Players Reactions to Weapons tables

[Atgxtg]

shameless plug

Has anyone even seen a shameful plug? :confused:

[Zane]

That actually isn't that unrealistic. Especially with PDFs and print shops. I recall a few RPGs that came in a binder by section. That makes it very easy to do that sort of thing.

I envision something with all of the rules being in a database back-end, and a web front end. I realize it is technically quite possible, however, I don't think that it is economically feasible, at least not for a company as small as Chaosium. I do know I'd gladly pay for such a thing.

I remember the 2nd Ed. Monster Manuals for AD&D being in a binder, and I remember seeing people setup that way for Rolemaster. Those are the only RPG books I can think of. Star Fleet Battles is designed to go into a binder as well, but it's a wargame. My one thought is actually to take a copy of the final book and get the binding cut off of it, and punch it. I'm totally opposed to destroying books so this a very strange thing for me to even consider.

Frakly, I suspect that most of the BRP rules won't be used in most campaigns. It's just that people will be picking different ones to suit their needs.

I suspect that it would be difficult to run a campaign using all of the rules. It's designed for you to pick the choices that will work best for you, not to use all of them.

[Zane]

* I used to be able to do that with Hero, but that was a long time ago and before the excellent Mr. Long truly revealed the toolkit hiding in the rules. I respect that stuff like nothing else, but I don't have time for it at this point in my gaming life.

I here you on the "I don't have time for it"! If our group got together and played every week, then I might be willing to consider using HERO, but even Champions 3rd Ed. is way to complicated for me at this point in my life. Systems such as HERO and GURPS are for people that are single, young and/or have no life. BRP is a system for those of us that are busy with jobs, families, and who knows what else! I absolutely love how my group can get so busy with real life that we can't get together for a year, and then go right back to playing without having to spend any time studying the rules. Granted situations like that require that you keep good notes as to what is going on in your campaign, but good lean rules really help.

I wonder if Chaosium could be convinced to sell BRP as the system for people that have a real life!

[Atgxtg]

I envision something with all of the rules being in a database back-end, and a web front end. I realize it is technically quite possible, however, I don't think that it is economically feasible, at least not for a company as small as Chaosium. I do know I'd gladly pay for such a thing.

Well for an electronic edition is is feasible. Maybe not for Chaosium. It depends on how tech savvy their staff is. Technically yhey could write up in HTML with links to various rules and such. The big problem I see with a new like interface is that it would lack security. PDF would probably be the only real option at this time.

Now if Chaosium were to allow an SRD a lot of possiblities would open up. THe FATE and SoTC SRD were actually put together by the fans, and something like that could be very cool.

I remember the 2nd Ed. Monster Manuals for AD&D being in a binder, and I remember seeing people setup that way for Rolemaster. Those are the only RPG books I can think of. Star Fleet Battles is designed to go into a binder as well, but it's a wargame. My one thought is actually to take a copy of the final book and get the binding cut off of it, and punch it. I'm totally opposed to destroying books so this a very strange thing for me to even consider.

I can think of a few others. Harnmaster Gold for one. Each section was printed up separaely. The SFB idea would be great for an RPG. As update or new options came out GMs could peon up the binder and replace the pages.

I did something like that with a book that was falling apart. I don't think I'd do it with a new book, unless I bought a second copy. Then get it spiral bound and perhaps scan it and turn it into a PDF for personal use (spiral bound books lie flat).

I suspect that it would be difficult to run a campaign using all of the rules. It's designed for you to pick the choices that will work best for you, not to use all of them.

Yes. That one reason why a lot of the book won't get used for most campaigns. I've been working on a few very different campaign settings, and even in this early stage I'm noticing things that are important for one setting that aren't in use in another.

[Shaira]

Hear, hear! Put me in the "keep it simple" camp. I love Hero and used to like GURPS. They're both great toolkits. But what I like about BRP-0 so far is that it's exactly not a toolkit. It's a game. Yes, there are options but if I want to sit down with my players and say "ok, make fantasy characters. now!" we can do it without needing either to go through multiple steps to specify how magic powers should be built nor do we need to decide which countless supplements (wonderful as they may be) to choose from. We can just go and play.*

I agree absolutely. I'm "a certain age" and do not want to spend hours and hours, if not days, reading and re-reading piles of complex and varying rules just to be able to play. What I love about BRP is that it's pretty hard to even *forget* the rules in the first place, they are so straightforward, logical, and minimalist.

I was looking at SB5. Out of a 300 page book, the "Game System" chapter is 12 pages, the "Combat" chapter is 9. Admittedly there are spot rules and stuff, but, dang, that's my kind of game.

What I'm hoping for is similar elegance in BRP; the additional chapters can be spell system and lists, powers, equipment, critters - basically lists of stuff you need for the various genres - but I'd like to be able to read through the whole game system in an hour or so and think, "okay, I now know how to run this baby!"

Naturally, if anyone builds in Design Systems (planets, vehicles, starships, etc), that's a separate deal, but they seem like excellent opportunities for optional supplements anyhow.

[AikiGhost]

Are you lot still going on about guns?

There does seem to be a tendency in certain parts of the BRP fan base to go on and on about rules minutia rather than get on with writing good scenarios or fun fluff for game backgrounds.

[The Tweaker]

(...) But what I like about BRP-0 so far is that it's exactly not a toolkit. It's a game. Yes, there are options but if I want to sit down with my players and say "ok, make fantasy characters. now!" we can do it without needing either to go through multiple steps to specify how magic powers should be built nor do we need to decide which countless supplements (wonderful as they may be) to choose from. We can just go and play.

I agree absolutely. I'm "a certain age" and do not want to spend hours and hours, if not days, reading and re-reading piles of complex and varying rules just to be able to play. What I love about BRP is that it's pretty hard to even *forget* the rules in the first place, they are so straightforward, logical, and minimalist.

(...)

What I'm hoping for is similar elegance in BRP; the additional chapters can be spell system and lists, powers, equipment, critters - basically lists of stuff you need for the various genres - but I'd like to be able to read through the whole game system in an hour or so and think, "okay, I now know how to run this baby!"

You both reflect exactly what I am looking for in BRP, and why I am not interested in all this rules tinkering, or at least in any rules tinkering regarding exclusively weapons and guns.

There does seem to be a tendency in certain parts of the BRP fan base to go on and on about rules minutia rather than get on with writing good scenarios or fun fluff for game backgrounds.

Agreed. Many of the messages in this thread match - once more - the pattern for all guns and weapons discussions that I have ever seen and that I described in post 18.

[frogspawner]

There does seem to be a tendency in certain parts of the BRP fan base to go on and on about rules minutia rather than get on with writing good scenarios or fun fluff for game backgrounds.

Guilty.

[The Venomous Pao]

Many of the messages in this thread match - once more - the pattern for all guns and weapons discussions that I have ever seen and that I described in post 18.

Holy mother of! How did I miss that post the first time 'round? Your forecast puts even the best meteorologist to shame!

One thing I realized I should add, in relation to my last post (about BRP not being a toolkit and being easy to use)... The same can, of course, be said about certain nice implementations of D&D, specifically Castles & Crusades. Their limitation, of course, is that they're nice, simple "get on with the show" versions of D&D and not much else. So if you really want to do the D&D experience, they're great. But if you want to play a genre that doesn't fit that mold, then you're back to spending a bunch of time tweaking the system beyond its limits. BRP doesn't actually have those limits (classes, specifically, but other things as well).

Of course BRP can do a pretty good approximation of the D&D experience, but to me there's a difference between any other approach to High Fantasy and the *actual* D&D experience. So if I really want to be Gygaxian, I might as well just be Gygaxian. But for all those other times when I don't want Gary on my back, BRP lets me explore other flavors of the genre without, well, Gary on my back.*

So there. I said something nice about another game but still kept loyal to the game we're focused on at this message board. Isn't that some kind of internet first? Don't I get a medal or something?

* I apologize for this image. No one really needed it embedded in their brain. But once it occurred to me I had to get it out lest I begin failing sanity checks.

[Atgxtg]

There does seem to be a tendency in certain parts of the BRP fan base to go on and on about rules minutia rather than get on with writing good scenarios or fun fluff for game backgrounds.

A lot of that is coming from needed to know what kind of brushes and pigments we have to work with before we start painting. It can be difficult to balance stuff out until you know how the numbers will work.

That said, I have begun working of four adventures, but I don't think they would be suitable for upload.

I do feel obligated to write at leat one Western Adventure somewhere down the road.

[PK Games]

Yup, after several days, weapon chart still doesnt bother me. Now the stats for the Soldier, those are ludicrous.

[Jason D]

Now the stats for the Soldier, those are ludicrous.

I'm curious what you mean by this.

[drohem]

I've stayed away from this one as well. There are two topics in any RPG discussion that are sure to start a flame war: firearms and Palladium (no particular order ).

I am fine with the level of detail of the weapons in the book.

If I need more for a specific setting, there is a wealth of information at my finger tips from those who are focused on the details of firearms in any RPG system.

[TRose]

Here one thing I was thinking of about firing guns at vehicles and other inanimate objects. While a range of say 1D10 is fine for shooting at people where a 1 is a flesh wound and a 10 is a good solid hit , it does not really work with vehicles. Unless your quality control is total crud most rounds will deliver the same kinetic force more or less to an inanimate object. If you say have an anti tank rifle that can penetrate 15 mm of steel at 100 meters, and you shoot it at steel plates 10mm thick at 100 meters chances are over 90% will go through . and none will penetrate a 20 mm plate at 100 meters. And if a round does penetrate an armored vehicle, say a 50 caliber round the results on anyone it hits are not going to be much different then if was hit while standing outside the vehicle. The armor of the vehicle does not really help to reduce damage of rounds that penetrate the armor. Perhaps guns should be given a penetration value and if shot at a target with a higher armor value then their penetration value they bounce off while if the armor value is lower they goes through and do their damage. for example if you think a 50 caliber round should be able to go through 19 points of armor give it a penatration value of 20 and if goes through then it will do its damage. If you think it cannot give it a value of 18.

Just a thought I had last night so might need work.

[Atgxtg]

Here one thing I was thinking of about firing guns at vehicles and other inanimate objects. While a range of say 1D10 is fine for shooting at people where a 1 is a flesh wound and a 10 is a good solid hit , it does not really work with vehicles. Unless your quality control is total crud most rounds will deliver the same kinetic force more or less to an inanimate object. If you say have an anti tank rifle that can penetrate 15 mm of steel at 100 meters, and you shoot it at steel plates 10mm thick at 100 meters chances are over 90% will go through . and none will penetrate a 20 mm plate at 100 meters. And if a round does penetrate an armored vehicle, say a 50 caliber round the results on anyone it hits are not going to be much different then if was hit while standing outside the vehicle. The armor of the vehicle does not really help to reduce damage of rounds that penetrate the armor. Perhaps guns should be given a penetration value and if shot at a target with a higher armor value then their penetration value they bounce off while if the armor value is lower they goes through and do their damage. for example if you think a 50 caliber round should be able to go through 19 points of armor give it a penatration value of 20 and if goes through then it will do its damage. If you think it cannot give it a value of 18.

Just a thought I had last night so might need work.

A few points.

1) Kinetic enegy does vary some by round. If you fire off a dozen shots they will be at a dozen similar but different velocities. They will all be fairly close though.

2) It isn't so much the energy as it is placement. A 50 cal that hits your pinky won't do as much damage to someone as a 22 the goes through an eye. So it really isn't how much energy it does for damage as much as how much damage to where?

For example, you can actually shoot at a car all day long and not kill it. But a few shots to the engine and the car is "dead".

3) As for penetration, yeah you are basically on target there. If something can penetrate something it tends to do so fairly reliably.

4) The reason why penetrating armor doesn't seem to make much of a difference on the damage actuallyhas to do with how armor works. Basically since armor protection in the real world goes up with the sqaure of the thickness, it means that if an attack can penetrate armor the armor abosrbs proportially less of the energy as the attacks get more powerful.

For instance, if a tank round that can penetrate 1" armor has a damage of 1 then pone that could penetrate 2" or armor would need to do 4 damage (the sqaure). So if a 4 point gun fired at 1" armor, 3 points would get through. Enough to go out the other side.

When you get ot the high end this meakes for a big difference. So if a gun that can penetrate 700m of armor hits a tank with 650mm of armor, 14% of the energy gets through, and 14% of of a couple of megajoules is a lot of energy!

That actually hold true for all weapons though. A spear that poke through mail or an axe that chops through a brestplate is the same thing. So that .50 cal. round that gets through the APC is loosing a good chunck of energy, just that the 25% or so of it's intial energy is still twice that of a rifle bullet.

Something like loosing 1/10th APs might make sense, but then ballsitic vests and archaic armor shoudl work the same way.

5) Armor Penetration tables are generally set to an 80/20 ratio,. THat is the PEN rating is the point where there is an 80% chance of 20% of the round penetrating.

6) If people don't want detailed firearms, detailed tank guns seem to be a foregone conclusion.

7) Impales and crticals run wild with vehicles. Doubling the damage turns a Rifle into a tank penetrator. I think we should prohibit such results against armored vehicles from small arms.

8) One possibilty would be to take armor off damage dice. Say 4 points takes off a D6 or some such. The roll the remainder. So a 8d6 gun vs 20 point armor would roll 3D6 through the armor.

[Joseph Paul]

Funny, when playing GURPS way back when, I don't remember them having it right. In fact, way back when, Hero seemed to have a better grasp.

And, I'll bet that most of the "got it" on the part of GURPS didn't start with the RPG crew, but with fans who wrote things up with additional/optional rules and submitted them for consideration. That game has been around as an active setting-less system for much longer.

I need to address this in a different order so hang with me a moment.

I believe that the setting-less 16 page BRP has been out longer than GURPS has. The problem that I see is that Chaosium didn’t do anything about making the original BRP into a full fledged generic for 20+ years. I inquired about the status of several of the out of print Chaosium games several years ago and the reply I got was that Cthulhu made them more money than the others so they were concentrating on that and did not have the resources to develop anything else. So they lose out on 20+ years of fan participation.

“Reality testing” of the GURPS rules started with SJGames so I will collect on that bet. I was part of the playtest for GURPS Man to Man long ago. One of the things that was made clear to play testers was that SJG was interested in the material being right. Was the first edition rough around the edges? I thought so and I thought that some things were not right but overall they did get a number of things to work such that you were not surprised by system specific faults. I did not switch to GURPS because I thought that the BRP derived games still had an edge, I prefered D100 to 3D6, and I found the GURPS stats limiting. Fast forward 20 years and I see that SJG has continued the commitment to getting things right even to the point of making some very noticeable changes in the current edition. Those changes have taken care of most of the gripes that I had except for the 3D6 mechanic.

Some have stated their desire for simplicity first and in-depth treatments of subjects to come later. They don’t want a toolkit. I don’t mind that at all as long as the game was made with a toolkit that will be internally consistent over a broad range of genres and give realistic results in those genres. I want the toolkit to be released later so that I can make internally consistent adventures/NPCs/settings/ etc that mesh well with the core materials and support how I think fantasy/space opera/westerns/historical/add-your-own-genre is supposed to run. Could I handwave or houserule my preferences into a game? Certainly, however I too am ‘of a certain age’ and I would prefer for that sort of rules wrangling to already be taken care of. That is why I am willing to pay for rules in the first place.

What I question is the ability of the BRP rules to be internally consistent over a broad range of genres and give realistic results in those genres. As an example Atgxtg has pointed out, and I agree, that the hit point system in the BRP games could use a change so that you get results that match what actually happens when people are injured, particularly with firearms. That is something that needs to be done now, not later. If you mess with those core things later you get the same thing you have now with RQ/SB/CoC/RW/SW where there were differences in chargen and combat rules that made for a large differences in how injurys affected the characters. There are several other disconnects between the foundational materials and what we know can be done for real and I think that ironing those out ahead of time would bring us a game that satisfies a very diverse set of desires. It can be simple but the base mechanics shouldn’t break when more layers are added. It can support many different genres and modes of play ie gritty/cinematic/godly powers/slapstick etc with minimal changes to the core and remain elegant.

Finally SD (is that an OK shortening of your handle?) I understand the point that you make about going ahead and writing up an add-on system. My concern is that it is the core rules that need to be looked at and it is no use writing anything that will seriously contradict those.

[PK Games]

I'm curious what you mean by this.

Stats: SIZ 15 (6'2"-6'4"), STR 15? Id go along the lines of 13 for both of these stats. The modern military trains more for endurance and agility these days as well. I would go with STR 13, SIZ 13, CON 15, DEX 14. The American Military also stresses Education and training, so maybe bump EDU to 15. Im 32 and I'm 6 foot tall and am not allowed to weigh more then 199 pounds. Younger soldiers in my height category are peaked at around 194 pounds.

Unless you are using that template for some sort of super commandos, ditch the Knife combat skill. I have never touched a knife in any military training other then the bayonet in basic training and then that was not knife fighiting, that was bayonet fighiting (closer to club then knife).

Replace artillery with this (MOS Specific SKill) 40%.

[Joseph Paul]

There's some reality tested feedback!

[PK Games]

Stats: SIZ 15 (6'2"-6'4"), STR 15? Id go along the lines of 13 for both of these stats. The modern military trains more for endurance and agility these days as well. I would go with STR 13, SIZ 13, CON 15, DEX 14. The American Military also stresses Education and training, so maybe bump EDU to 15. Im 32 and I'm 6 foot tall and am not allowed to weigh more then 199 pounds. Younger soldiers in my height category are peaked at around 194 pounds.

Unless you are using that template for some sort of super commandos, ditch the Knife combat skill. I have never touched a knife in any military training other then the bayonet in basic training and then that was not knife fighiting, that was bayonet fighiting (closer to club then knife).

Replace artillery with this (MOS Specific SKill) 40%.

Id also mention in the text description how commandos and special forces soldiers would vary. And list example MOS Specific Skills.

[PK Games]

There's some reality tested feedback!

Thanks. Dont even get me started on the Army's physical fitness test and weapons qualification procedures.

But I just nopticed one thing that does bother me about the weapons chart. Sorry I didnt chime in earlier Zane.

Why are the base % with weapons a fixed number? Why not make it DEX based?

[Atgxtg]

Why are the base % with weapons a fixed number? Why not make it DEX based?

Standard BRP. Of course there are the category modifiers that take in the DEX. In RQ3 (I don't have the BRP book yet) it was modified by INT, DEX and to a lesser extend STR.

BRP has a optional rule that does something similar.

[PK Games]

Standard BRP. Of course there are the category modifiers that take in the DEX. In RQ3 (I don't have the BRP book yet) it was modified by INT, DEX and to a lesser extend STR.

BRP has a optional rule that does something similar.

Unfortunately real life has utterly pervented me from devouring the book completely so far. Damn you real life!

That and for some reason I had to go and watch all the Planet of the Apes movies (and TV series) and start reading ERB Barsoom series for some reason.

I love this forum!

[Lord Twig]

Stats: SIZ 15 (6'2"-6'4"), STR 15? Id go along the lines of 13 for both of these stats. The modern military trains more for endurance and agility these days as well. I would go with STR 13, SIZ 13, CON 15, DEX 14. The American Military also stresses Education and training, so maybe bump EDU to 15. Im 32 and I'm 6 foot tall and am not allowed to weigh more then 199 pounds. Younger soldiers in my height category are peaked at around 194 pounds.

Unless you are using that template for some sort of super commandos, ditch the Knife combat skill. I have never touched a knife in any military training other then the bayonet in basic training and then that was not knife fighiting, that was bayonet fighiting (closer to club then knife).

Replace artillery with this (MOS Specific SKill) 40%.

I don't think the example represent an "average" soldier. The NPCs were created with the same system that you would use to create your heroes. So the sample NPC soldier is a "Hero Soldier" or what your character might look like if you were to make hero with "Soldier" as your background.

Look at the other examples as well. All of them have characteristics well above average.

[Zane]

Thanks. Dont even get me started on the Army's physical fitness test and weapons qualification procedures.

If it is anything like the Navy's, I can only imagine.

BTW, what does "MOS Specific Skill" mean? I'm guessing that's Army specific.

But I just nopticed one thing that does bother me about the weapons chart. Sorry I didnt chime in earlier Zane.

Why are the base % with weapons a fixed number? Why not make it DEX based?

Tradition. Seriously, that's the main reason I can think of. Also, making it DEX based might have some interesting results on character creation. People would want to sock extra points into DEX, so they start out as better shots.

On one hand, you tell someone the basics of a gun, hand it to them, and then tell them to shoot a target. What is going to happen, how much does it really matter how good their DEX is, they've never fired a gun.

On the other hand, take two people, you give them the both the same talk as the previous guy, and hand them each the gun, telling them to shoot the target. One has a high DEX, the other a very low DEX. Logically the one with the higher DEX will be the better shot.

Am I making any sense? I don't know, I'm simply trying to show both sides of the argument for each method.

There are a lot of other factors in play, is the person strong enough to hold the weapon steady, do they have the shakes, how good is their eyesight. A person with horrible DEX could very easily be a better shot than someone with great DEX.

In spite of everything I've just written, I think you have a valid point, and that it might make sense to say that a low enough DEX lowers your base chance, a midrange DEX has no effect, and a high DEX raises your base chance. At the same time one of the goals is to keep this simple. Still this would effect character generation and not slow down game play.

[PK Games]

I don't think the example represent an "average" soldier. The NPCs were created with the same system that you would use to create your heroes. So the sample NPC soldier is a "Hero Soldier" or what your character might look like if you were to make hero with "Soldier" as your background.

Look at the other examples as well. All of them have characteristics well above average.

You are probably right, but some of the stats in that section (Galactic Knight, Knight, Gunslinger, Pirate, Ninja) seem to be generic stats, while some (Demi-God) seem to be how you described it. If that is the case, I would rather have the bestiary list not be "hero" characters, but generalized statistics.

And the descriptions tend to lead you to believe that this is covering the "generic" entry (be it Gunslinger or Soldier or Ninja).