Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="RareBreed" data-source="post: 9162127" data-attributes="member: 6945590">I actually preferred Greg Porter's original  <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timelords_(role-playing_game)" target="_blank">TimeLords</a> (not to be confused with EABA TImeLords) and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceTime" target="_blank">SpaceTime</a> to EABA (1e or 2e).  IMHO,  SpaceTime had the best damage modelling of any game I have seen.  Sadly, he doesn't make those editions available in PDF.  The above two system even predate his CORPS system (the predecessor to EABA).  Only the EABA based Timelords is available as a PDF now.Speaking of Greg reminded me of his extremely excellent <a href="https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/1107/guns-guns-guns-v1-1" target="_blank">Guns! Guns! Guns!</a> for designing firearms. If you want physics, you just got it <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> It requires a calculator or a spreadsheet, and it is 146 pages of rules (with a wee-bit of background) about designing firearms with a section on energy weapons too.It considers things like muzzle energy vs. propellant energy and its Damage Value game metric is a matter of (muzzle energy * the diameter of the round).  It also considers the basics of ballistics like the length/width ratio and that lighter rounds lose their velocity more quickly.  The action of a weapon (eg, lever action, bolt action, revolver, etc) also factors into how much muzzle energy is lost.  It also considers firearm reliability, and things like the length of the barrel to impart more of the potential energy of ammunition.  It's quite an excellent read, and for gamers who have no real world experience with firearms, will bring them light years into a better understanding.Not all the way mind you.  But at least you'll understand why certain rounds have different weights and why they have different amounts of grains of powder.  He doesn't go into the minutiae of say, boat tail or other ogive, tangent or secant style cross-sectional ballistics.  And one of the things I didn't like about the system is that its Damage Value conflates damage and penetration in one metric.  In my own design, I would separate out the two.  One of the reasons the US military is finally ditching the 5.56mm round was its experience in the all the fighting in the Middle East, and how it's not a very lethal round even without modern body armor.When the Vietnam War happened, America's original round was the much heavier 7.62mm NATO round (which has a fascinating history in itself, as basically America tricked its allies into using this round) and the much heavier battle rifle the M14.  In jungle warfare, where firefights often happened at 100m or less, the need for long range but heavier rounds was found to be impractical.  Also America created a war doctrine that it was better to wound your enemy and have his comrades rescue him than outright killing him.However, more recent experience fighting in other environments has shown that long range, high penetration ammunition are often what is needed.  Many people don't realize how powerful modern 6mm+ rounds are (like the 6.5 creedmoor, the 7.62 NATO, or Lapua 338 are).  I kind of laugh in video games or TV shows where someone hides behind a dry wall, car, or couch as cover.  A 7.62 will easily go through a car door and have plenty of energy left to kill someone.  A single 7.62 can crack a cinder block at 50m.  Multiple shots will destroy a cinder block.  And despite that amazing feat, modern Level IV body armor will stop even very powerful rounds like .30-06 or 338 Lapua rounds.  Hence, the decision of the US Military to go to a hyper velocity round to defeat modern body armor.So why explain all that ammunition trivia?  Because...reality modelling.  I want games with this level of consideration.  I want a game where your character better not hide behind a car door thinking he's immune from being shot at.  And better yet, I want the players to know this bit of information as well.  In this crazy world today, who knows, it may even save your life. Part of the reason I got into martial arts when I was younger and took fencing in college, was I wanted to know the answer to the age old TTRPG'er (and HEMA/SCA)  question "who would win in a fight, a Samurai or a 17th century european fencer" (short answer, much to the chagrin of Samurai/Kendo/Bokken/Iaido fans is; don't underestimate a fencer either with a rapier or a sabre)?  As for the concern that "reality" is just something players agree upon, that's only a workable compromise when no one in the group knows otherwise.  Imagine for example, a GM rules that while adventuring underwater, you can use a bluetooth earphones to communicate with your scuba diving buddies.  Except...you cant, because the water will block the signal.  If no one in the group realizes that fact, fine, move along.   But what if a player knows that's impossible and challenges the GM's ruling?  I actually have deep concerns about "reality as a consensus".I remember a long time ago, when I was in my teens, we had an older guy in our group who had served in the military.  One of the guys just a year younger than me said he didn't like the WW2 movie, A Bridge Too Far, because the explosions weren't fiery enough to be "real" to him (remember, my generation was weaned on the A-Team).  The veteran quickly chimed in, "that's how real explosions are".  Or I recall hearing how Peter Jackson wanted Christoper Lee to make this sound when Wormtongue stabbed him in the back and Christopher told him "<a href="https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/peter-jackson-scared-christopher-lee-world-war/" target="_blank">Have you any idea what kind of noise happens when somebody is stabbed in the back? Because I do</a>".While models aren't perfect, they can try to be internally consistent.  And the less they deviate from our real-world experience, the less denial of plausibility we have to do.EDIT: fixed a typo and unclear sentences</blockquote>

Verification