3G3 small arms design - anyone tried it?

[anders lager]

I just got my hands on 3G3 (Guns! Guns! Guns!) by BTRC.

Has anyone here tried it for Traveller weapons design? There are conversion rules for MT, TNE and T4.

The system seems quite smooth and realistic, but some actual user feedback would be nice...

/doc.

 

[Ishmael]

I have it and its nice, although I use ffs1 instead.
The MT conversion set-up is nice in that I based my own conversions off of it.
using muzzle energy, bullet mass, bore, etc....I can find pen and attenuation
I'm developing my own system for 'damage' though.

I still love it as a reference book.

 

[DaveChase]

Love it, specially if you are a 'gearhead'.

If you have a games system that you like or use all the time I would suggest the following:

Take one weapon from the game system and build it using 3G3. Then compare the 3G3 stats versus the game stats.
This will give a good idea of what adjustments (if any) you will need to make the weapons compatible.

Then you can make up new weapons for the game that don't exist yet.

It is also fun just to make up weapons (again if you are a 'gearhead')

Dave Chase

 

[casquilho]

I liked playing with the book. It is a great toy for the real gear head.

But from a practical stand point, I found the book to be more work then it was worth, for the most part.

Nice product though.

Daniel

 

[Icosahedron]

I haven't found 3G3 yet. Is it available electronically, or just dead tree? How does it compare with FFS? I've used Gunsmith Calculator by - er, I forget. How does it compare with that?
I tend to use these things just to design a few of the more interesting weapons in my game - body pistols, for example.
I think the minimum action length in FFS is broken, though. It's a pet hate.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/produ...d=1107&it=1&filters=0_0_0&manufacturers_id=30

 

[aramis]

3g3 is about as detailed as FF&S or GURPS Vehicles, but has different focuses.

The TL scale is similar, but in the main, about 2TL's difference (3g3 TL - 2 = Traveller TL).

3G3 is very tightly focused: personal scale arms only. It does lots of good stuff, and in converting from the Timelords/Spacetime stats, you will usually lose granularity. It does cover explosive propelled slugthrowers, guass/railguns, lasers, particle beams, and melee weapons.

I've used 3G3 in MT in the past. I've used it for 2300, too, and for CP2020. I've not used it for CORPS, but it converts to CORPS nicely.


It also highlights one issue of FF&S: Firearms propellants in Traveller stop at TL 12... while 3G3 allows extrapolating higher. (Comparing the FF&S and 3G3 numbers shows similar curves...)

 

[otherles]

I just got my hands on 3G3 (Guns! Guns! Guns!) by BTRC.

Has anyone here tried it for Traveller weapons design? There are conversion rules for MT, TNE and T4.

The system seems quite smooth and realistic, but some actual user feedback would be nice...

/doc.

I have a copy stashed away somewhere but it doesn't cover CT/Striker so I don't use it.

 

[aramis]

I have a copy stashed away somewhere but it doesn't cover CT/Striker so I don't use it.

Striker Pen is MT pen. All we need is a way to figure effective, long, and extreme ranges. And those would be the TNE short ranges x2, x4, and x8, I think.

 

[hiro]

warning, necropost follows

Has anyone figured a conversion from 3G3 to Mongoose Traveller?

 

[aramis]

Has anyone figured a conversion from 3G3 to Mongoose Traveller?

A true Mongoose specific conversion? Not that I've seen.

However, some shared 1st principles result in making one pretty easy.

Damage = (DV^(0.43))-1(d)
If result has fraction of 0.2-0.39, damage has DM+1
If result has fraction of 0.4-0.59, damage has DM+1 per die
If result has fraction of 0.6-0.79, damage has DM+2 per die
If result has fraction of 0.8-0.99, damage has +1d, but DM-1 per die

ARC
1 P+0 C+1 S+2 M+4 L+6 VL+8 D+10
2 P-1 C+0 S+0 M-2 L-4 VL-6 D-8 (pistol line)
3 P-2 C-1 S+0 M-2 L-4 VL-6 D8
4 P-3 C-1 S+0 M+0 L+0 VL-2 D-4 (Rifle Line)
5 P-4 C-2 S-1 M+0 L+0 VL-2 D-4
6 P-5 C-3 S-1 M+0 L+0 VL-1 D-3
7 P-6 C-4 S-2 M+0 L+0 VL-1 D-3 VD-5
8 P-6 C-4 S-2 M+0 L+0 VL+0 D-2 VD-4
+1 to all ranges per 3 IA.

Max Range:
If ARC
1 20m
2 40m
3 100m
4 200m
5 400m
6 800m
7 1600m
8 3200m

If ARC<DRC, x(1.2^(Difference))
If ARC>DRC, x(0.8^(Difference))
Per point of positive IA x(1.1^IA)
Per point of negative IA x(0.9^abs(IA))

Recoil:
base = damage dice-1
-1 if >0.75kg per location
-1 if 2 handed grips
-2 if bipod
-3 if tripod
-1 per level of extra mass
-1 for each additional recoil control feature

 

[hiro]

Thank you

 

[aramis]

Thank you

You're welcome... just remember: That conversion hasn't been tested - it's based upon kitbashing elements of the TNE and T4 conversions into a single whole.

 

[hiro]

Been taking a break from gun geekery, getting back to it now...


Looking at this part:

Damage = (DV^(0.43))-1(d)
If result has fraction of 0.2-0.39, damage has DM+1
If result has fraction of 0.4-0.59, damage has DM+1 per die
If result has fraction of 0.6-0.79, damage has DM+2 per die
If result has fraction of 0.8-0.99, damage has +1d, but DM-1 per die

Popping the default 9mm ammo into the 3G3 spreadsheet gets a DV of 22 which converts to 2D6+4 an average damage of 11 versus the CSC 3D6-3 average of 7.5 so how about treating fractions like this:

If result has fraction of 0.2-0.39, damage has DM+1
If result has fraction of 0.4-0.59, damage has DM+2
If result has fraction of 0.6-0.79, damage has DM+3
If result has fraction of 0.8-0.99, damage has DM+4

CSC has a .44magnum at 4D6-4 (average damage 10), the 3G3 spreadsheet with this conversion has it at 3D6+1 for an average damage of 11.5

I had the progressions looking like this:

The fractional results of 0.8 to 0.99 seem to break the progression and that progression adds some serious numbers to the rolled die. Did I understand them correctly?

Am I wrong to use average die rolls as a comparison?

From your posts previously I've seen how you have a serious grasp of how the numbers affect gameplay and part of the reason for my posting is me starting off on the steps for learning this.

From the published conversions in 3G3 (in the game systems I'm more familiar tho far from fluent with) I've also noticed that no matter how hard you try to tweak a design for optimal performance, most of the "versions" of say an assault rifle will come out in game terms so similar as to make your efforts if not worthless but hard to justify as adding anything to the game. (I justify it cos a, I enjoy geeking with spreadsheets, its a sickness and b, having umpteen models of pretty much the same thing adds depth. Look at the shopping shelves of your local store, there are umpteen different versions of the same thing, most Traveller games I've played in (ATU or OTU) have all had a healthy dose of free market economies driving them)

Am pondering the range conversions at the moment but have hit a stumbling block, a pet peeve of mine in MgT is the DM at personal range, I'm thinking that should be about the weapons ease of bringing to bear in a confined space so I think I'll use a house rule keying initiative from 3G3. It'll weapon specific rather than range class specific. Might fudge things for those looking for a generic drop in conversion for MgT.

 

[aramis]

the thing about the +1d-1 instead of +4 is that it expands maximum range as well as increases central tendency, and is a best fit. Further, it's from the T4 conversion, directly. It's Greg Porter's conversion formula - I just agree in principle. But yes, it does actually lower the average, it's +2.5 which is less than +3.

And note the unspoken line
Remainder 0.0 to 0.199 No modifier.


If you want to avoid that, use instead

Simple Progression Remainder	Accurate Progression Remainder	Bonus	Average
0.00-0.249	0.0000-0.2856	+0	0
0.25-0.499	0.2857-0.5713	+1	1
0.50-0.749	0.5714-0.8571	+2	2
0.75-0.999	0.8572-0.9999	+1d-1	2.5

 

[hiro]

Thanks for the reply. I see I'd misinterpreted the shorthand: I had 4d6+4 on the +1 per die instead of 4d6+2

I had seen the no dm at fractions less than 0.2!

 

[aramis]

Thanks for the reply. I see I'd misinterpreted the shorthand: I had 4d6+4 on the +1 per die instead of 4d6+2

I had seen the no dm at fractions less than 0.2!

Because you just use the flat die at that point.