In my last world, I was in a group of four people, on board a spaceship. I made the (incorrect) decision to split the group into 2 teams of 2 people. MJ said that he knew right then that I wasn't going to make it through the scenario.
My question is, why not? Probably half of the players, in the same situation, would decide to split up. If they split up, they won't make it. Well, why didn't the referee do anything about that? If the player splits up the group, now they only face half as many monsters as they would have before. Or perhaps the group controlled by the referee decides to get back together once they realize what we're up against? Or maybe Lauren just thinks splitting up is a bad idea and talks me out of it. Railroading the player is one thing, trying to ensure they have a good time playing is completely different. We could have made it through that scenario, despite having split up. Why didn't you help us through it? I'm just curious.
(Doing Therapy)
Something else I was curious about. In-game, as I understand it, a 357 magnum revolver and a 9mm pistol both have the same damage category, same accuracy, same jam rate, etc. And since I only have 1@10 skill with the 357, as opposed to 2@2 with the 9mm, it is, in fact, less effective than the 9mm. I've only got 6, as opposed to 15 shots, and for the same weight, I could carry ninety 9mm rounds as opposed to sixty 357 rounds. In real life, a 357 is a hand cannon capable of dropping a moose. A 9mm would just make the moose angry. In game, all of the real-life advantages of the 357 are stripped away. I'd be better off carrying two 9mm pistols. Yeah, the 357 has a marginally greater range, but not hardly enough to give it back its full, real life glory. I was just curious why that was, and if anything could be done about it.
(Doing Therapy)
John, what you don't seem to understand is that character failure makes for good story too. Even more so in MV, because death is not the end. A character that never fails has no challenge, and no challenge makes for poor storytelling. It can be as simple as failing to strike your enemy in a given turn, or as complex as dropping the torch you were trying to light while hanging from a cliff by a rope that is loosely attached and is slipping out, but you couldn't see to tighten it (hence the torch). In the end, the result is the same. You cannot win every time
Manipulating the dice and the written story to increase player chance of surviving is OK and all, but not every ref will do it, and those that do usually only do it a little. I don't do it at all. I like to emphasize WWRH, or What Would Really Happen. If a player makes a bad decision, I throw the consequences at him, and in so doing the player learns a lesson and grows as a player, and their character grows as a character (or dies, but that's not so bad in MV). If they make a great decision, then they reap the rewards, and still grows as a player.
I haven't read your game for awhile, but I assume splitting up was not the best choice in your scenario.
As for the guns-why would a .357 Magnum have the same stopping power as a 9MM? That's odd. Isn't the .357 able to take a man's head clean off at a dozen paces?
If I knew my referee would help me to succeed if I made poor decisions, that would remove a great deal of my motivation to make good decisions, and it would lessen my sense of triumph when I did succeed. I have more fun if I believe my referee is "playing fair" about that kind of thing.
Which is sort of what Brock said.
That makes sense, to a degree. The thing is though that I had been playing the world for over a year in real time. Up until now, it hadn't been very exciting. To be honest, the world had been rather boring up until that point. Finally, after over a year, we've got some good, interesting action going and one bad decision ruined it all. It wasn't even a stupid decision. Under a different set of circumstances, the players that kept the group together would have been the ones that didn't stand a chance in the scenario. They can't be two places at once, after all. I, oblivious to this, did what I thought was right. We've got some action going, things are getting exciting, and it's over way too quickly, because I made, what under a different set of circumstances would have been the right choice. Probably half the players would have made the same choice. I would have thought telling an exciting story would have been more important than realism in that case. How would I have known the referee was making it easier on me?
As for the guns-why would a .357 Magnum have the same stopping power as a 9MM? That's odd. Isn't the .357 able to take a man's head clean off at a dozen paces?
Yeah, that's why I think this game needs at least three or four more damage categories, but that's just my two cents.
Two
Brock, since you said you didn't read it, I'll tell you what happened. There were four of us on a spaceship that was out of control. At one end of the ship was one thing that needed fixed, at the other end of the ship was something else that needed fixed. One of the guys could fix the one thing, and another guy could fix the other. Splitting up seemed blatantly obvious to me. We encountered these crocodile/flying squirrel crossbreeds. There were too many for 2 people to deal with. How was I supposed to know that? Under a different set of circumstances, splitting up would have been the right thing to do. For all I know, there's just a single bad guy on board, and two of us would be more than a match for him. The referee is controlling three of these people I'm with, so why don't any of them speak up about it? At the very least one of them could say "I think we should stay together." That wouldn't be at all railroading or unrealistic. There were no such protests made. I would have thought telling a good story would have been more important than realism. It's not like I did something which was likely to end badly.
Is the 357 actually more lethal than the 9mm against a human? Yes it's going to have more momentum and have quite an impact on the target. But would the same shot with a 357 be more likely to kill a person than the same shot with a 9mm? Extra damage categories is a bad idea, as MJ has repeatedly said. It would require an entire overhaul of the system and break other things that work very well already. I think in this case the answer is simpler, which is what I was alluding to in my first question. Some guns probably deserve special properties. The 357 should probably have a knockback/stop momentum of forward moving target/slight stun effect. I have a feeling MJ's response to this is that should be dealt with through skill use. That being said, examining skill development also makes some items more effective.
For example, if you told MJ that you were trying to develop a skill where you shoot someone with a 9mm to knock them down I doubt he'd go for it. He is more likely to allow that for a 357 magnum however.
Range is also very very important. Just saying, longer range means you can fire from a safe location.
As to your decision, this is the second time I know of that you have an issue with how a game went based on your decision. We are not made to succeed 100%, be in interesting situations 100%, or have everything go our way 100%. The story was interesting the way it went, you just wish you were still in that world is sounds like.
John, we're not going to be talking about this a year from now are we? :)
I do alter my games a lot to deal with player choices. But that's because in large part I have relatively little idea what's going to happen next. I might have a few general ideas, but mostly it works out in game with my seeing a bit or further than a bit forward variously. Imagine a gamemaster with very poor and intermittent precog and that's me. I'm regularly surprised by what player's do which makes it not surprising if you see what I mean.
But then I'm way over on the right end of the scale when it comes to Pre-Decided vs. Improvisational GMing.
I had one player after a five hour game of Champions which he really liked ask me how much I had pre-designed. Oh, five minutes or so, and I had a few ideas as well... I use to as a regular thing get surprised to run a game at one guy's house, go visit the bathroom, and come out with a game.
MJ OTOH has said that he was ultimately fair in a way because in some of his D&D games he would have the dungeon drawn up in full detail as much as a year before the game. Thus when Player X kicked down Door B, he got what he got with no consideration for what his character was, and what had happened to his character.
That is way over on the left side of the Pre-decided vs. Improv scale.
Another way to look at it is that you are asking for a more Storytelling emphases and what I just described with MJ is very Gamist (although mine is frequently gamist as well, I think or suspect).
And to agree with Brock, character failure in MV can be very entertaining. I had a somewhat problematic player who turned into a wonderful player. All I had to do was kill him twice. One time, he took a very reasonable opinion....
Some assasin is trying to kill the Eternal Emperor, self-described, in front of the PC. PC thinks...Eternal....assasin....this guy is wasting his time trying to kill an immortal. BOOM. Nuke bomb in Emperor's chest goes off wiping out the evidence and the PC. Somewhere on the far side of the galaxy a clone of the 'Eternal' Emperor activates.
The player loved that.
And it helps you to know that sometimes your best choice is still going to be wrong. This is more exclusive to Multiverser than other game systems. But even in other game syou can get really tricky.
And finally, yes, its possible that MJ made a mistake. It happens. Se la vie. You need to let go and move on unless the mistake is so grievous or so common that you need to find another gm. I've had games where I pretty much decided...this gm is not for me. Don't be like I was with my first D&D gm where I spent as much time arguing with him as I spent playing the game. Be smarter than me.
Second post....
And sometimes being totally unfair can be fun.
I sent MJ to the suburbs in Florida in 1987 where its just like home except for one thing. All of the amino acids on the planet are flipped in the opposite direction from Earth Normal. In other words, MJ could eat all day, five course meals four times a day and still starve. It was a planet full of food and none of it edible even though quite tasty.
It was what I call a placeholder world or MJ calls a stall world while Graeme got his final ducks in a row to handle the next world for MJ.
And I thought it made an interesting point about how with one minor flip from left to right, a planet seemingly hospitable becomes a deathtrap. And of course, Graeme used it as perfect convicting evidence for the MiB's that MJ was from elsewhere because no one had remotely the ability to change a body like his was so he had to be an alien or something.
So yes, I set him up to fail, but in what I thought would be an interesting way.
You are an improv GM? Me too. I usually write a basic outline for a story, takes about 20 minutes, complete with some branches for common decisions, and some flexibility to accommodate the unexpected, then run with it at the table. But I have been known to sit for 5 minutes and have a story, on the fly.
It's great good fun, isn't it?
John, we're not going to be talking about this a year from now are we? :)
No, certainly not. I asked this question in my game, and MJ told me to start a new thread for it. I just haven't done so until now. Since I asked that a few weeks ago, and just now got around to starting the thread, that should tell you that it wasn't that big of a deal to me.
As to your decision, this is the second time I know of that you have an issue with how a game went based on your decision
This was hardly a stupid decision likely to get me hurt. The other was. I was a considering drawing a comparison, but decided it a bad idea. It was just that, when MJ said he knew I wasn't going to make it the minute I decided to split up, I had to wonder why he didn't try to ensure that we did. I was just curious is all. So, some referees would have, MJ just isn't one of those referees.
Is the 357 actually more lethal than the 9mm against a human?
Oh yea. It's got an average 86% 1 shot stop against a human target, or so I've been told.
Where does the 86% come from? I'm not arguing against it, but without knowing the source I can't make a meaningful comment on it. I still believe that affects are the way to round out the guns, not more complex game mechanics.
As to the stupid decision I didn't say it was stupid. I said it was a decision. As to the reason that MJ has no obligation to try to prevent you from going down a path that ends in your death is that death isn't an end to a verser's story.
Furthermore if MJ makes an effort to have a character comment on a course of action every time a decision is made in an effort to keep you alive all you'd have to do to stay alive is listen to the characters.
Where does the 86% come from?
Analysis of gunfights. A great deal of cops carried 357 magnum revolvers for a very long time. There's a ton of information on the ballistics of the round from that.
Furthermore if MJ makes an effort to have a character comment on a course of action every time a decision is made in an effort to keep you alive all you'd have to do to stay alive is listen to the characters.
It makes sense. If we were really in that situation, that's exactly what would have happened. It was completely realistic and fair. I just had to wonder. Am I not allowed to wonder about such things? And don't worry. This isn't going to go out of control. This will almost certainly be the only thread on the topic.
So, in a nutshell, some referees are more into telling a good story, some referees are more into realism. MJ is one of the latter. Explanation accepted and understood. Thanks. Of course, I still want to hear MJ's reasons for not assisting us, but that will happen tomorrow.
Two
Is the 357 actually more lethal than the 9mm against a human?
To tell that, all you would have to do is look at the bullets side by side. They're almost exactly the same diameter (.002 inches off, I believe) but the 357 is (literally) twice as long as the 9mm.
I believe I phrased my question wrong. When I asked where does the 86% come from I was looking for citation. That's a very precise number, so I assume there is statistical documentation on it.
As to the comparison of the bullets side by side that's far less convincing than statistical data. All the size gives is the fact there is more momentum behind the bullet, which is why it's known to knock people back. Is there anything about it that makes it more likely to puncture a vital organ? Tear up the insides more like a hollow point does? Anything that implies it's more damaging?
Anything that implies it's more damaging?
You have to understand ballistics. Getting hit with a switch swung by your mother probably won't do very much damage. Getting hit by a baseball bat weilded by a professional baseball player almost certainly will. The 9mm is the switch and the 357 is the baseball bat.
As far as a citation, I'm afraid I can't give you that, but I have a one word answer for you. "Google"
I don't google things to make another persons point. You gave a statistic, meaning you got it somewhere or are making it up. It's not my responsibility to figure out where you got it from.
Also, the example you gave is the argument A is better than B because I say so. If you aren't willing to provide data to work with how do you expect people to help come up with ways of the game system handling it? If this is just a push for more damage categories I think MJ has explained why that is a bad idea multiple times now.
I just called Uncle Bob. He was never in the military, but he studies military tactics and has a great deal of friends who were in the military. (He grew up in the Vietnam era) He said that, given the circumstances and the available data, splitting up was without question, tactically, the correct decision. The only thing I should have done differently would have been to send Lauren with Derek, because they both had the same type of weapons and could use each others ammo. I didn't know that, so it's a moot point. So, perhaps it's the scenario which needs to be changed. You said you were play testing the world with me, I would assume that means you want feedback. Change the scenario such that players who split up will still make it through. It would still be challenging for those who stay together.
Mike, now I think you're sounding rude. I said that I was told (by Uncle Bob) that a 357 has an 86% one shot stop. He's an expert in guns. If he says something about guns, I believe it because it's true. If that's not good enough for you, that's fine too. I don't have a problem with that. You're more than welcome to research it for yourself and try to refute me if you so desire. I choose to take the word of someone I trust.
(Doing Therapy)
He said that, given the circumstances and the available data, splitting up was without question, tactically, the correct decision.
It can be the correct decision and still lead to certain failure. Ask any professional poker player.
Notice that MJ said that he knew you wouldn't get through the scenario. He didn't say that you should've known, or even that you could've known. It seemed like a reasonable approach to me when I was reading your thread, and you'll notice that apparently Lauren and Derrick agreed with me.
So, yeah. Correct decision given the available data, but still fatal (unless I misremember) for all concerned.
First, you never said it was because Uncle Bob, you simply said 86%, to precise it was the following:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is the 357 actually more lethal than the 9mm against a human?
Oh yea. It's got an average 86% 1 shot stop against a human target, or so I've been told.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, if you believe it to be rude to ask for citation of statistical evidence you're never going to like talking to me. I question statistics because I know what they can be made to do. Furthermore I'm curious the sample and the statistical significance of it.
As such, whether or not your Uncle Bob says so to you really doesn't support your statement when you're talking to people who don't know your Uncle Bob. We don't know your Uncle Bob. We have no data to try and make the game system match. Without this it just will never happen. With actual data something worthwhile may occur such as the previous possible fixes I suggested, which based on the fact that you ignored them I assume is to say you don't find them adequate and are insisting on more damage categories, despite the fact MJ has explained before why adding damage categories is not a good idea.
One thing I didn't point out the first time around since I assumed I'd be directed to the study in question was that you only mentioned the "1 shot stop" rate for the 357. What was it for the 9mm? What is defined as 1 shot stop? Is it an instant kill, incapacitation, knocking them down? Not only is the data you mentioned of questionable source (I don't know your Uncle Bob nor do I have his credentials) but it also doesn't define how much more deadly the magnum is.
@Glantri: Not to mention that no data whatsoever was provided for the 9mm, let alone data with questionable references. There is no method to analyze which gun is superior.
@John:So, you made the perfect tactical choice (almost) and it still backfired? Oh well. That's life sometimes. That tells me MJ is probably a WWRH referee (What Would Really Happen?).
Anyway, a .357 has a greater chance of going completely through, and a greater chance of pulling some other tissue with it, such as the aforementioned taking off someone's head at a dozen paces. It does NOT do additional damage or have more accuracy; it knocks down and has a greater chance of spectacular finishes, and the bullet goes further due to increased velocity.
If you are facing an enemy that has a substantial size, such as a dragon, the .357 would tear through more flesh than a 9mm would before stopping.
Essentially, the .357 has greater: Armor Penetration, Range, Velocity, but less clip. None of those give it more damage.
If I were to rule it had more damage, I would not give it a damage category increase; I would give it a flat bonus on damage calculation, such as a martial arts style that does more damage but not more accuracy.
1 shot stop=render foe incapable of further resistance, or so I would assume.
So, yeah. Correct decision given the available data, but still fatal (unless I misremember) for all concerned.
I said that the scenario might need to be changed. It occurs to me suddenly that, if making the correct tactical decision is what gets you killed, the scenario should be rewritten to take away the incentive to make the correct tactical decision. Two things on each end of the ship that need fixed. Put them in the same place, or in the same general location. Thus, if the players do split up, it won't be until the end of the scenario. For all the firepower that I was carrying, I was the most lightly armed person there, and we STILL didn't stand a chance. Yeah, the scenario needs changed I'd say. Feedback from a player.
Second, if you believe it to be rude to ask for citation of statistical evidence you're never going to like talking to me.
I said something about this not too long ago. I said you were reading rudeness into something I wrote, and now I've just done the same to you. None was intended or inferred in either instance. So, we just read rudeness into each other. That's a problem we both need to work on.
Essentially, the .357 has greater: Armor Penetration, Range, Velocity, but less clip. None of those give it more damage.
And you have no idea what you're talking about. A 9mm goes about 1,100 feet per second, a 357 can get double that. Bullet weight in the 357 is much greater, more knockdown, everything. The one shot stop on a 9mm is somewhere in the neighborhood of 50% if I recall. The reason most 9mm pistols hold 15 shots is because it takes a lot more hits to put someone down.
1 shot stop=render foe incapable of further resistance, or so I would assume.
Correct.
As such, whether or not your Uncle Bob says so to you really doesn't support your statement when you're talking to people who don't know your Uncle Bob. We don't know your Uncle Bob. We have no data to try and make the game system match. Without this it just will never happen. With actual data something worthwhile may occur such as the previous possible fixes I suggested, which based on the fact that you ignored them I assume is to say you don't find them adequate and are insisting on more damage categories, despite the fact MJ has explained before why adding damage categories is not a good idea.
I suggested you research it for yourself, did I not? You're the one requesting the information. You've got the means right in front of you to find it. "Google" remember? I told you what I was told. That's not acceptable to you. Why should I have to research something for you, just because you (understandably) doubt my source? You're the one who wants to know the information. If you find that my information is inaccurate, I will first apologize to you, then call Uncle Bob and chew him out for telling me something which was wrong.
And yes, I understand why adding damage categories is not a good idea. I still think the games needs more though. Making the right decision is a bad idea, and making the wrong decision is a good idea, it sounds like.
(Doing Therapy)
I don't want to have the information.
You wish for thoughts on how the game system should handle it. I'm willing to offer what knowledge I have of general game mechanics and what limited knowledge I have of Multiverser game mechanics but I am not willing to do the research to try and fix something I don't see as broken.
Point being you wish a change to be made, thus it's your responsibility to outline why the change should be made. It is not the responsibility of everyone else who does not see it as inherently broken to research why it should stay as is.
Essentially, the .357 has greater: Armor Penetration, Range, Velocity, but less clip. None of those give it more damage.
And you have no idea what you're talking about. A 9mm goes about 1,100 feet per second, a 357 can get double that. Bullet weight in the 357 is much greater, more knockdown, everything. The one shot stop on a 9mm is somewhere in the neighborhood of 50% if I recall. The reason most 9mm pistols hold 15 shots is because it takes a lot more hits to put someone down.
That's uncalled for. Brock demonstrated he does know what he is talking about. Your rebuttal of his statement simply applied numbers to the velocity. Either way the case has not been made that the 357 is more damaging.
You wish for thoughts on how the game system should handle it. I'm willing to offer what knowledge I have of general game mechanics and what limited knowledge I have of Multiverser game mechanics but I am not willing to do the research to try and fix something I don't see as broken.
Now THAT makes more sense. You weren't terribly clear. As far as added categories, I know MJ wouldn't do it, so I see no point in researching it. I'm still allowed to think it needs more though.
Either way the case has not been made that the 357 is more damaging.
Now I'm laughing. Go into ANY gun store. Ask ANY gun enthusiast. I told you that a heavier bullet moving much, much faster does a lot more damage. You feel the need to question something which, to me, seems common sense. Which would hurt you more? A Volkswagen going 35, (9mm) or a school bus going 70? (357) Do you really need to question it? It seems fairly obvious which does more damage, just based on what Brock said.
(Doing Therapy)
Packing more power doesn't make it more lethal. A bullet is going to kill you based on piercing a vital organ long before it's going to bludgeon your organs into shutting down. As such yeah the 357 might blow through the person and exit the other side but that doesn't make it more likely to kill them.
Packing more power doesn't make it more lethal.
I laugh.
Newton's law. Transfer of energy. One has far more energy to transfer. The bullet doesn't go through you like you're thinking. Not like a needle through paper. It pushes organs out of the way. It does cause blunt-force trauma. It sends ballistic shockwaves through your body. It's spinning. With a hollow point, that turns it into a tiny blender. Shatters bones. It transfers energy in all sorts of ways that I can't even describe. I can't believe we're having this conversation. It should be so obvious to you which is more lethal.
(Doing Therapy)
Two
Watch high speed footage of bullets piercing ballistic gelatin. It has the same density of a human body. The gelatin shakes from the inside out when it gets shot. All of that shaking is the ballistic shock wave. All of that shaking represents damage being done to a human body. The 357 makes a lot more shaking. I think you think the bullet only hurts what it hits. Wrong. The ballistic shock wave can stop your heart, even if the bullet was nowhere near it. A bullet does FAR more damage than you probably believe it does. It's not a needle going through paper.
(Doing Therapy)
Concerning the .357 versus the 9mm, it is entirely plausible that I've got bad information on either or both of the guns. I work from what others have told me in the past and in the present, and attempt to drop each weapon into a proper damage category with an appropriate repeat factor and ranges. I'm inclined to think that in this case the 9mm has been overrated because of early misinformation and should be closer to a .22, but so many player characters have chosen to carry 9mms that it would be unfair to them to change it, and unfair to you to penalize your 9mm relative to theirs.
However, I do believe that a professional with a 9mm would beat an amateur with a .357, even given different damage categories.
Concerning whether the party ought to have split up as it did, it may well be that in that situation it would make sense for four trained special weapons and tactics or similar trained combatants to split up. You probably did not have one such person, unless you want to fancy yourself to have been him. Derek had more experience in such missions than you, but he still sees himself as a kid and he's not equipped for extended combats. Lauren was your powerhouse, but she's something of a wildcatter, taking risks that don't always pay off. Claude could hold his own in a barroom brawl and handle a gun for skeet shooting, but his actually fighting experience was minimal. You probably qualify as a gun enthusiast on his way to being something more. In essence, we put four amateurs into that scenario. In the original it was only three, so there was never any question about whether to split up. Derek and Lauren were the support team for Joe Kondor, really, who was military trained and professional all the way--and they completed the mission but did not return alive.
Perhaps, too, it was lack of information concerning the insurgents. Consider it this way: if there are a hundred rooms in the building and every room has an average of five enemies randomly spread, the more rooms you breach the more enemies you face. Take one united party through ten rooms to a destination point and you'll face only fifty of the five hundred opponents; take two parties through ten rooms each, and you've doubled that to a hundred.
More significantly, the randomness of the spread will make a big difference, particularly since (as you did not yet know) the enemies had no ranged attacks and had to close to martial combat distance. That means if you're alone and you face one attacker you've got an excellent chance of killing it before it can strike; but if you're alone against ten attackers, seven or eight of them are probably going to reach you. If it's four of you against ten attackers, you'll probably reduce that number to two. Game combat is frequently a resource management game, and your primary resources are your ammunition and your damage points. Using ammunition effectively to prevent loss of damage points will keep you going; but you've got limits on how fast you can deploy your attacks. The four of you together can hit more targets than two of you alone.
That means even if you have to pass through all one hundred rooms, or even if to go both places you have to pass through a hundred twenty rooms, you probably will not spend more ammo to kill the same number of opponents, but you will take less damage.
The missing factor in this case is that you were working against a clock with an unknown detonation point. That is the only basis I can see for that party to have split up in that situation. If it was a party of John McLane, Casey Riback, Kyle Reese, and John Rambo, it might have made sense to split up, because each of them is probably a better fighter than any two of you combined and in pairs they could watch each other's backs. So maybe you had Laura Croft, but the other members of your team were Alec Hardison, Tara Cole, and--well, I'm not going to attempt to find a match for you. You weren't a SEAL team; your people were not combat trained and certainly had no clue how to work together. I can see not wanting to bet that you had time both to restore the gravity and to reach the bridge, but you chose to bet instead that your people were tough enough to face whatever unknown creature or creatures had killed the entire crew of a spaceship.
Again, you want to know why if the party shouldn't split I didn't make any suggestion against it. One reason is that whether or not the party could succeed doing it that way depends too much on what are the abilities of its leader--it was set up such that had you reached the bridge you would have needed all of you to fight off what was there, but there are a few versers (and a few other fictional heroes) who could have handled it alone.
The other reason is the NPC leader problem. One reason I did not give you Joe Kondor is that he is a leader; Lauren and Derek are not. They will work alone, but if they are with others they follow because they lack confidence in their own tactical decisions. That's because I can't make decisions for you and retain the fun and challenge of the game. This is a good example. From your perspective, it apparently seemed perfectly logical to split the party and go for both goals simultaneously. From my perspective, it did not make sense to do this--but that's because I have information you don't have. For you, it's a matter of weighing the information you have and making the best decision you can; for me, it's a matter of deciding whether the non-player character is going to make a good decision or a bad one. If he (or she) makes the good decision, I've removed one of the challenges of the scenario by fiat; if he makes a bad one, I've doomed you to certain failure. The complexities worsen, though, because if you ask their advice I have to find a way to give what I think they would honestly think given what they, and not what I, know. But experienced referees know that they wind up giving their characters reputations--I have an NPC half-elf ranger/cleric named Thuliar who is very soft-spoken, but the players all learned that if Thuliar said anything, they had better listen to it, because he was usually right. I've also had characters who are so commonly wrong that sometimes players will ask their advice so they can do the opposite. Talking to the NPC should not be like getting inside information from the referee, but that means that sometimes I must intentionally mislead you through their advice, giving you advice I know is bad and wrong--because if I never do, as Scott says, your solution for every uncertainty will be to ask the NPC's advice and do what I have him suggest.
So in this situation, I wasn't going to give advice. Besides, I saw it as a choice between risking trying to get to the bridge with the gravity out (an advantage for your enemy and a danger from uncirculated air pockets) or heading to engineering which would expose you to more opponents (because of the added distance) and cost time. You picked a third possibility.
Also, for what it's worth, my design was intended to be such that you could complete it but probably couldn't get out alive; it was supposed to be a suicide mission. It was supposed to be a suicide mission from the moment you prayed the prayer that brought Lauren into the world, because the reason for her to be there was to try to save the habitat from the crash, and training you was secondary, because the only reason she trains anyone is so that they, too, can save others.
--M. J. Young
The missing factor in this case is that you were working against a clock with an unknown detonation point. That is the only basis I can see for that party to have split up in that situation.
And that's exactly why splitting up is the correct decision, for a group of trained Marines, SEALs or other military personnel. They're going to fire 5 shots and have 4 dead monsters. We're going to fire 5 shots and maybe have one dead monster. You're right. Four amateurs would have been in trouble. Like I said, I was just curious. If there was unlimited time, you would stay together. I remember thinking, when I saw what we were up against, that I should rejoin Lauren. I wish I had.
Perhaps, too, it was lack of information concerning the insurgents.
That too. You said that I was betting our skill could overcome whatever had killed an entire spaceship crew. Well, if that thing had been an insane crewman or other lone combatant who moved killing people one at a time through stealth, we might have stood a fair chance. Well, I learned from it.
Take one united party through ten rooms to a destination point and you'll face only fifty of the five hundred opponents; take two parties through ten rooms each, and you've doubled that to a hundred.
Twice as many enemies with half as much firepower available to you. The other thing though is that, not only are you facing more enemies, you're killing more as well. At least in theory. Every enemy that Lauren killed was one Derek and I wouldn't face. If two people can kill as many enemies as four, then in two groups, they can kill twice as many bad guys. Unfortunately, that wasn't the case. Next time, I think I'll stick together, correct tactical decision or not.
I'm inclined to think that in this case the 9mm has been overrated because of early misinformation and should be closer to a .22, but so many player characters have chosen to carry 9mms that it would be unfair to them to change it, and unfair to you to penalize your 9mm relative to theirs.
Penalize my 9mm relative to theirs? That seems to imply that, because I'm arguing the 357 should be more powerful, you would penalize the 9mm to make that happen. The genie giving you the biggest house in the neighborhood, by burning down everyone else house, sort of.
The reason that I have kind of a problem with this is because it takes away the verser's credo "Me wants a BEEEG gun" as I've seen Eric say. At short ranges (the inside of a spaceship, for instance) the 9mm carbine does exactly the same damage as an AK-47, for a lot less weight, meaning you can carry a lot more ammo. The "Me wants a BEEEEG gun" kind of goes right out the door. At short ranges, the smaller gun is by far the better choice.
(Doing Therapy)
Two
I understand why the NPCs don't give advice, and everyone has explained their reasoning. Now, I'm curious what your reasoning was MJ. Why didn't you try to make the scenario winnable despite my decision to split up? I want you to know, I'm not arguing. I'm just curious about your reasoning. The Realism vs Good Story argument seems like a referee's thing. I think I would go for making a good story and thus, make the scenario winnable. I made the correct decision for someone else to make, but the wrong decision for us. I bet a lot of players would do the same. Just curious what your reasoning was for making it not winnable.
You said you didn't expect the split up. I bet that would be a choice a great deal of players would make. Set up a contingency scenario in it, perhaps. If they split up, now there's only half as many monsters or something. To be honest, I was rather disappointed. The first real action I've seen in this world, and it was over in like 30 or so posts. That was rather disappointing. If not for me, you might have never considered the notion of the players splitting up, and marketed the scenario without considering this. You could then have a lot of disappointed players, and that can't be good for business. It's just feedback from a play test player, nothing more, nothing less.
(Doing Therapy)
Three
MJ, regarding additional damage categories. You said something that one category was 10 points, and the next was 30, the obvious middle ground would be 15, which is too hard to crunch. So go with a not-so-obvious middle ground. Perhaps 20. Still easy to crunch, still gives a new damage category. I think it would be worth play testing in my world, just for the fun of it, but that is, again, just my two cents.
(Doing Therapy)
JOHN PLEASE!!! STOP POSTING!!!!!!!!!
"That's uncalled for. Brock demonstrated he does know what he is talking about. Your rebuttal of his statement simply applied numbers to the velocity. Either way the case has not been made that the 357 is more damaging."
Thank you.
Anyway, you are missing a crucial factor, John. Kickback. Because the gun packs more power into less space, it is less accurate. Because less accuracy means not hitting crucial locations as frequently, you do less damage. It balances out mostly. that's why the range is such an important part of the benefit. Sure, a .357 can take off a man's head if you're close enough. But CAN you hit him in the head? Sure, it does more damage, makes a bigger hole, releases more energy. But WILL you hit a good spot?
The answer, here, is it is BASED ON SKILL. If I picked up a .357 and a 9MM right now and used them, they would operate mostly the same for me, even against live targets, due to the inherent parameters of the gun. A pro using a 9mm is better than an amateur with a .357, because he has more skill. But if two characters with equivalent skill and RSVs picked up those guns, 9mm for one, .357 for the other, the guy with the .357 would be able to do exactly what I said-shoot further, put in more impact force (the Armor penetration and the part I missed, shockwaves, thank you for pointing it out), and get there faster-but run out of ammo far faster, and strike the exact spot you were aiming for less frequently, all in comparison to the 9mm. In terms of MV damage categories, it is probably one above the 9mm, but the thing about MV is it is flexible-if MJ says your 9MM does as much damage as the .357, taking into account ALL the factors, including kickback and actual power of the shot-then that's how it is.
So yes, John-if your skill with the 9mm is higher than your skill with the .357, than the better short range weapon is the 9mm.
The .357 should knock down the foe; I agree. If MV has a sort of "critical hit", it might have that too, such as for really well placed shots (really high rolls, that are successful), to represent something like ripping a body part right off.
I know what I am talking about here, even if I am not a theoretical expert. Please do not insult me.
I know what I am talking about here, even if I am not a theoretical expert. Please do not insult me.
And when did I insult you? You were trying to say that a Volkswagen going 35 would do as much damage as a school bus going 70. I didn't know if you realized that was, essentially, what you were saying. If you're insulted by someone correcting a misunderstanding that you seem to be making, then you must get insulted quite a bit.
Anyway, you are missing a crucial factor, John. Kickback.
And you're forgetting a crucial factor Brock. There's a reason why most 357 magnum caliber weapons are revolvers and most 9mms are automatics. A revolver is a better design to handle the larger power and greater stress. A revolver is, by design, more accurate. All other factors being equal, a 9mm revolver will out shoot a 9mm automatic every time. This compensates for that to a degree.
(Doing Therapy)
Two
So yes, John-if your skill with the 9mm is higher than your skill with the .357, than the better short range weapon is the 9mm.
Yeah, but what I think you've been missing all along is that if your skill is equal, they don't do anywhere near the same damage. Or do you honestly think a Volkswagen and a school bus would do the same damage? That is an apt comparison to the situation. That's what probably you found insulting. To me, it was blatantly obvious that a heavier bullet going faster would do more damage. It just seemed like common sense. That you were arguing about it at all made no sense to me. How could you argue that a faster, heavier projectile would do equal damage to one going half the speed and 2/3 the weight? To me, that seems indefensible.
Ya know though, if Lauren REALLY wanted to save the station, why didn't she use her magic portal thingamabob to transport the entire TerraNova security team over to the ship? Then it wouldn't be a suicide mission. Well, not for us anyway.
(Doing Therapy)
Please stop with the analogy, it's a poor one as it's unsupported as to reasoning why. Being hit by a car and being hit by a bullet are NOT the same thing, and furthermore you're just clouding the topic so you can dismiss what Brock is saying more easily, and all of what he is saying is very very reasonable.
Also, stop acting like I don't know physics. I simply don't think that the secondary effects bullets have contribute significantly enough to denote a damage category change in MV. Also, there is no Newtons Law of Transfer of Energy.
Also, I caved out of interest in ending this conversation. I looked up statistics. All are drawn from wikipedia because I'm not motivated enough to look up what I already think is your responsibility to prove if you wish a change from a responsible source.
.357 Magnum
Fastest avg velocity : 1,600 ft/s
Weight of bullet : 8.1 grams (125 gr)
Power in foot pounds : 710 ftlb
.357 Magnum (highest power, not highest speed)
Avg Velocity : 1,485 ft/s
Weight of bullet : 10.2 grams (158 gr)
Power in foot pounds : 774 ftlb
9x19mm Parabellum (which I read is a 9mm)
Fastest avg velocity : 1,439 ft/s
Weight of bullet : 7.45 grams (115 gr)
Power in foot pounds : 704 ftlb
So the highest power 357 is 774 ftlb compared to the 9mm 704.
So the 357 is 1.1 times the power as the 9mm at a speed that is 1.03 times the speed of the 9mm.
If you want the fast magnum bullet then the 357 is 710 ftlb compared to the 9mm 704.
This is 1.009 times the 9mm power at a speed that is 1.11 times that of the 9mm.
As to the volkswagen and school bus...
2009 Volkswagen Beetle
Weight : 3247.4 lb
Speed : 35 mph
School Bus Class C (Conventional)
Weight : Generally between 23,000 and 29,500
Speed : 70 mph
Just to be clear, the bullet was 10 percent off while the schoolbus is nearly 10 times off. The speed was also near double. Please stop with analogies that do not work.
Sources:
http://www.motortrend.com/cars/2009/volkswagen/beetle/comparisons/make.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_bus#Manufacturing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.357_Magnum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9x19mm_Parabellum
9x19mm Parabellum (which I read is a 9mm)
Fastest avg velocity : 1,439 ft/s
Weight of bullet : 7.45 grams (115 gr)
Power in foot pounds : 704 ftlb
Two corrections:
Fastest avg velocity : 1,430 ft/s
Power in foot pounds : 519 ft-lb
So the highest power 357 is 774 ft-lb compared to the 9mm 519 ft-lb.
So the 357 is about 1.49 times the power as the 9mm at a speed that is about 1.038 times the speed of the 9mm.
You could also compare the OSS (or Marshall and Sanow “one-shot stop” rating) to see which bullet is more lethal.
Also, there is no Newtons Law of Transfer of Energy.
Yeah, I should have been more clear about that. I was referring to two different things. Newtons law of motion. An object in motion will stay in motion until it is acted upon by a a force greater than that of its own inertia. A heavier object moving faster generally stays in motion longer, and the whole time, it is transferring energy.
The analogy does seem kind of flawed after reading what you looked up, but it's one I've oft heard in connection with bullets, so I oft repeat it.
I simply don't think that the secondary effects bullets have contribute significantly enough to denote a damage category change in MV.
You might be right. In the real world though, a 357 is still way more powerful than a 9mm.
Regarding the damage categories and looking up the information. I also said, did I not, that I knew MJ wouldn't add any categories, so I didn't think it worth it to look up the information. Even if I were to spend hours pouring over the information, the end result would be no new damage category. A lot of work for nothing. You sounded like you were interested in the energy of the 357, so I invited you to look it up.
I think we're just totally misunderstanding each other.
Sorry, mistranslated the numbers. Thank you for the correction Max, that's why I include citations anyway.
I don't really have anything more productive to input on this topic, just wanted to thank Max for the correction.
I see why you wanted the citations from me. It just seemed like a lot of work for nothing, as I stated, and wasn't worth it to me. I thought, if you were interested, you could look it up.
If I had my way, there would probably be about 50 damage categories to this game.
Two
Even though I'm 99.99999999999% sure you will say no, I still have to ask. I don't suppose I could restart that spaceship scenario and not split up, could I? Yeah, now I know what we're up against, but that isn't terribly useful in the grand scheme of things. I'm just incredibly curious about how it would have gone down if I had made the correct decision for us, instead of the correct decision for 4 trained Marines.
And no, I wouldn't want two games run at once, that's just stupid. I'd suspend the Terminator for it. Like I said, I'm just incredibly curious is all.