Problems with firearms?

[swrushing]

[/QUOTE]

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

of course i did.

I did not want to assume that the example was anything but what it claimed to be.. an example showing the reasons the author was against having lethal threats for autofire.

I was not going to assume his players were acting incompetently. I assumed they were acting intelligently when they dismissed the threat.

Barring something stated to the contrary, i tend to assume competence when others actions are described to me. i findn it goes over better to overestimate someone else by default than to jump to the conclusion that they were stupid.

YMMV.

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?

Nothing, if a limp is enough for your guys.

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

Since i have not used the term "augmented lethal firearms" at all, i think i can safely say you are incorrect in your assumptions about my position or assumptions.

 

[swrushing]

In UA they have a reactive dodge option which allows you out of turn to declare a dodge, adding +4 to your AC (iirc) but costing you your next action.

The dodge on approach you describe would be seen in game perhaps as a full defensive approach, granting +4 to +6 to your ac, which if combined with cover, should amount to a significant reduction in the hit chances, requiring, as you agree, continuous fire to eventually get a hit. In my system, you would be looking at easily 20-30 more rounds expended to get the hit from these modifiers.

As stated before, if belt fed mgs were common in my games, i would look into adding a "max rof" to limit the number of volleys fired... so that a weapon like the p90 would be technically limited by its rof to 90 rounds per d20 round.

Since they are not in common use, so that ammo is the limiting factor, it is not necessary to go to this much trouble... combing online sites to get the weapon specific rpms.

Now, if i were using, for instance, spycraft's system (stargate specifically) where ammo has no weight and its a cinch for even a moderate level character to walk around with 1000 rounds of ammo or more and feel no encumbrance limitations, I might be needing a different mechanic.

Well, maybe they zig-zag towards the MG, Dodging for their lives - games like WEG Star Wars that use opposed Dodge rolls simulate this better than d20 IMO. A good example is in Saving Private Ryan, where the squad overrun an MG42 like this and only lose one man - one PC, in RPG terms. IRL even belt-fed weapons can't fire continuously for more than a few seconds, unless they have heavy water-cooling. In d20 it should be possible to make a full-round Dodge and greatly lessen the chance of being hit, although enough continous fire weapons tracking in on the target will eventually hit him eventually - the d6-hit system simulates tracking nicely, I find, although it lacks an inherent Dodge mechanic - maybe a full round Dodge action giving a Ref save to remove half the dice would work.

 

[Psion]

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.

Oy. I hate arguments like this.

If that is what it takes to make you enjoy your gaming experience, have a blast.

THAT SAID

Three things:
1) d20 Modern is not just a "cop show" or "post apocolypse" genre thing. It's a generic modern engine. Maybe some of us want to play "Full Metal Jacket the RPG" not "Lethal Weapon the RPG."

2) I feel action points add a degree of heroicness all by themselves.

3) I think what you are about is partly media emulation not genre emulation. In a short movie or a book, you have consistent focus characters, and it can be hard to identify with a book where the focus character shifts (try reading the SF novel "In Death Ground" for an example of what NOT to do in this vein.)

RPGs are their own media and we need not constrain ourselves to conventions that exist in other media because they are helpful for that media.

 

[Vigilance]

Oy. I hate arguments like this.

If that is what it takes to make you enjoy your gaming experience, have a blast.

I have no idea what this means, but I think I have just been insulted! lol

Three things:
1) d20 Modern is not just a "cop show" or "post apocolypse" genre thing. It's a generic modern engine. Maybe some of us want to play "Full Metal Jacket the RPG" not "Lethal Weapon the RPG."

See this is why I rarely jump into these threads.

Seriously though I think as someone who has read a few of my books you know that I am not hard and fast in favor of any one way. Blood and Guts runs the gamut from the heroic to the extremely gritty.

2) I feel action points add a degree of heroicness all by themselves.

Agreed.

3) I think what you are about is partly media emulation not genre emulation. In a short movie or a book, you have consistent focus characters, and it can be hard to identify with a book where the focus character shifts (try reading the SF novel "In Death Ground" for an example of what NOT to do in this vein.)

RPGs are their own media and we need not constrain ourselves to conventions that exist in other media because they are helpful for that media.

Well, I'm not sure I agree with this interpretation of my point. I am not big into shoe horning my games into a certain movie genre or mode. Mostly I was arguing in defense of the system as it stands. Because I see plenty of lethality.

And again, I was not trying to say anyone was wrong.

If you and your players are having fun, everything else is gravy.

Chuck

 

[ledded]

Oy. I hate arguments like this.

If that is what it takes to make you enjoy your gaming experience, have a blast.

Amen.

THAT SAID

Three things:
1) d20 Modern is not just a "cop show" or "post apocolypse" genre thing. It's a generic modern engine. Maybe some of us want to play "Full Metal Jacket the RPG" not "Lethal Weapon the RPG."

And I feel that Modern is flexible enough to handle this. One of the things our group likes best about Modern is the ability to tack on or replace certain rules reasonably easily.

2) I feel action points add a degree of heroicness all by themselves.

3) I think what you are about is partly media emulation not genre emulation. In a short movie or a book, you have consistent focus characters, and it can be hard to identify with a book where the focus character shifts (try reading the SF novel "In Death Ground" for an example of what NOT to do in this vein.)

RPGs are their own media and we need not constrain ourselves to conventions that exist in other media because they are helpful for that media.

Very true. I am a bit of a realism buff myself, but the fact is most of the other guys in our group are not; only one or two of them care to do the actual research it requires. So for the most part, d20 Modern firearm rules pretty much satisfy us to a good extent, with a few exceptions.

The fact is, even among educated reality-seekers, opinions over how to model things such as autofire are going to differ. Real-life experience, training, research, and mass media (movies, news, etc) influence how everyone thinks about this. For example, I personally dont think that autofire is nearly as effective against a *single target* as many people on these boards would like to believe, and dont agree with many folks's theories on why autofire was developed (i.e. strictly to be more deadly to that one guy). Barring extensive training, it just doesnt seem to be. I get that impression from having fired automatics a few times, doing research, talking to folks who know more, etc. It doesnt make me right, or an expert, but I'm comfortable with it.

We use the VP/WP system, crit's go straight to WP instead of multiplying (and any time you take WP damage you make a fort save or drop unconscious), armor provides some Defense (all the time, like 'cover') but also DR that is effective only when you are hit for WP damage (it you are hit for VP damage, you weren't really 'hit'), all firearms get bumped up one die, and you can take the UMF feats to increase effectiveness of your autofire.

What we have found is that it has been incredibly good and realistic for us; ordinaries only have WP (their Con score, average 9-10) so when they get shot by a 9mm, more often than not they dont instantly die... but they do fall down and bleed out about half the time. Heros and tough mooks can take some damage, but getting shot or hit by someone who is *really* good at melee is still extremely dangerous; even at 7th level we still dive over counters and grab cover when someone whips out an M-16. Untrained autofire is not as threatening as most folks would have it be, but a crit from an M-16 on burst *could* just about kill any one of us it hits if we didnt have armor DR. We follow normal autofire/double-tap/burst rules, and use improved autofire and suppressive fire from UMF; they may not be the most accurate, but they are accurate enough for us and keep the action fast. Would I like to handle double-taps, autofire, and other stuff differently? Yeah, but most of my group doesnt care that much to, so it works for us.

With these rules, we have done a long standing Modern campaign that is like a normal-guys-meets-the-XFiles game, and some shorter one-offs like a near-future uber-military SpecOps Stargate game, a game set in the 1830's, and a WWII game that ended up turning into a WWII Superheros game. I'm currently thinking about a 1920's-30's pulp game Indiana Jones-style for a future one-off. It worked out great in every case, with just small modifications to the base ruleset to get each one to work. One system, many games, many genre's.

Just what we wanted.

So despite the many technical issues with the game, particularly with firearms, IMO it accomplishes kind of what it set out to do.

 

[S'mon]

Purpose of autofire - in training in the British Territorial Army Reserve, they told us only to use autofire when 'assaulting through' a position - ie the few seconds when you're actually charging at & over enemy trenches and scrapes, blazing away madly (well, in "short controlled bursts") , and I suspect it's as much for the morale effect (positive on firer, negative on enemy) as for the lethality. Generally autofire seems intended for close range combat where you are firing at multiple close targets and haven't time to aim properly at each one. Assault rifle & most SMG autofire is not intended for sending twenty bullets into one target; that's usually ridiculous overkill. The possible exception is the anti-terrorist police use of SMGs, but these are still taught to fire 'short controlled bursts' - it might take 3-4 9mm rounds to be sure of downing a terrorist, but not 20.

I get the impression that the US, and certainly Russian, militaries advocate more frequent use of autofire at longer ranges, to gain fire superiority on the battlefield - on the principle that if you throw enough lead at the enemy, they take cover, they're 'suppressed' and you then are able to maneuver, possibly then assaulting-through the enemy position with grenades & even bayonets. Modern small-arms doctrine seems to be all about fire suppression, actually hitting anyone is very much secondary.

 

[swrushing]

FWIW, i do not think or mean to suggest that autofire IRL was developed "strictly" to provide the hose down one guy option. if it matters, autofire seems to have been, from my history channel level knowledge, to increase the FIREPOWER of the units, notionally the ability to throw bullets at the enemy by higher ROF.

The benefits if this FIREPOWER increase are many.

The specific tactical uses for it (options it allows to be attempted) include the supressive fire, cover fire, unaimed fire and so forth AS WELL AS the hose-down-oneguy getting multiple hits quickly. The latter one, whether intended by the original design or not, if frequently seen in the action film genre as a use for SMGs and Assault rifles and such.

 

[slingbld]

I have stayed out of this discussion so far.

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

Nice to hear from ya.

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 do have a very good point here.

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

I can agree with you on this. It would realy depend on the style of play you are looking for. If you are looking for the Action Hero type of game, D20M is made for that kinda stuff!

The realism is more for someone interested in playing in a more real world type genre I guess. I know a few people who are running a modern day military setting ala Blackhawk Down.
They look for the realism more than the Hloywoodism.

So I guess it realy depends on what you are looking for.

And yes, many players are on thier 2nd or 3rd character in that campaign, you die realy fast....

Slingbld~

 

[Gundark]

I share some of the common gripes with the way D20 Modern handles firearms, but I can't really say it any better than this fellow did.

you couldn't say it any better than is fellow did? Your talking about the arguement right? I'm no English language expert (it shows) but the way this guy used the English language made this article a complete pain to read.

 

[Psion]

I have no idea what this means, but I think I have just been insulted! lol

In short it means YMMV. IOW, I am not saying if that is the way you run things, then more power to you, but there are other ways to run things.

But as author of the gritty rules in Blood & Guts, I think you understand that.