Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bdthemag]

I just really like the concept of short, brutal conflicts. If the players plan ahead of time for an encounter, and for example set up an ambush, they'd be able to easily kill their targets without too much issue. As opposed to normal systems, where everyone has a shitload of HP and even if you set up an ambush, after the first turn or so it just turns into a normal encounter and lasts forever. On the flipside, if they don't prepare they'll get the shit kicked out of them.

You'd probably wouldn't want to implement any kind of perma-death though. A realistic system would ideally be more equipment based than statistic based so if they die, you just take away some of their equipment.

[monk12]

Basically, I think we're going for two different things that are really hard to reconsile. You want a realistic RP that where firefights lethal and quick, like real life. I want a cinematic roleplay that has firefights that are varied and dramatic, like in a film. Both of these are equally valid, but I prefer the latter because it allows for cool scenes to happen and generally doesn't restrict the players to a few tactics, and also because the former is quite lethal and killing player characters tends to annoy the player in question when it's too sudden, since players tend to get quite attached to their characters and prefer for them to have a proper death.

This is, of course, why gun mechanics that are like an action movie are really hard to get right; when you get shot, you tend to die. It works in action movies because the villains shoot like Stormtroopers, so the heroes mow through piles of mooks without ever getting hit. For a player in a game to do that, they need to either be extremely capable (making no mistakes) and also a bit lucky, or the villains need to have a hell of a time even threatening the hero, which kills tension.

As far as videogames, it works because the player can respawn if they die. Which they do. A lot. If they didn't respawn, then they'd spend all their time camping so they don't die.

As far as an actual system that maintains permadeath... well, the player needs something to do other than "roll dice, hope I roll high enough to hit." If you were willing to do things with maps, you might be able to devise a system where player actions are all about maneuvering to improve their chances of hitting their target. So Player A moves up a hill to get the high ground (and a better chance to hit/kill his opponent, Player B,) and Player B responds by retreating into the city and hiding around a corner, so Player A follows him and gets behind a car, and Player B moves into a building and gets to a vantage point... so on and so forth, until one player has forced the other into an untenable position, and kills him or forces him to surrender. Definitely tricky, and doesn't really jive with the action film thing you were looking for, I think.

[Furtuka]

This is probably a terrible idea since I'm so inexperienced at this, but what about figuring out the stormtrooper aiming by instead of hp have a sort of luck meter that as it goes down the likelyhood to get hit increases? Under what conditions it would go down, I have no idea.

[freeformschooler]

This is, of course, why gun mechanics that are like an action movie are really hard to get right; when you get shot, you tend to die. It works in action movies because the villains shoot like Stormtroopers, so the heroes mow through piles of mooks without ever getting hit. For a player in a game to do that, they need to either be extremely capable (making no mistakes) and also a bit lucky, or the villains need to have a hell of a time even threatening the hero, which kills tension.

I think the forum game equivalent is to have lots of stormtroopers whose bullets hit the players and who individually can only deal minor damage (unrealistic but not much moreso than never ever hitting).

Never really had a problem with this kind of system. But if you're going with realism over balance, it's a bad idea.

[monk12]

This is probably a terrible idea since I'm so inexperienced at this, but what about figuring out the stormtrooper aiming by instead of hp have a sort of luck meter that as it goes down the likelyhood to get hit increases?

It's functionally the same thing, if being hit results in death. The big problem with gun combat is that A- it's basically impossible to block/parry/dodge a bullet and B- if you can see something, you can shoot it, and it can shoot you. Thus, combat either needs to take place at extremely long ranges to make frequent misses more believable, or there needs to be a way to be able to threaten somebody without just setting yourself up to be shot, or you need Matrix shenanigans to make avoiding bullets a matter of skill instead of luck.

This is, of course, why gun mechanics that are like an action movie are really hard to get right; when you get shot, you tend to die. It works in action movies because the villains shoot like Stormtroopers, so the heroes mow through piles of mooks without ever getting hit. For a player in a game to do that, they need to either be extremely capable (making no mistakes) and also a bit lucky, or the villains need to have a hell of a time even threatening the hero, which kills tension.

I think the forum game equivalent is to have lots of stormtroopers whose bullets hit the players and who individually can only deal minor damage (unrealistic but not much moreso than never ever hitting).

Never really had a problem with this kind of system. But if you're going with realism over balance, it's a bad idea.

Realism isn't the be all and end all, but there IS Willing Suspension of Disbelief that gets shattered. People know how deadly guns are, so if they see somebody getting shot a dozen times and not caring, well, they know something is wrong with that. If it doesn't act like a gun, why call it a gun? May as well shift the setting to a fantasy world and replace all the guns with Wands of Magic Missile or something.

[Parsely]

@fniff Find a good reason to not keep track of bullets. Counting ammo is so boring. Probably the best way to do guns is make them magic, then you can light your bullets on fire via sheer power of will, which is awesome.

I disagree. Having to keep track of bullets [not per clip but as a whole] helps add a layer of tension. Also magic guns are boring to me. "Oh I'll just keep pulling the trigger forever and if you get out of cover you're fucked."

Also fire bullets.... meh. Not at all entertaining to me. But that's just my opinion.

Well if you're using magic bullets then you would probably have other sorts of magical abilities to make firefights interesting. Like full-body copies to use as decoys and reflective shields. Maybe your "hp" is your ability to keep deflecting bullets that would've hit you and caused realistic injuries (i.e. MP. you wouldn't be able to deflect too many shots since it takes a lot of energy to stop something moving that quickly), and you could sacrifice some of this energy to use an ability that could turn the tide. Fire bullets might not be useful for actually causing damage to a human target, since bullets do just fine on their own, but hey. You can set things on fire. Maybe he's hiding behind something thats wooden, or near some propane tanks (since (at least in the game) you can't really set those off with a normal bullet)?

EDIT: I'm not saying this is a replacement for something more realistic, but you can't deny that it wouldn't be interesting. And can you really repulse anything that isn't totally true to life? Thats a bit unfair. I like my fantasy settings just as much as the modern ones, and not a few people have mixed them together and done an above-average job of it.

[freeformschooler]

I think the forum game equivalent is to have lots of stormtroopers whose bullets hit the players and who individually can only deal minor damage (unrealistic but not much moreso than never ever hitting).

Never really had a problem with this kind of system. But if you're going with realism over balance, it's a bad idea.

Realism isn't the be all and end all, but there IS Willing Suspension of Disbelief that gets shattered. People know how deadly guns are, so if they see somebody getting shot a dozen times and not caring, well, they know something is wrong with that. If it doesn't act like a gun, why call it a gun? May as well shift the setting to a fantasy world and replace all the guns with Wands of Magic Missile or something.

That's a pretty good point. I like to balance it so that no one would go down in a single shot (unless there was a CLEAR power discrepancy not just between the gun and the foe but also the gunner and the foe), but no one goes down in more than about three. I mean, people can survive bullets to the head (though it's rare), and you definitely don't instantly die from a bullet to the arm.

[Rolepgeek]

I think the trick is just to make it about placement. Yes, people can survive a bullet to the head, but a .22 to the skull(if it doesn't go through because of distance or something) is gonna knock them out of the fight. Just force people to use cover; make cover give big bonuses and if you don't have it, and you aren't the Hulk, you're screwed.

[Parsely]

I think the trick is just to make it about placement. Yes, people can survive a bullet to the head, but a .22 to the skull(if it doesn't go through because of distance or something) is gonna knock them out of the fight. Just force people to use cover; make cover give big bonuses and if you don't have it, and you aren't the Hulk, you're screwed.

That makes sense. Just like Enemy Unknown.

[monk12]

I think the trick is just to make it about placement. Yes, people can survive a bullet to the head, but a .22 to the skull(if it doesn't go through because of distance or something) is gonna knock them out of the fight. Just force people to use cover; make cover give big bonuses and if you don't have it, and you aren't the Hulk, you're screwed.

Heck, a .22 to the arm will probably knock you out of the fight, and even if you've got the Heroic Determination to keep on fighting it'll severely inconvenience you (and probably kill you later if you don't get immediate medical attention.)

Making the game all about positioning (relying heavily on cover that only applies from certain directions, to allow flanking and such) is probably the best way to handle an actual gunfight, but it doesn't really fit the Rambo action hero schtick. Thing is, those guys don't die because they only ever get shot once, maybe. A satisfying game experience that lets you Run and Gun without resorting to some flavor of Guns Are Worthless (including woeful inaccuracy) is... hella tricky. I'd like to see it done, but I don't know how to do it without a justification that relies on supernatural shenanigans and/or some other Necessary Weasel

[Rolepgeek]

Well, it also depends on distance. A .22 from a hunting rifle at 700 yards to the arm will hurt like a bitch and could break the bone, but it's nothing compared to a .22 from a pistol at 5 yards to the same place. I would probably get around it by having, you know, body armor. Hey look all your immediately vital organs are protected against anything short of armor-piercing ammunition! It's still gonna hurt and knock the wind out of you, maybe break a rib, but you'll live. Tada, HP.

[Digital Hellhound]

I heartily recommend using limited ammo and reloading in games where combat is at all important. Adds an easy and nice layer of tactics to any engagement. You don't even need to keep track of clips if you don't wanna - just making them reload, even if the ammo itself is infinite, works.

Realistic gun damage isn't something I've ever been much concerned with, though. Usually the setting allows handwaving on that front (scifi armor, shields, etc.) or the players can just take an ungodly amount of punishment and keep going with Heroic Willpower. Not that I mind combat being brutal and deadly either.

Nice things in gun combat; ammo, reloading. Different uses for different weapons (not just different damage values - varying clip sizes, reload times, damage against certain types of protection/enemies, etc.), and/or specialized ammo, add-ons, etc. Tactical battlefields (cover, possibly flanking etc.). The players should think on what to use in any given situation, not just use the same weapon/tactic every time.

I've always liked the idea of protagonist HP being 'luck' or 'Fate', but I've never gone that route. Hmm.

[Fniff]

I like the suggestions coming in. I think I have the same feeling as Monk: I know you could do gun fights that are as exciting as melee fights, but I just can't figure out how to do it... I do like the idea of making everything tactical, I think if I made an ASCII map of a combat area that would make the work toll on me a lot less. Just mark certain areas as having certain tactical effects like high ground or heavy cover. Hell, I could make a whole host of maps in preperation in order to keep things moving fast.

[Rolepgeek]

Hell, melee fights are exciting because you can parry a sword, but you can't parry a bullet. They aren't exciting because a sword is somehow less deadly than a bullet. Sword hits you in the chest? If it's well made, you will die. In the gut, it doesn't need to be well-made. Less likely to kill you if it hits the head, but a bullet is less likely to kill you if it hits the gut(if it hits e edges, could go straight through without rupturing many or any internal organs.

[kj1225]

Hell, melee fights are exciting because you can parry a sword, but you can't parry a bullet.

Wrong, it's improbable but you can do it. I kind of want to make that a thing now.