When it comes to stating guns, which factors need to be detailed and explicit, and which ones can be abstracted?
What factors are mandatory for you to feel invested in the gun-play?
Which factors could you care less about?
Most importantly: which aspects of the firearm effect which gameplay factors?
Capacity - obvious
Reload Speed ? Just removable mags vs. internal, or is more detail needed?
Range? Just barrel length? The bullet effects effective range, but do we want to get that detailed? Even so, what factors of the gun it's self factor in on effective range sans non-standard munitions for the weapon in question?
etc
etc
Lets not just point to other systems that do guns well here; I could copy-paste if I wanted to, but I don't. I want to talk about what is and isn't important on making guns "Feel Right." Where the line between realism, and unnecessary detail lies.
>>43630418
Twilight 2013 did it well.
Caliber
Capacity
Damage
Penetration within and out of optimum range
Optimum Range and Maximum Range
Rate of Fire
Speed to use the weapon (Hipshot, Snapshot, Aimed shot)
Recoil
Bulk
Weight
They're all important stats to how the game plays, and they all make each gun feel atleast a bit unique.
Gonna stop you right there, OP. Sounds like you're asking for universal one-size-fits-all concordance between all of /tg/. That's not going to work.
Some faggots want everything detailed because they want to RP an operator operating operationally and revel in the /k/ness of the game.
Other faggots want everything abstracted to get it out of the way so they can describe badass Matrix/John Woo/Equilibrium gunplay moves and revel in the coolness of their character.
Most faggots want something in between those extremes, but god help you on trying to actually find a single point that everyone can agree upon.
>>43630483
> lets not just point to other systems that do guns well here
> LITERALLY the first post.
Interesting stuff though; what was the difference between bulk an weight?
>>43630495
/thread
>>43630418
dumb animeposter
>>43630502
Weight is how heavy the weapon is.
Bulk is how difficult the weapon is to carry.
Giant cardboard boxes aren't heavy, but they're pretty bulky. Solid lead balls are not very bulky, but quite heavy.
>>43630502
Well, I mean, it was to give an example of stuff that one could have for weapons in a system. It's just easier to use an example here, and it's not the system I'm shilling, it's the gun stats itself.
Anyways, bulk is how bulky a weapon is. It determines how fast it is to load, and how fast it is to "Ready." Handguns have a bulk of 1, so they take 1 "tick" to draw, where as most rifles have a bulk of 4, so they take 4 to draw. It also factors in to encumbrance stuff, but that's more in the actual system rather than its shooty-things.
Weight is the actual physical weight in kilograms.
>>43630495
No shit.
>>43630418
Technical details are boring. Cinematics are where it's at. Whatever kind of gun fits the scene (pistols at dawn, blowing doors open with shotguns, being pinned behind cover under a hail of auto fire, desperately trying to line up that one single frantic sniper rifle shot, etc...) is all I particularly care about.
If I want to masturbate over gun specs, I'll do it in real life. I don't need people sperging about different ammo calibers bogging down games.
>>43630563
Some people like detailed guns. Some people find it odd when there's generic calibers for all, say, SMGs.
Refer to pic and >>43630495
>>43630541
That's a disproportionately aggressive response Anon. What's wrong?
An abstract ammo system. Tracking individual rounds is tedious, and tends to wind up with unrealistic results.
Beyond that, I like the weapons to feel substantially different mechanically, to adequately fill their particular tactical niche in such a fashion that there could be a conceivable reason to choose one weapon over another.
On the note of ammunition, I don't care for too much nitpicking, there being broad categories such as "light pistol caliber," "heavy pistol caliber," "intermediate rifle caliber," etc. all works well enough for me. There should also be some special ammunition options.
Finally, while I don't want them to be terribly powerful, I prefer shotguns manage to be somewhat competitive with rifles. I know that isn't strictly realistic, but I always find it a shame to see shotguns go completely unused.
>>43630418
I'd say things like damage, range, and rate-of-fire are generally more important in a crunchy system. If you're going cinematic, I'd also say something like the aspects from FATE would suffice, since getting shot doesn't really mean different things depending on the gun, unless you're from /k/.
You could add things like individual reload times and weight, but I've never played a game where things were tracked down to the kilogram.
>>43630577
>Some people like detailed guns.
Some people like 4E D&D too. There are lots of fucking stupid gamers.
>>43630584
At no point did I state, or even insinuate, that I expected there to be a consensus. You've put words in my mouth, and potentially killed the thread.
>>43630495
No. OP is looking for conversation to start between people, especially with differing opinions, so we can all learn from each other and trade ideas on how to get guns to "feel right" in any given game.
If you have an opinion, share it and give details on why you believe it, and if you are like >>43630483
and just like how a system does it, fucking elaborate instead of just dumping some vague shit and forcing us to go learn the system ourselves to know what the fuck you are talking about.
>tl;dr discuss guns or gtfo
>>43630664
Oh fuck off drama queen it went where it went. If anything you killed your own thread by shit posting about someone shit posting.
>>43630657
>NO YOU'RE HAVING FUN THE WRONG WAY YOU'RE NOT REALLY HAVING FUN YOU'RE HAVING STUPID FUN STOP THAT IT MAKES ME SO FUUUUUURIOUS
Okay
>>43630418
That pic makes her look huge
Are giantesses with guns a thing?
>>43630668
I'm sorry I thought most of those stats were fairly self-explanatory.
I guess I'll just like, go shoot myself now or something.Get it? Because the thread is about shooting! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>43630695
nobody noted my posts except you
>>43630649
>An abstract ammo system. Tracking individual rounds is tedious, and tends to wind up with unrealistic results.
I have brought up this same point before, and my friend pretty much waved it off as "but you do it in D&D with arrows"
My problem with that, of course, is that it's ALSO tedious in D&D with arrows, so take what you want from that.
What is your opinion on a "safe" abstract system that doesn't just handwave it to "you have ammo, go nuts" I immediately think of it on a mag-by-mag basis, where you have a certain amount of mags on your person that you track, which represent a certain amount of shots or attacks each, depending on how the system handles actual combat
>>43630668
No he's not. He's not saying "hey guys lets all discuss our various opinions on X," he's saying "hey /tg/, answer these subjective questions for me."
Not that approach #1 would change the thread at all. It's already full of "my way is the only right way" faggots and shitflinging over opinions (see >>43630657 >>43630563 >>43630577 >>43630699 and the rest of this trainwreck-in-the-making).
>>43630418
All factors must be explicit. Phoenix Command a best.
>>43630657
>tryna start an edition war in a thread about modern weaponry
Just how deep does the shitposting go?
>>43630738
Typically I prefer to go with an ammo check at the end of a fight, or an ammo check any time a fumble comes up, or certain combat options are made use of.
Retro Phaze has an abstract ammo system for arrows and such that I'm fairly fond of as well.
>>43630668
Fine, then amend OPs intention to my own intention of "lets discuss our opinions on this subject and hopefully prevent shitflining"
>>43630726
They aren't self explanatory though, especially to someone who is a neckbeard and not a /k/ommando, so maybe get off your high fucking horse and be helpful instead of an ass
>>43630418
As a gm I've noticed that my players like the system with Max range, optimal range, armor pen and with tracking ammo loaded in clip.
Generally we are playing urban fantasy,and guns - or more likely ammo - are rare.
Atm one guy has AA 12, while other has m95.
AA12 has literally 5 bullets left, and the sniper has 3.
>>43630649
Shotguns [generally] fail at penetration; they are otherwise quite functional.
This is largely in line with what I had in mind. I was going to mainly do fireamrs by "class," rather than breaking down the differences between a stub-nose .45 and a standard length; or MAYBE, have the prior be a "Compact Revolver," w/ slightly shorter range but like 1 point less encumbrance, w/ the other being just "Revolver."
Regardless of my intentions though, discussion of all forms breeds creativity and inspires, so I like to hear what everyone has to say on the subject.
>>43630741
>he's saying "hey /tg/, answer these subjective questions for me."
He said verbatim
>>43630418
>When it comes to stating guns, which factors need to be detailed and explicit, and which ones can be abstracted?
>What factors are mandatory for you to feel invested in the gun-play?
>Which factors could you care less about?
> I want to talk about what is and isn't important on making guns "Feel Right."
He's very clearly asking for our opinions on what WE THINK would make the system "feel right"
He's not asking for some sort of objective, fact-based consensus. If you couldn't come to that same conclusion on your own, you are probably looking for trouble to begin with.
That being said, what is YOUR opinion on OPs original question?
>>43630813
But I'm not being an ass, I'm just saying things. I'm sorry I've so deeply offended you.
Caliber: This is the size of ammunition that the weapon requires.
Damage: The base Damage value of any attack made with the weapon.
Penetration: The base Penetration value of any attack made with the weapon. Non-explosive ranged weapons have two Penetration values. The first is for attacks made at optimum range or closer, and the second is for attacks made past optimum range.
Range: The optimum and maximum ranges of the weapon. Obviously, this trait is omitted for close combat weapons. If a weapon is capable of indirect fire, its maximum indirect fire range is indicated with a notation of “IN:” (for large weapons, this may be measured in kilometers rather than range bands).
Capacity: The ammunition load that the weapon is designed to carry or accept. Notations of (cy), (bt), and (in) respectively indicate cylinder, belt, or individual round feed mechanisms, which may affect reloading speed.
Speed: The weapon’s cost for hip, snap, and aimed shots. A notation of “Operational” indicates that one complete attack and reloading cycle requires an operational action.
Bulk: The relative bulk of the weapon. This determines reload speed and readying speed.
Does that help you?
>>43630851
What happens when you start dealing with weapons that use burst fire or are fully automatic?
>>43630741
I'd have said "/tg/" if I was addressing the masses, not "you." I want the opinions of the individual.
>>43630650
The fact they aren't wearing panties doesn't bother me.
What bothers me is that there's an 10 blue girls and 7 red girls, but just ONE green girl.
They could have done 9 of each and there would be a harmonious balance!
>>43630894
>But I'm not being an ass, I'm just saying things. I'm sorry I've so deeply offended you.
All good bro and yeah it helps for the most part.
So are the firing and reloading speed tracked together?
>>43630813
I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I don't need a defense-force.
>>43630418
>SPAS-12
Haha gross. Trade that piece of junk for a Mossberg 500 or Remington 870, you fucking hipster.
>>43630929
Fuck I forgot to mention rate of fire and recoil.
Rate of Fire is either listed as S (For single shot) or B# for Burst (Then # being substituted for how many rounds are in the burst). Many weapons are capable of Both S and B# types of fire (And some even three types, with an example of the M16A2 having S/B3/B5, meaning you can fire one shot from it, 3 shots, or 5 shots.)
Recoil is a number that is compared to the user's stats to see if they take a penalty for firing a follow-up shot with the weapon (as with how recoil works, it doesn't effect the first shot.) When using bursts, you add the number of bullets in the burst to the recoil value to determine penalties.
So just as an example here's an M16A2:
Caliber: 5.56x45mm (Obviously the size/type of bullet fired from the weapon)
Capacity: 30+1 (The standard magazine holds 30 rounds, plus 1 in the chamber of the weapon if you so choose)
Damage: 6 (This is the standard damage for most 5.56x45mm weapons. Some excepts with very short barrels are presented, but overall 6 is the standard. This is relatively moderate damage, enough to give what the game classifies as a "Serious" wound.)
Penetration: x2/x3 (This is what you multiply any armour struck by the weapon by. So say you had an AP (Armour Point(s)) 1 Flak Jacket, you would multiply that by 2 to receive 2 damage reduction from the shot. If it was out of the weapon optimum range, it would be multiplied by 3.)
Range: M/S (That's Medium/Sniping. The system uses vague ranges rather than super specific. Medium is around 100-200 meters, which is where the weapon will be most effective. Below this, the weapon takes penalties to speed. Above that range, the weapon takes accuracy penalties to hit, and it cannot hit anything past the range of "Sniping" (400-800 meters))
Rate of Fire: S/B3 (It can fire a single shot, or a 3 round burst. Simple)
Will continue in next post
>>43631069
As a note, I really like the range band system. I think it's a lot better than having written ranges, and it allows for some flexibility, and easier determination of, well, ranges.
Speed: 3/5/7 (The first speed is for hip-shots, which take a penalty equal to the weapon's bulk when firing. The second is a standard shot, the snapshot, which has no modifiers. The third is an aimed shot, which halves all modifiers)
Recoil: 5 (This number is compared to one's "Muscle" stat. If it's over, a penalty is taken. I think it's a simple and effective enough way of determining recoil. Recoil only applies for semi-auto shots if you are making two in a row with no interruption.)
Bulk: 3 (This is the cost for reloading, readying, and other such things with the weapon. It also determines some things how annoying it is to travel with and what have you, but that's going more in to the system than what the stats mean.)
Overall, I think that it really gets all the stats I would want from a firearms system, and portrays them with an odd elegance. Everything does really seem to just go together nicely in the numbers.The only part of it I don't like too much is that in the burst system, you have to randomly determine how many shots hit, rather than having some sort of way of determining that through more solid mechanics.
>>43630483
>>43631069
>>43631149
And this is all Twilight 2013?
It's quite a bit, perhaps more that I'd implement, but it seems like useful reference; novel if nothing else.
>>43631167
Yes indeed it is, Twilight 2013. It also has a psuedo-realtime combat system where every "Tick" is a tenth of a second, which is real cool and can lead to oddly, extremely cinematic and tense firefights.
But enough of me shilling a dead system, it's just my dream weapon layout sort of thing. It doesn't go too super indepth, but it really gets the points I would want, and makes logical sense.
Really, if there's one thing from it I would take though, fucking range bands. Range bands are so easy and great I just love them.
>>43631205
I was actually going to give weapons an "Effective Range." You'd get perhaps damage/penetration bonuses for firing within 1/2 of that, and suffer an accuracy penalty for firing beyond that, and you can aim at targets out to double the weapon's effective range.
This is all pencil and doodles atm; that's just the initial concept.
Girls does it rather well. A good balance of game relevant info and abstracted items factors. The game deva and writers do amazing research and throw a bunch of info at you in the books
>>43631247
See, the reason I don't entirely like that is that you have 1: Math and I'm an idiot, and 2: It doesn't really give you the more visual words (I suppose you could call them) of "Medium, Open, Sniping, Extreme," etc, which are coherent throughout all weapons and ranges in the game.
I've noticed when you have a number for range, it tends to get often ignored.
>>43630650
Oh I get it, they're all goingcommando.
>>43630927
>9 of each
>not 6 of the three colors
>>43631313
It'd be easy numbers though, I wouldn't give a weapon an Effective Range of... idk, 174x, it'd be like... 100, 140, 60, things you can reflexively halve and double.
>>43631318
...omg, I never got that; I've had those pictures for like 5 years and it just hit me.
>>43631313
>>43631069
>>43631149
You wouldn't happen to have those PDFs on tap, would you?
>>43631451
You want it baby, I got it.
http://www.mediafire.com/view/cx3nccm37pudumo/Twilight_2013_-_Core_Rules.pdf
>>43631620
Delicious.
>>43631313
How are you okay w/ tracking turns in 1/10th of a second-interavles, but not x2 and /2?
>>43631666
It being more integral to the game may help, if that makes sense. It's a very core combat mechanic, so I remember it. Perhaps saying math is annoying is too much for that, but, I often forget about written ranges. Though that could just be me.
>>43631645
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/t1nepzmxp0350/Twilight_2013
There's all the Twilight 2013 books, if you want them. Gunbooks and the like
>>43630927
It's always comforting when you realize that other people have the same neurosises as you.
One of the reasons I don't like super-spesifc weapons stuff, even in melee weapons, is because there's no mechanically "Best," weapon IRL, and there will inevitably be a "Best" weapon in-game. By keeping it abstract you can balance out weapons more easily so that X is better at Y than Z, but A is better at Z than Y, and such.
>>43631250
Fuck. Gurps. Goddamn autocorrect
>>43632118
I like girls much more than GURPS.
>>43632199
>liking girls more than tabletop games
Pfffffffffffffft... Hey everyone, look at this loser!
>>43632278
He only said girls>Gurps. With that level of endorsement he could still be gay for all we know.
>>43632278
GURPs isn't a ttg, it's a sin against fun.
>>43632507
...wouldn't being gay make the statement more meaningful?
>>43632952
Depends on how much of a faggot he is.
>>43633342
This anon gets it. There's Faggots, and then there's prancing lala homo men. Which one is that poster? The world may never know, unless he finds a way out of the basement closet.
>>43630650
Unrelated, but in my realm ,these bitches are fighting massive cyborgs
With massive..cannons.
Honestly, I like it when the bullets themselves have modifiers or stats to reflect the various available rounds. World of difference between a spread of buckshot at range and a slug, or armor piercing vs. hollowpoint.
>>43630749
Actually it's not. It's good, but it's not brilliant. It has some flaws. But it's good, I like it.
>>43630418
>>43630650
>>43631645
The infamous nopan brigade strikes again!
>>43630563
>Technical details are boring. Cinematics are where it's at.
Cinematics is not the reverse of technical they are 2 different characteristics.
The game phoenix command (that ultra realistic/detailed game made by rocket scientist) has stats for cinematic chair, to when you want to use it on a fight.
See pic for hollywood style and non holywood style chair stats
>>43630738
>I have brought up this same point before, and my friend pretty much waved it off as "but you do it in D&D with arrows"
The answer is
>because its d&d
>ALTERNATE WORLD
D&d 3.0 is going to be release
They dont.
They get fatal from developer before fatal is released and kill everyone involved in fatal
Change all mentions of fatal with d&d 3.0
Release it.
Even in this hypotetical situation, you would still have alot of players playing d&d 3.0
>>43630563
>If I want to masturbate over gun specs, I'll do it in real life.
Good look killing people on real life
>>43637344
>Masturbation kills people.
>>43630418
The same way you make other kinetic things like sword fighting, mecha, and car chases 'feel right' and still have a system that is still fun to play.You don't, turn based systems are terrible at that and are abstract by nature.I'd hate to be that faggot that states something in absolutes, but, as much of a cocksucker I am for GURPS: Tactical Shooting, from my experience such meticulous detail results in combat that feels like a chore. You boil it down to common sense (assuming you aren't taking three doses of Cuhrahzey) regarding what you can expect certain classes of weapons to do to a person in terms of damage, fire rate, range, penetration (assuming that it isn't calculated into damage), and maybe an area of effect, and then you call it a day. Tie accuracy to the operator (attribute+ skill) and assume that weapons are accurate up to their maximum effective ranges before any penalties beyond the purely situational are applied. Any more than that and it becomes calculus that only people who are into detailed simulations\the autistic\Mathematics majors can enjoy.
At the end of the day, you really only need a generalized description based on weapon class, most people will fill in the blanks in their head with their own assumption on how these things will operate. It's how abstraction works and at the end of the day your players are going to have more fun (what this is about!) imagining what their stat block is doing to the other stat block themselves; rather than having a super duper wheelistic description of how this specific AK variant that nobody at the table except you has heard of will shoot somebody in a way similar to, but not quite like, this other AK variant that nobody at the table except you has heard of.
>>43630927
>10 blue girls
9 soon.
Unless you're building the system grounds-up for the sake of shooting, the important question will probably be what factors and differences can be included at all.
>>43630851
>I want guns and ammo to be rare
>so I gave my players two of the most absurdly expensive, hard to acquire guns out there
>one of which uses just about the most dirt-common ammunition available, and can successfully fire just about anything that can fit in a shell
>>43639117
Nah, look in front of her. There's some ground there. Even if she falls, it doesn't look more than, like, a ten-fifteen foot drop.
It'll hurt like hell and she'll probably break something, but she'll survive.
>>43630418
>stating guns
It's "statting". When you assign qualitative rankings to an object for the purposes of a role-playing game, you are STATTING it. When you mention something explicitly, you are STATING it.
the gun it's self
I'm just gonna go sit in the autism corner now.
