Reality-testing / Playtesting the Guns Default . . .

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

....

Regarding Defaults:
If we don't have a consensus that someone picking up a real pistol for the first time in one's life is working at Default, then the results of the reality-test become irrelevant. So I want to ask: what do you consider to be the criterion of having 0 points in a DX/Easy skill (i.e. working at an actual default while having a default)? Back when I posted my impressions with the driving default, I don't recall anyone insisting that I have a point in Driving from playing Death Track on the computer.

Just to say I think this is the heart of the matter.

I also take your point about the range finding bonus at 15 yards. But in this instance I think knowing the distance and more importantly knowing the distance won't change on a stationary target is more about adjusting and getting better at repeating the shot.

Which isn't really in RAW, maintaining aiming bonuses in certain circumstance is the closest IIRC.

But actually the more i think about it being able to adjust and repeats you action in the same circumstance and if there is a potential of improved results there really should be a measurable effect (In fact the repeated attempt section pn pg348 actually runs counter to it).

[fifiste]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

But actually the more i think about it being able to adjust and repeats you action in the same circumstance and if there is a potential of improved results there really should be a measurable effect (In fact the repeated attempt section pn pg348 actually runs counter to it).

Yeah the repeated attempt section kinda fails my reality check there - if nothing deleterious happens from repeated attempts - then I'd just be able to learn and adjust and make it better next time.

It'll get worse if I ruin something, or strain myself - lost FP etc. or will rolls for tedium esp. given disadvantages like lazy, impulsive, absent minded. (Something deleterious happened in my noggin then )

Otherwise just being able to to the same thing again after a "practice run" or two just seems to make things better. Kind of the whole point of practising stuff actually.

[Gollum]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Regarding Defaults:
If we don't have a consensus that someone picking up a real pistol for the first time in one's life is working at Default, then the results of the reality-test become irrelevant. So I want to ask: what do you consider to be the criterion of having 0 points in a DX/Easy skill (i.e. working at an actual default while having a default)? Back when I posted my impressions with the driving default, I don't recall anyone insisting that I have a point in Driving from playing Death Track on the computer.

As far as I understand rules, playing video games where there are guns and looking movies and TV series where there are guns is precisely what allows to have the default skill: Guns (Pistol) (E) DX-4 [0]. Someone who has never seen a gun, neither in reality nor in video games, movies or TV series just doesn't have the default and cannot use a gun at all.

But I surely missed something. Did you train with toy guns like Nerf or Paint Ball ones? Because even if they are not real guns, they already give some training about how to aim and shoot.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by fifiste

Yeah the repeated attempt section kinda fails my reality check there - if nothing deleterious happens from repeated attempts - then I'd just be able to learn and adjust and make it better next time.

It'll get worse if I ruin something, or strain myself - lost FP etc. or will rolls for tedium esp. given disadvantages like lazy, impulsive, absent minded. (Something deleterious happened in my noggin then )

Otherwise just being able to to the same thing again after a "practice run" or two just seems to make things better. Kind of the whole point of practising stuff actually.

I thought repeated attempt penalties are meant to represent a mix of frustration and exhausting the list of possible useful approaches. E.g. if you fail to open a complex lock, you shouldn't be allowed to just make 20 more unpenalized attempts fishing for a critsuccess until you actually improve your skill. This is, of course, counterbalanced with the removal of penalties for not having as much 'recon data' on the first attempt - but for many things, you try your first attempt when you finished the recon.

[fifiste]

The removal of possibilities makes sense as an explanation - it could be spelled out like:
You used your standard set of tricks on this lock and to no avail - there is a few more complicated moves you could still make (-1 to skill) maybe that'll make it work this time.
Nope not good enough either you vaguely remember an old instruction about these kind of situations you could maybe try (-2 etc.).

On the other hand you could just say that is a difficulty -4 lock and whatever methods you use to try to get it open is already subsumed in your skill of 12,14 or 16 or whatever you have as a locksmith/thief. So that'll mean that if it is not impossible then sooner or later (sometimes much later) you'll going to open this lock. The only penalty being the time wasted - the princess mught well be moved to another castle by the time you finish picking the gate :D. Or there will be a gathering of 43 guards leaning over their halberds looking intently and making bets will you make it this time.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

I thought repeated attempt penalties are meant to represent a mix of frustration and exhausting the list of possible useful approaches. E.g. if you fail to open a complex lock, you shouldn't be allowed to just make 20 more unpenalized attempts fishing for a critsuccess until you actually improve your skill. This is, of course, counterbalanced with the removal of penalties for not having as much 'recon data' on the first attempt - but for many things, you try your first attempt when you finished the recon.

Well frustration is a factor (as is eventual exhaustion etc), But ask yourself this, were you better at hitting the target when you started shooting on the range, or did your performance improve while shooting at the same target, leading to in total a better overall result

"practice makes perfect" and all that!


TBH I think part of "taking more time" is this effect. It's just "taking more time" applies oddly in this situation.

On a more meta point, in terms of exciting story lines and roleplaying situations, "Oh I just keep doing it until I get better results" isn't a very exciting tactic/result. Even if it maybe in some situations a realistic one!

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by fifiste

Yeah the repeated attempt section kinda fails my reality check there - if nothing deleterious happens from repeated attempts - then I'd just be able to learn and adjust and make it better next time.

It'll get worse if I ruin something, or strain myself - lost FP etc. or will rolls for tedium esp. given disadvantages like lazy, impulsive, absent minded. (Something deleterious happened in my noggin then )

Otherwise just being able to to the same thing again after a "practice run" or two just seems to make things better. Kind of the whole point of practising stuff actually.

Yep quite!

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Well frustration is a factor (as is eventual exhaustion etc), But ask your self this, were you better at hitting the target when you started shooting on the range, or did your performance improve.

My performance dropped significantly after I got my first stoppage (failure-to-eject-casing in the middle of a rapid two-shot attack) . . . for the rest of a single exercise. I was fine on the next one. I do not have data on other people (we don't really know each other).

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Regarding the 'precisely known range' bonus:
If we go by the fact that at a couple of tens of yards the trajectory is flat anyway, I'm not sure what benefit precisely-known range should provide (i.e. someone could advocate a harsh-realism houserule making the answer 'none').
But even by RAW, the Eye For Distance perk provides a 'built-in' rangefinder with an error margin of ±5%, and is considered good enough to allow Precision Aiming but not to enjoy a Rangefinder bonus. So 'approximately 15 yards or metres' is already a precision level with an even worse error margin (at least ±10%).

On the first part, I don't think that negligible bullet drop over the range justifies being denied the range-finding penalty. If anything, it justifies getting it automatically without needing any ranging as a point-blank (in the technical sense even!) bonus. If point-blank range made you lose the bonus, you'd have cases where your effective skill would increase as the target was moved away and you started having to adjust for bullet drop, which is nonsensical.

As for Eye For Distance, I'd note that that, like the rangefinding bonus itself, is most likely designed with a focus on longer-range shooting. Beyond 20 yards, ±5% is more than 1 yard of error and therefore doesn't make you eligible for even the +1 partial rangefinding bonus.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Regarding Defaults:
If we don't have a consensus that someone picking up a real pistol for the first time in one's life is working at Default, then the results of the reality-test become irrelevant. So I want to ask: what do you consider to be the criterion of having 0 points in a DX/Easy skill (i.e. working at an actual default while having a default)? Back when I posted my impressions with the driving default, I don't recall anyone insisting that I have a point in Driving from playing Death Track on the computer.

I might allow a sufficiently intensive non-real training regime to give above-Default results in some cases...particularly, say, a UT VR training program.

But that's tangential, I don't see any reason to doubt that your trial reports on a standard Default level unless one basically rejects the entire idea that a standard Default level exists.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

On the first part, I don't think that negligible bullet drop over the range justifies being denied the range-finding penalty. If anything, it justifies getting it automatically without needing any ranging as a point-blank (in the technical sense even!) bonus. If point-blank range made you lose the bonus, you'd have cases where your effective skill would increase as the target was moved away and you started having to adjust for bullet drop, which is nonsensical.

As for Eye For Distance, I'd note that that, like the rangefinding bonus itself, is most likely designed with a focus on longer-range shooting. Beyond 20 yards, ±5% is more than 1 yard of error and therefore doesn't make you eligible for even the +1 partial rangefinding bonus.

Hmm. That would provide a free +3 to . . . pretty much all attacks in typical urban engagements, and would drastically change the results of all such encounters in favour of more shots hitting.

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

I might allow a sufficiently intensive non-real training regime to give above-Default results in some cases...particularly, say, a UT VR training program.

But that's tangential, I don't see any reason to doubt that your trial reports on a standard Default level unless one basically rejects the entire idea that a standard Default level exists.

Yeah, that's my point: saying that first-timers have a point in guns seems to result in Defaults not existing at all, and in point inflation of typical average people.