From: rcashman@cs.ulowell.edu (The Jester)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: SRUNII: Laser sights and SG links
Date: 13 Nov 92 18:01:47 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts at Lowell Computer Science


Jeff Wilder divulges:

>|I am forced to disagree with your asessment.  I am an NRA Yoeman and
>|my roommate is a qualified Expert with the M-16.  We both agreed that
>|its pretty tough to miss with *ANY* gun at what SR2 terms short or even
>|medium and long range.  That's whether you're skilled in firearms use or not.
>|And that's nowadays.  I'd assume that, by 2053, weapons technology has 
>|improved so that standard point-and-shoot is even simpler.
>
>|Now, while moving targets are MUCH more difficult to hit than stationary
>|ones, the game DOES provide negative accuracy modifiers for just such
>|circumstances.  Point being that its real easy to get waxed in a fight
>|where firearms are used.
>
>So it's your contention that a novice shooter (say, Firearms 2) *should*
>have a 56% chance of scoring a hit on a *moving* man-sized target?  At
>20 meters?  With a *handgun*?  *Without* aiming?  Oh, and in combat con-
>ditions, with every possibility that the target (or his buddies) are firing
>back?  56%?  Oh, and that's only the first shot of the combat phase.  That
>novice shooter gets another try.  Oh, and you wanna hear the best part?
>That shooter gets to add more dice from the Combat pool.  At this point
>of course, he'll almost never miss.   


Contrary to what you might think, a man-sized target, moving or not (and,
if you wanna be a rules lawyer, I consider "moving" to be anything short
of actively running away or dodging), IS relatively easy to hit at a
range of approximately 60 feet with ANY sort of firearm.

Now, to refute your nonsensical claims, try this on for size:

	You're novice shooter (Firearms 2) shoots at a man-sized target
	at a range of 20 meters with his Ares Predator (Medium range
	for the pistol, base target number of 4).  Our man-sized target IS 
	moving, albeit NOT running or dodging out of the way (let's say he's 
	moving at a brisk walk, no target number modifier).  We DO have
	the opportunity to take minimal aim (any shot is considered to
	have a minimal amount of aim...simply by pointing the gun at the
	target, our hypothetical gunman is aiming).  So our hypothetical
	gunman shoots.  Yes, I'd give him roughly a 50% chance of hitting
	his target, and a slightly worse chance for his second shot (be-
	cause of recoil).

	Furthermore, I discount your argument about Combat Pool dice
	being spent to bolster our hypothetical gunman's roll.  Anyone
	with a Firearms 2 is NOT going to have a slew of Combat Pool
	dice to play around with.  If he uses them in his action, he
	runs the risk of getting waxed if his gunfire doesn't do the
	job right away.  So let's say he's got three dice in his Combat
	Pool.  He'd be a fool to spend more than one on ANY gunshot
	unless he was in a do-or-die situation (i.e. one shot would
	make the difference between his living or dying).


>I'll admit, your assessment of my direct experience with weapons is indeed
>accurate.  However, in addition to reading widely on the subject, I've also
>had the benefit of two uncles who served combat duty in Vietnam,
>and another who's been involved in a firefight as a cop.  According to
>their testimony, hits in combat, even relatively open combat, are *rare*.


Ah, but let's talk about that.  Those GIs in Vietnam almost never saw
what they were shooting at, and, when they did, they were firing on full
auto to make Charlie keep his head down.  I think your uncles will agree
to that, right?  In Vietnam, Jeff, 10000 rounds were fired for every one
confirmed kill.


>I'll tell ya what:  when you and your qualified Expert roommate (you figure
>he beats Firearms 2?) have popped some rounds at targets that are firing
>back, with *live* ammo, I'll begin to consider your opinion in the same light
>as I do my relatives'.


Since, Jeff, you do not know the depth of MY experience with weapons, you
would do well to withold any sort of judgement on the value of my opinions.
Not to disparage your relatives, but I seriously doubt that you can form
an accurate guess of what combat is like from heresay and opinion without
actually having picked up a gun and fired it at a range, at least.


>|Bullshit.  I've fired a gun with a laser sight on it.  You know where
>|to aim because you've got a pinpoint of red light where the bullet's
>|going to hit, not because you pull some sort of twisted forward-observer
>|maneuver.  Accuracy of the shooter IS directly increased because you
>|know exactly where you're aiming.  When I shoot, I don't fire and
>|then aim.
>
>Bullshit.  You don't aim where the laser is *lying*, the laser *lies*
>where you've *aimed*.  Think about it for a second.  With me?  Try to
>follow this:


I didn't say that.  I said you know where you're aiming because you've
got a laser light at that point.  This DIRECTLY increases a shooter's
accuracy.  For instance, if I gave you a basketball and put you at the
foul line, and then told you exactly where the ball would go from what-
ever position you took, I think you'd find that you'd hit a lot more
shots than you'd miss, BUT SOMETIMES, REGARDLESS OF WHAT I TOLD YOU,
YOU'D STILL MISS.


>You see a target.  You raise your laser-sighted Ares at him.  (At this 
>point, in my system, you've just rolled your Firearm dice.  You haven't
>pulled the *trigger*, you're just using your skill to point the gun in
>the right direction.)  You look for your ruby dot.  Now, if you *see*
>your ruby dot, on the target, or on a portion of the target you want,
>you *immediately* squeeze the trigger.  (You've already rolled the dice,
>remember?)  Blam.  This simple action is over.  (As it would be if you
>*didn't* have a LS, and were targeting manually.)                     
>
>Ah, but what if you *don't* see that ruby dot?  Do you pull the trigger
>regardless?  Of course not; it's a sure miss.  So, you *readjust*, using    
>the beam, and your own skill.  (In my system, you readjust by rerolling
>the failures when you *first* targeted.  After all, if you have the dot
>on him [say, rolled 1 success], you *keep* the dot on him.  You just try
>for a more vital shot.)  All this takes 1 simple action; a very short  
>amount of time.  Hopefully, you've tracked him with the laser; NOW you
>squeeze the trigger; *unless*...
>
>You're *still* not happy with the lie of the laser.  In which case, for
>conservation of ammo, you don't squeeze off the shot at all.


Listen to me very carefully: the laser light focuses on the point where a
bullet fired from the gun would impact.  By pointing the gun at your
target, you've performed minimal aiming.  Your laser sight tells you that
you're on the money, hence the target number modifer.  As far as I can
see, you're twisting the game mechanics and basic optical laws to allow
you to "take back" shots you've already fired.  Your mechanic is unnec-
essary because SR2 already accomplishes the same effectual thing without
all the dice rolling: you calculate your target number, and, if you're not
happy with it, you don't shoot.  End of story.


>|>3)  A smartgun link (but not smart goggles) works similarly to a laser
>|>	sight, but the process is condensed into one simple action, rather
>|>	than requiring two.  (This simulates the increased speed of 
>|>	response I envision for cybernetic targeting systems.)  Target
>|>	Numbers, however, as always, remain normal (i.e. 5, at Short
>|>	range.)
>
>|I envision a smartlink as a pair of crosshairs that are superimposed
>|upon the user's field of vision at his aiming point.  I'd assume that
>|most SR2 players would agree with this, since it's consistent with the
>|description of the smartlink given in the rulebook.  If I am correct,
>|then you can refer to my response to your garbage about laser sights
>|above.
>
>I also consider it crosshairs.  So what?  The *principle* in game mechanics
>terms is exactly the same.  You don't aim the crosshairs, you aim the
>*weapon*.  (Aiming the crosshairs?!  Now *that* would be a smartgun...)
>The big advantage of an SG link over a LS would be speed; you simply
>command the weapon to fire.  Thus no need for an extra simple action.
>(This is actually not a great explanation; there's no real *reason* I
>can see for a SG link to be any better, in GM terms, than a LS.  I like the
>rule, though, because a SG link *should* be better.  It's just...cooler.)


[Sigh of frustration.]  A smartlink is a feedback loop from a weapon to
the user's eyesight.  The crosshairs that appear in the user's field of
vision are located at exactly the same spot that a laser sight would put
a dot of laser light.  As I move my gun, my aiming point moves as well.
Point: I KNOW WHERE I'M AIMING AS I MOVE MY GUN.  Parallel situation:
I give you a basketball and put you on the foul line, and you automatically
know exactly where the ball's going to hit from each position you take.
You'll hit even MORE often than if I told you where it was going to hit,
but you'd still miss some of the time.  So actually, in effect, YOU DO
AIM THE CROSSHAIRS.


>|>4)  The user of a laser sight or SG link may *always* choose not to
>|>	pull the trigger, even after he has rolled the dice.  (This
>|>	simulates his dissatifaction with the lie of the laser or
>|>	crosshairs.)  However, he must so choose before the defender
>|>	rolls his resistance dice, and any Combat dice allocated are
>|>	still consumed.  The main advantage of this is conservation of
>|>	ammunition.  I would not allow this choice for shots that have
>|>	Targets modified for previous recoil.
>
>|Since you have no understanding of basic aiming principles, and even less
>|understanding of how a laser sight enhances a shooter's accuracy, you're
>|wifty little game mechanic is pointless.  I simply allow my players
>|to calculate thier target numbers and then opt whether or not to shoot.
>|With any sort of accuracy-enhancing hardware, it becomes a great deal
>|easier to gauge the difficulty of a shot, but not so much so that you
>|can "take back" a bullet that you've already fired.
>
>Who said anything about "taking back a bullet"?  Read it again, and go  
>slowly this time.  The shooter is simply choosing not to fire.  (And you
>actually tell your players their T#s?!  Why in the world would you want to
>do that?  Oh, sure.  I guess it's okay with you if they decide to fire
>because their T# is 11 instead of 12, huh?  Geez.  "Well, with an *11*, I
>have an 8% chance, see, but if it's a *12*, cause I happen to be walking,
>see, my chance drops to less than 3%.  That's per die, of course.  Get it? 
>I'd *never* fire at T# *12*!  That's be *useless*!")


Once you've rolled dice, in my opinion, you've committed yourself to an
action.  There are no rerolls (short of Karma), no do-overs, no nothing.
Furthermore, I find that simply telling players thier character's target
number and having them take care of all the mechanical bullshit is a lot
simpler and faster than walking around the table and counting each char-
acter's successes.  Of course, I have players that I can count on to
role-play rather than roll-play.


>|If I may ask: why?  Fumbles are already possible (albeit improbable), and,
>|with the increases in weapons technology that I hope are available by
>|2053, rightly so, because gun malfunctions SHOULD be rare.  Furthermore,
>|the current system works fine because a novice is MUCH more likely to jam
>|or misfire a gun than an experienced shooter.
>
>You may indeed ask.  "Improbable" is *really* understating the situation.
>Lessee.  Skill 1 = 16% chance of fumble.  Probably about right for this
>sort of beginner.  Skill 2, a little better, but still a novice: about 3%.
>Too low, but I can live with it, I guess.  The problems begin at skill 3:
>less that .5%.  And they drop into absolutely ridiculous depths after that:
>skill 4: (quick calculation...) about .08%.  Skill 5?  .00012%.  See where
>this is going?  Has *anybody* out there in Netland *ever* seen a skill 6
>person fumble?  Ever?


I find the current system totally consistent with the real-world and quite
workable.  Sure, people with about skill 3 in anything succeed a lot more
often than they fail or fumble, but I've seen bizarre stuff happen.  One
of my favorites was seeing a Rigger with a Driving 9 skill fumble a roll.


>This problem wouldn't exist if penalties to T#s increased the likelihood
>of a fumble (which, in most cases, they should.)  But they don't, and   
>though it's possible to make them do so, it's not worth the effort, because
>on *every* roll, you'd have to make a calculation for *every* die, not
>just the upper end rolls and the ones, as it is now.  Too damn much time.


I have to contest this point.  Aiming difficulties would make a gunshot
more difficult, but would in no way increase the likelihood that a gun
would explode, misfire, or jam when I try to shoot it.


>To address your points directly:
>
>1)  The *weapons* reliability I have no problem with.  I agree with you;
>	caseless ammo will vastly increase reliability (once the build up 
>	problems are solved.)  The possibility of fumble lies with the
>	*person*, however.  That's why it's based on their skill rolls,
>	after all, and not on some Weapon Reliability stat.  And, in case
>	you run a different sort of campaign:  Firearms rolls are nowhere
>	*near* the majority of rolls my players make.


Put a revolver in the hands of a novice and see how often he "fumbles"
(i.e. either the gun misfires, jams, or blows up).  Revolvers are incred-
ibly reliable guns, and I would expect that, by 2053, most guns are as
reliable if not moreso.  Yes, game mechanically, the chance of a fumble lies
with the person.  But the chance of a fumble should not be increased because
guns simply do not misfire or jam that much.  To take it one step further,
a highly skilled character may be a little more likely to succeed at some
difficult task than a not-as-skilled character, but that highly-skilled
character would be INCREDIBLY more likely to avoid a catastrophic failure 
than the not-as-skilled character.  I see no point to increasing the likeli-
hood of a fumble for ANY dice roll.


>2)  In my system, the novice is *still* much more likely to fumble than an
>	expert.  In fact (coincidence?  You decide. :-), my rules don't
>	change any probabilities until the problem area begins at skill 3.
>	Remember, you fumble at *greater than* half your dice coming up
>	"1s".  


Yes, the novice is still much more likely, but the expert seems more like-
ly to botch than seems reasonable.  Hence my difficulty accepting this
system.


>Look, maybe I read this the wrong way, and your response wasn't as belli-
>gerent as it actually read.  Regardless, I've tried to respond rationally,    
>and with further explanation of my system.  Read it, and maybe you'll see
>what I'm driving at.  Obviously (When did I imply SG links didn't show as
>crosshairs?  When did I say anything about "taking back a bullet"?), you've
>missed at least part of it the first time.


What I wrote in my original post were simply my interpretations/conclusions/
observations of what you had written.  I understood your mechanics and what
they were attempting to accomplish, but I tried to point out to you that,
to me anyway, it's a HUGE logical leap to allow someone to roll his dice for
a gunshot and have them elect NOT to shoot after the roll is made.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brett Cashman (The Jester)			    	rcashman@cs.ulowell.edu

"There's a place I like to hide,
 A doorway that I run through in the night."		- Geoff Tate
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc