Wad-Cutter bullets - anyone heard of em?

[Petrosian]

Yes, and no, it is my experience that sound rules for variant ammo adds realism to the game, when that variant ammo is introduced in a logical, true-to-life (or at least, true-to-genre) and above all balanced manner.

I would hazard a guess that any "extra attention to detail" rules add-on (whether we are talking about rules for ammo, poisons, magic, rituals, computers or whatever) implemented as well as you qualify this for ammo... logical, sound, true-to-genre AND balanced (all in one simple Kit!!!) ... would be an addition to any game that sees that aspect in general use.

I just so rarely see all four of those criteria met by a sub-element add-on that i rarely give it significant consideration. This is part of the reason i shy away from too much detail. i find in a lot of cases that less is more, that if we dont get bogged down to differences in variances by grains, that the games play much more smoothly and keeps the focus on the more important elements, the characters, their choices and their impact.

As an example... i would much rather have a player say to me "Joshua will try and move to cover, someplace within pistol range" than have him say "Joshua will move to get 50% cover for the +2 to Ac so behind those crates since they are 3' tall and he wants to get to 32m so as to avoid the -2 more for being beyond 16" so he will take a round to push that crate 1 m closer."

FYI

I have the original UMF on a shelf. I picked it up back when i was buying Chameleon Eclectic's spy/agent/terrorism game... Millenium's End... if thats the right name. It was a real cool book as i recall. If i remember correctly it had a clear overlay for shot scatter that you would lay over your target's sil to see precisely where your shot landed.

 

[Thain]

I guess you and I differ on what sort of detail is added to the game by adding more specific weapon systems into a game. In the right genre --a Tom Clancy-esque type, for example-- I'd like good rules for variant ammo, hoping to find things like:

"Okay team, we'll need to board the oil tanker at 0400. Johnson has recommended that we use cold-loaded 9mm parabellum. To minimize chances of detection, and in case any evidence shoudl be left behind the 9mm round is typical of Israeli SpecOps. SHould we be compromised, the Secertary can implicate a forgein power. I'm also recommending we each take a clip of AP rounds... if we run into any more of those @#$% Troglodytes on this op..."

That said, I don't mind a bit of number-sided game-mechanic based tactical thinking being done by my players. If taking a 5' adjustment into Square X would give him a better bonus to hit next round, as oppossed the steping into Square Y... Wouldn't the PC behave in a way that benefits him tactically?

As for your example, isn't it simply two ways of the player describing his action in two different ways? The first is more narritive and desciptive, in the second the player speaks in game mechanics. The same thing gets done, either way, doens't it?

As for the second examples player thinking in game mechanics and numbers... maybe that player is just more left-brained. His action is still reasonable, and fun:

"Joshua will move to get 50% cover for the +2 to Ac so behind those crates since they are 3' tall and he wants to get to 32m so as to avoid the -2 more for being beyond 16" so he will take a round to push that crate 1 m closer."

Come on! Can' you just see Danny Glover, mid-firefight with a pack of goons, crouching behind a 3m crate? Mel Gibson is off elsewhere, so Danny needs to return fire... he leans around the box, and pops off a few shoots, most miss because, as Danny tells himself, "He's getting to old for this $#!+..." so, to narrow trhe gap he starts to push the crate he's behind slowly forward... firing of shots and wisecracks about Melgibson the whole time.