gleichman wrote:
> "Peter Knutsen" <peter@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> Then 3% sounds very high. Even 1% sounds kind of high to me. If I were
>> a cop, or something, I wouldn't want to trust my life to a sidearm
>> that only works 99% of the time when I pull the trigger.
>
> I don't have any data to hand about police jam rates, but if 99% percent
> is the best you can get- trust or not, that's what you'd be using
> because it's better than your teeth.
Sure, but a soldier is never alone. Even special operations soldiers are
only very rarely alone. Even if your rifle jams, there'll be at least
2-3 friends nearby with functioning rifles.
Cops, on the other hand, often are alone.
>> I'm working on the assumption that a firearm jam is a major event, in
>> terms of the time it costs to recover from it. My original post
>> suggested 5 Rounds to un-jam a jammed firearm (30 seconds) for an
>> untrained character, 1 Round for a trained character, and a fraction of
>> a Round for a highly trained character.
>
> That's almost more of a malfunction than a jam, and most of those would
> require tools to correct (something to whack the slide with, or pliers
> to pull a torn case, etc.).
Then that's one place where game has to trumph reality. Jams or
malfunctions requiring lengthy repairs are not interesting to me, but
neither are jamps which have no effect except to reduce RoF. I want
something in-between, even if it is contrary to reality, because if I
get that, then I make "Immediate Action" a meaningful character ability.
>> I want the rules to be such that player characters will automatically
>> make real-world-matching choices for in-game, in-character reasons.
>>
>> For instance, cops favour revolvers over pistols, even though pistols
>> have higher ammo capacity and are also (if we ignore speed loaders, or
>> perhaps even if we don't) faster to reload. I'm also tempted to
>> introduce a Double-Tap maneuver, for pistols only, to simulate the
>> higher rate of fire.
>
> Real-world matching?
>
> Few police departments today issue revolvers. Starting in the 80s,
> automatics became the standard choice. Some departments leave it up to
> the individual (within guidelines) and you do see a wheel gun now and
> then, but they are rare at least in OK, TX areas I travel.
Interesting data point. But might that not have more to do with a desire
for a high volume of fire (seeing as most handgun shots fired doesn't
hit the target), rather than a concern with the cop's ability to pull
his gun, in an emergency, and be almost absolutely certain that a bullet
will come out of the barrel, so that he can stop a perp at point blank
range?
> Double-Tap is common in game design, and even acceptably real world for
> most users. However experts with a revolver can handily match semi-auto
> pistol firing rates with the larger bores (at least until it comes time
> to reload)- recoil management and target alignment taking up far more
> time than action cycling. I always thought that it should be possible to
> buy a (perhaps more expensive) Revolver Double-Tap, even for single
> actions.
That'd be the alternative approach to the mechanic. Have a somewhat
cheap Double-Tap maneuver (binary skill, similar to a Martial Ars
maneuver in Hero System) that works only for pistols, and then offer an
upgrade maneuver so that you can also double-tap with revolvers.
- Whereas my original idea was to allow only the pistol double-tap
maneuver, with nothing for revolvers.
The big question is, what makes for the better game? Keeping pistols and
revolvers distinct from each other is desirable, of course, but apart
from reliability (and perhaps a certain Dirty Harry coolness), pistols
have the advantage, in terms of offering more shots before you need to
reload, and reloading being faster (probably even if a speedloader is
used).
So if I say that double-tapping is for pistols only, revolvers might end
up generally undesirable, even if they do jam less often.
> So looking at that, I couldn't match my real-world experience to your
> game. However, I understand that you're attempting to match your
> knowledge to it instead of mine so your concept remains.
>
> I'm rather fond of individual weapon quirks. Thus the AK-47 getting
> bonuses for reliability and reduced accuracy appeals to me and I would
> endorse that method. The only drawback is that good quirk information
> for less famous weapons are hard to find. For example, how many
> references note that Bond's PPK (at least in the versions I've seen)
> lacks a slide stop and thus requires an extra step to reload?
Yes, but that's why the rules won't make statements about what quirks
specific guns have (except perhaps give suggestions for iconic weapons
such as the AK-47, M16, gangster submachine gun (Thompson?) and the
Uzi). Instead they'll offer a list of quirks, and then let the end
users, the GMs and players, apply these quirks to particular guns, as
they see fit.
I won't provide a list of specific guns, with stats. Instead I'll just
offer light assault rifle, medium assault rifle, heavy assault rifle
(even if there is no such thing, a mad gunsmith could make one for a
very strong friend), and so forth.
Another example, which I read in Hans-Chrisian Vortisch' new "GURPS
Seals in Vietnam"-PDF, is that many SEAL groups would have the point man
carry a shotgun, because they found that it was really good for getting
that first shot in, at very close range. That set me thinking about
point blank-shooting, and whether various gun types should have
different bonuses. So that's one way in which my mind, and my approach
to game design, works. I read or hear something, and it gets me thinking
about including it in the design.
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
|
