The Forge Archives

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

Quote from: Herr NilsI have put a PDF on this site.

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

Thank you.

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

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)

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

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

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.

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.

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)

Just raise the TN of the Ref roll. Or change it into a skill roll. Or both.

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 :)