I have recently seen quite a bit of disgust with the state of automatic fire in RPG's.  I have seen a poster comment about wanting to gouge out their eyes with a fork over how 'bad' they are.

Maybe I'm clueless. I've fired automatic weapons, been quite good at it actually. While I'd hardly hold up RPG's as excellent models of reality, I wouldn't say every... or even most... RPG's do a mind searingly bad job of it either.

The trouble is that posters of that sort never seem to comment on exactly how it's bad.  Asking for clarification is like pulling teeth... you get statements like 'All of it'.

Now, part of me is willing to chalk it up to general bitching, or 'pocket expertise' but I've seen enough of it, across a wide enough spectrum that I'd really like to know what people have to say about this rather arcane subspectrum of gaming rules.

We have quite a few ex-military here, and a huge number of gun enthusiasts: tell me what doesn't work in RPG autofire rules for you. What is missing, what would you do differently.

I am not an expert. But I think the issue I've seen commented on is how autofire is used (to hit with more bullets) versus how SMG's/MG's supposed to be designed to work (to control the target*).  Now that's the argument I've seen--I don't have practical experience with SMG/MG's (pistols and rifles, sure, but not autofire capable ones.)

The split of course seems to be over the desire to maximize efficiency in killing in an RPG, versus, the actual tactical uses of autofire weapon.

Some RPG autofire rules seem to be the --"more bullets=more damage" (with penalties to hit)


Does that help?


*Which of course is from my (admittedly limited) POV--the ability to deny a target opportunity to shoot back, and or go where it wants.

Quote from: SilverlionSome RPG autofire rules seem to be the --"more bullets=more damage" (with penalties to hit)

Yeah, I see a lot of "submachine guns were designed for suppressive fire" arguments, which is just not true.  That might be how people are trained to fire them, but the gun itself is actually designed to hit and kill targets.   The M16 in Vietnam had single-shot and full-auto setting and a lot of VC were killed from autofire.  Of course, in the heat of the battle, the GIs tended to shoot up all their ammo pretty fast which is why the 3-round burst feature was included in the M16A2.  

But, back to RPGs, the other argument I see is on #of hits vs. damage determination.  If you hit someone with a gun set on autofire, how many bullets actually hit?  And if a gun does 1d8 damage on single shot, then it should do 1d8 damage for every bullet that hits on autofire, right?  Except, throw game balance right out the window with that.  

I wish I had a solution, but I tend not to worry about "realism" any more.  It just gives me headaches.

Pete

If I remember correctly the CORPS rpg by BTRC does a good job at simulating automatic fire.  There are rules for using it as suppression fire, but the basic is that you roll to hit.  For each additional round fired on automatic, there is a recoil modifier which adds cumulatively with each additional shot.  Your shots will continue to hit your target until the recoil modifier causes you to exceed the target number.  There are factors that can be used to reduce the recoil modifier, as well.  In game play, this will probably mean 2-3 hits on average depending on range and other factors.  Each hit does full damage, unless the final hit ends up being a graze or partial hit.  (If it exactly matches the difficulty number or exceeds it by 1.)

(Yes, guns are deadly in CORPS.  You participate in gun fights as a last resort, and if possible only from behind cover while wearing kevlar.)

For Galaxies in Shadow, I've gone with a bonus to hit (on a percentile roll) equal to the number of bullets.  Spread bursts divide the number of bullets by the width of the spread at the target's location. (obviously you roll against each potential target) With single shots you get half damage on a marginal success (roll of 1-10) and double damage on an exceptional success (doubles).

With autofire, you get a number of hits that have to individually penetrate armour and generate a hit location.

3 round bursts and spread shots of 3 or less bullets do 1/2 damage on a marginal success, 1 hit on a normal success, and two on an exceptional success.  Three round bursts can't really be spread.

After that it's one hit on a marginal success, 2 on a normal success, and three on an exceptional success.

If you've got a rate of fire in excess of 10 it's 1 hit, 1d5 hits, and 1d10 hits.

If it's over 20 1d5 hits, 2d10 hits, and 2d10 hits.

If it's over 30 it's 1d10, 2d10, and 3d10 hits.

Wounds aren't directly cumulative, so you don't run into the massive damage stacking problems that come up in some games.

The way I have approached it is to keep damage the same, give bonuses to hit and increase ammo consumption. There is only so much you can do.

Bill

I reckon that what people mean is that shooting in RPGs just isn't as much fun as, specifically,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twyfuni_ssM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7npuxLW_hM

or any of the other computer games where one tends to spend most of your time emptying thousands of rounds at the foe while cackling madly.

There is probably nothing to be done about this, but I do think its important to realise that they mean 'its not as cool as in counterstrike' not 'it isn't realistic'. Even if they won't admit it.

Quote from: SpikeWe have quite a few ex-military here, and a huge number of gun enthusiasts: tell me what doesn't work in RPG autofire rules for you. What is missing, what would you do differently.

You'd have to be specific... there are plenty of autofire rules that suck in craptastically different ways.

The one I bitch about often is D20 Modern, which uses a totally different set of rules for fully automatic fire than it does single shot. It uses the area effect rules, which you usually reserve for fireballs and the like, for autofire. Which is bent because it freakin' ignores armor.

The biggest gotcha is recoil, because while the gradual impact of recoil may make it less likely the target will be hit by any single bullet, autofire itself makes it more likely the target will be hit multiple times. This kind of contradiction can mess with people's heads.

There is also a maximum limit to how much recoil can affect you, beyond which you can always be certain all bullets will hit a given area. If your target IS that area, then autofire has no impact on how likely you are to hit.

The only disadvantages to autofire are in how fast you chew through your ammo, and the increased likelihood of hitting unintended targets. And I'm not sure, but does it also increase the chances of your weapon jamming?

So that being the case... I don't know. I never really thought of it as an issue requiring it's own specific rules, but I'm sure I could come up with something given time.

My only problem with autofire rules is as for other kinds of fire - neither NPCs nor PCs are scared of it. It's pointless to give "covering fire" to keep the enemy heads down because they just pop up anyway.

This is part of the more general "fight to the death!" problem in rpgs, where a real-world barfight that would have ended with one punch - "fuck! He broke my nose! I'm outta here!" - in an rpg session turns into dismemberment.

The vast majority of rounds fired, whether in an infantry battle or a couple of crims shooting it out, never hit anybody. They just zip past and scare people a lot - and this scaring is very important. For example, we have the technology to make gunfire much quieter (I don't mean silencers, I mean powder make-up). Why don't we? Because loud noise is, along with falling, the only instictive fears humans have.

JimBob has the crux of it, down to a tee.  I really think more gamers out to play Stargrunt II at least once, to get some idea what a real firefight feels like.

You don't even necessarily want the enemy to die, you just want to control the battlefield and make them either run away or surrender.  

And that's in a warzone.  In more civilian occurences obviously the importance of coercing a target to surrender is even more heavily weighted, and in many cases the ideal in, say, a police situation, is to never have to fire a shot at all.  

Most barfights start with a punch or two, devolve into futile grappling and thrashing about on the floor, until both parties tire out and realize they are't getting anywhere, or their respective groups of friends pull them apart.

GURPS 4th uses one hit and ROF determines number of max fired shells which determines a bonus to hit. Number of shells that hit is based on how good your skill roll was vs a recoil number.

Suppressing fire is there. And the higher the ROF the more suppression you can do.

Spraying fire is there and ROF affects how much, with chances to hit the wrong target.

Quote from: JimBobOzMy only problem with autofire rules is as for other kinds of fire - neither NPCs nor PCs are scared of it. It's pointless to give "covering fire" to keep the enemy heads down because they just pop up anyway.

This is part of the more general "fight to the death!" problem in rpgs, where a real-world barfight that would have ended with one punch - "fuck! He broke my nose! I'm outta here!" - in an rpg session turns into dismemberment.

The vast majority of rounds fired, whether in an infantry battle or a couple of crims shooting it out, never hit anybody. They just zip past and scare people a lot - and this scaring is very important. For example, we have the technology to make gunfire much quieter (I don't mean silencers, I mean powder make-up). Why don't we? Because loud noise is, along with falling, the only instictive fears humans have.

I absolutely agree with that. In many games I feel like a good add to have some rules to see if the PCs and NPCs are able to pop when they are under suppression fire. If they fail the roll, they have some penalty for being fucking scared, though they may act.

Quote from: ImperatorI absolutely agree with that. In many games I feel like a good add to have some rules to see if the PCs and NPCs are able to pop when they are under suppression fire. If they fail the roll, they have some penalty for being fucking scared, though they may act.

I'm pondering using my game's Fear mechanic for reactions to suppressive fire, just give the weapon a fear check difficulty corellating to the rate of fire.  

At the same time though, while that produces a nice irrational response to suppressive/automatic fire, it doesn't necessarily well simulate the fact that there's perfectly rational reasons to get the hell out of the way.

But it is a game with a horror bent, so I suppose that could work well.

This is just a start, but you can extrapolate D20's aid another rule to cover supression:

QuoteAid Another

In melee combat, you can help a friend attack or defend by distracting or interfering with an opponent. If you’re in position to make a melee attack on an opponent that is engaging a friend in melee combat, you can attempt to aid your friend as a standard action. You make an attack roll against AC 10. If you succeed, your friend gains either a +2 bonus on his next attack roll against that opponent or a +2 bonus to AC against that opponent’s next attack (your choice), as long as that attack comes before the beginning of your next turn. Multiple characters can aid the same friend, and similar bonuses stack.

Change melee to include autofire weapons and there you go. I think you could also tweak it by:
- Increasing the efficacy, say a +1 to the aid for every 5 points over the 10 DC
- Allowing a will save vs. the aid roll to ignore it.
- Allowing it to affect multiple targets, about 1d4 targets equally.

I think this could make supression fire a real factor in a D20 game, especially with a skilled shooter who could sacrifice their attack to really hamper a particular target or targets.