First Game Headaches

[Dathbain]

Well my first game went down in flames. A couple of the guys had a problem with the effectiveness of shooting vs close combat. The character fired a 45 at a ghoul makes his "hit" roll but fails the to wound roll. Ghoul charges into close combat rolls his 1 die & character rolls 3 dice. Ghould rolls a 6 plus 1 c.c.b. the character rolls 1, 1, 2, so 2 plus 1 c.c.b. is 3! Ghouls 7 vs Char. 3, Ghoul rolls 4 dice to wound & rolls anoher 6 plus 1 for damage bonus equals character being annihilated on the injury table. Now if the Ghoul had a different stat line I would attribute it to the overkill, but it doesn't, two humans could have managed the same result. I'm sure I am not alone when I say that a single round from a .45, direct hit or graze is extremely bad. Having seen people shot I can tell you that someone even grazed by just about any bullet is an extremely painful ordeal. Likewise during my time spent as a Police Officer I have been in a lot of fights, some involving weapons and some not and seeing as how I am still here to write this close combat is not as dangerous as one might expect. I would much rather get into a fist fight than be shot at. Now dont't take this the wrong way, I had a lot of fun regardless of the fact that my gaming buddy did not, and I am not looking for a realistic combat simulation. But does the shooting seem a little weak as compared to close combat? Or maybe I am doing it wrong or maybe I need to play with someone a little less critical. Anyone have any clarification?

Thanks, Dave

[blackstone]

The ghoul fight could have been worse! The ghoul could have rolled another six, after the first, to see if he did a critical hit!!  I think the two 1's the human rolled should have been added onto the ghouls close combat score for a total of 9, critical miss rule, but either way the ghoul maxed out with a six for damage  All in all, including the .45 failing to damage the ghoul, it was a load of bad rolls for the character.

But does the shooting seem a little weak as compared to close combat?

Could be but if firearms were more realistic it could unbalance the game experience. Some of the creatures are unable to use ranged weapons so C.C. is their only option. If firearms were beefed up they'd be shot down before they got half way across the table. It may be your friends just didn't get it. What happened to that character would have made me laugh at the dice rolls

[Dathbain]

What happened to that character would have made me laugh at the dice rolls

I laughed loud! And I was like " Holy &#*! I just killed your dude!" He did not share my enthusiasm. I can see where shooting can seriously alter the game. We have played Call of Cthulhu for years and the characters still flinch when a bad guy pulls a gun. But in the ghouls defense he does have duck and a savy miniature player can keep his dudes in cover until cc ensues! My group has decided to give it another try, so heres hoping!

[Gabriel]

Ok, I just got my book today and haven't played a game of SA yet, but judging from reading through the rules and what you wrote I recognize this from other games, like Necromunda. In that game even an anti-tank weapon wielded by an amazing shot in optimal conditions only has like a 23% chance to hit a guy and take him out. A starting ganger with a basic pistol is lucky to reach 5%. By comparison the same ganger with a lead pipe in close combat is arguably more deadly than the guy with the anti-tank weapon.

I think that the problem is that it's hard to balance a system like this without making close combat utterly pointless or handguns unrealistically weak. It's the whole "brought a knife to a gun-fight" thing; If a hit from a .45 was a more-or-less guaranteed model downed why would anyone choose the meat cleaver? You can't have a deadlier weapon that's also ranged without either making close combat underpowered or making the shooter amazingly expensive.

That being said I'd like to point out some things in the shooters favour that caught my eye when reading through the game. As I said I have no hands-on experience with the system, so bear with me, but I've played similar ones and think these should help.

1. Advanced Rule: Alert. Above I mentioned the Necromunda game system, and although it's true that close combat is way more deadly many people consider shooting to be overpowered, mostly due to a rule that's essentially Alert, although Alertness seems a bit more elegant and easy to use. Basically this means that you have a shot at totally disrupting your opponents turn by having, say, a sniper or something that you only ever activate to get in a good firing position. Hell, with a large group of people any charging enemies will be running down a fusillade every activation.

2. Advanced Rule: Fighting with two weapons. Not much to say here apart from that a guy with two .22 handguns can shoot twice in one action. So if I'm reading that right that's up to four times in an activation, so a total of 8 dice rolled to hit. For 1 BP. Seems like a pretty sweet deal to me.

3. Terrain. This is kind of obvious, maybe, but it deserves to be said. While terrain gives cover to your enemies it also makes you hard to reach, which is one of those things that wins games. Standing in the middle of a field might give your opponent no save, but he's also going to be able to reach you very quickly. The best thing is if you're able to get on a roof or something to make your enemies cry.

Anyhoo, that might have been as helpful as throwing a drowning man both ends of a rope. A more direct suggestion based on some of my experience as a GM would be to get some guns of your own and introduce more cc-oriented lurkers once people know how to make the most out of shootyness. That way the players won't have to feel that the system forces them in an underdog position while they're learning.

Let us know how things turn out!

[Malebolgia]

Shooting too weak? Not in my games...most of the time, games are decided by shooting. A character with 2 .45's and Two-fisted can make mince meat out of a lot of Lurkers. An agent with Heroic and a Double-barrel is extremely dangerous (4-6 shots in one turn!). Same goes for a Bolt-Action with Lightning Reflexes.
On average, guns are more than deadly in most games. Just watch out for the deadly stuff like Werewolves and such.

[Gabriel]

A character with 2 .45's and Two-fisted can make mince meat out of a lot of Lurkers.

Ok, this might be derailing the thread a bit but I've been thinking of doing this, but I can't find any way that using Two-Fisted is better than just getting a DEX upgrade? Am I missing something there?

[Malebolgia]

Nah, it's the same (the -1 Dex actually is better as it also applies to other weapons)...but I want a John Woo effect, so two-fisted it is

[LidlessEye]

Also handy if the model already has maxed out Dex!

As for the shooting vs. melee issue in general, I tend to find them pretty well balanced.  Sure, melee can be pretty darned brutal, but you usually get at least two shots at that model before it reaches base-to-base with you.  And in the end, it all comes down to terrain, the scenario, and most importantly, the dice.  Last game I played was decided almost entirely by a Cult Leader with an outrageously critical-prone tommygun.  The prior game, nobody could hit anything at range, and we wound up swinging pointy sticks at each other.  You just never know.

[Smillie]

I've got to say I find the shooting and close combat quite balanced. The wife and I played a small game the other day and I took out one of her guys with a pistol before she obliterated the same guy with a meat cleaver in close combat. 

[D@rth J@ymZ]

I have to say that I have always found shooting and close combat quite balanced.  Dice rolling can make both shooting or close combat go extremely well (or conversely, quite brutal!).  I think most players who have played at least a few games can remember a time when shooting was like fish in a barrel and conversely a time when the same weapon couldn't hit the broad side of a barn!  The same goes for close combat; one game you are unstoppable, the next you can't kill an unarmed cultist with a saber! I also think its important not to judge the entire game mechanics success or failure just based on the first couple of games.  Best of luck on your next games!

[Dathbain]

Thanks for all the great responses! I am working on an alternative for wounding with firearms for an in house rule. I think if you "hit" when firing that pretty much seals the deal, but as far as wounding we will be doing a wound severity roll instead of a "wound or not" roll. Armor and other factors will play a role in the outcome but so far it has playtested well. Will post when I have sufficient & conclusive data! By the way does anyone know what the procedure is for posting "unofficial" expansions??? I don't want to step on any toes, so I have kept them to myself so far! Thanks Again!

Dave

[Uncle Mike]

Post away! Always keen to see what other gamers are up to. Who knows, if your rules are good they may get stolen and become 'official'. 

[Dathbain]

Thanks Mike! My madness will soon be revealed mwuahahahaha