3@10. 1@1. 2@1. @1. John A1nut. I knew there was a reason I liked this game so much!!!!!
(Doing Therapy)
Let me have a little psychosis on the board. It is a great outlet. Besides, I'm certain at least some of my ramblings might be useful in game design. Who knows?
Anyway, I was wondering about people's opinions of firearms. Which would you rather have in a gunfight? A 15 shot 9mm, or a 6 shot 357 magnum? For myself, I'd rather have the 9mm, but the 357 would be so close it wouldn't really matter. What about an 8 shot 12 gauge loaded with 00 buckshot, or a 15 shot 9mm? (This one, I really want opinions on, as I am trying to decide which to recommend to a guy I know for home-defense) Again, it's so tightly matched, I wouldn't turn my nose up at either. Fifteen small shots vs 8 huge shots.... The 12 gauge has a much slower reload time, but if your opponent is still a threat after 8 rounds of 00 buckshot, then either you're a very bad shot, or there were 9 people there. Same logic with the 357.
I really wanted opinions from the gun-savvy folks, and I thought it could be useful in world design, as well.
(Doing Therapy)
For home defense... it depends how much you value your stuff, really. You'll probably kill a guy if you shoot him with either one. The shotgun makes it more likely you'll hit him, but with 00 buck you're going to have a lot of collateral damage as opposed to the 9mm. Plus for the average non-enthusiast, isn't the recoil on a shotgun a bit much? I'm a fairly large guy and even I wouldn't really want to deal with that if I had my choice. Plus home defense generally implies tight quarters, and a 9mm is considerably more maneuverable.
If it were me, I'd go with the 9mm for home defense. I don't know if I count as gun-savvy enough to qualify - compared to you I don't hold a candle - but I have done some marksmanship IRL (I qualified Marksman with a rifle when my grandfather put me through the Army test when I was 16) so I have an opinion, at least.
And it's a very valid opinion as well. The other thing is that 00 buckshot can go through apartment walls. There is, of course, the intimidation factor. I've heard it said that there's only 1 thing in the world that sounds like a 12 gauge being pumped. If they hear you pump it, you won't have to shoot them, because they will take off running. Also, you can get lightweight bird shot. Same collateral damage to belongings, but very low probability of going through walls. Even lower than the 9mm. Bird shot is quite effective against a human attacker at short range.
Osevens, what do you think of the 357 vs the 9mm?
(Doing Therapy)
I would take the 9mm again. Personally I don't think I'm a good enough shot to make the fewer-but-deadlier .357 shots count - I would want the leisure of being able to miss and not be out of rounds so quick, y'know? Plus which, especially if we're still talking home defense, wouldn't the .357 also have a lot of risk of overpenetration?
In that case, I have the same thinking. I'm pretty good with a handgun, so I wouldn't doubt my ability to effectively use 6, but I do like the 15 shots quite a bit more. The other thing though is that in a real-world setting, the 357 is far more reliable.
And ya know, if you passed a test issued by the US Army, then your opinion is good enough for me.
(Doing Therapy)
I would also hope never to need it enough for the flaws of the 9mm to become apparent.
This is very true as well. Let's get back to the 12 gauge vs the 9mm. I think I would recommend the 12 gauge. You make a valid argument, but I think the intimidation factor weighs in pretty big on this one. The best self-defense weapon is the one you NEVER have to use.
(Doing Therapy)
There is that, too, but cinematic may that be, I'm just not certain I would want to stake my life on it. All it would take is for me to get the ONE house-robber who would actually call my bluff when he's got a 9mm of his own (in my neighborhood everybody and his grandmother is packing, or acts like he is), and I still have to choose the quick-and-(mostly)reliable. But that's just me - your mileage may vary.
And it's a very valid opinion. Like I said, a guy I know is trying to decide which to get, and I couldn't really decide which to tell him myself. Also, I thought it might be good for some game designs.
(Doing Therapy)
Two Posts
Here's one though. What about the 357 vs the 12 gauge? You've still got the speed and maneuverability of the 9mm with the 357, you just have to take a little more time aiming. On the other side, you're losing a considerable amount of power and have 2 less shots. I think in that case, the shotgun wins hands down, but as you say, your mileage may vary. What do you think?
(Doing Therapy)
In that case I think I would go with the shotgun, assuming I could load it with birdshot. The stopping power and ease of aiming, coupled with the decreased risk of overpenetration are the selling points there.
I get it. The 357 is the skilled man's weapon. The other two are the not-so-skilled man's weapons. Someone who had 3@10 with a 357 would take it against anything else.
(Doing Therapy)
Two Posts
As I understand Multiverser rules, having professional ability in one area automatically gives you 1@10 ability in closely related areas. So, since I have 2@2 with a 9mm, I have 1@10 with all handguns. Makes sense. I would be far more skilled with the 9mm, but that's only because 9mm ammo is much less expensive. However, the 357 is a much more accurate and powerful weapon. Probably in the same damage category as a 9mm though, in Multiverser language. I suppose the way to handle that would be to be a 1@10+20 sit mod on the 357. Or something. As I understand the rules, that would be the best way to do it.
And, shot for shot, that would make me a match with a 3@10 with a 9mm, but the 3@10 with the 9mm would get 3 attacks per turn, to my one. That's a really cool system MJ.
(Doing Therapy)
Three Posts, and no more.
I guess, skill being completely equal, you would want all of them.
Pinpoint accuracy and as much power as can be mustered, you want the 357
Sustained gunfight, 9mm.
Intimidation against multiple attackers, 12 gauge.
I thought this could be useful in game design.
(Doing Therapy)
I like how d20 modern does shotguns, too, making them an area-effect attack rather than targeting. I don't honestly know how accurate that is, all things considered, but it certainly fits with the cinematic way most people think of shotguns.
I just noticed something too... We never got Versed last night, did we? *waits till MJ is looking, then gives him the sad-cat face*
I just noticed something too... We never got Versed last night, did we? *waits till MJ is looking, then gives him the sad-cat face*
Well, judging from some of things he's said on the board lately, I'd guess we are the least of his concerns right now. I'd be giving him a prayer for strength instead of a sad cat face, but that's me.
Indeed, things have been very rough around here. I am hoping to pull through the next couple weeks "alive and well", but can make no promises of that. We're on the edges of several precipices, and falling over any one of them could bring down everything.
Please forgive me for my partial absence. There's too much to do and too little time at present.
--M. J. Young
Prayers of strength for MJ, and some advice for him too. I am absolutely certain that no one on the forum would begrudge you missing a day or two, if it meant you got at least a little more sleep. If someone does begrudge you that, give me their address and I'll go to their house with a baseball bat.
(Doing Therapy)
Two Posts
(Said with a hearty laugh)
MJ, I know you think I post a lot, but if you only knew how much I wasn't posting, since my therapy really started kicking in, you'd be amazed.
(Doing Therapy)
By the Cross and the Hammer, the Star and the Dove, may the gods of my faith and the God of yours grant you strength, MJ, the strength to persevere until tranquility reigns again. We miss you but certainly don't begrudge you tending to your life first - that's the proper way of things, after all; you can't do for others until you get some stability for yourself. Be strong and well, and return to us when you can.
One of the rules I tell all players when they start at Worldwalker the Multiverser Campaign is Real Life Takes Precedence. This applies to them and me. I don't want them to feel they have to post when they have a flu or something, or even apologize for such.
I may occasionally toss out an idea or so for the amusement of my fellow game designers, and my own, but until you get things more easeful, I'm going to ask you to NOT reply. I had somewhat that in mind with my 'Dogs of War' post (not that I'm ungrateful for your insights.).
Eric
Hey Osevens, how about this one. A double barrel shotgun against a 357? Two 12 gauge rounds vs six 357 rounds? I think that would be a pretty tough call. The double barrel would have some serious visual intimidation. Thoughts?
(Doing Therapy)
In that case I would have to go with the .357. As much as I do love the visual intimidation of a shotgun, I just don't feel like I could count on one. Then again, when you consider that I've never actually used a shotgun, whereas I am significantly more proficient in rifles and handguns, that could be coloring my perception.
I suppose the way to handle that would be to be a 1@10+20 sit mod on the 357. Or something. As I understand the rules, that would be the best way to do it.
Well, I don't think that would be the best way to do it.
Generally, small hand-carried explosive-driven projectile throwers (a.k.a. pistols) fall into three damage categories: damaging, dangerous, and lethal. Lighter, slower bullets are usually damaging, those which are either heavier or faster are dangerous, and those that are both heavier and faster are lethal. So I'm not sure what damage category any particular weapon falls, or where the line is dividing these from either heavy hand carried et cetera (Lauren's fifty caliber pistols) or large hand-carried (most rifles). However, I try to avoid using sit-mods particularly for ranged weapons. Instead, I adjust the ranges. I would bet that the .357 has better ranges than the 9mm. If we assume they are both dangerous weapons (I am not committed to that conclusion), but the .357 fires a faster projectile, it probably is also more accurate over range. Thus the chance to hit is not reduced as soon, and the potential damage is greater particularly outside point blank range.
Again, I'm not persuaded that the two weapons have the same damage category. I don't know them well enough to make that kind of conclusion.
--M. J. Young
Well see the thing is that the 9mm and the 357 are almost exactly the same caliber. The 9mm is a .355, the 357 is a .357. This is in inches (.357 inches) The 357 has a much heavier bullet, and quite a bit more muzzle velocity. Probably one step up from the 9mm. With some minor modifications, you can actually shoot 9mm bullets through a 357. The British found this out during WW2. They had 38 specials (Same caliber as the 357) and they were shooting captured German 9mm ammo through their 38s. Also, you can shoot 38 bullets through a 357.
A 45 on the other hand is a very heavy bullet going very slowly, by comparison to the other two. Uncle Bob says that a 9mm hit is like getting hit by a Volkswagen going 90, and a 45 is like getting hit by a semi truck going 50. Going by that, they probably have the same damage category. However, up close and personal, the 45 has a great deal more stopping power, but at any distance, the 9mm wins hands down. At more than about 50 yards, the 45 would be practically worthless, where the 9mm still will do some solid damage. If you want range AND stopping power though, go with the 357.
The rule of thumb outlined in the Referee's Rules is:
Low velocity, low caliber: Damaging (1-5)
Low velocity, high caliber: Dangerous (1-10)High velocity, low caliber: Dangerous (1-10)
High velocity, high caliber: Lethal (1-20)
I think your discussion of the 45's limited effectiveness at range is a good example of what MJ brings up about the importance of defining a gun's range increment. Between the range statistics and the velocity/caliber damage category guideline, I think a great many guns can be modeled with a fair degree of accuracy without resorting to any special sit-mods at all.
I'm glad to be talking about this, by the way. I'll probably use these posts as reference if my players ever get to a milieu with modern guns.
Low velocity, low caliber: Damaging (1-5)
Low velocity, high caliber: Dangerous (1-10)High velocity, low caliber: Dangerous (1-10)
High velocity, high caliber: Lethal (1-20)
Well Scott, if anyone would throw a monkey into your wrench, it would be me. A high-velocity 22 caliber would be in the Dangerous category. (High velocity, low caliber) A 45, however would ALSO be in the Dangerous category. (High caliber, low velocity) At point-blank range, a 22 is no match for a 45, but by these rules, it would do the same damage. I think if I designed the game, I would have had at least 15 or 20 damage categories to go by, for this reason. It is a good system, but in this one area, it does fall a little bit short. No offense intended MJ.
Two Posts
Just an aside. The Uzi submachine gun was invented by the Israelis (Jews) It shoots a 9mm bullet. The 9mm bullet was invented by the Nazis during WW2. I always found that quite ironic. A Jewish weapon that fires Nazi ammo.
Three Posts, and no more
Here's another monkey for your wrench. A 223 assault rifle is designed to be ballisticly unstable. Hard to explain, especially since I really don't understand it myself. However, I've heard it said that the small, lightweight 223 will actually do equal damage to the much more powerful 30-06. The 30-06 has about 3 times the effective range, but at the same distance, both do the same damage.
Another thing is that my MAK 90 that I have in-game is the same caliber as the 30-06, (30 caliber projectile) but is much less powerful. The MAK 90 is actually more powerful than the 223, but the 223 does more damage than the MAK 90, because of the before-mentioned ballistic instability. Try putting that into Multiverser lingo.....
John, you're much better informed on these things than I, so I don't want to say you're mistaken. Yet I'm pretty happy with the modeling the system does.
I think that I would make most .50 caliber pistols (e.g. Desert Eagle) lethal; I don't know that much about muzzle velocity, but these seem to me to be about as powerful a handgun as you can have--and this was the weapon for which E. R. Jones said the proper category was "heavy hand-carried". I would make most large-caliber rifles lethal, as well. They would also have greater range than the pistol, and thus would do more damage at range.
I am not certain that a .45 is not a lethal pistol with a short range; but then, I don't know that much about it. I do know that those "rules" Scott cites are intended to give the referee some assistance in making his own decisions about the damage categories of individual weapons. After all, to people outside the gun world, a pistol is a potent weapon without too much understanding of how a twenty-two differs from a forty-five. Riggs' 9mm and Murtaugh's Revolver are very different weapons, with very different strengths and weaknesses, but within the context of the film they both kill people quite effectively (it helps that Riggs is clearly an expert and Murtaugh at least a high-level professional, and both have 2@ ranged strike values).
Each damage category roughly doubles the top end of the weapon's capability. They are achieved by dividing the d100 roll into segments: RS/1, RS/2, RS/5, RS/10, RS/20. We could have slipped a few intermediate steps in there, but this would have reduced the benefit of a damage category bonus--and remember, if you roll 01 it doesn't matter whether you've got damaging or annihilating damage, you did one intensity of damage (barring damage points). Although the top end of the potential damage roughly doubles with each increase, the actual advantage is not as impressive on a roll-by-roll basis. Intervening damage categories would reduce this.
You could, of course, add damage categories between Annihilating and Obliterative--something like RSx2 for a range of 2-200. You can already achieve that with damage riders, if it's necessary, and it usually is not necessary. Besides, unless you're talking about artillery battles, there isn't much point in a damage category in that spot.
So I'm not sure how you can add damage categories in a useful way.
--M. J. Young
John, you're much better informed on these things than I, so I don't want to say you're mistaken. Yet I'm pretty happy with the modeling the system does.
Yeah, I keep forgetting, not everyone is as gun savvy as I am. I could use 20 damage categories, most folks couldn't.
I think that I would make most .50 caliber pistols (e.g. Desert Eagle) lethal;
How many time do I have to tell you MJ? Desert Eagle is a brand name, not a certain gun. There is a 50 caliber Desert Eagle, but they are also made in 9mm, 40, 45, 357 magnum, and 44 magnum, as well as the 50 AE.
Something else, despite there only being a .05 difference in caliber, the 45 and the 50 AE are miles apart in power. Even then, a 45 ACP and a 45 Colt, despite being the same caliber, are ALSO miles apart in power. The 45 Colt is pretty much the same as a 44 magnum as far as power. I guess lethal. The 45 ACP is probably in the same damage category as a 9mm. Maybe 1 step up for really short range.
Two Posts
Something else is that a 22 high velocity, a 22 sub-sonic, and a 22 short, despite being the same caliber are again miles apart in power.
A 22 short I would probably say does annoying damage if you hit the target. For an annoying attack to work though, you have to roll over 50 if I'm not mistaken. In this case, hitting your target would do annoying damage. A 22 short is pretty much a really loud pellet gun.
I've been shot with a pellet gun, and agree that a pellet gun is probably an annoying attack. It could have injured me had it hit the right spot. I'm not sure I agree that .22 short bullets would bounce off my skin in the same way, stinging but not injuring me.
And as far as damage categories go, you probably could relatively easily "by the seat of your pants" drop guns into the three damage categories. The guidelines are there for people who can't.
But perhaps I can approach it this way. A base lethal gun in the hands of an amateur on a single shot will probably cause a serious wound but is unlikely to kill another human except at point blank range (or botch). A base fatal gun, were there such a thing, would probably kill most targets under the same conditions. A base annihilating gun would rarely leave the target alive. Do you really think that there are guns with greater than lethal base damage? Remember, either a professional SAL or a second level RSV will give the shooter a damage category bonus, and both together will give two such bonuses, so the fact that someone who knows what he's doing can usually kill a target in one shot is not relevant to the question of amateur ability.
--M. J. Young
I've been shot with a pellet gun, and agree that a pellet gun is probably an annoying attack. It could have injured me had it hit the right spot. I'm not sure I agree that .22 short bullets would bounce off my skin in the same way, stinging but not injuring me.
Yeah, you're probably right. I do know though that I have heard of a police officer getting shot at point blank range (we're talking inches) right in the face with a 22 short and he lived with just a scar. I don't think very many guns would do that.
Do you really think that there are guns with greater than lethal base damage?
I don't think it, I know it for a fact. I doubt that you or I could go into the neighborhood gun store and purchase such a gun, but a 20mm antiaircraft machine gun would do that easily. A live 20mm round is almost a foot long.
Remember, either a professional SAL or a second level RSV will give the shooter a damage category bonus, and both together will give two such bonuses, so the fact that someone who knows what he's doing can usually kill a target in one shot is not relevant to the question of amateur ability.
Which (in my opinion) makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It wouldn't matter if it was a 1@1 or a 3@10, the gun isn't going to be any more powerful. Or is it that the 3@10 would be more likely to hit the vital organs than the amateur would?
The 3@ shooter is the one who can usually hit your eye from ten yards away, while you're ducking and weaving and he's riding by on the back of a pickup truck. With a pellet gun (and a 2@ strike value), the 3@10 shooter is only doing Dangerous+10 damage - that is, 2 to 11 intensities, with 11 being an excellent shot at (probably) point-blank range, the horrific worst-case-scenario, read-about-it-on-the-news shot.
Think of it this way - the professional is usually hitting you where it hurts, whereas the amateur will clip you on the arm or leg more often than not, usually just getting flesh wounds even on a central body shot.
OK Scott, that makes more sense. I figured it was something like that.
With a pellet gun (and a 2@ strike value), the 3@10 shooter is only doing Dangerous+10 damage - that is, 2 to 11 intensities, with 11 being an excellent shot at (probably) point-blank range, the horrific worst-case-scenario, read-about-it-on-the-news shot.
Once again Scott, I have to throw a monkey into your wrench. If it indeed is that the expert is more likely to hit you in a vital spot than the amateur, the fact remains that the amateur is still capable of making the same shot. The bullet doesn't know that the person firing is a 3@10. It is certainly within the realm of possibility that the 1@1 could, through sheer dumb luck, hit exactly the same vital spot as the expert Or is this another one of those trading-realism-for-game-mechanics moments?
Since his chances are much, much less than 1%, we don't let him hit that spot on every one out of a hundred shots. And no one wants to roll a one million sided die, so we don't give him any chance at all.
The significant fact is not that a pellet gun is theoretically capable of dealing 11 intensities in some circumstances, but rather that a nigh-superhuman expert could, in some specific circumstance, have perhaps a 3% chance of pulling that off. (Three percent is not zero, nor even close, as anyone who's botched on a skill can attest.)
Trading realism for game mechanics. That's acceptable.