Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-26-2009, 10:25 AM   #31
DouglasCole
Doctor of GURPS Ballistics
 
DouglasCole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Lakeville, MN
Default Re: Shouldn't the damage inflicted by firearms be fixed?

Quote:
Originally Posted by lwcamp View Post
Damage in GURPS scales as the square root of the energy. Armor subtracts from the energy. Thus, a 5.56 NATO round that delivers 5d might have 5*5 "points" of kinetic energy, or 25 points. Armor rated at 4d would subtract 4*4 = 16 points of energy from the bullet. This leaves you with 9 points of energy. Now take the square root of this to get dice that go through armor to injure whoever is on the other side (3d in this case).

Taking a square root in a game during combat would be quite annoying, I imagine (although I can't say for sure, never having needed to do it myself). Further, it doesn't always come out so neatly - 2d of armor against that 5d round would call for calculating SQRT(5*5-2*2) = SQRT(21) = 4.5826 (approximately), or about 4d+2.

Luke
Bingo. It's of mild utility, decent but occasionally dubious accuracy (because "armor subtracts energy" is approximately but not exactly true depending on the physics of the particular collision), and unless you game using a laptop (I used to; don't anymore) of very high annoyance.

It produces results closer to the real world, though, in that 6d bullet hitting 3d armor will do more than 3d damage, the quadrature result of just over 5d is closer to the truth, usually.
__________________
My blog:Gaming Ballistic, LLC
My Store: Gaming Ballistic on Shopify
My Patreon: Gaming Ballistic on Patreon
DouglasCole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2009, 12:55 PM   #32
jason taylor
 
jason taylor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Portland, Oregon
Default Re: Shouldn't the damage inflicted by firearms be fixed?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragitsu View Post
Don't forget people dying from one shot of .22 LR, but surviving a shot from .50 BMG.
For that matter there are stories of people who have been hit by a musket ball and simply knocked down with no other injuries. I forget where I read it.

Musket balls have low velocity which, I think, decreases sharply. The chief damage is from mass, but the damage from that was so great that anyone hit fairly except in a limb, might pretty well be given up on. Of course that was in part the local surgery which consisted of a saw and a branding iron(only wusses ask for opium during this!) for hits on a limb, and "prepare to meet thy maker" for hits in the abdomen. The chest was different as ribs provide natural armor. But in any case musket balls were big and in any case didn't have a jacket so might be considered equiv to dum-dums.

Americans, until the widespread use of rifling, had a fondness for "buck and ball" which was one bullet and three buckshot. That would probably reduce range, but absolute range was far greater then effective range with muskets anyway.
Americans also sometimes carried loose powder and made their own cartridges(sometimes using coat buttons for bullets), at least in the War of Independence which was something of an ad-hoc war at times. That is why they are portrayed carrying powder horns. Riflemen of course were virtuosos(or thought themselves such) and might well prefer loose powder to cartridges as they could satisfy their individual preferences. I don't think loose powder was normal in most armies. But it adds randomness perhaps, though it is not clear that a soldier would necessarily measure out the powder less efficiently then a pre-industrial arsenal.
__________________
"The navy could probably win a war without coffee but would prefer not to try"-Samuel Eliot Morrison
jason taylor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2009, 01:33 PM   #33
Anthony
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
Default Re: Shouldn't the damage inflicted by firearms be fixed?

Given the randomness of real-world reactions to damage, it would be acceptable to have a table reading 'X energy -> roll Y vs injury'.
Anthony is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2009, 09:03 PM   #34
pawsplay
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Default Re: Shouldn't the damage inflicted by firearms be fixed?

My step-dad once advised me to aim a gun at a car's tire if you could; any given shot might go through a windshield, but it could bounce right off, too.
pawsplay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2009, 10:08 PM   #35
sjard
Stick in the Mud
 
sjard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Rural Utah
Default Re: Shouldn't the damage inflicted by firearms be fixed?

Quote:
Originally Posted by pawsplay View Post
My step-dad once advised me to aim a gun at a car's tire if you could; any given shot might go through a windshield, but it could bounce right off, too.
That is why the command fire technique was developed. Two people firing at the window at the same time. One will likely be deflected slightly but will also shatter the glass and the second bullet will pass through with minimal change in flight path.
__________________
MIB #1457
sjard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2009, 09:44 AM   #36
jason taylor
 
jason taylor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Portland, Oregon
Default Re: Shouldn't the damage inflicted by firearms be fixed?

Quote:
Originally Posted by pawsplay View Post
My step-dad once advised me to aim a gun at a car's tire if you could; any given shot might go through a windshield, but it could bounce right off, too.
What does your step-dad do for a living?

In any case it is quite true. Your target might even survive with minimal injury but be frightened into submission and in any case too busy saving his car to be on guard when you have your gun pointed at him when he stops. Which is of course a more elegant display of prowess then simply killing him.
__________________
"The navy could probably win a war without coffee but would prefer not to try"-Samuel Eliot Morrison
jason taylor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2009, 11:58 AM   #37
Anthony
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
Default Re: Shouldn't the damage inflicted by firearms be fixed?

Quote:
Originally Posted by sjard View Post
That is why the command fire technique was developed. Two people firing at the window at the same time. One will likely be deflected slightly but will also shatter the glass and the second bullet will pass through with minimal change in flight path.
Or you can shoot several times. You just need a powerful enough round that it actually creates a large hole in the windshield. Note that windshield glass is different from all other glass in most cars -- the windshield glass is designed to stay intact (with a hole in it), the other glass is designed to shatter into small cubes.
Anthony is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2009, 06:03 PM   #38
panton41
 
panton41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Jeffersonville, Ind.
Default Re: Shouldn't the damage inflicted by firearms be fixed?

I think RAW works for damage since, looking in High Tech, an ordinary TL8 armor vest has 12DR, which is plenty to stop a .45 every time, but won't always stop a 9mm and have a decent chance of stopping a .357 on an average roll. Looking at the real life specs for a Type II and Type III vest that's a perfectly reasonable result.
__________________
The user formerly known as ciaran_skye.

__________________

Quirks: Doesn't proofread forum posts before clicking "Submit". [-1]

Quote:
"My mace speaks Goblin." Antoni Ten Monros
panton41 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2009, 06:05 PM   #39
sjmdw45
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Default Re: Shouldn't the damage inflicted by firearms be fixed?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DouglasCole View Post
It produces results closer to the real world, though, in that 6d bullet hitting 3d armor will do more than 3d damage, the quadrature result of just over 5d is closer to the truth, usually.
Ooh, that's a pretty neat house rule. I'm not sure how it would interact with low-level melee weapons, but for firearms I like it.

-Max
sjmdw45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2009, 07:02 PM   #40
Crakkerjakk
"Gimme 18 minutes . . ."
 
Crakkerjakk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Default Re: Shouldn't the damage inflicted by firearms be fixed?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ciaran_skye View Post
I think RAW works for damage since, looking in High Tech, an ordinary TL8 armor vest has 12DR, which is plenty to stop a .45 every time, but won't always stop a 9mm and have a decent chance of stopping a .357 on an average roll. Looking at the real life specs for a Type II and Type III vest that's a perfectly reasonable result.
Only if you think vests certified as "proof" against a round only stop those rounds about 50% of the time. But the fix is Douglas Cole's armor as Dice rule, explained above, not fixing damage at a set number.
__________________
My bare bones web page

Semper Fi
Crakkerjakk is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
guns

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.