Sletch pontificates on gun combat in SC3

[Sletchman]

That's true until you have more than a page of any particular category (and by a category, I'm talking "Rifles," not "Heavy SMGs"). At that point the intuitiveness starts to slide, unfortunately, which makes splitting SMGs and other weapon types between categories more and more difficult.

Agreed.  That's why I'm actually writing exactly one weapon of each caliber (bullet diametre) for my next game (but with a large quantity of upgrades).  It reduces the list length by a huge amount, especially since the difference between say a Colt 1911A1 and a H&K Mk 23 is about 4 upgrades (in game terms).  Assault Rifles go from a page and a half to 7 items.

I can, however, see why that might not work for a core book (unless you had a very clearly written upgrades / mods system - to let the gunbunnies turn that generic 5.56 Nato rifle into an M4 or HK33SG1).


@tfwfh:  I agree with you in real life terms entirely.  In actual practice though all I can picture is frustration (because many of my regulars don't know much more about guns then which end you point at the bad guy).  That's why I wanted to keep it really simple, and had no complaints.  If a gunbunny sat at my table and said "Hey can I use [X] as [Y] because of [LEGITIMATE REASON]" my answer would always be "Yes".

[tfwfh]

Oy. We've tried this kind of thing before and it almost always goes poorly. Folks tend to reject the idea that you need more than one skill / proficiency / whatever to use a weapon, especially when the difference is perceived as fairly trivial (e.g. adding a quick upgrade, changing a weapon profile, etc.).

That's fair.  I would still think the solution to both problems is to take a more modular and generic view of guns, so that you have a handgun proficiency, which has sub categories for revolvers, pistols, and machine pistols.  Each entry in the subcategories has stats based on bullet caliber, and comes with some number of qualities and/or upgrades you can apply to the weapon.  Do the same for rifles (subcategories for semi- and full-auto rifles, semi- and full-auto shotguns, and submachine guns).  You could even bring forward Blunt, Edged, and Bows from FC more or less as-is.  And then you have however many proficiencies for "heavier" weapons as you feel is appropriate.  It could be as simple as a single Heavy proficiency, with subgroups for rockets and cannons and mortars and whatever else, or you could break them out into their own individual proficiencies.  And for weapons that you think should be harder to use than that, you can re-use the exotic/forte requirement from FC.

That way, each group can decide for themselves whether an MP5k is actually a 9mm machine pistol (handgun prof) or a 9mm submachine gun (rifle prof).  The choice is purely aesthetic, because what players are actually doing is choosing an SMG vs a machine pistol, and then saying it looks like an MP5k.

Then if you want to, you can include a sidebar somewhere that details what combination of weapon and qualities best represents a variety of common (popular) real world guns, similar to the way you did with martial arts feats/styles, or racial feats/traditional DnD races in Adventure Companion.

[MilitiaJim]

Breaking up pistols into revolvers, self loaders, and machine pistols is a bad idea; much worse than pulling SMGs out from Pistols and Rifles. 

Taking your example of the MP5K, you cannot wield it as a rifle, it lacks a buttstock.  There are some SMGs, the Skorpion and MAC-10 come to mind, that can be wielded as a pistol or as a rifle.  My response there is simple:  As long as the PC is proficient with EITHER way the weapon can be wielded, they can use it however they want.  Maybe the SMG chart needs a column where the governing proficiency is noted, or when SMGs are split out into proficiency needed, some are listed under both Pistol and Rifle.

I do like the modularity idea.  The mechanical differences between an M-4, a G-36, a FAMAS, a SCAR-L, and an XM-8 are rather negligible.  The sort of difference that not many beyond gun bunnies care about.  How do you keep it simple for folks who don't know or don't care, and keep it comprehensive for those of us who do?  The devil is in the details.

[Goodlun]

Jim's alternative breakdown is interesting, and might work for laymen, but I'm also reasonably certain it would produce too few proficiencies / categories to support the system. Will consider.

The more this discussion goes on the more I like his breakdown.  Surely you can come up with enough clever tricks, fortes, and other things to do with proficiencies to make it work out.

[Crafty_Pat]

That's true until you have more than a page of any particular category (and by a category, I'm talking "Rifles," not "Heavy SMGs"). At that point the intuitiveness starts to slide, unfortunately, which makes splitting SMGs and other weapon types between categories more and more difficult.

Agreed.  That's why I'm actually writing exactly one weapon of each caliber (bullet diametre) for my next game (but with a large quantity of upgrades).  It reduces the list length by a huge amount, especially since the difference between say a Colt 1911A1 and a H&K Mk 23 is about 4 upgrades (in game terms).  Assault Rifles go from a page and a half to 7 items.

Certainly. It's not an option for the full game, unfortunately.

I can, however, see why that might not work for a core book (unless you had a very clearly written upgrades / mods system - to let the gunbunnies turn that generic 5.56 Nato rifle into an M4 or HK33SG1).

We tried generic weapons in Classic and even with the promise of specific weapons in the Modern Arms Guide it unleashed holy hell from pretty much everyone who cared.

[Crafty_Pat]

Breaking up pistols into revolvers, self loaders, and machine pistols is a bad idea; much worse than pulling SMGs out from Pistols and Rifles.  

With regard to proficiencies, weapon categories, or both?

Taking your example of the MP5K, you cannot wield it as a rifle, it lacks a buttstock.  There are some SMGs, the Skorpion and MAC-10 come to mind, that can be wielded as a pistol or as a rifle.  My response there is simple:  As long as the PC is proficient with EITHER way the weapon can be wielded, they can use it however they want.  Maybe the SMG chart needs a column where the governing proficiency is noted, or when SMGs are split out into proficiency needed, some are listed under both Pistol and Rifle.

I'm reasonably certain any version of all this that adds a table column fails on contact. If anything, we need to scale the number of columns back, not ratchet it up.

Also, specifying proficiency for each individual weapons in a category? Not a feasible option. There's a point past which a particular part of the rules can't easily be mastered / memorized by Joe Gamer, and the precipice for complexity is very close to that.

I do like the modularity idea.  The mechanical differences between an M-4, a G-36, a FAMAS, a SCAR-L, and an XM-8 are rather negligible.  The sort of difference that not many beyond gun bunnies care about.  How do you keep it simple for folks who don't know or don't care, and keep it comprehensive for those of us who do?  The devil is in the details.

Really? I'd have guessed you would be on the other side of that particular fence.

[tfwfh]

Breaking up pistols into revolvers, self loaders, and machine pistols is a bad idea; much worse than pulling SMGs out from Pistols and Rifles. 

How so?
It's possible I wasn't clear.  I'm suggesting handgun as the proficiency, with pistol, revolver, and machine pistol as sub-groups within that.  The same way that FC has a blunt proficiency, with clubs and hammers and staves as sub-groups.

So the charts works out like so:
Handguns

Pistol

• .32 ACP; damage, range, etc
• 9mm; damage, range, etc
• .40 S&W; damage, range, etc

Revolvers

• .38 special; damage, range, etc
• .357 magnum; damage, range, etc
• .44 magnum; damage, range, etc

Rifles

Semi-Auto

• .22 LR; damage, range, etc
• .223 Remington; damage, range, etc
• .308 Winchester; damage, range, etc
• .30-06; damage, range, etc

Assault Rifles

• 5.56 NATO; damage, range, etc
• 7.62x39mm AK; damage, range, etc

We tried generic weapons in Classic and even with the promise of specific weapons in the Modern Arms Guide it unleashed holy hell from pretty much everyone who cared.

I could be wrong, but I think that no matter what you do, the gun nuts are going to find fault with it.  Unless you make GURPS, but then it will just be everyone else who hates it.  You were fine with ignoring the nit-picking historical simulationists for the weapons in FC, why not do the same for the nit-picking military simulationists for the modern era.  They were going to houserule it anyway, why not let their houserules start from a simple and easily understood base?[/list]

[MilitiaJim]

Breaking up pistols into revolvers, self loaders, and machine pistols is a bad idea; much worse than pulling SMGs out from Pistols and Rifles.  

With regard to proficiencies, weapon categories, or both?

Making them separate Proficiencies is a bad idea.  Making them separate tables is a good idea.

Taking your example of the MP5K, you cannot wield it as a rifle, it lacks a buttstock.  There are some SMGs, the Skorpion and MAC-10 come to mind, that can be wielded as a pistol or as a rifle.  My response there is simple:  As long as the PC is proficient with EITHER way the weapon can be wielded, they can use it however they want.  Maybe the SMG chart needs a column where the governing proficiency is noted, or when SMGs are split out into proficiency needed, some are listed under both Pistol and Rifle.

I'm reasonably certain any version of all this that adds a table column fails on contact. If anything, we need to scale the number of columns back, not ratchet it up.

Also, specifying proficiency for each individual weapons in a category? Not a feasible option. There's a point past which a particular part of the rules can't easily be mastered / memorized by Joe Gamer, and the precipice for complexity is very close to that.

No problem, make two tables for SMGs:  Light SMGs that use the pistols proficiency, and heavy SMGs that use the rifles proficiency.  Then put some SMGs like the Skorpion and MAC-10 on both tables.

I do like the modularity idea.  The mechanical differences between an M-4, a G-36, a FAMAS, a SCAR-L, and an XM-8 are rather negligible.  The sort of difference that not many beyond gun bunnies care about.  How do you keep it simple for folks who don't know or don't care, and keep it comprehensive for those of us who do?  The devil is in the details.

Really? I'd have guessed you would be on the other side of that particular fence.

Meh.  I like having the choices of all these rifles, but when a dozen rifles share two stat lines, well, what's the point?  I would like to see them all, but differentiating them is more important in a non-agency game where money matters.  (The gearing handwaves whence the gear, which I consider a feature.)

There is plenty of difference between an M-14 and an M-16, but not much between an M-14 and a SCAR-H.  (Stat line wise.  There are other, um, considerations.)

I don't know how to make everyone happy.  The comprehensive lists of everything are awesome, but I can't honestly call them necessary.

[Mister Andersen]

If it's a matter of a particular modification changing which proficiency governs a weapon, why not make "You may use proficiency X with this weapon" a mechanical quality of that upgrade?

[MilitiaJim]

It gets worse/fiddlier than that:  The folding stock is standard.  When the stock is folded up, a Skorpion is a neat little machine pistol.  With the stock folded out, you can wield it like a rifle.  The simplest solution I can think of the weapons that are so designed and constructed is to let anyone proficient with either setup use it without penalty.

[tfwfh]

In those cases, I think I prefer the 2.0 way of doing things.  Guns that have a collapsible stock are rifles, and you just suffer some penalty when using it without the stock.

[Sletchman]

We tried generic weapons in Classic and even with the promise of specific weapons in the Modern Arms Guide it unleashed holy hell from pretty much everyone who cared.

The problem with the SEH list is it took the idea too far (and not that the idea was bad).

In those cases, I think I prefer the 2.0 way of doing things.  Guns that have a collapsible stock are rifles, and you just suffer some penalty when using it without the stock.

Same.  Mostly for ease of application in play.  I personally would have no problem with a quality like Adaptable (H/R)*, but the way I see it having 1 in 5 players wanting a house rule is better then 4 in 5 being confused.

*This weapon can use multiple proficiencies, listed in parenthesis after the quality.

[Crafty_Pat]

Good feedback here guys. Thanks!

[MilitiaJim]

In those cases, I think I prefer the 2.0 way of doing things.  Guns that have a collapsible stock are rifles, and you just suffer some penalty when using it without the stock.

I am really, really ok with keeping this in the RAW and letting gun bunnies house rule the few exceptions.

[TheTSKoala]

So.. we started prepping up for a SC2 game (taking a small break from FC as our leader is OoO for 2 weeks..), and we got to talking about proficiencies, and logical application vs. real life.  Now, caveat.  None of us are anything close to a game designer.  LOL.  That said, MJ's (and the various incarnations in the thread) idea works but doesn't really have any meaningful impact.  TBH, I've felt like that since I've ever seen proficiencies in any RPG.  

So.. what about something like:

Proficient:  (Steal MilitiaJim's and everyone else's input on the list).  You can use that category of weapon.
Trained:  This one is a little iffy on how to do.  Basically, you would spend proficiency points on specific weapons, to which your fortes (and maybe feats?) then apply.
Fortes:  Tricks you know.

The idea being.. I may know how to fire a pistol, but when I get my hands on my Five-Seven, my skill really shines.  

Could be too complex or just completely terrible.  But.. its what we thought of.