Plea for help.

[Lord Mhoram]

The help I need is in justification for campaign feel. My friend is planning to run a Star Hero game, and he wants Martial Arts to be a major part of it, but he wants gun to work just as well- the kind of fight he is looking at (in general) is where the two groups shoot each other for a bit, then close and go to Martial Arts.

Now he is a stickler for realism (or at least justificiation), and is trying to figure out why people don't just keep shooting. Techinical or social fix ideas would be appreciated.

 

The ideas we have had-

"New Bushido" a social / moral code that you don't shoot first, announce your intentions, HtH is better than guns ect.

A velocity shield force field that can deflect any fast moving particle, can only stay up for a short time (say 1 minute) but takes half a turn to a turn to get going. So you get shot at, you turn on your field, shoot back, and when the FF is up, you close and chop them up with swords.

 

Neither of these are very aesthetically pleasing. Anyone with any ideas would be welcome.

[Zoth]

Re: Plea for help.

 

I kind have the same problem you do. My sci-fantasy campaign I’m developing I want Magitek. Magical made high-tech. Thing is I don’t want lot gun combat and stuff, I want a reason for there to be swords.

 

Originally posted by Lord Mhoram

A velocity shield force field that can deflect any fast moving particle, can only stay up for a short time (say 1 minute) but takes half a turn to a turn to get going. So you get shot at, you turn on your field, shoot back, and when the FF is up, you close and chop them up with swords.

 

How about handling velocity shield this way, the shield normal only protects

so much vs. fast moving particle but for a sort time (how long most normal combat takes) it can be powered up. It take x number of phase to build up the power (how ever long you want range combat to last) then you can forget about using fast moving particle on them, you are gone have get into HTH to do damage.

 

Z.O.T.H “opinions expressedâ€

[Lord Liaden]

It's really hard to justify a "shoot for a while, then fight hand-to-hand" policy. Even if you have a code of honor, it wouldn't explain why it's okay to blast away at someone one minute, then stop to start punching and kicking him the next. Makes little tactical sense.

 

Now, if you're talking either/or, where sometimes it's appropriate to use firearms and sometimes hand-to-hand makes more sense, sci-fi campaigns involving space travel would make a rise in the practice of martial arts easy to justify: imagine a firefight aboard a spaceship, with drive units, reactors, and bulkheads separating you from hard vacuum.

[Zoth]

Another idea

 

Another idea is that the shields use a rare components/power source that gets used up per number of shots. May be also the fields the shields produces makes it hard to use blaster up close they malfunction easy or something.

 

That way you might want to start combat at a distance but you are gone want engage the enemy and get in close before too long.

 

Z.O.T.H “opinions expressedâ€

[Storn]

Try this on for size.

 

Everyone has access to force shields.

 

The queer thing about these shields is that they get stronger with each shot that hits them. The first few shots will get thru the shield, but it gets stronger and stronger. Totally the opposite of all shields *Ive* ever seen in games/ sci fi.

 

The kicker: Living, Organic material, such as a fist or foot, passes through the shield with no problem. And maybe if someone had a bamboo spear still living.

 

Tactics: At range and when closing, it makes sense to fire a few rounds down field, you might get lucky and really puncture a shield. At least take 3 or 5 Body off the target. But after a few shots the shields will exceed the ability of the weapons to damage. So, its barroom fight time.

 

I'll leave the mechanics and number crunching up to others.

[BobGreenwade]

My thoughts here mostly echo suggestions people have already made:

 

1. On spaceships and stations, firing high-velocity projectiles is a bad idea because they might puncture the hull or damage sensitive or dangerous equipment. Thus the return of martial arts and hand-to-hand weaponry in such situations.

 

2. Personal force fields only stop energy beams and high-velocity projectiles, but aren't as useful against relatively low-energy attacks such as fists and hand-held weapons.

 

3. Ammunition is hard to come by, hard or hazardous to carry, or limited for some other reason, so ranged weapons are used only when really necessary.

 

Any combination of these should do the trick.

[Norm]

Plea for help.

 

How about this. Two ideas:

 

(1) Insane force field. Delayed activation, ? turns. Only works against missile weapons. Special effect - force field 'tunes' itself to the frequency of the missile weapons as you get hit. aka. Star Trek's Borg.

(2) Insane force field. Linked with absorption (energy) going to an END battery. Trigger (when END battery is full). Special effect - force field charges by absorbing the energy from an energy blast.

 

For number 2 above, do not know if you have slug throwers. If you do, you could just have absorb the kinetic energy from the missile attack.

 

Well... What do you think?

[Talon]

Read Dune.

[dbsousa]

Justification #1: High Velocity Bullets are not affected by artificial gravity, and will bounce around a hull until stopped by a body or cushion. Anyone with space combat training knows not to fire a shot unless his aim is true. Most current rifles, which rely on sprayfire and such, are as likely to kill the shooter as his target. Duelling pistols have become fashionable again in boarding actions.

 

Justification #2. Laser pistols require so much energy that they only can fire a few shots before recharging. Recharging is a time consuming process, so in ranged combat, people count shots, and charge into melee when the other side runs out...

 

(edited for clarity)

[Lord Mhoram]

Originally posted by Geoff Speare

Read Dune.

 

I know. My friend finds those kind of shields uneathestic, one of the reasons we were looking for a different answer.

[tiger]

I'd think the best way to work it is either the fact that balsters in starships cause problems or a honor thing would be the best way to work it. YOu could use the theroy of the noise blasters make, but then so do clashing swords.

[Herolover]

Ahh the same problem I have always had.

 

I have had this same problem. I love sci-fi, but I also love the idea of "ray-guns and swords." The problem is why would anyone want to use a sword.

 

I realize I am going to go over things others have said, but I would like to make a good list.

 

1) The Dune thing. This is the force field that for whatever reason stops guns.

 

2) Starship damage. This is the situation where starships are so fragile that everyone is scarred to fire a gun.

 

3) The cultural/honor thing. This one could be really hard because as someone pointed out what reason would you have to say yes you can shoot two times, but after that you have to use a gun.

 

4) Limited gun. The problem here is you have to come up with why the gun is limited and why no one is using other guns. The best reason I like is that the setting has just come out from under a time period of "the long night" where technology went backwards and it is just now coming back up. You can say guns are rare.

 

5) Law. Maybe a strong government or stronger race has outlawed guns forcing those who have them to hide them.

[Agent Escafarc]

Re: Ahh the same problem I have always had.

 

Originally posted by Herolover

4) Limited gun. The problem here is you have to come up with why the gun is limited and why no one is using other guns. The best reason I like is that the setting has just come out from under a time period of "the long night" where technology went backwards and it is just now coming back up. You can say guns are rare.

 

 

This worked for Battletech with it's lack of fire and forget weapons, smart weapons, and no indirect fire.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Ahh the same problem I have always had.

 

Originally posted by Herolover

5) Law. Maybe a strong government or stronger race has outlawed guns forcing those who have them to hide them.

 

I think this is a good idea. Advanced personal weapons could be strictly controlled by the authorities and limited to their operatives, with possession being a serious offense. Advances in detection equipment could make guns hard to conceal or take into sensitive areas; what weapons could be concealed would likely be small, with limited power and/or ammo - and there's your "limited use" justification right there.

 

After a long enough period of such controls, reduced reliance on guns could become an element of the culture, even the criminal subculture. I remember in the film "The Krays", depicting the London underworld in the 1960's, gangsters were shown settling fights with very long knives (Britain had little tradition of personal gun ownership).

[Al_Beddow]

here are a few ideas...

 

1) Force sheilds are common place making projectile weapons useless since the rounds travel too fast.

 

2) Energy weapons react with the force shield causing them to explode (ala Dune and the game Space Opera).

 

3) if your campaign uses a method of travel like the "jump" system in Traveller, getting replacement parts for your weapons can be tricky.

 

 

so.. Swords, knives and such are the only weapons that move slow enough to penetrait a personal shield and won't negatively react with it.

[sbarron]

Maybe there is technology that will destroy mechanical or electronic equipment and weaponry. An e-grenade, if you like. Two opposing forces come together and start shooting at each other. Invariable they end up hitting each other with e-grenades, which disables the blasters of the other side, so the two sides have to close to melee to continue the fight.

 

There could be many different ways that these e-grenades work. Maybe it disrupts the battery of an energy rifle. For slug throwers, it could cause metal to fuse together, to jamm the internal workings or a gun, or even cause the propelent to explode in its casing. This would make carrying ammo for these weapons dangerous.

 

The slug thrower having its propelent explode could answer a couple of your concerns. It would be a good reason to not carry too much ammo, because it could explode if you get hit with one of these grenades. That would limit the duration of fire fights. It would also give a good incentive to fire off all the ammo you could as quickly as you could, to get the ammo away from you.

 

Just thinking out loud...

[Toonol]

The Barsoomian (Mars Series) code of honor might work. Among other things, it was immoral to use a weapon that had a longer reach than your opponent's.

 

So if he has a gun, you can shoot him. If he throws it down, or runs out of ammo, and draws his longsword, you have to throw down your gun as well. If he draws a knife, you draw your knife...

 

I would guess that would lead to firefights that would last until ammo ran out, or one side decides they would have better odds man-to-man than in a firefight...

 

-Toonol

[AnotherSkip]

WEll actually I have a few suggestions:

 

1. Emp grenades can (per a Gm SFX ruling) magnetize the firing pin off center pulling the trigger merely smacks the firing pin into the edge of the bullet and not the primer. Thusly it is an easy fix as long as you have a minute to take apart the gun and demagentise the pin swords dont break as easy. And in a high tech setting perhaps this is a safety factor to prevent the gun from being fired in a presumably dangerous area. Thus NO ONE makes non-magnetic firing pins, it is a criminal act only for the dangerously despirate.

 

2. Burnout rolls on all weapons due to fragility of the weapons. Easy to fix (as easy as exchanging computer parts today or blackpowder refills ) when you have a minute and again due to the design restrictions and safety concerns outlined above. Thus forcing a long "reload time" much like single shot blackpowder weapons(the pirate captain had two tucked in his belt and then a cutlass too!).

 

this little bit came from an article about a police officer chasing a criminal through a MRI factory, he tried to shoot the guy with his well maintained pistol and his did not work, neither did the criminal's. examination of the weapons revealed the magnetization of the internal workings.

 

these two in combo have the habit of making your game alot like pirate shipboard combat. A good thing for some scenarios.

 

 

2. Forcefields that turn all damage into normal damage. No points just straightforward GM SFX determination . Now then this evil toy makes ranged weapons less loveable than HTH because the damage is stuck at default levels and only oin MA and HTH can you bust out the "Really Powerful Smackdown".

 

Cool Nuff?

[BlackSword]

Be careful what you shoot at. Most things in here don't react too well

to bullets.

 

--

Capt. Ramius, Hunt for Red October

 

Its been said before, but it probably depends somewhat on internal ship

design. If the ship hallways have lots of plastic fascia like star

trek, then guns might be okay to use inside. If the inside of the

starships have a more modern warship/submarine feel then guns might damage

vital controls. Hence martial arts.

 

Star Wars combines the use of martial arts and long range combat by

making the Jedi so smooth they can just dodge or block shots fired at

them, while mere mortals have to make do with guns (for those who might not

be interested in martial arts).

 

Adding to the above about the insides of ships. Due to the relative

fragility of having little more than sheet metal between your sweet self

and the cold void of space may make guns extermely weak, little more

than something similar to a tazer or modern police weapons whose goal is

to incapcitate vs. kill. On the other hand (no pun intended), hand to

hand weapons could be very powerful so shooting is just used to cover

yourself and your friends long enough to get into close combat. This

would of course require some other justification on-planet when shooting

matters less.

 

Just a few random thoughts,

 

Dan

[Prometheus]

Some of this has been already mentioned in one form or another, but how about technological frailty vs. environmental conditions?

 

Aboard a spacecraft, firearms may have too much penetration to be safe. Or maybe the electrostatic discharge fries circuitry too easily. Firing a weapon from the inside gets dicey if you run the risk of blowing out a bulkhead or shorting out the life support.

 

High-end, accurate weapons have tight tolerances- parts have very little room they can shift or give before the weapon's performance suffers. On a water world or a desert world (or any similar sci-fi environ) those tolerances take alot of strain. When moving parts seize up, you'll have to rely on low tech alternatives.

 

Yeah, those are a stretch, but extrapolation is a staple of sci-fi.

[Tweedle]

Lord Mhoram, have you heard of the Deathstalker series of books by British author Simon R. Green?

 

The series is set in a pulp-SF space opera type of universe, very much in the vein of the Star Wars films, but with lots of shades-of-grey scoundrels and liberal doses of sarcastic humour. The characters in the series use energy weapons which require a number of minutes to recharge between each shot; this has necessitated the revival of hand-to-hand combat with swords, axes and other low-tech implements of mayhem, as combatants initially discharge their energy weapons and then wade into hand-to-hand combat.

[Tetsuyama]

D'oh! I *thought* I was going to get to be the first to mention Deathstalker. I seem to remember that there were shields of some sort, and chemical slugthrowers were totally useless against the shields (high-speed projectiles and such). But there was some reason why the shields were ineffective against the blasters. I don't remember the specifics, which probably means it's time to go back and reread the books.

[Rebar]

no contrivances, use existing combat penalties

 

Everyone seems to have missed the obvious "real world" principles behind these tactics:

 

1] You close on the enemy because you want to end the battle fast and decisively. Staying at range doesn't help you, it puts time and distance on the side of the defenders.

 

2] You want to surround/flank your enemy to cut off retreat and to force them to spread their defenses as widely as possible. This means getting into the arena, not hiding in cover. The defenders in response will tend to spread out as you approach, so that you can't take out many of them in one shot.

 

This will result in pairing off, as each opponent has to choose a single target to fight.

 

3] Once you are at close range and both parties are mixed on the arena, ranged weapons become impractical because the risk of friendly fire is greatly increased. Also, one can easily lose a weapon in close combat. That fraction of a second is enough for an opponent to kill you - and he has more weapons at his disposal at zero range (like his hands).

 

So, to reflect this in the game is quite easy; you don't need to invent anything - you need only enforce or enhance existing rules/guidelines:

a] range modifiers

b] attack-spreading and multiple-target penalties

c] sucker punch rules (missed shots have a chance of hitting someone)

 

There are other penalties that it might help to enforce:

- weapon loading delays,

- risk of jamming/misfire,

- 1/2 move-and-then-attack penalty

 

Try a battle, enforce the penalties, see how it comes out.

[Heroman]

Heh, last I have seen in the news is that distance tactics (air to ground, tanks, guns) work real well as opposed to hand to hand...

Depending on your tech level and resource availability I would agree with the limited weapon (maybe overheats fast or can only fire a few shots (small clips or bulky clips with huge power drain). If resources are pretty scarce, then maybe chem slugthrowes are no longer available with lasers being cheaper and easier to obtain ammo. EMP style grenades could also help shorten ranged combat.

All in all the reality is this: People will use whatever does the most damage (not the most dice of dmg, but the most accumulated damage over time). You could balance out weapons so that H-H does more damage overall (weaken Ranged or make all RBR, or increase H-H weapon damage [vibroblades, energy sabers, etc).

Think about a midevil campaign, swords & arrows or even civil war. Initial attack is with ranged, making those who close in suffer misc damage. In the end on a battle field, it probably ended with H-H swords. Why? Because they do more damage overall. Nowadays, ranged has the damage advantage. You need to shift the balance so it no longer does, or does only for a very limited period.

[Koshka]

I don't know if you've read the Lensman books, but they managed to use energy weapons, slugthrowers and space axes all in the same fights.

 

As I recall (need to reread them myself), in a boarding situation personal armor could pull power from the ship's power supplies, in effect hiking the ED value to levels where handheld energy weapons didn't do anything but make pretty energy splashes. Now, if you're boarding someone else's ship, they can break out their "semi-portables", which are energy weapons powered by the ship's power supplies and are capable of punching holes in armor. If that's not the case, though, or someone throws up a shield that blocks power to the semi-portables, you either bring in the water-cooled machine rifles (what can I say, the books were written in the 1930's) or pull your space axe and go hand to hand -- personal armor in those books never had as much PD as ED. (The fact that Valerian troopers were definitely not bound by NCM helped space axe effectiveness as well.)