This thread is a response to Sacrosanct who expressed interest in how I would model firearm differences in a RPG. So I'll be detailing some brain killing stuff that I imagine few people would be interested in. I'll also be linking to some stuff of mine offsite that contains the tables I'm talking about.

You've been warned and I would think most will now exit the thread in some haste...


First off it should be noted that firearms and ballistics are a complex field, and if the truth was to be told- an inexact one in that science doesn't really understand what is going on in enough detail. This is due to the lack of controlled studies on the effectiveness of weapons on living creatures (especially humans). It's made worse by the fact that different people will react in different ways to the exact same wound- there is a serious psychology influence during combat.

Thus the data points are limited to what they think are reasonable recreations of important factors and anecdotal evidence. There are rules of thumb, but few magical formulas that will tell you all you need to know.

For a game designer this presents a number of problems. First is that anything he does can easily be challenged as unrealistic for the simple fact that the world honestly doesn't know what realistic is in many ways, it only has opinions. Still there are rules of thumb and there is information to be hand, I suggest the International Wound Ballistics Association (IWBA) as a good starting point.

From here there a simple question that presents itself to the game designer, what elements of firearms does he wish to model? This ties directly to how complex the game will be even as he develops a list of weapon characteristics and ties those to the mechanic resolution of the game system.

To be honest, there are no wrong or right answers at this point- only a judgement call. For some games, the single word 'gun' is enough. For others a more detailed system showing the differences between a M16 and a AK47 may be desired. I'm much more in favor of the more complex option and that's the goal of this post.

In my case and for this example, we'll be using HERO System. That means that in general we are limited to the weapon characteristics presented by that game, although due to it's 'construct what you want' nature- we can add some additional characteristics but we should avoid that if possible.

The weapon list that comes with HERO is basically unchanged in significant ways from the days that it was Superhero game. Thus firearms tend to be far less effective than they are in the real world, taking multiple hits to down even the average character (let alone Heroic or Superheroic ones) even with various optional rules in effect. Their values are seem to be 'made up' by the designer as numbers that seem to fit, with little logic visible to the buyer of the rules as to how he got there.

My goal was to correct both points, and nudge the game towards a more realistic firearm combat model. In doing so I would highlight those things about firearms that I thought were easy and useful to model, and ignore those things that were too difficult (and thus best left to the abstraction built into the game system). I also didn't want to significantly alter HERO Systems basic mechanic game play- only the numbers used in it.

HERO System offers the following characteristics for their weapons:

Hands Required: Number of hands required for operation
Shots: Ammo Capacity when fully loaded
Feed Device: Magazine, Belt feed, etc.
Rate of Fire: Generally one shot per action or various shots from autofire.
Damage: Base killing damage using D6 values
Stun Modifier: Modifiers to Stun Damage
Armor Modifier: Armor Bonuses for reduced penetration, or modifiers due to piercing
STR Min: Required Strength to avoid negative penalties when firing
OCV Modifier: Modifier to Hit a target
Range Modifier: Modifier to the basic Range Modifiers
PER Modifier: Modifier for people to notice the weapon if there is an attempt to concel it
CQC Modifier: A modifier to initiative determine order of action in a combat phase.

I designed consistent methods to determine all the above values using available information for any firearm produced today or in the past. It's a rather nice spreadsheet that I plug real world values into and end up with the game result- so it's easy to add to on the fly.

Here's an example of some common modern weapons.

Included there is the 92F from Sacrosanct 's original thread, the Walther PPS is not present, but the similar (in usage) Walther P5 Compact is.

In a follow-up post I'll detail the methods I used to determine each value for the listed weapons.

It appears that (as expected given this site's taste in RPGs) this thread is DOA, so rather than have another wall of text I'll finish it up simply.

The process for converting real world weapons to HERO is covered here. If anyone has any questions as to why I use those specific processes, I'm willing to answer them.

Quote from: gleichman;566945It appears that (as expected given this site's taste in RPGs) this thread is DOA, so rather than have another wall of text I'll finish it up simply.

The process for converting real world weapons to HERO is covered here. If anyone has any questions as to why I use those specific processes, I'm willing to answer them.

I actually read the first part (Because the idea sounded interesting, more than the in-game use), but couldn't see a point in responding to what was essentially half a post to just say "yay, more please". I'd been looking forward to seeing your logic in action.

So thank you for posting.

Quote from: Ladybird;566950I actually read the first part (Because the idea sounded interesting, more than the in-game use), but couldn't see a point in responding to what was essentially half a post to just say "yay, more please". I'd been looking forward to seeing your logic in action.

So thank you for posting.

Me too.  That's what I was waiting for.  The second link provides a lot more info.

Quote from: Ladybird;566950I actually read the first part (Because the idea sounded interesting, more than the in-game use), but couldn't see a point in responding to what was essentially half a post to just say "yay, more please". I'd been looking forward to seeing your logic in action.

So thank you for posting.

To be honest I didn't think anyone here would really care. But since there's at least one person I continue.

As the conversion link shows, I split the list of HERO System Characteristics into three logical groups and performed the conversions step by step:

Damage: containing Base Damage, Armor Resistance, Penetration Modification of Base Damage, and Stun Modifier

Handling:  STR Min, Per Mod, CQB Mod, RMod, and OCV Mod.

Explicit: Those things not needing conversion, such as 'shots' or the weapons action. These were already defined in HERO.


First up, the Damage characteristics.

Base Damage

What one notices here is that it's based completely upon the diameter of the weapon's bullet. A .45 ACP does 3d6-1K, a .40 S&W does 2 1/2d6K, a 9mm does 2d6+1K, etc.

This decision was driven by various IBWA studies that indicate that the primary cause for disabling or death is simple loss of blood (and thus blood pressure), and that this in turn was driven by the size of the permanent wound channel- and that in turn was driven by the diameter of the bullet.

Now there are other factors, hitting the central nervous system for example is bad for the victim and hydrostatic shock is of great importance for skull (and I think liver) hits. But even here the simple fact remains- the larger the diameter of the bullet- the more likely it is to cross over something important in its path.

Thus the IBWA's recommendation that shooters use the largest diameter bullet they are comfortable firing- that can at least penetrate to the internal organs. This recommendation became a driving 'rule' for the system conversion I was doing.

Armor Resistance:

The effectiveness of armor varies depending upon what's hitting it. A vest that will easily stop a low power pistol round is all but useless against a high power rifle.

Armor Penetration however is very complex, and depends in great measure upon bullet design as well as its ballistic characteristics. I would have to simplify things here greatly, but the intent wasn't full realism but rather a nudge towards it given at least the image of an attempt to account for difference. Thus a simplified model is better than none.

Here I used a concept called sectional density, basically weight divided by diameter. The higher the sectional density, the better the basic penetration can be (assuming the bullet can withstand the stress of penetration).

And since the higher the velocity, the greater the penetration- a simple multiple of the two values gives one a useable rule of thumb.

Man the simplifications here. Some additional details are handled in ammo types (covered in another document), and a lot is handed waved. But the value is usable for a game system, especially one intended to undervalue armor to some extent anyway in order (in order to keep battles moving). Consider it an 'ideal value' that exists under perfect conditions and represents the weapon's potential.

Low penetration values result in increases to the target armor (by 1.25x up to 3x it's normal value), while higher values reduce it using HERO's piercing power.

Penetration Modification of Base Damage

If the Penetration of a bullet is too low, the bullet may not strike deep enough into a person to do effective damage.

This section goes back and modifies Base Damage to reflect this fact.

Stun Modifier

This value represents 'stopping power' as such and is open to huge debate and in a way I'm almost off the rails here.

In HERO it basically modifies the stun done by a Kill attack and it's stun that actually causes a person to be... well stunned and to fall unconscious (the base body merely wounds and kills).

I'm a traditionalist by nature, and so I turned  to Hatcher's Formula (presented in the famous Hatcher's Notebook) as a measure of stopping power.

It should be noted that Hatcher only intended his formula for handguns, not rifles. So I'm breaking the rules here.

But the results are worth it. It reflects the higher historical effectiveness of the .357 mag that its mere bullet diameter cannot, and it does the same with rifles as applied in this conversion. In short, it works and it works well in the game. Reason enough to use it.


Next Post, the Handling Characteristics.

Continuing the Weapon Conversion for HERO notes


Weapon Handling

STR Min

In HERO a character will suffer a negative modifier if their STR doesn't equal or exceed the weapon's STR Min. With firearms this doesn't so much reflect being able to hold and aim the weapon (although that's included) as much as it means dealing with the recoil it genereates when fired. People attempting to fire a weapon with too much recoil (for them) tend to develop a flinch and miss their targets.

Flinching isn't directly related to STR, rather it's related to how the person perceives and psychologically reacts to that recoil. However a person's STR does impact when recoil becomes physically noticed. Individual characters are allow to buy addition STR usable only for STR Min using the standard HERO System Rules.

The link explains my method for determing the STR Min rather clearly (including the simpifications), I should note that the formulas are again from Hatcher's Notebook.

PER Mod

The Perception Modifier is only used in some cases and genres, it represent how easily a weapon may be concealed on your person or other object. Various articles of clothing in HERO have a Rating and for every point the Weapon's PER Mod is under, opposing characters take a negative modifier to detect that you're carrying.

The conversion is easy, based upon the overall length of the weapon (almost always it's largest dimension).

CQB Mod or CQC

The Close Quarters Battle (or Close Quarters Combat, I failed and have used both terms) is an initiative modifier applied to DEX to determine the order of action in a Phase.

This is optional rule from Dark Champions as I recall and represents why smaller weapons are preferred by experts in house clearing and the like. In Simple terms, shorter weapons have less resistence to rapidly changing the weapon's position.

Again, overlength is the best determing factor here.

As a side note, Urban combat in the recent wars is the reason for the widespread deployment of carbine length weapons in place of full length rifles. This modifier reflects that fact.

Also, while not covered in this conversion- shotguns for Skeet and Trap often have longer barrels as the increased resistence to movement changes make it easier to track the birds in their arc.


RMod

This modifier is subtracted from any Range Modifiers that may apply (the subtraction may not go negative, i.e. it may not add to your final Hit Chance).

Here the simple solution was to base things off barrel length, and modify things for a few types of actions. Barrel length general determines sighting radius and stablity for a weapon and is an excellent starting point as an 'ideal value'.

Special features that improve this value (bipods, match grade ammo, scopes and other targeting gear, etc.) are covered by their own rules and add directly to this value.


OCV Mod

In HERO this value adds directly to your chance of hitting with a weapon. It is basically a measure of the weapon's pointability, i.e. how easily it can be brought to bear on the target and remain aligned with the target as the shot is taken.

This modifier has a very limited range (basically -1 OCV to +1 OCV). Various targeting items (laser sights, Reflex Sights, Scopes) may modifier this value futher.

The Link explains how it's determined rather clearly and I don't think it needs further comment.


That covers the basic weapon conversion. Let me know if you're interested in the effects of various weapon accessories and ammo types, and I can cover that as well.

In the scope of Hero, how would you take into account the largest issue of pistol comparison that I've encountered in training, which is the "it's too big/small for my hands" problem?

I've seen people claim that the M9 is too big for them, that they have trouble reaching the assorted functions without breaking stance, and that establishing a secure grip is difficult.  The problem only increases with various larger framed pistols like the DE, and it has a serious impact on their ability to effectively fire the weapon.

As an example, one of the guys in a previous detachment couldn't reliably fire the M9, he was just a small guy.  He had no problem firing his Glock, and he was a good operator, but even though he could bench 250 he would get limp-wrist malfunctions because he had stubby fingers and wasn't able to maintain a solid grip on the weapon to avoid recoil jump.

Also, and I realize it could be covered in attachments, but for the CQB modifier, does it take into account that the firer grip and stance have more impact on the functional response time of the weapon than the overall length?  For instance, holding an M4 by the magazine well or with a 'gangster grip' set to a short length will improve the response time when tracking a near target during cqb.  

And... why does an M2 only have a -2 modifier worse than the HKMP5 series in CQB?  Or even HAVE a cqb modifier at all, that should be a common sense 'No.  Just... stop.' response.

Last bit.. looking purely from the gaming stats, WHY do I choose an M4 over an MP5 for an all purpose carry weapon?  I know why I would in reality, but from the perspective of an operator choosing his long gun for use in.. let's say Iraq urban environment, where you're just as likely to be doing cqb clearing a block as you are to engage at 200m, and aren't concerned with overpenetration and secondary impacts (concrete or mud/rock walls...), why would the M4 in 5.56 be a better choice than the 9mm?  

The way I see it, it seems like a tradeoff between +1 RKA, x1.5 Penetration, and +1 CQB vs +1 RMOD.  That would seem to make the MP5 the weapon of choice; but even from an SMG barrel, there's honestly no way in hell that the 9mm penetrates like the 5.56.  It seems like it's missing the vital element in the equation, the round nose vs cone shape on the round.  Also, the twist of the rifling doesn't seem to be taken into account, but that's a factor that becomes VITAL for the choices when it comes to long range shooting.

I'd like to mention I'm not just sharpshooting (no pun intended) the weapons here.  I think that this discussion is contiguous to the other one, and if the considerations are of sufficient importance to merit their inclusion, they should be accurate to a reasonable real-world model.

Gleichman, thanks for posting all of this.  Funny enough, I used a lot of the same equations as you did.

And really, while yours is a lot more detailed orientated, it really comes down to a personal preference on just which factors you include and which ones you think are important.  There is no way anyone could come up with a totally accurate system, and I think both of our systems are real enough for the vast majority of gamers.  For example, you place a lot of damage capacity on diameter of the round, which isn't necessarily true for rounds designed to tumble, for instance, or for a larger caliber round that might only penetrate 1-3 inches compared to smaller caliber one that penetrates 5-10 inches.  There's just too many factors and we pick which ones we feel work best.

I think you're is probably more accurate and/or better from a pre-existing list of weapons, while mine is probably better from a "create from scratch" viewpoint.  I don't say this to knock the way you did it, but from the viewpoint of the majority of gamers, who aren't going to want to spend a lot of time doing math to figure out a custom weapon.

Quote from: Panzerkraken;567039In the scope of Hero, how would you take into account the largest issue of pistol comparison that I've encountered in training, which is the "it's too big/small for my hands" problem?

Excellent question (as were all the others you offered in this post).

I too have seen people with the same issue and personally I find that I'm more effective with a grip like that of a 1911 with a single stack mag than I am with the wider grips for staggered magazines like the 92F. I don't have problems maintaining grip, but it just feels more right to me. So let me address both those reactions to grip characteristics at once.

In HERO such personal preferences and characteristics are not at the weapon level, but at character creation. If a character favors (for reasons physical, psychological or just from training) a certain weapon type or characteristic, they can buy skills with specific types of weapons.

For example: +1 with double action revolvers (as I've seen people better with those than single action, uncommon and not true for me and I think the typical person- but they exist even so). The cost is low for a single skill level and sets the character a bit apart.

On the downside, a person can buy a disadvantage for being unable to properly use a certain type of weapon- and the points returned directly relate to how common of a problem this would be for them. For example, the guy you mentioned might have the physical limit that model 92F has a jammed roll of 11- (just for example). Given that it's the weapon issued him and carried by all his team mates, that might be worth 5 points or so. If he had easy access to more suitable weapons, it just might be a role-played trait worth no points at.

If I was writing these rules for a system other HERO without such fine control over disadvantages and bonuses, I'd be tempted to make a random table that was rolled on during character generation that gave 'weapon quirks' to characters (with most characters not having any).

Quote from: Panzerkraken;567039Also, and I realize it could be covered in attachments, but for the CQB modifier, does it take into account that the firer grip and stance have more impact on the functional response time of the weapon than the overall length?  For instance, holding an M4 by the magazine well or with a 'gangster grip' set to a short length will improve the response time when tracking a near target during cqb.

In most cases, I assume that the character is always using the best stance and hold that they are capable of so I've haven't taken that into account and instead just rolled it into the normal combat values for various characters. Lesser skilled characters tend to have lower dex values anyway in HERO and thus having a specific modifier for improper stance would be double dipping in a sense (and would in addition rarely matter against skilled PCs).

The pistol foregrip is a weapon accessory that modifies STR Min. I didn't have it modify CQB and now you got me thinking if I should...

Quote from: Panzerkraken;567039And... why does an M2 only have a -2 modifier worse than the HKMP5 series in CQB?  Or even HAVE a cqb modifier at all, that should be a common sense 'No.  Just... stop.' response.

The M2... Oh the Heavy Machinegun.

It has that modifier because that chart is a cut and paste from the spreadsheet and a -4 is where the spreadsheet maxes out. In practical terms about the only way you'd encounter an M2 in CQB is if one was set up to cover a hallway... and in that case your life a) sucks and b) -4 would likely be acceptable modifier to me since it was pointed in your direction anyway.

Outside that example (such as some trying to swing the weapon away from a window it was firing out of) the user would likely have to move the gun (taking a full phase action) or half lean out the window or some other crazy stunt and I'd apply additional modifiers on that.

Quote from: Panzerkraken;567039Last bit.. looking purely from the gaming stats, WHY do I choose an M4 over an MP5 for an all purpose carry weapon?

The M4 has the following stats: 2d6K, Armor- Normal, +1 OCV, +2 RMod, -2 CQB, STR Min 12

The MP5N has the following: 2d6+1, Armor 1.5x, +1 OCV, +1 RMod, -2 QCB, STR Min 4.


So the M4 is better against armor, and better at range. HERO uses a 3d6 bell curve for resolution so that +1 RMod tends to be significant. The QCB is identical.

The MP5N however is a good choice against unarmored foes and it's low base STR Min means it's better for longer bursts (in HERO each round in a burst adds one to the STR Min).



I should note at this point an important thing that this conversion didn't take into account (for the simple reason that it rarely comes up in play as there are few engagements in our games with ranges over 100 yards) is that the 9mm (and all pistol class ammo) seriously degrades in performance over range. In fact, all ammo degrades in its effectiveness over range.

If I was willing to add a new game stat to HERO (my goal was to avoid that), I'd likely put in an effective range stat to represent this. I still consider it now and then.

As is, it's something that I personally know and would account for if someone attempted to use pistol class weapons at long range by increasing the range modifier at least.

Quote from: Panzerkraken;567039Also, the twist of the rifling doesn't seem to be taken into account, but that's a factor that becomes VITAL for the choices when it comes to long range shooting.

Rifling twist should match the bullet design, and yes it's a significant impact.

For the purpose of this conversion I assume that each weapon has the proper rifling for the ammo it fires (a condition that isn't always true in reality- but that can be handled by GM saying- "you have been given the wrong ammo guys, you'll take an addition -2 OCV for ranges over 150 yards.").

Quote from: Panzerkraken;567039I'd like to mention I'm not just sharpshooting (no pun intended) the weapons here.  I think that this discussion is contiguous to the other one, and if the considerations are of sufficient importance to merit their inclusion, they should be accurate to a reasonable real-world model.

No, these are good questions and the type of stuff I would expect.

The conversions I present here are simplifications and don't cover all the real world influences. They weren't intended to. Instead they were intended to provide a nudge towards realism (i.e. an improvement of the standard HERO rules) and meaningful choices for the players.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;567046And really, while yours is a lot more detailed orientated, it really comes down to a personal preference on just which factors you include and which ones you think are important.  There is no way anyone could come up with a totally accurate system, and I think both of our systems are real enough for the vast majority of gamers.

I would tend to agree here. Really my only compliant about your list is that I think it needs a 'compact pistol' entry with reduced ranges compared to a standard pistol (the 92F vs. PPS thing). After that, you're likely golden for what you're doing and the detail level you're seeking.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;567046For example, you place a lot of damage capacity on diameter of the round, which isn't necessarily true for rounds designed to tumble, for instance, or for a larger caliber round that might only penetrate 1-3 inches compared to smaller caliber one that penetrates 5-10 inches.  There's just too many factors and we pick which ones we feel work best.

All bullets tumble (and it's a single flip by 180 degrees, not multiple 'tumbles'), the subject is covered quite well in Hatcher's Notebook decades before this myth became part of gun lore.

And bullets are not designed to tumble as such, they are designed to break apart during the flip resulting in an increased wound channel as pieces go everywhere. Icky.

I cover this effect as an ammo type. But it's only effective at short range and under somewhat random conditions.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;567046I think you're is probably more accurate and/or better from a pre-existing list of weapons, while mine is probably better from a "create from scratch" viewpoint.  I don't say this to knock the way you did it, but from the viewpoint of the majority of gamers, who aren't going to want to spend a lot of time doing math to figure out a custom weapon.

Just as a side note, the idea of everything being a custom weapon created out of the parts of other unrelated weapons strikes me as something very malfunction prone (and likely to fly apart).

If a man could actually pull this off, I would imagine that he would equally be capable of making weapons from scratch to order.

But I'm not a gunsmith, and thus I'm reacting here on instinct. Perhaps you have better information on the subject than I.

Quote from: gleichman;567062The M4 has the following stats: 2d6K, Armor- Normal, +1 OCV, +2 RMod, -2 CQB, STR Min 12

The MP5N has the following: 2d6+1, Armor 1.5x, +1 OCV, +1 RMod, -2 QCB, STR Min 4.


So the M4 is better against armor, and better at range. HERO uses a 3d6 bell curve for resolution so that +1 RMod tends to be significant. The QCB is identical.

The MP5N however is a good choice against unarmored foes and it's low base STR Min means it's better for longer bursts (in HERO each round in a burst adds one to the STR Min).

Apologies, I misread the purpose of the Armor stat, I was thinking that it was modifying the RKA damage for the purpose of penetration, that makes a lot more sense now.

Does the system have a consideration for their set burst modes (like the 2 round burst feature of the MP5 or the nigh-to useless burst mode for the M4)?

(the opinion of the burst mode is my own.. I'd rather have full auto in a lower rate, ~600 rounds, than the burst mode at 900, even for establishing a base of fire; but we take what we can get)

QuoteThe conversions I present here are simplifications and don't cover all the real world influences. They weren't intended to. Instead they were intended to provide a nudge towards realism (i.e. an improvement of the standard HERO rules) and meaningful choices for the players.

Any game system is a simplification, so I understand completely.  I think it's fine, but I agree with Sanc on the idea that players generally don't prefer to spend time with a calculator defining their weapons.

For (a fairly long) example, my recent project has been taking Living Steel (a game using a barely-simplified version of Phoenix Command) and bringing it out into d20, because the majority of my players aren't able to focus well enough to play a game as detailed as PCCS.  One of the things that I wanted to keep, however, was the unique damage resolution mechanic of PCCS, which was based more on the location of the hit and the penetration of the weapon than on a random value.  The justification I plan to use is that the location roll and glance check represent the damage roll.

Spoiler'd because I'm going off on numbers inside.

Spoiler

In the process of translating the system, I decided to reduce the numbers a bit for penetration, since for the most part, they are vastly overstated in a sci-fi setting (weaponized lasers would be ridiculously effective if there's sufficient energy behind them...), and the net result was a heavy genericizing of modern weapons.  I don't necessarily consider this a bad thing, but in the scope of the system, it's functionally removed the primary differences between the 9mm and the .45.  (Penetration is scaled back by a factor of 10, which results in both having a pen of 0/1 instead of 2.4/3.4 (9mm) and 1.6/2.2, and damage class is lumped together by category (into the columns of their relative damage on the chart) which means both fall into DC 2, which represents the PCCS DC of 3-5).

So, for the purposes of the game, both the weapons wind up being mostly identical, just because I had to zoom out the focus of the game to a point where it would work with d20 without interfering with smooth operations at the table.  Some of the factors are still taken into account in the overall, like aim time being directly related to how much effort you can put into aiming, and plateauing for certain weapons earlier, but there's just a point where you have to let the focal resolution fade a bit.

Cool stuff! Thanks for posting.

Quote from: Panzerkraken;567079Does the system have a consideration for their set burst modes (like the 2 round burst feature of the MP5 or the nigh-to useless burst mode for the M4)?

HERO alllows you to buy a fixed amount of autofire for a weapon. So the table shows the M16A4 with a 3 round rof (representing it's burst mode) and a M16A3 with a rof of 7 (just full auto, no burst mode).

But the system is somewhat grainy, and doesn't have existing modifiers for things like auto-fire only or multiple burst control (by default any autofire can fire 1 shot per bust up to its max). It also lumps various rofs together (no point cost difference for example for 6, 7, 8, 9 or 10; they are all a +3/4 advantage).

So we control that manually as a player limiting ourselves to the proper rof values when we say how many rounds we're firing.

Quote from: Panzerkraken;567079Any game system is a simplification, so I understand completely.  I think it's fine, but I agree with Sanc on the idea that players generally don't prefer to spend time with a calculator defining their weapons.

Is true, which is why I use a spreadsheet (avoiding any use of the calculator for new weapons) and general make up a spreadsheet covering all the common weapons used in a campaign. I've showed the modern one, and I have one for WWII, Wild West, and Shadowrun campaigns. It's easy to add more if I should need them.

Quote from: Panzerkraken;567079So, for the purposes of the game, both the weapons wind up being mostly identical, just because I had to zoom out the focus of the game to a point where it would work with d20 without interfering with smooth operations at the table.

Understandable, and I'd have trouble coming up with a D20 version of what I'd done even limited only to modern weapons. It would be a tight fit and the addition of realistic lasers would throw things off.

In fact IMO realistic lasers throw off most games for the simple reason that an RPG is difficult with weapons being that deadly. Thus I tend to use the sci-fantasy weapons instead resulting in damage roughly equal to modern firearms but that are more effective against armor.