[Patrick Goodman]

Sometimes I don't even consider it two steps....

[JoeNapalm]

People will rant for 50 pages over an inconsistency in how Magic works, and no one bats an eye. Point out an issue with a firearm, and suddenly "it's just a game!"

Seriously, we are all here because it is a game we take fairly seriously, as games go.  'Jack, you've got 3600 posts...how many of those threads pertain to semantics over something make-believe? I am at least debating over actual terminology for actual things. If you want to play the "just a game" card, this might just be the most relevant thread on the whole board.  (Again with the hyperbole, for those who may be skimming  )

I don't expect ultra-realism. That was the whole point of my last post. But classifying carbines as SMGs has an actual in-game impact - SMGs only do 5P damage (fixed for the M4, but not the AK97, for example), and it messes up carbines in terms of Specialization. You don't need specific calibers or headshots for the rules to be consistent or the terminology to be accurate.

It is hardly a game balance issue...you can take any AR and shorten the barrel and put a folding stock on it and...BAMF!...carbine. Just apply those mods to those weapons.

I don't expect everyon to know everything about firearms. I know many people who know a heck of a lot more about them than I do. But if I were writing a book specifically about in-game versions of real world firearms, I guess I would take a few minutes to check on the details. In defense of Gun Haven, I would wager the M4 classification was made simply because of the pre- existing error in carbine treatment.

In any case, this whole thing started because it was suggested that knowing things about actual weapons was pertinent to SR. I was merely pointing out that is not - be that because the writers didn't know much about weapons an didn't care to find out, or because they felt that the D6s rolled better if you called magazines "clips" and carbines "SMGs", in the end, real knowledge of weapons doesn't equate to SR knowledge of weapons.

-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist

[Patrick Goodman]

People will rant for 50 pages over an inconsistency in how Magic works, and no one bats an eye.

Actually, yes, I do. I think those discussions are just as senseless as this one, for much the same set of reasons.

[KarmaInferno]

It is in fact possible to be a bit more accurate about weapons, without going overboard and statting out every last excruciating detail.

Suggesting a handful of tweaks that would bring firearms closer to their actual capabilities, isn't calling for a complete overhaul of the rules.

Seriously, why is it that every time someone suggests slightly more accurate rules, the inevitable response seems to be, "Well, you might as well re-write the whole system!"



-k

[FastJack]

People will rant for 50 pages over an inconsistency in how Magic works, and no one bats an eye.

Actually, yes, I do. I think those discussions are just as senseless as this one, for much the same set of reasons.

Same here. And the same goes for the new and similar Technomancer threads.

The game uses the rules it does to appease a larger group of gamers. I can pretty much guarantee if they try to make guns (or Magic, or Hacking) more realistic, sales will drop off and less people will play the game. You just have to look at the fact that not keeping track of ammo is such a common houserule to see that gamers, for the most part, will forsake realism for fun.

[CanRay]

All I suggested was the option for a new class of firearm.   

[FastJack]

All I suggested was the option for a new class of firearm.   

Yes, but the discussion on weapon realism goes back far longer. It's not your fault that your post opened up the (old) can of worms.

[CanRay]

Well, if the group pans out, I promise not to be too gun nutty around them and snap whenever "Clip" is called out, or Carbines are classed as SMGs.     I just want to play.

[Patrick Goodman]

I just want to play.

Welcome to my world.

[CanRay]

I just want to play.

Welcome to my world.

Been there for 20-years.

[Patrick Goodman]

Seriously, why is it that every time someone suggests slightly more accurate rules, the inevitable response seems to be, "Well, you might as well re-write the whole system!"

Because that's inevitably what the discussion turns into. "Well, I just want these couple tweaks here. Oh, and while you're doing that, change this, this, this, and especially this. And once you do that, you'll want to add thus-and-such. Ooooh, and while you're there...."

I say the following not to belittle anyone else's experience in, or longevity in, this hobby. I know I'm not the only grognard here.

But I've been gaming for better than 30 years now, and I've been playing this game for...what, now, 22 of those years? I've been writing for games for most of that 30+ years. I've been designing, playtesting, and writing for SR on and off for the past 12 years. I've seen this discussion come up A LOT in all that time, and I've seen this specific discussion for this specific game come up A LOT in all that time, and in the past dozen years I've become acutely aware of it.

I've got this stupid pipe dream that the cycle will end here, even though I know it's never going to. My point, though, is to respond to the opening question in the quote up there. I've NEVER, in all these years, especially the last 12 spent working on this game,  seen one of these discussions end in anything other than, "Hey, while you're in there, change all of this stuff, too...."

So yeah, when someone suggests some tweaks, it often goes to the "You might as well change the whole system" argument. It's become a shortcut.

[Mäx]

Inconsistecy aside, the examples of battle rifles in game don't follow your argued definition. A SCAR is under battle rifle, but not the AK. The weapons categorization was most definitely poorly researched and lazily put together.

Because the heavier version of the SCAR is actually a battle rifle and AK isn't, that SCAR fires 7,62 NATO rounds(7,62x51mm) witch are a lot bigger then the 7,62x39mm rounds fire by an AK47.
Not to mentioned that the AK in SR is more likely to fire 5,56 NATO rounds then those 7,62x39mm rounds.

[CanRay]

The AK-47/AKM or the AK-74?  How about the AK-101?

All use different calibers.  Who knows what ammunition the AK-97 eats.

[Weldûn]

I just hope the that Steyr-AUG-CSL is better the the P.O.S. that the Steyr is right now. And don't tell me that it isn't. If you don't set your pin correctly (keeping the opening tool from the Aussie MRE is a good way to help do this), your magazine stands a good chance of falling out when you bring your weapon up to your shoulder.

Little wonder that today's Steyr didn't make into Gun Heaven.

[Deliverator]

AKM/47 uses 7.62x39 AK-74 uses 5.45x39 and the AK-101 uses 5.56x45. Why does the 74 uses 5.45? Because the Russians wanted to be "different". Though the 5.45 has proved to be just as if not MORE lethal than the 5.56 round. Was, and has been, called the poison pill because of how effective it is at murdering people. Anyway, I'm not complaining about any rules, though I wouldn't mind seeing proper firearms classifications. As in actually putting them in the same grouping as they SHOULD be rather than what was convenient.