Rationale behind the weapon stats (dice)

[justacaveman]

Stamina appears to be used to represent character fatigue and minor wounds/scratches.

Doing subdual damage affects stamina, so you can knock them out without killing them.

Body armor will often prevent actual penetrating wounds, but leave the wearer bruised. The Stamina/Lifeblood rules seem to simulate this. And although you can increase your stamina as you gain levels and withstand more abuse, a bullet to the head is still usually fatal.

The AC bonus of the armor seems to represent the abilty of the armor to shrug off minor hits without even a bruise, while the Armor Rating seems to represent the abilty to absorb more serious hits. If the armor has a high AC bonus then there is a reduced chance of a Critical Hit. In order to score a Critical Hit you must score a hit within the Critical Threat range, and score a regular hit.

Chivalry and Sorcery has a vicious combat system if you use the full Critical Hit rules. In one battle the player characters suffered 2 lopped-off arms and a crushed leg. We had to tone down the rules for the player characters or we would have been rolling up new characters after every battle.

I've learned that too much realism in an RPG is not necessarily a good thing. Find a set of rules you can live with, and modify what you don't like.

 

[tim_manley]

If you really want realism don't have dice rolled for damage at all.

Instead, have each weapon with a penetration and shock factor based on muzzle velocity, round mass and range. Take these numbers and compare them to a detailed hit location chart. Then, the chart will give you a description of the wound inflicted; data can be taken from actual CDC and ME stats.

But, who wants to roll to hit, roll hit location, then look at a chart to see what you did?

 

[tjoneslo]

Originally posted by apoc527:
I was thinking about it last night, and I'm starting to wonder if maybe some of the d20 games aren't getting a little too "abstraction happy." What I mean by this is that I'm worried that soon there will be NO connection to real life. THis is fine for fantasy, simply because it's fantasy. I'm not really sure how easy it is to swing a sword and kill someone, but I am fairly certain about the effect a gun applied properly will have.

I think this is the core of your issues with T20. D20 at it's base is an abstract and complex RPG system, meant to model nothing except it's own reality. T20 suffers because it's stuck between two extremes, trying to maintain compatiblity with the abstract complexity of D20 and the concrete complexity of the Real World. And any attempt to do so will fail in some way at some point.

From the D20 perspective: The difference between the WP/VP system and the T20 Stamina/LB system is the T20 system is another rank more deadly and dangerous to the combatants. The HP system allows compatants to take several shots before going down, encourging a very ciematic approach character action. The WP/VP system still allows combatants take several shots in combat and maintain it cinematic approach. But the effect of VP allows a rare, lucky shot (or highly skilled individual) cut combat short. The Stamia/LB system being most deadly because you take both kinds of damage with each attack, would tend to discurage combat alltogether. The only way I could see making this more deadly is to use only the Vitality points/Lifeblood (say like GURPS does).

From the RL perspective: Lifeblood represents the ability of the body to hold itself together against disruptive forces. A 100kg object also has 10 Structure points, which work exactly the way Lifeblood does.
Stamina represents the ability of the body to resist shock, blunt trauma, and stunning. You can make the complex machine that is the human body shut down without destroying it, which stamina represents. In actual game play, characters with armor are far more likey to be rendered unconcious (out of stamina) by the repeated hits rather than killed outright. Stamina is also a nod to the D20 hit points, in that the represent nothing realistic, and are simply a conciousness indicator.

Like the WP/VP system the Stamina/LB system allow the game to model more states of injury (wounded, unconsious but alive, concious and bleeding to death, unconcious and dead) than the straight HP system without kludging things onto it, and makes the WP/VP system more deadly.

I guess it comes down to a matter of taste. I'd be interested in seeing how you (or anyone else) would map a realistic HP/Armor/Combat system onto D20 and still keep it acceptably D20.

ps. You also forgot one additional system: Call of Chuthulu uses a modified Massive Damage system, where if the Damage caused in one shot goes over a threshold (10 pts, D20 Afganistian uses a variable limit), the target must make a Fort check or die. Does this map to reality any more than any other system?

 

[justacaveman]

Don't want reality, want a playable game.

T20 seems to achieve this balance without being too complex. You get the heroic play that allows characters to survive multiple firefights, but it's deadly enough to kill off the characters of foolish players.

In real life the majority of cops have never fired their weapons in a firefight, most soldiers during WWII never saw the enemy, and hardly any merchent sailors know one end of a gun from the other.

In a conflict oriented RPG the player characters are exposed to more deadly situations over a longer period of time than the heroes of an action movie. This is not real life it is heroic adventure. A too real combat system kills off PC's right and left. Few players like to spend hours creating a character just to watch him die in one or two game sessions. Too easy is not a challenge, and too real is no fun.

 

[apoc527]

I was in a strange mood that night I guess. When it really comes down to it, I want a gameable system. One that I can sit down, play EASILY and have fun doing it. In other words, pretty much d20 as it is right now (and in all its incarnations, Spycraft, T20, Modern, D&D).

D20 Modern also has a new Massive Damage system. Basically, if you take your CON or more damage in a single hit, you have to make a Fort save or be reduced to -1 HP (it, ironically, uses a straight HP system, but it needs to include magic so it fits). I like this as a game mechanic (irregardless of its actual realism), and I like the "subdual" system too. Basically, there's no subdual damage, but if you take more than your CON in a single hit from something that does Nonlethal damage, you are reduced to 0 HP. There are feats that will allow a character to routinely one-hit someone. The odd thing is that there's no way to knock someone out just by beating on them. YMMV.

Anyway, GURPS is all fine and good, but by the time you've figured out what you need to roll to hit something with your gun, or how many bullets strike the target when firing on full auto, the feeling of fast-paced action has long passed you by. I'm totally willing to accept abstraction for the sake of quick, semi-realistic game mechanics. I think I'm gonna love T20, and I will buy it as soon as it becomes available (and probably d20 Modern too.

I'm still slightly miffed about the damage difference (or lack thereof) between rifles and pistols, but I'll find a way to deal with that. If nothing else, I'll give every rifle round a small "AP value" so that it ignores the first point or two of armor compared to pistols. Anyway, I'll do something.

 

[justacaveman]

In real terms ther is little difference between the damage that a rifle does and the damage from a pistol. Rifle bullets are better at keeping the energy they have over longer ranges. Pistol ammo loses energy rapidly over distance because they are using larger diameter heavier bullets. Rifles can use faster smaller bullets because they have longer barrels wich allow more gunpowder to be used in accelerating the bullets. Rifle bullets typically have better ballistic properties than pistol bullets, but the amount of energy is about the same at close ranges. When compared to pistol bullets, the smaller diameter pointed rifle bullets are better at penetrating ballistic armor, so should get some sort of penetration bonus at close ranges.

Also there doesn't seem to be any sort of rules covering the the differences in ammo types such as hollowpoints, armor-piercing, ball, etc.. The Gauss Rifle seems to already include this in the weapon's basic stats, but what about other weapons?

 

[stormcrow]

ok, I know this is going to brand me a heretic BUT:

why in the WORLD is a gauss rifle supposed to be zero g ? If you accelerate something with mass forward you WILL have an equal reaction in recoil. Unless you have gravitic dampers on the rifle which you COULD do at TL14ish I suppose.

 

[justacaveman]

I agree.

Why no recoil for Gauss rifles?

 

[apoc527]

GURPS Traveller has recoil for Gauss weapons. They *should* have recoil after all...

 

[William]

Originally posted by apoc527:
GURPS Traveller has recoil for Gauss weapons. They *should* have recoil after all...

Actually the recoil should be so minimal as to be effectively zero. A gauss weapon is using a linear or coil electromagnetic accellerator to sling a sliver of metal at high speed. The reaction is the magnetic field pushing those few grams of metal away. The reaction to that, I can't imagine, is anything you'd notice - especially given the wieght of the weapon and it's power system. Now, looking at the table in G:T, it seems they think that a guass rifle would have the same recoil as an M-16 or AK-74 equivalent. Not too likely. Personally if I used G:T as a system rather than as a background, I'd write that up as an errata and send it into SJG for correction.

Obviously YMMV.

William

 

[stormcrow]

Gauss Rifles may have MORE recoil than a standard assault rifle. Why? Well gauss weapons are often described as shooting their slugs at a higher velocity, this is what makes them so deadly, yes?

Well it is real simple: however much momentum you spit out the front is gonna come out the back too (in the form of recoil). So I figure if you have a similar projectile (and the projectiles sound pretty large with the lead slug w/ titanium penetrator) to the one in an assault rifle, but you spit it out faster, you get even more recoil.

That is my logic anyway.

 

[vegascat]

The recoil will depend on the weight of the weapon, time of acceleration, the weight of the projectile, and the speed of the projectile. A Gauss rifle may have more of a recoil shock because the projectile will be under acceleration for a shorter period of time than a regular rifle. The difference between a shove and a punch. Same energy, shorter duration.
Semi automatic weapons use that recoil shock to load the next round, decreasing the shock to the user. Gauss rifles, being high tech, hopefully would have a recoil abatement system to help the user.

End argument. If you fire a gauss rifle in zero-G without a solid grip on something, you will be doing a spinning circus act for your opponent.

 

[tim_manley]

Originally posted by stormcrow:
Gauss Rifles may have MORE recoil than a standard assault rifle....

I disagree. My understanding of the concept of Gauss Rifles are that they magnetically accelerate a metal slug. There is no recoil in this method.

 

[stormcrow]

I disagree. My understanding of the concept of Gauss Rifles are that they magnetically accelerate a metal slug. There is no recoil in this method.

It doesn't matter HOW you propel something.. If you push forwards (using ANY method at all) it pushes backwards. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

Newton's Third Law of Motion:
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

If you push something, it pushes back.. we can transfer that push somewhere, expell the energy in other ways perhaps, maybe even spread the transfer of energy out in time to make the recoil seem less, but that energy has to go SOMEWHERE..

 

[Gaming Glen]

My layman's understanding is that the barrel pulls the round forward, not pushing, by magnetic attraction. Maybe at the rear of the round there is magnetic repulsion (pushing), also, but I don't see recoil in either case.

Glen

 

[Secrect Cow Level]

Maybe Gauss rifles use an anti-grav based recoil compensater. Granted it doesn't sound very realistic, but then neither do MTs thruster plates yet people still love to use them!

 

[gardclan]

Originally posted by Gaming Glen:
My layman's understanding is that the barrel pulls the round forward, not pushing, by magnetic attraction. Maybe at the rear of the round there is magnetic repulsion (pushing), also, but I don't see recoil in either case.

Sound logic, but Mr. Newton still gets his dues. Any time you accelerate something, by push, pull, or sneeze there is a recoil. ALWAYS. The bullet/slug/dart starts at rest, experiences a massive acceleration, and then leaves the barrel.

When you walk, believe it or not, you actually move the earth itself from the "recoil"... although the mass of the planet is so great that the effect will never be noticed by even the most sensitive instruments.

Following your line of reasoning, if the barrel is "pulling" on the slug, then the slug is also "pulling" on the barrel with an equal and opposite force. The slug weighs much less than the barrel and its attached mechanisms, and therefore experiences a much greater acceleration.

 

[JeffryCrews]

And there you have it conventional experiments with mass drivers and Gauss rifles are designed around a push pull push pull series of electromagnets which effectively negate any recoil. Furthermore the mass of the object is actually more important in recoil than the force used on it, shooting a BB with black powder has less recoil than say a .50 calibur round.

 

[Smiling DM]

Originally posted by JeffryCrews:
And there you have it conventional experiments with mass drivers and Gauss rifles are designed around a push pull push pull series of electromagnets which effectively negate any recoil.

Wrong - the push and the pull forces are all in the same direction - they don't cancel each other out. If they did, then, by F=ma (Netwon's 1st Law), if the forces are equal and opposite, then F=0. Since the bullet/round has mass, then a must =0, meaning the round would go NO WHERE.

Momentum must be conserved. If you impart momentum into something (say a bullet), then an equal and opposite amount of momentum is generated (the recoil of the rifle). This is completely independent of the method of imparting the momentum.

This is RL Physics - anyone who says different is selling something

Furthermore the mass of the object is actually more important in recoil than the force used on it, shooting a BB with black powder has less recoil than say a .50 calibur round.

While I can't comment on the specifics of your example, I can on the math.

Momentum is mass X velocity. Velocity (v) is related to force by acceleration (F=ma and v=at). So, substituting all the algebra, we get

momentum = mass x (F/mass x time) or momentum=Force x time (the amount of time the force is applied) - this is called Impulse and really represent a change in momentum.

Thus, changing momentum is driven by Force and time and independent of mass, while the resultant velocity from a given amount of momentum is dictated by the quantity of mass.

In short - they are equally important.

So why does the military like this tech? It is a means of achieving higher muzzle velocities with a reduced recoil force.

Now it may seem like I am talking outnof both sides of my mouth. The key is TIME and the differentiation of recoil momentum and recoil force. The momentum is constant - the amount of force developed depends on time - how much time is the force applied to the round AND over how much time is the recoil force applied to the shooter. Magnetic acceleration allows for a much longer amount of time for the full accelerating force to be applied to the round as compared to a chemical propellent (where the force drops off as the bullet travels the length of the barrel).

The recoil momentum is also spread over this longer period of time, so the Force of the recoil is lower (remember, Impulse = F x Time - more time means less force for the same amount of Impulse or Change in momentum).

Sorry for the science lesson, but unless there is a game technology in play (such as a CG generator in the gun or some other 'Traveller-esque' gizmo, gauss rifles generate recoil.

Unless you don't want them to in your TU.

 

[vegascat]

Some difference between gunpowder and gauss fields on recoil effects. Gundowder will be converting a bit of solid into a gas, then expelling that gas in one direction. That gas does have mass, therefore thrust. It will push giving recoil. The recoil is a total of all the mass time velocity in one direction, giving a delta V. The violence of the recoil is how short of a time that delta V is felt.

With a gauss field, you do not have to deal with the thrust of the exhaust gas. You do have to deal with the bullet. The higher muzzel velocity means the bullet is accelerated for a smaller amount of time than a gun powder weapon.

The felt recoil has to do with the time the shove of the weapon is felt. This is the main reason you pull a shotgun in tight to the shoulder instead of holding it an inch away from you. If you give the weapon a longer time to shove, you will feel less recoil. Less shove time is a stronger recoil. The shotgun effect happens because the butt will impact your shoulder for a much longer time if you have it in tight. If you hold it out, it will shove for a much shorter time, with the same ammount of force.

From the other end, the bullet has a force on whatever it hits. it does so much more damage to your target because it applies the energy equal to the recoil minus energy lost in atmospheric drag to the target in a much smaller area for a smaller amount of time due to it's speed. Think what would happen if you glued a bullet to the stock, point into your shoulder. The only thing stopping the bullet from going though would be the stock hitting your shoulder.

No matter which way you figure it, Issack Newton's laws are the hard cold truth.