Players Reactions to Weapons tables

[Zane]

The following is pretty harsh, and I feel like some background info on our group is needed. Our group has been playing CoC since early 2003, with some of us playing RPG's since the early 80's. All four of us have real experience with guns. The other guy in our group and I have both had weapons training in the military, and he's an active shooter. Both of us, and the two women in our group grew up around guns and shooting. Of the four of us, I probably have the least experience with multiple gun types.

We were able to get together yesterday, and as I expected my players weren't happy with the firearms table in the new book. In fact their reactions were worse than I'd expected. Our resident "Gun Fondler" spent about 45 minutes picking apart not just the table in the new book, but also the Call of Cthulhu and Delta Green weapons tables (I had expected him to have studied both previously, especially since he has DG).

The following questions were asked.

1. Has anyone involved with creating these weapons tables ever actually touched a gun?

2. Why isn't there a table showing what someone with a given strength can do. The best examples of this that I can think of are in the HERO system.

3. Who is moving the Sniper Rifle for someone that has a STR 5 minimum.

4. How did this get past the play testers, followed with a why on earth wasn't this run past them.

The following points were raised:

1a. Such a vague weapons table is unacceptable

1b. If the book is printed with such basic weapons types, it's going to get negative reviews.

2. Look at Youtube videos of someone firing a Barrett Light .50 (Sniper Rifle).

3. In the CoC gun table there are several items that don't make sense, including different damages for what is basically the same weapon (granted this has nothing to do with the new book).

I'm afraid I have to agree with pretty much everything they said, and must confess I got a chuckle out of the who is moving the sniper rifle question. Though if I read correctly a STR 5 person should be able with some effort to move it. The one player is supposed to be taking a good look at the spreadsheet I've been trying to do up to convert the 5.6 CoC Weapons Table to include the stats in the new BRP book.

Realistically I don't expect most of this to be fixed this late in production, however, it would be nice if it could. In Jason's defense, it looks like he mostly just dumbed down the CoC gun tables, making them very generalized, and adding in the new stats.

[Kyle Aaron]

1. Most firearms are not that heavy, really.
   
2. Bipods
   
3. Try Palladium, they published a whole book about gunz.

[Zane]

1. Most firearms are not that heavy, really.
   
2. Bipods
   
3. Try Palladium, they published a whole book about gunz.

Watching a Barrett Light .50 being fired, I am curious how a STR 5 character could handle the beating. BTW, it weighs in at 31 pounds, not including ammo.

The Palladium book was actually the worst of the weapons books we had on hand yesterday. Which reminds me I still need to order my own copy of Kevin Dockery's "Edge of the Sword Volume 1 - Compendium of Modern Firearms". I'd asked the one player to bring his copy of this so I could check it out, and he brought the Palladium book as well. Most likely I'll order copies of both the Compendium and the Palladium book, as I did like some info in it. As for the Compendium it looks nicer than Kevin Dockery's older "The Armory, Volume 1", and has the advantage of including BRP stats. I also have the two BTRC Guns books.

[Joseph Paul]

Zane I agree with you about the issues you and your players raise. Several players of my regular group in the 80's did not like the rules or stats for the guns. We were involved in some playtesting for cthulhu by Gaslight and pretty much did things by RAW.

I admire the crunchiness that is availible in games like GURPS or with BTRC's G3. One answer to your question comes from using G3 to find a rational formula to use for creating or redacting firearms in CoC. CoC (and by extension BRPCore) appears to fail to have any rational reason for the damages given. I had hoped that BRPCore would be able to set some standards for damage and a host of other things but it looks like that was not the intent.

I agree that this issue will probably get mentioned in reviews. I hope that it is enough to cause Chaosium to start on a set of upgrades that will culminate in a game that can span rules lite to hardcore crunch.

I am serious enough about the crunch that I just bought several GURPS 4th ed books because they have what I want. When BRPCore comes out I will give it a look. I always liked D100 better than 3D6 and I may just look into porting the vehicle and firearms over to BRP.

Joseph Paul

[Joseph Paul]

Do the Edge of the Sword conversions make more sense than the BTRC G3 ones?

Do EotS conversions give you the same stats for the guns in CoC?

Joseph Paul

[Joseph Paul]

Watching a Barrett Light .50 being fired, I am curious how a STR 5 character could handle the beating.

CON 16.

Joseph Paul

[Atgxtg]

I've found 3G gun values to be decent. EABA ones, with alittle ttweaking can work for BRP too.

THe big issue is that BRPS damage system (hit/damage./drop dead) doesn't mirror the real world very well, and guns brings that under the microscope more than swords and axes (we don't have to many axe fights anymore).

THe real world chances of killing someone outright with any firearm is slightly higher than nil. Giving them an injury that will kill them sooner or later is, conversely, slightly lower than 100%.

Any damage tables won't match up well with the hit point system. Even worse, the difference between hit locations and general hit points is such that the effects are about 30-40% more severe with hit locations.

[Kyle Aaron]

Watching a Barrett Light .50 being fired, I am curious how a STR 5 character could handle the beating. BTW, it weighs in at 31 pounds, not including ammo.

Again I say, "bipod".

Despite the "light" in the name of the thing, it's the heaviest personal weapon any soldier is likely to ever have. There's a reason the soldiers who carry it have a pistol as backup.

I'm not sure what you mean by "handle the beating". Do you mean the recoil? Being able to handle recoil is a function of practice and skill, not strength. I have seen 10 stone women handle it with ease while 18 stone men came out with huge bruises on their shoulders. The difference was simply experience with firearms, knowing how to hold them, not anticipating the recoil and flinching, and so on. It's skill. Which in BRP is measured by a % value. So characters who "can't handle the beating" are those with low skill. Their minor bruises are modelled by that low skill. Those who can handle it are those with high skills.

As for the "vague weapons table", I think that any game system which puts weapons in categories is going to have this effect that the lightest or heaviest in each category don't fit very well. Unless you list every weapon in existence - which would be a bit of a pain - either you list lots and miss some out, or you make categories and get this issue of some weapons at the extremes of each category not quite fitting in.

For an example of the level of detail you can go to if you want, just hop onto any rpg discussion list and talk about "45 vs 9mm". Sit back and toast virtual marshmallows on the empassioned flames that burst forth.

The Palladium book was actually the worst of the weapons books we had on hand yesterday.

But it does have a longer list of weapons than BRP apparently does, which answers one of your requests about a "vague weapons table."

Again, as with the hit points, the issue is that every game system handles things with some degree of abstraction. The only question is what degree of abstraction you're happy with. Whatever level of abstraction you choose, you're going to get results which seem strange to you.

And of course, reality has strange results, too. I knew a guy once who broke his ankle stepping off a curb - put that in a game and your players will tell you that you're cruel and it's unrealistic. But then there was a guy up in Bendigo once who drove his car down his driveway every day bumped over a rock. Every day he said, "bugger of a thing, when I get home I'll dig it up." But every day after work he was tired so he didn't. But after eight years he finally acted and dug it up - under the clay and granite it was a 22kg gold nugget. Try putting that in a game session and see what happens.

That does not mean that all strange results are somehow realistic. What it does mean is that you should understand that since not even reality is believable and sensible to everyone, no game system's abstractions will be, either.

What you have to do is ask yourself, "what's this game really about?" Whatever the game is supposed to be about, that's where the least abstraction should be. For example, if I'm roleplaying a romantic drama, I can get away with "highest roll wins" for a combat system; if I'm roleplaying tactical combat in a guerilla war, an equally simple system for social interactions will work, but I'll want something more detailed for combat.

The BRP writers have designed a level of abstraction which is designed to suit a wide variety of campaigns. That it doesn't suit your campaign specifically isn't really a fair criticism of it. I mean, there was a guy on the GURPS forums who was going to run a campaign of being young gymnasts for his wife and daughter. GURPS doesn't have detailed rules for all that - but he didn't bitch about GURPS, because he realises it's supposed to be a universal system, covering most campaigns, not all; so he just said, "what are some house rules I could have to bring this out?"

[Atgxtg]

Again, as with the hit points, the issue is that every game system handles things with some degree of abstraction. The only question is what degree of abstraction you're happy with. Whatever level of abstraction you choose, you're going to get results which seem strange to you.

But the frequency of the strangeness will be a factor in how acceptable something is. I've seen some RPGs that handle firearm damages rather well. Deriatives of RQ/BRP have generally not been among them. In part due to the fact that firearms have been something of a sideshow in those games that had them. Most the monsters in Call of Cthlulhu are highly resistant, as as superheroes and villians.

[soltakss]

The following is pretty harsh, and I feel like some background info on our group is needed. Our group has been playing CoC since early 2003, with some of us playing RPG's since the early 80's. All four of us have real experience with guns. The other guy in our group and I have both had weapons training in the military, and he's an active shooter. Both of us, and the two women in our group grew up around guns and shooting. Of the four of us, I probably have the least experience with multiple gun types.

I've got no experience with guns at all, living in the UK and not being in the army, a gun club or a gang, so to me all I need in a set of firearm rules is a chance to hit, how much damage it does and, maybe, jamming and multishot rules.

But, many people do use firearms and know how they work, so a more realistic, but playable, firearms table would be useful.

Realistically I don't expect most of this to be fixed this late in production, however, it would be nice if it could. In Jason's defense, it looks like he mostly just dumbed down the CoC gun tables, making them very generalized, and adding in the new stats.

So, how would you do it? Given that you have both firearms and RPG experience, you must have some ideas of what the tables should look like?

[Joseph Paul]

And there is one of the problems that BRPCore is going to have to overcome- adjusting it's rules to fit the foci of a universal game.

The gun rules seem to come mostly from CoC. That game really introduced firearms to the Runequest/BRP system. The focus in CoC is on investigating monstrous, sanity wrenching, occult conspiracies to bring back long forgotten masters. Many of the minions of these masters are nigh on bullet proof to begin with so tactical use of guns is not too finely worked out. Guns don't hurt them much so why work out much detail on them?

In a universal set of rules the focus is variable and the rules ought to reflect that. My frustration is that 20 years later I am going to get a set of firearm rules that still don't work well for a number of settings.

[Joseph Paul]

Well put Atgxtg.

Does everybody just type faster than me?

Soltakss:

I am a little more radical in my approach to this question because, like Atgxtg, I believe that it is easy to wound somebody such that they stop resisting and harder to kill them instantly. With that in mind I would probably play with BRPs definition of "death". Lengthen it into the negative hit point range and create a mechanic for staying concious below a certain point. Set a standard for firearms damage that is based on RW performance and go to town stating things up. I would want a value for how easy weapons are to aim, carry, how they malfunction, use of common accessories like scopes and rules for different modes of firing.

The big thing for me right now is that I find the pistols to be too powerful and the longarms to be weak. Rundown one and increase the other. Then see if you get similar outcomes in game to RW perfomance. If the game stats for a 12 ga entry gun can't blow the lock on a door then something is wrong isn't it?

[Atgxtg]

In a universal set of rules the focus is variable and the rules ought to reflect that. My frustration is that 20 years later I am going to get a set of firearm rules that still don't work well for a number of settings.

You probably never will get firearm damages that work well with the hit point system. THe main difficulty lies in that since firearms really only do a relatively small amount of damage, it is the placement that is they key factor. Not in terms of leg, chest, but in exactly where in the leg or chest you get hit.

There is a good deal of "bang you're hurt, bang-bang you're dead" with the way damages and hit points intereact that will always throw off firearm damages. For example that 2D6+4 damage for a bolt action rifle gives it one shot kill percentage of over 50% once you factor in the specials and criticals.

THat is absurdly high. In the real world you only see firearms hitting that level when being held by experts and being specifically aimed for maximum effect.

[Zane]

So, how would you do it? Given that you have both firearms and RPG experience, you must have some ideas of what the tables should look like?

I think that in both "Delta Green" and "Edge of the Sword Volume 1 - Compendium of Modern Firearms" they do it right. They have a table showing the damage that a given type of ammunition does. That way you can take something like "The Armory, Vol. 1", or even the old James Bond Q Manual, and provide damage info for the guns listed in there.

The SIZ/Enc rating is pretty abstract, and it isn't that difficult to come up with that. Range is tricky, that in part depends on the type of ammo, and also the gun itself. Could basic ranges be given on the ammo tables? HP for the weapon is another one of those hard to figure ones, and something I've personally never had a call for. SR is something else that is fairly easy to figure out simply based on the type gun.

It is the STR/DEX requirements that are really hard to quantify, and I'm not convinced of the current accuracy. I absolutely love the idea of STR/DEX requirements, but I think the concept needs more work.

I realize there are complaints about how lethal the current system is. I agree it tends to be a bit to lethal. I think the whole "Impaling" damage thing is a cool mechanic, though a little cumbersome.

I'm not looking for something as Crunchy as GURPS, in fact I have yet to purchase 4th Ed., and don't believe I'll ever run a game. GURPS looks to be even crunchier than HERO, and that is more complicated than I want to run anymore. Personally the CoC 5.6 ruleset offers about the level of complexity I want, but there are some huge glaring holes in it, and "Basic Roleplaying" does a very nice job of patching those holes, in most cases.

My concern is that most people I've ever known that play RPG's are quiet interested in the weapons their character carries. None of my current players will accept being told their character is carrying a Medium Revolver, and a Sporting Rifle. At a minimum they want to know what caliber it is. More realistically they want to know that it is a .38 S&W revolver, and a .22 bolt action rifle with a 8 round clip.

What do I think the book should contain in the way of weapons tables for guns? I think there should be an amunition table as I described, and tables of example firearms, the list in CoC 5.6 is good enough for a list of example firearms. There should also be instructions on how to translate basic (real) gun stats in to BRP stats. So if I know it is a .38 caliber 6 shot revolver, I want to have a pretty good idea how that translates in game stats.

Additionally weapons ranges are another area my players informed me the weapons tables make no sense.

[NickMiddleton]

...The following points were raised:

1a. Such a vague weapons table is unacceptable

And yet Coc has sold home many copies? I can quite believe it's unacceptable to your group: I am, forgive me, skeptical that one can quite so straightforwardly generalise this to a universal statement. Certainly, it doesn't bother any of the gamers I know - if we were playing a modern special forces game where modern firearms performance was directly relevant, it might but frankly for ANY specialist setting like that we'd expect to supplement what's in the core rulebook with our own research or a supplelment specifically about the topic.

There are a number of RPG supplements specifically for those who care about more detail in their modern weapons - whilst the Pagan Publishing supplement is currently OOP it may yet re-appear, and Charles Ryan's well regarded Ultramodern Firearms (originally for Millenium's End IIRC but reworked as a d20 supplement a few years back) is relatively easy to get hold of and is quite usable with BRP.

Plus of course there is a clear opening for a BRP supplement on modern firearms and all the added rules complexity one would need to model their effects sufficiently accurately for most gun fondlers - penetration, recoil, round type, loads, maintenance etc etc.

I'm sure a section of the market would dearly love a BRP Guns!Guns!Gun! / Fire, Fusion & Steel - I'm also reasonably sure such a thing wasn't part of Jason's brief, and wouldn't appeal to the majority of BRP players (especially as part of the new default core rules).

1b. If the book is printed with such basic weapons types, it's going to get negative reviews.

2. Look at Youtube videos of someone firing a Barrett Light .50 (Sniper Rifle).

3. In the CoC gun table there are several items that don't make sense, including different damages for what is basically the same weapon (granted this has nothing to do with the new book).

I'm afraid I have to agree with pretty much everything they said, and must confess I got a chuckle out of the who is moving the sniper rifle question. Though if I read correctly a STR 5 person should be able with some effort to move it. The one player is supposed to be taking a good look at the spreadsheet I've been trying to do up to convert the 5.6 CoC Weapons Table to include the stats in the new BRP book.

Realistically I don't expect most of this to be fixed this late in production, however, it would be nice if it could. In Jason's defense, it looks like he mostly just dumbed down the CoC gun tables, making them very generalized, and adding in the new stats.

Jason's brief, I believe, was for a core BRP rule book - not the BRP Gun-fondler's bible.

For much of the playtest the playtesters didn't have the weapons tables, we were using weapon tables from previous BRP games as they would be mostly compatible. I got sight of the weapons tables last year and whilst I was a bit disappointed at the lack of detail, saw nothing problematic in them as a base set of tables to get people playing.

Whilst modern era firearms might be a little shortchanged for some people, I'd rather that than have had other era's weapons poorly served: if the modern firearms get the detailed treatment, why not the mediaval melee weapons? Or the futuristic weapons? As a baseline the tables give simple stats for weapons of every era the game covers. Adding details for a specific era / technologies is, as I've already suggested, a role for supplements in my opinion.

Cheers,

Nick Middleton

[AikiGhost]

The following points were raised:

1a. Such a vague weapons table is unacceptable

1b. If the book is printed with such basic weapons types, it's going to get negative reviews.

I don't agree, basic weapons stats are more useful for a multi genre system like BRP. If I'm running a far future sci fi what use is stats for an M16A1? Id prefer "Assault rifle".

Most gamers don't care that much once they can buy something that will kill people when you point it and pull the trigger IMHO. Id say your group is an unusual one in terms of real world gun usage.

[PK Games]

I have no problem with the way guns are presented. I am in the military, I have a long history of gun use in my life, I deployed with a M9 and a M4, saw and used many other weapons while I was over there.

Just sounds like a bunch of nitpicking to me. I understand not liking it, but what has been accepted as part of BRP for 20+ years is probably acceptable to 90% of the players. Overly detailed rules tend to turn players off. Just my opinion.

[The Tweaker]

And yet Coc has sold home many copies? I can quite believe it's unacceptable to your group: I am, forgive me, skeptical that one can quite so straightforwardly generalise this to a universal statement. Certainly, it doesn't bother any of the gamers I know (...)

I fully agree with you, Nick. I don't think so much detail for guns is really necessary for most groups or most settings, unless you happen to play with a bunch of gun-fondlers, of course. But even then, this level of detail should really be reserved for supplements or specific books on the subject.

Jason's brief, I believe, was for a core BRP rule book - not the BRP Gun-fondler's bible.

(...)

Whilst modern era firearms might be a little shortchanged for some people, I'd rather that than have had other era's weapons poorly served: if the modern firearms get the detailed treatment, why not the mediaval melee weapons? Or the futuristic weapons? As a baseline the tables give simple stats for weapons of every era the game covers. Adding details for a specific era / technologies is, as I've already suggested, a role for supplements in my opinion.

That, I think, was one of the aims of the new BRP - a generic book which would allow any gaming group to start playing in short order. No core rulebook really needs that kind of detail, IMHO, and you must draw the line somewhere in order to have it actually published.

Also, I must confess my eyes glaze each time I find yet another discussion about guns, ammunition, damage effects and wounds. They bore me to tears and - after 15+ years in this hobby - I've found all of them can be summed up thus:

1) A fan of the game with a deep knowledge of guns and weapons objects to the weapon tables in the book and declare them to be either wimpy or painful inadequate misrepresentations of the real thing. The book author's should be ashamed and severely reprimanded for making such gross mistakes.

2) Then, one or more fans - with similar deep knowledge of the subject matter, apparently - join in and reply to those statements, either supporting them or correcting the first fan in some way or other. A long series of posts - brimming with technical data and relevant anatomical and medical issues and statistics - ensues.

3) Some of them eventually concoct an alternate damage system or set of weapon stats which should work the way they like for their games. They are happy and think their system is great and should be the one used by the game's publisher, even though they are the only gamers which will probably find some use for it.

4) Meanwhile, other fans of the game, without the same interest in guns and their effects - or not so knowledgeable in this respect - yawn and continue discussing their campaign ideas and actually playing, possibly even finding the system highly enjoyable in all other respects despite the wimpy weapon stats...

[Kloster]

I fully agree with you, Nick. I don't think so much detail for guns is really necessary for most groups or most settings, unless you happen to play with a bunch of gun-fondlers, of course. But even then, this level of detail should really be reserved for supplements or specific books on the subject.

That, I think, was one of the aims of the new BRP - a generic book which would allow any gaming group to start playing in short order. No core rulebook really needs that kind of detail, IMHO, and you must draw the line somewhere in order to have it actually published.

Also, I must confess my eyes glaze each time I find yet another discussion about guns, ammunition, damage effects and wounds. They bore me to tears and - after 15+ years in this hobby - I've found all of them can be summed up thus:

1) A fan of the game with a deep knowledge of guns and weapons objects to the weapon tables in the book and declare them to be either wimpy or painful inadequate misrepresentations of the real thing. The book author's should be ashamed and severely reprimanded for making such gross mistakes.

2) Then, one or more fans - with similar deep knowledge of the subject matter, apparently - join in and reply to those statements, either supporting them or correcting the first fan in some way or other. A long series of posts - brimming with technical data and relevant anatomical and medical issues and statistics - ensues.

3) Some of them eventually concoct an alternate damage system or set of weapon stats which should work the way they like for their games. They are happy and think their system is great and should be the one used by the game's publisher, even though they are the only gamers which will probably find some use for it.

4) Meanwhile, other fans of the game, without the same interest in guns and their effects - or not so knowledgeable in this respect - yawn and continue discussing their campaign ideas and actually playing, possibly even finding the system highly enjoyable in all other respects despite the wimpy weapon stats...

:thumb:

The smiley says all.

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

[golden wheel dancer]

I also doubt that the majority of gamers would require the level of detail concerning firearms that the thread-maker's group would prefer. BRP is a generic rule book. As long as the guns go "bang", and aid in the telling of stories, most people will be happy.

I think what the gun-loving chaps are requiring is a future supplement that focuses more specifically on the subject of their unconventional interests.

[Triff]

I'm not that happy with the BRP guns, especially handguns, as everyone will choose the pistol with 3 shots per round that does the most damage. There's not that much flavour to put it that way, not really any good reasons to choose the other guns.

SGL.

[soltakss]

Why do people choose one gun over another?

I honestly don't know (they all go bang and kill people so why not just buy the cheapest) - perhaps someone could enlighten me?

[Atgxtg]

You know, folks you could have said the same thing to Zane without being defensive, rude and insulting. I.E.

And yet Coc has sold home many copies?

Irrelevant. D&D has sold more copies. Should we all switch to that? And CoC is the RPG that is the least combat oriented out of Chasoium's line-up. Bullets don't work on most mythis creatures, and PCs usually get eaten rather than shot. 1D10 bouces as well as 1D8.

gun fondlers

was completely uncalled for, and frankly inexcusable.

I by the way, don't like how pistols and rifle bullets can impale a tank. Guess I'm a tank hugger.

don't think so much detail for guns is really necessary for most groups or most settings, unless you happen to play with a bunch of gun-fondlers

I see the trend is now to attack the pseron rather than his position. and

) Meanwhile, other fans of the game, without the same interest in guns and their effects - or not so knowledgeable in this respect - yawn and continue discussing their campaign ideas and actually playing, possibly even finding the system highly enjoyable in all other respects despite the wimpy weapon stats...

Meanwhile, other fans of the game, without the same interest in guns and their effects - or not so knowledgeable in this respect - yawn and continue discussing their campaign ideas and actually playing, possibly even finding the system highly enjoyable in all other respects despite the wimpy weapon stats...

Implies that since some people have fun with the game, that there is no problem. Well, then eyerytime you guys complain about something, you deserve the same treatment. There are people out there playing and enyouing every RPG-even Spawn of Fashaan.

:thumb:

The smiley says all.

The man asked for people's take of the gun tables, and didn't deserve to be treated that way. You could have said "I like them", or "they're fine", or "I was a bit disappointed, but can live with them" as several other people managed to do without being insulting.

Id you didn't like how he phased his question, then mention something about that. But don't get insulting about it. And for many reasons.

[Kloster]

As I'm not a native english speaker, I don't know if the word gun fondler is offensive, an can not reply on such.

For the rest, it does not seems to me anybody has been offensive or insulting. My personal comment (the :thumb:) only meant I find Tweaker's comments quite correct, especially the one on the way this kind of thread often finish.

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

[Triff]

On the other hand, BRP does not work that well with guns - it works, but it's not even close to work as well as it does for melee weapons f.ex. As mentioned before, this probably have something to do with the lack of focus on guns in previous BRP settings. It's an area where BRP can improve a lot. Creative work in this area would be most welcome I think.

How does Delta Green handle guns by the way?

SGL.