The Forge Archives

Inactive Forums => The Riddle of Steel => Topic started by: Shadeling on November 22, 2002, 05:44:11 PM

Title: Has anyone tried TROS in Modern Settings?
Post by: Shadeling on November 22, 2002, 05:44:11 PM
I ask because to me, it seems like it might work quite well for a game of spys/espionage. I mean, proficiencies could represent fighting styles and firearms proficiencies and so forth. Skill packages could be arranged into Agency and Operative types. And the list goes on.

So has anyone tried this, and do they have any of their notes?

Thanks in advance.
Title: Has anyone tried TROS in Modern Settings?
Post by: MikeSands on November 22, 2002, 09:32:06 PM
I haven't tried it, but certainly I'm thinking about it.

On a somewhat related note, I'm thinking of running a game in Elizabethan London, which brings up the question of firearms. Has anyone thrown together rules for pistols, arqubuses, blunderbusses, muskets etc?
Title: Has anyone tried TROS in Modern Settings?
Post by: Herr Nils on November 23, 2002, 03:49:55 AM
Quote from: MikeSandsI haven't tried it, but certainly I'm thinking about it.

Has anyone thrown together rules for pistols, arqubuses, blunderbusses, muskets etc?

I have some, but they are in Swedish, because my English is terrible.
Title: Has anyone tried TROS in Modern Settings?
Post by: MikeSands on November 24, 2002, 03:50:54 AM
Quote from: Herr NilsI have some, but they are in Swedish, because my English is terrible.

I'd still be keen to see them, if you are prepared to spend the time putting them into English - the numbers at least should translate okay :)

I was considering using the given puncture damage tables, but unsure of the amounts of damage that would be reasonable for these weapons.

Is this the approach you used, or did you create specific new damage tables as well?
Title: Has anyone tried TROS in Modern Settings?
Post by: Herr Nils on November 24, 2002, 06:30:49 AM
I have put a PDF on this site.

www.rollspel.nu/~arsmagica/Resurser/ELDVAPEN.pdf

Scroll down to the pictures.
The name is the Swedish name with doesn't have to be corresponding to a equivalent English name.

The weapons are from the 14-16 century

Laddning = The reloading time is in minutes.
AV = ATN
Skada = Damage
Räckvidd = Range

My values doesn't correspond to the bows in TROS. Because I have changed them to.
Title: Has anyone tried TROS in Modern Settings?
Post by: MikeSands on November 24, 2002, 03:34:36 PM
Quote from: Herr NilsI have put a PDF on this site.

www.rollspel.nu/~arsmagica/Resurser/ELDVAPEN.pdf


Thank you.
Title: The Riddle Of Lead Poisoning?
Post by: Rattlehead on November 26, 2002, 05:35:09 PM
I haven't read the firearms rules in the link, but I thought this would be worth mentioning...

It turns out that a lot of people don't fully appreciate the lethality of early firearms. Most people, it seems, chalk the bloodiness of the American Civil War(ACW), for example, up to poor field hospitals and unsanitary conditions.

It turns out that a simple musket ball is a VERY deadly item. Modern (jacketed or non-jacketed) slugs are deadly, but they aren't the same for several reasons

1: For lack of a better description, they're more of a piercing type of damage where a musket ball is more blunt. It's the differnce between hitting youself with the hammer or hitting yourself with the nail. :-D The damage isn't localized either - more on that...

2: Many modern slugs tend to "mushroom" and deform, but they usually stay in one piece. In the case of jacketed slugs, they may pass completely through the body leaving a line of damage, but not massive wounds. Musket balls, on the other hand, would "shatter" upon entering the body and/or hitting bone. The fragments were often jagged and incredibly difficult to find in the mess they left behind. The effects of having a bit of lead inside your body (even after you'd healed) could be quite nasty indeed. Some modern slugs are designed to fragment upon entering the target, but they are somewhat less common. I may be wrong here, but I think hollow point rounds are designed with this in mind. Also, a few years back there were the "cop killer" bullets that mushroomed in such a way as to cause catastrophic damage and penetrate bullet-proof vests as well. Those were quickly banned, I believe. Maybe someone else can provide more info on hollow points and the "cop killers"? Seems like they were called Black Talons or something...

3: Due to their larger size, mass, etc. musket balls are devastating. I'm sure most of us have seen old photographs of dismembered corpses from the ACW. I had always assumed these were victims of cannon fire, but I've recently learned that these wounds were caused by rifles/muskets. They literally blew the limbs off. Sorry to be so graphic, but I think it illustrates the point. When one of these musket balls shatters inside the target, the effect is similar to a shotgun blast from inside the victim's body. Not to mention the damage caused by the entrance of a half inch diameter lead ball entering the body at a high speed. (Not sure of the actual caliber of musket balls, and I'm sure it varies widely.)

Anyway, I just wanted to chime in here and let you know what I've learned about early firearms. I know that this is all from the ACW, but I'm sure it is of similar value with regards to weapons from before that period.

While early firearms were horribly inaccurate and took ages to reload, the one shot you had time to get off was often a deadly one.

Hope this helps!

Brandon

PS: It's also worth mentioning that the ACW saw the use of early "modern shaped" slugs as well as cartridge rounds with the primer, powder and slug all in one casing. There was a wide variety of weapons in use during that war, probably due to the fact that many soldiers brought their own weapons from home to fight with.

PPS: I'm not a student of the ACW in particular, so I'm probably wrong on various points. Corrections, additions and acusations of outright lying are welcomed. :-D
Title: Re: The Riddle Of Lead Poisoning?
Post by: toli on November 26, 2002, 07:11:31 PM
Quote from: Rattlehead
While early firearms were horribly inaccurate and took ages to reload, the one shot you had time to get off was often a deadly one.

I think the key here is the inaccuracy of early firearms.  Because the ball was not rifled, it could spin any which way when it came out to the gun...making a musket very inaccurate.    

The standard musket was never considered a marksman's weapon (as far as I can tell).  I read a contemporay quote (from 1500's or 1600s I think) that said that the man killed by the musket ball aimed at him in particular was the most unlucky man on the battle field.  These early firearms were almost always used in mass formations...because no one could hit what they were aiming at.  

In fact, "Read, Level, Fire" not Ready, Aim, FIre" was the standard line call in the British army until almost the 1900's (if I am not mistaken)
Title: The Riddle Of Rifling?
Post by: Rattlehead on November 26, 2002, 07:29:54 PM
Yes, I agree with that. In fact, I would say that with an un-rifled barrel and ball ammunition the chances of missing a target would increase exponentially with range rather than in a linear fashion. For example, rather than being twice as likely to miss at twice the range, your chances of missing would be multiplied by some factor.... and no, I don't know specifically how accurate various firearms were so I have no idea of the factor. I imagine that you could model the inaccuracy of early firearms fairly well by assigning each weapon a "Chance To Miss" multiplier. You'd have to calculate them out, but once you had these numbers you could take the range in feet and multiply it by the Chance To Miss factor and that would give you an indication of the odds that you'd miss the target. Maybe this could be used to calculate to-hit numbers for early firearms?

Hmmm.... I may be getting off track here. Does this make sense to anyone else? I have been known to talk out of my ass.....

Brandon
Title: Re: The Riddle Of Rifling?
Post by: MrGeneHa on November 27, 2002, 08:25:54 AM
Quote from: RattleheadI imagine that you could model the inaccuracy of early firearms fairly well by assigning each weapon a "Chance To Miss" multiplier......

Brandon

Yikes!  I think we should be very leary of adding new mechanisms to a nice clean system like TRoS.  It might be more realistic, but I don't think it would be worth it.

Just give unrifled muskets a very low "+1 ATN per X yards".  Say +1 per 2 yards, if they're that inaccurate (less accurate than a throwing knife at very long ranges).

I'm very curious if TFoB will include rules for massed fire, shotgun ("blunderbuss") and massed charges in NORMAL combat.  As opposed to massed attack rules for use in mass combat.  I'm starting up a fantasy Roman campaign, and it would be nice to have rules for 20 legionairies throwing their pila all at once.

Also, rules like this could be used for automatic weapon fire in a 20th century or modern campaign.  (See "Has anyone tried TROS in Modern Settings?").

Gene Ha
Title: Has anyone tried TROS in Modern Settings?
Post by: Lance D. Allen on November 27, 2002, 09:20:52 AM
A few notes on bullets:

The black talons were a specific type of round, and I *believe* they are still available in some places, with a very specific and restrictive license. I've seen one... They're nasty.

Not all rounds are as clean as you think. The M-16 round has a known tendency to tumble upon entering the body. Cases have been documented of a bullet entering the body at one point, and leaving through the back at an entirely other point. The path of destruction has included shredded organs, shattered bones, etc. Something about the size, weight, shape, speed and spin of the round has this effect.

...and we'll not even mention the effects of DU shards within the human body.
Title: Re: The Riddle Of Lead Poisoning?
Post by: MikeSands on November 27, 2002, 03:14:19 PM
Quote from: toli
The standard musket was never considered a marksman's weapon (as far as I can tell).  I read a contemporay quote (from 1500's or 1600s I think) that said that the man killed by the musket ball aimed at him in particular was the most unlucky man on the battle field.  These early firearms were almost always used in mass formations...because no one could hit what they were aiming at.

I've just been reading "Redcoat", a history of the British army from about 1750 to 1850. It mentions measured accuracy of musket fire, with a formation firing at a target the size of an incoming unit (fabric 6 feet high and  rather wide).

At 50 yards, 60% of the musket balls hit the target.
At 100 yards it was around 45%
At 200 yards it was about 25%

(Note that I'm remembering these from reading them a week ago. Only the 50 yard percentage is definite).

Quote from: toliIn fact, "Read, Level, Fire" not Ready, Aim, FIre" was the standard line call in the British army until almost the 1900's (if I am not mistaken)

Yep, their drill was all to mass fire rather than aim at any particular targets. The idea was that fast, massed musket fire would break an enemy charge. No concept of aiming for any particular chap in the other army.
Title: Re: The Riddle Of Rifling?
Post by: MikeSands on November 27, 2002, 03:21:08 PM
Quote from: MrGeneHaJust give unrifled muskets a very low "+1 ATN per X yards".  Say +1 per 2 yards, if they're that inaccurate (less accurate than a throwing knife at very long ranges).

I was thinking of rating them in this way - using 5 yards as the measure for pistols and 10 or 15 for muskets (depending on barrel length)

Basic ATN would be 7 or 8 for pistols and 6 or 7 for muskets.

The other thing that I considered was the priming. I get the impression that hurried loading often led to inability to shoot, mainly from 'flash in the pan', where the priming doesn't ignite the main charge. Maybe require everyone to make a loading skill roll when they try to fire (possibly modified by weather etc). Failure means that something went wrong (bad priming, wet powder, forgot to remove ramrod, badly set ball, etc) In almost all cases, these will be harmless and simply require repriming or reloading but on a botch there would be a chance of injury (musket bursts, ramrod fired)
Title: Has anyone tried TROS in Modern Settings?
Post by: Mokkurkalfe on November 27, 2002, 04:32:21 PM
Just raise the TN of the Ref roll. Or change it into a skill roll. Or both.
Title: Re: Has anyone tried TROS in Modern Settings?
Post by: Psychopompous on November 30, 2002, 02:58:00 PM
Quote from: ShadelingI ask because to me, it seems like it might work quite well for a game of spys/espionage. I mean, proficiencies could represent fighting styles and firearms proficiencies and so forth. Skill packages could be arranged into Agency and Operative types. And the list goes on.

So has anyone tried this, and do they have any of their notes?

Thanks in advance.

Not exactly... I adapted it to BattleTech, which is somewhat futuristic, but retains many modern elements, like firearms.

It worked great :)
Title: The Riddle Of Mecha?
Post by: Rattlehead on November 30, 2002, 09:54:33 PM
You adapted the TRoS rules to the BattleTech universe? Now that sounds cool... I'm a long time BT player and I've always loved it. I have the 2nd and 3rd editions of the Mechwarrior game, but I can never get anyone to play it... :-(

Any chance you can post your adaptation? Hey, that's an idea.... Maybe there could be a page on the TRoS web site with various people's adaptations?

Brandon
Title: Has anyone tried TROS in Modern Settings?
Post by: prophet118 on December 02, 2002, 12:13:49 AM
id suggest buying palldium books "Compendium of Contemporay weapons".... very useful, and easily converted to other systems... also, having a quick look into something like ninjas and superspies might be useful...thats about the only spy like modern game i have played... i don really know anything about spycraft
Title: Has anyone tried TROS in Modern Settings?
Post by: JSinclair on December 02, 2002, 01:55:48 AM
Hmmm...Mechwarrior plus Riddle of Steel.
The thing that truly terrifies me about this is the thought of an Elemental swinging a big sword and jsut how amazingly scary that would be with tros mechanics.
Title: Re: Has anyone tried TROS in Modern Settings?
Post by: Shadeling on December 02, 2002, 03:06:43 AM
Quote from: Psychopompous
Not exactly... I adapted it to BattleTech, which is somewhat futuristic, but retains many modern elements, like firearms.

It worked great :)

Any chance you can send me any of your conversion notes...?
Title: Re: Has anyone tried TROS in Modern Settings?
Post by: Psychopompous on December 02, 2002, 11:02:21 PM
Quote from: Shadeling
Quote from: Psychopompous
Not exactly... I adapted it to BattleTech, which is somewhat futuristic, but retains many modern elements, like firearms.

It worked great :)

Any chance you can send me any of your conversion notes...?

I'll post what I can remeber... Okay: Gunnery and Piloting were proficiencies that created a big fat dice pool (Gunnery linked to Aim and Piloting linked to Reflex). I had a big conversion table for the dicepool to BTech skills so you could basically play TRoS characters and go to normal BTech for 'Mech combat, or you could make all your rolls with the dicepools against a TN of 10 (it worked with my table mathematically, I considered dropping it to 9, but that was scary...).
The table went something like: dicepool (gunnery or piloting)/ 2 (round down) subtracted from 10 (it was based on a formula something like that, the table was for easy referance)... Meaning you could start veteran, but you basically had to completely dedicate yourself to mechwarrioring.
I added modern weapon proficiencies by weapon group, Pistols, Subguns (easy default to or from pistol and rifle), Rifle, Heavy Weapons, and such.
For autofire, just split your pool between shots (each weapon had a max fire rate).
I gave everything a damage rating (most weapons were Piercing), base TN and range values, but heck if I'll remeber all of it. I allowed spiffy guns and ammo (at fine prices) Armor Piercing, Flechette, and Explosive iirc.
I had conversion for all the personal armor types as well... I should dig it all out some time.
Title: Has anyone tried TROS in Modern Settings?
Post by: MrGeneHa on December 03, 2002, 04:37:24 PM
I'm going to contradict my earlier post here.  I think a modern TRoS campaign would need lots more rules.  IMHO, of course.

I began thinking about trying to roleplay a "Saving Private Ryan/Band of Brothers" WWII campaign in TRoS, and it doesn't seem to work with the current very simple missile rules.

What rules are there for called shots?  Use of cover?  If the only part you can (or are trying to) hit is the head, there should be a significant penalty.  It wouldn't be hard to write appropriate rules for this, but they aren't there yet.  Currently, it's a puncture attack to Zone XIII, no penalty.

(There would be a penalty from inability to aim if your opponent popped his/her head up and down from a fox hole).

Scopes would increase the total possible MP (Missile Pool).  But it would be impossible to reduce prep time while using one.

There are no rules at all for firing at massed enemies (ie enfilading fire).

Covering fire seems like a maneuver, with mechanisms resembling Beat (you're trying to create shock so the opponent can't fire back).  But there would be a small chance of actually hitting the opponent.

Explosive rules would resemble the damage rules from falling.

Finally, a game focusing on missile combat would depend much more upon maps than TRoS currently does.

Gene Ha
Title: Has anyone tried TROS in Modern Settings?
Post by: Brian Leybourne on December 03, 2002, 06:33:48 PM
Have you read the rulebook? :-)

Called shots? In there.

Cover? Check.

Aiming? Yes. (and if he's popping his head up and down then you simply can't do it. Easy).

Firing at mass enemies? Easy to fudge, far easier if you just pick a target and if you miss that, the Seneschal ajudicates who else it hits/might hit instead.

You've already answered your own questions on the rest. :-)

Brian.
Title: Has anyone tried TROS in Modern Settings?
Post by: MrGeneHa on December 03, 2002, 11:18:11 PM
Hey Brian!

Yes, called shots are in the rules.  ALL shots are called shots (there is no "aiming for center of mass" general purpose shot).  But that's the problem.  In TRoS it is NO harder hitting someone behind cover than someone NOT behind cover.  If only my head or one arm is sticking out, it's no harder to hit than my whole body.  The only advantage of cover is that you can 'force' someone to aim for your head or arm or whatever.  (Well, you can also try to hide, but that only lasts until YOUR first shot).

"I'll fire my pistol from cover so he can't shoot me in the thigh."  There needs to be expanded missile rules on this, even if you don't use a modern setting.

For instance, it's much harder to hit the head than the torso with a pistol or a crossbow (thus the real world rule of thumb, "aim for the center of mass").

IMHO, all missile shots default to the torso.  Apply an MP penalty for other locations.  Simple.  BUT, there is no rule like this now.

Also, it is possible to be shot while peeking from behind cover.  Police and military training assumes this.  If you peek around a corner, do it VERY quickly.  If you do it again, don't do it in the same spot (lean down, for instance).  If your target is peeking from behind cover, let the bullets skim off the wall.  But I actually think the rules cover this pretty well (except skipping bullets off the wall, but I don't think arrows do that quite as well  ;-).

For an unaimed snap shot you get only your Wit in MP, and any penalties the Seneschal deems appropriate such as -2MP for target movement (imho, again).

Gene
Title: Has anyone tried TROS in Modern Settings?
Post by: Jake Norwood on December 03, 2002, 11:34:16 PM
Actually, it does cost an extra MP to fire at the head, as per the optional rules in the appendix. Check it out.

Jake
Title: Has anyone tried TROS in Modern Settings?
Post by: MrGeneHa on December 04, 2002, 05:48:59 AM
I completely forgot about that one!

Thanks for all the help,

Gene