CR for the U.S. ca 1921

[Polydamas]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

When we're talking about a bunch of PCs with submachineguns, the failure of the law to protect them against local law enforcement abuses isn't necessarily going to mean there's very little they can do about it.

And this did happen in the world between the wars: a few violent men with autoloading weapons and fast cars could outgun a small-town police department and get away. But in a horror game, the GM can let the players get away with telling the authorities to "talk to my Bergman Maschinepistole" once or twice to give the players a sense of security, then give them a problem where this will ruin everything (say, a problem where they need to be able to move freely in a certain small town for a week or so; or one where the person they are trying to persuade to help them is on the police reserve and will be called out to deal with these out-of-town gangsters with gun in hand). Part of the thrill of Lovecraftian horror is realizing that a tool you expect to have available won't work. So I think Hans is right that the key is to make sure that most horrors can't be defeated by guns alone.

[Johnny1A.2]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

When we're talking about a bunch of PCs with submachineguns, the failure of the law to protect them against local law enforcement abuses isn't necessarily going to mean there's very little they can do about it.

In an even mildly realistic game, getting into a violent argument with the law (or most kinds of argument with the law) is a losing proposition for most PCs.

Which can be very useful for a GM.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Polydamas

I still think Asta Kask is looking at the 1920s through post-WW II glasses (“obviously governments regulate X”). Goverments in the 1920s had very little involvement in most of the areas that we expect them to regulate today.

This is something that probably affect more campaigns than we know. Probably applies even heavier to designing settings from scratch. Hmm, this might deserve its own thread.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Johnny1A.2

In an even mildly realistic game, getting into a violent argument with the law (or most kinds of argument with the law) is a losing proposition for most PCs.

Which can be very useful for a GM.

I don't actually think that's at all clear.

Sometimes, the law outguns you. Don't pick a fight with the entire NYPD unless you have superpowers. But sometimes 'the law' is a half-dozen guys who have lower skills, less gear, and much less of that special PC recklessness.

Now, there's the other thing where they may be able to arrange to put you in the bad books with all the other law enforcers out there, which is usually a problem. But that depends on some things. They've got to be able to identify you, accuse you of something that'll be taken seriously, and get the word out.

Also, really, you don't have to get into a violent altercation with the cops to discourage them from practicing some indiscriminate justice on you. It's just that some deputy inclined to exercise their power on you may reconsider when they notice that, locally speaking, the balance of power is tilted very much against them.

[SimonAce]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

When we're talking about a bunch of PCs with submachineguns, the failure of the law to protect them against local law enforcement abuses isn't necessarily going to mean there's very little they can do about it.

weapons in the 20's are not going to be the game breaking issue. As a general rule the campaign danger is not from guns but sorcery

The SMG's are are nothing compared to what magic might do. Using CoC terms imagine summon/bind or shriveling or any of a host of other nasty things. Heck illusions can be scary

A rural sheriff with a revolver ,a shotgun and some rifles with the possibility of a B.A.T or a Tommy Gun is toast.


It was the rise of fascism and industrial labor issues by the 30's that impelled governments to restrict arms. A great many of the political class adored fascist and communist ideals


As for other nations, most countries had fairly loose gun laws than, at least marginally free ones anyway. In the UK a person could buy a gun with very little trouble and I suspect it that way on other fairly free countries.

So in the 20's you can assume a few more guns. It would be appropriate to require a minimum amount of wealth though. As mentioned most laws were designed to disarm the poor and modern guns (i.e B.A.R and Tommy Guns) were pricey anyway. Most working and middle class PC's should have a shotgun and a pistol or rifle, revolver and 30/30 is affordable and effective.

As a note even the US nearly effectively banned handguns in 1934 (required a federal permit and $200 which was a fortune) same as short shotguns and rifles. The N.R.A. stepped in on that one though its hard to say what the court would have ruled. US vs. Miller was a punt from an incompetent court (IMO here) sympathetic to gun control but not sure about Constitutional issues.

[adm]

Another consideration on Local Law Enforcement.

Most towns of less than 10,000 or so citizens have a rather small police force, often something along the lines of the Mayor's brother in law and his buddies, but the can get back up from the State Police fairly quickly, depending on era as to how quickly. This tends to hold true today, the local police are not supposed to stop Real Trouble, just be a trip wire that there is a problem.

[Purple Haze]

Are you married to 1921? Back the game up to 1917 and none of your problem weapons even exist.

[Jonas]

Originally Posted by Purple Haze

Are you married to 1921? Back the game up to 1917 and none of your problem weapons even exist.

There were multiple types of SMG's being produced by 1917, they just don't have the modern 'fame' that the Thompson does thanks to Hollywood.

[Johnny1A.2]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

I don't actually think that's at all clear.

Sometimes, the law outguns you. Don't pick a fight with the entire NYPD unless you have superpowers.

You'd better have some pretty darned potent and versatile powers if you hope to come out ahead in that one, unless the game is totally unrealistic.

But that's really beside the point.

But sometimes 'the law' is a half-dozen guys who have lower skills, less gear, and much less of that special PC recklessness.

Now, there's the other thing where they may be able to arrange to put you in the bad books with all the other law enforcers out there, which is usually a problem. But that depends on some things. They've got to be able to identify you, accuse you of something that'll be taken seriously, and get the word out.

Also, really, you don't have to get into a violent altercation with the cops to discourage them from practicing some indiscriminate justice on you. It's just that some deputy inclined to exercise their power on you may reconsider when they notice that, locally speaking, the balance of power is tilted very much against them.

Yeah, if they think it's not worth the issue, they may not make it one...but if things progress to the point that actual threats are being exchanged, then it's probably past that stage. Even in 1921, oen cop could become a whole bunch of them, and a criminal record could be a real headache. They had telephones, telegraphs, and radio in 1921, and cops talked to cops even back then.

They don't have to have a charge, you know. If most of the cops in a region know you're Trouble, you'll have trouble. Even if all they have is a decent description of you, it can be a big problem that can come back at you at the damndest moments. Plus the cops were a lot less restrained in their tactics in 1921, they can use a lot more force, in a lot less carefully constrained ways, under less carefully defined situations, and reasonably expect to get away with it even if found out.

Remember that your little force of local cops know the area, know the people, know the good spots to ambush someone, know the roads, probably have superior local intelligence (the locals are more likely to tell the cops about the PCs movements than vice versa), and even if the PCs intimidated the local deputy now, they have to put the guns down and eat/sleep sooner or later, unless they just want to high tail it out of town.

Now, if the game is totally unrealistic, action-movie territory, then yeah, tough-guy PCs can hope to come out ahead in a confrontation with cops. But if it's even moderately realistic, then the risk-reward ratio shifts markedly, they might come out ahead...but they probably won't.

[HANS]

Originally Posted by Jonas

There were multiple types of SMG's being produced by 1917, they just don't have the modern 'fame' that the Thompson does thanks to Hollywood.

No. Not a single one existed in 1917.

Cheers

HANS