Is there no love for d20 modern?

[JPL]

:Applause:

Thanks for putting a fine point on it.

You're welcome.

As far as "gun bunnies" go, I like a product like "Weapons Locker" [editing problems notwithstanding] that gives you all sorts of flavor text for different sorts of guns, but doesn't try to model in-game every single variable that differentiates Gun A from Gun B. If I'm playing a character who is serious about his weapons --- say, in a Blood and Guts campaign --- it's handy to be able to quote that stuff for characterization purposes.

I suppose if you're playing something like a "realistic SWAT team" or "realistic Spec Ops," it might make sense to try to model combat with a high degree of accuracy. But my question is, are you demanding ultrarealism in your firefights but letting everything else remain fuzzy? Because in a realistic Spec Ops game, you can't rescue the hostages because a couple of helicopters crash in the desert. In a realistic SWAT game, there is no bad guy offering "one beellion dollars" to anyone who can free him, and if a fight lasts more than two rounds, you've messed up big time. In a realistic cop game, you have to write a report every time you draw your weapon, and if you even use pepper spray, there's a good chance you'll get sued over it. It's one thing to deal with the physics and physiology of violence realistically --- what about the legal and social and psychological context?

 

[hobgoblin]

hmm, i came to think of a recent discovery channel program about changes in soldier training between ww1 (or there about) and today.

i think there where studys done showing that soldiers first fired a warning shot above the enemys head before trying to take aim at the soldier directly. this was in one on one, like say guard duty or similar. dont know about spray and pray type enviroments. basicy the soldier would do so automaticaly without thinking about it or rembering doing so...

they even told about finding 1 or more muskets after the american civil war that had 6-7 rounds loaded into it. basicly the soldier had done the full loading drill but had not fired. this is iirc tho...

this is why they changed to using images and human shaped targets rather then round bullseyes. this to get people to develop conditioned responses: see human shape, shoot at human shape.

i have had some friends saying that they disbelive this, and that they would shoot to kill if they where threatend. but i find it unlikely as the scare tactic is something we find i all animals. like say the classical story about facing down a charging gorilla. do so and the gorilla will stop right in front of you and look realy confused. basicly it expects you to run, and as you dont do so its not sure what to do...

 

[Vigilance]

this is why they changed to using images and human shaped targets rather then round bullseyes. this to get people to develop conditioned responses: see human shape, shoot at human shape.

i have had some friends saying that they disbelive this, and that they would shoot to kill if they where threatend. but i find it unlikely as the scare tactic is something we find i all animals. like say the classical story about facing down a charging gorilla. do so and the gorilla will stop right in front of you and look realy confused. basicly it expects you to run, and as you dont do so its not sure what to do...

Yep. A lot of folks think its easy to kill because they've never done it. My stepfather said he and his fellow soldiers fired warning shots many, many times, even when statistically it was unwise to do so (this was in open combat not when behind enemy lines naturally).

When I asked why, he said "because you see a 18 year old boy running at you and you don't want to kill him".

That's the human response.

Chuck

 

[Psion]

Just so we are clear:

Stutinan seems to think -- and is venting on other boards -- that people here hold the position that d20 modern is "perfectly realistic."

Just so we are clear, does anyone actually think d20 modern is a perfectly -- or even HIGHLY -- realistic game?

 

[Vigilance]

Just so we are clear:

Stutinan seems to think -- and is venting on other boards -- that people here hold the position that d20 modern is "perfectly realistic."

Just so we are clear, does anyone actually think d20 modern is a perfectly -- or even HIGHLY -- realistic game?

Lol. Could you email me a link? Id like to read some of these rants.

I know I have not said that d20 Modern is realistic. What I have said is that I would prefer it not be realistic and that people who argue for realism often A) disagree on what that means and B) simply make the game too complicated to be fun.

I think he assumes we are disagreeing with his notion that the game isn't realistic because that's a battle he feels he can win. What many of us are saying (obviously in my opinion) is that we PREFER the level of unrealism present in the game to something clunkier, deadlier (so deadly you can hear the dice rolling as people make up new characters) and (maybe) more realistic.

Chuck

 

[Roudi]

"realistic game" is probably the best oxymoron present in this discussion.

d20 Modern isn't "perfectly" realistic because it's a game; a removed representation of things both real and imagined. I think we've all been pretty clear on that point.

 

[The Shaman]

Stutinan seems to think -- and is venting on other boards -- that people here hold the position that d20 modern is "perfectly realistic."

He is?!?

What a [everything that I want to say here is prohibited by the Code of Conduct, so use your imagination].

Just so we are clear, does anyone actually think d20 modern is a perfectly -- or even HIGHLY -- realistic game?

I don't think that the game itself is 'realistic', but I believe that through setting choices and roleplaying you can add considerable verisimilitude to a game played using the Modern rules.

If I understand them correctly, many of the "hyper-realists" (good catch-phrase, Vigilance) aren't satisfied to roll to hit and roll damage, then describe the effect in roleplaying terms - they want tables that pinpoint the wound effects. You can have a "grim 'n' gritty" Modern game using just the rules as written and roleplaying the abstracted portions of combat, in my humble experience.

There's been some great discussion about how unrealistic many of the options demanded by the "hyper-realists" really are, and rather than recount what's already been said well-enough already, I'll just add two thoughts:

1. How many of the hyper-realists would enjoy gaming through an artillery barrage? Let's say the barrage takes place over a quarter of an hour - that's ninety combat rounds that likely amount to cowering in a foxhole or a slit trench, making Reflex saves each time a shell lands close enough to cause damage to a character. Sounds like great fun, doesn't it?

2. How many hyper-realists would like to see their characters rendered inactive by trench foot, or frostbite, or malaria, or battle fatigue, or any of hundreds of physical and emotional ailments that affect soldiers?

I don't think hyper-realists want realism - I think they want to roll the dice to see if they blew off an arm 'cause they think it's cool.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

I'd never pit d20 Modern against "Reality" any day of the week.

I'd never pit GURPS against "Reality" any day of the week.

I'd never pit Certain Poster's Homebrew Systems against "Reality" any day of the week.

No GAME is "Reality" and thus aren't "realistic" in that sense. They are games.

As far as "game realism" goes, I LIKE d20M as much as any other system out there.

I think our discussions over the last half-dozen posts have highlighted, if not proven, that alot of what Hyper-Realists want from a game is no more "Reality" than what those who, well, don't.

I like "Game Realism" in my games. People get shot, people get hurt. Guns kill people. Falling off of buildings kill people. Etc etc. d20 M does that, and in that instance I think it is "perfectly" "realistic". GURPS does that. Savage Worlds does that.

I don't like "Hyper-Realism" (to use our coined phrase). It doesn't add anything to the game experience. It has just about as much "Realism" as anything else (which is to say VERY LITTLE). Some people get their jollies with aspects of it. Generally, I don't. Huge damage, rolling for shock, rolling for bleeding, rolling for hit location, rolling for damage reduction, rolling for maimed limbs, rolling on the Brain Damage chart.

And all of that is as much "Realism" as "John, you take 15 points of damage from the gunman's critical hit, you'll need to roll a Massive Damage save. You fail? The bullet takes Moon Dog just to the side of his vest, he stumbles and falls." -Just as much.-

So, yes, I think d20Modern is "perfectly realistic" for a game. Do I think it is Reality-Brand Realism? Nope.

I even like d20M's brand because of its flexibility in the "realism" department. We can have an MDT set to Con, we can have an MDT set to 10 for a different flavor. We can have MDT set to 5+Con Mod and add Damage Conversion to armor. Flexibility while maintaining internal consistency is good.



--fje

 

[takyris]

I think that it's worth pointing out that there's a difference between realistic and granular. If I do research on handguns and find out that after all the data is calculated, a shot fired from a handgun kills its target 25% of the time, incapacitates its target 25% of the time, injures its target 25% of the time, and misses its target 25% of the time, I can make a game that simply has the player roll a d4 every time he pulls the trigger, and that game will be realistic. It won't be granular, though -- no differentiation for skill of the person firing, or for the skill of the person trying not to get shot, or for cover, or for range. But within those parameters -- looking at the stats and making a game that reflects those stats accurately -- it's realistic.

I have no idea whether d20 Modern is realistic. My gut tells me that it is trying to emulate cinematic combat rather than real-world statistical combat, which is good, because I want cinematic combat.

A lot of people who say they want something more realistic actually want something more granular. They want to know where the bullet hit, or where it grazed, or how far it missed by (I also go with "near misses" for low-damage shots on high-level characters). They want bleeding rules, and aren't satisfied with just having the GM say, "Tell me that you're tearing off a shirtsleeve to bandage the wound after the fight. That's how we handle bleeding here."

They say that they want more realism, but most bleeding rules I've seen don't accurately reflect what I've learned in first aid classes. They want more granularity... which often results in splatterpunk, not realism.

My two cents, Canadian.

 

[Herobizkit]

One thing that would amuse me is a Fortitude check to avoid puking when the character is coming down off the adrenaline rush.

"Well, Bob, you didn't save. You vomit in front of the cameras and all over a cameraman."

Happened to me. Every. Damn. Time.

Heh. I remember that GURPS has a character Disadvantage called "Post-Combat Shakes" that requires you to make a Will roll after combat or suffer a -X (can't remember the number, maybe 5?) penalty to ALL skills for a certain amount of time... or perhaps it was to make a low-difficulty Fright roll or end up doing stuff like standing there and staring, jittering uncontrolably, or puking. Can't remember which.