Firearms granularity

[Fox1]

Re: Firearms granularity

 

OK then' date=' but in a game where you build the characters yourself, getting a desert eagle is going to happen if you want one, or it all becomes very contrived.[/quote']

 

Of course you can build a character to use the weapon desired, assuming the GM will go along.

 

Still doesn't make the DE the 'best' choice.

 

Using the stats from my website the limit of only 8 rounds in the Mag plus the concealment +3 modifier are all significant negatives for the .44 Mag version. The latter specifically as it greatly limits where and how the weapon can be carried.

 

It has no OCV or RMod bonuses under my house rules. There handguns significantly easier to point. Nor is it's damage so much higher as to justify the downsides. The 10mm for example has the same base stats although it lacks the DE's additional +1 stun mod. However that additional +1 stun mod doesn't often buy you anything extra against typical human targets in my games.

 

As a result, no current character in my campaign uses the DE.

 

 

Under the official build, it's a much more desirable weapon. But I think the official builds suck. There the damage of the typical handgun is so low and the negatives of the big bores so minor (in STR Min) that one is almost forced into selecting the big bores just to have a worthwhile weapon.

[Guest Black Lotus]

Re: Firearms granularity

 

I have statted almost every caliber of ammunition that is used in pistols. It's not total granularity -- because that's be reaching too far above and too far below 2d6 Killing Damage -- but it's comprehensive. In almost all cases, the caliber of the ammunition has the greatest effect on the amount of damage done by the weapon. So, here's the list. The metric list follows in a new post.

 

• .22: 4 DC
  
• .25 Auomatic Colt Pistol: 4 DC
  
• .32 Automatic Colt Pistol: 5 DC
  
• .380 Automatic Colt Pistol: 5 DC
  
• .357 Magnum/ .357 SIG: 6 DC
  
• .38 Special: 6 DC
  
• .400 Cor-Bon: 6 DC
  
• .40 Smith & Wesson: 6 DC
  
• .45 Automatic Colt Pistol: 7 DC
  
• .454 Casull: 7 DC
  
• .44 Automatic Magnum Pistol/.44 Magnum: 8 DC
  
• .50 AE: 9 DC (change back to 8 DC if you don't want to go this far).
  

 

Again, metric list to follow.

[Fox1]

Re: Firearms granularity

 

Wow, I have a 17 STR? Cool!

 

 

bigdamnhero

Shrinker: "Why should I trust you?"

Avon: "Because I have the gun!"

 

Or you have brought 'gun muscle' to represent your practice in dealing with the recoil.

 

Or you have been firing the weapon with a -1 OCV and have practiced enough with it to have brought Skill: +1 OCV DE for only 2 pts, likely without conscious decision given your post.

 

You don't have to have a 17 STR. That's just a baseline for no game modifier.

[Guest Black Lotus]

Re: Firearms granularity

 

Metric ammunition DC list for pistols:

 

• 5.45mm: 4 DC
  
• 5.56mm: 4 DC
  
• 7.62mm, 7.62x17mm: 5 DC
  
• 9mm Makarov: 5 DC
  
• 9x18mm Makarov: 6 DC
  
• 9mm Parabellum: 6 DC
  
• 10mm: 6 DC
  
• 9x21mm Russian: 7 DC
  
• 5.7mm (AET): 7 DC
  
• 12.3mm: 8 DC
  
• 12.5mm: 8 DC
  

 

Not perfect, but pretty gewd for my purposes, if I may say so myself.

[Fox1]

Re: Firearms granularity

 

Not perfect' date=' but pretty gewd for my purposes, if I may say so myself.[/quote']

 

Everyone has their own range of acceptable values. I for one could live in a game where the M16 only did 1d6+1K.

 

Most of my players consider the 2d6K version in my game to be underpowered. But they also consider the real world M16 to be under powered for that matter, so they're happy.

[Guest Black Lotus]

Re: Firearms granularity

 

Everyone has their own range of acceptable values. I for one could live in a game where the M16 only did 1d6+1K.

 

Most of my players consider the 2d6K version in my game to be underpowered. But they also consider the real world M16 to be under powered for that matter, so they're happy.

 

5.56mm and 7.62mmm rifle ammunition does more damage than the equivalent pistol ammunition, if you were wondering. They're jacketed differently, along with several other factors.

[Fox1]

Re: Firearms granularity

 

5.56mm and 7.62mmm rifle ammunition does more damage than the equivalent pistol ammunition' date=' if you were wondering. They're jacketed differently, along with several other factors.[/quote']

 

 

Those were only pistol ammo?

 

I'm not aware of any 5.45mm pistol ammo....

[Markdoc]

Re: Firearms granularity

 

Assuming that you have big hands and a well stocked gun shop nearby though' date=' is the DE the best hanndgun there is (well, of those presented in the book, anyway?) Is it actually more accurate than a Browing HiPower or a .38 S+W?[/quote']

 

Under some circumstances, yes. Under others, no.

 

That's the problem. There is no "best gun" because what suits one person doesn't suit another. What suits one set of conditions doesn't suit another. In my own case, i switched out a .303 enfield with a cut-down 9 mm CZ BRNO. In base stat.s, the enfield is clearly the better weapon (big slug, higher muzzle velocity, long barrel) - and when bench-firing it, that was true for me, as well. But I could kill things far more easily with the BRNO - ie: I was doing more damage.

 

Why? The enfield was simply too heavy and too long. For shooting at the range, it was no problem (so it's not just a STR min thing), but shooting with a pack on your pack after you've just walked up a steep hill carrying that sucker, when you only have a second or two to make the shot: that was a whole 'nuther thing. However, for another person, maybe it would have been fine (personally I doubt it, but there you go)

 

Part of the problem is simply that "damage" is a fairly arbitrary concept. In a game we say "damage = X". But as noted the last time we went round this issue, you can pretty reliably kill a healthy adult male by jamming a hatpin into his ear. Does that mean a hat-pin does 2d6 HKA?

 

Obviously not. The problem is that the damage scale in real life is very, very far from linear, so any attempt to model it "realistically" is going to involve something way more sophisticated than "xd6".

 

So for me, the question is simply "Do the rules as listed encourage people to make different but reasonable choices, based on circumstance?" and "do people react ina reasonable fashion to being shot at?" Other people may have a different measuring scale, but that doesn't make either approach "superior" or "more realistic" - just different.

 

cheers, Mark

[Guest Black Lotus]

Re: Firearms granularity

 

Those were only pistol ammo?

 

I'm not aware of any 5.45mm pistol ammo....

 

The Russian-made Drel pistol (double-action, smeiautomatic) uses 5.45mm pistol ammunition. Only one I know of.

 

Also, the Fabrique Nationale FN Five-seveN uses 5.7mm ammunition.

 

Also, the Knight Suppressed Revolver (American) uses 5.56mm ammunition.

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Firearms granularity

 

Wow' date=' I have a 17 STR? Cool! [/quote']

Or you have brought 'gun muscle' to represent your practice in dealing with the recoil.

 

Or you have been firing the weapon with a -1 OCV and have practiced enough with it to have brought Skill: +1 OCV DE for only 2 pts, likely without conscious decision given your post.

 

You don't have to have a 17 STR. That's just a baseline for no game modifier.

 

Spoilsport.

 

And now that I think about it, the only time I ever fired the DE was 2-handed anyway. Still, 17 STR seems a *little* high to me?

 

 

bigdamnhero

"Jayne, your mouth is moving. You might want to see to that."

[SCUBA Hero]

Re: Firearms granularity

 

Your point is well taken in that there are times when you want the guy with the .25 caliber pocket pistol to be intimidated by the guy with the .45 1911.

[Callahan's Crosstime Saloon flashback]

 

Situation: A robber and one of the patrons are covering each other with pistols in a tense standoff. Finally one of the other patrons speaks -

 

"You'll hurt him with that .38 son, but he'll kill you with that .45."

 

[/flashback]

 

(the Presence attack was successful. )

[Sean Waters]

Re: Firearms granularity

 

Under some circumstances, yes. Under others, no.

 

That's the problem. There is no "best gun" because what suits one person doesn't suit another. What suits one set of conditions doesn't suit another. In my own case, i switched out a .303 enfield with a cut-down 9 mm CZ BRNO. In base stat.s, the enfield is clearly the better weapon (big slug, higher muzzle velocity, long barrel) - and when bench-firing it, that was true for me, as well. But I could kill things far more easily with the BRNO - ie: I was doing more damage.

 

Why? The enfield was simply too heavy and too long. For shooting at the range, it was no problem (so it's not just a STR min thing), but shooting with a pack on your pack after you've just walked up a steep hill carrying that sucker, when you only have a second or two to make the shot: that was a whole 'nuther thing. However, for another person, maybe it would have been fine (personally I doubt it, but there you go)

 

Part of the problem is simply that "damage" is a fairly arbitrary concept. In a game we say "damage = X". But as noted the last time we went round this issue, you can pretty reliably kill a healthy adult male by jamming a hatpin into his ear. Does that mean a hat-pin does 2d6 HKA?

 

Obviously not. The problem is that the damage scale in real life is very, very far from linear, so any attempt to model it "realistically" is going to involve something way more sophisticated than "xd6".

 

So for me, the question is simply "Do the rules as listed encourage people to make different but reasonable choices, based on circumstance?" and "do people react ina reasonable fashion to being shot at?" Other people may have a different measuring scale, but that doesn't make either approach "superior" or "more realistic" - just different.

 

cheers, Mark

 

This is interesting; like I say I know nothing about guns, but I'm interested in the way they are modelled. I think that the games cold do a bit more to differentiate but over and above that, how do we model 'preference'? The only way I can see of doing it is with skill levels when modelling the character. Make players buy skill levels with a particular type of gun, and don't let them upgrade the skills to broader categories later or buy skill levels with specific guns in-game except with permission, so they will always have a preference for a particular gun. Everyone might still choose the DE (or equivalent) but then you'd need to make it clear that big man-killer guns are not always going to be appropriate: if the PCs are cops they may not be allowed to carry their own firearm on duty but have to use a regulation firearm. If they are on a mission where they will be searched they may prefer a less obvious piece. Hopefully this will encourage the choice of a more 'compromise' signature firearm.

 

This still doesn't quite do what was described but it gets a little closer. In a generic game like Hero where body size is all description and sfx it is probably as close as you will get.

 

My impression - and bear in mid I know little of guns - is that where you hit is generally more important than what you hit with, which would indicate that hit locations should be grittier.

 

The most apparently realistic gun combat system I have come across is in a game called Millennium's End. The 'to hit' system involves putting a transparent overlay on a silhouette of the target in various positions and then rolling: the exact roll determining where you hit - you could aim for a hand and hit the head - or miss entirely - or, on a sufficiently good roll, hit exactly on the aim point. The damage system covers trauma, impairment and secondary effects such as bloodloss and broken bones and hydrostatic shock. It is a little complicated but very detailed and only really works - well the system is designed for - reasonably earth-normal people and animals. Thee are 25 hit locations covering 13 seperate areas you can hit all with individual effects. Anyone come across it?

 

It uses a single delivered damage value based on the ammunition type, and the gun determines accuracy, rate of fire and so on. You can derive an enormous amount of information from the intersection of damage and hit location. It uses armour which has two effects: first it stops a certain amount of delivered damage, second it can convert damage from whatever type it starts as to impact damage.

 

The reason I'm whittering on about all this is that it gives (apparently) very realistic results. The damage range for ammo is 16 for .380 auto up to 31 for .50 Browning - actually a narrower range than Hero (3DC to 9DC). Maybe there is nothing wrong with the granularity: we have more than enough - the problem is with the way we use the result - with the rules for applying damage. As I said above - Hero is generic - it needs a system that can apply across the board, so it is relatively low on detail. For gun heavy games, alternative rules may be needed.

 

Interestingly Milennium's End has the Desert Eagle down as an accurate weapon too, but it is slightly slower to use then ost other pistols - presumably becasue of the weight. Maybe another 'stat' for weapons - 'dexterity penalty' might be appropriate, with heavier weapons being slightly slower to use within a round. It is all well and good being able to blow someone's head off with one shot, but less use if you've just been shot yourself.

 

The other thing that might be considered is having some real penalty associated with damage, maybe a penalty to DEX and INT equal to half the BODY you've taken - someone who has been shot and wounded would be less likey, in my opinion, to be able to shoot straight.

[archermoo]

Re: Firearms granularity

 

[Callahan's Crosstime Saloon flashback]

 

Situation: A robber and one of the patrons are covering each other with pistols in a tense standoff. Finally one of the other patrons speaks -

 

"You'll hurt him with that .38 son, but he'll kill you with that .45."

 

[/flashback]

 

(the Presence attack was successful. )

 

Good books/stories. Course it isn't just calibur that can add to the impressiveness of a handgun. Both of my pistols are .45ACP. The P220 looks fairly dangerous. But as a friend of mine put it, with the S&W 625 "There is no mistaking which end is the wrong end". Much larger, somewhat heavier, and considerably easier to collect spent brass from.

 

[Fox1]

Re: Firearms granularity

 

The Russian-made Drel pistol (double-action' date=' smeiautomatic) uses 5.45mm pistol ammunition. Only one I know of..[/quote']

 

Here's another, likely much more common reference:

 

http://www.enemyforces.com/firearms/psm.htm

[Hida Tsuzua]

Re: Firearms granularity

 

The problem is that many of the factors firearms have are usually lost in the quantized nature of RPGs. For example the grips of some guns doesn't feel well in people's hands. Either you have to represent this in point form (Perk: Adaptable Hands) or it isn't a factor (if asked the players will just go "not in this case)." Also a minor difference in firepower will either have to be 1DC different or not. In which case, it can be a 5 point difference or no difference.

 

PCs will buy firearms to fill certain roles in the game. The roles can range from "concealable piece I always carry around" to "sniping" to "cover fire." What roles are needed will vary from game to game. A spy game will unlikely have a need for the PC to use machine guns on a regular basis, but they might be very common in a military game. Having different firearms for different roles is a pretty reasonable design decision.

 

The problem area is when you have multiple firearms for the same role. Much like species competing for the same niche, these weapons will be compared to each other by the players until a clear winner will emerge. At which point, the other weapons will be resigned to basically NPCs or smaller niches (players with STR

 

Now who is the clear winner might change during gameplay when the PCs get more money and connections, but that either doesn't happen (too many points invested in the earlier firearm in CSLs or naked advantages) or causes power escalation (as PCs jump from best gun to best gun). Trying to keep this is check via roleplaying is a fool's errand as any creative player can roleplay his reasons for having the best gun. My favorite for skilled combat PCs is that he realizes that the weapon is the best though trying it out.

 

Most players will also want to merge as many roles as possible. The reason for this is typically that PCs want an answer to any situation that the GM puts them in as well as point efficiency. For this reason, weapons that blur the lines between roles such as an extremely small and pistollike SMG can often be clear winners as well. This can especially be the case when one can buy powers or abilities that can enhance such weapons, such as Autofire with pistols, Deadly Blow with SMGs, or jackets that make things more concealable. An example of this is found in Shadowrun 3rd edition. In Shadowrun, there is a kind of shotgun found in long and short barrel versions. The long barrel version is a good assault weapon (no autofire ability but high damage). The short barrel version is basically a slightly louder pistol. This means that a player who doesn't want to be a pure combat monster (such as a decker/rigger/spy/etc) will go for this shotgun as you can use both with the same skill, filling two roles. To do this otherwise will cost two skills. The possibility for specialization (which is based on weapon name not mods on the weapon) makes it even more favorable.

 

My suggestion is to make a list of what roles PCs will want their guns to fill. Then make a firearm for that role. Following that, let the model of the weapon and the like be a SFX of that firearm. This SFX can be basis for CSLs or not. For example you can have people by 1911 CSLs or Medium Pistol CSLs.

 

This lets the players who want to worry about the little things roleplay it out. If he wants to play cop who uses a Compact Ceska 75 because the shorter barrel feels better than the larger Beretta 92s the other cops use, he can do it without having to take what might very well be the inferior weapon mechanically. If he roleplays all of this out well, give him XP for good roleplaying. If the player doesn't care about such things, he can just go for a gun that he thinks looks/sounds cool for the SPX and leave it at that. This way, you don't have everyone carrying one weapon as least not from a SPX point of view. It's also a great deal easier to make and balance vs armor and weapons from other roles.

[Fox1]

Re: Firearms granularity

 

Still, 17 STR seems a *little* high to me?

 

I typo'd it. It's actually a 18 STR on my chart.

 

As far as saying it's too high...

 

The Army and the FBI have judged that the .45 ACP recoil is too much for the typical cop or solider. One may disagree with that (I do), so let's say that it's a weapon the average user can manage- give it a STR Min of 11 one handed (means a 8 two-handed, or the so called 'common man' in HERO terms).

 

The recoil energy of the .44 Mag DE is almost 4x that of the .45 ACP. In standard HERO terms, that means it's STR Min should be 10 points higher by definition.

 

So HERO *should* say that it has a STR MIN of 21 for one handed use.

 

 

I don't actually use HERO x2 progression for this so I have different numbers and break points, but the concept is the same. Of course using STR MIN at all is a massive simplification, but it's a usable one at least.

[Guest Black Lotus]

Re: Firearms granularity

 

I have a friend who works in a sportsman's goods shop in Southwestern Virginia, and one of the pistols they sell there is... rats. I can't remember what model or caliber it was; it's a brushed stainless steel revolver, and its barrel must have been at least 6 inches long, maybe 7. The cylinder was huge. Slightly bigger than a Colt Anaconda, that's for sure, but the cartridge was not quite as large as a .50 Desert Eagle.

 

Anyway, my friend told me a doctor bought that gun one day, and gave it back to the shop for free the very next week. He'd broken his arm firing it for the first time.

 

This is why weapons like the .50 AE Desert Eagle aren't the "best" pistols: they're loud, they have tons of recoil, they're impossible to fully conceal without bulky clothing, they have a relatively low cylinder/ magazine capacity compared to smaller pistols, and their ammo may be expensive and/ or hard to find.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Firearms granularity

 

Bad logic on a number of levels.

 

First, the original post was not a call for an accuratate representation of firearms, it was rather a call for granularity in the game mechanics of firearms. One could assume that the post likely desired that the resulting granularity produces a result that ordered in the various weapons in the proper matter.

 

Thus a .45 ACP should do more damage than a .40 S&W which should do more than a .38 special- but the actual damage values may or may not be realistic.

 

Which is the case now matter how much work is put into the mechanics, as the actual effects of these weapons expressed in any objective valuation is unknown to current science. Only relative effectiveness can be judged.

 

 

Second, in game design is quite acceptable to focus mechanics on only one side of an issue assuming a static condition on the other. It is a neccessary simplification to keep the game playable. Changes in target make-up is handled by how that target is made up in the game.

 

Thus in the case of your "target is already flying by sheer force of will and wearing unrealistic bullet-proof-spandex" victim, the .40 S&W will react with it depending upon its BODY, STUN, and defenses just as any other weapon would.

 

This isn't 100% of course. It's a game mechanic simplification that suits some people.

 

But those who whine about peoplle wanting a little more realism in their game fail to understand a very simple point. Realism is not a on/off switch, it's a continuum that ranges from None to Complete.

 

Individuals desire different points along that continuum. At no time does a desire for more realism in one part of that vast range force an individual into more realism in other areas. That's a straw man put up by biased and ignorant people who can't let a poster ask for something as simple as Firearms Granularity without attacking them.

Unfortunately, in your rush to counterattack you've managed to completely miss my point.

 

The main point I was making was that it does absolutely no good to have a superior (or even theoretically perfect) representation of firearms when the targets lack a corresponding level of granularity in the way they represent damage. Hero's system of BODY, even with all the optional rules, simply do not reflect the myriad ways with which firearms cause damage to the human body. And ultimately all that BODY really is is a Characteristic to measure character survivability. It does absolutely no good to measure with a micrometer when the value it's being compared to is being measured with a yardstick.

 

Furthermore, given the extreme compression of attacks within the Hero system there simply are not enough steps between Damage Classes to accurately represent each corresponding increase in damage potential between say .22 Short (low) and .50 BMG (high) rounds; and this problem becomes even more acute if one subscribes to the "Hero damage is exponential" school of thought.

[Fox1]

Re: Firearms granularity

 

Unfortunately, in your rush to counterattack you've managed to completely miss my point.

 

No, you miss my point. Completely and by miles.

 

But I'm used to that. Some people are too tied to their self-justifications to do otherwise.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Firearms granularity

 

Some people are too tied to their self-justifications to do otherwise.

The irony level of you making a statement like this is measurable only on the Richter Scale.

[Fox1]

Re: Firearms granularity

 

The irony level of you making a statement like this is measurable only on the Richter Scale.

 

Most people have little clue as to what irony is.

 

 

Given that *YOU"RE* the one telling someone else that their tastes about and selection of a favored point on the realism continuum are invalid solely because of your own personal opinions is choice.

 

Behold Trebuchet, master of "My fun is good, your fun is BAD".

[ghost-angel]

Re: Firearms granularity

 

Food for thought.

 

As you go off uberstatting every weapon and type of ammo into oblivion (and by all means, do so) ...

 

Shouldn't someone be on the other end and do the same for defensive capabilites? Statting out the various Kevlar weaves, types of metal plates used in armor, plating and such things?

 

And at what point is gameplay sacrificed for realism and/or granularity? It may not be, it's just a question.

 

And from a pure play balance POV, have the offensive capabilities of these weapons (as they've been statted) fit into the general Mechanics of point balance, play balance, offensive balance and defensive balance?

 

Basically, I'm pointing out that there may be more in this than simply fitting the capability of any given gun/ammo combination into a simple Damage Class format to satisfy a need for fine granularity and choice, or realism.

[archermoo]

Re: Firearms granularity

 

Food for thought.

 

As you go off uberstatting every weapon and type of ammo into oblivion (and by all means, do so) ...

 

Shouldn't someone be on the other end and do the same for defensive capabilites? Statting out the various Kevlar weaves, types of metal plates used in armor, plating and such things?

 

And at what point is gameplay sacrificed for realism and/or granularity? It may not be, it's just a question.

 

And from a pure play balance POV, have the offensive capabilities of these weapons (as they've been statted) fit into the general Mechanics of point balance, play balance, offensive balance and defensive balance?

 

Basically, I'm pointing out that there may be more in this than simply fitting the capability of any given gun/ammo combination into a simple Damage Class format to satisfy a need for fine granularity and choice, or realism.

 

And don't forget that the bodies ability to take damage could be covered more completely as well.

[Fox1]

Re: Firearms granularity

 

Shouldn't someone be on the other end and do the same for defensive capabilites? Statting out the various Kevlar weaves' date=' types of metal plates used in armor, plating and such things?[/quote']

 

A number of people on this board have already done that.

 

I haven't because highly effective body armor is not genre for the settings I play. Light, easily worn armor that takes a edge off the damage is- and that's the kind I use in my games.

 

 

And at what point is gameplay sacrificed for realism and/or granularity? It may not be, it's just a question.

 

As I didn't like the gameplay of the official constructions, there is no visible sacrifice from my point of view. My games are if anything, much more like the source material as a result and more enjoyable therefore.

 

And from a pure play balance POV, have the offensive capabilities of these weapons (as they've been statted) fit into the general Mechanics of point balance, play balance, offensive balance and defensive balance?

 

The active and real point costs of all the weapons are up on my website.

 

The only non-standard construction is the addition of the Armor Effect limit. Beyond that it's just simple HERO system with the weapons built according to a different standard. Thus it's point balance and such are also pure HERO and as effective as anything else presented in that system.

[Fox1]

Re: Firearms granularity

 

And don't forget that the bodies ability to take damage could be covered more completely as well.

 

It could, and I also have house rules for that.

 

But it's not a requirement for those who only want to represent the weapon side of things better.