Firearms granularity

[Sean Waters]

Re: Firearms granularity

 

Head shots should HURT, though. Of course, you have the low roll possible of 4 BODY, which isn't too bad, maybe a case of the bullet whizzing around the inside of the skull and not hitting too much gray stuff. It can happen. So can the 24 Body, head exploding like a melon type damage.

 

Now, I'm assuming that 2d6 is coming out of a rifle at the very least, so I don't see a big problem with the multiplier in that case.

 

The problem is that the spead of damage already takes into consideration hits in more and less critical areas, so 12 points of damage from a 2d6 attack is a hit in the most critical area: a solid head/heart hit. A 2d6 attack can't do 24 damage.

 

What tends to happen is that we look at a 2d6 rifle attack and say: 24 BODY is enough to kill anyone outright, so it is OK that the attack does that much. Well, actually not anybody - if you have more than 12 BODY and are not using an 'instant kill' rule, you'll survive to bleed to death. Perhaps we should have a x3 or x4 multiplier.

 

That last bit was a joke to illustrate the point.

 

What we ought to do, if we are modelling a more realistic world, is require that noone buy up their BODY stat at all, and most people buy it down. In fact you probably ought to set a value that everyone has to have unless they have very good reason to have a pint or two more or less. 6 perhaps, or 8. We shouldn't just change the rules until killing attacks work for guns. That bit wasn't a joke.

 

If we are modelling some sort of comic book reality, it works OK as it is. The problem is caused by having such a wide range of damage in the context of the rest of the Hero system rules framework. Hero system damage values are at least partially, or pseudo-exponential, and having such a wide damage range is inconsistent with that approach, especially as the BODY stat is also wildly variable.

 

Of course, interestingly enough, this would make the system less apparently granular, but to be honest reality isn't as granular as most people seem to think.

[Sir Ofeelya]

Re: Firearms granularity

 

Can a .22LR do as much damage to someone as a .45ACP? Certainly. But on average a .45ACP does much more. I think the Hero system does a decent job at modeling this.

 

Or to put it another way, a .45 can do as little damage as a .22. That is when you roll snake eyes on that damage throw.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Firearms granularity

 

The problem is that the spead of damage already takes into consideration hits in more and less critical areas' date=' so 12 points of damage from a 2d6 attack is a hit in the most critical area: a solid head/heart hit. A 2d6 attack can't do 24 damage.[/quote']

 

With that in mind, however, a 2d6 attack can't kill people with one shot. If we remove the hit location's impact on BOD damage, or modifiy it such that it means you do max damage on the dice you would otherwise roll, do we also need to increase the damage done by guns across the board to satisfy those who want the possibility a .22 calibre handgun can kill with one shot (which it certainly can)?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Firearms granularity

 

With that in mind' date=' however, a 2d6 attack can't kill people with one shot. If we remove the hit location's impact on BOD damage, or modifiy it such that it means you do max damage on the dice you would otherwise roll, do we also need to increase the damage done by guns across the board to satisfy those who want the possibility a .22 calibre handgun can kill with one shot (which it certainly can)?[/quote']

 

That's not because a large damage spread or a mechanic to double damage is a good idea, it is because the whole premise is flawed: we shouldn't have humans with such a high BODY score they can't be killed with a 2d6 killing attack. You might like to try this at home, but I'd suggest we keep it in the realms of 'thought experiment':

 

Line up 36 people of various sizes, either gender, race, age, whatever, and get a gun that would do 1d6 killing (say a S&W Model 10*) then shoot them in the head at point blank range, one after the other.

 

I'm pretty sure that they are all now dead, whereas the game says that, even with BODY doubling, and even assuming that they have a BODY score of 8, 18 of them should have survived, at least long enough to bleed to death. BODY scores of 10 would increase that to 24 and BODY scores of 12 would increase that to 30. Even if you apply the 'instant kill from an impairing wound to the head' rule, 6 of them will be around complaining of headaches but very much alive.

 

There's your problem right there.

 

Now there are various solutions, but the only ones that make any sense at all involve having fixed damage values for firearms, with those 'theoretical maxima' reduced some (or none) by hit location and some other random modifier for the vagaries of combat. That and targets with really low (or, as I like to call them, 'realistic') Body scores. Oh and some better bleeding rules.

 

IMO there should probably be very little difference in raw damage between a .22 and a .45. I'd say there was a lot of difference in penetrating power, but most instant kills are because you hit something vital (if you'll pardon the pun) not because you did enough damage to make portions of their anatomy explode, and a .22 will stop the heart just as effectively as a .45 IF it gets through all that bone and gristle.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Although the S&W only holds 6 shots so you are going to have to reload 5 times, and this can make the experimental subjects a mite fretful. Best to either drug or restrain them, if I were you.

[Pattern Ghost]

Re: Firearms granularity

 

I'd thought Sean thought the damage multiplier was excessive before, now I'm not sure.

 

I agree the granularity of damage isn't realistic. That's probably because people don't like creating new characters frequently. There's a reason why real people, at least the sane ones, avoid gun fights.

 

Turning on Hero's optional damage rules, like hit locations works pretty well in raising the level of lethality, particularly in lower point campaigns. Of course, you run into the problem of metagaming: If your players know combat is lethal, they're going to buy up BODY, and you get into something similar to the SPD race. I'd say for more lethal campaigns, upping the cost of BODY might be a reasonable start.

[archermoo]

Re: Firearms granularity

 

With that in mind' date=' however, a 2d6 attack can't kill people with one shot. If we remove the hit location's impact on BOD damage, or modifiy it such that it means you do max damage on the dice you would otherwise roll, do we also need to increase the damage done by guns across the board to satisfy those who want the possibility a .22 calibre handgun can kill with one shot (which it certainly can)?[/quote']

 

Except that most kills with handguns aren't of the instantly dead variety. Even head-shots. They generally fall either into the "died while in transport" or "died in the ER" categories.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Firearms granularity

 

I'd thought Sean thought the damage multiplier was excessive before, now I'm not sure.

 

I agree the granularity of damage isn't realistic. That's probably because people don't like creating new characters frequently. There's a reason why real people, at least the sane ones, avoid gun fights.

 

Turning on Hero's optional damage rules, like hit locations works pretty well in raising the level of lethality, particularly in lower point campaigns. Of course, you run into the problem of meta-gaming: If your players know combat is lethal, they're going to buy up BODY, and you get into something similar to the SPD race. I'd say for more lethal campaigns, upping the cost of BODY might be a reasonable start.

 

There was this game called Torg where the designers had little side bars and stuff where they discussed the rules and why they were like that. IIRC Torg uses a damage system that compares a damage value to a body value after it has been modified by a toughness value. Something like that. Anyway, they had originally wanted to make the body value a set number because tougher characters were already taking less damage and it seemed like double dipping. They were persuaded to do otherwise but clearly regretted it.

 

I see Hero that way a bit: yes you can buy a 20 BODY, but why? No realistic character has a 20 Body, hell no realistic character buys their Body up at all. If you want to be tough against killing attacks, buy armour.

 

One of the most apparently realistic combat systems I've seen for firearms is in a game called Millenniums' End, but even then it is mainly a shot in the dark (ba-doom chssss*). You'll never get it 'right'. What you need is a rule set customisable enough to give you the game-feel YOU want. Hero is pretty good for that. Not perfect, but pretty good.

 

 

 

*two drums and a cymbal falling off a cliff

[Pattern Ghost]

Re: Firearms granularity

 

Except that most kills with handguns aren't of the instantly dead variety. Even head-shots. They generally fall either into the "died while in transport" or "died in the ER" categories.

 

I'd venture to say most head shots from .44 Mags or .223s are going to be very messy. Both are listed as examples of 2d6k attacks in Fifth edition. Given close enough range for either one to deliver its full energy and a square on hit, a brain is going to be shattered by the bullet passing through. The temporary wound channel left by hydrostatic shock is quite permanent in non-elastic gray matter. That's your max damage roll scenario. Any perfect shot to the head that's not deflected by the skull should be instantly fatal. A single .22 LR may not be enough to do the trick, or one of the more anemic loads for a .38 spl, but when you get into magnum caliburs and rifles, you get serious splatter.

[Pattern Ghost]

Re: Firearms granularity

 

There was this game called

 

I see Hero that way a bit: yes you can buy a 20 BODY, but why? No realistic character has a 20 Body, hell no realistic character buys their Body up at all. If you want to be tough against killing attacks, buy armour.

 

 

One thing I've always found funny in reading Hero write ups is that in Supers campaigns, everyone goes with exactly that approach: High defenses, almost no wasted points in BODY, while in lower level games like Fantasy or modern/pulp, everyone has a bit of extra BODY.

[archermoo]

Re: Firearms granularity

 

There was this game called Torg where the designers had little side bars and stuff where they discussed the rules and why they were like that. IIRC Torg uses a damage system that compares a damage value to a body value after it has been modified by a toughness value. Something like that. Anyway, they had originally wanted to make the body value a set number because tougher characters were already taking less damage and it seemed like double dipping. They were persuaded to do otherwise but clearly regretted it.

 

I see Hero that way a bit: yes you can buy a 20 BODY, but why? No realistic character has a 20 Body, hell no realistic character buys their Body up at all. If you want to be tough against killing attacks, buy armour.

 

One of the most apparently realistic combat systems I've seen for firearms is in a game called Millenniums' End, but even then it is mainly a shot in the dark (ba-doom chssss*). You'll never get it 'right'. What you need is a rule set customisable enough to give you the game-feel YOU want. Hero is pretty good for that. Not perfect, but pretty good.

 

 

 

*two drums and a cymbal falling off a cliff

 

Hero isn't just a realistic game. So even if I were to agree that a "realistic character" shouldn't buy their BODY stat up (which I don't), there are other types of characters out there, so not allowing BODY to be changed would be a uneeded limitation to the game.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Firearms granularity

 

Hero isn't just a realistic game. So even if I were to agree that a "realistic character" shouldn't buy their BODY stat up (which I don't)' date=' there are other types of characters out there, so not allowing BODY to be changed would be a uneeded limitation to the game.[/quote']

 

I'm not worried about unrealistic game characters having 20, or 50 Body, but realistic ones really shouldn't be able to take a perfect shot to the temple and live to tell.

 

I don't know what Body is supposed to be but 'will to live' is not a realistic justification, not against firearms, and whilst I can see there being some possible variation between a 7 stone and an 18 stone human in terms of damage takeable, again I'd put that mainly down to defences, with only minor Body variation. You may disagree; please do

 

The point of the Torg story was that making lots of things random, or variable, is not necessarily the best way to wind up with a clean and straightforward system; it is simply unnecessary.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Firearms granularity

 

That's not because a large damage spread or a mechanic to double damage is a good idea, it is because the whole premise is flawed: we shouldn't have humans with such a high BODY score they can't be killed with a 2d6 killing attack. You might like to try this at home, but I'd suggest we keep it in the realms of 'thought experiment':

 

Line up 36 people of various sizes, either gender, race, age, whatever, and get a gun that would do 1d6 killing (say a S&W Model 10*) then shoot them in the head at point blank range, one after the other.

 

That seems not quite "actual combat conditions" to me, somehow.

 

The other issue, as someone notes below, is that guns which kill as quickly and reliably as would be realistic do not make for great cinematic gaming. We could get greater realism by increasing gun damage, or by reducing BOD scores, but neither would be cinematic.

[Pattern Ghost]

Re: Firearms granularity

 

I thought the history of this thread was pretty much discussing ways to take out the cinematic aspects.

[archermoo]

Re: Firearms granularity

 

I'm not worried about unrealistic game characters having 20, or 50 Body, but realistic ones really shouldn't be able to take a perfect shot to the temple and live to tell.

 

I don't know what Body is supposed to be but 'will to live' is not a realistic justification, not against firearms, and whilst I can see there being some possible variation between a 7 stone and an 18 stone human in terms of damage takeable, again I'd put that mainly down to defences, with only minor Body variation. You may disagree; please do

 

The point of the Torg story was that making lots of things random, or variable, is not necessarily the best way to wind up with a clean and straightforward system; it is simply unnecessary.

 

I do indeed disagree. I've seen people with very similar wounds have very different outcomes enough times to discount 'will to live' as being important to how much wounding a person can take.