Problems with firearms?

[VirgilCaine]

It seems to me that with this mechanic, an NPC (no matter how feeble) can kill any PC (no matter what level) automatically in one round if given enough amunition. That hardly sounds like fun from the PCs perspective.

Aaron

If the PC is close enough that autofire is a realistic option, and they are facing an experienced enemy, that sounds reasonable. I mean, PCs aren't supposed to be charging at belt-fed weapons...

 

[Vigilance]

I have stayed out of this discussion so far.

However, I have to chime in at this point in the discussion.

I do not think many of the changes being advocated would be *any fun*.

Also, many of the changes being advocated here are not representative of the genre.

When Mad Max gets shot he doesnt keel over and die.

When Dirty Harry gets shot he doesnt keel over and die.

You guys are arguing realism.

*Realistically* Aragorn should have died the first time he got stabbed.

*Realistically* Bruce Lee should have had his head caved in the first time Chuck Norris connected with a Roundhouse kick.

I just don't see the need or the fun for some of the changes being proposed. I know I wouldn't want *my* 15th level character killed by some 0 level commoner guerilla who gets his hands on a beat up AK-47.

And I'm fairly certain it never happened to Mack Bolan, or any other adventure movie or novel either.

Chuck

 

[swrushing]

It seems to me that with this mechanic, an NPC (no matter how feeble) can kill any PC (no matter what level) automatically in one round if given enough amunition. That hardly sounds like fun from the PCs perspective.
Aaron

is it more fun for the "right way" to handle a machine gun nest to be to say "Ok i got enough HP so i will just run straight up and toss in a grenade!"?

having just concluded a three year DND 3.0 game and taking the same players into a more realistic game using, among other things, this mechanic for autofire, i find that having autofire be a serious threat doesn't result in unhappy players throwing their PCs straight ahead into machine gun fire at close range and getting their characters killed willy nilly.

Instead, it has produced players whose characters take more realistic approaches to problems. When they choose combat to solve a problem, they emphasize ambush tactics and surprise. When faced with enemy firepower, cover is usually the first choice. its not uncommon for the early acting character to move to cover, maybe even go prone, and act to help those not yet gone, with smoke rounds or suppressive fire.

So far, it seems like they are having lots of fun, amazingly, in spite of the fact that not one of them expects for their character to be standing if they let their character get hosed down by an enemy with an M16 at close range.

 

[Vigilance]

is it more fun for the "right way" to handle a machine gun nest to be to say "Ok i got enough HP so i will just run straight up and toss in a grenade!"?

having just concluded a three year DND 3.0 game and taking the same players into a more realistic game using, among other things, this mechanic for autofire, i find that having autofire be a serious threat doesn't result in unhappy players throwing their PCs straight ahead into machine gun fire at close range and getting their characters killed willy nilly.

Instead, it has produced players whose characters take more realistic approaches to problems. When they choose combat to solve a problem, they emphasize ambush tactics and surprise. When faced with enemy firepower, cover is usually the first choice. its not uncommon for the early acting character to move to cover, maybe even go prone, and act to help those not yet gone, with smoke rounds or suppressive fire.

So far, it seems like they are having lots of fun, amazingly, in spite of the fact that not one of them expects for their character to be standing if they let their character get hosed down by an enemy with an M16 at close range.

Your players are having fun. That's job #1 and is a credit to you running a good game.

However, I have players who react realistically to gunfire, and situations have arisen where one will take a full clip because they just got surprised. It isnt always a big machine gun nest you knew was coming.

The 0 level commoner (he was actually a 1st level Dedicated hero) did get bypassed by my special ops PCs because they thought he wasnt a threat and he did pick up an AK 47 from a downed soldier and spray the PCs at close range from total surprise.

I bet they're really glad I didn't have some rule in effect that killed the whole party. But I revolve my games around heroes.

Realistic? I think so.

But not to the point that some in this thread have been lobbying for.

Chuck

 

[swrushing]

[/QUOTE]

Also, many of the changes being advocated here are not representative of the genre.
When Mad Max gets shot he doesnt keel over and die.
When Dirty Harry gets shot he doesnt keel over and die.
You guys are arguing realism.

The genre doesn't have dirty harry or mad max being bulletproof, so that they KNOW that a gunshot wont kill them. The answer for either of these two to having enemies with guns pointed at him is to create distraction, drop them, be BETTER, not knwoing they will just get shot and be OK.

in many action genre films, taking cover, running instead of just stepping out and taking hits, and so forth are seen as part of the action but those self same moves and choices become incomprehensible when you have 100 hp and he has a 1d6 damage gun.

having lethal POTENTIAL for any shot does not equate to killing off your star character at the drop of a hat... but it might well produce very in genre and sensible action choices within the game.

I just don't see the need or the fun for some of the changes being proposed. I know I wouldn't want *my* 15th level character killed by some 0 level commoner guerilla who gets his hands on a beat up AK-47.

Why would you assume that would happen?

Why wouldn't you assume that IF somehow a guerilla rookie gets the drop on your 15th level guy with a beat up Ak-47 that your 15th level character would be able to intimidate him, trick him into looking away for a second, or wait for an opportune moment of hesitation from the rookie and drop him with a scarily accurate knife throw to the throat?

Those are the types of reactions to the situation we would see in those action films with mad max or dirty harry.

However, if the RULES prevent the threat from the Ak-47 to be a serious one, then IN GAME we see the method of handling it to be just taking the shots, letting the guy shoot, knowing you will be fine as you pummel him to unconsciousness.

Dirty harry doesn't laugh and grin as the Ak slugs bounce harmlessly off him.
mad max doesn't snarl and step forward as slugs rip into him causing no real harm. They would need to use one of the other approaches listed above IN THEIR MOVIES, not simply rely on hit points and a known safety.

And I'm fairly certain it never happened to Mack Bolan, or any other adventure movie or novel either.

Chuck

Nor does mad max or dirty harry just take an ak clip worth of shots and then beat the guy because they "know" they have plenty of hit points.

if the Ak is a lethal threat, then they find ways to avoid that threat... distraction, intimidation, etc. Thats how it works in genre. In game, if its just a wall of hit points, those genre effect cease to be needed or even rewarded significantly.

having a lethal threat is not the same as killing your stars willy nilly.

 

[Vigilance]

Well I think the massive damage rule does that well enough as is. Remember there is no magic healing in realistic d20 Modern which I run.

So one failed MDT save means you are out of the adventure. At best hiding behind the other characters and limping through.

That is enough of a "lethal threat" to make my PCs behave realistically.

You have created a straw man argument here. Not having the chance to instantly die from gunfire somehow equals charging a machine gun nest with a knife.

I think the rules are just fine for cinematic but realistic, gaming.

Chuck

 

[swrushing]

The 0 level commoner (he was actually a 1st level Dedicated hero) did get bypassed by my special ops PCs because they thought he wasnt a threat and he did pick up an AK 47 from a downed soldier and spray the PCs at close range from total surprise.

I bet they're really glad I didn't have some rule in effect that killed the whole party. But I revolve my games around heroes.

Realistic? I think so.

Haven't had that precise situation come up in my games, but i would not expect my PCs to get that outcome.

They would not ever assume an AK would not be a threat. They would know even a commoner could kill them with an Ak. So they would not have "thought he wasn't a threat."

First and foremost, since any gun can be a lethal threat on the first shot, and assault weapons especially, they tend to watch those very carefully. Ak 47s would be policed if possible and if they could not be, they would not be lowering their guard.

Again, the fact that the threat exists as POSSIBLE within the rules tends to make them not be lax about the risk.

i imagine if they KNEW an Ak-47 wasn't a threat, they might not worry about a commoner and a loose Ak either, since they would KNOW that he would not be able to seriously threaten them.

I also expect that, your players, if they thought "this guy can kill me if i am not careful" would not have ignored the guy to the extent of him getting a full action (or more) worth of actions before they could react (picking up gun and firing)

I am sure you are right, your players are happy they were not surprised with a lethal rule. Their actions SHOW that they KNEW there wasn't a real threat there... a commoner with an Ak lying around is nothing to be worried about, so they didn't. They may even have wondered why he would be so suicidal as to take them on with an Ak and a surprise round. Didn't he know it wasn't a real threat?

However, where we might differ is, i also bet your players would have been happy with an "AK can kill rule" and would have handled the situation differently if they knew the Ak-commoner was a real threat.

Expectations drive choices and choices drive outcomes.

FWIW, IMG autofire is a full action so he would be able to p[ick up the gun on the surprise round and then run into initiative before he gets the shots off. odds are, my groups scout guy (excellent spot and listen) would have a chance of noticing his action and not get surprised or my teams leader guy (high initiative) would get a chance to shoot first, dropping the commoner before he gets the shots off.

I personally find either of those outcomes... party scout doesn't drop guard and gets the guy when he goes for the gun... or party leader yells "ambush" as the guy cocks the Ak and hoses him down before he can waste the team scientist... as very much an example of GENRE... and HEROIC... and FUN as it highlights and rewards the specific character traits.

i find both of thoise outcomes and sequences vastly preferrable to "Ok he hoses you down with bullets, mark off 20 hit points, now take him out so we can keep moving."

Don't you agree?

 

[Ranger REG]

Thats what i figured. So far, it has not happened that way in play. matter of fact, autofire is one of the quicker ways to drop an enemy.

Again, you subscribed to the philosophy that autofire is to create more damage.

And just remember, your PC can also be the "enemy" your opponent can drop quickly.

if you decide to try it in a real game, and your playtest shows it makes combats go longer, then definitely let me know.

Well, we're kinda hoping that your group would try it, with second-hand PCs (no sense putting their most prized PCs on the line) on a sidetrek adventure.

 

[Vigilance]

i find both of thoise outcomes and sequences vastly preferrable to "Ok he hoses you down with bullets, mark off 20 hit points, now take him out so we can keep moving."

Don't you agree?

Once again you make the assumption that the damage under the rules was blase.

The PC who took the brunt of the attack failed a massive damage save and limped through the rest of the adventure. The PCs cursed themselves for not policing the weapon and learned from their mistake.

What's wrong with that?

You make a very false assumption that any game that doesnt use incredibly augmented lethal firearms rule leads to "just mark off 20 HP". I just haven't seen that in my gaming experience.

Chuck

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Just some notes:

What Hit Points Represent
Hit points mean two things in the game world: the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one.
(...)
Why the difference? Partly because the Tough hero is better at rolling witht the punches, protecting vital areas, and dodging just enough that a blow that would be fatal only wounds him. Partly because he is tough as nails.

So, if a character is hit (enemy attack roll exceeds AC), that does not automatically mean he is hit in a vital area. If he has enough hp, he has dodged the most effects. Think of it as if he just tumbled (not rulewise tumbled, just visually tumbled) in the moment someone shot at him that he didn`t take any real damage except maybe from the tumbling maneuver, and maybe the shot hit his clothes, but not his flesh...

This is the reason why high level heros can survive the hit of a LAW - they weren`t really hit directly, they jumped and tumbled out of the way, luckily avoiding the direct hit and most of the explosion. The unexperienced "commoner" (smart ordinary 1) that accomponied the, unfortunately, was completely surprised, didn`t attempt any dodging and is now scattered over a wide area...

This is the idea that is behind the D20 system (including D20 Modern and D&D 3.0 + 3.5). It explains the abstract concept of hp and why they might make sense, at least on a cinematic or heroic scale. Not entirely realistic, sure, but it makes the game playable.

To avoid that heros underestimate enemies, D20 Modern introduces the Massive Damage Threshold (at the low number of damage = Constitution Score). At high level, it might seem a neglible threat, but remember:

Saving Throws
(...)
A natural 1 (the d20 comes up 1) on a saving throw is always a failure.

And even a 20th level hero only has base saving throw of +10. And he is a real high level character, he should be able to take some punishment. He is a hero, not your average person. He is even more than an experienced soldier, or a combat-trained veteran. (at least, if he is a fighting type character. But even if he is only a Smart10/Field Scientist10, he probably has similar capabilities as the experienced soldier or combat veteran...)

Mustrum Ridcully