Making gunfights play as actual gunfights

[Roadkill]

guessing on the grid can't be calculated, so that might be a way to go.

[Adam Riemenschneider]

Quick responses. I for one am fond of "crunch," as anyone who has picked up Factions can testify (if only from the sheer weight of the tome). For the combat system I did a good chunk of research. Anyway, as for things like Cover/Supressing fire, and Range...

For Cover fire, I think volume should make a difference. One or two rounds from a semi-auto pistol is one thing, and four or five *seconds* of fire from a light machine gun is quite another.

Along these lines, if you want to make some kind of "Ammo check," not everyone is wading into a firefight carrying 4+ mags with them, though I guess this really depends on the kind of situations you want to simulate. If this is going to be a game dedicated to state-sponsored soldiers in the field, ok, sure. But if we're talking civilians doing drive-bys, well, not only are the weapons they're possibly using the kinds with low ammo capacity, but a lot of general holster packages only have space for 2 spare mags (we're talking handguns here).

And, if you really want to get down to it, reloading a pump action shotgun takes a good deal more time than a glock. Just sayin.

And Range. Ah, range. Simply put, some weapons just don't have the effective range of others. Some cheap, snub-nosed handguns are effectively useless beyond 20 *feet*, while the standard M-16 engagement range is between 100 and 200 yards, and a decently rigged sniper rifle is just fine out to 500 yards or more (capping out at one and a half *miles*, the record distance kill using a fifty caliber rifle). I'd encourage at least a nod to to the range differences between different *classes* of guns (handguns, shotguns, submachine guns / carbines, rifles, sniper rifles).

The old Cyberpunk 2020 essentially did this, with Handguns and Shotguns at 50m, Submachine Guns at 150m, and Rifles at 400m (with Point Blank being within a few meters, Close range using a particular gun being up to 50% of the listed range, Medium is 50-100%, Long from 100-200%, and Extreme at 200+%. 

If you want to get crazy with it, go with listed ranges for each firearm (Factions example: Beretta 92 FS, 10m/25m/40m for Average, Far, and Extreme, while an M-14 is 100m/250m/500m for Average, Far, Extreme).

Best luck!

-adam

[JoyWriter]

I haven't got time to look at methods yet, but I think I may have a handle on intent:
Do you want players to have to make decisions like someone in a real fight?
Obviously what is the pure best strategy is difficult to say, but perhaps if you work out what principles you want to inform peoples actions, and so on what basis they should get feedback (well done/not right), then that starts a good foundation for judging the quality of your mechanics.

Some sample principles:
Get some cover you ass!
Looking means better shooting.
Everyone has a blindspot. Use them and beware.
Ammo doesn't last for ever, have a backup plan.
Control Space and restrict options, until they have no option but to lose.
They will do that to you, so know how you are getting out.
You want to be close enough to kill them, but far enough away that they can't kill you.
There's a time and a place for each tool.

Any game you make with a strategic component is something that can be learned by your players, and even you. If you know something they don't, the trick is how to make those insights, (and how they make a game better) more visible to the other people in your group. I wonder whether it may be an idea to have them up front, or have a low consequence learning environment within the system. I think feedback mechanisms must be clear without being preachy, or if they are, have them in-character preachy to soften it!

[walruz]

Per Fischer: I've checked out Burning Empires, and while I'd really like to play it sometime, there are a couple of things with the combat mechanics that rub me the wrong way (for example the map being non-optional, as well as the lack of uniformity between the social combat and actual combat systems).

Vulpinoid: How would these gut reaction maneuvers work in play? I mean, when do you perform them - or rather, when do you loose the ability to perform other actions? At first glance, I like the idea, it's just that I don't really get how it would work in practice. And limiting the player's actions based on stress and so on, is kind of inherent in the system: Since you only get to refresh your hand once a round, you'll be hard pressed to fight at peak efficiency when you've been forced to take lots of tests (for example, if you've been shot and have to test Constitution to stay conscious, and so on).

dindenver: That's the same issue I have with traditional RPG ranged combat. The reason I like Shadowrun 4, is that it enables characters to dodge ranged combat attacks: In a cinematic game, adepts and street samurai actually dodges bullets, but in a more gritty, down to earth game, the characters go prone and look for cover. I want the characters to move - that's why I'm trying to make movement maneuvers effective. Of course, you won't subdue an opponent by just running around
The cover rules as written basically enables characters to dodge a ranged attack just as they would dodge a close combat attack - a character with a higher skill will be better at going for cover because he is quicker, and because he is better at spotting a good cover spot while bullets are flying.

Roadkill: That's actually a really cool idea. I would gladly use it, but I'm trying to keep the amount of stuff you need at the table to a bare minimum. Right now, you need character sheets and a tarot deck, and from actual play experiences, it seems like the GM has a higher need for mook (/opponent) sheets than in other games I've played (dunno why the latter is, though). Your idea got me thinking, though. Maybe I should make the observe action a little more useful. I'm thinking that you, as a player, don't get any more information on the combat area, than what you pick up from narration and the descriptions you get when combat starts. If you want to get a detailed view of the combat area, while you are flat on your belly behind a burned-out car, you're going to have to take an Observe action. How's that sound?

Ben Miller: I don't quite get what you mean. Do you mean that there should be some kind of "combo" system, where you get bonuses if you perform certain actions in sequence? I don't think arguments of whether a tactic is effective in real life or not are going to be an issue, since the rules clearly state which maneuvers give which bonuses and penalties.

Adam Riemenschneider (hope I spelled that correctly): Concerning volume, I'm considering a system where players can choose to take a negative modifier to their next ammo check, and in return receiving a bonus to their attack roll.
I know not everyone walks into a firefight with 4+ magazines. The thing is, if you don't you'll probably run out of ammo very, very fast, especially if your opponent has ample ammo. As I mentioned above, you can get a negative mod to your ammo check in return for more output. That system could easily work the other way: You get to take a negative modifier on your attack roll, in return for a positive modifier on your ammo test. I'm thinking that the scale won't be linear: You'll get a small bonus for taking a large negative modifier on the ammo test, while you'll get a large ammo benefit from taking a small penalty to your attack roll. The reasoning behind this, is that there's an upper limit to how much you increase your efficiency by spraying. (recoil, etc)
Concerning range, I'm thinking along the same lines as you. The reason I had fixed range categories, were for simplicity's sake. In that system I'd have fixed aim bonuses for different weapons. Maybe I'll skip the aim bonuses and have short, optimal, long and extreme ranges for different weapon types? I'm going to look through Burning Wheel and Burning Empires to check how they handle weapon ranges - I'm fairly sure one of them had a system where you didn't have to measure actual distance all the time.

JoyWriter: I haven't really thought of it that way. I just thought "How can I get RPG combat to mimic real combat instead of shooting galleries with live targets?". Those example principles you wrote, were they extrapolated from the system I posted? Because most of them seem fairly applicable - or at least seems like the kind of wisdom the players have picked up when we've playtested.



About the issue with tactical systems putting emphasis on player skill: I'm a firm believer that you should actually do some research before you play a character. Most characters can be played without experience or knowledge, that's what knowledge skills are for, but if you're going to play a scholar in Inca religion or whatever, you're going to be able to roleplay him better if you do some reading yourself. That way, you'll be able to come with bits of wisdom that don't directly relate to the plot at hand, and you won't have to make a skill check every time you want your character to mention something about his area of expertise. The same goes for combat. If a player plays a character with actual combat experience, I as a GM would gladly give him a pointer or two, provided he wanted it (I don't like telling people how to play their character). If the player, on the other hand, plays a complete rookie, they're not going to get any help from me. So if you want to play a ranger or Jean Claude van Damme in Legionnaire, you'll benefit from reading a Wikipedia article or two.