Players Reactions to Weapons tables

[Atgxtg]

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.

Let's see if I can clarify. "Fondle" is a term used meaning to hold and caress, with strong sexual implications. Typical used in terms of fondling one own, or another's sexual organs.

As you are not a native English speaker, I can understand how you could miss that.

But that is why Nick's and Tweakers comments were, IMO out of line.

Frankly the "only xx fondlers" argument can be thrown against any topic. In fact it was regularly thrown against RQ by D&D fans back in the day. Those who thought that parrying, disabling injuries, and doing strikes in sequence rather than simultaneously were often regarded as kooks who got way to much into detail.

From what I've read, Steve Perrin wrote RuneQUest because he felt D&D was too abstract.

All Zane did was post a question to get people's reaction to the firearm damages. He diudn't deserve to be called some sort of deviant for simply posting a thread.Sure, he could have done it better, but nowhere is his post does he do worse than question Jason's familiarity with firearms.

[NickMiddleton]

To be blunt Atgxtg, Zane set the tone (and openly acknowledged that he did):

The following is pretty harsh, and I feel like some background info on our group is needed...

In reponse, I explained why I thought the lack of detail in the core book wasn't a problem, and could be addressed by supplements. I acknowledged that SOME BRP fans would like a detailed fire arms system (and name checked a couple of previous RPG supplelmwes along precisely those lines).

In response to what I may have misread (but see his opening comments) as a rather snarky list from Zane I also made one sarcastic reference to "gun fondling" - but his own description of his group indicates, to me anyway, an unusual level of interest in firearms and their accurate portrayal in RPG's. I say this as someone who has regularly gamed with (serving and ex) military and with (minor) personal experience of shotguns, black powder long arms and pistols: and (leaving aside special cases that I acknowledged in my original post), my exepience has been that most gamers just aren't that interested in the details of firearms (or accept that RPG rules have to make aproxiamations).

And Call of CThulhu's sales are relevant becuase it is the most successful set of BRP firearms rules published to date - which rather suggests that, contrary to Zane's groups opinion, a lot of BRP gamers aren't that bothered by the inaccuracies in its firearms.

And whilst you were busy taking offence at one comment in my post, you didn't offer a counter argument to my main point: that a detailed and more accurate treatment of firearms doesn't seem necessary in the core rulebook, but WOULD make sense in a supplement.

Cheers,

Nick Middleton

[The Tweaker]

Let's see if I can clarify. "Fondle" is a term used meaning to hold and caress, with strong sexual implications. Typical used in terms of fondling one own, or another's sexual organs.

As you are not a native English speaker, I can understand how you could miss that.

But that is why Nick's and Tweakers comments were, IMO out of line.

Sorry, but I am not a native English speaker either, so I must confess I also missed this implication :eek: That's what you get for not consulting your dictionaries before posting. My bad. I apologize if I offended Zane or anyone else.

I still stand by my opinion, though. I think the importance given to weapons in most rpgs is a bit... exaggerated for my tastes. I am in the 'plays well' rather than in the 'realistic' field and I do not consider the fine distinctions between different rounds and calibers really important. I also think that if you really want that kind of detail, you should consider either playing an rpg designed around them (i.e. Twilight2000) or designing an specific supplement dealing with them.

Demanding a core and generic rulebook, created for tackling up different genres, settings and tones, to include this level of detail is making a disservice to gamers interested in other aspects of the rules or which would rather play in fantasy or historical settings with no guns, for instance.

[golden wheel dancer]

Back to the actual subject of the thread.............the thread-maker asked for player reactions to the level of detail in the firearm tables.

I have not seen these tables but I am fairly sure it will not be an issue to me. I am also confident that most players will share my apathy on this subject.

It seems that the level of detail required by the thread-maker results from a specific and uncommon interest in the subject matter. I repeat that such material would be more appropriate (and quite conceivable) for future supplements.

I have an analogy. I am fairly proficient in the tracking techniques of the Lipan Apaches. When I watched the (utterly unresearched) tracking scene in Lord of the Rings (in which Aragorn "tracked" the two hobbits into Fangorn) I was quite unperturbed as I was aware that I possessed an uncommon interest and knowledge. The film didn't need to appeal to people with my area of knowledge to work as a good piece of storytelling.

To some extent we have to let go of what we know and let people describe things at the level they feel is appropriate for the audience in general.

:thumb:

[Atgxtg]

To be blunt Atgxtg, Zane set the tone (and openly acknowledged that he did):

Accepted and agreed. Zane could have been more tactful. But the gun fnlding crack was over the line. All it does is to beg for a resposnse about what you have (or lack) to fondle. Even if Zane were the President of the NRA (in which case he should have spoken up more on the Planet of the Apes thread!) he doesn't deserve a personal attack.

In reponse, I explained why I thought the lack of detail in the core book wasn't a problem, and could be addressed by supplements. I acknowledged that SOME BRP fans would like a detailed fire arms system (and name checked a couple of previous RPG supplelmwes along precisely those lines).

And the gun-fondling crack makes it seem as if you believe they are some sort of deviants for doing so.

In response to what I may have misread (but see his opening comments) as a rather snarky list from Zane I also made one sarcastic reference to "gun fondling" - but his own description of his group indicates, to me anyway, an unusual level of interest in firearms and their accurate portrayal in RPG's. I say this as someone who has regularly gamed with (serving and ex) military and with (minor) personal experience of shotguns, black powder long arms and pistols: and (leaving aside special cases that I acknowledged in my original post), my exepience has been that most gamers just aren't that interested in the details of firearms (or accept that RPG rules have to make aproxiamations).

Most gamers aren't interested in the fine points of an implaed weapon, active defense, or BRP in general. I think the important part is what your take is on these things. We are all in a minoirty RPG community anyway.

And Call of CThulhu's sales are relevant becuase it is the most successful set of BRP firearms rules published to date - which rather suggests that, contrary to Zane's groups opinion, a lot of BRP gamers aren't that bothered by the inaccuracies in its firearms.

No, because CoC only competion is what? Superworld and Nephilim? All RPGs where standard combat dynamics are not an issue.

And whilst you were busy taking offence at one comment in my post, you didn't offer a counter argument to my main point: that a detailed and more accurate treatment of firearms doesn't seem necessary in the core rulebook, but WOULD make sense in a supplement.

No I didn't offer a counter argument. First off, I don't have a reason to arguem with it. Secondly, I think it sidelines the original question. Anything can make sense in a supplment. Especially for a game that by it's nature is going to gloss over a bunch of stuff.

I am focusing attention on what I consider to be the issue that requies it. A insulting comment that was unecessary.

I have no problme with people disagreeing with Zan about this issue. I know I have. Even exchanged private emails over it.

But if we are going to start insulting people becuase the focus what we consider too much attention to one facet of the game, then why single out this guy. THere have been long raging debates about magic systems that didn't spark accusastions of people spending too much time playing with their wands.

Or one of the many other points od disagreement on this forum.

We really don't want to go down that path, do we?

Cheers,

Nick Middleton

[golden wheel dancer]

quetyalcoatl wrote

playing with their wands

whats wrong with playing with our wands?

welcome to the monkey house!

[NickMiddleton]

Let's see if I can clarify. "Fondle" is a term used meaning to hold and caress, with strong sexual implications. Typical used in terms of fondling one own, or another's sexual organs.

As you are not a native English speaker, I can understand how you could miss that.

But that is why Nick's and Tweakers comments were, IMO out of line.

You are reading your own interpretations into the word I think - I regularly fondle my cat - he's a short hair mongrel, but he has very soft fur and I'm very fond (that word again) of him, especially since he survived being hit by a car back in september (bar the loss of one eye...). Most people (even in the phrase "Gun fondler" / "Gun fondling") I'd suggest just mean "excessive emotional attachment" when they use the term.

fon·dle (fndl)

v. fon·dled, fon·dling, fon·dles

v.tr.

1. To handle, stroke, or caress lovingly. See Synonyms at caress.

2. Obsolete To treat with indulgence and solicitude; pamper.

v.intr.

To show fondness or affection by caressing.

Nothing sexual in that.

And Zane used the term first, albeit it scare quotes:

... 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)...

All Zane did was post a question to get people's reaction to the firearm damages. He diudn't deserve to be called some sort of deviant for simply posting a thread.

He didn't get called anything, at least not by me. I sarcastically (and without the scare quotes) re-used a term he'd already used, in response to his original post (which he himself described as harsh).

Cheers,

Nick Middleton

[Atgxtg]

Nothing sexual in that.

Nothing sexual in to caress lovingly? Yeah, right.

[Jason D]

From the Basic Roleplaying Advanced Readers' Copy Edition Zero solicitation:

This is an uncorrected proof copy of the Basic Roleplaying rules. Chaosium created these copies as part of the proofing and correction process. Requests from numerous customers convinced us to release these early editions before Christmas 2007. The production version will be released early next year.

Here you may find some errors and inconsistencies—part of the charm of a book like this. We are still working on the project. By creating these near-final works, we give our playtesters and proofreaders the best possible materials to work with.

Emphasis on the "some errors and inconsistencies" part.

Playtesting, proofing, and corrections are still underway, to some degree.

[PK Games]

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.

It isnt offensive. At least not in my vocabulary. No more offensive then terms like power gamer or munchkin.

[PK Games]

Nothing sexual in to caress lovingly? Yeah, right.

Nothing at all. I fondled my BRP book when it arrived, I didnt have sex with it. I fondled through the pages and devoured the text with my eyes. Doesnt mean I ate it.

You are choosing to interpret a comment as offensive on your own accord. If Zane is offended by the term, let him speak up on it. If you are offended by the term just say so without attacking back.

In the army, where we fondle guns on a regular basis, we have a rule. If you are offended by something, you confront the person before calling the person racist, prejudiced or ill mannered.

What you should have said was "I dont like the use of the term Gun Fondler. It sounds like you are attacking him for his desire to have a better gun system and for his general fondness for guns!" Instead you attacked your target as "Rude, offensive and as attacking Zane."

And I dont see many others here agreeing that gun fondler is offensive.

Personally, I think Zane is nitpicking. If I was disappointed with every portrayal of military in the movies, I would never watch a movie. I mean come on, have you seen Fantastic Four 2? No Captain would ever wear his or her beret like that. Its completely out of regulations. And Colonel Oneil's beret in Stargate, egads, what is he a chef?

Then you have those movies about marines where they call each other soldier? No Marine would ever be called a Soldier, especially by anothr Marine. And Vice Versa. But do I boycott or attack the subject saying "What dont you know anything about the military!" No, I just move on and hope the next time they get it right.

Zane could have just said "My group and I dont find the gun tables to be working properly. We think another system is needed Jason and recommend you look at these web sites and books for guidance!"

[SDLeary]

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.

I would suggest a copy of either Cthulhu Now (if you can find one) or Delta Green (ie Setting/Scenario books). The weapon stats are not perfect, but a bit better than what is in the core book here. Still very deadly though.

SDLeary

[Zane]

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.

Actually most I know would probably be satisfied with the list in CoC, my current players are most definitely not satisfied with the table in "Basic Roleplaying". Neither am I, which is why immediately started improving upon i. It shouldn't be necessary to bring it up to the level of detail in CoC, but that is just what I'm trying to do. I'm not afraid to work on the setting I'm running to bring it up to our standard.

As crazy as it might sound, the vague nature in the new book is what got us to looking at the CoC table, and our Gun-Fondler noticing all of the problems with that book. The problems in the CoC 5.6 rules aren't quantity (there are enough), it is quality. I really wish I had access right now to the CoC 6.0 book to check and see if a couple glaring errors have been corrected.

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.

I don't expect it to be the BRP Gun-fondler's bible, however, the weapons tables for historical weapons look pretty detailed from where I'm sitting at, and the futuristic weapons are far better than I had expected.

Were the weapons tables in any way part of the standard playtest? I know I didn't see them. If I had, I would have raised my concerns at that time rather than waiting till I have the ARC in hand.

[SDLeary]

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.

It has separate tables which handle "Guns" and ammunition. The gun tables give the stats for the weapons, sans damage. Damage is given for the ammunition. Damages are slightly different to what is in Cthulhu, but seem to follow the model of earlier versions of the game, and Cthulhu Now.

SDLeary

[Nightshade]

It isnt offensive. At least not in my vocabulary. No more offensive then terms like power gamer or munchkin.

I wouldn't exactly call those big compliments either as they're used in gaming discourse, especially the second.

[Zane]

To be blunt Atgxtg, Zane set the tone (and openly acknowledged that he did):

Sadly there was no polite way to phrase the questions my group put forth, and worse I agree with them. As such I can't very well be insulted by peoples reactions to them.

In response to what I may have misread (but see his opening comments) as a rather snarky list from Zane I also made one sarcastic reference to "gun fondling" - but his own description of his group indicates, to me anyway, an unusual level of interest in firearms and their accurate portrayal in RPG's. I say this as someone who has regularly gamed with (serving and ex) military and with (minor) personal experience of shotguns, black powder long arms and pistols: and (leaving aside special cases that I acknowledged in my original post), my exepience has been that most gamers just aren't that interested in the details of firearms (or accept that RPG rules have to make aproxiamations).

I can't deny the list is rather rude, it was posted to show my players concerns. The Barrett Light .50 mirrors mine, as I specifically asked for the gun-fondlers[1] opinion on it. Unfortunately it is a weapon that he doesn't have personal experience with. Most here don't seem to have a problem with it being minimum STR 5, we're not convinced. Are we right in this case, I honestly don't know, and would really like to. Maybe this points to a need for more detail on exactly what the STR/DEX minimum's mean, and how to calculate them. I've previously said there needs to be details on how to calculate this.

As a whole we don't have an "unusual level of interest in firearms and their accurate portrayal". We are interested in consistency within a given ruleset (apparently lacking in CoC 5.6), and in enough granularity to accurately differentiate between calibers (lacking in the new book).

I don't think any of my group wants a hugely detailed section with pages of gun stats. Well the gun-fondler might. On the other hand, as a whole I suspect we would like a list that says this bullet does this much damage, and a list of some example weapons. For that you're talking at most 2-4 pages, and you could even limit it to the most popular rounds. As has been pointed out by plenty here, there are several good books with varying degree's of availability on the subject. Certain things are the responsibility of the GM or the creators of a given setting, I don't believe this is one of them.

[1] My take on the term "Gun-Fondler", a term I was the first person in this thread to use, I would say that it is at least fairly derogatory. I also think some people are way to fixated on guns.

[Atgxtg]

I wouldn't exactly call those big compliments either as they're used in gaming discourse, especially the second.

Neither term is complementary. Neither was the context of the responses.

Both were more along the lines of a knee-jerk reaction to someone criticizing the game. By not liking the tables the fault likes in Zane and his friends are somehow at fault.

[Zane]

I would suggest a copy of either Cthulhu Now (if you can find one) or Delta Green (ie Setting/Scenario books). The weapon stats are not perfect, but a bit better than what is in the core book here. Still very deadly though.

SDLeary

I personally tend to think Delta Green is the best, and it is in print, but oddly lacking the 410 shotgun rounds found in the Cthulhu Now. Neither are perfect, but quite usable. Thank you for bringing this up. I'd said a few minutes ago DG did this right, I forgot that Cthulhu Now also did this right. That is important as it is definitely something Jason could have used as a basis for the new book, while he might not have been able to use DG.

The tables for different calibers in these two are what I'm basing my gun tables on.

Zane

[Rurik]

Well I for one would definately like a more detailed weapon table. Certainly using the one from Cthulhu Now would not have hurt anyone who doesn't care about weapon stats, but is a bonus to anyone who wants to use this universal rules set for a campaign where guns are important (espionage/military for example). It would increase the appeal of the game without alienating anyone.

Wasn't the whole point of this book so we don't have to carry around 30 years worth of old Chaosium supplements to have all the rules we want? It is not like an expanded weapon table need take up more than a page or two.

On the subject of fondling, it definately has sexual connotations. If you don't think so just call up your state's Human/Children Services Agency and tell them you like to fondle your children and see how long it takes before a social worker shows up at your door.

[Zane]

What you should have said was "I dont like the use of the term Gun Fondler. It sounds like you are attacking him for his desire to have a better gun system and for his general fondness for guns!" Instead you attacked your target as "Rude, offensive and as attacking Zane."

I don't feel attacked. In any case, as I stated in a reply a few minutes ago, how can I, considering the admittedly hostile manner in which I started this thread.

Zane could have just said "My group and I dont find the gun tables to be working properly. We think another system is needed Jason and recommend you look at these web sites and books for guidance!"

While I'd feel a whole lot better about what I posted, I think the overall quality of discussion on the subject wouldn't be as good as it has been. Overall this has been a good discussion.

[Atgxtg]

One thing about the central issue here is that while specfic stats might be "more than the average gamer wants." The effects of the damage values chosen will have an effect on how the game plays.

Weapon damages and APs really go hand in hand. So altering one should have an effect on the other. So if someone were to intrduce a new weapon damage table, the AP vales would need to be adjusted.

For instance, in CoC 2" steel plate has 19 APs. InBRP a VIntage tank has 18 APs. A reasonable conclsuion is that vintage tanks have a little less than 2" of armor, or that they have more, but of lower grade steel.

Now, since 2" steeel plate will stop anything up to a .50 caliber bullet the damages should be such that those weapons can't kill a vintage tank.

But lets toss modern firearms out the window for a minute and just work with gold old fantasy weapons.

18Aps means that a guy with an axe can chop through a tank's APs.

So it is all interrelated.

Personally I find Delta Greens damages excessive. With BRP's fixed hit points, a weapon that does 2D10+1d8+6 is practically an autokill. Likweise a 9mm pistol really doesn't do more damage that shoving a spear into someone's stomach.

Swords, separs, and axes are actually just as deadly as firearms. A lance chart is actually more damaging that a .50 caliber hit. More energy, more mass, more momentum, and it doesn't drop off after the initial contact.

So all the damages should be alternatives to each other and the armor and hit point ratings. As long as the number compare well to each other, there shouldn't be a problem. Changing one set of values, like going with Delta Greens gfirearm damages, means rethinking the others.

[The Venomous Pao]

I was originally going to reply to this last night in a snippy and therefore entirely unhelpful way. But I went to sleep instead.

Fair warning: I come from the not-gun-oriented side of the argument. I do not intend to dismiss the needs of my gun-oriented brethren and sistren nor to I profess to speak for all role-players. I'm just talkin' 'bout me, here, people

To me guns in RPGs are just tools to make sounds and cause the bad guys to fall down. Within the core rulebook of a generic game, worrying over the differences between the styles, makes and models to me is as pointless as worrying over the fundamental differences between different varieties of "longsword" or different styles of maces (knobbed vs. flanged?!?!).

Therefore, I find the tables are fine as-is.

As someone upthread mentioned, if BRP-0 were a book dedicated to modern tactical warfare then the tables would be woefully weak. But for what it is, to me, they're fine. A bit dull, perhaps, but fine. Perhaps a little more info than just the three grades of pistol and the three grades of revolver would be nice (for example), but I'd rather see the typos, unclear passages, mixed up descriptions (POW or other characteristic as base budget for super powers, for example) and such things cleaned up before release than having that time be spent on developing "perfect" tables for guns. One set of things will affect my ability to play the game. The other won't.

All that said, I would definitely expect to see more involved (and accurate) information on different gun models in any supplement that was intended to address genres that focused on modern weapons, though, and would be sorely disappointed if such tables did not actually appear in said volume(s). But for now, we're not talking about those volumes.

[SDLeary]

I can't deny the list is rather rude, it was posted to show my players concerns. The Barrett Light .50 mirrors mine, as I specifically asked for the gun-fondlers[1] opinion on it. Unfortunately it is a weapon that he doesn't have personal experience with. Most here don't seem to have a problem with it being minimum STR 5, we're not convinced. Are we right in this case, I honestly don't know, and would really like to. Maybe this points to a need for more detail on exactly what the STR/DEX minimum's mean, and how to calculate them. I've previously said there needs to be details on how to calculate this.

In RQ III is was a minimum to use the weapon without penalty. Each point of the characteristic below the minimum listed reduced the chance to use that weapon by 5% cumulative.

In Stormbringer if you didn't meet the minimums, your chance with the weapon was halved.

In BRP, no penalties are suggested, but the GM is urged to not ban the use of a weapon outright. So its in the GMs court.

So in none of those situations are you REQUIRED to meet the minimums.

The ratings, IIRC, were based on proper use of that weapon. In the case of the Barrett Light 50 (now the M107), the proper/designed use is NOT from the hip, or standing from the shoulder. Its using a bipod, tripod, pintle, or other bracing/mount. So I can see a minimum STR 5.

SDLeary

[Jason D]

In Stormbringer if you didn't meet the minimums, your chance with the weapon was halved.

In BRP, no penalties are suggested, but the GM is urged to not ban the use of a weapon outright. So its in the GMs court.

I don't have my book handy, but the rule is (supposed to be) that using a weapon you don't meet the minimum requirements for makes your attacks Difficult (1/2 chance).

[Atgxtg]

In BRP, no penalties are suggested, but the GM is urged to not ban the use of a weapon outright. So its in the GMs court.

Well that sounds less that useless. I would assume that the word minimum would mean something. There isn't a sidebar option for what to do about it?

So in none of those situations are you REQUIRED to meet the minimums.

Errk. Hold the phone. RQ and SB don't apply. If we are talking about possible problems with BRP we need to stick to it's rules. If the game says minimum STR/DEX without any guidelines about what to do about it, then yeah, the requirements are sort of required. TO prevent whatever the penalty for being short might be.

The ratings, IIRC, were based on proper use of that weapon. In the case of the Barrett Light 50 (now the M107), the proper/designed use is NOT from the hip, or standing from the shoulder. Its using a bipod, tripod, pintle, or other bracing/mount. So I can see a minimum STR 5.

SDLeary

I agree here. The Battet uses extensive prting, has a lot of recoil absoption and is fired braced on a bipod. Technically, I don't think any small arm should have a STR minimum. Anybosy can pull the trigger.

We're I'd see the peanlty would bein terms of recoil and response time. A guy with a 5 STR might get the second shot off a few DEX rank slower than a guy with a 15 STR. Maybe.

But overall, yeah, firing a Barrett from the ground is easier than firing a 30-06 or a .357M standing.

Probably something like:

STRx1.5 is used 2 handed

+5 STR if braced, bipod, etc.

+10STR for tripod.

If you want to go there.

About the only weapons that I can see where it makes a differecne are the large caliber hunting rifles. Even then it is more a matter of precieved recoil rather than actual recoil.