[LT & MA] is Harsh Realism harsh or just realism?

[jacobmuller]

Low Tech and Martial Arts offer "Harsh Realism" optional rules.
Low Tech's are for Ranged Weapons (malfunctions; slings Cr; 1/2 Acc) and Armor Gaps.
Martial Arts' are for unarmed fighters: bruised knuckles; defense limits; striking bone; strong/weak hand; Tech Grappling trained ST, judo throwing.

The only option I baulk at is 1/2 Acc for muscle powered missile weapons and that only due to it being described as "really harsh".

So, are these options only harsh in comparison to playability/fun or are they more harsh than real?

[vicky_molokh]

Slings are probably too harsh, as (a) this results in strong slingers being able to cause significant knockback with itty-bitty bullets and (b) arguably, removal of sling bullets that pierced the flesh was a concern, if tools are to be believed.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by jacobmuller

The only option I baulk at is 1/2 Acc for muscle powered missile weapons and that only due to it being described as "really harsh".

That one is really harsh, but also probably really real. When you compare muscle-powered weapon accuracy to firearm accuracy...no, bows should not be remotely as accurate as rifles.

Imposing that is hard on some popular character concepts that aren't generally recognized as being cinematic, though. (But don't worry, it could be much, much worse! You could also use the bullet travel rule from Tactical Shooting with bows.)

[Dalillama]

Originally Posted by jacobmuller

So, are these options only harsh in comparison to playability/fun

For the most part, this.

[Peter V. Dell'Orto]

Originally Posted by jacobmuller

So, are these options only harsh in comparison to playability/fun or are they more harsh than real?

Sometimes a bit of both. They're generally, at least in the Martial Arts ones, based on the worst-case aspects of training and fighting. What if you don't hit the right part of the face, what if you don't learn to hit with both hands equally well - that kind of stuff. The "realism" is "these are probably real" and the "harsh" bit is "these make it harder to do anything like what you see in fiction" and "we erred on the side of making it suck more, not less." The more heroic/cinematic stuff errs on the side of suck less, not suck more. Seems fair.

[Anthony]

Realistically, the problem for low tech ranged weapons is time of flight, not accuracy -- I'm not a fan of the time of flight rules in Tactical Shooting p32 , but applied to low-tech ranged weapons, the appropriate time of flight is generally range/50-70.

My preferred rule is something like: against erratically moving targets, skill (after bonuses for aiming and sights) is capped at 9 + (bullet speed modifier, treated as a positive number). This limit is 22-23 for most pistols (900-1500 fps), 24-25 for most rifles (2000-3000 fps), 26 for specialized rounds (4500 fps). The limit for thrown weapons is about 16 (60 mph), 17 for exceptional throwers (throwing skill at DX+2 or better), 17-18 for low-tech projectile weapons.

[lwcamp]

Originally Posted by Anthony

My preferred rule is something like: against erratically moving targets, skill (after bonuses for aiming and sights) is capped at 9 + (bullet speed modifier, treated as a positive number). This limit is 22-23 for most pistols (900-1500 fps), 24-25 for most rifles (2000-3000 fps), 26 for specialized rounds (4500 fps). The limit for thrown weapons is about 16 (60 mph), 17 for exceptional throwers (throwing skill at DX+2 or better), 17-18 for low-tech projectile weapons.

I just figured +1 to dodge for every 1/4 second of flight time. So for an arrow at 50 m/s, you get +1 to dodge between 13 and 25 hexes, +2 between 26 and 38 hexes, +3 between 39 and 50 hexes, and so on. This way you don't need to decide if a target is erratically moving.

Luke

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by lwcamp

This way you don't need to decide if a target is erratically moving.

Plenty of targets can be erratically moving without being able to use an active defense -- all-out attack, or just evasive maneuvers.