Firearm-rules in BRP

[SDLeary]

This is true. In BRP you can fire arrows at the same rate as a 9mm, and that's not really realistic.

SGL.

Yes and no. At least in Cthulhu. There is a spot rule on p.63, current edition.

It is written thus:

Unaimed Shots

The shots-per-round entries for firearms assume that a shooter has an ernest desire to hit the target, and thus aims with care. As a general guide, unaimed fire allows twice the number of attacks per round listed for the weapon on the Weapons Table. Reduce the shooter's chance to hit to one fifth of normal. ...

This is slightly different from the way it appeared in its first iteration in Chtulhu Now:

... some desire to hit the target and takes time to aim. If the character simply wants to blaze away, he can get off 4 shots per round from any pistol or semi-automatic rifle, 3 shots per round from any pump-action or lever-action gun or 1 shot per round from any bolt-action weapon.

The chance there is also one fifth.

Also in Chtulhu Now, if you used the optional Hit Locations rule, you had another option, Aimed Shots, which applied called location shots from RQ to firearms.

SDLeary

[SDLeary]

He was using the Jane's as a reference when working specifically on Cthulhu Now. I'll have to go back and compare those tables to the current edition.

SDLeary

Some of the weapon damage has changed for some reason.

.375 Magnum: 1d8+1d4 in the current Cthulhu, and 1d8+1d6 in Cthulhu Now. The .38 Automatic is currently 1d10, was 1d8 in CN.

Looks like a few others too, but pistols have been mentioned, so there ya go.

[soltakss]

One thing about firearms you need to watch out for, however, is that high rates of fire are often accompanied by, honestly, amazingly crappy accuracy in actual combat (which is why the mediocre rates of fire in even a strike rank using game aren't entirely painful); in particular, its been estimated by police that the average amount of hits even by trained police in firefights is about one in six; even in realtively good conditions and/or quite close quarters you often get an amazing number of rounds going everywhere but the target.

I can't speak for D100 until I get the rulebook, but RQ always had the rule that someone zigzagging around halved the attack chance of anyone firing/throwing missiles at them.

So, a master shot at 90% would still be halved to 45% by someone moving erratically. You could add modifiers of cover, poor visibility and so on and get a vastly reduced chance to hit, and all within the standard rules.

[Nightshade]

Yeah, but how fun is that to play?

I'm just saying that simply upping the rate of fire without addressing it may, in fact, essentially make the game _less_ realistic (and have some undesireable play-balance issues on giving even more benefit to people who get off the first shots). It probably pays to not get carried away with ROF issues if you aren't going to downgrade accuracy.

One way to do so is to not, as you say, actually roll for every shot, but take some kind of autofire like mechanic; and of course, suppression fire should be done differently, too.

[Nightshade]

I can't speak for D100 until I get the rulebook, but RQ always had the rule that someone zigzagging around halved the attack chance of anyone firing/throwing missiles at them.

So, a master shot at 90% would still be halved to 45% by someone moving erratically. You could add modifiers of cover, poor visibility and so on and get a vastly reduced chance to hit, and all within the standard rules.

Many of those aren't applicable in the cases I'm refering to; in some cases you've had this happen in things like a criminal and a bailiff exchanging shots in a well lit courtroom with both of them standing there and minimal cover.

It might be handled by simply having a rapid-fire penalty though; it just needs to be halfway steep.

[Nightshade]

Yes and no. At least in Cthulhu. There is a spot rule on p.63, current edition.

It is written thus:

Unaimed Shots

The shots-per-round entries for firearms assume that a shooter has an ernest desire to hit the target, and thus aims with care. As a general guide, unaimed fire allows twice the number of attacks per round listed for the weapon on the Weapons Table. Reduce the shooter's chance to hit to one fifth of normal. ...

This is slightly different from the way it appeared in its first iteration in Chtulhu Now:

... some desire to hit the target and takes time to aim. If the character simply wants to blaze away, he can get off 4 shots per round from any pistol or semi-automatic rifle, 3 shots per round from any pump-action or lever-action gun or 1 shot per round from any bolt-action weapon.

The chance there is also one fifth.

Also in Chtulhu Now, if you used the optional Hit Locations rule, you had another option, Aimed Shots, which applied called location shots from RQ to firearms.

SDLeary

That's probably more along the line of what I'm talking about (though double-tapping is a bit of a special case, as there's evidence it effectively _ups_ the rounds-to-target).

[Atgxtg]

Some of the weapon damage has changed for some reason.

.375 Magnum: 1d8+1d4 in the current Cthulhu, and 1d8+1d6 in Cthulhu Now. The .38 Automatic is currently 1d10, was 1d8 in CN.

Looks like a few others too, but pistols have been mentioned, so there ya go.

IMO, the older damages are a bit more consistent, basically you could work out damage values by compaisons with the statsgiven. The new version just looks like someone tweaked it to give what he felt was right. But that ended up pushing the pistol damage in to close to the rile damages.

THe big difficulty with firearms in most RPGs, including BRP is the variable damage. In realisty firearms tend to make smaller wounds than swords and axes, but are still lethal becuase of wound placement. With a variable damage roll (1D10, 2D8, etc.) the damage done is more a factor of how well you roll on the damage die than how well you place the bullet (skill). 80% of your damage is just random by weapon. Something liek +1 to each damage die per 10% you make the roll by would probably work out better. We'd need to reduce the damage a little first though.

[Nightshade]

IMO, the older damages are a bit more consistent, basically you could work out damage values by compaisons with the statsgiven. The new version just looks like someone tweaked it to give what he felt was right. But that ended up pushing the pistol damage in to close to the rile damages.

THe big difficulty with firearms in most RPGs, including BRP is the variable damage. In realisty firearms tend to make smaller wounds than swords and axes, but are still lethal becuase of wound placement. With a variable damage roll (1D10, 2D8, etc.) the damage done is more a factor of how well you roll on the damage die than how well you place the bullet (skill). 80% of your damage is just random by weapon. Something liek +1 to each damage die per 10% you make the roll by would probably work out better. We'd need to reduce the damage a little first though.

If you were going to do that, you'd need to do it for more than guns; almost all piercing weapons are dependent on location for a lot of their damage; its virtually as true of an arrow or an epee as it is of a bullet.

[Atgxtg]

I agree. In fact, I'd go one step father and say that location is key for all weapon damages. It is just becomes less imprtant the more powerful and larger the weapon is. With pistol bullets and knives it is crucial, with nukes is isn't important at all. Plus with most melee weapons you can do damage taking the weapon "out" of the foe too.

BRP's strengths and weakness tend to come from it's SCA orgins. n SCA combat you don't get linger deaths, and all that. You get up and functiong, lost limb, or dead.

[Nightshade]

Part of the problem, of course, is it depends on whether you're dealing with hit locations; if you are, they're handling part of the problem there. Past that, you can easily assume that hitting critical locations is part of what the abstraction of damage rolls in the first place does.

Contribution of skill to location is tricky. Almost everyone aims a missile weapon at the torso barring sniping situations, because honestly, playing headshot games is usually counterproductive; you end up missing enough more you could have done the job just with rounds to target. Personally, I think its an element that at least as a standard default is more trouble than its worth, buy YMMV.

[Atgxtg]

There are several games that handle it well, just that BRP was more SCA based. The damage die tends to make a large caliber weapon in unskilled hands more deadly than a small caliber weapon in the hands of someone who can really use it. Stun/Shock and delayed fatalities help with this.

It all stems from damage being listed in "points". In the real world, any weapon can kill you, justhat is is easier to do it with some than with others. With a Hit point system, it is all based on if your weapon can do enough points of damage or not.

Take a look at knives and daggers. In most RPGs they are a joke, and tend to be only slighly more damaging than a punch. In the real world you can cut someone's throat or stab them through the heart.

[badcat]

In the light of rpgs, though, I think the real question is...how far do you want to go to simulate reality? and how important is it, really?

For instance, up to a point, it has been proven that bullet design changes the order of deadliness a great deal. Hence the .357, so very deadly with its 125 JHP bullets. Probably the deadliest of all handgun bullets, in that particular caliber and at 1200+ fps... but not so in a loading of much less velocity (and loaded much hotter it gets very unpleasant to shoot) and certainly not in the base caliber, the 38. Real world ammunition made by Cor-Bon is an entirely different proposition than the same caliber made by Remington, for instance. Do some research, up to and including shooting the same caliber with both loads, you'll see what I mean. I had a .45 Colt that I could shoot all day at around 800 fps, but with Cor-Bon loaded up to 1100+ fps, uh-uh. One box was usually quite enough. In an rpg, taking all the different dynamics (recoil, flash, noise, damage capacity, penetration, range, trajectory, wear , leading, etc.) into account just is not worth the trouble, IMO. Talk about endless weapon stat charts! That is why I am quite happy with BRP stats as they are.

[drohem]

I agree with you Badcat. The hit point/weapon damage system is an abstraction; not a simulation. A good friend of mine got hold of an anatomy book when we were playing RQ3 exclusively. He created this incrediably detailed combat system based upon damage to organs, etc. I took a look at it and said it was beautiful, but I would never use or play in his game if he used it, LOL.

[badcat]

Like 'Aftermath'? Or that new fantasy rpg, 'Metal, Magic, and Lore'? That last one has a positive review at rpg.net, but when I looked at the website, the character sheet has a hit location chart that looks like the old butcher chart that shows the different cuts' location on the cow... 'I hit him in the loin, Joe'...'yeah, I bet that hurt, Fred'.:eek: I stopped right there.

[SDLeary]

If you were going to do that, you'd need to do it for more than guns; almost all piercing weapons are dependent on location for a lot of their damage; its virtually as true of an arrow or an epee as it is of a bullet.

Not quite so. Once a bullet enters, a crap load internal damage can be done. Take a block of ballistic gel. Shoot it with an arrow, stab it with an epee, and shoot it with both a pistol and rilfe. The patterns for the firearms will probably be much much more violent. Thats what happens inside a body.

Now if you wiggle the epee or spear around while inside the wound... :eek:

SDLeary

[Simlasa]

Not quite so.

I think he was just saying that damage/hit location matters to some extent for every weapon... not that they did the same damage.

As the proud owner of a big stack of Phoenix Command books (and having actually played games with them on a few occasions) I agree with Badcat... it's plausibility vs. playability every time. I think the stats in BRP are sufficiently believable and very playable... and I can't think of any modern game that didn't get arguments from some gun enthusiasts saying it was inaccurate... even Phoenix Command.

[SDLeary]

I think he was just saying that damage/hit location matters to some extent for every weapon... not that they did the same damage.

As the proud owner of a big stack of Phoenix Command books (and having actually played games with them on a few occasions) I agree with Badcat... it's plausibility vs. playability every time. I think the stats in BRP are sufficiently believable and very playable... and I can't think of any modern game that didn't get arguments from some gun enthusiasts saying it was inaccurate... even Phoenix Command.

Yes! I see that now! Sorry Nightshade!

Dayum coffee should have kicked in sooner

SDLeary

[soltakss]

THe big difficulty with firearms in most RPGs, including BRP is the variable damage. In realisty firearms tend to make smaller wounds than swords and axes, but are still lethal becuase of wound placement. With a variable damage roll (1D10, 2D8, etc.) the damage done is more a factor of how well you roll on the damage die than how well you place the bullet (skill).

I always assumed that the more damage you rolled, the better-placed the hit was. In my book, a Special didn't necessarily do extra damage because it had a lot of oomph behind it, but because it hit you somewhere nasty.

Yes, I know that specials have to overcome armour, so it does fall down there a bit. But in my own little world it makes sense and that's what's important.

[Nightshade]

Like 'Aftermath'? Or that new fantasy rpg, 'Metal, Magic, and Lore'? That last one has a positive review at rpg.net, but when I looked at the website, the character sheet has a hit location chart that looks like the old butcher chart that shows the different cuts' location on the cow... 'I hit him in the loin, Joe'...'yeah, I bet that hurt, Fred'.:eek: I stopped right there.

Aftermath was not actually the mechanical nightmare it has a reputation for; it sometimes went to more trouble than was useful (the 30 hit locations, for example, only really mattered for armor placement on the majority of hits), but in the end, it was only modestly more complex than RQ3.

[Nightshade]

Not quite so. Once a bullet enters, a crap load internal damage can be done. Take a block of ballistic gel. Shoot it with an arrow, stab it with an epee, and shoot it with both a pistol and rilfe. The patterns for the firearms will probably be much much more violent. Thats what happens inside a body.

That turns out not to be quite as true as was once thought, though; look up "elastic cavity" (if I'm remembering the term correctly) if you want to see some discussion of this. Turns out that a lot of the cavitation is transient and doesn't mean as much as they thought.

That doesn't make your point entirely invalid, but I just wanted to note that ballistic gel is actually a bit deceptive here, as it doesn't show the difference between transient and permanent cavitation.

[Rurik]

Aftermath was not actually the mechanical nightmare it has a reputation for; it sometimes went to more trouble than was useful (the 30 hit locations, for example, only really mattered for armor placement on the majority of hits), but in the end, it was only modestly more complex than RQ3.

Must be those flowcharts that give it such a nasty rep.

[Nightshade]

Must be those flowcharts that give it such a nasty rep.

Probably. Character gen could be a bit of a chore until you got used to it, but the amount of die rolling and chart looking in play wasn't any worse than RQ. The BAP system was a bit annoying on grounds of micromanaging movement and actions, but that was pretty much true of RQ3 strike ranks, too, and it had a bit less problem there if anything.

[soltakss]

We spent two or three evenings rolling up characters for Aftermath, played it for one session and then gave up entirely.

It was too complex and we had no feeling for how good we were, what we were rolling for or anything else.

Half of us had played RQ/CoC and all of us had played D&D, so we had experienced other systems.

[Joseph Paul]

That turns out not to be quite as true as was once thought, though; look up "elastic cavity" (if I'm remembering the term correctly) if you want to see some discussion of this. Turns out that a lot of the cavitation is transient and doesn't mean as much as they thought.

That doesn't make your point entirely invalid, but I just wanted to note that ballistic gel is actually a bit deceptive here, as it doesn't show the difference between transient and permanent cavitation.

Particularly for pistols this is true. The temporary cavitation is formed by stretching the tissues of the body. With pistol ammo the forces are to low to turn a stretch into a tear or destruction of tissue as can happen with higher powered rifle ammo.

[Atgxtg]

In the light of rpgs, though, I think the real question is...how far do you want to go to simulate reality? and how important is it, really?

I'd say it depends on just what sort of style of gaming you are aiming for. A lot of people who I gamed with who play D&D were quite shocked by how deadly combat is in RQ. I had one group practically going into shock when one guy actually lost an arm. Some poeple like hit locations, other's don't.

Likewise if you are shooting for (sorry couldn't resist) a style of play that models reality better, then a little more detail is fine. In fightfights, things like "stopping power" and suppression fire play a factor. They just don't in BRP.

Now for CoC that's no biggie, as most of what you can shoot at tends to be bullet resistant anyway. But, for BRP to be used to play in other genres then problems will pop up. For instance, the ability to take out a sentry with a sneak attack with a dagger is important for certain modern day types of adventures. If you can't do it in the game, it's a problem.

It is all a trade off between what you want to do, and how much you are willing to pay for it. I've played and liked both simple/abstract RPGs and complex/realistic ones. It depends on what you want to do with it. If reality doesn't make much difference and isn't important for an RPG you can go with D20 Modern.

CoC combat rules are pretty weak in general (IMO the worst version of BRP. The goal of the game is what, survive long enough to go insane? Practically everything is immune to most weapons anyway, so the combat rules are almost unnecessary).

Sure, loading makes a difference. But the standard damages should be based on the standard ball round. Otherwise the whole damage chart is sort of pointless. I can think of some loadings for 9mm that give it stopping power comparable to a standard .44 magnum round. But I don't expect to see the 9mm listd in the book with the same stats as a .44M. My problem with the 5th edition COC chart is that it out of whack. THe .38 does the same damage as the 9mm, when it shouldn't (a .38 caliber round is actually a shorter, 9mm round with less power, the .38 SPECIAL is the one that is close to a regual 9mm and the ne that is usuable in a .357mag); and the .44M is performace wise too close to the 5.56 and 7.62 rifle rounds.

As a side note, I'd agrue against the .357M. Basically it's a 9mm (.357 vs .355) with a lot more power, so much so that it tends to overpenetrate, injuring or killing bystanders. That is why is is no longer the wondergun among the police that it used to be.

As for what is easier to shoot mutiple times, so what? If we were running "Gun Range the Role-Playing Game" that might be a factor, but as far as a firefight goes it doesn't make a difference (well, I suppse it might for the D20 crowd. They might need a second box of ammo to get through all those hit points).