Players Reactions to Weapons tables

[Atgxtg]

Any build system that has a wide range of power options will create some, not entirely avoidable problems here. Some people clearly don't have an issue with that (A and Rurik seem to be among them) but I don't think their view is even close to universal here. That said, the idea that the game system can avoid it completely, especially in wide-open games like a superhero game, is not fundamentally reasonable; there are too many moving parts and interactions for the game system to do all the balancing for you. The difference is whether you simply don't care because you figure you'll fix it at the GMing end (which I find an intolerable expectation as it requires me to distort the hell out of how I intend to run my game) or do so by applying guidelines and oversight during character generation.

I think a lot of the "problems" from balance are actually self-made. Characters will differernt skill levels can interact and characters with 30-40% skill levels can contribute.

A lot of this is about what sort of emphasis is on the campaign. For instance, a few people didn't like the Star Trek RPGs because it was "unbalanced/broken". You could write up a begging character who was a combat monster. Quite true, except that the adventures were not driven by a series of combat encounters. There are a bunch of other things that come up in the adventures, such as technical skills, diplomacy and other things that all play a big part. The combat monster doesn't dominate because his abilities don't cross over into all aspects of the game.

The main reason why such thinking isn't universal is that the largest RPG outthere is entirely obsessed with "balance". In D&D everything is designed around the level of the PCs. Everything from how much gold to give out, to the Hit Dice of the Monster to the plusses on the weapons are based off on the PCs level. Even skill bonuses are limited by level.

That's not true in skill based games.

But it depends on where the GM puts the emphasis.

[Rurik]

My honest reaction to this is "nonsense". Unless everyone is competing, what someone gets as a new character who lost their old one doesn't matter a single damn bit to me; the only issue is whether for some reason he's encroaching on my utility in the game. And I'd be very ticked if I was stuck with a lower powered character who therefor had less to contribute to the game because everyone else had left them by.

This is less of an issue in some games than others, but I pretty much promise you that I've never seen a campaign where people expected a starting character with 30-40% skills to be able to be usefully played with those in the 90%, and adjusted accordingly; in games where the power gap is larger than typically the case in BRP, this was even more true.

The whole point with BRP games is that usually game balance _isn't_ a big issue, not because it doesn't matter to people but because the advancement system tends to self-adjust the problem relatively quickly. But the idea no one who plays BRP games cares about it is a silly one. Some don't, but trying to universalize this is not serving any good purpose.

Nonesense to you maybe. It has always been that way in every campaign I've ever played in. I learned that way, I have always run and played that way, and I've been gaming over 25 years.

Any build system that has a wide range of power options will create some, not entirely avoidable problems here. Some people clearly don't have an issue with that (A and Rurik seem to be among them) but I don't think their view is even close to universal here. That said, the idea that the game system can avoid it completely, especially in wide-open games like a superhero game, is not fundamentally reasonable; there are too many moving parts and interactions for the game system to do all the balancing for you. The difference is whether you simply don't care because you figure you'll fix it at the GMing end (which I find an intolerable expectation as it requires me to distort the hell out of how I intend to run my game) or do so by applying guidelines and oversight during character generation.

You seem to accuse of 'us' of universalizing and then imply your way is more universal than ours - who is universalizing here? Styles are different, and I've acknowledged (and accepted) that fact.

I am all for giving players direction and limits (everyone has roll up a CIA agent, or an Orlanthi, or a pro NATO superhero, or whatever), and even working with players on chargen, despending on the focus of a game/campaign, and will even use pre-gens for one shot's or short multi session games, but always try to give players as much freedom over their characters as possible within the limits of what is required for the game. Open ended campaigns I try to give the most freedom.

If it so impossible to for designers and playetesters to see all the possible abuses and loopholes of a system how is it possible for you to avoid them all by helping make a character?

Again, just as I think one of the greatest pleasures to playing a game is when the GM creates genuine surprise for the players, I like it when my players surprise me. If I wanted the characters in my stories to always react the way I had planned, I'd write books instead of play rpg's.

But again, that is just me. Your gaming may vary.

[Nightshade]

I think a lot of the "problems" from balance are actually self-made. Characters will differernt skill levels can interact and characters with 30-40% skill levels can contribute.

I'm not getting into this again. You know my opinion from past exchanges.

[Nightshade]

Nonesense to you maybe. It has always been that way in every campaign I've ever played in. I learned that way, I have always run and played that way, and I've been gaming over 25 years.

And I've been gaming since 1975 if we want to start waving that around. And I've seen games run that way, but they were by no means in the majority. Nor do I have any reason to believe it is the common view.

You seem to accuse of 'us' of universalizing and then imply your way is more universal than ours - who is universalizing here? Styles are different, and I've acknowledged (and accepted) that fact.

Learn the difference between "general" and "universal". I have every reason to believe my statement is generally true; that's a lot different than assuming its universal or _better_. Those are what I'm taking issue with here.

If it so impossible to for designers and playetesters to see all the possible abuses and loopholes of a system how is it possible for you to avoid them all by helping make a character?

Because when someone's built the character they're _there_. I'm not having to look at all possible interactions; all I have to look at is what's on the sheet in front of me.

[Trifletraxor]

I guess the player style is different here, but none of the players I game with would be happy with a starting farmer in a group with only pumped up & powerfull runelords. I know wouldn't be either. Combat is also a major part of most published scenarios.

SGL.

[Rurik]

And I've been gaming since 1975 if we want to start waving that around. And I've seen games run that way, but they were by no means in the majority. Nor do I have any reason to believe it is the common view.

I'm not trying to wave anything around, I'm just saying that in my experience it has been one way. I've never insinuated that it is the only way, nor assumed so. Is it the best way? Well for me, "yes", but not for everyone.

Learn the difference between "general" and "universal". I have every reason to believe my statement is generally true; that's a lot different than assuming its universal or _better_. Those are what I'm taking issue with here.

Umm, the reason I used the word 'universal' is that you were throwing it around repeatedly. I accept different gaming styles exist and really have no need to feel mine is 'universal' or even generally accepted. It has worked for me across different groups and places.

[Rurik]

I guess the player style is different here, but none of the players I game with would be happy with a starting farmer in a group with only pumped up & powerfull runelords. I know wouldn't be either. Combat is also a major part of most published scenarios.

SGL.

I really am curious here as to how you handle new characters after player death. If a campaign started a year ago, and everyone started with say 200 skill points, and someone dies, do they get 400 skill points at chargen because that is roughly where everyone else is in the game? I really am curious, because as I've said, I have never gamed that way.

To me it seems unfair to the players who have lived. It reminds me of the Computer game Oblivion in a way - what is the point of getting better if everthing/everyone around you gets better at an equal rate?

To me, RPG's are just as much game as they are role playing and collective storytelling. There should be some risk/reward. The risk of dying is starting over.

[RMS]

I really am curious here as to how you handle new characters after player death. If a campaign started a year ago, and everyone started with say 200 skill points, and someone dies, do they get 400 skill points at chargen because that is roughly where everyone else is in the game? I really am curious, because as I've said, I have never gamed that way.

I just posted this in the other thread, but I'll put here again....to at least bump my number of posts! It really depends on the campaign, but I wouldn't make the new character start from scratch. Nobody would expect me to either, in my experience. I might start them at roughly the same level as everyone else, I might start them a bit lower, etc. The most common has been that I started them at the same experience level but with less goodies. It's a nice middle ground.

Also, it's been very common in high powered campaigns for there to be very competent followers and retainers that someone will decide to flesh out, break away (to be their own man/woman), and run. In D&D, this might be a couple of levels lower. In RQ, it might be some percentages lower, and usually significant divine magic and/or magic goodies (MP storage mainly) lower.

To me it seems unfair to the players who have lived. It reminds me of the Computer game Oblivion in a way - what is the point of getting better if everthing/everyone around you gets better at an equal rate?

To me, RPG's are just as much game as they are role playing and collective storytelling. There should be some risk/reward. The risk of dying is starting over.

I don't get this part though. If a player loses a character to a heroic death, why should they be punished. They already lose the ability to run a well known and beloved character. Even if the player loses the character through some bad decision making, most of the time the whole group was involved in the bad decision and it just happens to be bad luck that the particular character in question died.

I've also had numerous characters in my campaigns retired after the character had met their personal goals: retired to live the quiet life. Some of those players have been very willing to take on newbie characters, but others don't want to. In the end, the game should be fun and if having a *significantly* lesser character isn't fun to someone, why make them play it.

While I don't think play balance is the end-all, be-all of anything, I also don't understand, at all, this need to punish someone that loses a character through play. The best roleplaying tends to lead to the most deaths in my experience, and if players are punished for that, it'll take away some of the incentive to do it.

[Lord Twig]

In D&D we allow a character of the same level. It is easy to do in D&D, everything is defined for every level. The other players don't feel slighted. They would honestly prefer having a more powerful character to help them out.

In RQ3 we just had people make a brand new character. This worked better in RQ than D&D because even a newbie can do something in RQ. Also the more experienced characters would help them out. Hand him a few magic items and cast a BladeSharp and Protection 6 on the newb and he does loads better. New characters with the support of experienced ones seem to grow faster in power than a group of new characters, probably because of better loot.

[Rurik]

I don't get this part though. If a player loses a character to a heroic death, why should they be punished. They already lose the ability to run a well known and beloved character. Even if the player loses the character through some bad decision making, most of the time the whole group was involved in the bad decision and it just happens to be bad luck that the particular character in question died.

I never looked at it as punishing a player for dying, but as rewarding a player for earning the goals they have worked for. Ultimately the reward for roleplaying is good roleplaying. The reward for a heroic death is just that, a heroic death - one that will be talked about long after the character is gone.

If one player attains runelord status he earned it, another player shouldn't just have it handed to him. I can see how you could look at it as punishing a player for dying I suppose, but really all they have to do is start over, and they have the oppurtunity of creating a whole new character. But then being the best fighter or sorcerer or whatever was not really the goal of most players in my experience. People roll up Ducks and Trollkin or whatever not because of their combat potential but because they think they will be fun to play (namely by being annoying as possible it seems for the two cases I just cited ). No one ever rolled up a Humakti expecting to live particularly long, nor an Issaries trader for the combat potential, yet players always choose to play these types of characters.

I remeber a Cyberpunk game where a player joined our group that had been established a while and rolled up a Solo. We all looked at him and said "Oh My God you want to run with us?" And we dragged him down to our cyber surgeon (we had a good one, clean lab, quality parts) and gave him the work over (Cyber Optic linked to smartgun jack, embedded cellphone, skinweave, reflexes, the works). He was kinda bummed, he didn't feel he'd gotten a chance to earn all his cool stuff.

Trying to keep statistics balanced seems artificial to me - but then different people are looking for different things from their games, such balance has never been important to me, but obviously is to others.

[Rurik]

In D&D we allow a character of the same level. It is easy to do in D&D, everything is defined for every level. The other players don't feel slighted. They would honestly prefer having a more powerful character to help them out.

In RQ3 we just had people make a brand new character. This worked better in RQ than D&D because even a newbie can do something in RQ. Also the more experienced characters would help them out. Hand him a few magic items and cast a BladeSharp and Protection 6 on the newb and he does loads better. New characters with the support of experienced ones seem to grow faster in power than a group of new characters, probably because of better loot.

While admittedly there is a 20 year gap here since I've played D&D it sounds like what you've done with RQ3 is exactly what I have done with it - new characters are made with the default rules for new characters. It really isn't that big of a deal.

Though as I recall (and this goes back to AD&D) that with the way xp work, a 1st level character coming into a game with 5th level characters is going to get his first couple levels very quickly (assuming he lives of course) - that experience system actually balances out faster than BRP - the difference is a brand new character in BRP character is not as helpless as a 1st level D&D character.

[Sunwolfe]

The players in my games have been campaigning in them since the early 90’s. As I mentioned elsewhere on these boards, the two groups I have gamed with since forever ago are a pretty tight circle. In that time there have been some significant PC deaths. Not as many as some who post here have in their games, but enough to be felt. Usually these are dear, well-played and history-laden characters who have had the dice roll against them or made a seriously blunder and reaped the reward. They are an experienced lot and as players are usually very well prepared for both foreseeable encounters and those that surprise them, which they handle most professionally, but once in a while, despite subtle warnings, which they remember later, they end up in overwhelming situations at the wrong end of a spear or spell.

It helps to soften the blow that we’re all friends at the gaming table and away from it at the dining room table, around the fire-pit and pool out back (gods, I love being an older gamer). They understand that the last thing I want to do is waste time…theirs as players or mine as a GM. And the investment is considerable. One player has been in one of my campaigns with the same character for almost seventeen years now.:shocked: If he fell, I’d feel pretty bad, I’d still allow it, but I’d feel bad. I wouldn’t feel guilty however, as I’m very careful to follow the rules and apply them fairly. They know this; in fact, they count on it.

There is a trust between the players and GM in my games that they appreciate. When their characters do die, it’s accepted as part and parcel of the system and setting Sunwolfe GMs. This goes a long way in making the shift to a “different” character smooth…and to a different “new” character they go, usually in the form of a follower or acquaintance who would logically be able the join the party without having to dump or give up the whole campaign thread—something that would be unfair to the rest of the party as well as the poor sod who after “x” years got himself inadvertently whacked.

Though PC death is an ever present possibility and should be accepted by both player and GM alike, I’m not comfortable looking a player in the eye, who has spent literally years with the same PC at my game table, whose said PC has just died and tell him to roll-up a newb warrior/magician/thief/blah-blah. Nope. The game may have killed ‘em, and to be fair I have to let it, but I’m not going to add insult to injury by requiring them to start fresh I.E. all over again from empty pockets and low skills. Unless of course they ask to…that, however, is fodder for a different thread.

I, therefore, people my settings with many NPCs just for the purpose of PC replacement. By virtue of “hanging out” with the PCs, these NPCs are usually on par with them skill-wise, as well as in wealth (my world is on a serious silver standard, usually hack-silver; where someone with more than 100 gold pieces to spend could seriously ruin the local economy of a city-state) and knowledge: the elite house guards they made friends with from the mentor’s estate; the experienced paladins of their patron priestess who escort them into her presence after another successful mission; the arcane brother and sister acolytes of their master magician consultant; or their fellow shock-trooper trireme marines from the Savage Wave Legion who sailed them to their destination. Because my players trust in our player/GM relationship, they usually step into the NPC shoes with little protest, retaining present game continuity and utilizing many of the experiences and knowledge of their former character—albeit through the eyes of a “new” one.

The protests, as my players have expressed them, have to do with the static and flat nature of these NPCs when compared to their beloved and well-played characters. Again, however, they understand that that is the nature of the beast and accept it. None complain too long as I usually take them aside and fill them in with quick background material that make them feel unique and like PCs again.

Don’t get me wrong, my players mourn the loss of their PCs when they die ;-(, but they handle it with good grace because a.) they can follow the thread and see that they died as a result of bad decision making on their part and a fair application of the rules on mine, b.) they trust me to acknowledge their long investment in the campaign, c.) there will be interesting NPCs for them to assume ownership of, and d.) they won’t be required to give up on the campaign entirely and start over from scratch.

Just my take and how I handle PC death and experience levels.

Cheers,

Sunwolfe

[RMS]

If one player attains runelord status he earned it, another player shouldn't just have it handed to him.

There's a lot of room between a newbie character with base skills and a rune lord with a half dozen, or more, mastered skills. I've never started anyone as a rune lord, but have started out plenty as skilled initiates, rather than newbie initiates. In D&D terms, this would be similar to allowing someone to start with a 5th level character in a group that is otherwise 10th level, as apposed to making the new character 1st level. Part of this is my logical-simulationist goals. It just makes no sense for a bunch of rune lords to waste time with newbies. They associate with mid-level to powerful initiates, and how a newbie would be with them, other than to cook meals or similar, just doesn't make a lot of sense. As I already mentioned, the PC rune lords typically have a whole retinue of NPC followers, so I would typically let the player develop one of those into a PC (if they desire), who would typically be much more powerful than a newbie character already.

I can see how you could look at it as punishing a player for dying I suppose,

Telling a player to essentially run a stablehand with a group of rune lords (sticking with our ongoing example), when even the associate NPCs are strong initiates, seems like punishment to me. When your new PC is outclassed by the NPC followers of the other PCs, it doesn't sound like much fun to me.

People roll up Ducks and Trollkin or whatever not because of their combat potential but because they think they will be fun to play (namely by being annoying as possible it seems for the two cases I just cited ).

Or an Eurmal follower...

No one ever rolled up a Humakti expecting to live particularly long, nor an Issaries trader for the combat potential, yet players always choose to play these types of characters.

I'm not talking about combat potential here. Power is about the ability to affect the game. A trader isn't about being a great warrior, but if the (newbie) trader isn't better at communication skills than all the rune lord warriors in the group (frequently the case) than the trader is superfuous. OTOH, if you do like I do and let the trader start off with some moderate experience there's a reasonable chance of the trader having enough abilities to contribute somewhere.

Trying to keep statistics balanced seems artificial to me - but then different people are looking for different things from their games, such balance has never been important to me, but obviously is to others.

Having a single farm kid run around with a bunch powerful, experience people seems artificial to me, in most cases. One of my main reasons for letting people bring in more experienced characters is because it's simply more logical that a group will replace a very competent person with someone of reasonably close competence. If you lose an experienced person at work, do you try to replace them with some of similar ability or look for someone with no experience?

This isn't about balance*, so much as having a logical, coherent world.

* To me. I realize that it's symbiatic that I get my logical world and the players get characters that have something to offer the group.

[Rurik]

The thing I think being overlooked is that most games have experience systems that cause less experienced characters to progress faster than more experiencd characters. It has certainly been my experience, and that of others who've used the new characters create, well, new characters approach, is that the 'noob' very quickly progresses in experience and ability - it is not like they are forever crippled. Right off the bat they have access to better equipment and magic than a true 'new' character and their skills advance quickly. A starting RQ character with starting cash as per the rules is just not on the same level as a starting RQ character with access to plate armor, casters who can boost them/protect them/heal them, and have readily available spell teachers and trainers. Their capabilities grow rapidly.

[Atgxtg]

Hey guys, Triff did split off another tread for the balance ting that we all seem to be using. How about we let this one rest or go back to its original topic?

[RMS]

Hey guys, Triff did split off another tread for the balance ting that we all seem to be using. How about we let this one rest or go back to its original topic?

I was enjoying the parallel threads! What was the original topic?

:focus:

[Rurik]

blah blah blah blah blah...

Actually moved this big ole post over to the relevant thread.

[Rurik]

Hey guys, Triff did split off another tread for the balance ting that we all seem to be using. How about we let this one rest or go back to its original topic?

Or, better yet, we could threadjack that one to be about weapon tables.

[freddyboomboom]

Heh...

Being Zane's resident Gun Fondler, finding this by doing a Google search is kind of funny to me.

I forgot who mentioned it, but someone said something about the Barrett Light .50 having a bipod, so it's not unreasonable for someone with a STR 5 being able to fire it.

I agree, but since I have a Harris bipod for my personally owned AR-15, doesn't that mean that my game character would only need a STR 5 for it as well, instead of the 10 that the BRP rules say?

And since it says that you only need a STR 5 to be able to have a Barret Light .50 (12.9 kg empty according to Welcome to -= Modern Firearms & Ammunition =- site) why does it take twice the STR to have an Assault Rifle (AR15/M-16 2.89 kg empty, 3.6 kg with 30 round magazine, AK-47 4.3 kg empty)? The assault rifle is 1/4 the weight, but I need twice the STR to carry/use it...

I don't mind abstracting out the damage, and etc. for the "basic" game.

But I just want a little consistency and intelligence.

STR 11 required for an "automatic" shotgun (I'm guessing they mean semi-automatic because fully automatic shotguns are pretty rare) but a double barreled shotgun requires a STR of 9. However, having shot both kinds, the semi-automatic has a much less recoil impulse due to the fact of the bolt and the recoil spring absorb a lot of the recoil energy. The double barrel shotgun doesn't have anything to absorb any recoil energy. Except your shoulder.

And a heavy pistol (M1911 sized or Desert Eagle sized?) requires an 11 STR... I'm guessing bigger than a Desert Eagle, since you need less strength for a double barreled shotgun.

And what exactly is the difference between a "sporting" shotgun and the other types? Or is that what they are calling a pump shotgun?

And the maximum effective range for a shotgun is 50 yards? Ok, for the purposes of the game I'll go for it.

What's the difference between a "sporting" rifle and a bolt action rifle? Most sporting rifles in the real world ARE bolt action rifles. And most sniper rifles are simply accurized sporting bolt action rifles.

And why does it have a range of 80 yards, where a bolt action rifle has a range of 110 yards?

My Lee Enfield #1 Mk III (bolt action) that was made in 1916 has the shortest range setting on it's iron sights as being 200 yards. Max range setting is 2000 yards...

An assault rifle is good for 90 yards, yet the Marine Corps trains EVERYONE to hit a man sized target at 300 yards with the M-16 aka poodleshooter... That does more damage than the sporting rifle used in the next example.

A smoothbore musket does 1d10+4 damage (5-14 points), whereas a sporting rifle does 2d6 (2-12 points). What kind of sporting rifle is that, exactly?

These are some of the examples of where I believe that the BRP firearms table is seriously fscked.

I don't require the accuracy of some other games systems, I just want it to make a certain amount of sense.

I guess that's a bit much to ask, eh?

Thank you all for your time.

PS: I'd like to mention that even though this game has been going on for a while, we've had a couple of times where two consecutive game sessions were almost a year apart. We don't get together very often. I'm not interested in buying a rulebook for a game I play only a few times a year, with just one group of folks. I need that money to help pay for my new pistol tomorrow, and for ammo...

[Triff]

I'm not interested in buying a rulebook for a game I play only a few times a year, with just one group of folks. I need that money to help pay for my new pistol tomorrow, and for ammo...

Zane is reworking the guns-table to have damage being dependent on ammo, plus som other adjustments. Maybe you should get together with him on it. I'd love to see a "fixed" guns table in the download section (or the wiki).

SGL.

[Atgxtg]

Heh...

Being Zane's resident Gun Fondler, finding this by doing a Google search is kind of funny to me.

I forgot who mentioned it, but someone said something about the Barrett Light .50 having a bipod, so it's not unreasonable for someone with a STR 5 being able to fire it.

I agree, but since I have a Harris bipod for my personally owned AR-15, doesn't that mean that my game character would only need a STR 5 for it as well, instead of the 10 that the BRP rules say?

And since it says that you only need a STR 5 to be able to have a Barret Light .50 (12.9 kg empty according to Welcome to -= Modern Firearms & Ammunition =- site) why does it take twice the STR to have an Assault Rifle (AR15/M-16 2.89 kg empty, 3.6 kg with 30 round magazine, AK-47 4.3 kg empty)? The assault rifle is 1/4 the weight, but I need twice the STR to carry/use it...

I don't mind abstracting out the damage, and etc. for the "basic" game.

But I just want a little consistency and intelligence.

Hey Freddie I sympathize. I've been thinking of porting over some rules for bracing and stands/bipods/mounts, using STRx1.5 for using a weapon with 2 hands, and basing recoil on half a weapon's max damage.

The BArrett does have a lot of recoil compesation and ports off something like 10% of the bullet's energy to boot, but it swould still have a bit more recoil than a M16 or FN-FAL.

STR 11 required for an "automatic" shotgun (I'm guessing they mean semi-automatic because fully automatic shotguns are pretty rare) but a double barreled shotgun requires a STR of 9. However, having shot both kinds, the semi-automatic has a much less recoil impulse due to the fact of the bolt and the recoil spring absorb a lot of the recoil energy. The double barrel shotgun doesn't have anything to absorb any recoil energy. Except your shoulder.

I'd say go with it being a automatic shotgun. I could see a STR of 11 for an Atchisson fring off a burst of 00 buck.

And a heavy pistol (M1911 sized or Desert Eagle sized?) requires an 11 STR... I'm guessing bigger than a Desert Eagle, since you need less strength for a double barreled shotgun.

I'm thinking heavy pistol is along the lines of a Desert Eagle or S&W Model 29, and being fired one-handed. Fired a .44 Mag in one hand probably is harder than firring a shotgun in two.

And what exactly is the difference between a "sporting" shotgun and the other types? Or is that what they are calling a pump shotgun?

Good question.

And the maximum effective range for a shotgun is 50 yards? Ok, for the purposes of the game I'll go for it.

Is that maxmium range or range. I don't have the book, but most range stats for BRP games give mutiple weapon ranges. For instance COC gives a base range and drops the skill at each doubling.

What's the difference between a "sporting" rifle and a bolt action rifle? Most sporting rifles in the real world ARE bolt action rifles. And most sniper rifles are simply accurized sporting bolt action rifles.

Based on the damages, I suspect it is really just a matter of caliber. Considering that the "sniper" rifle does damage comparable to a elephant gun, it is probably something like a .338 Winchester Magnum, or heavier.

And why does it have a range of 80 yards, where a bolt action rifle has a range of 110 yards?

Well in CoC these were the ranges you could shoot at full ability. Since the ranges are about the same as in CoC, I suspect is is the same in BRP. So 80 or 110 yearsds is how far out you can shoot at full ability.

My Lee Enfield #1 Mk III (bolt action) that was made in 1916 has the shortest range setting on it's iron sights as being 200 yards. Max range setting is 2000 yards...

And the speedometer on my sisters Corolla went up to 120mph even though the only way the car could reach that speed was by driving off a cliff.

The effective range of a SMLE is a lot closer to 550yards than 2000. Yes some specimens were used as sniper rifles at over 1000 ytards, and the bullet can travel out to 2000 yards, but no one actually hits what they are aiming at at 2000 yards with one.

ANd most "effective range" measurements are a bit genererous. Jane's, for instance, uses the range that one bullet out of a clip can hit the target.

Still, if the 110 yards is the base range that works out to an effective range of about 440 yards for a "average" military shooter (50%) Toss in a scope, and take careful aim and hits out over 1600 yards are possible.

An assault rifle is good for 90 yards, yet the Marine Corps trains EVERYONE to hit a man sized target at 300 yards with the M-16 aka poodleshooter... That does more damage than the sporting rifle used in the next example.

Again, if this is base range, like I think it is supposed to be, there isn't a problem. Hitting something at 300 yards is possible assuming you have some skill, and take your time.

A smoothbore musket does 1d10+4 damage (5-14 points), whereas a sporting rifle does 2d6 (2-12 points). What kind of sporting rifle is that, exactly?

This one I'll debate you on. Generally the musket ball while big is moving very slow. Based on the casualty rates from civil war records vs. modern firearms the musket ball isn't any more lethal than some modern light rifles and heavy pistols. 1860s medicine however, was. So damage on par with an assalut rifle, M16 isn't far off, based on the histrocial data.

I don't require the accuracy of some other games systems, I just want it to make a certain amount of sense.

I guess that's a bit much to ask, eh?

Could you have been a bit less sarcastic there. Or at least wait for a response before posting "I guess that's too much to ask, eh?"

PS: I'd like to mention that even though this game has been going on for a while, we've had a couple of times where two consecutive game sessions were almost a year apart. We don't get together very often. I'm not interested in buying a rulebook for a game I play only a few times a year, with just one group of folks. I need that money to help pay for my new pistol tomorrow, and for ammo...

Why do you want to mention that? Did someone pound on your door telling you that you had to buy a rulebook? I get the feeling that you are blaming us for trying to force you to buy a rulebook. I don't think any of us are doing that.

But, I would suggest learning the rules a bit before you complain about them. If the ranges do work like they have in the past, some of your objections are misplaced.

[SDLeary]

Heh...

Being Zane's resident Gun Fondler, finding this by doing a Google search is kind of funny to me.

I forgot who mentioned it, but someone said something about the Barrett Light .50 having a bipod, so it's not unreasonable for someone with a STR 5 being able to fire it.

(raises hand) Oh oh... thats me!

I agree, but since I have a Harris bipod for my personally owned AR-15, doesn't that mean that my game character would only need a STR 5 for it as well, instead of the 10 that the BRP rules say?

I would say yes. And honestly for an AR-15, probably more like a STR 3.

[And since it says that you only need a STR 5 to be able to have a Barret Light .50 (12.9 kg empty according to Welcome to -= Modern Firearms & Ammunition =- site) why does it take twice the STR to have an Assault Rifle (AR15/M-16 2.89 kg empty, 3.6 kg with 30 round magazine, AK-47 4.3 kg empty)? The assault rifle is 1/4 the weight, but I need twice the STR to carry/use it...

[freddyboomboom]

The BArrett does have a lot of recoil compesation and ports off something like 10% of the bullet's energy to boot, but it swould still have a bit more recoil than a M16 or FN-FAL.

I agree that the muzzle brake and using from a bipod reduces greatly the effect of firing the Barret, but lumping the recoil of an M-16 and FN-FAL together leads me to believe that you're personally unfamiliar with handling and firing the M-16 and FN-FAL. Since I have the civilian versions of both, I can tell you that they are a world apart in terms of weight and recoil (as well as muzzle flash and noise). My eight year old nephew that loves shooting my civilian M-16 (AR-15) would agree, since he doesn't even try to pick up my FN-FAL. The muzzle brake on the Barret is there primarily to reduce muzzle flash, actually...

I'd say go with it being a automatic shotgun. I could see a STR of 11 for an Atchisson fring off a burst of 00 buck.

I'm thinking heavy pistol is along the lines of a Desert Eagle or S&W Model 29, and being fired one-handed. Fired a .44 Mag in one hand probably is harder than firring a shotgun in two.

Actually, the pistols are lots more mild than the 12 gauge shotgun. And I would hesitate to fire a fully automatic shotgun.

Is that maxmium range or range. I don't have the book, but most range stats for BRP games give mutiple weapon ranges. For instance COC gives a base range and drops the skill at each doubling.

If that's the case, then I'm ok with the range values. But the GM wasn't able to articulate that, so we'll probably have to research what it says.

Based on the damages, I suspect it is really just a matter of caliber. Considering that the "sniper" rifle does damage comparable to a elephant gun, it is probably something like a .338 Winchester Magnum, or heavier.

Well, from my knowledge, usually sniper rifles are shooting .308/7.62mmx55, there aren't that many that shoot even .300 Win Mag. I'd be very interested to know which military or police force use sniper rifles that are chambered in .338 Win Mag.

The effective range of a SMLE is a lot closer to 550yards than 2000. Yes some specimens were used as sniper rifles at over 1000 ytards, and the bullet can travel out to 2000 yards, but no one actually hits what they are aiming at at 2000 yards with one.

I'm familiar with "volley fire", but my point was the "short" range of the SMLE was considered to be 200 yards. Which is just a little bit longer than what we're now considering as "short" range for bolt action rifles in BRP (110 yards). FYI: 200 yards is the "short" range setting on my WWII era Mauser bolt action rifle, as well.

ANd most "effective range" measurements are a bit genererous. Jane's, for instance, uses the range that one bullet out of a clip can hit the target.

I don't have a Jane's, but I'm familiar with folks saying the effective range of the M-16 is over 1000 yards because an accurized one can hit paper targets out that far in the hands of a well trained and practiced shooter, but it probably wouldn't penetrate the Sunday newspaper (a little tongue in cheek, but probably not much). Actually when Googling for info for some of these points I saw a US Army website that said the max range of the M-16 is 3,600 meters.

Again, if this is base range, like I think it is supposed to be, there isn't a problem. Hitting something at 300 yards is possible assuming you have some skill, and take your time.

Agreed, but I was just given the table, with no explanation if the range was "base range" or "maximum range". Last year I went to a 2 day intro to marksmanship class that had us shooting at 200 yards on the second day. With "sporting" and "bolt action" and "semi-automatic" rifles.

This one I'll debate you on. Generally the musket ball while big is moving very slow. Based on the casualty rates from civil war records vs. modern firearms the musket ball isn't any more lethal than some modern light rifles and heavy pistols. 1860s medicine however, was. So damage on par with an assalut rifle, M16 isn't far off, based on the histrocial data.

I'll gladly debate this. The musket ball is traveling a lot slower, and is bigger. Much more likely to stay in the body, rather than travel through as the much faster traveling M-16 round (.22 on steroids). But aside from leaving a larger hole through which to leak bodily fluids, the musket also frequently brought with it pieces of the uniform of the unfortunate soul to get hit. Frequently, due to the relatively primitive method of surgery and sanitation, some of these would remain in the wound, causing infection and often leading to the person's death. Far more soldiers died off the battlefield, than on, during the War of Northern Aggression (aka US Civil War for those who've never lived in the Former Confederate States of America). But the much faster moving M-16 round will generate more hydrostatic static shock, producing a much larger temporary wound channel and possibly a larger permanent wound channel, depending on which of several different rounds used (M193, M197, M855, M862, M995, etc). And the twist rate of the barrel rifling in the various versions of the M-16 versus which round used, etc. But I'm willing to generalize and say we're going to average it out, or the assault rifle isn't an M-16, but it's a G3 or FN-FAL or M-14 instead. More on this below.

Could you have been a bit less sarcastic there. Or at least wait for a response before posting "I guess that's too much to ask, eh?"

I should have put a smiley behind this. I am usually pretty sarcastic, and my sense of humor is pretty dry. I sincerely apologize for bruising your sensibilities, it wasn't meant to offend anyone. I'm sorry.

Why do you want to mention that? Did someone pound on your door telling you that you had to buy a rulebook? I get the feeling that you are blaming us for trying to force you to buy a rulebook. I don't think any of us are doing that.

Actually a couple of folks, or one person a couple of times, indicated something along the lines of (I'm paraphrasing from memory and I mean no disrespect) "if they're not willing to buy the rulebook, and know it fully, then they probably need me to help them figure out what to do as well as me telling them how to do it. Not worth my time to play with those kind of people." Saying this as me, myself, and I, I can see where those folks that believe that way (or similarly) are coming from, and I have no problem whatsoever with their opinion.

It wasn't meant as a "pointing fingers" or "blaming" anyone, it was just an attempt to explain to the individual(s) why I am not, personally, very interested in buying the rulebook.

Several years ago I bought a rulebook for Runequest, and I've gotten to play exactly one time. I invested a ton of money and time in buying and studying GURPS books, and I've never played it even a single time. Same with Traveller the New Era.

That doesn't really matter, though, in regards to this discussion.

But, I would suggest learning the rules a bit before you complain about them. If the ranges do work like they have in the past, some of your objections are misplaced.

Well... Uhh... When a part of a game is using firearms based on real life firearms, and their relative statistics/usability/"lethality"/etc, and the way they are presented doesn't seem to make sense to me, from my experience, then I'm going to question the way they are presented.

You are the first person to indicate to me that the "range" listed for the firearms is "base or short range" and that there is a "medium range" that is double that, and a "max effective range" double the "medium range". I'm ok with that idea, and I believe that invalidates my main concern.

Another main concern I have is that the STR doesn't seem to match what I believe it should be. My previously mentioned eight year old nephew loves to shoot my Browning High Power pistol (9mm Parabellum), which I figure should be a medium pistol requiring a STR of 7. He also loves to shoot my AR-15, which I would classify as an assault rifle, requiring a STR of 10. But he wouldn't dare try to shoot (nor would he be able to aim very well) my 12 gauge pump shotgun (sporting shotgun??) that BRP says he needs the same STR as for a medium pistol or my FN-FAL (assault rifle) that BRP is apparently saying is exactly the same as the AR-15.

What I'm trying to point out here, is that I don't believe the STR requirements for using firearms don't seem to make a whole lot of sense to me, the way it was presented to me.

If an average human has a STR of 10, then OK, but being told that my CoC character (former US Army infantry soldier, freshly back from the trenches of WWI) that has a STR of 10 is no longer able to even lift his 12 gauge pump action shotgun, but a kid with a STR of 5 can carry around and shoot a Barret Light .50. That's stretching my ability to suspend my disbelief...

Anyone who has held an AR-15 (M-16) and an FN-FAL side by side (or held their cartridges side by side) would be able to tell you the FN-FAL is MUCH heavier than the AR-15. Generalizing to assault rifle and dropping the distinction of there being both an AR-15 (M-16) and an FN-FAL is actually a benefit in this case, and I think suits the idea of "Basic Role Playing" much better.

If you can point out to me in the rules, page or chapter, where this stuff is actually explained, then during my next opportunity, I'll go over to Zane's house and read up on it.

I'm not trying to argue, I'm not trying to poop on the rules, I'm just trying to understand.

Thank you for your time and patience.

Edited to add: If you're in the Portland Oregon area, I'd be happy to provide you an opportunity to fire the firearms discussed, that I actually own. I don't own a .44 Magnum any more, but I'm sure I can borrow one.

[Atgxtg]

I agree that the muzzle brake and using from a bipod reduces greatly the effect of firing the Barret, but lumping the recoil of an M-16 and FN-FAL together leads me to believe that you're personally unfamiliar with handling and firing the M-16 and FN-FAL. Since I have the civilian versions of both, I can tell you that they are a world apart in terms of weight and recoil (as well as muzzle flash and noise). My eight year old nephew that loves shooting my civilian M-16 (AR-15) would agree, since he doesn't even try to pick up my FN-FAL. The muzzle brake on the Barret is there primarily to reduce muzzle flash, actually...

Well, technically, an FN-FAL isn't an assault rifle. It's a battle rifle. Althought 99% of gamers are not aware of the distinction. So technically I can see the 2d6 for the assault rifle and use the 2d6+4 bolt action rifle stats for a battle rifle.

That is the thing with 'generic" stats. They only have to match up with a "generic" weapon not the whole range.

As for the Barret, it does quite a few things to make the 12.7mm a viable rifle round. A few tricks to reduce and delay recoil, a somewhat heavier weapon than needed, and the porting. Plus it is a weapon that you are not expected to fire from the shoulder (ouch!).

Actually, the pistols are lots more mild than the 12 gauge shotgun. And I would hesitate to fire a fully automatic shotgun.

A 12 gauge with 2 hands is probably going to have less percieved recoil than a .44 fired one handed. THe shotgun has a lot more mass to help soak up some recoil. Of course putting two hands on a .44 would help a lot.

If that's the case, then I'm ok with the range values. But the GM wasn't able to articulate that, so we'll probably have to research what it says.

That is how range generally works in Call of Cthulhu, and is sort of the standard for firearms in BRP. I believe that is how rtange is intened to work in BRP, too. So it's not that you can't shoot at something at over 110m with a Lee Enfield No. 4, just that you are taking a penalty.

Also, there is usally a option to take careful aim, which take time, but doubles you base range. Scopes and laser sites have a similar effect that enhances the benefits of aiming. So if you put a scope of that Lee-Enfield, and take a lower rate of fire you base range goes up to something like 400m.

Well, from my knowledge, usually sniper rifles are shooting .308/7.62mmx55, there aren't that many that shoot even .300 Win Mag. I'd be very interested to know which military or police force use sniper rifles that are chambered in .338 Win Mag.

True. IMO the base sniper rifle damage should have been about the same as the bolt action rifle. Maybe a bit higher to reflect the match grade ammo used in such weapons. But a lot of the modern sniper rifles are avialable in different chambering. Some popular ones that have a bit more "oomph" that the 7.62/.303/.30-06 standard would be the .300 Winchester Magnum, the .338 Lapuda Magnum, and lately the .50 caibler BMG.

Since it looks like Jason went with a midrange value rather than the "most common" value I'm thinking that the damage sort of matches up well with the .338 Lapuda.

Again, that is the thing with "generic" stats, they could be any one of a range of weapons. For instance, as has been raised earlier, the SMG damage is greater than a pistol but less than a rfile. Jason chose this deliberately. Fortunately there were and still are SMGs that used bullets that are an intermediate between pistol and rifle rounds, so I'm going to assume that the SMG is something like the P90, rather than a H&K MP5 or Uzi. For those I'll run them as doing medium pistol damage.

I'm familiar with "volley fire", but my point was the "short" range of the SMLE was considered to be 200 yards. Which is just a little bit longer than what we're now considering as "short" range for bolt action rifles in BRP (110 yards). FYI: 200 yards is the "short" range setting on my WWII era Mauser bolt action rifle, as well.

Yeah, on paper. In practice that really wasn't the case. The story of the creation of the assault rifle/Sturmgewehr sort of explains that. No one was really hitting much of anything at long range, except for experts, so the lighter, shorter ranged round and rifle were developed.

So taking a penalty for anything over 110 yards/meters works out. Especially when you remember that you can double you base range by careful aiming. So if someone take time and sqeezes off a few carefully aimed shots they can shoot out to 220m without a penalty.

I don't have a Jane's, but I'm familiar with folks saying the effective range of the M-16 is over 1000 yards because an accurized one can hit paper targets out that far in the hands of a well trained and practiced shooter, but it probably wouldn't penetrate the Sunday newspaper (a little tongue in cheek, but probably not much). Actually when Googling for info for some of these points I saw a US Army website that said the max range of the M-16 is 3,600 meters.

Well the US army lists the maximum effective range for an M16 at 550m, assuming it is being used to fire at a target. The effective range for area fire is 800m. Of course in the real world this is a estimate for an average shooter being able to get a hit, but over several shots.

The difference between effective range and maximum range is that effective range is the distance that you can have a chance of hitting something that you are aiming at. Maximum is how far the bullet will travel.

Let's consider the M1911A1 .45ACP pistol, for example. The maximum range that the .45 bullet will travel is something like 1500m, but no one is going to be able to aim at hit something at 1000m with one. Considering that it will take something like 5 seconds for the bullet to travel that far, you'd have to aim 50m about the target and hope the bullet falls on it. That in addition to guessing where the target will be 5 seconds from now.

The effective range of a 45 pistol is usually listed as somewhere around 50m, although different sources might give a value between 35-80m.

Within the game, they have a base range of 15-20m or so, so thay hit targets out to 60-80m with a little luck or skill, and occasionally hit targets out farther with a lot of luck.

Then there is the point that an accurized weapon is fitted to finener tolerances and therefore would have a better range. The M1199A1 pistol gnerally isn't very accurate as pistols go, but an accurized one is.

Agreed, but I was just given the table, with no explanation if the range was "base range" or "maximum range". Last year I went to a 2 day intro to marksmanship class that had us shooting at 200 yards on the second day. With "sporting" and "bolt action" and "semi-automatic" rifles.

Ah, go thwack Zane with the table. ;)

Generally the range listed is a base range, with the ability to shoot 2x, 4x, an even farther, but at a penalty.

One other thing to keep in mind is that the game focuses on "combat shooting" rather than "range shooting." So a PC will probably not hit quite as often as a person would on the rifle range. This is just like in real life. If you look at the data for real world firefights, you see a lot more misses. Things like the adrenaline dump and rushing your shot because you are being shot back at have a effect on accuracy. In the real world most firefights take place ant under 7m and only about 15% of the shots hit! By comparison PCs are doing a lot better in the game.

I'll gladly debate this. The musket ball is traveling a lot slower, and is bigger. Much more likely to stay in the body, rather than travel through as the much faster traveling M-16 round (.22 on steroids). But aside from leaving a larger hole through which to leak bodily fluids, the musket also frequently brought with it pieces of the uniform of the unfortunate soul to get hit. Frequently, due to the relatively primitive method of surgery and sanitation, some of these would remain in the wound, causing infection and often leading to the person's death. Far more soldiers died off the battlefield, than on, during the War of Northern Aggression (aka US Civil War for those who've never lived in the Former Confederate States of America). But the much faster moving M-16 round will generate more hydrostatic static shock, producing a much larger temporary wound channel and possibly a larger permanent wound channel, depending on which of several different rounds used (M193, M197, M855, M862, M995, etc). And the twist rate of the barrel rifling in the various versions of the M-16 versus which round used, etc. But I'm willing to generalize and say we're going to average it out, or the assault rifle isn't an M-16, but it's a G3 or FN-FAL or M-14 instead. More on this below.

Weapon damages can get very complex. I'll debate the musket ball, but it looks like we don't have to. All the infection notes really aren't a factor of the damage done, but of the after effects on being shot. Something that generally isn't covered in BRP. I know someone (:o) put up a table for eventual fatal results, but that's just a homebrew option.

Just the diffences between the various types and calibers of musket can make a difference. Varianices in power charge, dampness all played a factor. There are quite a few accounts cases of musket balls not penetrating deep enough or even "boucing" off of heavy clothing.

If given a choice, I'd take an M16 over any musket. If I wanted to do more damage, I'd probably take a 7.62 weapon, or something thereabouts. Unless I was going after big game.

I should have put a smiley behind this. I am usually pretty sarcastic, and my sense of humor is pretty dry. I sincerely apologize for bruising your sensibilities, it wasn't meant to offend anyone. I'm sorry.

Fair enough. Just felt that you were being a bit defensive before we jumped down you throat.

Actually a couple of folks, or one person a couple of times, indicated something along the lines of (I'm paraphrasing from memory and I mean no disrespect) "if they're not willing to buy the rulebook, and know it fully, then they probably need me to help them figure out what to do as well as me telling them how to do it. Not worth my time to play with those kind of people." Saying this as me, myself, and I, I can see where those folks that believe that way (or similarly) are coming from, and I have no problem whatsoever with their opinion.

It wasn't meant as a "pointing fingers" or "blaming" anyone, it was just an attempt to explain to the individual(s) why I am not, personally, very interested in buying the rulebook.

Someone might have said that. But I don't thing that everyone agrees with that opinion. Most of my players never bought a rulebook for the games I've run. I do expect those who buy them to bring them along. But I don't expect anyone to buy the book unless they want to. That usually means that they like the game after playing regularly for months. If you are only playing once or twice a year, I can't see buying a book.

Well... Uhh... When a part of a game is using firearms based on real life firearms, and their relative statistics/usability/"lethality"/etc, and the way they are presented doesn't seem to make sense to me, from my experience, then I'm going to question the way they are presented.

Fair enough. I'm the same way. In fact, I am another one who has worked on some alternate firearm stats. From my real world experience, it is actually quite rare for a bullet, any bullet to kill someone outright. Injure them so they will drop dead eventually, sure. But in real life only certain brain and spinal column hits can kill you outright. Of course, if some gets hit in the heart and is going to bleed to death in 10 seconds the difference might not be that significant.

You are the first person to indicate to me that the "range" listed for the firearms is "base or short range" and that there is a "medium range" that is double that, and a "max effective range" double the "medium range". I'm ok with that idea, and I believe that invalidates my main concern.

I think it even goes a few steps beyond 4x. That is how it was handled in CoC, and most other firearm ranges in similar games from Chaosium do something similar. The idea is that is a lot easier to hit someone at 30 yards then at 300.

Another main concern I have is that the STR doesn't seem to match what I believe it should be. My previously mentioned eight year old nephew loves to shoot my Browning High Power pistol (9mm Parabellum), which I figure should be a medium pistol requiring a STR of 7. He also loves to shoot my AR-15, which I would classify as an assault rifle, requiring a STR of 10. But he wouldn't dare try to shoot (nor would he be able to aim very well) my 12 gauge pump shotgun (sporting shotgun??) that BRP says he needs the same STR as for a medium pistol or my FN-FAL (assault rifle) that BRP is apparently saying is exactly the same as the AR-15.

Several points:

First off, since the weapons are generic, the STR requirements for the assault rifle probably reflect an M16 rather than an FN-FAL. I'd think so since the FN-FAL fires a 7.62 bullet, virtually the same round as most military bolt action rifles.

Secondly, anyone could really fire any gun. All you got to do is pull the trigger. If you don't control the recoil, you might not hit. But that's something else. Un the game lacking in STR gives you a penalty to hit.

High velocity rounds although they would have a higher recoil, also are more likely to be out of the barrel before the full effect of the recoil is felt. So a sniper rifle or even a pistol with a faster traveling bullet could conceivable have a lower STR requirement.

All the above taken into account. I'm not too wild about the STR mins listed either. I am considering something like 1/2 the max damage of a weapon. So a 2D6+4 rifle would have an 8. A 1d10 pistol a 5 and so on.

What I'm trying to point out here, is that I don't believe the STR requirements for using firearms don't seem to make a whole lot of sense to me, the way it was presented to me.

If an average human has a STR of 10, then OK, but being told that my CoC character (former US Army infantry soldier, freshly back from the trenches of WWI) that has a STR of 10 is no longer able to even lift his 12 gauge pump action shotgun, but a kid with a STR of 5 can carry around and shoot a Barret Light .50. That's stretching my ability to suspend my disbelief...

Ah, smack you GM again! All that happens for lacking STR in a reduction in the chances to hit. You can till lift, aim and fire the weapon.

Depending on which rule they used the penalty is either 1.2 chance, or -5% per point you are short (I prefer the latter). So if your STR 10 character grabs a STR 11 shotgun, a -5% penalty isn't too bad. Spend a little time at the range and the character can get 5% more skill to compensate.

Anyone who has held an AR-15 (M-16) and an FN-FAL side by side (or held their cartridges side by side) would be able to tell you the FN-FAL is MUCH heavier than the AR-15. Generalizing to assault rifle and dropping the distinction of there being both an AR-15 (M-16) and an FN-FAL is actually a benefit in this case, and I think suits the idea of "Basic Role Playing" much better.

As I said earlier, technically speaking, and FN-FAL isn't an assault rifle but a battle rifle. I suspect the assault rifle in the game in a M16, Austrian Leader, SIG SG 550, or any one of over a dozen 5.56mm or 5.45R rifles.

Most gamers don't know the difference and don't care. For those of use who do, I'd assume the assault rifle is the M16, and use Bolt Action rifle damages for the FN-FAL.

If you can point out to me in the rules, page or chapter, where this stuff is actually explained, then during my next opportunity, I'll go over to Zane's house and read up on it.

With BRP it is tough, since Zane is working off a pre-release copy, and some of the info is missing (a whole table of missiles went missing) or not easily tracked down. Most of the info I'm using is from earlier version of the system, and some of the clarifications that have been mentioned about the game.

I'm not trying to argue, I'm not trying to poop on the rules, I'm just trying to understand.

No problem. That is the sort of thing that all the old timers are supposedly here for. We get into some good tiffs amongst ourselves too.

It does seem like some of the problems were due to miscommunication, or things not being explained, and a few other due to the "generic" nature of the stats.

Vehicles also get a genetic treatment. Obviously not all cars move at the same speed, have the same acceleration, are all as rugged, etc.

Several of us have started working on some specific weapon write-ups and maybe one of those will appeal to you and your group. I'd rather have had specific weapon writeups rather than generic ones myself, but the majority don't seem to mind, or hope that someone will do a supplement of some type with lots of individual weapon writeup.

Thank you for your time and patience.

It is always fun to chat about RPG stuff. Well, usually.

[soltakss]

My eight year old nephew that loves shooting my civilian M-16 (AR-15) would agree, since he doesn't even try to pick up my FN-FAL.

That's so scary on so many levels for a Brit that I wouldn't know where to start