Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ledded" data-source="post: 1431275" data-attributes="member: 12744">Amen.  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.  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.</blockquote>

Verification