Firearms, joules and damage dice

[Atgxtg]

On 7/7/2017 at 1:38 AM, Thot said:

Question is, how would one translate that into a game mechanic. By a game mechanic that increases damage based on how much you rolled under the effective skill percentage, perhaps?

There are several possibles. tobarstep mentioned one. I've seen some games assign wound values based on the weapon's damage class and the success level. Other games can change the number or size of damage dice (for example.in BRP you could have a weapon that does one die damage for a success,two dice for a special and three or four dice for a critical.  I have a BRP variant in the works where you add (or multiply depending on the weapon) the 10s digit of the attack roll to/by the weapon's damage stat. 

[Toadmaster]

On ‎7‎/‎6‎/‎2017 at 10:38 PM, Thot said:

Question is, how would one translate that into a game mechanic. By a game mechanic that increases damage based on how much you rolled under the effective skill percentage, perhaps?

The simplest way is the use of hit locations, either require the shooter to choose location and take the penalty, or provide a hit location chart that adjusts the location based around the quality of the roll. My preference is the first as it is the easiest and closest to real world. A skilled attacker does not randomly pick a location, they know where they want to hit and if they have the skill that is where they hit. Leave random to true random attacks such as shrapnel and extreme long range / indirect or volley fire and low skill shooters who use the spray and pray method over deliberate aim..

I have seen hit location charts that will adjust the fall of the shot on near hits / misses. For example a head shot is not only harder because the head is small, but also because there are many ways to miss (only too low still resulting in a hit), while the chest / torso (aka center of mass) is not only filled with vital bits, but being a little off still provides a chance of a hit in all directions (head, arms, abdomen / legs). Of course the head and torso also tend to be better protected than the rest of the body both naturally (bone) and artificially (armor) so there are reasons to aim for other bits.  

Edited July 9, 2017 by Toadmaster

[SDLeary]

2 hours ago, Toadmaster said:

The simplest way is the use of hit locations, either require the shooter to choose location and take the penalty, or provide a hit location chart that adjusts the location based around the quality of the roll. My preference is the first as it is the easiest and closest to real world. A skilled attacker does not randomly pick a location, they know where they want to hit and if they have the skill that is where they hit. Leave random to true random attacks such as shrapnel and extreme long range / indirect or volley fire and low skill shooters who use the spray and pray method over deliberate aim..

I would actually choose the second... and tie it to the second of the old Location choice rules.... but instead of a +/- 1 bonus for delaying, a bonus for every X% under what was needed?

Or due to the nature of firearms (chemical propelled), perhaps they don't do extra dice of damage (impale damage) for extra levels of success... Perhaps you get a +/- 1 location for a special, and max damage and up to a +/- 2 location on a critical. Or some variation of this if you want extra levels of success.

SDLeary

 

[Toadmaster]

53 minutes ago, SDLeary said:

I would actually choose the second... and tie it to the second of the old Location choice rules.... but instead of a +/- 1 bonus for delaying, a bonus for every X% under what was needed?

Or due to the nature of firearms (chemical propelled), perhaps they don't do extra dice of damage (impale damage) for extra levels of success... Perhaps you get a +/- 1 location for a special, and max damage and up to a +/- 2 location on a critical. Or some variation of this if you want extra levels of success.

SDLeary

 

I was just thinking that hit location typically compensates in some way, either each location having its own hit points so a single hit from a d6-d10 can actually result in an incapacitating wound and serious self defense pistol calibers (9mm or better) will incapacitate an average person better than 50% of the time. Alternately a damage bonus x1.5, x2 etc for vitals packed locations works too. Getting a special or critical hit just adds to the mayhem.

Even a great shooter hitting a potentially critical location has the chance of the bullet "missing" anything vital so I tend not to like rules that result in near certain instakills within reason, a .50 BMG is going to pretty well destroy any location hit. 

Edited July 9, 2017 by Toadmaster

[Atgxtg]

12 hours ago, Toadmaster said:

The simplest way is the use of hit locations, 

Not all that great. Not all chest or head hits are the same. Location does play a factor but I think you need more than that to get it to work. Now Timelords did use hit locations, but it broke the body up into more locations, and subdivided the body so you had a better idea f what you were hitting. It even helped with limb hits, since if someone got hit in the knee you could se ow a low point hit could still keep them from standing. 

 

Now what I think might work better to be to allow a more specific type of aiming (like say going for the heart of lungs rather than just the chest) and trading off skill for some sort of damage bonus. 

Edited July 9, 2017 by Atgxtg

[Toadmaster]

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Not all that great. Not all chest or head hits are the same. Location does play a factor but I think you need more than that to get it to work. Now Timelords did use hit locations, but it broke the body up into more locations, and subdivided the body so you had a better idea f what you were hitting. It even helped with limb hits, since if someone got hit in the knee you could se ow a low point hit could still keep them from standing. 

 

Now what I think might work better to be to allow a more specific type of aiming (like say going for the heart of lungs rather than just the chest) and trading off skill for some sort of damage bonus. 

The Morrow Project, and many Tri-Tac games (Stalking the Night Fantastic / Fringeworthy) had more detailed hit locations without going to the extreme (Phoenix Command) route. That is certainly a route that could be done with BRP but does take the game into far more complex territory.

If you look at an average person with 10-12 hit points, under the current hit point rules they will have 4-5 hp in the chest. Even a modest caliber pistol doing 1d6 will results in a 33% chance of incapacitation with a hit to the chest, 1d8 bumps this to 38% and the large caliber pistols doing 1d10+2 will incapacitate an average person 70% of the time with a shot to the chest. With numbers like that, I don't really think there is really a need for adding even more complexity unless players want the added detail (you hit him in the aorta, he goes down in a bleeding mess). Called shots and hit locations seem to provide most of the things people are talking about right out of the book. The randomness of the damage die covers the rest, rolled a 1 for 3 damage (1d10+2) with your .45? Bummer, you hit center mass but the bullet just hit meat. Rolled a 6 with your little .32 ACP? You got him right between the eyes and he drops instantly.

 

While most discussion has focused on doing more damage, there are times one may want to do less. In addition to aiming rules, perhaps players could be allowed to modify their damage roll up or down by sacrificing skill, say each 10% allows them to raise or lower the actual die roll by one. Need to shoot an ally so the bad guys believe you are one of them, drop 40%, aim for the chest and plug your buddy. Hit in the chest and oh no, you rolled an 8 on 1d8, you just killed your friend. Nope you took that -40% so can reduce that roll of 8 to only 4 pts, he's hurt bad, but will live. Using your excellent skill and knowledge of anatomy you intentionally missed his heart by an inch, he will live as long as he gets medical care and your new "friends" now believe you are one of them, good job. Somewhat cinematic, but it seems reasonable to me.    

By allowing the roll to be modified it still retains the built in high and low, but allows a skilled player to greatly adjust the odds. A good shooter can make a .25 ACP more deadly than a poor shooter, but a larger caliber is still going to be a better choice.

Edited July 9, 2017 by Toadmaster

[g33k]

1 hour ago, Toadmaster said:

While most discussion has focused on doing more damage, there are times one may want to do less. In addition to aiming rules, perhaps players could be allowed to modify their damage roll up or down by sacrificing skill, say each 10% allows them to raise or lower the actual die roll by one. Need to shoot an ally so the bad guys believe you are one of them, drop 40%, aim for the chest and plug your buddy. Hit in the chest and oh no, you rolled an 8 on 1d8, you just killed your friend. Nope you took that -40% so can reduce that roll of 8 to only 4 pts, he's hurt bad, but will live. Using your excellent skill and knowledge of anatomy you intentionally missed his heart by an inch, he will live as long as he gets medical care and your new "friends" now believe you are one of them, good job. Somewhat cinematic, but it seems reasonable to me.    

By allowing the roll to be modified it still retains the built in high and low, but allows a skilled player to greatly adjust the odds. A good shooter can make a .25 ACP more deadly than a poor shooter, but a larger caliber is still going to be a better choice.

Various games have long done the "called shot" rules as a skill-penalty of some sort.

I'd like to reverse that, personally:  you roll a normal to-hit, but to "call" a shot, you need to do more than "just" succeed.  Roll under half-skill, or under 1/3 skill, 1/5 skill, 1/10 skill, etc.  If you don't get that "special" result you still HIT your target; but without the "special" roll you don't get the "special" result.

 

Edited July 9, 2017 by g33k
typo

[Atgxtg]

5 hours ago, Toadmaster said:

The Morrow Project, and many Tri-Tac games (Stalking the Night Fantastic / Fringeworthy) had more detailed hit locations without going to the extreme (Phoenix Command) route. That is certainly a route that could be done with BRP but does take the game into far more complex territory.

I'm not sure if you need to go that route. Just saying that the hit locations as presented in BRP doesn't really address the problem. Some sort of way to boost the damage at a skill& cost, is, I believe, a easier way to accomplish the goal, without requiring more detailed hit locations. 

5 hours ago, Toadmaster said:

If you look at an average person with 10-12 hit points, under the current hit point rules they will have 4-5 hp in the chest. Even a modest caliber pistol doing 1d6 will results in a 33% chance of incapacitation with a hit to the chest, 1d8 bumps this to 38% and the large caliber pistols doing 1d10+2 will incapacitate an average person 70% of the time with a shot to the chest. With numbers like that, I don't really think there is really a need for adding even more complexity unless players want the added detail (you hit him in the aorta, he goes down in a bleeding mess). Called shots and hit locations seem to provide most of the things people are talking about right out of the book. The randomness of the damage die covers the rest, rolled a 1 for 3 damage (1d10+2) with your .45? Bummer, you hit center mass but the bullet just hit meat. Rolled a 6 with your little .32 ACP? You got him right between the eyes and he drops instantly.

Yeah, but that misses the point. In BRP it's really more about the weapon that the skill of the one using it. 

5 hours ago, Toadmaster said:

 

While most discussion has focused on doing more damage, there are times one may want to do less. In addition to aiming rules, perhaps players could be allowed to modify their damage roll up or down by sacrificing skill, say each 10% allows them to raise or lower the actual die roll by one. Need to shoot an ally so the bad guys believe you are one of them, drop 40%, aim for the chest and plug your buddy. Hit in the chest and oh no, you rolled an 8 on 1d8, you just killed your friend. Nope you took that -40% so can reduce that roll of 8 to only 4 pts, he's hurt bad, but will live. Using your excellent skill and knowledge of anatomy you intentionally missed his heart by an inch, he will live as long as he gets medical care and your new "friends" now believe you are one of them, good job. Somewhat cinematic, but it seems reasonable to me.    

By allowing the roll to be modified it still retains the built in high and low, but allows a skilled player to greatly adjust the odds. A good shooter can make a .25 ACP more deadly than a poor shooter, but a larger caliber is still going to be a better choice.

Yeah, but I don't think a straight 10% per point is quite right. I don't think it's  harder to get a graze with a .357M than with a 9mmP.

[Toadmaster]

8 hours ago, g33k said:

Various games have long done the "called shot" rules as a skill-penalty of some sort.

I'd like to reverse that, personally:  you roll a normal to-hit, but to "call" a shot, you need to do more than "just" succeed.  Roll under half-skill, or under 1/3 skill, 1/5 skill, 1/10 skill, etc.  If you don't get that "special" result you still HIT your target; but without the "special" roll you don't get the "special" result.

 

I don't remember the game, but there was one with a hit location chart that moved the hit location based on the degree of success or failure. There were arrows and a "path". Choosing center of mass meant your odds were better of hitting because there was one or more "moves" before you actually had a miss. Some degree of failure just meant you hit a limb instead of the torso. Limbs and the head were harder because there were more pathways to a miss. 

 

4 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

I'm not sure if you need to go that route. Just saying that the hit locations as presented in BRP doesn't really address the problem. Some sort of way to boost the damage at a skill& cost, is, I believe, a easier way to accomplish the goal, without requiring more detailed hit locations. 

Yeah, but that misses the point. In BRP it's really more about the weapon that the skill of the one using it. 

Yeah, but I don't think a straight 10% per point is quite right. I don't think it's  harder to get a graze with a .357M than with a 9mmP.

 

The weapon is a significant factor. While you will certainly find people who encourage a shooter to pick a gun they will actually carry, that they can comfortably fire and reliably hit a target, they all suggest choosing the largest caliber that meets that criteria. Skill is important, but so is the tool.

 

The Morrow Project hit chart was similar to BRP, only it broke down the torso differently. Rather than the fairly common Chest / Abdomen, it divided the torso into a sort of bulls eye (going from memory), with the center being the area with the heart / lungs / throat / major blood vessels, the next ring would include part of the lungs, liver / spleen / kidneys and intestines and the outer ring was largely just tissue, no vital organs. One could certainly replace BRPs chest / abdomen with torso and vitals to offer a more lethal target while adding little complexity. 

The skill / damage adjustment was just an off the cuff idea and would certainly need more development before I tried to use it.

To some extent you have a point, if one just wanted a superficial graze that should probably be an option. On the other side though, I'd say the potential is greater as the power increases. 9mm vs .357 mag are in the same ball park, .22LR and .44 Mag not so much.    

[g33k]

24 minutes ago, Toadmaster said:

I don't remember the game, but there was one with a hit location chart that moved the hit location based on the degree of success or failure. There were arrows and a "path". Choosing center of mass meant your odds were better of hitting because there was one or more "moves" before you actually had a miss. Some degree of failure just meant you hit a limb instead of the torso. Limbs and the head were harder because there were more pathways to a miss. .    

Was that "Silhouette" ?

I never played it, but it looked interesting... but specialized for gun (or bow).  Not sure I want a whole different resolution-system...

 

[Toadmaster]

1 hour ago, g33k said:

Was that "Silhouette" ?

I never played it, but it looked interesting... but specialized for gun (or bow).  Not sure I want a whole different resolution-system...

 

I don't recall. I'm thinking late 80s / early 90s, possibly Millenniums End but there were so many tactical RPGs in that time frame, and I had a lot of them (still do but most are in boxes).

 

Your second comment is a common problem with detailed games. I've seen so many that put a ton of effort into one particular aspect of combat and then just tacked the rest on, like they ran out of steam and threw something together so they could call it done. The early Tri-Tac games were like that, they had a really detailed combat system, but the rest of the rules were kind of vague. There was a bit of similarity with BRP so where it wasn't clear we just assumed it worked like BRP.   

Edited July 10, 2017 by Toadmaster

[Atgxtg]

8 hours ago, Toadmaster said:

I don't remember the game, but there was one with a hit location chart that moved the hit location based on the degree of success or failure. There were arrows and a "path". Choosing center of mass meant your odds were better of hitting because there was one or more "moves" before you actually had a miss. Some degree of failure just meant you hit a limb instead of the torso. Limbs and the head were harder because there were more pathways to a miss. [/quote]

Timelords springs to mind. In that RPG you aimed at a hit location and your actual place that you got hit got bumped 1 location per point you were off on your attack roll (D20). It was generally better to aim for dead center of mass, since if you "missed" where you were aiming at you could still hit them somewhere else depedning on how far off you were and in what direction (determned randomly by 1D8). 

Quote

The weapon is a significant factor. While you will certainly find people who encourage a shooter to pick a gun they will actually carry, that they can comfortably fire and reliably hit a target, they all suggest choosing the largest caliber that meets that criteria. Skill is important, but so is the tool.

But the caliber shouldn't be the dominant factor, as it is in BRP. The main reason why they encourage most people to go with the larger caliber they can handle is because most shooters aren't skilled enough to place the shots all that well- so they want to maximize the result when they actually manage to get a hit. 

Quote

The Morrow Project hit chart was similar to BRP, only it broke down the torso differently. Rather than the fairly common Chest / Abdomen, it divided the torso into a sort of bulls eye (going from memory), with the center being the area with the heart / lungs / throat / major blood vessels, the next ring would include part of the lungs, liver / spleen / kidneys and intestines and the outer ring was largely just tissue, no vital organs. One could certainly replace BRPs chest / abdomen with torso and vitals to offer a more lethal target while adding little complexity. 

Yeah, I have Morrow Project. It's a good game. And yeah, the E-Factor isn't as important as location. Unless you're talking big stuff.

Quote

The skill / damage adjustment was just an off the cuff idea and would certainly need more development before I tried to use it.

To some extent you have a point, if one just wanted a superficial graze that should probably be an option. On the other side though, I'd say the potential is greater as the power increases. 9mm vs .357 mag are in the same ball park, .22LR and .44 Mag not so much.    

Maybe. I read something awhile back (when this topic was started) that suggests the differences between pistol calibers might not be as important as conventional wisdom suggests. One Police Officer tracked results over time and the results had him wondering if perhaps the low stopping power of the lighter round might be more due to their higher rate of fire. What happens is that since the lighter rounds tend to have a lower recoil and faster cycling time, it's possible to get off a second of third shot on a target that "fails to drop" after the first hit. Turned out the heavier calibers rounds slower rate of fire prevented that. But the targets tended to drop in about the same amount of time. 

 

I doubt it's entirely correct, but I strongly suspect that the differences between pistol rounds is probably not quite as significant as most people think. But at least you are aware that the .357 Magnum isn't all that much different than a 9mm Parabellum (especially a 9mm + round).

Edited July 10, 2017 by Atgxtg