WFRP Style Fate points in BRP?

[Simlasa]

I'd rather have a good bestiary... or several... with viable ecosystems for the fantasy/SF critters... than a BIG BOOK O' GUNS...
Interesting critters support/promote story (IMHO) a lot more than nitpicky descriptions of why one 9mm handgun differs from another.

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by Simlasa

Nope, I wouldn't have much desire for an entire supplement that was only about 'real world' weapons...

Years ago I got into a 'realism' phase and bought up all the Phoenix Command books and pored over them... even tried gaming with them... and that was what it was...
But nowadays I'm mostly interested in stuff that promotes story... having rules/ratings that describe the fine details between two handguns of the same caliber is not going to promote much story in my games.
Having a book of interesting critters, with a viable ecology tying them together would be much more useful.

That might depend on what information went with the weapons. Generally there is a lot on interesting stuff that doesn't end up on the tables that can indeed promote story. For instace, there was a reason why the slightly less powerful version of the "Peacemaker", the "Frontier" was popular, specifically because it used the same ammo as the Winchester rifle. And any big game rifle would probably benefit for notes of how they were used for hunting.

There a lot of little details there that can add to the setting and story. Also quite a bit that the setting looses without it. People tend to think of the firearms in modern terms, and frankly they weren't that good. Parts weren't interchangeable, even between "identical" models. Early revolvers, really anything prior to metallic cartridges, couldn't be reloaded in combat. That was actually the reason why many carried two guns.

Plus, unlike modern firearms, the differences between similar guns was probably more pronounced. Today we have dozens of companies producing lots of fairly similar 9mm and .45ACP pistols. But back in the old west, there were some big differences between a Colt .45 and a Smith & Wesson .45. For starters, they couldn't use the same ammo. Secondly, the S&W "broken open" and ejected the empty shell casings, making the weapon a lot easier to reload.


In many ways the guns stuff is far more important story wise than the "critters' stuff. About 95% of the critters in the Old West, as anywhere else, have enough sense to stay clear of humans, and only attack when threated. I've got stats in the works for coyote's and bobcats, but they probably won't be needed much. More along the lines of sneaking onto the ranch after chickens or sheep.

[Simlasa]

Sounds like a good reason to carry a knife...

Those historical notes are interesting... but I don't think they'd come up in a game all that much unless you chose to focus on them.
I wasn't just referring to old West supplements though...
That kind of detail about guns, or other weapons, starts to remind me of Phoenix Command and my eyes begin to glaze over with the thought of keeping track of it all.
Mind you, I was into getting all the PC books, 'back in the day', and reading through them (even playing games a few times)... but nowadays the stuff I want to play just doesn't care about that level of 'realism' or 'historical accuracy' in regards to the weapons.
I think Leading Edge tried to some of the same detail work with melee weapons in the Morningstar Missions book... and I don't really care enough any more to need a bunch of minute variations on swords either.

Just a matter of taste though...

[Atgxtg]

Yeah, it is a matter of tastes and styles.

For instance, on one thread here some people were keen on going with a more generic light/medium/heavy pistol idea than listing identified weapons by caliber and make.

Elsewhere I was looking at a new Western RPG, and in a review of the preview they reviewer was somewhat disappointed with the generic , Light, heavy pistol thing and was glad that the full game would get into make and models.

Personally, I lead towards the details, since it is usually easier to cut them out or ignore them than it is to add them into where they aren't. But, if I was playing something like Spirit of the Century, I'd be more "fast and loose".


Phoenix Command, did sort of go overboard, with the aiming by split seconds counts and such. In some cases the information the gave wasn't entirely accurate, either. SO I think there is a big difference between that, and, say, noting that one pistol holds 7 rounds and another holds 15.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

Yeah, it is a matter of tastes and styles.

For instance, on one thread here some people were keen on going with a more generic light/medium/heavy pistol idea than listing identified weapons by caliber and make.

Elsewhere I was looking at a new Western RPG, and in a review of the preview they reviewer was somewhat disappointed with the generic , Light, heavy pistol thing and was glad that the full game would get into make and models.

Personally, I lead towards the details, since it is usually easier to cut them out or ignore them than it is to add them into where they aren't. But, if I was playing something like Spirit of the Century, I'd be more "fast and loose".


Phoenix Command, did sort of go overboard, with the aiming by split seconds counts and such. In some cases the information the gave wasn't entirely accurate, either. SO I think there is a big difference between that, and, say, noting that one pistol holds 7 rounds and another holds 15.

Well, the big problem with going into detail is that the fact that the game gives you fairly precise data means you get something that's far less true in reality: the obviously winning way weapons. Now people talk a good game about carrying the weapon that's most in character and what all, but yet strangely you'll notice how often that's the mechanically best one.

In the real world, there's often a certain lack of concensus on this, in part because there's a certain lack of precision as to the actual behavior in the field (certain exceptions like the M-16A1 notwithstanding...)

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

Well, the big problem with going into detail is that the fact that the game gives you fairly precise data means you get something that's far less true in reality: the obviously winning way weapons. Now people talk a good game about carrying the weapon that's most in character and what all, but yet strangely you'll notice how often that's the mechanically best one.

In the real world, there's often a certain lack of concensus on this, in part because there's a certain lack of precision as to the actual behavior in the field (certain exceptions like the M-16A1 notwithstanding...)

Yeah, there is some of that. The problem with weapons in the real world is that we simply don't have enough lab data to produce conclusive results. We don't have people volunteering to be guinea pigs for ballistics tests.

With a RPG, by it's nature, weapons have ratings that can be easily compared. Unless you gfrossly oversimplify things, you will end up with this to some extent. And if you do grossly oversimplify, you have other problems that are just as bad.

SotC, for instance, doesn't really differentiate weapon damages at all. A first or a fifty cal. do the same damage. Okay for SotC (and even SotC has dome guidelines and options to get around this), but probably not so for BRP.

THe same problem exists with primitive weapons too. In the game a broadsword is a "better" weapon than a shortsword, since it does more damage. In the real world it isn't so cut & dried.

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by Simlasa

Sounds like a good reason to carry a knife...

(Sorry I missed this comment eariler..l.).

Actually, most people did. While the image of the Old West has Cowboys and Gunfighters packing six-guns, history is different. Not everyone carried a revolver. Just about everybody carried a knife. For every gunfight, we had dozens of knife fights.

If we wanted to be completely true to history, we should probably drop gunfighters and cowboys from the profession tables. Just too rare. It seems that at their heyday there were less than 40,000 Coybows in the Old West. That is about 1 person per 1000, at best.

[Enpeze]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

(Sorry I missed this comment eariler..l.).

Actually, most people did. While the image of the Old West has Cowboys and Gunfighters packing six-guns, history is different. Not everyone carried a revolver. Just about everybody carried a knife. For every gunfight, we had dozens of knife fights.

If we wanted to be completely true to history, we should probably drop gunfighters and cowboys from the profession tables. Just too rare. It seems that at their heyday there were less than 40,000 Coybows in the Old West. That is about 1 person per 1000, at best.

This is one of the reasons why I never liked the Western genre. (too artificial, immature and hero-centric )

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by Enpeze

This is one of the reasons why I never liked the Western genre. (too artificial, immature and hero-centric )

It's one reason why I don't like "urban" cowboys. To me they are just as silly as people walking around in Star Trek costumes. Perhaps a bit more.

As for the genre, well, fantasy probably outdoes Western in being artificial, immature, and hero-centric. Probably most of your popular settings are like that.

Probably due to the escapist nature of RPGs. Most people don't want to play in a real life setting where their actions don't really matter. We don't need to play a game for that.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

Yeah, there is some of that. The problem with weapons in the real world is that we simply don't have enough lab data to produce conclusive results. We don't have people volunteering to be guinea pigs for ballistics tests.

With a RPG, by it's nature, weapons have ratings that can be easily compared. Unless you gfrossly oversimplify things, you will end up with this to some extent. And if you do grossly oversimplify, you have other problems that are just as bad.

SotC, for instance, doesn't really differentiate weapon damages at all. A first or a fifty cal. do the same damage. Okay for SotC (and even SotC has dome guidelines and options to get around this), but probably not so for BRP.

THe same problem exists with primitive weapons too. In the game a broadsword is a "better" weapon than a shortsword, since it does more damage. In the real world it isn't so cut & dried.

True. It tends to become more pronounced with guns however, as they're functions end up being bunched up a lot more than melee weapons. People will carry a shortsword as a backup if they carry a broadsword, because they don't want the encumberance of carrying two when they don't use the backup that much, or just because they lack the Strength. With handguns, they're going to migrate to the best one in terms of damage and ammo capacity (and in games that pay attention to it, accuracy) and that's about that; if there are Strength minimums they may use the best one within their Strength category, and that's about it.

What I'm suggesting I guess is that getting into too much detail is, in practice, sort of pointless here. Among melee weapons there's at least some tradeoffs that can make people do some variation (at least once you're dealing with the whole impale/slash/bash business) but its not a coincidence that you pretty much have three sizes of sword in most versions of the game and that's it, because if you go much past that you have exactly the same problem; one or more never gets used except by the purists. With the limited number of traits that will be visible to a revolver in BRP, I'd have to assume _most_ of them would never get used.