Scavenge Skirmish Survive

[Malamute]

Yep, the first two figure greens are especially nice. Your counters are progressing nicely, I like the sledge and the sleeping bags.

[akodo]

What is your logic behind the sniper rifle and large caliber rifle being only 1d10 at close range?

Are you attempting to depict their less suitability to close quarters combat?

I'd state that while a short rifle is better than a long rifle, any (non-rimfire) rifle is superior to any pistol.  But you don't have to take my word for it.  Check out the opinion of Jeff Cooper, an expert on all things pistol.    He'll tell you that in all things the rifle is superior...including close range house clearing  (up unit the enemy is so close that you can literally bite them).  If given the choice between a state of the art handgun and an old WW I rifle...he'd take the rifle.  And remember, this is a handgun expert. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Cooper

A handgun's utility is in the fact you can strap it to your belt and always have it handy.  As another handgun expert later said 'The purpose of the handgun is to fight your way back to your rifle'

I am sometimes perplexed by people who refer to defensive rifles, or defensive rifle shooting. The defensive arm is the pistol, since you have it at hand to meet situations that you do not anticipate. If you have the luxury of anticipating a lethal encounter, you pick up a long arm, either a rifle or a shotgun, but in that case you go on to the attack. Thus rifle shooting is offensive, and pistol shooting is defensive. Of course, life does not always duplicate theory, and there are exceptions to everything, but nevertheless the rifle is not a defensive weapon in concept.                                         
- Jeff Cooper

I think 2d10 shows it's power and effectiveness.  Honestly, I'd go 4-10 rather than 5-10, but that's a very small difference.   2d10 doesn't necessarily represent 2 shots either imho, getting a hit with both simply shows a very serious wound while succeeding on only one die means a less serious wound.

(and I'd switch the bow to 1d10 across the board)

[Clearco]

This project is really great!! (Insert applause-emoticon here  )

[Finisterrae]

Hello folks,

I registered to answer to Akodos question. This took a few hours and now Silent Invader has replied in my sense. First of all, I really like how you bring your arguments! I´m no expert but have a bit military experience. Both positions are reasonable to me.
A scoped rifle is unhandy at close quarters! Keep in mind that the target may appear suddenly and is moving. This makes it difficult for unskilled shooters do adopt! Most scoped rifles are eather sniper rifles or hunting weapons. Both have long barrels, are heavy and have to be repeated after each shot. They seem improper at close quarter to me. Keep in mind, for example, most soldiers prefered pistols, hand granates and improvised beating weapons etc. in trenchfighting during WWI, not their carbines or rifles!

Of course some basic experience is required to handle a pistol, too. But it´s more handy, and, most of all, semiauto! This is the main argument for me.

It´s way more easy to train with a bow than with a gun. No waste of ammo, nearly no noise etc.! So it´s reasonable to assume a person with a bow is more used to it than a person with a pistol when ammo is limited and the surrounding is likly hostile. This makes it reasonable that someone with a bow would be more trained with this weapon and more cold-blooded when it comes to using it at point blank.

Even if a bow, too, has disadvantages at close range when handiness and the possibility to place a second or third shoot are vital!

PS:
Sorry for my unproper English - I´m not a native speaker and it´s late at night here.

[emperorpenguin]

I'm definitely no expert on guns but finisterrae, i can tell you that is FAR harder to train to use a bow than it is a gun. That was the whole rationale behind the initial switch to gunpowder weapons over bows

[akodo]

Thanks Akodo that's very interesting and useful.

I guess my thinking on this has been somewhat distorted away from present reality in that I am trying to create the experience of someone who is without military or law enforcement experience, who is cold, tired, probably hungry, relatively physically weak, more than a bit scared, worried about ammo and yet with adrenaline barely under control if not way off the meter. The mindset of some of these people will be that the pistol is offensive rather than defensive, even though the theory and the professional (and experienced amateur) practice is otherwise. 

With this in mind, I gave the sniper rifle a harder roll than the iron sights equivalent to suggest that it would be harder to get off an on target snap shot.  That both larger calibre rifles have a harder roll than the pistol is intended to reflect a greater difficulty (weight, stance, etc) in bringing the heavier and longer weapons to the aim, plus some notional advantage for the pistol shooter to get off a multitude of shots (of which only one might hit) while the rifle shooter is busy cycling the bolt. Also, the further away the target the more (in this world anyway) composed the shooter, thus the larger calibre getting an extra dice at 6"+.

Regarding the bow, my thinking is that it's only likely to be used by someone who can actually use it.  In the UK I'd hazard a guess that we have many more people experienced with the bow than with the pistol but as a proportion of the population, few experienced with either. For the relatively inexperienced in both, I imagine there'd be a preference for the pistol, simply from the association through TV  and the such like that it is an offensive weapon.  Sure, some people would train to use the bow but to get results they'd have to be relative cool-headed and strong, thus the advantage in them being able to loose off with 2xD10.

This then raises: well, shouldn't the bow be more expensive than the pistol?  Maybe, but it's cheaper to reflect its (in the UK) greater availability and that the bow as a long weapon is advantageous in sewers, etc.

Anyways, as usual you have raised good points for me to think about and I shall certainly reflect further.   

A few more thoughts for your consideration. 

The adrenaline in the situation will offset any fatigue.  Even if it didn't, you'd be better off penalizing the worn out person for having to lug around the much heavier rifle by reducing their AP vs making the rifle a less effective gun for a shootout.

I didn't really mean that pistols should be a defensive tool in your game.  Obviously if a pistol is what you have, it's what you have.  I just wanted to stress that it's not a case of 'pistol is good for up close and rifle is good for long shots'.  It's a hierarchy thing. 

Rifles are best.   (Rifles include the subcategory of assault rifles)
Any gun is better than no gun.
Any weapon is better than no weapon.
If you don't have a weapon, bite em, punch em, or throw dirt in their eyes.

To a degree your other categories match up well.  A two handed axe is across the board better than a two handed club.  You don't try and 'nerf' the axe in certain categories just to make it more on par with the bat.

I read 'sniper rifle' as 'scoped rifle'.  Now, one issue with a scope is that it magnifies what you see..but it also gives you a restricted field of view.  So if a target appears very close to the guy with the scoped gun, it can actually be quite hard to quickly look through the scope and find the target.  That's a good reason to have the scoped rifle less likely to hit at close range.

As far as bows vs handguns

I've hunted deer with a compound bow.  I've hunted deer with a 357 magnum.  A bow vs a handgun that is somewhat optimized for hunting (has a long barrel and top notch sights) have fairly similar effective ranges (unless of course you practice a TON with one and hardly at all with the other), so it fits that the pistol (probably a combat optimized not hunting optimized) in your game is better at close range than the bow is at long range.

However, I and most other bow hunters expect the deer to run a lot farther before it stops after hit by an arrow than after being hit by a hunting handgun.  Yea, the 9mm round has less punch than a good 357 magnum using a heavy soft nose round, but I'd still expect a deer hit square with a 9mm to go less far before succumbing to it's wounds than a deer hit in the same spot with an arrow.

Finally, a few clarification suggestions.

"While this burden will limit the characters ability to carry any large Special Items for gang use, without its content a character is
unlikely to survive being caught in a blizzard."

When I read this I thought you were talking about the 'large special item' being necessary to survive the blizzard.

I would suggest

Characters might have a rucksack or other bag (see Character Creation) that will mostly contain the essential personal equipment and supplies necessary for short term survival.  Without its content a character is unlikely to survive being caught in a blizzard. During a short blizzard two characters can share the content of one bag (see Special Event cards for details) but in doing so both will take a risk.  A character with a rucksack or other bag has a limited ability to carry any large Special Items.


"As survivors must look to the future they cannot risk running out of essential supplies
and so they should scavenge when the opportunity occurs"

Future should be the end of the first sentence.   They should be the start of the next sentence.  The next sentence I don't think you need the comma after play (I am not a grammar expert so please double check.)

Where you describe the roll you take for potential wounds the 'if obstructed is dead' was not clear until I re-read it a few times.  I take it you mean that if there is no escape path then the character is removed as a casualty.  I know you are working with limited space but you might try to rephrase that or maybe not even include that unlikely event on the results table and instead include that rule in the paragraphs following the chart.

 

[akodo]

Hello folks,

A scoped rifle is unhandy at close quarters! Keep in mind that the target may appear suddenly and is moving. This makes it difficult for unskilled shooters do adopt!

I agree here but this is due to the scope, not the length of gun or heaviness of gun.

Most scoped rifles are eather sniper rifles or hunting weapons. Both have long barrels, are heavy and have to be repeated after each shot.

I am not sure what you are saying.  Are you referring to the fact that the sniper rifle may be a bolt action gun and therefore will be slower with a follow-up shot?

They seem improper at close quarter to me. Keep in mind, for example, most soldiers prefered pistols, hand granates and improvised beating weapons etc. in trenchfighting during WWI, not their carbines or rifles!

in extremely close quarters, yes.  However I'd say that was covered by the 'fighting' rules rather than the shooting rules.  In the trenches, soldiers soon found out a handgun, swung shovel, or knife were all equally deadly...and knives didn't run out of bullets.  However, rather than trying to limit the effectiveness of a rifle firing at someone who is 1-6 inches away, maybe what this really calls for is for the handgun to be included on the 'fighting' table as well as the shooting table.  If we are rolling around in the dirt trying to kill each other, I am not going to drop my handgun and try and pull my knife, I am going to try and jam my gun into your ribs and shot it.

It´s way more easy to train with a bow than with a gun. No waste of ammo, nearly no noise etc.! So it´s reasonable to assume a person with a bow is more used to it than a person with a pistol when ammo is limited and the surrounding is likly hostile. This makes it reasonable that someone with a bow would be more trained with this weapon and more cold-blooded when it comes to using it at point blank

.

I partially agree with this.  However in practicing with a bow you can loose arrows and break arrows.  I'd not describe it as 'easier' to train...just uses up less materials.  However the TIME it takes is different.  You can turn out a pretty good handgunner in a couple days.  A good bowman would take months.  (This is part of the reason the crossbow was such a revolutionary weapon...as were early hand-cannons, muskets, and the like).  In the dire situation these survivors find themselves in, how much time and energy can be devoted to practicing their archery?

[akodo]

And also just to be clear.  I may nit-pick a few things but the bones of the system is very solid and the flavor is good.  Looks like a great system (and one I will be adding a few house rules to...)

[emperorpenguin]

Got my figures yesterday Silent Invader. They're great as Tony would say! One miscast shotgun which a bit of green stuff will fix but wonderful figures and full of character

[Finisterrae]

I agree here but this is due to the scope, not the length of gun or heaviness of gun. (...) Are you referring to the fact that the sniper rifle may be a bolt action gun and therefore will be slower with a follow-up shot?

Yes!

If we are rolling around in the dirt trying to kill each other, I am not going to drop my handgun and try and pull my knife, I am going to try and jam my gun into your ribs and shot it.

I suppose we should stop short of doing this 
It´s a good idea to add the handgun to the fighting table - as long as it´s at hand!

In the dire situation these survivors find themselves in, how much time and energy can be devoted to practicing their archery?

Since most people are suspected to have no idea of both bowing or shooting, I wanted to underline that it´s far less resource-consuming and safe to train with a bow. Of course this depends to your location and the availability of firearms before the catastrophe!

[akodo]

Akodo wrote: I agree here but this is due to the scope, not the length of gun or heaviness of gun. (...) Are you referring to the fact that the sniper rifle may be a bolt action gun and therefore will be slower with a follow-up shot?

Yes!

Then I suggest to you the speed of getting a shot off with a bolt action would be the same regardless of how far or close the target was....and would only count for the second and subsequent shot.  Now, as each shooting action may possibly be more than one shot, you'd be better off attempting to model this by having these guns require an extra AP.

Of course, if each shooting action may possibly be more than one shot, what other guns would be so impacted?  You can get off 5 shots with a bolt action rifle much faster than 5 shots with a double barrel shotgun!

Of course, in truth working the action manually or having an automatic of some sort is not terribly relevant.  Getting your sights back on target is a bigger factor.  Just because you can send bullets towards the general vicinity of the target faster with an automatic than various pumps and bolt actions doesn't really help much.  Only hits count.

[Elk101]

I know realism is an important factor for many gamers (probably most of us to some degree), but SSS isn't a firearms simulation, it's a narrative driven tabletop story/game and firearms are just one aspect of that. The big thing for me is 'is it fun to play' and in that respect it is a massive 'yes'!

I tell you what though Akodo, your knowledge of firearms (my knowledge being somewhat limited) is bloody impressive!  I've learnt a lot just from reading your posts, so thanks. 

[akodo]

I know realism is an important factor for many gamers (probably most of us to some degree), but SSS isn't a firearms simulation, it's a narrative driven tabletop story/game and firearms are just one aspect of that. The big thing for me is 'is it fun to play' and in that respect it is a massive 'yes'!

I tell you what though Akodo, your knowledge of firearms (my knowledge being somewhat limited) is bloody impressive!  I've learnt a lot just from reading your posts, so thanks. 

I'll take these backwards.  I am knowledgeable and have a bit of experience but if anything it is because I know people who know a ton more than me and have a ton more experience than me and I listen to them.  If you learn from me it's more of a hats-off to them than me.

Second, I think it it is a case of 'more realism never hurts' and a case of 'realism is always most important on the ground level'.  It's much less likely to snap a reader/watcher/participant out of a narrative to have a dragon threatening the heroes only for a wizard to swoop in and magic them to safety,  but have the heroes pursued by a bear who right when he has the heroes cornered, the bear dies of a heart attack...while it is much more 'realistic' than a wizard, it feels so false because it is something we have such a direct knowledge of. 

In this case the volcanic eruption and it's consequences is by far the least realistic but at the same time it is a very high up, very consistent, and very specialized knowledge so it is less important to have it as free of flaws as other parts...but the details of movement, carrying, shooting, fighting, that's the bit that needs the most realism for the narrative being told through the game to work the best....IMHO of course.  I am sure there is some volcanoligist somewhere reading the PDF pulling his hair out shouting 'they'd all be dead!'

[Elk101]

I am sure there is some volcanoligist somewhere reading the PDF pulling his hair out shouting 'they'd all be dead!'

  that made me chuckle!

[Marine0846]

My figures came in the mail yesterday.
They are very nice, now to get them painted.
Thanks alot.