Re: Sources for factual combat statistics, was Re: Modern Close Assault

Allan Goodall wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 05 Dec 2000 00:25:00 +0000, David Brewer <david@brewer.to>
wrote:
> 
> >I know. I think we had this exact same thread two or three years
> >ago.
> 
> We did. But you convinced me.
> 
> I still like the mechanics, but I no longer find it as much fun as I
used to.

Then my evil work is done.

[...]
> >Reading the rules, it seems that all characters had identical "hit
> >points" with absolutely no differentiation between physically
> >larger, more healthy or more muscular characters and smaller,
> >slighter, weaker and more sickly characters. Colourful rules, but
> >not much in the accuracy stakes.
> 
> Actually, not true. The rules modified the damage based on the Health
stat.
> The damage done was based on a Health of 10. You multiplied the damage
by 10
> and divided by the Health value. So physically larger, more muscular
> characters DID take less damage. I'm not sure where it is in Phoenix
Command,
> but it's on page 94 of Living Steel.

You are right. Third ed PC, page 18, in boldface, d'oh. Just by
way of flogging this old, dead, horse, this demonstrates what
happens when you filter the results of an involved and (debatably)
realistic mechanic through a simple but arbitrary one... you get
an involved and arbitrary mechanic.

I know, that's old news. I hope you realise that to improve my
karmic balance after being such a curmudgeon, I have to say nice
things about The Phantom Menace.
 
> >Oddly, I find this sort sort of D&D beer-and-pretzels-level
> >mechanic less silly as I get older. Dramatically, characters have
> >always needed to be differentiated from goons and orcs.
> 
> One of my favourite RPG systems is Feng Shui. It's not realistic at
ALL, but
> man can you run a narrative game quickly!

D'you know, above I almost wrote "mooks" instead of "goons and
orcs".

> A year and a half ago we got
> together and played a nostalgia game of AD&D (1st edition). I forgot
just how
> fast paced the game system was. It's incredibly unrealistic, but it
did the
> job. 

...and now it's back as third edition.

[...]
> >It also fits together with Porter's OTT book "Guns, Guns, Guns" a
> >huge supplement for designing... guns.
> 
> That's what I was thinking as far as the weapon creation tables went.
> 
> I had an interesting discussion with Porter online vis a vis the Call
of
> Cthulhu rules. If you check out More Guns Guns Guns! there are no
stats for
> CoC weapons. He explained that it's because Call of Cthulhu doesn't do
it
> right. 

I'm shocked and appalled, of course. I haven't seen recent
editions of CoC, but it did once irritate me that the only pistol
name-checked by H.P. Lovecraft (the Luger, in Reanimator) didn't
get a write-up in the rulebook.

-- 
David Brewer

"It is foolishness and endless trouble to cast a stone at every
dog that barks at you." - George Silver, gentleman, c.1600