http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/tags/combat Gaming Outpost Discussions » Tag: combat - Recent Posts en-US Thu, 24 May 2012 10:31:42 +0000 http://bbpress.org/?v=1.0.2 q http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/search.php http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/the-lauren-should-have-been-blind-fight#post-13434 Tue, 01 Sep 2009 18:23:58 +0000 JohnA1nut 13434@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>When am I going to learn not to do this?</p> <p>I have a real knack for being a complete idiot sometimes. </p> <p>Of course, if I'm not a <em>complete</em> idiot, that means some parts are missing...... </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/the-lauren-should-have-been-blind-fight#post-13431 Tue, 01 Sep 2009 17:43:33 +0000 M. J. Young 13431@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>Thanks for calling my attention to the post, Scott, but it's fine where it is. I think we may have settled the matter now.</p> <p>--M. J. Young </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/the-lauren-should-have-been-blind-fight#post-13425 Tue, 01 Sep 2009 17:14:51 +0000 JohnA1nut 13425@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>Oh snap, I feel like an idiot.... </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/the-lauren-should-have-been-blind-fight#post-13422 Tue, 01 Sep 2009 16:43:01 +0000 WilliamTWodium 13422@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>I cross-posted with you on this topic, into the game thread. Should I move that post here (editing away the original), or let things lie? </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/the-lauren-should-have-been-blind-fight#post-13420 Tue, 01 Sep 2009 16:29:58 +0000 M. J. Young 13420@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>John "A1Nut" Cross is rather upset about the fact that when he sparred with Lauren Hastings in the dark so that he could practice his Blind Fighting skill, she used her psionic Intensify Senses skill, and so could see better than she could. The matter has appeared several times since he, as player, knew that it happened that way, but he only found a legitimate means of raising the issue in play when his character was being taught the Intensify Senses skill and so guessed that she had used it in the previous combat.</p> <p>I am copying posts here from two threads, <em><a href='http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/behind-the-screens-2009/page/14#post-13406'>Behind the Screens 2008</a> </em> page 14, and <em><a href='http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/terrraterraterranova/page/13#post-13412'>John Cross in TerraTerraTerraNova</a></em> page 13.</p> <p>From the first, John, quoting me:</p> <blockquote> <blockquote><p> How is what you do different from what Daredevil does, but that he is so much better at it? </p></blockquote> <p>Because if you're quiet, Daredevil can't see you at all. MJ, I know you know what I'm talking about. There is no way on God's green earth that you can tell me that being able to see is not an advantage over being able to hear location. </p></blockquote> <p>Answered by Harry:</p> <blockquote><p>Actually, Daredevil can hear you even if you're perfectly quiet, by hearing sound bouncing off of you, unless you are sound-deadening yourself. You can tell that in the fact that he can see terrain features, things like subway pillars and such. /Perfect/ echolocation like that isn't much of a step down, except that you can't read in echolocation. </p></blockquote> <p>To which John responded:</p> <blockquote><p>Yeah, but the fact remains that my character went into it believing that Lauren was also blind like he was. She wasn't. She lied by omission. </p></blockquote> <p>In response to some excellent observations that echolocation is superior to vision in some ways, he wrote:</p> <blockquote><p>Yeah, but a sighted person can also hear every direction. </p></blockquote> <p>Then, from the other thread, he produced an angry tirade, from which:</p> <blockquote><p>How many times do I have to say the same thing before it sinks through that THICK skull of yours? My character went into it under the impression that Lauren was BLIND. BLIND, unable to see. Without vision. She could SEE. She was not BLIND.</p> <p>THAT'S ALL THAT MATTERS!!!!!!</p> <p>Whatever other skills were used by anyone are BESIDE THE POINT!!!!!!!!</p> <p>LAUREN WAS NOT BLIND!!!!!!!!!! She could SEE!!!!!!!</p> <p>WHATEVER OTHER SKILLS USED ARE COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT!!!!!!!!</p> <p>He had the impression that she was unable to see. She could see. Therefore, that's lying by omission. I CLEARLY STATED to her right up front that I was practicing a sightless skill. Point me to the part where she makes a similar declaration to him.</p> <p>Found it yet? No? Oh maybe that's because IT ISN'T THERE!!!!!!!!!!!</p> <p>She NEVER STATED that she could SEE!!!!!!!!</p> <p>She NEVER STATED what skill she was using in the dark PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!</p> <p>THEREFORE SHE LIED BY OMISSION!!!!!!!!!!</p> <p>HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THIS BEFORE IT SINKS IN?????????????????????????????????????</p> <p>I think he is justified in his anger over it, and your PATHETIC ATTEMPTS to justify her behavior only serve to show that you haven't paid a lick of attention to ANYTHING I'VE SAID!!!!!!!!!! </p></blockquote> <p>The fight in question begins in his game thread on <a href='http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/terrraterraterranova/page/8#post-11703'>Sunday, June 28, page 8</a> and continues for some time interspersed with out-of-combat actions. The corresponding Behind-the-Screens post begin <a href='http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/behind-the-screens-2009/page/10#post-11704'>on page 10</a> of that thread.</p> <p>If we're discussing what she omitted mentioning, I think we can include several skills which she used but did not mention that she would be using, including:</p> <ul> <li>Handspring, which she used to follow him when he attempted to surprise her by using the Great Jump he never mentioned, either.</li> <li>Force Shield, a psionic defense against his violent charge.</li> <li>Evasive Tumbling, to move away from his attack.</li> </ul> <p>I have noticed several skills he used that he did not mention to her, as well, including the fact that he developed at least one (maybe two) during that combat. So I have no problem with the fact that she did not mention her ability to see in the dark.</p> <p>Then again, I find that she <em>did</em> mention it, because <a href='http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/terrraterraterranova/page/8#post-11856'>right at the beginning of the fight</a> he asked her:</p> <blockquote><p>Lauren, how well can you see? I'm blind as a bat, so seriously, take it easy on me.</p></blockquote> <p>...<em>and <a href='http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/terrraterraterranova/page/8#post-11913'>she answered him telepathically</a></em>:</p> <blockquote><p>John, I've spent centuries fighting vampires. If I couldn't see in the dark, I would not have fared near so well as I have.</p></blockquote> <p>Further, you indicated that you were dimming the lights, but complete darkness is not attainable in the rooms where you practice, so it comes to the level of night vision someone has.</p> <p>It is evident that we both forgot that she said that, because thereafter he was attempting to get her to say that she could see in the dark when she had already said it, and I was avoiding having her say it because it annoyed me that he was fishing for a way to bring out-of-character knowledge (something he got from behind the screens) into game play (as his character appeared to be unaware of it and trying to get her to tell him).</p> <p>Nowhere in the thread, however, does John state that the point of the fight is for Lauren to be unable to see him, or tell her that it would be unfair for her to be able to see better than he can.</p> <p>I would also note that if Lauren had the blind fighting skill he has, she would have gained it long enough ago (at least a couple centuries) and used it so extensively that it would have been among her 2@10 SAL skills; that means she still would have had the advantage of knowing exactly where he was better than he was able to tell where she was.</p> <p>At the root of the matter, it always seemed to me that John hoped that turning off the lights would give him a combat advantage, such that he would finally be able to beat Lauren in what he could call a "fair" fight because his blind fighting gave him an advantage. Whether that advantage is "fair" or "unfair" is debatable; but it becomes "unfair" if he refuses to allow that she would use whatever skill she would normally use to fight under the same circumstances. Lauren has never developed a Fighting Blind skill precisely because she has ways to overcome the blindness created by darkness, and has never had to deal with any other type of blindness.</p> <p>Besides, the real benefit of the fighting blind skill arises when you are blinded and your opponent is not--when someone throws dirt in your eyes, or uses a blinding attack that temporarily negates your vision, or, as in this case, is quite able to see under conditions under which you cannot.</p> <p>John, you got your new use for the skill, which was your player objective. What you did not get was the satisfaction of defeating a clearly superior unarmed combatant by using a trick she did not know, and that because she used a trick you did not know she knew.</p> <p>The thread is open for discussion, but I think I've made my position clear enough.</p> <p>--M. J. Young </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/realistic-game-mechanics/page/2#post-8495 Mon, 08 Dec 2008 23:06:19 +0000 M. J. Young 8495@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>John, get yourself a blog or something.</p> <p>You've turned a thread about realistic game mechanics into a call for legalization of an illegal substance, and a rant against anyone who disagrees with you.</p> <p>Nutmeg is legal because it has been used in cooking for centuries. Marijuana has not been. Incidentally, nutmeg overdoses are fatal, and there is a very thin line between the effective dose and the fatal dose. You are fortunate to be alive.</p> <p>--M. J. Young </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/realistic-game-mechanics/page/2#post-8487 Mon, 08 Dec 2008 02:16:25 +0000 JohnA1nut 8487@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>Multiple posts (I'm doing therapy, I said "Within Reason" Within Reason used to mean 24 posts in a row. This has to be an improvement)</p> <p>MJ, what you said about the incredible pool table shot? Think about it!!! God disguised the single most versatile and useful medication <em>known to man</em> in a way that would ensure that it would be distributed to the Masses. I mean come on MJ!!! Throw the anti-drug remarks away and think about the facts!!!!!! As a Christian, and as a believer in science, you have to admit that this is completely possible. </p> <p>Did you know that nutmeg (yes, nutmeg!!) can give you a high very similar to marijuana??? Taken in large doses, it causes a very similar kind of high. (I've tried it) It's also available in every single grocery store in the country!!!! Why isn't nutmeg illegal? Maybe because it has almost no medical value?????? Tell me that God couldn't have set it up exactly that way?????????????? </p> <p>I mean this is The Ultimate "What If?" Factor!!!! The entire point of the Multiverse!!!! God could have set it up from the beginning of time that the single most useful medicine would also be the absolutely most popular recreational drug!!! I mean there could be some low-grade psychotics who are doing exactly the same kind of therapy that I am doing, and they don't even realize it!!!!! They just like the feeling of being high, and so medicate a mental illness that they don't even know they have!!!!!! I mean come on MJ!!! God created Manna, right? They ate those for 40 years in the desert. Show me where it records anyone complaining about that!!!! It was food from God!!!! It was better than anything they had ever tasted!!!! They didn't complain about it!!!!! Is it so unreasonable that marijuana is the modern day equivalent of Manna? The medicine that cures just about anything, and by its very nature, ALSO very popular among recreational users, thus ensuring its widespread use!!!!!! </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/realistic-game-mechanics/page/2#post-8485 Sun, 07 Dec 2008 23:03:34 +0000 JohnA1nut 8485@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>Four Posts, however, it's been 16 hours since the last. </p> <p>I asked a friend of mine about fleas jumping. He said that if it were true that the flea got to scale MACH 12 at the large speed, then you would still hear little sonic booms every time a normal flea jumped. He couldn't explain why, because his phone battery was dying, but he said that "Speed is not exponential." As his only explanation. Does anyone know what he was talking about? </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/realistic-game-mechanics/page/2#post-8472 Sun, 07 Dec 2008 06:24:18 +0000 JohnA1nut 8472@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>Three Posts, and it's the last</p> <p>I was also wondering about how much the ant would weigh if it was the size of a human. Osevens and I did some research on it, and we found out something interesting. </p> <p>For the scale of the ant to be the size of the person, the size to weight ratio would make it an ant that was 6 feet long, and probably weighing <em>several metric tonnes!!!</em> It wouldn't be able to walk!!!! The only reason the ant's body works at all is BECAUSE of it's small size. However, that means that, to an ant, it DOES weigh several metric tonnes, and is in fact lifting 50 times that weight.*</p> <p>*I've seen anywhere from 20 times to 50 times as the estimate. I've heard 50 times from the largest variety of sources, so its the one I use. </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/realistic-game-mechanics/page/2#post-8471 Sun, 07 Dec 2008 01:33:04 +0000 JohnA1nut 8471@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>Two posts. </p> <p>Just for the fun of it, I decided to figure out how fast it would be moving. I don't imagine it would take more than about 1/10th of a second for the flea to jump 10 inches. (If anyone has or can find more accurate data, feel free to let me know.) That means that it would be going 2.5 miles a second, 150 miles a minute, 9,000 miles an hour. The speed of sound is 767 miles per hour at sea level. That works out to MACH 11.73. We have SPACESHIPS that can't go that fast!!!!! God made an animal that could jump a quarter of a mile at almost MACH 12!!!!!!!!!!!! And people say there is no God!!!!!!! </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/realistic-game-mechanics/page/2#post-8470 Sat, 06 Dec 2008 23:51:13 +0000 JohnA1nut 8470@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <blockquote><p>You must admit, that would be one hell of a mount.</p></blockquote> <p>Yeah, no joke. All I gotta say is your saddle better have some SERIOUS shock absorbers. A parachute and an ejection seat probably wouldn't be a bad idea either. The flea can survive the impact, <em>can you????</em> </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/realistic-game-mechanics/page/2#post-8469 Sat, 06 Dec 2008 23:24:47 +0000 johnosevens 8469@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>You must admit, that would be one hell of a mount.</p> <p>Flea jousting, anyone? </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/realistic-game-mechanics/page/2#post-8468 Sat, 06 Dec 2008 21:54:47 +0000 JohnA1nut 8468@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>Osevens, regarding putting a saddle on a flea. Think about it. How long does it take a flea to cover that 10 inch distance when it jumps? A man-sized flea would be covering the quarter mile distance <em>in the exact same amount of time!!</em> How fast would it be going? I'd be surprised if it wasn't moving at supersonic speeds at that point. </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/realistic-game-mechanics/page/2#post-8462 Sat, 06 Dec 2008 14:06:01 +0000 johnosevens 8462@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>A1Nut - An atheist would argue that today's fleas can jump a quarter of a flea mile because the fleas that couldn't died out, and only the quarter-mile fleas lived to breed.</p> <p>I agree with you on the flea thing. A flea the size of a man would be scary. Personally, I'd be trying to figure out how to put a saddle on it.</p> <p>And... an ant world? Really?<br /> I'm not saying it's a terrible idea, it just seems more like a stall world than somewhere I'd want to leave anyone for a long time. Ants don't exactly communicate with anything that isn't another ant, after all, so I don't see a Verser getting swept up in an ant war (the Black Army vs the Redshells, perhaps?). At best I could see a momentary look of confusion, followed by, "Good Gods that's a lot of ants..." *chomp* Next Verse. And chomped by ants is one of those ways I really hope I never Verse Out. </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/realistic-game-mechanics/page/2#post-8458 Sat, 06 Dec 2008 07:37:27 +0000 JohnA1nut 8458@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>Three posts</p> <p>And did you know that ants are actually incredibly intelligent? They are the only other species of animal ON EARTH besides humans that go into battle in lines and formations.</p> <p>Now I'm thinking about a giant insect world. A few months ago, I would have started a new thread and rambled for several hours. I still need to finish DayWalkers!!!!! See? Therapy's Working!!!!!!</p> <p>Just a nudge, in case anyone's taken inspiration. A world that evolved (cough cough) where ants were the dominant species. Not humanoid ants, not the giant ants of the B Movie genre. Ants that would be, on scale, the size of humans. </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/realistic-game-mechanics/page/2#post-8457 Sat, 06 Dec 2008 06:50:45 +0000 JohnA1nut 8457@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>Two posts</p> <p>I need to correct something I said earlier. The elephant only used its trunk AND TUSKS to lift the weight. It was still a great deal more than what the human ultimately lifted, but by scale, a much smaller amount.</p> <p>But ya know what else though? I'd like to see which one of them could carry it longer....</p> <p>Which one could carry their maximum weight longer? Any distance, any speed, so long as it is off the ground. And of course, to keep it fair, the human can't use any kind of mechanical advantages. The elephant doesn't know how to use wheels, pulleys, levers, etc, after all. My money would be on the elephant in a heartbeat.</p> <p>And here's something to think about. If a flea can jump 1,250 feet, what would happen if it kicked you? If you were lucky, it would probably throw you about 800 feet. What happens to your opponent if you kick them? Is that anywhere close to what the flea can do to you? I'd say our ONLY advantage over these insects is that we ARE bigger than they are. </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/realistic-game-mechanics/page/2#post-8456 Sat, 06 Dec 2008 05:22:15 +0000 JohnA1nut 8456@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>Yeah, and that's something that really bugs me about Atheists. We have an animal that can jump the equivalent of a quarter mile, and people still insist that there is no God.....</p> <p>And Osevens. We were both talking about scale. You went to the large side, I went to the small side. </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/realistic-game-mechanics/page/2#post-8452 Sat, 06 Dec 2008 04:10:47 +0000 johnosevens 8452@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>MJ - That's what mind control is for.</p> <p>A1Nut - Yeah, I saw that. It was like literally being able to leap tall buildings in a single bound. </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/realistic-game-mechanics/page/2#post-8447 Sat, 06 Dec 2008 00:34:08 +0000 JohnA1nut 8447@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>I saw a side by side comparison of the strengths of various animals up against the record strengths of humans. Pound for pound, an elephant is actually weaker than a human. I don't remember the exact numbers, but the human record was 4 times the lifter's body weight of about 500 pounds. The elephant's record, while a considerably larger amount of weight, was only about 1 1/2 times the elephant's body weight. (Of course, it was only using its trunk to lift the weight....) </p> <p>The one that got me is that a flea can jump 10 inches. (So, anyone can jump 10 inches!!) It works out to something like 250 times the flea's body length. That would be like a human who was 5 feet tall jumping 1,250 feet. </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/realistic-game-mechanics/page/2#post-8438 Fri, 05 Dec 2008 21:05:14 +0000 M. J. Young 8438@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p><em>Maybe</em>.</p> <p>Remember, a training program for a 3@ strength has to be triple tripled, and must pack all that work into a relatively short period of time to be effective. That means the trainer is going to have to drive the beast rather hard--and even a docile beast is likely to kick against the goads if pushed hard enough. On the other hand, if the beast is so docile that you can push it that hard to make it that strong, the fact that it has a 3@ strength is not going to turn it into a combat monster no matter what else you do, pretty much.</p> <p>--M. J. Young </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/realistic-game-mechanics/page/2#post-8434 Fri, 05 Dec 2008 20:41:47 +0000 johnosevens 8434@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>But there are creatures with 3@ strength docile enough to <em>be trained</em> by someone who has the wits but lacks the strength, no? </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/realistic-game-mechanics#post-8431 Fri, 05 Dec 2008 20:27:16 +0000 M. J. Young 8431@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>The strength scale is in theory fixed, such that if a man and an elephant have the same strength score they have the same strength.</p> <p>It is a recognized problem with the system, particularly since it means that if you have creatures with 3@ strengths they ought to be able to improve those strengths with training. Fortuitously, there are no living creatures which might have 3@ strengths which also have the intelligence to develop and follow strength training programs, so I think the danger minimal.</p> <p>--M. J. Young </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/realistic-game-mechanics#post-8427 Fri, 05 Dec 2008 17:01:08 +0000 JohnA1nut 8427@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>Yeah, ya know, I was wondering about that too, Osevens. Ants, for instance, have 3@10 strength. They can lift 50 times their own body weight. ("Well, anyone can lift 50 times an ant's weight har har har") But can YOU lift 50 times YOUR body weight? </p> <p>However, because of their size, it would probably be something like 0@1 strength.</p> <p>I mean microgram for microgram, I think they're the single strongest animal on earth, but their tiny size would make them weak, compared to most other animals. </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/realistic-game-mechanics#post-8426 Fri, 05 Dec 2008 16:49:47 +0000 johnosevens 8426@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <blockquote><p>On the other hand, Thor also has a 3@10 strength (the avatar of the god; I don't know about the Marvel Comics version), and yet it is said that few other gods can lift his hammer. That's because Thor also has a 3@10 skill at lifting, which combined with his 3@10 strength and high bod bias gives him a 100% chance of lifting objects within certain parameters.</p></blockquote> <p>If I may, boss: Thor does indeed have 3@10 Strength, 3@10 Lifting, but the rest of your example is somewhat erroneous. In the actual mythology, there is nothing that prevents others from using his hammer. It is, on at least one occasion, stolen from him, and even the hated Jotun have no trouble lifting it, carrying it, and so on.<br /> In the Marvel Comics version, people other than Thor cannot lift it, not because it's heavy, but because it actively resists anyone who is not worthy to wield it. Wonder Woman, for instance, can wield it as easily as does Thor himself, while the Hulk - for all his "I juggle tanks" strength - could lift it only a matter of inches, and that was considered an unprecedented success.</p> <p>On the other hand, one thing I've seen done in D&#38;D and other things, but not had occasion to see in MultiVerser yet, is <em>scale</em>. Does being big affect your ability to lift, to damage, and so on? Do elephants and the like have Strength on the same scale? Vehicles? Giant mecha? Or, on a smaller scale, does a large, ogre-sized thing like Doomsday have any bonuses over a human-sized thing like Superman? </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/realistic-game-mechanics#post-8418 Fri, 05 Dec 2008 05:18:35 +0000 JohnA1nut 8418@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>OK MJ, so it seems my attempt to save you time would actually cost you time. No problem. </p> <p>Hey, at least I admit it when I realize I'm wrong. You have to give me that much credit!!!! </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/realistic-game-mechanics#post-8399 Thu, 04 Dec 2008 02:10:22 +0000 M. J. Young 8399@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>Last things first, since I open all the threads that need my attention before I answer any of them, the loading time does not make that much difference. I spend more time reading and writing responses than waiting for the Internet.</p> <p>Since the time-consuming part is sorting through the messages and figuring out how to respond, it goes faster if discrete ideas are in discrete threads--I don't have to organize single posts covering a dozen different topics. Of course, it goes even faster if there aren't as many questions/subjects broached, but the point of having me here is to answer questions, so there's no sense in not asking them. It's just faster if they're separated from each other.</p> <p>The strength check system usually works in a seat-of-the-pants best guess by the referee. There's a chart on page 405 and again on page 443 which is the outworking of a formula described on page 404. For any stated strength there is a maximum encumbrance, which is the amount it is assumed you can lift and carry automatically, albeit with difficulty. Anything up to twice that can be lifted on a simple strength check, and anything up to twice again that can be lifted on a difficult check. For the 3@10 the rule is specifically stated that a difficult check will successfully lift up to seven thousand six hundred eighty pounds (and you've only got one chance in thirty of failing that check), and that for each doubling of the maximum weight the character suffers +1 on the die, but that on a roll of 1 (11 calculated) any weight can be lifted. Skills enhance strength abilities above that.</p> <p>It is within the referee's discretion to give a character a similar bonus, within what the referee thinks reasonable, especially if the character has a 3@ strength. That is, if a character had a 3@1 strength his difficult check would allow him to lift up to five thousand nine hundred fifty-two pounds on any roll not greater than (d30+10=)30. Particularly if this is happening in a superhero or magical fantasy world, I would allow twice that weight on any roll not greater than (d30+10+1=)30, and allow him to keep doubling on greater penalties--but I would not apply the "any weight on a one" rule, which I think is reserved for the 3@10 strength. For a character with less strength, I would probably consider allowing some doublings of the maximum weight lifted on a penalty--but with a caveat. It is pretty much given that if you do not have a 3@10 attribute and you roll a 40, that's the attribute equivalent of a botch; in strength, you probably pulled a muscle or otherwise injured yourself (can anyone spell hernia?). If you are attempting to exceed the maximum weight for a difficult check, I would impose the penalty, base my decision on my assessment of how strong the adrenaline rush would be in this circumstance (and thus how many doublings of the maximum weight I would allow) and rather strictly enforce and maybe increase the botch outcome. I note as I type this that since the penalty is a die addition, each doubling increases the chance that the calculated roll will be at least 40, so that's already inherent in the system (clever of me, in retrospect, and probably part of why I did it at the time).</p> <p>I <em>might</em> have given you a <em>single</em> difficult strength check to attempt to break your handcuffs. I might have penalized it. I probably would have decided that you caused yourself significant pain if you failed (and maybe even if you succeeded), but only considered serious injury if you botched. If you had a 2@ strength, I would certainly have allowed the check, probably without penalty. (The difference is whether I think the force required falls in the category of the weight that can be lifted at that strength.)</p> <p>Did I cover everything?</p> <p>--M. J. Young </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/realistic-game-mechanics#post-8390 Wed, 03 Dec 2008 20:34:46 +0000 JohnA1nut 8390@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>Three posts. </p> <p>Ya know MJ, I just realized something. What you said about botches. Dale Earnhardt I'd say had AT LEAST 3@7 driving. He got killed. Maybe it was his fault, maybe it was someone else's fault. I don't know, and neither does anyone else, we weren't in the cars, after all. However, Dale Earnhardt must have botched on his accident evasion roll. I can't imagine anything less than a botch causing that accident where he was killed. I guess if even Dale Earnhardt, arguably the best driver in the entire history of NasCar, can botch, so can an amateur with an AK-47. I'm sorry I doubted you. I know it's off-topic, but I put it here so you wouldn't have to look at 2 different threads, BTW.</p> <p>Ya know, that's actually not a bad idea. Why not just make one thread the "Chit Chat Thread." That way, MJ doesn't have to waste time bouncing between them. (No offense MJ, but you've probably got the slowest internet connection of all of us.) Let's just make one for random talk. Questions, getting to know you, etc. Thoughts?</p> <p>Instead of starting a new thread, just make one for questions and whatnot. It would save MJ the trouble of needing to spend so much time bouncing between threads. Probably save on site memory too. Anyone else have a thought on that? </p> <p>And Adam, you're making an attempt to be civil with me. I can be civil with you if you can be civil with me. Check your Myspace messages, BTW. Pearl Harbor was just something I had to get straight in my head. You couldn't understand. (And on second thought, since that does sound mildly insulting, I mean that as "You couldn't understand why I had to get it straight in my head.")</p> <p>And yes, I'm doing psychosis therapy, BTW. </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/realistic-game-mechanics#post-8381 Wed, 03 Dec 2008 11:25:00 +0000 JohnA1nut 8381@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>Two posts</p> <p>Yeah, we did cross post. </p> <p>How does this difficult strength check work? I mean I know that I couldn't possibly lift something that weighed a metric tonne, no matter what the dice said. (Or could I?) Also, those moments where a person becomes stronger than normal under stress or duress, how are those handled? I've seen a video of a guy who lifted a 1,500 pound helicopter to get a friend out of it when it crashed upside down in a pond. That's not normal. Considering that the helicopter was full of water, he was probably lifting a lot more than 1,500 pounds. I've also read a true story about a guy who flipped a van onto its side after it crashed into a pond. (It was in Reader's Digest, so I'm assuming that's a reliable source) The guy was a passerby trying to rescue the passengers after a crash. The only way he could save them was to flip the van over. </p> <p>The reason I'm asking (and I hate to say it) is I'm forced to wonder all of a sudden if I could have possibly broken those handcuffs before the jeep hit the guardrail. It doesn't matter, I'm just wondering for the future. I was under duress at the time (obviously) so I'm wondering. </p> <p>As I told Steven when relaying that story to him: "With one single typed sentence, stating this action, I had changed what would have been a fun and exciting world into a total $#!+-fest for my character." Then I blamed everyone else for it. I've always been a slow learner. I'll tell you right now though, that's the last time my character is getting arrested. He will verse out before that happens again. </p> <p>I personally know a gentleman who can and does break police handcuffs. He's a Christian pastor, and claims that he does it under the power of The Holy Spirit. I've seen videos of him doing it. He also breaks cinder blocks with his bare hands, also supposedly under the power of The Holy Spirit. (I say supposedly because there's really no way you could prove that's how he does it. I believe he does it how he says he does.) I know that doing it under the power of The Holy Spirit is Magic bias, so that has no relevance to a difficult strength check. However, I was just wondering if I could possibly have done it. </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/realistic-game-mechanics#post-8379 Wed, 03 Dec 2008 00:29:44 +0000 JohnA1nut 8379@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>Yeah, that does make more sense MJ. What about what I was saying though about the 3@10 strength? Go up a few posts for that. </p> <p>And just a fun trivia fact about greyhounds and cheetahs. While the cheetah has a faster top speed, it has a much slower acceleration. The greyhound can hit 40 mph within 3 steps. The cheetah takes longer. So, in a race of 100 feet, the cheetah always wins. But in a race of 10 feet, the greyhound always wins. It can reach 40 MPH before the cheetah can. </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/realistic-game-mechanics#post-8378 Wed, 03 Dec 2008 00:28:01 +0000 M. J. Young 8378@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>Cross posted.</p> <p>Your argument from Superman is answered relatively simply: either he does not have a 3@10 strength, or there is no one stronger than he is. Since Superman is not a character in any world I run, I do not have to make that decision.</p> <p>So how can someone appear to be stronger than Superman? Well, as wonderful as it is to have a 3@10 strength, the only way anyone knows you have it is because you use it--and using it almost always involves skills.</p> <p>A person with a 3@10 strength can, in theory, lift anything based solely on a difficult strength check. The check is penalized based on the weight of the object lifted, but the roll of 1 on a d30 (11 on d30+10) will lift any object of any weight. On the other hand, Thor also has a 3@10 strength (the avatar of the god; I don't know about the Marvel Comics version), and yet it is said that few other gods can lift his hammer. That's because Thor also has a 3@10 skill at lifting, which combined with his 3@10 strength and high bod bias gives him a 100% chance of lifting objects within certain parameters. Presumably Superman does not have this high a skill ability level at lifting (or throwing), and so he sometimes fails. Similarly, we think that when Superman punches the villain, he does the damage he does because he is so strong--but in truth, for Superman to hurt anyone by punching, he needs martial arts skill in punching. That means that some villain might have better martial arts skills in addition to a 3@10 strength, and be able to hit harder or faster because of it.</p> <p>So I can give Superman the absolute highest possible strength (if I wish--I need not do so) and make opponents seem stronger by enhancing their strength-based skills (even if they are not as strong). The system has interacting elements, and it is in the interaction of the elements that most such problems are resolved.</p> <p>The reason I do not worry about a player character becoming "overpowered" is because I can always design a more powerful opponent for him. Even though there are limits to the maximum skill ability levels and attributes, there are no limits to the number of skills, and something can be designed that will give the enemy an edge.</p> <p>--M. J. Young </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/realistic-game-mechanics#post-8376 Wed, 03 Dec 2008 00:16:30 +0000 M. J. Young 8376@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>John, the thing you've missed is that 3@10 is not a running speed; it is an ability to perform the skill.</p> <p>Let's leave aside the question of whether this is a tech skill or a bod skill by eliminating the bionics. Let's use a greyhound and a cheetah. Let's say that we've got the two most incredible animals in the entire multiverse, both of them 3@10 at a B3@1 Four-legged Dash. According to <a href="http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0004737.html">the chart on this page</a>, the greyhound has been clocked at 39.35mph in a quarter mile, and the Cheetah at 70mph in a 100 yard distance. We'll give the greyhound 40mph for simplicity. That means in our fifteen second dash (the measure of the skill is the distance traveled in the specified time) the cheetah can cover 513.33... yards; the greyhound in the same time can cover 293.33... yards.</p> <p>For convenience, we'll round that. Our greyhound has 3@10 Four-legged Dash 300 yards B3@1; our cheetah has 3@10 Four-legged Dash 500 yards B3@1.</p> <p>Our original bionic man could run 60mph, Dash at Traffic Speeds 440 yards B3@8; our upgraded bionic man has Dash at Flight Speeds 2200 yards B3@8. The original can outrun a greyhound but not a cheetah; the advancement can outrun a cheetah and leave it in the dust. This, though, is completely independent of how well either of them can run at that speed. Maybe our original bionic man is 2@10 at running and his son is only 2@1. That has nothing to do with how fast they can run, because skill ability level is not about the speed but about the reliability of the skill.</p> <p>Particularly with running, if you roll a success you are exceeding your stated speed; if you roll a failure that is not a botch, you have fallen short of your stated speed, still running but slower than anticipated. Thus if we assume for our runners each a 1@10 BRA and 7@ bod bias, the greyhound and the cheetah (3@10 SAL) have a 74% chance to run at least as fast as stated, the old bionic man (2@10 SAL) 64%, and the new bionic man (2@1) 55%. Optional mechanics for time rate skills can be used to determine exactly how fast someone runs on a success or a failure, although in most cases it will be a matter of whether he ran "fast enough" or not. Further, unless he botches, the new bionic man will probably outrun even the cheetah. (Using time rate rules, the cheetah with a 74% chance to run at 500 yards in fifteen seconds on his best possible roll would cover 870 yards. Assuming that the advanced bionic man's worst roll is 96 (97 is a botch), we can apply the mechanic that that's 96-55=41% below the mark, 1298 yards in the same fifteen seconds. So even on a failed roll, depending on circumstances, the advanced bionic man outruns the cheetah. As to a race between the original bionic man and the cheetah, that 440 yard standard on a successful roll of 64 gives him 721.6 yards; the cheetah's worst possible roll is 98 (99 is the botch), which is 380 yards. So the race is not always to the swift (nor the fight to the strong), but that's the way to bet.</p> <p>Looking at this entirely differently, let's take two guns. We've got one guy who is 3@10 with a cap-and-ball pistol whose long range is 100 feet; we've got another guy who is 1@1 with a PSG-1 sniper rifle with a long range (without scope) of 800 feet. The skill ability level affects how likely each user is to hit a target that is within the range of the weapon and even beyond it; it does not affect the range of the weapon. The expert with the cap-and-ball pistol has no little of hitting the broad side of a Death Star at eight hundred feet. The guy with the sniper rifle could. In the same way, your skill ability level is not a measure of how fast you can run, but how well you can run however fast you can.</p> <p>Does <em>that</em> make more sense?</p> <p>--M. J. Young </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/realistic-game-mechanics#post-8374 Tue, 02 Dec 2008 23:52:22 +0000 JohnA1nut 8374@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>Two posts</p> <p>Superman supposedly has 3@10 strength. So what happens when he meets someone who is stronger than he is? (And there are a few, Doomsday, for instance) Either Superman only has 3@9 strength, or Doomsday has 4@1. But since we've established that Superman has 3@10 strength, then Doomsday can't be stronger than he is, even though it was established that he is stronger than Superman.*</p> <p>*And please, let's not turn this into an argument about comic book characters. This is all just supposing for the sake of argument. </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/realistic-game-mechanics#post-8371 Tue, 02 Dec 2008 23:16:37 +0000 JohnA1nut 8371@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>No Scott, I think you misunderstood me. (Or maybe I'm misunderstanding you) What I was saying wasn't that he has skill at running, but that the running speed would peak at 3@10. </p> <p>Just for the sake of argument, let's say that Steve Austin's son, able to run 300 MPH was 3@10 running speed. That's not a reflection of his skill at running, the 3@10 refers to his maximum speed. He is the 3@10 speed runner. </p> <p>Then someone builds better bionic legs, and someone can now run at 400 MPH. That means either Steve Austin's son is no longer has 3@10 running speed, or the other person has 4@1 running speed. Does that make more sense? </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/realistic-game-mechanics#post-8368 Tue, 02 Dec 2008 23:02:08 +0000 WilliamTWodium 8368@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>Again, there is a difference between Skill Ability Level and what the skill can do. Steve Austin has a skill at running 60 miles per hour (a B3@8 Run at Traffic Speeds). He has this at some SAL that I don't care about. His son has a different skill, a skill at running 300 miles per hour (B3@10 Run at Flight Speeds). I don't care about his SAL either, because it has very little to do with how fast he can run. (It has more to do with how <em>well</em> he can run 300 MPH - how quickly and reliably can he achieve that speed, how often he falls down on rough terrain, etc.)</p> <p>Actually, those skills might be T12@4 Use Bionic Legs skills, depending on your referee and the legs, but it doesn't change the fact that the two sets of legs use entirely different skills. </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/realistic-game-mechanics#post-8362 Tue, 02 Dec 2008 21:53:11 +0000 JohnA1nut 8362@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>OK, so bionic eyes are a bad example. What about bionic limbs that give you 3@10 strength, agility, and stamina? Someone is going to build better bionic limbs. </p> <p>Steve Austin could run 60 MPH and had a bionic arm capable of picking up a car. (How he did that without tearing his ribcage in half is beyond me) However, his son (also made bionic as result of an airplane crash) could run 300 MPH and his arm was way stronger. </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/realistic-game-mechanics#post-8361 Tue, 02 Dec 2008 21:33:22 +0000 M. J. Young 8361@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>Actually, those bionic eyes do not give you 3@10 visual accuity. You have to learn to use them to reach that level. Probably what they would give you is improved range (20/10, 20/5, 20/2), but you would still have to roll your skills to use those eyes, and you would have to get better at using them.</p> <p>So the eyes are a poor example twice, first because it is not true that simply having better equipment gives you better skill, and second because the quality of the equipment is easily defined by specifications, and thus can be improved by virtue of those specifications.</p> <p>I do agree that there are problems. After all, I can imagine someone getting to 3@10 Use Computers, and then encountering an alien system outside his knowledge. But then, the narrowing of scope rules apply--he would be 3@10 at computers of a particular type, and the alien system probably falls in his 1@10 range.</p> <p>I have not yet found a case where the 3@10 was inappropriate as the maximum possible skill.</p> <p>--M. J. Young </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/realistic-game-mechanics#post-8341 Tue, 02 Dec 2008 00:17:26 +0000 JohnA1nut 8341@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>The other thing that I can't seem to wrap my head around with this though is that there is a peak end to the skill ability level. I also understand that it's a game mechanic, and that there's a mechanical reason for it. However, that does not change the fact that I think it is wrong. </p> <p>For example, let's suppose that I landed in some high-tech society and had my eyes replaced with cybernetic eyes. These bionic eyes give me 3@10 visual acuity. You know just as sure as God made little green apples, sometime in the near future, someone is going to develop better cybernetic eyes. However, the eyes that I have already give me 3@10 visual acuity. How can these eyes be better? You could argue that technology could peak and never get any better, but they said that when the crossbow was developed. Technology has advanced more in the last 100 years than it has in all of history before that. So, I get my cybernetic eyes, I have 3@10 visual acuity, then they come out with something better..... What do the new eyes give me, if I've already got 3@10? See what I mean? </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/realistic-game-mechanics#post-8320 Sat, 29 Nov 2008 11:59:58 +0000 JohnA1nut 8320@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>I think what I need to do when I'm certain that I'm right is realize that I'm wrong and just wait until I figure out why. It would probably save everyone a lot of trouble. </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/realistic-game-mechanics#post-8293 Thu, 27 Nov 2008 21:53:26 +0000 M. J. Young 8293@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>A quick check tells me no, Cassandra was daughter of the last monarchs of Troy, gifted by Apollo with the ability to see the future, but cursed by him because she spurned his desire for her, and thereafter would not be believed. She predicted the fall of Troy, and her father locked her away because he refused to believe her. She predicted her own death and that of her captor Agamemnon, both at the hands of his wife and his wife's lover. She appears as a tragic figure in Greek stories.</p> <p>She was not a witch, save in the sense that word is sometimes used to describe anyone who has and uses a supernatural gift. She was apparently beautiful enough to win the heart of Apollo and brave enough to win the concern of Athena, according to the legends.</p> <p>It appears that she was an historical figure around whom a mythology arose; I'll not dare venture to speculate as to whether she actually had a divine gift to foretell the future or whether she was simply shrewd enough to recognize an overwhelmingly dangerous situation others were ignoring.</p> <p>--M. J. Young </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/realistic-game-mechanics#post-8287 Thu, 27 Nov 2008 12:00:34 +0000 JohnA1nut 8287@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>Ya know something? When I fell asleep last night, I fell asleep in a huff because MJ was an idiot that wasn't "hearing" a word I said. </p> <p>When I woke up this morning, what he said made a lot more sense. I don't know why, but it just did. Maybe God just removed the mental block whilst I was sleeping or something. </p> <p>Maybe I'm not a victim of the Kassandra plague after all. </p> <p>It just made more sense when I woke up. I don't know how else to explain it or describe it. It just made a lot more sense. </p> <p>Maybe MJ isn't an idiot who wasn't hearing what I said after all. </p> <p>I read a story about a guy who was about to commit suicide. He prayed for God to give him a sign that he shouldn't do it. All of a sudden, his phone rang. He looked at the caller ID, and it said "Almighty God." The guy was in awe. God was calling him on the phone. However, he was too in awe to answer the phone. He didn't commit suicide though. The next day, he called the number back. It went to The Almighty God Church and Tabernacle. The pastor had apparently dialed a wrong number the night before. The guy started going to the church and turned his life around. </p> <p>I feel like that guy this morning. </p> <p>I could write out a lengthy, bleeding heart apology. However, since the thing that MJ hates the most is people wasting his time, I'm not going to do that. Just accept the apology I'm offering. God opened my eyes when I woke up. </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/realistic-game-mechanics#post-8282 Thu, 27 Nov 2008 01:04:13 +0000 JohnA1nut 8282@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>Since I see that this is an argument that I can't win, I'm going to let it go. </p> <p>I don't think botches of ANY sort are as likely as this allows. Even in extreme combat. I have friends who were in Desert Storm, Vietnam, even am uncle who is a WW2 veteran. I bet even they would back me up on this. </p> <p>I feel like a victim of the Kassandra plague mentioned in Twelve Monkeys. That even when you know you're right, and can prove it, no one would believe a word you said. </p> <p>Since it's an argument that I can't win, go ahead and make the guns jam. </p> <p>Yes, I have thousands of hours of practice and not thousands of hours of combat. However, you don't even have thousands of hours of practice. </p> <p>Kassandra is an evil witch, isn't she? </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/realistic-game-mechanics#post-8279 Thu, 27 Nov 2008 00:47:49 +0000 M. J. Young 8279@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>John already seems to know what I'm going to say.</p> <p>John, you wind. YOUR guns never jam. Instead, you drop them, or you shoot something you did not want to shoot (such as yourself) or an enemy hits them in a manner that damages them severely. You're closing off from me the option of making the botch nice; you get the bad botches.</p> <p>Oh, and also, I do believe that when you are shooting at targets, you don't have to worry about them shooting back. You usually don't have to worry about them weaving or dodging or manuevering into a position where your clean shot suddenly passes through your dufflebag or your partner. You don't have to try to get the shot off while you've got a chance, and you don't have to run or duck. Your aim need not be hurried, and if you don't like the shot you are under no pressure to take it.</p> <p>Now, if you told me you fired in Samurai-style competition, that you had to ride the horse at a full gallop and string and fire six arrows in sequence through two inch diameter rings hanging from strings at thirty yards distance, in a timed competition in which a single miss disqualified you, that would <em>approach</em> the pressure that is put on you in combat. In that case, you could argue that you had to take the shot even if you were not ready for it, that you didn't have time to make sure the gun reset properly, to wait for the next bullet to enter the chamber before pulling the trigger again--this is a pressure situation, in which an amateur is likely to make a mistake. If you were an expert, your chance of making a mistake would be notably lower. But we're not talking about target shooting here--in fact, that's exactly why you don't botch in practice situations. You're telling me that you've been in thousands of hours of practice situations and never botched. I've already told you that if you are in a practice situation you won't botch. You haven't told me that you've been in thousands of hours of combat and never accidentally put a shot into vital equipment or the guy next to you or a can of gasoline, or pulled the trigger hard when the safety was still engaged, or knocked the clip release when you swung the gun wildly into position, or bent some piece of the weapon when you went to use it, or banged it into an obstacle that damaged it.</p> <p>I've already agreed that in the kind of shooting you've done, you will never botch. You are telling me that this is your experience. I am telling you that in the kind of shooting you do when people are fighting back and the pressure is on to kill or be killed, you have a lot less opportunity to focus on the weapon, a lot better chance to do something completely stupid, and a much higher chance to botch, relatively speaking.</p> <p>Now, you can argue that the probability to botch ought not go up due to the difficulty of hitting the target. That is to some degree an unavoidable artifact of the game mechanic, and the best I can do with that is attempt to be mindful of that as one of the factors in defining the botch list--if the target is too small or distant to hit easily, more botches should involve hitting objects you don't want to hit; if the object is too heavily armored to hit, more botches should involve shots glancing off the protections and striking secondary targets. That's a very difficult line for a referee to walk, particularly given that in many cases one of the factors is simply that this is low bias and the gun does not work as reliably (PERIOD).</p> <p>When I referee combat botches, I keep them simple: you dropped the weapon, or the weapon jammed. With guns, I go for jams, because you can clear a jam in a few seconds and so not lose so many attacks. With hand-held weapons I go for drops, not merely because they don't jam but also because the time it will take to recover a dropped weapon (or draw another) is just about right for you to miss the next attack. What matters to me is you missed the next attack.</p> <p>Now, if you don't want me to say that your gun jammed and you can't be satisfied with my streamlining the game that way, we can either take out the color completely and I can say "you botched, that attack missed and you don't get another one right away" or I can create very colorful botch lists full of dangerous outcomes such as those discussed in this thread. Meanwhile, Adam's guns will continue to jam, and he will clear them, and he will not suffer the kinds of botch penalties in combat that the rules were designed to avoid.</p> <p>--M. J. Young </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/realistic-game-mechanics#post-8276 Wed, 26 Nov 2008 23:11:54 +0000 JohnA1nut 8276@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>I have had a few guns that did jam as often as Multiverser seems to allow. Needless to say, I didn't keep them very long. No soldier is going to carry a weapon into combat which jams that often. MJ, I would like to suggest that you go back and reread my post up there a few more times before replying, just to make sure you understand what I am saying. </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/realistic-game-mechanics#post-8275 Wed, 26 Nov 2008 21:06:50 +0000 Tadeusz 8275@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>I'm going to recommend a one post-one reply for John's objections. John gets his one post to make his plea. MJ replies after duly weighing John's objections and analysis, and then he gives his decision and the reasons supporting it (at least as far as he thinks John can understand them), and then the matter is closed. </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/realistic-game-mechanics#post-8273 Wed, 26 Nov 2008 19:36:00 +0000 JohnA1nut 8273@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>Well, I was firing a semi auto AK called a MAK 90. MJ rolled for every shot fired. The existing mechanics make the jam ratio completely unrealistic. Unless you're shooting a bottom of the barrel gun, that is.</p> <p>I told you that I had only seen a S/W revolver jam twice in my life. It was the first day I went shooting. Uncle Bob took me shooting. The revolver jammed when Uncle Bob was shooting it. He has professional ability easily. I would have had 1@1. That means it should have jammed in my hands, right? NOPE!!! It jammed when Uncle Bob shot it. But Multiverser would have made that highly unlikely....... Riiiiiiiight. </p>