NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="swrushing" data-source="post: 2475263" data-attributes="member: 14140"></blockquote>Actually, wow, you make that sounbd complicated. I assumed it would be handled by something as straight forward as listing a typical "loaded mag weight" right beside the "ammo in mag" column. Level of detail doesn't require getting down to per bullet for a handful of slugs in you coat pocket. but, you might not realize, there is a lot of room to play with between "dont count ammo for encumbrance" and "count every bullet and special load" and many games have played well in that room since as early as 1977, when, iirc, traveller did it using "typical mag weight."Now, of course this I can agree with. An encumbrance system which doesn't sweat the small stuff is great and not a bad design notion at all. The disconnect i had came in Stargate where the encumbrance system was actually very precise and did sweat the details and had weights for things like bottles of water tablets while AT THE SAME TIME doing the "below the radar" thing with the potential thousand rounds of ammo you toted.low detail encumbrance system = cool!High detail encumbrance system which then ignores a fairly important weight for a fairly important element = not cool!Do i gather from you guys redesign in Spy-2 that your encumbrance system is less detailed about the other stuff too and not just handwaving the ammo weight? IF so, that would be a plus. So, whats the smallest item weight actually listed then for encumbrance? Probably what a couple pounds? Do you have weights of less than a lb? of an lb?Summary: low detail on encumbrance, not bad at all. Low detail on encumbrance only one particular fairly heavy element of a primary story element (gunplay) and high detail on the rest... not so good?I think it was the "almost invariably fatal" part you added in there that gets you these problems.a feature that can be created by dint of their role, by the design of the NPC, and doesn't conflict with the autofire to-hit change at all. Hypothetical example: Remove the autofire penalty and raise the bar for bonus hits to say " 10 over for the first, 20 over for the second, 30 over for the third, etc and allow a hero point to gain an extra hit for you) which suddenly means autofire in the hands of the faceless mooks (built with rather low BAB, no hero points) is pretty much the same as single shot in effectiveness as they rarely if ever get the second hit in, while our heroes can find utility out of it either thru hero pt or thru high enough bab. (Not the higher threshold for extra hits also keeps the number of extra hits low, somewhat like i see described for autofire... one-two extras hits at most, usually only one.)IE, in the movies, the mooks miss because they are mooks and not because autofire sucks. If you are looking for cinematic feel, realize, its not about the gun. As for autofire becoming just better than normal fire and people using it all the time, there are plenty of drawbackls to autofire. When these don't apply, it is better than single shot.Obvious drawbacks include ammo usage (carrying tons of ammo is tough, especially on missions as opposed to sitting in your evil guy's complex), the hail of "unaimed" bullets is very dangerous to anything you don't want to hit in the area, like valuables (think the climax of rush hour, or was that rush hour two?) especially to civilians say down the street, not reliably silenced (iirc), and of course increased problem with mechanical errors. of these the ammo usage is probably the more common depending on the fight's setting... but of course if ammo doesn't weigh anything,..In my games, for instance, ammo (by typical mag size) has weight and is counted by encumbrance like other things are. heck, its one of the serious "track it" kind of items. Autofire is better than normal fire (but not to the overwhelmingly over-lethal draw up new characters all the time level you seem to leap immediately to) and the downsides  play a role because of that abd because of scenario setting and challenge demands as often as not.Really, there are middle grounds between making autofire mechanics the cause of mooks spraying wildly misses and your alternative of having autofire result in death by the score scenarios. Clearly, i should have said "chance of error" instead of relying on your game term "error" which does mean "chance of error". Certainly, you are correct, the Gm is the judge on when an eror occurs when the chance comes up. But if you don't intend the Gm to use or consider the error chance rolling up in this decision, why have error rates at all? But again, i dont really have an answer to this using your system.In my games, most weapons don't have an error rate by default. They can gain one by abuse or by lack of proper care or by extended use without routine repair. things like autofire also give them a smjall chance of error. of course, for me, error means more than mechanical failure, and it can also mean things like an unfortunate ricochet or hitting something you did not want to, and pretty much each "point" (dice actually) of error chance added by the Gm has a "reason" for it.Rambling on but, here is the key, by setting the bar at "0 error chance and add chance with cause" I don't have to futz with all those "rolled an error but hey, no error occurs" thingies. My people only have to check their rolls for chance of error when it will mean an error occurs.I would swing opposite from you in that, for me, making my guys check their rolls for "error chances" when i wont give them an error regardless makes me feel stupid. and, as i stated before your clever mockery on account of it, absolutely not a system i would buy again. you guys pro'ly did a bunch of really neat things in the "other parts of the game" but, to my surprise, didn't seemingly address any of the issues i had originally. enjoy.[/QUOTE]

Verification