Storyteller01
First Post
jmucchiello said:
A bullet efficiency study using information from the last 10 years showed that a a .45 hollow point will drop a target 95% of the time. I'll get the link when I find an internet version.
Realistic Combat
- Thread starter mmadsen
- Start date
A bullet efficiency study using information from the last 10 years showed that a a .45 hollow point will drop a target 95% of the time. I'll get the link when I find an internet version.
painandgreed
First Post
I do WW2 re-enactment which involves shooting blanks out of real guns at eachother, and the big thing that strikes me as unrealistic in most RPG combat is the speed and lack of hesitation that it happens at. For HtH or close combat gunfights where everybody is shapshooting, it might make a good approximation. For longer ranged gunfights, say in the woods at 50+ yards, things do not happen that quickly, at least for the person being shot at. In d20 terminology, it takes several spot checks just to figure out where the shooter is. Muzzle flash adds a decent modifier but only if they continue to shoot at you. Usually this time is spent diving for cover instead of looking for an attacker while you're being shot at. If being shot at, many people tend to stay behind cover and keep their head down. The only system I've really seen address this is Twilight 2000 in both hesitation and location of targets.
D&D is not about gun fights, but I thought this, from The SOP9 Report - An Analysis Of NYPD Police Combat, might add to the discussion of how often attacks should hit:
Hit Potential In Gun Fights
The police officer's potential for hitting his adversary during armed confrontation has increased over the years and stands at slightly over 25% of the rounds fired. An assailant's skill was 11% in 1979.
In 1990 the overall police hit potential was 19%. Where distances could be determined, the hit percentages at distances under 15 yards were:
Less than 3 yards ..... 38%
3 yards to 7 yards .. 11.5%
7 yards to 15 yards .. 9.4%
In 1992 the overall police hit potential was 17%. Where distances could be determined, the hit percentages at distances under 15 yards were:
Less than 3 yards ..... 28%
3 yards to 7 yards .... 11%
7 yards to 15 yards . 4.2%
The police officer's potential for hitting his adversary during armed confrontation has increased over the years and stands at slightly over 25% of the rounds fired. An assailant's skill was 11% in 1979.
In 1990 the overall police hit potential was 19%. Where distances could be determined, the hit percentages at distances under 15 yards were:
Less than 3 yards ..... 38%
3 yards to 7 yards .. 11.5%
7 yards to 15 yards .. 9.4%
In 1992 the overall police hit potential was 17%. Where distances could be determined, the hit percentages at distances under 15 yards were:
Less than 3 yards ..... 28%
3 yards to 7 yards .... 11%
7 yards to 15 yards . 4.2%
3catcircus
Adventurer
mmadsen said:
And that is part of what is wrong with society today... While narrow in scope in comparison to the rest of US society at the time, the Wild West really wasn't that wild. Probably because noone wanted to risk acting like a jerk and angering their neighbors and ending up shot full of holes...
Henry said:
Not sure form the grammer the main thrust here too easy or too hard, but can explain a bit how such critical hit approaches can be made to function. (1) the chance of getting a critical hit is relative based on differneces in level, chance to hit, what have you -the result higher level gets a better chance to cirtical hit agains lower level, lower level worse chance against higher level. (2) Critical hit does not mean instant death, necessarily -but damage against these VP/WP which you have far fewer of -result a high level against a low level is likely to be doing enough damage that a critical hit kills them outright, thus your Conan wading through beast men slaying with every blow.
A low level against a high level has a lower chance to get a critical and is also likely to be doing lower damage, so it is unlikley that one blow will slay the hero; but the spread between damage and VL/WP is far less than hit points, so if a couple of the low level guys get lucky its all over. It doesn't stop the heroe taking on 50 orcs, but their is a chance, evenif slim of quick death. I've found that even that slim chance can cahnge palyer behavior.
On the knife at the throat, that to me is an automatic critcal hit. If your a tough bastard, it may not do enough to kill you, yet the second blow might very well. Then it becomes a matter of initiative and struggle for that knife.
Finally some numbers. In what I run, players against weaker foes, have about a 5-6% to get a critical, these same foes have maybe a 2% chance. If you vastly overmatch your opponent, an 8-10% chance. We're not playing 3.x so there is no extra critical chance attached to various weapons.
We're a soft-hearted bunch that's tough to kill. 
Heard of one case from the attack on Pearl Harbor Dec. 7th 1941. In the story a Japanese pilot was forced to land in a field where some Hawaiians were working. He gave orders, which the Hawaiians didn't understand. One large man then approached him at a slow walk. The pilot pulled out his sidearm (a nambu) and emptied it into the fellow. As he was reloading the Hawaiian grabbed him and proceeded to beat him to death.
Thus we get the saying, "Never shoot an Hawaiian, you'll only piss him off."
Heard of one case from the attack on Pearl Harbor Dec. 7th 1941. In the story a Japanese pilot was forced to land in a field where some Hawaiians were working. He gave orders, which the Hawaiians didn't understand. One large man then approached him at a slow walk. The pilot pulled out his sidearm (a nambu) and emptied it into the fellow. As he was reloading the Hawaiian grabbed him and proceeded to beat him to death.
Thus we get the saying, "Never shoot an Hawaiian, you'll only piss him off."
Nlogue
First Post
mythusmage said:We're a soft-hearted bunch that's tough to kill.
Heard of one case from the attack on Pearl Harbor Dec. 7th 1941. In the story a Japanese pilot was forced to land in a field where some Hawaiians were working. He gave orders, which the Hawaiians didn't understand. One large man then approached him at a slow walk. The pilot pulled out his sidearm (a nambu) and emptied it into the fellow. As he was reloading the Hawaiian grabbed him and proceeded to beat him to death.
Thus we get the saying, "Never shoot an Hawaiian, you'll only piss him off."
While on the subject of ad ass island peoples of the South Pacific. Did you know the .45 automatic was developed because lesser calibers had almost no effect on the Tagalog fighters opposing U.S. troops in the Spanish American War?
Some cool stuff on this thread by the way. Even though most of the research I've done on dueling goes a totally different way, especially during the Restoration, when the smallsword became the weapon of choice and the fatality rate of duels jumped to 80%, and the time they lasted decreased exponentially.
For every Dorset, there are like fifty guys that skewered in the first two seconds of the duel, go into shock and die.
Knifes are incredibly lethal when wielded with skill by the way. Even a deep wound on an extremity can cause a victim to go into shock and die.
I don't know I would put my faith in these statistics above. Does anyone really think 10% of us would survive if we were lined up and shot? I dunno.
Nlogue
First Post
On the greater topic though, I don't know if a super accurate level of versimilitude is necessary or even wanted in roleplaying. I like the fights to be dramatic and full of intensity. I could care less how plausible they are so long as the level of plausibility isn't stretched to breaking and everyone has to go "that's hokey." And for my group it takes a whole hell of lot of stretching to illicit that response in a high-octane high-fantasy game. 
RFisher said:
Nothing unrealistic about them at all. There's a limit to how well someone can function while injured that has less to do with pain than fractures and shock. Shock is a particularly good model because the way its stages affect the body are well recorded. They are:
* metabolic acidosis, which causes a burning sensation, other pain, and nausea. This is the first, immediate result of shock.
* Compensation includes vasoconstriction and other attempts to preserve blood volume, many of which reduce subjective discomfort but do not actually help performance. This does not actually prevent progressive acidosis though and eventually passes.
* Lastly, we get to organ failure, which isn't great for your sword swing.
Yes, there are lots of *subjective* reports about people gritting their teeth and injuries that seem horrible are often medically trivial, but the fact is that the compensatory stages of shock, fight/flight response and other psychological factors make people highly unrelaible reporters of their own competence. Plus, MDs don't measure how god your kung fu is after getting shot or stabbed and even military accounts are focused on performance that has little to do with the dynamic, close-quarters action of RPGs.
The effects of fractures, dislocations and the like on performance should be obvious.
What *can* be unrealistic is how damage is calculated before being applied to a given track, and how to assess damage at all. There should be plenty of chances for 0-damage results on the track, for instance.
Numion
First Post
Wraith-Hunter said:
An important point of the study was that the 90% wasn't useless - they would fetch ammunition, serve crew weapons and do other tasks helpful to their side. They were just squemish about shooting to kill.
For example, when storming and clearing a trench, the second dude is equally important to the shooter (the point man). His task is to reload the assault weapon the point man hands to him after emptying it, and giving him his loaded weapon at the same time, so the shooter is always packing a loaded weapon.
