Three
you were willing to destroy what you perceived as the best possible future just to save yourself some temporary problems. (Even if you had versed out with broken bones in casts and traction, how long would it have taken for you to find a way to heal all damage, really?)
MJ, have you ever broken a bone? How many have you broken at once? I broke both bones in my leg Jan. 1, 2001. Helluva way to start the new year. That was pain the likes of which no human being should have to endure. The only pain I've ever experienced which even rivaled it was (ironically) the pain of a psychotic episode. I wouldn't even want to imagine what the pain of breaking a lot of the bones in my entire upper body would be like. I'm going to end up in the next world in unbelievable pain, and be mostly crippled. (or so I was thinking) You can call that a "temporary problem" if you so choose. I call it being afraid, adrenaline, and instinct for self-preservation. I was really trying to put myself in his shoes. I thought about it for a good hour before I replied. It wasn't something I took lightly. Besides, as you have pointed out, it might not have changed anything at all. That was how hard I had to be pushed to warn Pearl Harbor of the attack. I don't know how that really helps, but that's what you learned.
delusions are sometimes a side effect of psychosis. A delusional person won't accept any other reality other than their delusion. If they say something happened a certain way, it happened that way. You could show them videotapes, and they would say the tapes were faked. You could bring in eyewitnesses and they would say the witnesses were lying. To the delusional mind, the delusion is more real than the reality.
There are some mistakes you can't make unless you are smart enough and well enough informed.
I would like to point out that I might have driven him away from the board with my ignorable behavior
You did not want him to ignore your posts, and him doing so only inflamed you.
Reading the above makes me believe that John behavior cannot be ignored by MJ. The problem here lies that John will believe the he was forced to be involved so telling him that he was not forced to be involved will not solve the problem. Any attempt to do so will be futile and may make the problem worsen.
When MJ reads this thread, the goal would probably try to avoid any conflicting answer which might further trigger the psychosis. The goal would be to make the person in question to search for the answer himself by asking questions or by playing out the circumstances which still bothers him.
mastered the art of slowing down my synaptic pathways by sheer force of will
Well if you seriously want to learn it you have to open your mind to suggestion and reply politely to any suggestion.
John, I really wanted to see the list of possible opener. Please list it in this thread.
The problem here lies that John will believe the he was forced to be involved so telling him that he was not forced to be involved will not solve the problem.
No, I did believe (past tense) that I was forced to get involved. It's not a delusion.
You want to see my list of game openers Max? Sure. I'll put that in the next thread.
Two
Here's my list of six game openers. I was trying to think of more. I think the opener of the MP is a very bad choice for a non-involvement player. You send them to the world to see how hard the player will fight to stay uninvolved, then never give them the chance to try. Then you WONDER why the non-involvement player gets upset about it. Here it is.
Anyone who has been here for any length of time has certainly seen the numerous discussions about the opener of the Pearl Harbor world I visited. An MP was dispatched immediately to take me to the base. I had no idea where I was, and I'm suddenly having a gun shoved in my face and being told to go somewhere. While not strictly forcing the player into the scenario, it is undeniably forceFULL. I didn't like it. I think it showed a lack of imagination on the part of the referee, and also assumes that the player would want to get involved in the scenario. A VERY bad choice for a player with a history of non-involvement. While I can (finally) see how and why it is an OK opener to use, I think it is flawed. So, let's examine some other ways that world or a world like it could open, based on what you know about, and hope to learn from your players.
Drop them inside or right next to an unoccupied building. What do they find inside? A calender on the wall "Date, December 5, 1941". On the desk, a memorandum being typed "From the desk of Major so-and-so, concerning defensive position of the Pearl Harbor Naval Base." The player now has all of the pertinent information about when and where they are. Do they try to call someone at the base proper? Do they run? Do they want to offer involvement, or do they want to leave? Do they stick around and take no action? If they explore the building taking no other action, they will also find weapons and ammunition, a back door, and other items of interest. What happens when Major so-and-so, two civilian secretaries and an MP bodyguard come back from lunch 20 minutes later? It's a setup for a hostage situation, they could try to run undetected or surrender. This would be a good opening for a non-involvement player. You want to see how serious they are about non-involvement? Here's your chance. If they turn it into a hostage situation, then they're pretty serious about non-involvement.
Morning announcements. "This is Corporeal Cross with the Pearl Harbor daily news report. The date is December 5th, 1941. The weather is a balmy 76 degrees......" I've been told that this offers too much information too quickly. Well, so does the MP. The only difference I see between this and the MP as far as information is concerned is that this doesn't shove a gun in your face and try to arrest you. Maybe it's not quite as believable and even a little convenient, but versing in right before morning announcements would be bound to happen every once in a while. What does the player do then? Do they head towards the base? If they do, send an MP after them to give them a ride. Do they try to run? Send an MP after them. Give them plenty of head start to run (if you want to learn more about them, that is) Do they surrender to the MP? Do they fight the MP? Do they try to play "Hide and seek" with the MP? This is a slightly different situation than having the MP pull up right in front of the player. The player might react differently. I think you could learn a lot more about a player from this opening. Also a good choice for the non-involvement player.
Drop them right inside a highly populated area, but out of sight. Put some clothes right where they verse in. Perhaps drop them in the laundry room. Give them the means to determine where and when they are. (Calender on the wall, a motivational poster "Good job Pearl Harbor laundry team!!" Something like that) Do they put on a uniform and try to blend in, in hopes of escape? Do they run? Do they walk straight up to the first soldier they see and say "This place is going to be bombed in 2 days." What could you learn about them then? This particular example does seem a might bit cheesy to me, I admit, but I think it could become very interesting very quickly.
Drop them right next to a big sign that says "Pearl Harbor Naval Base" Certainly there would be such a sign SOMEWHERE on that base!!! Same as announcements really.
Perhaps there's a civilian tour group they could blend in with. I could see how this could make escape way too easy for a non-involvement player, so I wouldn't recommend it unless you were pretty certain the player would get involved.
In favor of the opening of the MP, I will say that it is probably the most likely thing which would happen. It is completely believable, and has no flaws in that regard. It also gives the player the pertinent information. I can see how this is an acceptable opener to use. I still think it very flawed, and far from the best opener to use, especially for a non-involvement player, for reasons previously stated. I think that the opener of the MP should only be used for a player with a history of jumping into any and every situation. A very bad choice for a player with a history of non-involvement.
Above all, make no assumptions about your players. Don't assume that the non-involvement player will want to get involved in "This World." You will be quite surprised more often than not, I'm certain. Give the player the chance to decide if they want to become involved. If they want to, help them do it. If they don't want to, offer them a moderate level of resistance. How far will they go to NOT get involved? You would have been quite surprised at how my character reacted if I had been dropped next to an unoccupied building, and learned my situation with no other influences.
Ya know MJ, you told me how you define "Getting Involved" so I think it only fair that I tell you how I define it, at least in that particular case.
Slipping off the base unnoticed. That's not getting involved.
A gunfight with the MPs when they don't know why I'm there. That's not getting involved.
Going to the base. That's getting involved.
Talking to ANYONE there. That's getting involved.
Having an MP stop me. That's being forced to get involved.
You explained how you defined it, I thought it only fair that I reciprocate. That particular event was one I wouldn't want to touch.
My first thought on waking up this morning was Amy Grant "Every heartbeat bears your name." It was playing in my head when I woke up. Quite refreshing from the alternative.
No, I did believe (past tense) that I was forced to get involved. It's not a delusion.
Are you really sure about that?
That was an explanation of my position, not an attempt at an argument. Besides, I'm allowed to have a difference of opinion without being delusional.
--P.S. that last sarcastic 'joke' was mildly offensive (at least to my perceptions). You should work on that.
-Which one?
the one immediately preceding my last post.
No, I meant which joke in the post. I guess you meant the whole post.
(Doing Therapy)
mistake
Here's I'm curious about: Ignoring the language barrier, what would your character have done if dropped on an IJN fleet carrier at Midway?
Well, since I have no idea what you're talking about, I wouldn't have the faintest idea.
Midway was the point after which the US navy essentially controlled the oceans in WWII. It, by itself, was not decisive, given that the US built more carriers than were present in the battle by 1943, but it certainly shortened the war due to the destruction of the four IJN fleet carriers at the battle by dive bombers attacking while the fighter patrols were rearming from engaging a large torpedo bomber force.
If it was a Japanese carrier, I'd probably try to sabotage it.
Ah, so you would have gotten involved for the Americans against the Japanese if we'd chosen a different battle. The whole "non-involvement" thing goes right out the window at that point.
--M. J. Young
MJ, as I recall, YOU were the one who branded me with a non-involvement philosophy. You branded me with that because I didn't want to help a hippie green peace awareness movement. (whoop-dee-doo!!) If there was a militia guy handing out bazookas to anyone who thought he could handle one, THEN I would have gotten involved in battling the insects. I'm not going to get involved for the altruism of it. Princesses who can't sleep? Big deal. Like I really want to risk my life for a bunch of stuck-up, spoiled rich girls. Demons who can be killed by gunfire on the other hand..... It was NEVER a non-involvement philosophy. It was a "Can MJ find what will get me involved?" philosophy.
It just happens that with Pearl Harbor it was an "I REALLY don't want to get involved." philosophy. That aspect was never tested, and that is what pissed me off.
(Laughing) Take the fear of versing out with 40 broken bones and turn it into how much I don't want to get involved, backed up by a van full of semi-automatic weapons. THAT was how that world should have played out.
(Doing Therapy)
Two
MJ, you weren't paying attention to anything I did in B Movie Monster World. The others are leading a hippie green peace awareness movement to make people aware of the insects. I'm buying guns left and right. Pretty clear I'm not a hippie. If you had any sense, you would have next dropped me into a world where the guns would be used. THEN you would have found out if I would get involved. Nope, the best place to send me is obviously a place where the guns will never be used.... I thought you were a member of Mensa. For a genius, you can be real stupid.
EDIT: After reading Brock's posting, I guess I should point out that the last was intended as a sarcastic wisecrack. I keep forgetting that you can't "hear" when I type. If you heard me say it, you wouldn't have been offended, and probably would have been laughing.
EDIT AGAIN: Now I'm (Doing Therapy) and I'm paranoid. Really, you have to read that whole thing with the proper tone of voice. It's funny sarcastic, not really insulting. I keep forgetting that people can't hear me when I type. Inside my head, it sounds like it's supposed to, out here, it doesn't. Sorry, no serious offense was intended.
Please stop insulting MJ, John. You're supposed to be friends.
He went with the best world he could figure for you, based on what he knew about you so far. Bear in mind that you are unlike many that play these kinds of games. You react differently.
Consider: Had you chosen to get involved, you may have found a way to join the fight, as an American soldier, against the Japanese attack (thereby using your weapons you bothered to haul around). Had you chosen the non-involvement policy he suspected you had, you might have refused to cooperate or not told them of the attack, or something to that effect. You chose, however, to be defiant toward an authority figure come to arrest you (probably not an entirely unexpected action), and the story ended up where it did. There is nothing wrong with the story or your reaction to it; it was simply a situation for you react to. You may have escaped, and then traveled elsewhere in the world, traveling the past, as it were.
The entire point is to:
-Learn more about the player, and what stories entertain them.
-provide an interesting INTERACTIVE experience.
-tell a good story.
Oh, and: you were perfectly capable of using the guns in Dancing Princess. you did, even. You could have done so much:
-become an adventurer for hire, questing across the land, using your superior weaponry to annihilate fantastic threats.
-Become an evil Bandit Lord, using the threats consuming the land and you're superior abilities to seize the things you desire.
-replicate your existing equipment, should the bias allow it, bumping up the technology of the world.
-joined the Royal Army, becoming a skilled fighter with a unique weapon, rising in rank until you become a field General, leading a country to martial conquest of their neighbors.
-and so much more.
The limit is your imagination. So don't insult MJ's intelligence-he gave you a world, and a hook for the story, and then more hooks, trying to snag you into the world's story, and you ignored both the potential of the story and the world itself, electing to learn a skill that you can learn in any medieval world.
Please stop insulting MJ, John. You're supposed to be friends.
I've always been of the mind that if you can't insult your friends, then who can you insult? Besides, it was sarcastic. Brock is right though MJ. I'm sorry. I guess I figure that if you're really my friend, then you already know I don't really mean anything by the insult.
"Being a star has made it possible for me to be insulted in places where the average Negro could never hope to be insulted."
Sammy Davis Junior.
Oh, and: you were perfectly capable of using the guns in Dancing Princess. you did, even. You could have done so much:
I meant Pearl Harbor was a world where the guns would never be used. Using the guns there would have been about as unexpected as was crashing the jeep.
Two
He went with the best world he could figure for you, based on what he knew about you so far.
Dancing Princess was fun. I had a really good time there, made some friends, and killed me some demons!!! I was talking about Pearl Harbor. The thing about the princesses who can't sleep was to explain my thought processes in that situation. You're talking to one of the most unpopular guys at his school. That was (in a sense) asking me to risk my life to save that stuck-up head cheerleader who has never said a kind word to you in 4 years. Nope, not for me.
Bear in mind that you are unlike many that play these kinds of games. You react differently.
Different kind of player requires a different kind of refereeing style. If all of your players are the same, then the game can never be put to its full potential.
You may have escaped, and then traveled elsewhere in the world, traveling the past, as it were.
(Laughing) That's what I wanted to do!!! If had known where I was, I NEVER would have gotten arrested!!!!
The limit is your imagination. So don't insult MJ's intelligence-he gave you a world, and a hook for the story, and then more hooks, trying to snag you into the world's story, and you ignored both the potential of the story and the world itself, electing to learn a skill that you can learn in any medieval world.
Yeah Brock, you misunderstood me. I was talking about Pearl Harbor as the world where the guns would never be used. Dancing Princess was one of the better worlds I've been to. That was a lot of fun. And as far as learning the skill, I did what I would really do in that situation. The plot hook I needed was the knowledge of the demons. THEN I was willing to help the stuck-up head cheerleader, see what I mean?
(Doing Therapy)
O.K., John, it might be that I was the first to use the word "non-involvement" to describe you; but everyone else had reached the same conclusion.
The reason is simple. Graeme was trying to bring about ecological reform; Nikolaj was working with him. Scott was trying to do something to save the world from its own mistakes, and Oak was doing that, too. Meanwhile, you were offering to give people transportation if they needed it as long as they didn't involve you what they were doing. You say now that it was because you didn't agree with their particular policies, and I can certainly understand that you're not an environmental activist. For my part, it was fun to see that happen, and completely unexpected--but then, remember, I constructed that world in steps--
- Step one, let's start John in his own home city in a different universe with the Architect whom he recognizes as me but who never had any contact with him and doesn't know him. We'll figure out how to make it different later.
- Step two, Graeme needs a world, and he's very active at the moment so I can put him in the same world with John, and you know, he needs a good sci fi world, so let's make this the world that the sci fi movies of the 50's all envisioned, in which chemical and nuclear polution has resulted in mutant monsters of various sorts, but to normalize it the government is covering it all up>
The hitch was, your argument was not that you weren't interested in environmental causes. Your argument was that this was someone else's world, and it was wrong for versers who are de facto aliens to that world to tell the people of that world what they should do with their world. You were preaching The Prime Directive, the Non-Involvement policy of the Federation. You weren't saying, "I have no interest in these stupid environmental movement things." You were saying, "We as versers ought not interfere with what this world is doing to itself." "We should not tell them what they should do."
I was also, of course, trying to figure out where people were going to go in the event that they versed out, and also as the number of people grew (there were already four more in that world by this point, including Nikolaj, Scott, Oak, and I think Jeremy?) who I was going to get to run all these people when things changed. It was at that point that I thought Pearl Harbor would be a good world, and started asking for someone to run it, and found Adam.
It was after that that you started gathering the armaments; but then, there is a verser mindset which is very much my own, about stocking up on whatever you're likely to need in future worlds. I do that, all the time. Non-involvement does not mean you won't want a bazooka to fire at the oncoming tyranosaurus who won't take "no thank you" for an answer to the question of whether he can have you for breakfast--and I have been there.
I wondered later whether it might be better to put you in another world; but then, I had a world for you and someone preparing to run it, and I was still trying to come up with worlds for several other players, and the number was growing, so I wasn't about to reconsider yours--having a world that was not the best choice was better than having no world at all. Besides, my concern shifted really toward whether if you had all those weapons Adam was going to have to figure out what impact that improved technology would have on the American military when you started helping them improve their armaments. I wasn't really worried about your non-involvement policy anymore; I was more worried about what I was going to do with half a dozen other players. You were welcome to become the U.S.' best combat secret, if you wished. Or to die at Pearl Harbor in defense of your supposed non-involvement philosophy, if you preferred.
--M. J. Young
It all makes so much more sense now MJ. Ya know what though? You just reminded me of something.
Besides, my concern shifted really toward whether if you had all those weapons Adam was going to have to figure out what impact that improved technology would have on the American military when you started helping them improve their armaments.
(Just so you know, I think this is really funny)
They took all of that and held it against my will for the entirety of my stay. I gave them a prototype of the 9mm handgun. Germany was just developing that caliber at this time. Also, the prototype of the AK-47 assault rifle, which wouldn't be invented for about 6 years. That latter, invented first by the US, would probably single-handedly bankrupt The Soviet Union. It's their single largest export. I could have completely changed that world forever. The Cold War will be between the US and Germany. Russia will be nothing. So much for Not Getting Involved.
And MJ, that makes so much more sense than it used to. I think the opening of the MP assumes that the player wants to get involved. If they don't want to go to the base, they would be forced to commit cold-blooded murder ten seconds after arrival. That's a lot to ask someone. It assumes that the player wants to go to the base. You wanted to see how hard I would fight to not get involved. What would be easier than saying "Sorry, I got lost out there. Can I go now?" and being released? In fact, I'd wager it would be easier than trying to get them to raise the defenses. Granted that's probably best-case scenario, but still, not difficult at all. Knowing where I was and gun-fighting the MPs on the other hand..... I think that opening assumes that the player wants to get involved.
It makes so much more sense. At this point, it's more getting it straight than arguing. Anything I say which could be taken as offensive is probably meant sarcastically.
(Doing Therapy)
I'm dubious of how much of an impact the prototype for an AK-47 would have, since the US went with the less reliable and robust but more accurate at assault rifle ranges M-16 for a reason. Not necessarily a good reason, I'm not enough of a firearms person to tell one way or another, but also not a reason that is too likely to have been changed. Also, the USSR would probably just make the AK-47 anyway and tell the US that patents didn't apply to them, while the US wouldn't export to the USSR's biggest market, that being communist revolutionaries and other communist governments.
I'd guess that firearms technology would be given a general bump by blatant technology theft from the USSR, like how they stole the plans for nuclear-powered missile subs.
I was saying that the potential would exist for that to happen. It's also within the realm of possibility that no one ever looked at it that closely.
Two
As far as what can change history, you'd be surprised. The Rubik's Cube single-handedly turned around Hungary's economy. Erno Rubik, the inventor, was from Hungary. It sold so many units that it pulled that whole country out of a depression. Now tell me that the AK-47 couldn't have a significant impact first invented somewhere else.
Three
MJ wrote:
having a world that was not the best choice was better than having no world at all.
Not always... <wink>
The other thing is that I had one rifle with Russian markings, and a pistol in a caliber that Germany was just inventing. I'm probably lucky I didn't get hanged for treason.
on the assault rifle-your model was, relatively speaking, higher tech, anyway. it was built better, so they still could learn a bit.
No Brock, the AK-47 was invented in 1947 (easy to remember) I was in 1941. That caliber and design was completely unheard of. What they would learn is that it's capable of being built in the first place.
Oh and someone said that the US used the more accurate, less reliable M-16 over the less accurate, more reliable AK-47. I just realized, in the game, those two guns are exactly identical. Both base lethal, with exactly the same accuracy and jam rate. The logic of the less accurate AK is that the fact that it's less accurate is what makes it so reliable. If your gun is jammed, you can't fire at all, let alone hit anything. Besides, who needs a 1 inch pattern when you're firing 30 bullets?
Oh ya know what? I just realized how a 30-06 and a 223 can both be base lethal and be fair. Those two are miles apart in power. However, the 30-06 will still reliably kill a human being at a mile away. The 223 is only effective for about 500 yards. They're both base-lethal, just the 30-06 stays base lethal a lot longer.
(Doing Therapy)
Two
Ya know what though? A peak psychotic episode now is actually less intense than day-to-day psychosis was five years ago. A peak psychotic episode would be equal to not more than a 5 GE on what the day-to-day psychosis was like that day. Day-to-day psychosis now is almost non-existent. I wondered a few days ago if this is what "normal people" feel like.
(Doing Therapy)
I had to make a point in response to this:
I just realized, in the game, those two guns are exactly identical. Both base lethal, with exactly the same accuracy and jam rate. The logic of the less accurate AK is that the fact that it's less accurate is what makes it so reliable.
The answer is reflected in this:
I just realized how a 30-06 and a 223 can both be base lethal and be fair. Those two are miles apart in power. However, the 30-06 will still reliably kill a human being at a mile away. The 223 is only effective for about 500 yards. They're both base-lethal, just the 30-06 stays base lethal a lot longer.
I would bet that when we statted the two guns, we gave the M-16-A1 a longer range set and the AK-47 a faster base fire rate (Repeat Factor).
Let me see if I can pull up some numbers from character sheets somewhere. John 2 has a
MAK 90 Russian-made shoots 7.62x39 ammo, low quality detachable bayonet comes with a metal sheath that can be hooked to the bayonet to become a pair of wire cutters, back of bayonet has hacksaw blade as part of the blade, serves as bayonet, fighting knife, wirecutters, and hacksaw, reload 0:24, base lethal RF 30 10':40':80':300':+1/3'
That strikes me as overpowered; I don't think it should be base lethal, but base dangerous--but since I don't remember the arguments, I'm not going to change it on his sheet right now. I am going to use dangerous as the base category for this comparison, because I can't think of a reason why an AK-47 would be in the same category as a .50 Desert Eagle on a single shot basis at point blank range.
Adam has a
M29 5.56/.25mm 6 shot grenade camera gun, with 10 clips of 30 5.56 bullets and 10 of 6 20mm grenades (30lbs), M-16 like gun, pneumatic grenade launcher 0:50:200:500:+1/5 yards RF 2, rifle 10':50':200':800':+1/8' RF6 dangerous Magazine Capacity: 30 rounds reload 0:18
Let's go easy on it, and assume these numbers are correct. Let's also assume that our 1@10 BRA+1@10 SAL+10@ bias shooter has the same skill with both guns, and that his RSV is equal to his target's TV so that those numbers cancel. That gives him 60% chance to hit the target at short range.
The AK-47 is clearly superior within 40', as it gets more aimed and fired shots. (I'm looking at that RF 30 and thinking that means it can fire 270 rounds per minute wide open, which I find incredible for a hand-held gun--that's 4.5 rounds per second, if my quick mental sketch math is correct. I don't believe that, either. I would be surprised if it fired 3 rounds per second and suspect it's closer to 2, which would make 120 per minute flat out, which I would reduce to RF13, the amateur user being able to aim and fire one shot roughly every four and a half seconds. We'll go with that; that's still significantly superior to the RF2 of the M-16, which gives it a flat-out maximum of 18 shots in a minute, roughly one every three-point-two seconds.)
Both have a 10' point blank range category, which means both get +80 in that range. 20% of shots miss, and the remaining shots do an even spread of damage from 1 to 8 intensities, 1+8=9, 9/2=4.5 average intensities per hit, 4.5x0.80=3.6 per shot, and in one minute the AK does 13x3.6 while the M-16 does 2x3.6, the AK winning by virtue of number of shots.
The AK has a "short" range to 40'; the M-16's goes to 50'. At short range, 40% of shots will miss, and the damage will be 1-6, average 3.5 per hit, which is (I'm getting the calculator out now) 2.16 per shot, 4.32 for the M-16, 28.08 for the AK, again because of the sheer number of bullets.
But between 40' and 50' the M-16 is still hitting as short range and the AK is reduced to medium range, -10, so it's only hitting 50% of its shots, and only doing 1-5=6/2=3 intensities per hit, 1.5 per shot. It still out performs by sheer number of bullets fired, 19.5 intensities per minute, but it's losing its edge a bit.
The M-16 falls into medium range at 60', at which it is reduced to 3 intensities per minute. It's medium range category extends to 200', though, while the AK's only extends to 80'; so once we exceed 80', the AK takes the -25 long range penalty, a 35% chance to hit, and the math for the average damge is a bit more difficult because although the damage is 1-4, the chance of doing 4 intensities is only half as great (rolls of 31 to 35) as that of doing 1, 2, or 3. It comes to 16/7 (1+1+2+2+3+3+4)=~2.285714 (repeating) per hit, and 0.8 per shot, which times 13 shots is 10.4 intensities per minute, which comes from the fact that maybe four of thirteen bullets actually hit the target. This still outperforms the M-16's average 3 intensities per minute, but that's because the M-16 is still hitting with half its shots.
The M-16 does not lose that range benefit until 200', at which time it drops to 1.6 intensities per minute. But it retains that damage to its maximum long range of 800', and the AK-47 reaches maximum long range at 300', at which point two things happen. The first is, the AK's damage category is penalized from dangerous to damaging, which means that instead of a 1-10 damage range for the full scale of rolls it now does 1-5; the second is that for every three feet (or fraction thereof) beyond 300' the gun takes another -1 penalty. Let's do a couple of comparisons.
At 301' the AK's chance to hit is 34%; the average damage is 1.411765 per hit, 0.48 per shot, 6.24. But at 366' the incremental penalty per shot is such that only 12% of shots are hitting, one intensity per hit, 0.12 intensities per shot, 1.56 intensities per minute--in essence, hitting with one or two bullets of every thirteen fired, while the other gun is still hitting roughly one out of three.
At roughly 412' the chance for this user to hit anything with an AK-47 has hit 0 (and is headed negative, increasing his chance to botch, such as by hitting entirely the wrong target), but he's still holding the same 35% chance to hit for an average 1.6 intensities of damage with the M-16 until he reaches 800'. After that, he still can hit with the M-16, at the same increasing penalty except that it's -1 for every 8' over 800. He will not hit 0% chance to hit until above 1080'.
So the advantage of the AK-47 is in its sheer delivery speed. It rapidly loses accuracy as range increases.
And, since you've called my attention to it, I'll need you to justify the "lethal" damage category (reserved for high-velocity large-caliber bullets such as the .50 Desert Eagle) and the 270 fire rate of the MAC, or I will be reducing it to the numbers given here. Those are separate questions, and you can convince me of either separately from the other.
--M. J. Young
That strikes me as overpowered; I don't think it should be base lethal, but base dangerous
Can't do that MJ. That would put it in the same damage category as my 9mm pistol. Besides, it's at least as powerful as an M-16. You can't tell me the 9mm and the AK do the same damage. If you lower the 9mm, you would have to make a 22 annoying. Hardly. This game really needs at least 3 or 4 more damage categories, at least I think. I didn't want to start an argument over anything, I was just thinking that in game, all of the nuances are taken out, and the guns are put on a more level playing field. And that's good. Not sure I could explain to you why, but it's good to have it like that.
I was telling you about how I thought the 9mm carbine should have a bonus on the the 9mm pistol, and you said "Um, the ranges sort of do that?" and if I'm reading you right, that explains a lot. That explains why lethal is the top damage category for most explosive driven slug throwers. The longer range means that the 30-06 keeps it's lethality a lot longer. A person can only get so dead, no matter what you hit them with, so of course "Lethal" would be the top end. I'd feel more comfortable with one between dangerous and lethal, but this actually makes good sense to me the way it is.
What you should do is probably leave this lethal and make a 30-06 fatal. Or not. Maybe fatal would be reserved for something like a 20 mm anti aircraft cannon or something like that. Or a 30-06 fatal and a 20mm annihilating. (Yeah, it would deserve it.) I think there should be one between dangerous and lethal, but that's just my opinion. Damaging would be for small handguns, (22, 25, etc) Dangerous for most other handguns, (Insert category here) Call it Harmful maybe, for smaller rifles and exceptionally large handguns, (nothing smaller than a 357 magnum) and Lethal for larger rifles. That would work better, at least I think. I could believe that the ranges cover the difference in power between a 357 magnum and an AK-47, at least to enough of a degree to go along with it. That "Um, the ranges sort of do that?" just clicked something in my head. The gun system made so much more sense when you said that.
Ya know, I just had a thought. Why not introduce the new damage category in my game? Kind of a play test kind of thing? If it seems to work really well, perhaps Multiverser Volume 2 will have it. Just a thought.
Here's how it breaks down in my head. 357 magnum and 9mm, similar ranges, miles apart in power. "Um, the ranges sort of do that?" doesn't cover this one. A 357 magnum and an AK-47, miles apart in power, miles apart (literally) in range. (The bullet is capable of going for 2 miles or more.) "Um, the ranges sort of do that?" covers this neatly. The AK and the 30-06, under this system, the ranges and power balance out. "Um, the ranges sort of do that?" covers this neatly as well. However, under this system, a 357 magnum would probably be in the same damage category as the 30-06. The ranges and power don't really balance out as well. As I understand it, at 2 feet away, the game says they do the same damage. Hardly. The person would be just as dead, but the damage would be significantly greater with the 30-06. An additional damage category would cover that.
I think the way to do it would be by a ranges and power system. A 9mm and a 357, ranges and power don't balance out. (Similar ranges, miles apart in power) A 357 magnum and the AK wouldn't do the same damage at close range, but the significantly increased range compensates for that. Likewise with the AK and the 30-06. Not so much between the 357 and the 30-06. Or even a 50 caliber handgun and a 30-06. Close range just isn't anywhere similar. The 50 cal handgun matches the AK neatly for range and power though. Just my two cents is all.
(Doing Therapy)
Two
I had this strange dream earlier when I was sleeping. I was watching a fight take place. A fight I could probably have stopped. And the word "Observer" was being chanted over and over. "Observer observer observer observer". Something clicked inside my head. I was observing the fight, not involved in it. You cannot tell me that you wouldn't feel forced if an MP shoved a gun in your face. There's no one on this board who could tell me they wouldn't feel forced. That was strange though. That dream. I've been trying to make sense of it for a while.
(Doing Therapy)
Below are some interesting facts to help decide the damage base category.
From wikipedia:
The standard AK-47 or AKM fires the 7.62x39mm cartridge with a muzzle velocity of 710 metres per second (2,300 ft/s). Muzzle energy is 2,010 joules (1,480 ft·lbf). Projectile weight is normally 8 grams (120 gr). The AK-47 and AKM, with the 7.62×39mm cartridge, have a maximum effective range of around 400 metres (1,300 ft).
Depending on where the bullet impacts and at what depth it yaws, the AK-47 is capable of producing a range of wounding effects.
In the absence of yaw, the M43 load can pencil through lung tissue with relatively little injury. On a direct hit to the cranium, hydrostatic shock can cause the head to explode. Even in the absence of yaw and a large temporary cavity, a hit to the shoulder can produce significant lung hemorrhaging attributed to stress wave transmission. Indirect injuries can be common with hits to the abdomen and may be attributed to the explosive effects of temporary cavitation.
The .30-06 is a very powerful cartridge designed when 1,000 metres (1,100 yd) shots were expected.
Many hunting loads have over 2800 ft-lbs of energy at the muzzle and use expanding bullets that can deliver rapid energy transfer and hydrostatic shock to living targets.
Some common performance parameters are shown in the table below for several .357 Magnum loads. Bullet weights from 125 to 158 grains are common. 125 grain JHP loads are popular for self-defense; whereas, heavier loads are usually used for hunting. Loads are available with energies from just over 400 (ft•lbf) to over 700 (ft•lbf), and penetration depths from 9 inches to over 27 inches are available for various applications and risk assessments. The Marshall and Sanow "one-shot stop" rating varies from 68% for the non-expanding semiwadcutter which produces a ballistic pressure wave of 372 psi to nearly 96% for the well-known Federal 125 grain JHP which produces a ballistic pressure wave of 1487 psi. The average incapacitation times (for a 170 lb male shot in the center of the chest) vary from 5.7 to 11.4 seconds.
Well, I think we should wait for MJ. It was just a strange idea, that's all. I have those a lot. I can think of at least two places where an additional damage category would be useful and helpful. But then, what do I really know of gaming?
(Doing Therapy)
Two
Another category I would add would be Deadly, between Lethal and Fatal. This would be for exceptionally large explosive driven slug throwers. (50 Cal machine gun, 20mm, things like that.) Those are probably base-lethal under this system. I'd say they deserve more than that.
(Doing Therapy)
The argument that there are not enough damage categories is invalid. There are enough damage categories for the purposes of the game, which is not attempting perfectly to emulate all firearms but only to give the tools necessary for solid performance.
No explosive-driven slug thrower has a "fatal" base damage because if it did a character with a 2@ SAL and 2@ RSV would increase the damage two damage categories to "obliterative", the base damage of anything that automatically kills if it hits at all.
Here's how it breaks down in my head: light firearms are damaging, standard firearms are dangerous, and heavy firearms are lethal. The AK-47, M-16, and 9mm are all standard firearms, and thus damaging. Since every roll is range-of-damage based and every user brings his own level of skill to it, we don't need to be more accurate than that. Ranges suffice for the rest.
I'll change the MAC to dangerous.
You have not addressed the rate of fire.
--M. J. Young
The argument that there are not enough damage categories is invalid. There are enough damage categories for the purposes of the game, which is not attempting perfectly to emulate all firearms but only to give the tools necessary for solid performance.
I wasn't saying there wasn't. For your gaming purposes, yeah. It obviously works just fine. But, you can always make things better. That's the only argument I was attempting to make at all. That it could be made better. I volunteered myself as a guinea pig if you should decide to take me up on my offer. I just think it could be cool. Make a somewhat more accurate portrayal. Isn't that your goal? To improve an already good system?
Seriously, run my game with the additional damage categories. Just for fun. I'll help you set them up. A play test. Improve the already good system, ya know? One between damaging and lethal, and another between lethal and fatal. Or not. I'm just thinking, I'm allowed to think, right?
You wouldn't even have to change the existing rulebook. Send it out as a supplement. "Optional rules for referees" or something.
No explosive-driven slug thrower has a "fatal" base damage because if it did a character with a 2@ SAL and 2@ RSV would increase the damage two damage categories to "obliterative", the base damage of anything that automatically kills if it hits at all.
Ya know, I was thinking about that. "Automatically kills" can mean quite a few things. If you were shooting the 20mm at the side of a ship, you could sink it. The obliterative damage would mean that it destroyed 20mm of the ship. (In other words, blew a hole in the hull) Of course rolls for armor value of the hole and what not, but the definition of "Automatically Kill" could mean that it just wiped out whatever was exactly the size of the bullet. An obliterative 9mm would have a 9mm area where nothing could survive. I think what it would boil down to is that bullets would automatically pierce any armor which wasn't up to a certain criteria.
(Doing Therapy)
You have not addressed the rate of fire.
Sources from:
http://www.enemyforces.net/firearms.htm
AK47
Rate of fire: 600 rpm
Practical rate of fire: 40 - 100 rpm
M16A1
Rate of fire: 950 rpm
Practical rate of fire: 40 - 150 rpm
Source from other website said that:
1) M16A1 have rate of fire of 600 rpm.
2) AK47 have practical burst of fire of 400 rpm although I think reloading it 13 times with each reload time 2.47s would take about 32.11s. This leaves only 27.89s to spare which according to rate of fire would only able to fire 278 bullets. This makes me think that this is not practical burst of fire in a minute but probably the rate of fire to prevent the firearm from overheating which may cause rounds to explode prematurely in the chamber or something.
*****
Below is calculation for practical rate of fire if we add the reload time and magazine capacity. If the reload time is longer than a minute then it will just calculate the initial magazine capacity as the practical rate of fire.
P = Practical rate of fire
M = Magazine capacity
F = Rate of Fire
A = Average reload time
R = Reloading action per minute
P=((60-AR)/60)*F OR P=(1-AR/60)*F OR P=F-FAR/60
P<=(R+1)M OR P<=MR+M (because the firearm is preloaded)
Strategy to choose which P will be used is try the integers that is near R (if R is not an integer but if R is an integer then use that integer instead).
Find P and R if A=2.47, F=600, M=30
P=(1-2.47R/60)*600 OR P=600-24.7R
P<=30R+30
600-24.7R=30R+30
570=54.7R
R=10.42
We want R as low as possible so that P is high but if R is too low then there is no bullet to shoot.
Try R=10,
P=30R+30 (Use this to calculate lower limit)
P=330
Try R=11,
P=600-24.7R (Use this to calculate after trying to reload additional clip)
P=rounddown[328.3]=328
Compare R=10 and R=11 and we got P=330 when using low magazine.
So actual practical burst of fire is actually 330 rpm if reload time is 2.47s.
Derived form:
F-FAR/60=MR+M
60F-FAR=60MR+60M
(60M+FA)R=60F-60M
R=(F-M)/(M+FA/60) (Try nearest integer if R is not integer)
Rx=roundup[R] (If integer, Rx becomes R)
Ry=rounddown[R] (If integer, Ry becomes R)
Px=rounddown[F-FA(Rx)/60] (Round down P if P is not an integer)
Py=(Ry+1)M
P=comparehigher[Px,Py] (Compare which one is higher and pick that and if same pick either)
To summarize:
P=comparehigher[rounddown[F-FA*roundup[(F-M)/(M+FA/60)]/60],
M*rounddown[(F-M)/(M+FA/60)]+M]
Other examples:
Find P if A=2.7, F=600, M=30
P=comparehigher[rounddown[F-FA*roundup[(F-M)/(M+FA/60)]/60],
M*rounddown[(F-M)/(M+FA/60)]+M]
Here R=10, so roundup or rounddown will produce the same result.
P=comparehigher[rounddown[F-FA*10/60],M*10+M]
P=comparehigher[330,330]
P=330
But, you can always make things better.
This is about to get into a discussion of game design that I will try to prevent from making too technical.
The word "better" in this context is a term both empty and loaded. It is loaded because no one will object to making a game "better"; it is empty because it lacks any definition of what constitutes "better".
You are suggesting that the game would be improved if it were what some call "crunchier", that is, having more numbers involved to get a more accurate outcome. You want more nuance in how much damage one gun does as compared with another, because that is "more realistic". It's also "more work", even with so simple a change as adding another damage category--a "fix" I will consider separately.
For many people, this notion of weapons doing different levels of damage borders on foolishness. Weapons either kill you or they don't; if they don't, it doesn't matter, and if they do, it's all the same level of dead. All that remains is the probability that this weapon will kill you, and we can eliminate damage altogether. Given the way the math works, you can make the victim more survivable in such a system by reducing the chance of a kill shot on him; he doesn't need to take more damage. A much simpler system could be devised which covers this with a lot less "work", and "less work" is better.
You will argue that such a design is not "realistic". A colleague of mine, writing under the name Charles Franklin, would disagree. This retired combat experienced marine has done the research, and in his article Hitting Them Where It Hurts in The Way, the Truth, and the Dice he presents the data: weapons kill, incapacitate, or merely wound, and the statistics have stayed the same over a very long time despite advances in weapon technology.
To some degree, Charlie is right: we use damage points because it is more cinematic, that is, it makes a more exciting story.
You also suggest
Improve the already good system, ya know? One between damaging and lethal, and another between lethal and fatalLet's look at some of the systemic impact of this.
First, there is one between damaging and lethal, it's called dangerous; but we'll take that as a slip of the keyboard. Let's list out the damage categories from damaging to fatal, along with what they mean and how they are calculated:
- Damaging, 1-5, RS/20.
- Dangerous, 1-10, RS/10.
- Lethal, 1-20, RS/5.
- Fatal, 1-50, RS/2.
This is all what I would call "easy math". I can do most of it without a lot of thought. The easiest ones are, of course, dangerous and fatal. With dangerous, I see the die roll, shift the decimal point and round up: 67 is 7, 50 is 5, 22 is 3. With fatal, I divide the die roll in half and round up: 67 is 34, 50 is 25, 22 is 11. Damaging is a little tougher, because I would have to divide by two and by ten, but it's made a lot easier by recognizing that there are in essence five ranges each worth a point: 1-20 is 1, 21-40 is 2, 81-100 is 5. That means 67 is 4, 50 is 3, and 22 is 2. The toughest is lethal, and how tough is it really to divide a two-digit integer by five and round up? Generally I round up to the next whole product of five and do the division from there, so 67 is the same as 70 which is 14, 50 is 10, and 22 is the same as 25 which is 5. I don't need a calculator to do any of these.
Now, if I'm going to put a new damage category between damaging RS/20 and dangerous RS/10, whatever I call it, I need to divide the die roll by some number between 20 and 10. The obvious choice is 15, and that would make my ranges 1-15, 16-30, 31-45, 46-60, 61-75, 75-90, and 90-105, a range of 1 to 7, but lopsided because the chance of getting 7 is one third less than the chance of getting any other number if you have a 100% chance to hit. But now I have to divide my numbers by 15, on the fly while sitting at the table, or else consult a chart that gives me the answers, either of which slows the game. It wouldn't were I a computer, but it does.
Similarly, I need to put a category between dangerous RS/10 and lethal RS/5, and now it's not clear what number I should use. I certainly don't want to be dividing by 7.5, and no other number in that range readily commends itself as easy division. 8 is about the best option, and that would mean dividing in half three times then rounding up. I can probably do 8 on the fly, not as quickly as I can do 5 or 2 by any means, but with less trouble than 15. But what does it gain me? RS/8 gives me a range of 1 to 13 (again flattened at the top), and in practical terms during play, the extra damage is not terribly significant. Remember already at the low end of the scale all damage categories are similar--if you roll a 1, you did one intensity; if you roll a 2, only annihilating does more than one, and at 3 only fatal does 2, at 6 only lethal does 2, and you have to roll 11 before dangerous is better than damaging, and if your chance of success is in the thirties, that means the difference between dangerous and damaging is nothing for a third of your rolls. It's only when you have a high chance to hit that the differences really start to matter--and in those higher ranges you undoubtedly have damage category bonuses to consider.
So between lethal RS/5 and fatal RS/2 I can only choose RS/3, which gives me nightmarish math at the table and a range of 1 to 34, or RS/4, which is somewhat easier but only gives me a range of 1 to 25, not really significantly different from the 1 to 20 of lethal. If I had to do RS/3 on a regular basis, even though I can do it in my head given a moment, I would use a calculator or a chart, because at that point it's faster particularly in the middle to high ranges. It would take me a moment to know that 67 is 23, 50 is 17, or 22 is 8. What do I get? I get a range of damage that is not twice lethal and not half fatal, a nuance of difference I probably don't really need.
And then there is the impact on damage category adjustments, and the aspect of fairness in them.
If you are using a dangerous weapon, and you have a 2@ strike value and a 2@ skill ability level, you get +2DC, that is, two damage category bonuses. That means that your attacks with that weapon move up from dangerous to lethal to fatal, and instead of doing RS/10 you are doing RS/2. That's a huge difference, between a weapon that almost certainly will not kill an ordinary person on a single attack to one that most probably will, based entirely on your skill with the weapon. But if I've inserted two damage categories in there, then your +2DC moves you from dangerous to the new category to lethal, the category that might kill an ordinary person on one shot if you're both very good and very lucky. You lost the benefit of a damage category bonus.
Now let's suppose the other guy is shooting at you with a fatal damage category weapon, but you've got a combination of defenses that give you -3DC. You take the level of damage from fatal to lethal to dangerous to damaging, and the roll of 50 that would have cut you in two for 25 intensities of damage now does a mere wound, 3 intensities. But if we've inserted those extra damage categories, you go from fatal to the intervening level to lethal to the intervening level, and that roll of 50 is doing 7 intensities, more than twice the damage you expected.
So your minor tweak has major implications to everything in combat.
And you still have not addressed the repeat factor--the fire rate of an AK-47.
--M. J. Young
Cross-posted with Maxx, whose information is useful but puts a lot of other questions at issue concerning the M-16. (One of the presumed advantages of hand guns is that they are faster than rifles.)
--M. J. Young