GURPS Conversions

[Enpeze]

Well CoC has hitlocations indeed, if you use those in the "Cthulhu Now" sourcebook. Everything is here, one have only to seek a little bit. We can hope that the new sourcebook will solve this problem.

Thanks to the Now rules the elephant problem is not anymore existent. According to the CoC 5ed. rules it has 45 HP. This is about 12 HP on its head. Average damage of an elephant gun is: 14,5, not counting special hits. Killing an elephant? No problem, but only if you use all CoC rules.

[Joseph Paul]

Hmmm.
1) I suspect that if the sole rationale was effect based then what we have is a system of firearm damage based on anecdote. Which is what seems to have actually happened. The designer wanted a certain amount of lethality (too much for pistols according to Badcat's friend and not enough for rifles and larger weapons according to others) What happens is that different rounds and different guns end up with the same damages when they shouldn't. The .458 and the .50 have very different muzzle energies mainly because the .50 is twice the size of the .458 and can pack significantly more powder into the case. Yet this is not modeled.

In CoC guns don't work well against the Mythos so after a certain point it doesn't matter if the modeling breaks down. We now have a different paradigm with BRP. Mostly this is a designer gripe- if the expectation is to use the new edition of BRP to create new games then it behooves us to have systems that model well for many aspects of firearm use and not just for the vision of one horror game that needed to downplay the effectiveness of guns.

2) Stopping power seems to be intimately linked with shot placement, the surest stop being one that disables the central nervous system. Delivered energy has quite a bit to do with it but there is still quite a bit of controversy over what -exactly- stops people but more E does seem to be better.

3) Basing gunstats on the reported effectiveness of shooting people gives us a very one dimensional view of the guns. It tells us nothing of the effectiveness against materiel for instance. And that boogers up any future development of firearms for other genres that await development. If we don't have a way to model energy/penetration and the effect on the target now what is a more milataristic (modeling WWI, special ops, future conflict with aliens/superdudes/mostali etc) game supposed to do? I would certainly like for there to be scalability built into this so that substantially the same system can be used to resolve pistols and tank shells.

4) The "elephant problem" is not that you can't drop an elephant it is that two guns with very different RW stats do the same damage. I find it unrealistic to have the .458 at ~5000 ft/lbs ME be the equal of the .50 at ~13000ft/lbs ME.

5) I really don't understand objections to making firearms, especialy long arms, model RW behavior better. If you like that they are deadly how does making the big ones deadlier hurt that?

6) I tried the 3G3 conversion last night and while not exhaustive I did find evidence of what the HyperBear blog spoke of. Compared to 3G3 stats CoC pistols are overpowered and the .50 cal is under powered while the elephant gun (taken as a .458 Mag) is overpowered. The numbers are all over the place and, in this small sample, defy finding a formula to base further expansion of firearms or any other projectile damage on.

Will this sort of stuff bother people? Well, yes it does bother many that have some idea of what guns do. The arguments about the effectiveness and modeling of firearms I have heard from the first time I played CoC.

If BRP is the new baseline then it should have looked to improving the modeling of things that have been known to be a problem.

Joseph Paul

[beeber]

so, does the upcoming rules have changes to the weapon damage system? if not, is there a fan supplement anywhere which brings things more into line, RW speaking?

[Enpeze]

Well I dont think that it is necessary to revise or even rethink a system just because one or two guns have probably odd damage values. All you have to do is assign the damage value to the weapon you think is correct.

[badcat]

I fully agree, Enpeze.

And Soltakss, hit locations was indeed one of the ways I solved the 'problem'.

[Enpeze]

Originally Posted by beeber

so, does the upcoming rules have changes to the weapon damage system? if not, is there a fan supplement anywhere which brings things more into line, RW speaking?

i hope not. The damage values of the BRP weapons are good as they are and perfectly integrated into the rest of the hit points system. No changes should be made in this. Changes are simply not necessary. I mean a gladius has 1d6+1 and a modern assault rifle 2d8 and thats it.

Ok, change this little elephant gun or whatever but let the rest be like it is.

Ah before I forget. Even I think that one old damage value is pure nonsense. Thats the kick damage of 1d6. But I know this has already been adressed in DBRP.

[Lord Twig]

It seem to me that determining damage dice is a pretty arbitrary thing to begin with. If I get stabbed in the heart with a knife, how much damage did I take? How about if I was shot in the heart with .45 auto? Is the damage from a thrown boulder from a giant that different from getting hit by a cannon ball? It seems to me dead is dead.

Now, I guess that getting an arrow through the eye would probably kill you, but a 9mm through the eye might just blow out the back of your head as well, so it should probably have a higher maximum damage. But an arrow to the shoulder probably isn't that different from a bullet to the shoulder. I don't know for sure as I have never been shot by bullet or arrow.

Granted there is system shock damage from bullets that strike at high velocity, but then that's why they do more rolled damage. Does there really need to be a formula to figure out damage dice? If so, what is the formula for figuring out how much damage a broadsword does compared to a battle ax? Or a halberd compared to a claymore?

Anyway, the whole argument about gun damage seems a bit silly to me. As long as it is close enough to realistic that you can have willing suspension of disbelief, that is good enough.

[Joseph Paul]

Well I dont think that it is necessary to revise or even rethink a system just because one or two guns have probably odd damage values. All you have to do is assign the damage value to the weapon you think is correct.

Let me state this again: It is not just a problem that with one or two firearms being modeled poorly. The problem is that there is no basis, no system, no math for that modeling. That means that every new firearm’s stats are based on the subjective conjecture and anecdotes that the designer believes at the moment. With that as a design philosophy it will be hard to keep any continuity between future setings. Two different authors may very well give very different stats for the same weapon or give poorer stats for a weapon that should, and in the RW does, outperform others.

i hope not. The damage values of the BRP weapons are good as they are and perfectly integrated into the rest of the hit points system. No changes should be made in this. Changes are simply not necessary. I mean a gladius has 1d6+1 and a modern assault rifle 2d8 and thats it.

Why do those weapons have those values and not other values? Enpeze, would you please show how the damage values are “perfectly integrated into the rest of the hit points system”? Just because it fits the designers need to limit the power available to the players doesn’t mean that it is actually is integrated i.e. the values for damage flowing from the game’s design principles.

I like the melee damage values for instance. I have no idea if they were set by any sort of rigorous (in the math sense) modeling but I have noted the odd change here and there especially with javelins. They seemed to have started with 1D12, went to 1D10, and finally to 1d8 or so. Somebody in the process decided that javelin damage was wrong and changed it. My only concern is- what was the basis for that change? RW information that proved javelins were less effective or the desire to manipulate how combat takes place to create the mood that the designer wanted?

Ok, change this little elephant gun or whatever but let the rest be like it is.

Ah before I forget. Even I think that one old damage value is pure nonsense. Thats the kick damage of 1d6. But I know this has already been adressed in DBRP.

Yep. That has been brought up before too.

The compilation of the BRP rules was a stirling opportunity to deal with some of the things that proved to be persistent nags in the system. I am sure that Jason did deal with quite a number of them. I don't understand why the inconsistent treatment of firearms has been left unaddressed but perhaps that is something that can go into a companion book.

In an effort to make this relvant to the topic thread again I will note that shooting BRP characters with GURPS damage values doesn't make them any deader but it is satisfying to know that I can 'recon by fire' through a block wall!

Joseph Paul

[Joseph Paul]

Originally Posted by Lord Twig

...Anyway, the whole argument about gun damage seems a bit silly to me. As long as it is close enough to realistic that you can have willing suspension of disbelief, that is good enough.

And for some people the gun rules snap peoples' suspenders of disbelief.

The math that I have mentioned that seems to be missing is not something that needs to be delved into at the gaming table. It is primarily a design tool to ensure consistent answers. And yes there are systems that have such maths as part of their design such as Traveller, GURPS, and BTRC products. Not they aren't out in the open as core rules but they are used to set the published damage values. Used in that fashion the player never needs to see it. The tinkerer however can well, tinker to his heart's content. The results will fit in logically somewhere along the line of extant weapons.

Would you really be all that put out if the only thing that changed to accomodate such was which dice you threw?

Joseph Paul

[Lord Twig]

Originally Posted by Joseph Paul

Would you really be all that put out if the only thing that changed to accomodate such was which dice you threw?

No, I am just saying that it is not a deal breaker for me. As long as there is some attempt at accuracy in modeling the real world that is good enough. I guess other people might have a higher standard, while others have a lower standard. Such as Mongoose calling a blunderbuss a rifle because it is a long gun that you use with two hands.