Any RPG systems have good Firearms rules and feel ?

[S'mon]

Though, as an aside, someone else mentioned shock. This is certainly a valid consideration, since most people drop from shock when injured. However shock is as much of a threat if I stick a knife in you as if I shoot you, so this should not enter into a considering of damage by caliber. Shock is also a rather varaible occurance, and won't necessarily set in immediately. Thus it isn't modelled generally in D20. It would be more appropriately done as a rule where if you are wounded you make a fort save to avoid shock. In the Pulp D20 game we play around here, everyone makes a fort save once they take wound damage or are rendered unconscious. This is a decent way of modelling shock IMHO.

In y 1e/2e AD&D game, for the bit set on 21st century Earth I developed my own system for weapons. I had .22s do 1d4 damage, 9mm did 1d6, I think .45ACP did 1d6+1, I think it went up to a high-grain .44 Magnum round doing 2d6+1 on a hit. For rifles AIR 5.56N did 2d6, probably a bit high compared to the Magnum round, the AK47 did 3d6, 7.56N did I think 3d6+1 or 4d6. Barrett .50 did 8d6.

IMO these damage spreads (modelled on real-world energy & cross-sectional data info) are a lot more realistic than D20 Modern's.

 

[Psion]

Spycraft damage for small calibers matches better than D20 Modern. That is my implication. If you have a beef with small caliber weapons in Spycraft, do you also have a beef with the lethality of knives in D20 modern? A d4 will not likely kill anyone, however, many people die from stab wounds.[/qutoe]

I don't have a "beef" with it, but I do think it represents a certain extent of cinematicism.

Now this takes your arguments into left field. A 20th level spycraft character is much more able to be killed than a D20 Modern character. Ever heard of wound points vs. hit points? At least if you crit a 20th level Spycraft character you have a chance of killing him right out.

And minions can never crit. So, exactly as a said, you can have a squad of people firing on a 20th level character and be confident that the character will not die. This is cinematic. Again, by design.

A D20 Modern of 20th level cannot be killed by a gun, under roughly any circumstances (yes, there are massive damage
rules, but by that level, you will likely make the fort save in all cases).

You will?
1) A 20th level character only has +12 fort save if they have a good advancement, and additional modifiers are harder to come by than in D&D.
2) Even if they don't, a 1 always fails. If a squad fires on you, you have a good chance of failing one of those saves.

You are really distorting the reality of the situation here.

If you think that using level one people slants the example, then you are plain nuts. Any high level person in a D20 system game is beyond human, therefore using them for comparison for realistic weapon damage is simply inane.

WHAT?

You say a 20th level person doesn't count because they are "beyond human"? How is that not an example of a plainly cinematic convention of the game?

I have stated that you have to take into account the limitations of the system before you consider things. You seem unwilling to do this.

You'll excuse me if I find the statement "if you ignore what the system is like, it's realistic" to not be too productive or helpful. When recommending systems that are gritty, it is entirely these conventions that make it more cinematic than realistic.

I accept "limitations of the system" as an excuse for things like matching exact wound percentage of real world firearms. But when the system is deliberately designed to be cinematic, that's not just "a limitation of the system." That's design.

You have repeatedly made errors in claims about Spycraft.

Repeatedly? I made one error, and it was not a misunderstanding, it was a mistatement. I meant that minions could not critical, and this is true.

You made one error. You have not redacted it as a mistatement. You stated that the CDG rules apply to the situation I spoke of, when it does not; there are specific rules for it.

So if you are keeping score...

As I recall action dice are a fundamental mechanic of the game. Their required use does not invalidate the presence of the rule.

Without action dice, the rule will never come into play. If a player has used all of his action dice, and hew invokes the dangrous situation rule, the person will not die from a gunshot wound in the back of the head until you deplete his HP. That is a fact. Stop trying to excuse it by telling me there are situations in which it CAN emulate reality; the fact of the matter and the pertinent point here is that BY DESIGN there are situations in which it does not.

Though now it is time for modelling 101, since you appear to be ignorant about how models are constructed and used.

Another ad hominem. You just can help yourself but to cast aspersions on me instead of paying attention to the matter at hand, can you.

FYI, I am an engineer. I am perfectly conversant with modeling. But that really is a whole different world than games. When designing a game, simulation is only one aspect of design. You also have to worry about playability and numerous other factors.

D20 is a model of reality.

It is just as much a model of fantasy and cinema.

Also because of the compacted range of damage options, differentiation between calibers is absent. A 9mm is a .40 cal, is a .45 is a 10mm. This has nothing to do with reality. The FBI adopted the 10mm because the 9mms proved inadequate in stopping power. The US SOCOM choose to have a pistol in .45 ACP since they decided that they needed more stopping power than a 9mm, which is the standard sidearm. In D20 Modern, there is no difference whatsoever.

This is a unnecessary lack of granularity.

That it is unnecessary is entirely your judgement. 99% of players do not care about this level of detail; what you get by catering to this scale of detail is a lot of added complexity for a minor benefit in simulation.

Neither spycraft nor d20 modern models penetration differences, either, a major factor in choice between ammunition types IRL. So trying to embroil the argument in classic weapons arguments really is not helpful. It goes beyond the level of simulation.

Now of course you, Psion, are just going to disregard everything I just said and calculated, and yammer about strawmen,

And you'll just come back with more strawmen (and deny the ones you have made) and make more prejudicial statements like the one above in preference to really addressing the issue at hand. That being the case, I really don't see the need to press on much longer.

 

[drnuncheon]

Just to get back to the original question, Fallout Tactics is based on the GURPS system.

I don't believe it was. The original Fallout game was going to be based on GURPS, but Steve Jackson Games pulled the license from them after creative differences, and they had to make their own system. To the best of my knowledge, they never resolved the differences, so it's unlikely that Tactics went back to GURPS.

J

 

[andargor]

I don't believe it was. The original Fallout game was going to be based on GURPS, but Steve Jackson Games pulled the license from them after creative differences, and they had to make their own system. To the best of my knowledge, they never resolved the differences, so it's unlikely that Tactics went back to GURPS.

J

You're entirely right, I had forgotten that. From this article:

The game was originally based on Steve Jackson's GURPS, which was dropped at the last minute for the SPECIALS system, officially announced in March 97.

So I guess it's SPECIALS then.

Andargor

 

[buzzard]

And minions can never crit. So, exactly as a said, you can have a squad of people firing on a 20th level character and be confident that the character will not die. This is cinematic. Again, by design.

Using an extreme case does not usually favor any modelling system. However, the fact that the game is cinematic at 20th level has no bearing on the effectiveness of weapons. That is an extreme case. Killing off 20th level characters in not a place to base arguments on the lethality of calibers.

1) A 20th level character only has +12 fort save if they have a good advancement, and additional modifiers are harder to come by than in D&D.
2) Even if they don't, a 1 always fails. If a squad fires on you, you have a good chance of failing one of those saves.

You are really distorting the reality of the situation here.

Umm, you say you're an engineer right? Here, do the math, I have a squad of mooks (say twenty hit, I want to keep your math simple). They all fire .22LR pistols at 20th level DC Modern hero. We'll be generous and assume at least one that got the twenty actually is going to confirm it. Well his average damage is 5. He doubles that for a 10. The 20th level character probably has a con above 10, so he doesn't have to save. There went your argument.

WHAT?

You say a 20th level person doesn't count because they are "beyond human"? How is that not an example of a plainly cinematic convention of the game?

As I expected you don't care what I argue. See the previous exercise, your D20 Modern will be no better since the .22 can't kill the 20th level guy anyway.

However, I don't argue that the systems aren't cinematic. I'm arguing about how the guns work within the systems. You don't seem to care about that.

You'll excuse me if I find the statement "if you ignore what the system is like, it's realistic" to not be too productive or helpful. When recommending systems that are gritty, it is entirely these conventions that make it more cinematic than realistic.

You are impervious to reason.
I have said that within the constraints of the model, you can be as realistic as possible. Let me put this in my solidification modelling terms. I'm casting my block. I know I'm not using fluid flow calculations, but I can take a plot of convective heat transfer caused by fluid flow at certain temperatures, and come up with a good equation to give me values at certain temperature ranges. While I am not completely doing the heat transfer from convection justice, I am being as realistic as possible within the constraints of my model.

If you make a system which becomes cinematic for high level characters, this does not preclude low level, and non characters from being treated somewhat realistically when the 'gods' are out of the picture.

I accept "limitations of the system" as an excuse for things like matching exact wound percentage of real world firearms. But when the system is deliberately designed to be cinematic, that's not just "a limitation of the system." That's design.

At low levels, the system does not happen to be all that cinematic. In fact, you can almost ignore those effects at the low end.

Repeatedly? I made one error, and it was not a misunderstanding, it was a mistatement. I meant that minions could not critical, and this is true.

You also make statements about how things are not possible, yet they are.

You made one error. You have not redacted it as a mistatement. You stated that the CDG rules apply to the situation I spoke of, when it does not; there are specific rules for it.

So if you are keeping score...

Actually you need to learn how to read. I said "akin to coupe de grace" because I didn't have a rulebook handy so I could look up the proper term. Thanks for looking it up.

Without action dice, the rule will never come into play. If a player has used all of his action dice, and hew invokes the dangrous situation rule, the person will not die from a gunshot wound in the back of the head until you deplete his HP. That is a fact. Stop trying to excuse it by telling me there are situations in which it CAN emulate reality; the fact of the matter and the pertinent point here is that BY DESIGN there are situations in which it does not.

True/False: can you kill someone in Spycraft with a gun against the back of their head?
True.
You can argue all you like about requirements, but it is possible.
How often do you have a case where people don't get to react when someone has a gun against their head? The action dice could be the cost of setting up such a situation. If the target is unable to react, well we are back to coupe de grace. You've made no point here.

Another ad hominem. You just can help yourself but to cast aspersions on me instead of paying attention to the matter at hand, can you.

Pot, Kettle, black. I've been trying to drag you back to the matter at hand for any number of posts. I keep hearing claims of strawman and ad hominem. How about you debate my points instead?

FYI, I am an engineer. I am perfectly conversant with modeling. But that really is a whole different world than games. When designing a game, simulation is only one aspect of design. You also have to worry about playability and numerous other factors.

No, it is not all that different. Playability is very akin to usability of a model. For casting my block, I didn't want to worry about everything. I just wanted to worry about what was necessary to get the job done.

It is just as much a model of fantasy and cinema.

Which are also based on reality. Thus, at the root, it has to be a simulation of reality.

That it is unnecessary is entirely your judgement. 99% of players do not care about this level of detail; what you get by catering to this scale of detail is a lot of added complexity for a minor benefit in simulation.

Of course I could be a nitpicky sort as ask for your 99% source, but I'm going to let you claim it as knowledge (unlike my knowledge of firearms).

That is your opinion. The degree of added complexity is pretty small. "Oh no, I have to remember that my weapon does 1d10+1!! Woe is me!!". Feh. For people who do actually shoot, and know about firearms, the level of detail is desirable. Though, in Spycraft it is easy enough to not buy the Modern Equipment Guide and leave much of the detail behind. The SEH has much simpler firearms details. I favor MEG, but I'm a 'gun nut'.

Neither spycraft nor d20 modern models penetration differences, either, a major factor in choice between ammunition types IRL. So trying to embroil the argument in classic weapons arguments really is not helpful. It goes beyond the level of simulation.

Now you're telling me about what goes beyond the level of the simulation? That's a riot. Wow, you are actually getting into the simulation discussion now. However how can an argument about the lethality of calibers not lead into a discussion of "classic weapon arguments"? We're not talking about tiddly winks.

And you'll just come back with more strawmen (and deny the ones you have made) and make more prejudicial statements like the one above in preference to really addressing the issue at hand. That being the case, I really don't see the need to press on much longer.

I'll be so broken up if you stop avoiding adressing my points.

buzzard

 

[buzzard]

In y 1e/2e AD&D game, for the bit set on 21st century Earth I developed my own system for weapons. I had .22s do 1d4 damage, 9mm did 1d6, I think .45ACP did 1d6+1, I think it went up to a high-grain .44 Magnum round doing 2d6+1 on a hit. For rifles AIR 5.56N did 2d6, probably a bit high compared to the Magnum round, the AK47 did 3d6, 7.56N did I think 3d6+1 or 4d6. Barrett .50 did 8d6.

IMO these damage spreads (modelled on real-world energy & cross-sectional data info) are a lot more realistic than D20 Modern's.

These seem reasonable, though I probably would have had .45s doing 1d8 (which has the same average I suppose). I personally think a .22 should be no more lethal than a dagger.

buzzard

 

[The Little Raven]

The chance of a .22 knocking someone unconscious, and killing them within a minute are damned small.

But the chance is large enough that my best friend was killed by a single shot to the skull with a .22 from about 30 feet.

 

[Ranger REG]

No, you're not wrong. d20 and d20 Modern are pretty awful when it comes to firearms, IMO.

I don't know. The mechanics is pretty decent to me, especially when the heroes usually shouldn't die like in Rainbow Six.

But if you want that kind of lethal danger, lower the Massive Damage Threshold value. Even better, lower the hit die.

I've always been fond of FUZION for firearms. Easy to use (including the "bane of RPGs": autofire), and you can quickly set "damage/hit levels" (mooks get mowed down easily, heroes and major villains can weave, dodge, and generally avoid more - but only if you want). Also includes stats for things like recoil and accuracy.

I've yet to see someone introduce wound level health system in d20. Perhaps YOU are innovative enough to design one, eh? Don't wait for Wizards. Why do you think they Open the ruleset for?

If you don't mind, I'd like to stick to d20 since this is the main topic. Talking about other system isn't going to improve d20.

 

[S'mon]

These seem reasonable, though I probably would have had .45s doing 1d8 (which has the same average I suppose). I personally think a .22 should be no more lethal than a dagger.

buzzard

I agree re .22 - in fact the typical D&D 'dagger' seems to be a big broad-bladed weapon like the kukri or a big bowie knife & should probably do more damage than the .22, but since _unarmed_ attacks in 3e do 1d3, I tend to think of the 'dagger' more as 'big knife' and go from there.

1d6+1 for .45ACP is because it's a big round with relatively low velocity (a good 'policeman's bullet'), I tend to give higher damage spreads to higher velocity rounds, since the size of a wound track is fairly constant depending on the size of the bullet no matter what the velocity. But where a high velocity round might just make a hole in flesh, or it might hit & shatter bone, sending shrapnel throughout the body cavity, a lower velocity round is less likely to shatter bones, or shatter itself on impact with bone - I believe the man who shot Reagan used 'dum-dum' bullets, unfortunately for him the .22 round was too low velocity for the bullets to shatter!

 

[Ranger REG]

My main gripe with Modern is the burst and autofire rules. They are so simple they cease to be fun.

Personally, I like my game simple and fast, especially when the rules allow for multiple attacks.

Spycraft does a much better job, I think-- especially with autofire/strafe.

They're good. Personally, I prefer to merge the d20 Modern and Spycraft mechanics, respectively.