Start your own company, make a rule book. Make it not suck, and sell said book.

Does Exodus not count?

>>9166375
Exodus is just D20 modern, more or less?

Shadowrun

I think in order to make an enjoyable game, you need a rules system that is light and quick enough to keep combat moving at a relatively fast pace. The question of course is what's light enough to easily remember (with the help of a few appropriate aids and abstractions like charts and tables).

There are a few games which try to handle firearms realistically. Unfortunately, firearms are ridiculously lethal, and everyone knows is. Most of the time to be hit is to be taken out of the fight. That's true of swords and maces to, but everyone is more or less willing to ignore that fact in favor of more "cinematic" fights. For a good firefight you need to have a good system for cover and terrain as well as the bullets and points of impact.

There are a few systems that try to do realistic firearms rules (CoC, Deadlands, others), including weighted tables of where you're most likely to hit and how much damage it does. Those usually slow the game down pretty well. They're abstracting shit away as best they can, and it's still not always good enough.

Now, if you're not talking about more realistic rule, or rule that start with firearms in mind rather than tacking them on, and are instead talking about just more variety, then that's a different matter. Some games like deadlands have options that require practice and training (could be a feat in d20, like fanning the hammer to fire faster with a pistol), but really all your gun options boil down to "shooting better", "shooting faster", and "ricochet off of things". Only the last is something I've never really seen attempted. The great and horrible thing about firearms is that once you achieve a basic level of competence, pretty much everyone is equally lethal in head-on combat, and not a lot of options _can_ improve that.

>>9166461

Yeah, it's basically a very well put together Fallout d20.

People (often) don't want to play things that often occur close to their time line. Hence why you have ridiculously old or futuristic settings, it's either so futuristic you can't see many similar themes, or old.

OP I want to create good rules for modern ballistic combat and I feel like I have a few good ideas albeit not enough real knowledge about how it should realistically work.

I feel an inventive Gun Kata system based on dicerolling and high evasive dodging could be as successful as swordplay.

But real world realistic firearms and gunfighting? Naw man, it's boring from an observational point of view.

A burst of M16 fire hitting a target isn't just an instant knockdown on the target, but it is in many cases lethal. Where's the fun in that?

>>9166789
A better question is where is NOT the fun in that? I wish all roleplaying games were like that. If you get hit you're doing something seriously wrong and you'll have to face the consequences.

>Why are modern/future-based RPGs always so rules-light, and how can this be fixed?

Yo, brospeh. I can see you haven't heard of Spycraft 2.0 from Crafty Games. It's a modern game that's rules-heavy as fuck. I hear some people like that sort of thing. Have fun with that.

>>9166813
Actually? Yes. Where diving for cover and teamwork tactics win you fights instead of just "LOL I FIRE MAH WEAPONZ".

I thin this chap's got a valid point. There are an awful lot of feats and abilities to do with close combat but not ranged.

If we make it in the future - this hypothetical game that doesn't exist - then we can have heavy armour and personal forcefields which reduces the lethality of attacks.

What sort of powers would we assign to ranged attacks? A quick rundown:

- Armour penetration / aiming at weakpoints
- Forcefield penetration
- Knockback
- Knockdown
- Dazing as you aim at the head or guidance systems
- Sniping and extreme long-range fire (but this is generally fucking dull in RPGs anyway)
- Destroying/damaging motive systems (slow enemy)

... these are all just 4th ed powers, really, come to think of it.

I'd love to see a game which did this sort of thing properly - very detailed gun-focused combat, and because it's the future you can have fucking laser swords or what have you.

Can anyone come up with any more stuff that ranged attacks can do, other than "kill some guy?"

>>9166968
>- Sniping and extreme long-range fire
I've always felt this needs its own mechanic. Not entirely sure how though.

play inquisitor
/thread

>>9166968
A lot of those aren't so much "rules for guns" as "rules for guns vs. mecha." Instead of D&D's method of "I use my magic attack to impart a status effect on the monster" you're using the variation "I use my very skillful attack to impart a status effect on the magical enemy." (Yes, magical: it's sort of dependent on the enemy having very advanced weaponry that you can diminish a little.) It's fine for a game where everyone has mechs with guns, and even where most enemies have mechs so your training isn't wasted. When it's grunt vs. grunt, those things sort of fall apart.

>>9166995
Sniping does require more thought than close range fire, just because you rely on the element of surprise to get off one perfect shot. You have to take into account wind and ballistic effects, whereas for most close range stuff you can just approximate a straight-line trajectory and adjust your sights accordingly

>>9167111
You could also do really ballistic weapons like mortars. Aside from mortars, though, I think all the other weapons that would use true arcs are one tanks or battleships.

How about grenade launchers? Are there any that truly launch a dumb grenade, or are they all RPGs these days?

>aiming at weakpoints
Unless you're doing extreme heroic setting, it doesn't work like that. Every soldier and other "proffesional shooter" is taught to aim at the silouhette only, as there's no real chance to actually carefully aim at a (most likely) moving target in a firefight. Even snipers aim at the "triangle" of the upper torso to maximize hitting chances in "hot" conditions. Hell, most firefights look like people snapping shots without particularly aiming, trying to get to better position or just sitting and trying supress the enemy while the other guys move and flank the enemy.

If you want realistic, I can see only three-four "skills", snapshot, aimed shot, controlled burst and full auto. There just ain't any place for finesse cinematics in a situation like that. I could see it like that, the player decides if he's firing for effect(to actually hit someone) or for suppresion, and that would modify his hitting chance as well as movement and so on. After that you roll a dice to see what happened, and deduct the ammo.

Firearms really aren't nearly as lethal as hollywood has led most people to believe. Barring removal or entire destruction of the really important parts (heart, kidney, etc) or direct damage to the CNS (brain, spine, etc) most harm comes from shock or blood loss.

Bear in mind that even modern ballistic protection is pretty substantial. A powerful round might crack a rib or knock you to the ground, but it probably won't penetrate entirely - or will penetrate with little enough force that it won't be nearly as lethal. This assumes a hit on center body armor, of course - extremities have the same problem with blood loss and shock, and are more or less never armored.

All things considered, especially with modern medicine, firefights aren't instantly lethal like they were even 20 years ago - and in the future, you'll have the same arms/armor relation, I think. Especially when you consider powered exoskeletons, personal shielding, and the likeness to it.

I also really like the idea of rewarding tactical gameplay instead of just "lol i fire cannon how mooch damage". A lot of the skills and emphasis for firefights could very well be on movement, tactics, and teamwork.

>Are there any that truly launch a dumb grenade, or are they all RPGs these days?
A 'nade launcher is different to RPG. RPG is LOS weapon, and "classic" grenade launchers are indirect fire weapons(well, they can be shot in direct fire too). RPG's are single-shot and then you re-arm, and except for rifle-mounted like M203 modern GL's are either fully automatic (and bring a world of hurt to any unarmored targets like no other weapon short of artillery rounds) or revolver with 6-8 rounds. Fun fact- shrapnel weapons like GLs and mortars produce far more casualties than direct rifle fire, and will be a bitch to balance, as you CAN'T DODGE TINY METAL SHARDS EVERYWHERE.

>>9166357
Because modern tactical rpgs try for a veneer that they're not complete batshit fantasy. You accept ludicrous shit in fantasy rpgs, but it stands out like a hooker in glow in the dark body paint if you try it in something that resembles the real world.

Ways around this:
Fantasy realities (aka The Matrix)
A bit more in the future (technofluff)
Retro goofyness (includes steampunk)

>I also really like the idea of rewarding tactical gameplay instead of just "lol i fire cannon how mooch damage". A lot of the skills and emphasis for firefights could very well be on movement, tactics, and teamwork.

Just use a real skirmish system to resolve firefights rather than muck about with RPG system for it. Never really nderstood why people would use the same mechanics for social interactions and blowing up stuff in game.

>>9167264
Heroic combat is the order of the day, really. Unless you're going gygaxian or WH style (don't name your character til 5th level if they survive that long etc), most RPGs assume the players are the primary characters, and get a little bit of plot armor to make the storyline more viable and interesting.

Another thought is that focusing your skillsets on certain types of firearms might be viable. SMGs not only fire different from LMGs or Assault Rifles, they're used in certain situations. Skill benefits for point-blank attacks, more accurate bursts, or interior building movement (across hallways, room clearing, etc) would sort of force a soft class base, instead of a hard one.

>>9167072
>play inquisitor
u mad?

>>9167384
Notthishitagain.jpg

There is obviously difference between a full battle rifle, a SMG(practically eliminated in military by the carabines, but it still lingers in police and criminal world) and a pistol, but if you know how to shoot a rifle, you'll know how to shoot a smg, you'd just need a few hours or days to get completely used to it. It's not a completely alien and new set of moves like using a crossbow is to using a sword.

I was playing as a fat autistic everybody loves Raymond in GURPS the other day with guns. I was in the back of a truck shooting my carbine at a police officer in a car. Of the fifteen shots I fired over a few seconds one went through the front window and into the officer's torso causing him to crash off the highway into a ditch.

Then me and Nicholas Cage + our Jamaican gangster friend went to the local bus station *we were playing in our own town we live it for easy mapping*. We had to stop a zombie outbreak from starting there.

>>9167427
I would suspect that somebody who spends hours drilling CQB with SMG/Carbines might have different muscle memory, a different set of skills and tricks, over somebody who practices longarms on a 200m firing range every day. It's not a matter of not knowing how to use a firearm, it's a matter of having the muscle memory, tricks, and experience drilling and practicing (or actually doing) during certain situations.

>>9167486
WHile I'm not really qualified to answer, I imagine the actual WEAPON moves remain largely the same, it's how the rest of the body moves that changes and how many bullets you fire-at long range, you want to fire singles to maximize chance of hitting, at short you want to spray the enemy as fast as possible, and that's it. I'd say go to /k/ for the actual answer to that though, but it's still the same set of ability- you point the gun at the enemy, you try to aim, and you press the trigger, that's it.

PHOENIX COMMAND

DO YOU PLAY IT?

Many games seem to have and aim action which represents actually aiming down the sights and gives a bonus to your next attack. With this, you get people just going, aim, attack, aim, attack, rinse and repeat until everyone is dead. I'd like to see a system that represents the various positions a shooter can be in. He could have his weapon pointed down, not ready to fire. He could have his weapon shouldered and pointed down range, but without forming a sight picture. OR he could have a cheek weld and sight picture ready. Once you've got your sights lined up, it's not difficult to quickly change your point of aim within a small arc and still be able to aim accurately. You shouldn't have to raise your rifle, line up the sights, aim, and fire every round. This would also work well in making the system represent moving and shooting well. A man on the move, excepting room clearing type stuff where you walk steadily with your gun up, is pretty much unable to fire accurately. A man standing still and aiming however, could quickly and accurately shoot pretty much anything in his field of fire.

>>9167681
>>9167323

Phoenix Command would be right up your alley. It is pretty difficult to learn, though. Leading Edge Games is notorious for their complicated systems. It speeds up a lot once one has a grasp on the rules, though.

If there is interest, I might post a brief synopsis of the system and what it does.

>>9167329
>CAN'T DODGE
Let me stop you right there

This is an issue that I see over and over in roleplaying games. The concept and understanding of what "dodging" is. Sure, in D&D or other high-action low-realism games it doesn't really matter since you'll just imagine whatever is the "coolest".

Now, in a realistic system, you can't dodge shrapnel heading for you, that is entirely correct. But neither can you dodge a bullet coming straight at you, and that's the whole point. In a realistic system, "dodge" doesn't mean "get out of the way of something harmful heading your way", it means "get out of the way BEFORE something harmful comes your way". So yes, you can dodge in a firefight. You can dodge shrapnel. You can dodge most things actually. However, dodging doesn't mean swaying your hips or bending backwards matrix-style. It means jumping behind cover before a grenade goes off or running in an erratic pattern so that you make a harder target. You get the picture.

However, it should also be noted that this difference should be represented mechanically. In most games, you will see dodges being rolled only after you know if your opponent will hit you or not. In a realistic system, we can't have this. Especially not in gunfights as you need to be already trying to dodge fire before they pull the trigger. I don't know about grenades or melee combat. Grenades don't move as fast and if you can see it coming I think you will notice if it's going your way or not, giving you time to react after the fact, contrary to ballistic combat. As for melee, I'm not sure. I've done some martial arts myself and it seems to me that you'll be dodging, blocking or parrying blows that comes your way even if you are unsure whether they will connect or not. But then, I was never really that good. Any other takes on this?

>>9168583

Even in hand-to-hand this applies. You want to dodge before the swing is coming; this is why many martial arts have a lot of focus on "reading" your opponent, and not telegraphing.

Easiest way would be to roll the dodge check first, and have the attack roll try to beat the dodge check, or maybe dodge check + armour.

>>9167323
True, but even shots from the same weapon can have widely varying effects depending on a huge number of minute variables: shot placement, the other guy's mood, etc.
While it's true that bullets are very survivable, most of the time getting hit will put you out of a fight, or at least have you diminished in combat effectiveness.

>PHOENIX COMMAND
>DO YOU PLAY IT?

I have.. Or rather the system where used for an Aliens (the movies) campain.

>>9168583

Dodging as an active roll rather than a passive value usually makes sense in melee combat. It's entirely possible to move out of the way of a punch or sword swing, though it may not necessarily be easy. In a fight with weapons such as swords, spears, shields and whatnot, it's usually more practical to parry, but that's not always an option.

You also make a good point about "dodging" and firefights. Moving targets are a lot harder to hit. As far as grenades are concerned, most systems have grenades explode as soon as they land, even if they on a timed fuse. 4-5 seconds is a common length for a grenade fuse, so a combatant might have time to duck behind cover or, rarely, throw it back (though this is incredibly dangerous and will usually get a person killed). Of course, things that explode on contact only leave as much time to get away as they are in the air, and most systems don't allow for that level of detail.

>>9168782
Assuming 1d100 system
Make dodge test
opponent makes opposed "ballistic" test, for every degree of success he makes (stealing from rogue trader here), mr dodgy needs 20 points on his roll.
Opponent makes 2 degrees of success, dodgy rolls 50, dodgy dodges.

etc

>>9168718
It works perfectly in a d100 system.

Attackers declare intent to attack, defenders roll dodge, if you manage to dodge the effect roll is deducted from the attackers chance to hit.

Ex.
Matt is going to shoot Eric. Eric has a dodge skill of 60% and rolls 35. The effect (60-35=25) is deducted from Matt's skill value for his attack action. Matt has a Pistols skill of 55% so his chance of hitting the dodging Eric is now only 30%.

>>9168851
Er, mr shooty needs enough degrees to beat out dodgy's dodge test, not the other way around.

Spycraft's got a decent mix...for a d20 system...and I like the way they worked out HP/Life(at least in the first edition, not sure about the second)

>>9166357
thread archived for future reference and possible continuations
http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive/9166357/

Also bump, please proceed if there is anything at all you could add.

>>9169153

I do not have time now, but I will talk some more on Phoenix Command in a later thread. If there is enough interest, I may run some scenarios over OpenRPG.

If anyone is actually interested in making a system, I will try my best to help as well.

>>9169525
I certainly am interested. Where do you live, might I ask, so that I can know if the time differential is too great or not?

I just use some homebrew rules for Twilight 2000 1st ed. Like take the ammo capacity and make it normal/use the 2nd edition ones.