get the free burst. If that makes a difference. Also it might work better if you round it up to the nearest recoil point example M damage code 3 round burst = 2 points recoil |
I understand why you went in this direction, but let's take it a step further.
With my 8M assault rifle working with a 30 round mag and standard +1 recoil per round, assuming all other rules canon, I have to suffer +3 recoil to get to 11S and another +3 recoil to get to 14D, assuming one full auto attack. That's 6 rounds or 20% of my weapon's capacity and +6 recoil before modifiers.
With your system, that recoil would instead be +4. Many people would already balk, myself included, but let's take it further.
Let's assume SR had (and will have, once I'm done with it) battle rifles; for those of you unfamiliar with firearms, envision them as sport rifles with full auto capacity and 20 round mags. Let's assume they did 9S damage. To get to 12D, I have to spend 3 rounds and suffer +3 points of recoil.
But the real problem is that with a light machine pistol at 8L (let's assume I step up the Light pistol damage, which I very well might), I have to spend 3 rounds to get to 11M, another 3 rounds to get to 14s, and another 3 rounds to get to 17D. 9 rounds, which would be half omy weapon's capacity from an 18 round mag, but only +3 points of recoil.
This is sorely unbalanced, and creates a bizarre mechanic where assault rifles are inexplicably suffering the worst recoil penalties. Like I said, d6 doesn't allow you to fine tune the way you want to.
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator) |
| If you use something like the +25% Power per success on Demolitions I mentioned earlier, there's no real need for a separate rule on shaped charges. The Power gain should only count against one object the demo-guy is trying to destroy/penetrate/break open, not for all of the surroundings. I can't think of a really simple mechanism for it, but every such success could simultaneously add -1/m to the Blast of the charge. 1kg of C-4 + 4 successes on Demolitions = 14D against one object, 7D -6/m Blast for all other purposes. |
May need some tweaking, but the concept works for me. Thanks.
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator) |
| I'm not sure, but I can't think of a solid reason why it should be plastiques-only that could benefit from these rules. Most commercial explosives can be molded to an extend, AFAIK. Stuff like sticks of dynamite probably shouldn't get the benefit of such a test, or maybe just use a higher TN for the Demolitions test with such explosives that are more difficult to shape. |
One of us (probably me) is completely wrong, then. I'd assumed that plastiques included the commercial stuff, as I only wanted to exclude TNT from shaped charge making (short of building, say, a bazooka rocket, which is beyond the purview of these mechanics).
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator) |
| And for recoil of different weapons, I am still of the opinion that the issue is easiest to handle with weapon weights and inherent Recoil Compensation values. Battle rifles and most hunting rifles should probably have doubled recoil, like you said. I personally use normal (not doubled) recoil for MMGs, reason being that I think the way a machinegun internally handles recoil and the size/mass of such weapons is sufficient to bring the recoil down to what you might get with a light carbine. Couldn't check this because I still haven't got a good source for powder weights in common cartridges, and am willing to revise this estimate if I can calculate the recoil. |
Good point about the MGs. What I really wanted to do, though, was allow MMGs to get half recoil when properly supported (bipod, correctly braced), but this screws LMGs (unless you give them no recoil when supported, which is psychotic). Could use some suggestions here.
Can't really help with calculating recoil, but I'll see if I can dig up anything. Still, you almost certainly know more than me on this, so, really, I'm more curious how you'd go about doing this.
Now, a specific question regarding shotguns:
As far as I can tell, I can set my shotgun to a choke of 6, which will then smack everything at 59 meters with 2D damage with my target number of 2 to hit (that's a -9 modifier; good luck), 4.5 meters to either side. Austere's ruling that the number of stages the shot has travelled is an excellent fix to a big part of this, but the damage level of D at max range still bothers me. Soaking 2D is not easy unless you're a runner (at which point is basically just plays hell on your combat pool, which I'm ok with), and that feels quite unbalanced. Any suggestions for patching this or explanations as to how I just don't understand shotguns?
And, lastly, repeating some questions that seem to have gotten lost in the fray but still need much answering:
- Any complaints about creating a new class of pistols and SMGs? I specifically had in mind creating medium pistols to bridge the gap of uselessness between Light and Heavy, as well as explain where SMGs and their 6M damage ratings are coming from. And, as for SMGs, a Heavy variety using Heavy pistol damage, naturally. (I know, Austere commented, but I'd like so more feedback on such a potentially drastic change)
- Any takes on rewriting the crazy weapons (narcojet, flamethrower, etc)?
- Any suggestions for potentially altering damage codes and behavior of anti vehicular weapons (GD ATGM, etc)?
- Any suggestions for alternatives to the canon +1 power per round, +1 damage level per three rounds? Emphasis on this one.
- Any suggestions for alternatives to searching fire's allowance of essentially only one round hitting? Not necessarily crucial; the stagin modifications help ameliorate this.
- Any suggestions for a more realistic alternative to hardened personnel armor?
- Any issues with melee combat that should be dealt with?
- Any potentially decent rules for gun reliability? I don't really want to touch this one in a canon replacement, given the likely inherent amount of work, but I'm not averse to an elegant solution, assuming there is one.
- Grenades don't work. Need to fix them. As has been said, you and a grenade should not buddy the fuck up. It should explode and you should motherfucking die. Specific number suggestions would be very much appreciated.
- Suggestions for reworking custom ammunition types and possibly adding new rounds (Spellshot's in, and I don't care what you say) are welcome.
- Still looking for a good solution to autofire.
- Any opinions on working in a fatigue system? Basically, something to work more or less like stun, only this only wears off with rest. Not sure if it's too drastic to be worth it as anything but an optional rule.
- How's +12 for blind fire? +8 just seems like far too little. You can't motherfucking see, and you are not operating precision artillery.
- I would like to put together some rules for saturation fire. Perhaps something similar to suppression fire but working a little differently for target slection and over range?
If you have house rules you feel might be even slightly potentially applicable to this, please let me know. I'm completely ready and willing to hear new ideas, and it would be very, very appreciated.
[edit: gah, Austere got in and responded before me; added in some responses]
[edit 2: one last addition before I forget: saturation fire]
| QUOTE (Arethusa) |
| I'd assumed that plastiques included the commercial stuff, as I only wanted to exclude TNT from shaped charge making |
I doubt either of us is "sorely wrong", it's completely possible we're just both a bit off.
The problem for me, I suppose, was the terminology, because SR refers to C-4 and C-12 as "Plastic, Compound-#". I don't know what "plastiques" usually refers to, so I'll go around the term to say that commercial explosives would probably be almost equally moldable by 2060s, since they often are even now. Certain explosives (I haven't a clue what the natural form of TNT is) would not be, and larger TNs would be in order when trying to shape those.Is there some reason other than how easy the substance is to mold that would make using shaped charges made of some explosives less effective than others? We probably don't want to go into things like relative heat outputs and explosions speeds, even the TNT equivalents are beyond the realm of most SR players.
| QUOTE |
| What I really wanted to do, though, was allow MMGs to get half recoil when properly supported (bipod, correctly braced), but this screws LMGs (unless you give them no recoil when supported, which is psychotic). |
I'll play with numbers a bit. Assume:
Average MMG: 2xRecoil, RC 1, Bipod (RC 2)
Average LMG: 1xRecoil, RC2, Bipod (RC 2)
This would mean that without support the MMG would be almost impossible to fire accurate cyclic fire with. This might be accurate -- I don't know, I've never fired what passes as an MMG, only LMGs and HMGs. Bursts would still be semi-controllable with the MMG. LMGs should be more controllable on FA while unsupported than ARs are, and the numbers can easily be set to reflect that. From a supported position, LMGs would still have less recoil than MMGs.
Firing up Google... w00t! The M855 has a propellant weight of 26.1 grains, projectile weight 62 grains, muzzle velocity ~3,000fps -- might be slightly lower for with a shorter barrel such as that on the M4, but meh. The M59 7.62x51mm NATO Ball has 46 grains of propellant, 150.5 grain projectile, muzzle velocity ~2800fps. I'll use empty weights for the weapons for sake of simplicity.
Using the recoil calculator on Raygun's site:
M4A1, 62gr, 3,000fps, 26gr, 5.55lbs: 5.9ft-lbs @ 8.3fps, 1.29lbs/s
M240G, 150gr, 2,800fps, 46gr, 24.2lbs: 5.5ft-lbs @ 3.8fps, 2.68lbs/s
Based on that, I'm sticking with my original idea of not using double recoil with MMGs. I have already made sure in my game that MMGs are always bigger and heavier than LMGs and have less RC, which I think takes care of any problems.
| QUOTE |
| Austere's ruling that the number of stages the shot has travelled is an excellent fix to a big part of this, but the damage level of D at max range still bothers me. |
I strongly suggest simply forgetting about choke, and doing something like this (a composite of several suggestions in the Shotgun threads I linked):
- -1 TN to-hit, extra -1 at Long and -2 at Extreme. Laser sights and smartlinks work like in canon -- could give benefits of laser sights, if it's not too powerful
- -2 Power, -1 Damage Level per range category beyond Short. 8D -> 8D/6S/4M/2L. 10D -> 10D/8S/6M/4L
- Checks against double Ballistic or double Impact, which ever is higher. Might also drop DL by 1, to a minimum of Light, when there's any armor in the hit location
| QUOTE |
| Any suggestions for potentially altering damage codes and behavior of anti vehicular weapons (GD ATGM, etc)? |
I think they work pretty well in their role. That is, they are no more or less broken than everything else concerning vehicle combat in SR, so it balances out and is somewhat coherent. ATGMs should probably get a higher Power, however, because it's a bit silly that a single AC shot can do the same damage. Lighter anti-tank weapons should be far more effective -- change the LAWs to AV and kill whoever thought it would be a good idea to make them HE. Allow all vehicle-scale AV weaponry to completely ignore any and all body armor.
| QUOTE |
| Any issues with melee combat that should be dealt with? |
Possibly, but I doubt there's any way of addressing those issues so that a majority would agree. Many believe there are issues, like the whole Initiative/Reaction thing and ganging up, but there aren't any easy ways of fixing those up.
| QUOTE |
| Any potentially decent rules for gun reliability? |
I guess we ought to give up hope, considering how many times it has been discussed (a few dozen, maybe?) and how there has never been any elegant solution.
| QUOTE |
| Grenades don't work. |
Up-tune all hand grenades to IPE numbers, ie 15S, and all mini-grenades to 12S, and enforce the now-optional rule of rolling ½Power against TN 4 for staging. That should help a bit.
I'd give you a list of my house rules, but as I've told others before, I don't have them written down, and most I probably don't even consider house rules.
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator) |
| I doubt either of us is "sorely wrong", it's completely possible we're just both a bit off. The problem for me, I suppose, was the terminology, because SR refers to C-4 and C-12 as "Plastic, Compound-#". I don't know what "plastiques" usually refers to, so I'll go around the term to say that commercial explosives would probably be almost equally moldable by 2060s, since they often are even now. Certain explosives (I haven't a clue what the natural form of TNT is) would not be, and larger TNs would be in order when trying to shape those. |
I was under the impression that plastiques referred to malleable explosives, of which commercial explosives would be a part. Could be quite wrong, though, and it could come from a lack of explosive knowledge or a lack of canon knowledge. I'll have to take a look at the descriptions. As for TNT, assuming you mean natural physical state, it is a solid, and there's really no way to mold it to a shape (outside of a factory, anyway).
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator) |
| Is there some reason other than how easy the substance is to mold that would make using shaped charges made of some explosives less effective than others? We probably don't want to go into things like relative heat outputs and explosions speeds, even the TNT equivalents are beyond the realm of most SR players. |
No, that was really all the reason I had in mind. And, heh, no, I don't think we would. I am curious, though: do you think the SR inventory of explosives could use some more variety? I'd kind of like to see various compositions, etc, but I'm not sure there'd be much gameplay call for it (d6 and no precision, as usual). I could very well be wrong, though.
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator) |
| Based on that, I'm sticking with my original idea of not using double recoil with MMGs. I have already made sure in my game that MMGs are always bigger and heavier than LMGs and have less RC, which I think takes care of any problems. |
Given that there's no real canon effect on combat performance from weapon weight, I'm not sure I personally feel this is enough. I'll have to give it some thought. A little extra RC just doesn't seem like it'd be enough.
Those figures were useful, though I should point out that the M240 is really a vehicle mounted gun, and you'd be better served by running the numbers with an M60, which is what I think of when I think MMG.
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator) |
I strongly suggest simply forgetting about choke, and doing something like this (a composite of several suggestions in the Shotgun threads I linked):
|
I must admit my knowledge of shotgun lethality might be completely off— I've read a lot, but very little of it tends to consistently agree— but 4L out past 75m seems a bit light. In fact, I'm not sure if moderate damage past 50m is necessarily enough, though the -1TNs to hit do mitigate this somewhat through staging.
And as unrealistic as it was, I also kind of liked variable choke. I'm not sure I want to completely get rid of it, though it's looking more and more like I simply don't have a choice if 2D at max range is to be avoided. Not sure what to think of this, at the moment, really. Do like the approach to handling armor, though.
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator) |
| I think they work pretty well in their role. That is, they are no more or less broken than everything else concerning vehicle combat in SR, so it balances out and is somewhat coherent. ATGMs should probably get a higher Power, however, because it's a bit silly that a single AC shot can do the same damage. Lighter anti-tank weapons should be far more effective -- change the LAWs to AV and kill whoever thought it would be a good idea to make them HE. Allow all vehicle-scale AV weaponry to completely ignore any and all body armor. |
All of that gets my agreement, though should add a final note that the last rule assumes the round fuses; if it doesn't, I'd allow impact. Of course, without rules to govern this, it's just for fun.
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator) |
| Possibly, but I doubt there's any way of addressing those issues so that a majority would agree. Many believe there are issues, like the whole Initiative/Reaction thing and ganging up, but there aren't any easy ways of fixing those up. |
Yeah, is seeming that way. Was hoping to at least fix any glaring issues, but I'm not really sure that's possible.
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator) |
| I guess we ought to give up hope, considering how many times it has been discussed (a few dozen, maybe?) and how there has never been any elegant solution. |
Yeah, you're probably right. Sniff.
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator) |
| Up-tune all hand grenades to IPE numbers, ie 15S, and all mini-grenades to 12S, and enforce the now-optional rule of rolling ½Power against TN 4 for staging. That should help a bit. |
Sounds good to me.
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator) |
| I'd give you a list of my house rules, but as I've told others before, I don't have them written down, and most I probably don't even consider house rules. |
Aw, don't let that stop you. Seriously, if you do get a chance to jot to down even some of them, I'd definitely like to see. Not sure how much of it'd end up being applicable to the direction I'm running with, but it's still interesting and still potentially useful.
And one last note: I am incredibly tired and have been up for a very long time, so if this is at any point incomprehensible, you know why.
| QUOTE (Arethusa) |
| I was under the impression that plastiques referred to malleable explosives, of which commercial explosives would be a part. |
Well, yeah, the RL word "plastique" refers to plastic explosives, which means explosives that are easily molded. The confusion on my part stemmed only from the Shadowrun definitions of "Plastic Explosive" and "Commercial Explosive". Certainly yes, many RL plastic explosives would be considered "Commercial Explosives" in Shadowrun, and several of those are commercial explosives IRL. But we were talking about the same thing all along, basically.
| QUOTE |
| I'd kind of like to see various compositions, etc, but I'm not sure there'd be much gameplay call for it (d6 and no precision, as usual). |
You could always add something really cheap the lower end, like "Fertilizer Explosive" (low-grade Ammonium Nitrate) at Rating 4 and "Ammonium Nitrate" (the higher-grade stuff) at Rating 5. The prices could be 20 and 30 nuyen/kg, respectively, with Availabilities of 4/24hrs and 5/36hrs.
The Institute of Makers of Explosives has a TNT Equivalence Calculator on their site.However, I don't know the Heat of Combustion of any explosives. Net use = Fuck-all.
| QUOTE |
| Those figures were useful, though I should point out that the M240 is really a vehicle mounted gun, and you'd be better served by running the numbers with an M60, which is what I think of when I think MMG. |
The M240G is the ground forces version, and IIRC it has largely replaced the M60 in US Army and USMC inventory. The basic M60 was not significantly lighter (over 23lbs), though the M60E3 is. Make sure not to give the lightest MMGs any RC, and you should be set.
| QUOTE |
| Given that there's no real canon effect on combat performance from weapon weight, I'm not sure I personally feel this is enough. |
While weapon weight alone is not an issue, it still counts against your Load max. Hauling around a 11kg MMG and the ammunition for it is significantly more difficult than carrying a 2.5kg carbine or even a 6kg LMG. Also, the difference between a short ("para") LMG or even MMG and a full-length machinegun might result in a difference of 1 TN in close quarters.
| QUOTE |
| I also kind of liked variable choke. |
There are suggestions that still take choke into account in the threads. For example, you could drop 1 DL per every 3 choke steps (D/D/D/S/S/S/M/M/M/L). The insane spread is right out in any case, shotguns are not area-attack weapons.
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator) |
| Well, yeah, the RL word "plastique" refers to plastic explosives, which means explosives that are easily molded. The confusion on my part stemmed only from the Shadowrun definitions of "Plastic Explosive" and "Commercial Explosive". Certainly yes, many RL plastic explosives would be considered "Commercial Explosives" in Shadowrun, and several of those are commercial explosives IRL. But we were talking about the same thing all along, basically. |
Ah. In that case, clears that up.
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator) |
| You could always add something really cheap the lower end, like "Fertilizer Explosive" (low-grade Ammonium Nitrate) at Rating 4 and "Ammonium Nitrate" (the higher-grade stuff) at Rating 5. The prices could be 20 and 30 nuyen/kg, respectively, with Availabilities of 4/24hrs and 5/36hrs. |
I was actually thinking more along the lines of throwing together rules to handle stuff like composition B, etc, but I didn't think that there'd be enough of a difference, numerically, to justify throwing it in. That said, I like the idea for low grade nitrate explosives. Don't know why it never seemed odd to me that it wasn't already in there.
Out of curiosity, you don't already have rules for semtex, by any chance, do you?
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator) |
| The M240G is the ground forces version, and IIRC it has largely replaced the M60 in US Army and USMC inventory. The basic M60 was not significantly lighter (over 23lbs), though the M60E3 is. Make sure not to give the lightest MMGs any RC, and you should be set. |
My mistake. Had been up for way too long, at that point (kind of still am, really).
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator) |
| While weapon weight alone is not an issue, it still counts against your Load max. Hauling around a 11kg MMG and the ammunition for it is significantly more difficult than carrying a 2.5kg carbine or even a 6kg LMG. Also, the difference between a short ("para") LMG or even MMG and a full-length machinegun might result in a difference of 1 TN in close quarters. |
Given the way most runners work, without a fatigue system (which I'd like!), there's little reason for weight to matter past determining your max capacity. Yeah, there's close quarters, but you should've switch to a pistol, at that point. I understand that numerically, it doesn't necessarily make sense to give it double recoil, but this is something I may have to go fore in lieu of realism. Then again, maybe innate RC will make enough of a difference. Kind of hard to call.
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator) |
| There are suggestions that still take choke into account in the threads. For example, you could drop 1 DL per every 3 choke steps (D/D/D/S/S/S/M/M/M/L). The insane spread is right out in any case, shotguns are not area-attack weapons. |
Had been thinking about that, actually, and seems simple enough that it could work. Kind of curious, though: what do you feel would best reflect realistic shotgun lethality? Also, if you were going to stick to variable choke, what limitations would you put on it?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.