/tg/ - Traditional Games

>>415562

>full power not always the answer

Either areas where you need to conceal your weapons, limiting you to pistol caliber, or operating in civilian-packed areas where your .308 goes clean through the wall and kills random people on the other side.

The way I see it, the big problem with high-lethality weapons as a core of the game is the importance of RNG in tabletop systems. Most games allow characters to take lots of hits so they can shape their strategy around that, but with realistic gun combat it kills the immersion to say "you got shot, you can get shot 5 more times".

Finding more solutions to RNG (be it by eliminating it or repurposing it) has been a major focus of mine as a designer, but I'm not interested in giving out all of my ideas on that right now. I am, however, very interested in helping explore that for the sake of other designers.

>>415562

I have a lot of advice that can apply to the topic at-hand, but I think it'd be best to know first whether you want to focus the mechanics on direct realism or realistic narrative?

>>415568

>Give full power rifles a hit penalty? I think this would usually come down to each individual weapon stats.

Then you have a sniper rifle or DMR with a to hit penalty, which is retarded.

>In general, your suggestions seem cool, though a manually operated firearm would almost never come even close to a semi-automatic's fire rat

True, but there'd also be special abilities that increase fire rate to more than once per action only semis could get.

>>415580

Just "realistic" enough. Any simulation is best left to computers.

>>415570

That, or apply a retardedly high penalty to hip firing, then make a minimum range for easily aiming weapons depending on their length and sight. That means you wouldn't use an AR at CQC range because you wouldn't be able to aim it properly, and because chances are your enemy is more than capable of pushing the tip away via some martial arts disable move; if you are close enough, you would either use a melee weapon, or a more flexible handgun.

Also, remember to reduce mobility when characters have their heavy weapons drawn out. It is really hard to maintain your balance as usual when your gravity center has been displaced. Something that isn't going to happen with smaller, lighter weapons.

>>415580

Realistic weapons can hardly be fun, unless you design your game around high lethality (that is, give your game an easy chargen), or give your characters superhuman reflexes to dodge bullets, or insane armor/muscle to help them soak up damage.

Cyberpunk 2020 goes the armor way, and it is retarded. Any single weapon could practically kill an unarmored character, no matter their BODY (which is the equivalent of CON), but regardless of how buff your character is, you can put a Metal Gear on yourself, with 25 stopping power, and ricochet an entire 30-bullets cal 5.56 (5d6 damage) magazine like it's nothing. This leads to all PC wearing Metal Gears at all times "but muh social", even though in Night City everybody knows life is dangerous as shit, and being armored is just the smart thing to do, and all enemies wearing AP bullets even if it doesn't make any sense. Did I mention you can layer armor, with silly penalties and diminishing results that do not disuade any PC due to how nice armor is?

Anyway, OP, if you want a "realistic" guns system with high lethality, look up Cyberpunk 2020, then reduce most armor dramatically with the next rules:

>AP is now a flat value. Generally speaking, you want to have +4 or +8 AP for most average AP weapons and rounds, +15 for sniper rifles, and +20 to +25 to monoblades, monofilaments and vibroblades.

>Stopping Power for body armor is "capped" at +20. You can go slightly above for ACPA and other exotic armors, but really, something above that value has to be REALLY exceptional.

>Maximum values for the armor of each bodypart are: +20 to torso, +18 to head but usually only for PC (this is to stop random headshot deaths), and +12 for limbs. Average values for NPC should be +12 for torso, +8 for head and +6 for limbs.

>Skinweave only provides +6 to SP. Advanced skinweave (-1 ATTR) only provides +8 SP. Period.

>Custom armored clothing rules get their SP halved. You either gear for combat, or go incognito with backup plans, not both.

Now, the game is not exactly balanced this way. You will notice all fights still end within the turn they start, simply because the game is that fucking lethal. Apply the following rules if you want to be slightly less lethal.

>Notice how your char's health is represented by 10 groups of 4 tick boxes, distributed in two rows, in your char sheet? Scrap that shit. The amount of checkboxes each group has is now equal to your BODY. That is, if you have a BODY of 7, you have a total of 70 theoretical maximum health points, or 10 groups of 7 check boxes each. This means someone with BODY 10 theoretically has 100 HP. If you think that's a lot, we once rolled 76d6 to kill an NPC with a mounted turret. Points above 10 have diminishing returns, and only add one checkbox for each 2 points of BODY above 10.

>Rounds are now 1 second long. This means you have to divide all weapons' ROF by 3, except handguns which are already nerfed as they are.

>Specific bodypart aiming penalties are different now: aiming to a large bodypart (think torso, any part of the legs) is +2 to difficulty, aiming to a medium bodypart (think any part of the arms, any half of the leg) is +3, and small bodyparts (head, hands, feet, etc) is a +5.

>Successive action penalties during your turn get a +10 difficulty penalty, rather than the usual +3. Running as a last action is exempt of this, but running then shooting will give you that +10 to difficulty. Failing a consecutive roll ends your turn immediately, and kind of counts like a critfail. The GM chooses how to punish you; I recommend accidentally staying out of cover for too long, if they were trying to shoot from behind cover.

If you want to make stats that are not REF anything other than a dump stat:

>Semi-auto ROF for "uncapped" weapons (think fast-as-you-can-pull-the-trigger revolvers, and similar weapons with simple mechanisms) is equal to your TECH / 3, with a minimum of 1. This makes handguns slightly less underpowered.

>Long range targets can be shoot at by rolling with INT, at the player's choice. Ultra long range targets have to be rolled with INT, or TECH if we are talking about some weapon with an adjustable aiming mount, and you can add your Physics score to your weapons skill, alongside your INT or TECH and weapon skills. GMs, feel free to go way above 30 target difficulty for these shots, specially if they are not shooting a sniper rifle.

>Death and shock saves are now rolled via COOL for maximum anime feeling.

Armchair /k/ommando coming through with some hot, unsubstantiated opinions. God only knows how you'd translate these to game mechanics, though.

>makes manual operated firearms differ from semi-auto

Here's the fundamental difference. With a repeater (e.g., a bolt action) every shot is your first shot. You squeese the trigger, the gun goes bang. In order to get off your next shot, you have to cycle the action, find your front sight, align your rear ight, cover the target, squeese the trigger.

With a self loading firearm (i.e. a semi-auto) or automatic (i.e. full auto) the primary utility is the ability to make quick follow up shots, in part because you don't have to break and re-acquire your sight picture to cycle the action. Depending on the gun and the application, you're not even looking down the sights so much as through them, watching where the rounds hit and "walking" your fire onto the target.

Of course once you throw parallax-correcting optics (e.g. a red dot) into the mix, all that goes out the window.

>makes full power cartridge not the always answer

You always want to use the biggest gun you can bring to bear. "Bring to bear" can mean a number of different things. The most obvious is how quick you can physically swing the thing around to point it in the general direction of the target; imagine playing a FPS with the mouse sensitivity turned all the way down. It could mean the ability to maneuver in tight spaces; bigger guns are more unwieldy.

<But Strelok, then why don't you just chop it down into an SBR?

Because your full size rifle cartridge is optimized for a full size rifle barrel, such that the powder has completely combusted by the time the bullet leaves the muzzle. When you reduce the barrel length, not only are you reducing the velocity and energy of your projectile, you're turning all that unburned powder into light, noise, and recoil in the form of muzzle flash, which makes the gun that much more unpleasant to shoot. It's even worse for small-bore-high-velocity cartridges like 5.56x45 or 5.45x39, because they really need that extra velocity to be effective. Conversely, pistol cartridges are optimized for short barrel lengths, and that's why SMGs still exist.

<But then why not just issue pistols for CQB breech-and-clear tacticool operations?

Because a pistol requires more skill to use effectively. Having a stock makes it easier to aim the thing and lets the recoil go into your shoulder instead of throwing the gun around.

Also consider the fact that the larger the cartridge, the greater the weight and more importantly bulk of the ammunition. Look at a B.A.R. mag holding twenty rounds of 30-06, versus an AR-15 mag holding thirty rounds of 5.56x45, versus a SMG mag holding 30+ rounds of 9x19. Of course, that gets into inventory management autism that you probably don't want to deal with, so here's how I suggest you abstract it.

In a combat encounter, the first reload is free. For each subsequent reload, perform a die check, adding a cumulative penalty each time. Add a base penalty for the type of ammunition and feeding system; larger cartridges are bad, bulky feeding systems are bad. Add further bonuses for equipment (chest rig, cartridge belt, bandaliers, et al). When you fail a check, that's your last reload until the encounter ends or you resupply.

There's always Ops & Tactics.

>>415562

>>415610

>makes full power cartridge not always the answer

One of my favourite rules from GURPS High-Tech is an optional rule that limits damage to the torso from piercing attacks, like bullets, to 2xHP if you don't use bleeding rolls, or 1xHP if you do - but the full damage roll is used for determining the bleeding penalty. You need to send them below -1×HP for an instant kill, so when the average enemy will have 10HP, you're better off hitting with more rounds doing 5d6 (intermediate cartridges) than only getting one with a 7 or 8d6. Stack that up against the various penalties of having high-powered rounds (weight of rifle and ammo, generally smaller magazines, high recoil, hard to suppress) and battle rifles become a much more niche category in games where body armour is rare. They're still more lethal, but usually on a timescale the players aren't as concerned with, and their higher Acc/Range means that they're still better as designated marksman rifles.

Meant to post this yesterday, but had to leave abruptly and was busy until much too late.

>>415588

In that case, I've a few ideas.

Looking at the original post, the 3-actions thing might work, though I'd consider instead looking at it as a modular three-part-action. Might help make the per-turn thing less arbitrary, since right now there's a question of "why does the first shot in a turn affect the third more than the third effects the first of the next turn". If properly streamlined, you may even be able to make it a five-part action without losing the fast pacing.

I like the interaction between strength and recoil, definitely keep that. I'd be interested in seeing the mathematics, if you have those worked out.

As for lethality... HP is archaic. It doesn't fit with realistic gunplay, but it serves a mechanical purpose in tabletop: to allow players to build dynamic strategy around the results of RNG. Having a low damage thresshold doesn't solve this issue, it merely reduces how well it does its' job. So what you'd want is to find a way that players could dynamically shape strategy without using their current physical health as the driving force.

Obviously, you need some way to make sure that numbers aren't too consistent, otherwise players can just rely on perfect builds and know what will always work in each situation. Personally, I'm a huge advocate for replacing randomizers in the core mechanic with something more player-driven, like mutual hidden information. One nice thing about that is it makes the game also great for PvP. Randomizers still have their purpose, and I think damage outcome and things like range penalties are a good place for that, especially if the players can use actions to take control of that randomness. But if you can make the core of each action use decisions rather than luck, then that becomes more involved in the strategy, leaving you free to not rely on out-of-place mechanics like hit-points to give the players a say in their fate.

That said, I like that you're taking a location-based approach to bullet damage. However, rather than numerical hit-point damage, I'd suggest considering this idea: what doesn't kill you makes you easier to kill (usually through debuffs or a margin of time in which medical attention is still possible). Maybe the likelihood and possibilities of these outcomes may be influenced by factors like timing your shot, body armor vs. the power of the shot, etc... Regardless, I strongly suggest getting rid of "you take this much damage, you can take this much more", even with a low threshold.

Obviously, these are just my opinions on the idea. Originally I was going to give more concrete examples, but then I thought "I probably shouldn't do their work for them", and my own greed may have played a part in that as well... But if this thread stays alive, I'll gladly stick around and keep giving feedback.

>>415562

What kind of system are you aiming for, exactly? Is it supposed to be a tactical competitive wargame or a roleplaying game?

Either way, the problem you'll run into is that if you have this many rules, everyone needs to know them - or outsource the calculations to the GM, but that's hard on him. GURPS covers everything you've asked for, and other suggestions in the thread, but it's nigh-unplayable unless everyone at the table knows how it works, what their character is capable of and how to translate it into the game rules. For example, the kind of skill levels enemies should have. Naively giving them 12 or 13 (to roll under on 3d6) sounds reasonable, but aiming and rapid fire give so many bonuses that you quickly end up with dead PCs. The average street thug or terrorist militiaman is likely to have a Guns skill in the 5 to 7 range, with any number of situational bonuses or penalties modifying that.

The system you're talking about would be pretty much entirely aimed at the Venn diagram overlap between /k/ and the more rules-heavy half of /tg/, and those are both high bars to clear.

>>415562

lmao just reskin a crossbow

Simple answer?

YOU CAN'T

A game comprised of realistic firearms isn't going to be entertaining at all. You're going to die - hard, fast and often. If you are wounded, you're likely to suffer life-altering consequences - I'm talking things like loss of limbs, shitting into a bag via a hole in your abdomen, or various degrees of neurological damage up to and including paralysis - that cannot be healed, unless magic is in the game... and then 'realistic' firearms are moot, because you'll be enchanting them before quick can get ready.

A simple solution is to say that approximately 15% or 20% of shots hit (in 2005 NYPD averaged 17.5%), and then scale damage from your decided low mark (a .22 Long Rifle is the best round to place here) to your decided high mark (whatever you decide) and then allocate various increases in damage along the way... keeping in mind that you're going to have to do some major research as to joules of energy at any given range.

Remember three important factors:

1.) larger diameter bullets are not always more powerful, sometimes smaller and faster is actually more dangerous than big and slow.

2.) action types have negligible impact on energy - and that a 'sniper rifle' isn't automatically more deadly, a fallacy that most games perpetuate... in fact, most 'sniper rifles' have a civilian counterpart that is just as powerful.

3.) barrel length can effect accuracy and energy -longer is generally more accurate but unless you are playing in blackpowder eras, longer barrels actually slow muzzle velocity and thus rob energy after a certain point (that varies from caliber to caliber)

>>415688

You can have a fun game with realistic firearms, the players just need to be allowed to stack the deck in their favour. Body armour, attacks from surprise, flashbangs, ambushes, enemies that react realistically to being shot at (And are appropriately bad shots, see: http://archive.is/t1vXA), appropriately sized combat areas, and probably some kind of probability mechanic like limited rerolls or fate points for when Murphy's Law means that all of the above inevitably fail.

"You enter the room and see six orcs, roll for initiative" doesn't work when the orcs have AK-47s.

>>415562

>>lethal

Characters have four states. Untouched, injured, severely injured, and corpse. Each attack has a damage rating from 1-5, which indicates the number of states it moves the characters health by, and there are traits/features/conditions that grant some level of resistance, but a wounding attack will always inflict at least one level of damage.

>>fast shooting

Make it optimal (larger bonuses) to fire as many shots as possible rather than take your time and aim.

>>makes manual operated firearms differ from semi-auto

See above, bolt/level action weapons are going to be at a severe disadvantage to full auto spray fire.

>>makes full power cartridge not the always answer

Larger rounds apply an increasing negative to automatic fire, larger penalties for larger rounds and longer bursts

>>handles location damage

If your PCs and NPCs are running around, cartwheeling, and magdumping at each other then aiming is out of the question, draw a crude body, divide it up into chunks, apply a percentage chance for each chunk weighted towards the torso and against the head. Have different effects (+/- wound level, various penalties, instant death) for each area. Each area should have at least one 'instant death no matter how healthy you were' result on its effect list.

>>handles suppressive fire

Number of bullets fired at you in a turn applies a growing penalty to accuracy. Don't have rules that expressly introduce a 'suppressed'state, that gets boring and takes agency away from your players. If they decide to get up and do their John Woo acrobatics routine in a clear area that has 20 guys firing miniguns at it then let them have their fun.

>>fast and fun

Keep it simple and give bonuses for good RPing, descriptions, and entertaining actions.

>>415696

Ultimately there must be some layer of abstraction to make the game work - there has to be some kind of sequence to follow, otherwise it's just a clusterfuck.

I suppose you could treat "Initative" as a bit more of a "fluid" thing - instead of having initative scores for the duration of a combat, have it re-rolled at the end of every turn, etc.

>>415562

>>each firearm has a "recoil" value that is added as an attack penalty for future attacks this turn

good idea

>>415703

I was more illustrating what I was saying about giving the players a chance to make the fight unfair - if it comes down to a stand-up fight, the player characters can't be expected to win. The initiative wasn't the problem I was referring to, although you raise a good point about it having much higher consequences. Flubbing your initiative roll is bad enough when people can take a few knocks, and in a system with highly lethal firearms getting a bad roll might mean being the only visible target out of cover and getting plugged before you get a chance to react. Realistic, maybe, but not fun.

You could get rid of the roll entirely and decide turn order beforehand. Characters that are slow to react would be at a disadvantage but at least it's a known disadvantage that they can react to by taking less risks, moving under cover, or being in a party with people that are faster on the draw. It also gives people a good reason to use suppressive fire. If you're the first in play, giving your team a chance to get to cover (or advance) by putting some rounds downrange is pretty usual for units that can't rely on artillery support.

Wild speculation - maybe make the turn order partly dependent on the gun you're using. That makes a niche for, say, support gunners or snipers - they're slow to start firing but jump up the turn order when they're set up on a bipod facing the combat area.

>>415562

In 2e adnd we follow repeating damage for my campaign.

Simply put, a gun deals 1d6 damage or something of the like.

However, its damage can repeat.

How?

After you hit and deal damage you roll 1d10, if the result is 7 or higher you roll damage again, then roll another 1d10, this continues until you roll 6 or lower.

IC this works well, making guns much more dangerous yet not completely lethal, sometimes you roll 1d6 five times in a row, sometimes it's just once, simulating how guns can hit an important part of your body or not.

>>415696

>"You enter the room and see six orcs, roll for initiative" doesn't work when the orcs have AK-47s.

Thank you, kind sir. You win my internet for the week.

>>415580

That's only if you use binary attack rolls, HP as meat points, and no injury penalties.

You could have a system where different thresholds of success count as:

Miss: no effect.

Near miss: Stress damage.

Weak hit: Stress and Life damage.

Direct hit: Stress and Life damage, roll on injury table.

Critical hit: Double Stress and Life damage, roll on injury table and take +1 injury penalty.

Mortal hit: Triple Stress and Life damage, roll on injury table and completely disable the rolled body part.

>>415562

I have about a 15 page write up for something like this missing the following:

>good suppressive fire rules

>makes full power cartridge not the always answer

>>415696

No.415688 poster here...

The odds are already 'heavily stacked in the PC's favor' when you have a realistic system - only about 17% of shots from trained professionals hit when in POLICE situations - those where the Police generally have benefit of training and equipment like what you mention, while OPFOR only has surprise and insanity working for them.

In COMBAT, the odds are so far in your favor - in simple 'gunfight' terms - that it isn't even funny... about 200,000:1 chance of getting hit! As a former M249 gunner, there's a reason you carry so much ammo.

"You enter the room and see six orcs, roll for initiative" doesn't work when the orcs have AK-47s.

Actually, that's an ASTOUNDINGLY accurate summation of MOUT combat.

>>415793

What is MOUT combat, exactly?

>>415794

Military

Operations on

Urban

Terrain

>>415795

I'm not gonna lie, I said that expecting you made a typo. Guess I'm the asshole.

>>415796

Meh... no bigs.

Too many acronyms in this line of work... typos are all too common, even when people might know what they are talking about. ;-)

>>415562

>lethal

Balance guns and health so that your average unprotected mook will, on average, go down from somewhere between one and four torso hits depending on the gun. Higher-level tank/boss builds might have several times as much health. Armor/cover has a chance to negate any hits below its damage threshold (turning it into a small amount of blunt damage), provided the armor covers that body part. Hits usually cause bleeding, which deals damage every turn until treated. Losing half your health will put you in the "downed" state (limited to crawling, attempting to self-treat or other simple actions), 3/4 will put you in the "incapacitated" state (can't do anything).

>fast shooting

1d100 to-hit roll, 2d10 location/damage roll.

>makes manual operated firearms differ from semi-auto

Characters can choose between aimed shots, which take a full turn but have no accuracy modifiers, or quick shots, which normally take half of a turn (leaving the other half of your turn to do any quick action like moving a short distance, reloading or possibly shooting again) but come at an accuracy penalty. Some circumstances can force a quick shot. Full-auto fire is a quick action.

Semi-auto can use both actions to attack, manual can only use one (but can still use their other action to move, start reloading etc).

>makes full power cartridge not the always answer

Each gun has a recoil stat, which is based mainly on ammo type. Recoil decays proportional to the character's strength with every quick action. For very small rounds this is enough to allow repeated quick shots at no penalty, but for large rifles it might take a full turn or more for the recoil to decay. Full-auto fire has reduced recoil per shot.

>handles location damage

1d10 location roll during attacks. 1-5 is a torso shot, 6-9 are limb shots, 10 is a critical hit (roll again on a different table, 50% chance of a headshot, higher numbers cause other interesting effects).

Limb hits split the damage between the character's main health pool and their own, much smaller pool. When the limb takes enough damage it becomes injured, which for legs reduces your movement speed and for arms prevents you from shooting with that arm (manual guns normally require two hands, semi-auto long arms can shoot one-handed at a penalty with sufficient strength). You might also fall or drop your weapon when injured. Large amounts of damage can sever a limb, which instantly downs you and causes massive bleed. Headshots deal massive damage, and can cause all kinds of fun effects if you aren't killed outright.

Targeted attacks are also possible, at a large to-hit penalty.

>handles suppressive fire

Near-misses give the target a suppression penalty, which works similar to recoil but is based on some other stat. High enough suppression can pin you, preventing you from making any actions that involve breaking cover without a save. Characters can deliberately suppress a pinned opponent, which inflicts as much suppression (and uses a much ammo) as repeated quick/auto shots but gives them a free attack if the target breaks cover (unless the enemy relocated, in which case they might get a free shot).

>fast and fun

Unless the players keep spamming full-auto or getting pinned, it shouldn't be any slower than d20. Early-game PC survivability might be a problem, but that's easily solved by just adjusting the starting conditions to give them better initial stats and access to good armor.

>>415822

Yet amazingly, they qualify as trained professionals and tend to end up with better patterns than random hoodlums with Hi-Points.

They pale in comparison to a seasoned hunter with a long arm or someone who actually routinely trains with their equipment - generally considered an active militiaman by (admittedly now old, pre-9/11) military standards; but that just stacks the deck even farther in the favor of the PCs - who we assume would in general have at least that level of training - which just reinforces 415793's point.

>>415822

415793 here...

Know many police officers personally, do ya?

I mean, like... drink with them, let your kids play together, go to the range with them, serve in Reserve units with them?

A large portion of police officers in the US have personal firearms that the shoot on a regular basis; this is on their own nickle, not the department's dime. That's the thing about Americans... there's literally as many KNOWN firearms in this country as there are people. Most people who own firearms have at least one that was inherited from before the government kept that close of a track. Then there are the ones that came in as 'war trophies' that the government never knew about in the first place. All in all, there's probably at least 10% more weapons in the US than there are people - and the ones that own one generally own several. Police officers are almost universally - outside of the Left Coast and crazy places like NYC or Chicago - multiple gun owners just because of the nature of their job; a department pays for your duty sidearm, but not an off-duty carry or on-duty backup. They shoot those weapons to maintain proficiency, and they do it on their own hook. Many if not most hunt, or sport shoot, or competitive shoot. Quite a few are military vets or active reservists even while police.

So, frankly, you're a bit off in your assessment of their skill. Frankly, most beat cops in the US are at least as skilled with a weapon as the average US soldier.

>>415840

Notice I said

>most

>most beat cops in the US are at least as skilled with a weapon as the average US soldier.

Only if you have Navy and Air Force bringing down the average AND are saying current marksmanship training is shit (which it is)

>>415822

Yes, you said 'most.'

That is wrong.

MOST practice with personal firearms FAR more than they even do with their service pieces... which is a pretty good bit actually.

And no, I said SOLDIERS.

You really don't know what you are talking about if you think that group includes sailors and airmen.

>>419027

Doctors only defend their dissertation once, and are considered experts...

there is a reason for this.

Being able to meet a demanding level of training requires constant personal effort 'off the books' in order to attain and preserve that degree of ability/knowledge.

In simpler language: no matter how many times the officer qualifies a year, he is ALWAYS practicing more often than that to maintain his skill.

>>415703

Or (gasp!) get rid of turn-by-turn at all. Look at the new Alternity for how to make this simple.

Consider: recovery time after an attack suddenly matters a lot, because it restricts practical rate of fire.

So if firing .50 AE means the next shot can be fired either in that general direction or when guys who don't overcompensate start reloading, this looks like another good reason to use modest calibers.

>>415752

If it's retarded, but Gygax did it... it's still retarded.

>>415793

Funnily enough, the police train with their guns far less than your average gun collector.

Turns out most police are just flat out useless.

>>419487

Oh, and I had a gun list for Vietnam era stuff too. If the rules are useful I can dig it out.

>>419573

First image is a full rifle, with a wall being used to properly brace the thing.

If you've ever shot from a bench or similar, it's pretty damn easy. Not to say it doesn't take any skill, but, compared to pistols, it's not near as close.

Rifles will always be at least twice as accurate as pistols. Just a fact of the platform.

>>419451

Ther's nothing stopping them...

except for mobility, you know.

Even modern ceramic plates for front/back plus plate carrier is gonna start around 30 pounds for 7.62 NATO, and they are only reliable for one or two shots (if they don't hit the same spot). That's just for minimum torso vitals coverage. Add in helmet, gauntlets and greaves etc and you start looking at 25% - 33% of a person's body weight just in gear. That's with modern light-weight ceramics and kevlar like what was issued in Iraq/Afghanistan.

Do it in steel and wool, you're looking at a lot more weight for full-body protection.

So, no, while you can achieve some reasonable protection against midling caliber handguns (like the guys that robbed the bank in LA back when I was young), you're not gonna be able to take on a rifle-armed opponent without reaching some prohibitive weight requirements.

One of the most popular deer rifles in the USA - the old .30-06 loaded with M2 (or similar) rounds can destroy a LVL IV plate (they may not penetrate it, but it won't stop more than one round; and the guy wearing it will ask about Plan B rather quickly after finding out that was Plan A)... and that's something that pretty much anyone has access to.

Hell, even some handguns can really do a number on you with decent body armor. 9x19mm THV rounds can go through LVL III and IV soft armor like they aren't really even there. A .357 Magnum might not penetrate a LVL IV but it will make the wearer question some life choices and possibly the status of a few of their ribs.

Body armor isn't a solution to firearms... it's a stopgap, and one that only protects you from one or two very small mistakes AT MOST.

>>419598

>except for mobility, you know.

No. Plate armour has never substantially hampered mobility. Please stop talking out of your arse.

>>419630

>>419634

>youtube

>retarded vid of frenchies playing slap and tickle in slow mo

At least post a video that properly speaks to the point I made. Notice how none of these runners got faster after donning all their equipment. In a firefight, you ability to quickly get to cover matters quite a bit. If you're out in the open in plate, expect to be shot multiple times.

Oh, looks like ye olden armours don't do all that much to stop modern artillery. There was a badass aussie who had a pretty awesome set of armor for his cop killings, but that dude was going against fairly light loads, and wearing a repurposed plow if memory serves. When you don that much steel, you're not gonna escape. Those are just racking up your kill count scenarios.

>>419640

The misconception about plate is that it makes you physically slower like video game magic, and from the looks of that video the guy wearing the plate is either a faggot or the gambeson is what is restricting his movements.

>>419691

>The misconception about plate is that it makes you physically slower like video game magic

It makes sense as a balance decision in some games, but the idea that professional soldiers were retarded enough to immobilise themselves before going into battle is surprisingly hard to shift for a lot of people.

>>419701

>realismfags complain that you can akshully get olimpic times running with armour

>conveniently forget it depends on your strenght (if your legs have barely more strenght than necessary to lift the rest of your own body, you will run like a dazed duck on a heavy armor), and that no matter what, your acceleration, which is what matters during combat, will always be lower, and that the amount of momentum your body has will make turning and acrobatics more difficult

>"just like, make them do Endurance checks/heat stroke saves from time to time to balance, man"

And that's why my system has non-lethal Fatigue damage, and armor acts like a slow acting poison each turn that gets added to the base Fatigue values. Weapon weight also has an effect if you attack that turn.

>>419704

Have you ever worn plate armor before? It's not some tin can death trap that suddenly makes you slow as molasses. I could've sat around all day in it, the only part I wouldn't keep on is the full helmet and gauntlets.

>>419707

>get on my level scrub

>doesn't make you slow

>I could've sat around all day in it

>I could've sat around all day

I don't think you're proving your point one bit. I've worn and ran a mile in 50lbs of chainmail and will say you're retarded if you think knights weren't riding horses for most of their travel due to the obvious fact they wouldn't get from point a to b wearing that much gear. Heat stroke is certainly a thing in any area that gets warmer than 23 degrees, and all that padding ups your insulation value.

>>419701

You realize that heavy armor was only worn in battles where there was no room to run around and use footwork, right? You had to limit your mobility to work in formations and because numbers were high enough on the other side that you couldn't flank mid-formation. In the case of two sides clashing into one another, heavy armor is the best solution if you can equip your soldiers with it. Otherwise, spears and phalanxes were the solution.

>that video

Now show me the video of the knight running away from a mob of peasants armed with pitchforks in real time, not some retarded slow mo scene. Preferably using invidious; you analytics rewarding, basement monkey.

You're also all forgetting how little your defending plate mail has to do with the topic of running around in bullet proof steel, which is gonna weigh substantially more than any of your historical evidence would suggest. Also, you're being shot at with fully automatic weapons. I'm also enjoying how the vid here >>419640 was a kickstarter video paid by gaylords who're trying to win an internet argument about how mobile plate mail is. I've never heard someone claim you can't do jumping jacks in plate. Everyone argues that you're slower in all respects while wearing it, which you certainly are.

>>419707

No, Junior...

I've worn modern-ish US Army LVLIII kevlar vests with two plates rated for .7.62 NATO rounds and associated knee/elbow/head protection - while carrying an M249 and 800 rounds of spare ammo. That in 30C+ degree temps, so I can attest that 419725 is fucking correct about heat stroke. I've had multiple.

Heavy shit WILL SLOW YOU DOWN.

Heavy shit WILL SLOW YOUR REACTION TIME.

Plate armor to stop slashing weapons does NOT have to be supremely thick - it merely has to keep that weapon from cutting you. That's why blunt weapons (like warhammers, maces and flails) retained usefulness in medieval armies... they could apply sufficient force in a single area to deform the armor and damage the squishy stuff inside. Arrows also retained utility by developing finer points to focus force of impact to a smaller surface area in order to deform and penetrate (THV ammunition today uses similar principles); this was countered by shaping the armor pieces to let the arrows deflect. Ditto for flanged maces and such - large impact, small surface area.

Ned Kelly's "armor" was cast iron plows IIRC. Those could handle the extremely soft cast lead bullets of his day - they WOUND NOT handle modern jacketed steel core ammo. Cast iron is brittle AF and you'd overstress the material at point of impact and it would break - depending on caliber, it might take a couple of shots, but it wouldn't last long for anything over 7.62x51mm NATO.

And while it was just for fun, I have donned tosei-gusoku at an exhibit (it was 'authentic' but not 'period') and can say it would be tiring to wear it in battle for DAMN sure.

>>419640

>firefighter has the heaviest load increase

>he still comes out first by 12 seconds of all things

>"full equipment" actually means full equipment, and he can start saving people as soon as he gets there

>both the firefighter and the soldier have backpacks, which are a pain in the ass to have while running since they disbalance your gravity centre

>soldier could have loaded a handgun for a minimum weight increase and start shooting as soon as he got there

>knight can just punch the enemy to death because he is wearing no weapons, not even a shield like they should

That does a pretty shit job at making heavy armour look good. I guess it at least it doesn't look bad.

>>419725

>heavy armor is the best solution if you can equip your soldiers with it.

Equipment generally wasn't standardized but "heavy armor" in the case of knights was just the full body covering of plate, chainmail, then light armor underneath everyone else wore a mix of that and they'd try and cover as much of themselves with at least chainmail or plate if possible. The two things everyone forgets is that knights aren't the only guys wearing plate and chainmail and medicine was a huge factor. People keep bringing up blunt concussive force but that's not what medicine back then had a hard time dealing with. You got a cut it's pretty much luck that you wouldn't die from it later due to infection and pretty much nobody back then could help you if you were crippled from it or it reached your internal organs.

Then you have people who argue armor slowing you down by a second or two so it is correct, but everyone else is not thinking in terms of seconds or even consider that to really matter when determining an armor's properties.

>>419640

>Knight 34 yrs

>Soldier 24 yrs

>Fireman 23 yrs

One of these things is not like the others, one of these things doesn't belong.

And he still came second.

>>419748

Heavy armor will slow down your acceleration quite a bit. That's probably what those "two seconds" come from. Given you aren't gonna run 500 metres flat in heavy armor during combat, I am inclined to say that, statistically, heavy armor would slow you down quite a bit. You will be running up and down, left and right, probably never being able to reach peak speed. Acceleration is also the most tiresome part of running, so we can safely say a knight running around in heavy armour will tire himself way before the rogue does.

But we are probably talking about fantasy/sci-fi games, where a 1.80 metres guy can probably win against a 3.20 metres ogre who weights ten times more than him, so, while statistically relevant to keep things balanced (glass cannon versus indestructible peashooter tank) and further flavourise every class, chances are they should still be able to do way more than your average human could do with a heavy armour. The moral of the story is: rogues are rogues and knights are knights, and they should have different playstyles.

>>419750

>rogues

Not to be pedantic but did you see the way that guy was running here before donning the armor? >>419640 It wasn't the plate that was making him run like C3PO it was the light armor underneath, a rogue wouldn't be much better off then a knight in the mobility department.

>>419753

Let's get real, leather "armor" and other "light armors" are useless bullshit without something to cover them. Stabbing movements are pretty easy to pull off (despite most games having swords deal only Slashing damage), and soft armor is useless against stabs. I would have rogues running around in regular clothing and call it a day.

>>419754

Are you serious? We're talking about a class that doesn't specialize in using bows during an era where everyone had at least some sort of sword, axe, or other pointy bits with longer reach then him. Pretty much all of them can go for his hands then once he drops the knife he's as good as dead.

>>419755

A leather armour won't stop an axe. Fuck, leather armour is only effective against a little bit of slashing damage, and then you may also have a case that it should have an effect on blunt damage, but no way it is going to stop an arrow nor a spear. Dagger-wielding rogues are kinda stupid from a realism perspective (you will hardly ever find a small enough arena in which a dagger has a compactness advantage). They are good for stealthy assassinations, but they will never be able to win in a 1 vs 1 duel where the other party is aware of them. But they are a staple of RPG and they are cool to look at, so if it were up to me, I would give them some massive bonus to dodging, so going full frontal against the enemy would be more of a high risk high reward or even a last resort thing. That means knights would consistently soak damage, while an unstealthed rogue would have to rely on dodging not to get on single digit HP values from any attack.

>>419756

>A leather armour won't stop an axe.

Well I was thinking gambesons, padded jacks, stuff like that with some metal plates inside. Not just leave him with nothing.

>>419757

Gambesons are just really thick clothing. I would suspect they protect even less than leather armour (that is, worn without anything else). You may have a case for lamellar with chainmail, but then, you still have chainmail, which is terrible for mobility. Metal plates or scales would definitely help with survival (anything metal is pretty much a full counter against slashing damage), but they should be paired with a gambeson in order to provide good protection. Thing is, plate armor is pretty much objectively superior to any other armor options, unless we start talking about fantasy materials (fantasy kevlar would be fun as shit to wear), since other options often weight as much without being tight-fitted, and they don't offer nearly as much protection.

tl;dr rogues should either wear fantasy light armor to allow for full mobility, or go naked.

>>419758

> I would suspect they protect even less than leather armour (that is, worn without anything else).

The light armor people talk about in the medeival period are Gambesons and other similar thick layered cloth, pretty much all light armor is thick cloth which may or may not have metal woven into it. Leather armor is pure fantasy and all examples are worse then a 40 layered gambeson.

>>419756

>A leather armour won't stop an axe

<Ermagerd!

<This thing will not do something it wasn't designed, intended, or expected to do!

<Pure shit!

Do you think that a modern infantrymans armour is worthless because it won't stop a 40mm APHE round?

>>419765

>ermagherd

>>>/reddit/

The utility of leather armor is questioned by historians. That isn leather armor without something underneath. Even the actual price is questioned, as some historians believe it was expensive as shit.

If a leather armor doesn't protect against slashing damage (or at least, direct slashing damage; it may protect against accidental bruises), nor does it protect against piercing damage, nor does it protect against blunt damage, unless it has considerable cushioning underneath (which is what it had, which made it almost as bad as plate armor for mobility), what was it good for?

>>419771

>what was it good for?

The same reason you wear leather gloves when working in a workshop, it's the difference between having fingers or not. The human body is simply not geared towards any natural resistance to being sliced up, thick layers of cloth by about say 20-30 can do a good enough job against a straight edge like a longsword and even just a thin soft layer of leather can again save you from losing your fingers entirely where being fully exposed would have you lose them every time.

>>419789

>The same reason you wear leather gloves when working in a workshop, it's the difference between having fingers or not

<implying they are gonna save you from getting cut by a rotary saw and not just from a few splinters

>>419791

>rotary saws in the 15th century

Now you're just being retarded on purpose. I am of course talking about handling metal, sheet or strip metals specifically.

>>419801

Oh yeah, leather will absolutely stop a blunt-edged sheet running at 3 m/s away from your hand. Not sure about that sharp as fuck guillotine running towards you at 40 m/s.

>>419804

A fucking guillotine, really? This is what I mean when I say you're being retarded on purpose, what are you trying to prove by bringing up a tool used for execution? Nothing you're just bringing things up to win a perceived argument while ignoring my point entirely. Sheet metal cuts you semi-regularly without wearing something to protect yourself from those minor cuts even if there is no accidents and if you're not wearing proper protection when an accident happens with the stuff it can get nasty. Your skin and flesh just doesn't have the resistance to have the luxury to not wear any armor at all when everyone has a blade or pointy bit in a fight for this same reason. You faggot.

What I'm seeing here is pretty clear:

We have an armor fanboi dropping in and trying to insert D&D armor into a discussion about actual weapons and tactics involving firearms in any way possible... with a small amount of familiarity with armor of one type, but little or no working knowledge of firearms whatsoever.

A medieval-style plate armor isn't going to handle modern firearms. This person can't argue that point at all, and so continually tries to derail the discussion.

It doesn't matter if leather armor existed 500 years or more ago.

It doesn't matter if knights could move in armor that resisted swords.

It doesn't matter if the ancient Greeks had an 'armored sprint' Olympic event.

THAT TYPE OF ARMOR STILL WON'T WORK AGAINST A MODERN FIREARM WITHIN THE WEIGHT LIMITS ALLOWING IT TO BE EMPLOYED SUCCESSFUL IN A FIGHT AS AN ACTUAL BATTLE TACTIC.

You might be able to use it against some guys carrying small-to-medium bore pistols - if you have additional cover and concealment, and if they are not expert shots, and if they have no rifle-armed backup available.

Once.

MAYBE.

In Ned Kelly's day where news traveled only as fast as the fastest horse, you might get away with it a handful of times if you plan carefully and your opponent isn't paying attention.

TODAY, HOWEVER you are not just trying to outrun men and bullets... you're fighting electrons and radiation. Modern communication would mean that your little trick would be in front of 70% of the people on the planet - the same day you pulled the stunt, most likely. That means that the next time you try it, there's going to be a counter (read: guy with a large caliber weapon) ready to end your little novelty stunt in a very final way.

Just remember - even Ned Kelly's armor FAILED MISERABLY in the end... he was wounded, captured, and hanged at Old Melbourne Gaol.

The days of plate armor are over.

And as Ned Kelly himself said with a noose around his neck:

"Such is life."

>>419835

You'll have to have some kind of composite construction to face most modern ammunition. Soft kevlar vests are only really good against ball and expanding ammunition. There are just too many cartridge an ammunition options that can get through them which would be available in an 'adventure game' type setting.

For instance, the PSM in 5.45x18mm can reliably penetrate most soft vests (LVL 2 and some 3, the latter being a bit dependent) at close range and is smaller and easier to conceal than a Makarov. Any 9mm THV round can lance through a LVL 3 soft vest alone at any reasonable engagement range. They are small rounds with little wound channel, though... your target won't bleed out any time soon, but he'll probably be rethinking some life choices.

Things like Dragonskin are the future of 'personal ballistic protection' - scale-mail like composites involving both ceramics/metals and kevlar-type woven materials. The type is proven to be reliable and durable in independent testing. It provides active range of motion while offering protection against multiple ammo types... and spike-type stabbing weapons, something Kevlar alone has trouble with (it's actually pretty decent against slashing).

Like any armor, joints are always going to be weak spots.

As far as machine guns, the simplest solution I can see is that you assume that anyone using one is going to be skilled enough to understand that just because it is belt fed doesn't mean it can fire continuously.

- assign damage based on caliber

- gunner rolls to-hit against target

- a modifying opposed roll shows how well target avoids the fire, modified for cover and 'agility'

- scale damage on the opposed roll, from 1/5 to 5/5 of the 5-round burst

This could theoretically be used for any auto-fire weapon, with any weapon that is shoulder-fired incurring (much) increased penalties for subsequent rounds to hit.

>>419966

>both ceramics/metals

Metamaterials is the future, harnessing graphene has been an end game goal for a long time now.

>>419996

I've got 5 words for you

>Ultra

>High

>Molecular

>Weight

>Polyethylene

>>419812

>Just remember - even Ned Kelly's armor FAILED MISERABLY in the end... he was wounded, captured, and hanged at Old Melbourne Gaol.

Because he was up against a few dozen people. If you think that those kinds of odds ending in a loss means that his armour didn't work, or that it would have any bearing on the effectiveness between two sides of similar numbers one of which is armoured and one isn't (rather than 30 to one odds), you're a retard.

>>420235

1.) But if the armor 'protected him from bullets' then it shouldn't have mattered if he was outnumbered... now would it?

2.) Kelly faced a total of 30 personnel, who were deployed in a skirmish line so as to surround a hotel... thus, the number available to fire on him would have been far less than the actual total - those on the far side of the building would have had their LOS blocked, and some others with LOS would have had LOF blocked by friendlies.

3.) Kelly was not 'alone' - he had three (later 2) cohorts in a wood-frame structure, similarly armored and armed with rifles. Note that one of these men actually died WHILE WEARING ARMOR INSIDE THE BUILDING... meaning that even while in an entrenched position behind hard cover he was vulnerable.

4.) The police actually knew about the armor, though they did not believe it had actually been constructed or that it would actually work... which it did not.

Your response tells me you have failed to do any real research on the actual tactical situation, and failed to note the other failures involved (including that of Kelly's delusional belief that his armor would protect him) on both sides.

>>420306

>1)

What? That doesn't make any sense, not even modern vests will fully protect you but people will wear it anyways because it works at protecting you when it counts.

No, it make perfect sense.

The armor didn't 'protect him from bullets.'

The bullets fired at him still caused harm - indeed, probably lethal harm had he not been captured by people who's duty it was to keep him alive until he could be killed. They certainly caused Joseph Byrne harm - killing him while wearing his armor WHILE INSIDE A WOODEN BUILDING.

So, clearly, the armor offered only poor defense at best. One man was nearly killed, apprehended and hanged while wearing it (and could have easily died while wearing it), another wearing it was killed by a ricochet while doubly protected... to the point that THE BRITISH ARMY WAS CONSIDERING BRINGING IN A TWELVE-POUNDER to deal with the men in the building.

That was how much tactical advantage three men in a building (two, but it was unknown Byrne was dead at the time) had over thirty men having to cross an open field.

In short, the armor offered negligible protection in this situation... it made the wearer slow and robbed him of situational awareness. In fact, some thin wooden planks were considered far more effective - to the point artillery was considered a worthwhile solution (the posse actually resorted to arson as that was taking to long)!

>>420311

Now it makes sense when you actually bring up the fact even shrapnel went through. Otherwise the first point just sounds like fallacious logic.

No, the plates 'stopped the bullets' where they covered Ned's body (and Byrne's as well) but the armor was insanely bulky and only covered head, torso and groin and shoulder flaps. Other than that, they were exposed from the waist down and their arms were exposed as well...

Kelly was taken because after a couple of minutes confusion, the posse members fired at his unarmored legs.

Byrne was killed because a shot through one of the board walls of the wooden building struck his thigh, severed the femoral artery (according to accounts from the scene) and he bled out.

Thus, the armor didn't actually protect the wearers any more than the building did... and in fact, since two members of the gang wound up committing suicide inside the building while it was being burned, it stands to reason that the armor was really a moot point in the whole situation. The building itself provided far more protection to the gang than the armor!

So, en the end, no one that wore the armor was 'protected' by it...

both men wearing the armor actually DIED FIRST (Byrne inside the building, Kelly attempting to return to it), while the men who were relying on the building for cover and using that cover judiciously held out to the point that the 30 men (now standing against only two) were considering using a 'modern' breech-loading field gun to drive them out!

The men wearing armor were taken down by firearms nonetheless.

Thus, it provided now real element of protection.

If you view the actual armor, Kelly had only about a 1" slit to see through - and the armor had to expose vast portions of his body to enable him to be able to move and react. Had he been completely covered, he might have withstood more fire, but his joints would still be vulnerable. Most importantly, he'd have been carrying more than his body weight in armor and unable to observe any direction but front-and-center (then 'helmet' did not turn, it lapped over the chest-piece)... leaving him vulnerable to attack from the rear and too heavily laden to outpace it.

>>420322

>Had he been completely covered, he might have withstood more fire,

That's stupid reasoning, the easiest place to hit is center mass which you're trained to aim for. Armor worn today that is supposed to be resistant to bullets follows the same reasoning; torso is protected except your arms, legs plus your groin can get fucked too while you're at it. His only mistake was bothering with full face covering with the helmet.

>>420333

Take the whole paragraph in context... don't single out one item.

Then you'll see what I mean.

Essentially, I was stating that even being completely covered wouldn't have helped him, as it would have destroyed his mobility - which modern protection seeks to preserve as much as possible - and meant that he could be vulnerable to 'alternative means of attack' from his lack of mobility. What good is being armored from head to toe and protected from bullets when one talented bloke with a lasso could wrap you up?

Additionally, while center mass is 'easiest to hit', it is not too difficult to attack limbs - especially if you are armed with something like a shotgun or a belt-fed weapon. Again, these are all items that characters in this system would face... and their users are going to be trained to think about things like 'grazing fire' when facing enemies wearing body armor.

As a former gunner myself, the importance of grazing fire in an action cannot be overstressed - as you point out, very few types of modern armor give adequate protection to the groin, thigh and shin... meaning I can at the least immobilize, and at best severely injure and possibly kill my target with relative ease.

>>420339

I've read the whole thing, and everything you've said tells me you're assuming something about it that doesn't actually apply unless it was full blown plate mail or points which apply to body armor today. Did you even pay attention to the picture those shoulder coverings aren't actually attached to the torso covering they're hooked to the armor stand. It's literally just metal body armor with an attached front skirt, a helmet and some shoulder protection you put on as separate pieces. From what I'm seeing it doesn't even look like the arms are obstructed from moving and it's only the front skirt from flopping around by the hinge.

Literally just a cruder form of metal body armor, he could've just made the helmet be bowl shaped and he'd be solid.

>>420344

Stop being retarded and arguing a debate that has no real bearing to the topic at hand. If your autism is so fucking powerful you need to express your love of platemail by derailing any discussion that could perceivably deal with it, at least argue something more relative...like say those two guys who were hitting up a bank in full armor purpose made to stop bullets that was designed to allow for freedom of movement and still protect the wearer (ie: done like actual fucking platemail but engineered to handle modern loads). Then realize the issue never changed: they were too heavy to effectively escape, any specialized load would have overcome their armor, and fatigue plus higher aggro demanded they either give up, or commit suicide. You could argue in a seige setting, heavy armor would be a great idea. Posting a guard by the main barracks or what have you in fully 100lb gear would be a reasonable setup; but if you had that kind of money to waste on equipping your guys, why not invest instead in a pillbox or parapet? In a world of these shenanigans however, everyone is gonna be loaded with armour piercing rounds. Even officers after that heist started carrying an extra clip loaded with armor piercing rounds just because you only get away with that kind of shit once.

>just make better armour!

I can kill you for 5 cents currently. If you dropped 5k in armor, I'd need to spend a buck 50 to kill you with the same gun. Do you see what I'm getting at? It's far cheaper for someone to craft a weapon capable of breeching armor, than what it is to craft armor capable of withstanding anti-matieral rounds.

>>420378

Stop being retarded and putting words in my mouth, I didn't even once say "make better armor" you faggot. The debate is already been settled as far as I'm concerned, multiple times. You're just going full retard in the exact opposite direction as an armor fanboy would go at this point.

>>420382

Just so we're clear I actually do think Ned's choice wasn't worth it. Coverage was about right and even if he dropped the helmet design what he had to achieve to make it work is where the problems come in. The weight he had to make it was absurd, 90lbs vs 6-20+? vests, just for weight comparison medieval platemail and similar armor didn't typically exceed the 40-60lb range. It didn't stop shrapnel very well which is a testament to the poor shaping. All in all his cleverness is typical trailer trash crazy, but coverage is about the one priority he got right.

Calculate Gun Damage by finding the muzzle energy in Joules, squared, and then find the minimum amount of d6s to reach that number.

You know, I'm more interested in how to properly address movement when dealing with guns. Considering moving out of cover to close in on objectives or to move to a more advantageous position, how would you deal with adjusting accuracy/lethality for shooting a moving target? How would varying levels of scopes handle the enemy movement? What if the person firing upon the now exposed enemy was in turn being fired upon via covering fire? What about accuracy of someone shooting in motion? I think a sniper would have more accuracy in hitting a moving target, but only at a certain sweet spot in range: far enough to be out of immediate covering fire concerns, close enough that a bullet can travel the distance without substantial delays. The more I think about handling all this info, the less I feel it can be reasonably done without severely dilluting all mechanics. DnD never took into consideration ranged weapon penalties against moving targets because everything was a series of non-moving targets, with high enough health/numbers that ranged fighting was largely limited to one character on the PC side, and usually ineffective after the enemy closed into melee range. With the high lethality of guns, going about combat with a weapon that generally incapacitates an enemy on the first hit and where it's rarely that enemies ever get within spitting distance is a pretty big game changer.

It'd be interesting to see how modern loads would work against something like an orc or ogre. Would tracer rounds negate a troll's healing factor? What caliber would be the minimum rating to deal damage to a dragon?

>>421102

>orc or ogre

It's basically like shooting a Bear or Elephant respectively.

>>421102

>I think a sniper would have more accuracy in hitting a moving target

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Sounds like aiming down something with a sight with so much zoom would be a nightmare if the target is running or moving too fast.

>>421141

No one said there wasn't

What are you bringing to this discussion, or attempting to?

*Don't link me or my memes ever again :^)**

>>421141

Yeah I don't get why you're bringing this up either, none of that is going to stand a chance against the majority of modern firearms. Only groups using any old school armor seriously is some SWAT teams because they deem it worth the trouble since it's essentially stab proof. The chainmail they're using is going to quickly be phased out anyways once the new cloth material being showcased to police that is just as stab proof makes its rounds through the red tape.

>>421171

I basically wanted to remind you guys there's more kinds of armor than just "full plate", since it was brought up. Carry on.

>>421102

Give each gun ratings for size and inherent accuracy. Obviously, smaller guns like pistols have lower accuracy because they have shorter barrels, but bigger guns are clunkier and harder to fire on the move, so you take the size rating as a penalty to fire while moving and when in CQC - it's much easier to pull a handgun on someone when they're all up in your grill than it is a sniper rifle.

Have a non-linearly scaled penalty to hit based on range, and give the gun's accuracy as a bonus. Scopes give a further bonus but take longer to aim the bigger bonus they give, and are capped by the gun's accuracy, so you can't stick a 32x optic on a handgun and take out targets a mile away.

I can quote GURPS rules all day long.

I've actually had some trouble trying to simulate Recoil and Aim Speed in guns in my systems. The issue only really comes up when I try to fit a system for firearm modifications into my game, since pretty much everything ends up being a modifier to damage or accuracy.

Aim Speed is particularly difficult because initiative isn't based on weapon (like in 2nd AD&D). Absolutely no idea how to do something like Recoil.

>>421400

It somehow manages to make combat rules even more autistic without solving its many problems. It kind of "fixes" armor by making it useless due to pass-through bludgeoning damage (which was necessary, to be honest), but then it makes layering armor even easier, and in turn layering protects against bludgeoning damage! It makes heavy armored characters fucking invincible against everything but the usual suspects (explosive damage, AP rounds and I have my doubts about those, chemical weapons... the kind of stuff anything short of special forces or the military wouldn't wear), while less armored/social characters could die of a sneeze. It also makes wounding and recovery even worse, even though getting wounded in vanilla Interlock already means you have to reroll a character due to the absurd downtime requirements healing has. It also makes melee weapons totally useless, without BT extra damage, while making crossbows and bows ultra lethal and with BODY-based damage, for some reason. I'm sorry, but a warhammer (Cyberpunk 2020 had a specially devastating shell-propelled warhammer, which isn't contemplated in the base Interlock rules) to the head shouldn't be less lethal than a crossbow to the arm.

If you are looking for something "realistic" for a one shot or something, then yes, Interlock Unlimited (which seems to reduce chargen time significantly; kudos for that) with the vanilla armor layering rules and AP values halved is probably your best bet. If you are looking for anything that's not a one-shot, a campaign where your characters are unlikely to be ambushed with some planning (tactical heisting campaign or something like that; problem is, you won't be using much combat rules if this is the case, as everything will be solved on the first surprise round), or a social/investigation campaign in which case, you shouldn't worry that much about gun rules anyway, you should be looking for something else. Unless you like having an average of players/2 character deaths per combat before they manage to fire a single shot, in which case, by all means use Interlock Unlimited.

>>421171

>... none of that is going to stand a chance against the majority of modern firearms.

The Modern Period started in the 15th century.

>>421400

>>421415

Oh wait, I was reading the core Interlock Unlimited manual, the non-2020 one. The 2020 specific manual has twice the amount of skills of the vanilla game, including specific skills for ROWING A BOAT, SKYDIVING ROPE PULLING OR TYPING. Disregard everything I said about Interloxk Unlimited, it sucks cock.

>>421420

15th firearms are comparable to firearms in the 20th century

You're just trying to get a rise out of me aren't you?

>>421171

>new cloth material being showcased to police that is just as stab proof makes its rounds through the red tape.

What's this?

Friday Night Firefight, or Twilight 2000?

>>421102

> how modern loads would work against something like an orc or ogre.

>>421113

>It's basically like shooting a Bear or Elephant respectively.

Sort of.

40kRP solves such things via Toughness Bonus damage reduction (which also reduces critical damage, of course.

Alternity actually has a mechanism to scale damage up/down in steps, since it's not just hitpoints, there are several tracks.

Though wasn't used to full potential until Alternity: Warships. A ship's resilience (past evasion and armor) has two basic parameters: hull points (proportional to volume) and Toughness Rating.

Weapon firepower classes match TR (most lasers are adequate for torpedo bombers, but only burn away paint on cruisers).

TR grows with size, but also civilian spaceship classes have TR 1 step lower than military hulls of the same volume (same amount of solid material to crunch through, but it doesn't require equally heavy weapons).

Obviously, this approach can work on small scale too.

>>421337

every shot throws your aim off, the higher your skill+physical strength and the lower the caliber the smaller the kick

>>415613

Love this system...can't get any faggots to play

>>415562

A lot of people have already made great posts on a lot of nuances but I think something that needs to be addressed in the OP is

>6 second turn

If I was designing a system that involved modern guns there's no way I'd use a six second turn. That's far too long a timescale. That's enough time to dump half a 30 round extended mag from an MP7.

>>426049

Is that you detective?

>>415562

make size matter a lot when shot.

a small caliber bullet will do more against a small creature VS a large creature. enough body mass in the way is presumably enough to nullify any certain size/speed of bullet

>You need to send them below -1×HP for an instant kill

B419 requires -5xHP for "die immediately".

-1x is just a HT check which a lot of mooks might pass, and even if they fail, MoF 1-2 is "dying but not dead" and B423 has this as just "Mortal Wounds" where they survive for 30 minutes before they make another HT check to see if they die. They can be stabilized by a medic, or might auto-stabilize on a crit success (but remain incapacitated).

If it's an "important NPC" the GM can also assign a "Dying Action" if you don't kill them in "the most sudden and thorough fashion" so they could fire off a last shot, pull a grenade, do a sacrificial dodge, etc.

>>415562

Ops & Tactics is probably the most firearms-oriented TTRPG out there. You should probably have a look at that first, to see if it does everything you want.