PDA

View Full Version : Guns are only weapon you need in modern RPG setting?



ahenobarbi
2012-11-15, 04:28 PM
I remember reading an article (blog post?) saying that guns are only weapon you need in modern RPG settings. I'd like to re-read it bu I can't find it, could you help?

Hylas
2012-11-15, 04:41 PM
But then how do you kill vampires and ninjas?

ahenobarbi
2012-11-15, 04:56 PM
That's one of things I want to check :smallwink:

Well I World of Darkness you can use sodium bullets to deal aggrevated damage to vampires IIRC. I don't know about ninjas.

NikitaDarkstar
2012-11-15, 05:00 PM
Knives don't need to be reloaded. :p

Yora
2012-11-15, 05:01 PM
You also need knives. You always need knives in any setting. Since the moment humans thought about improving a rock or a stick, knives have been around and almost every person alive ever since would have access to one. I would say that more people have been killed and injured by knives than all other weapons combined (excluding rocks and sticks).

Water_Bear
2012-11-15, 05:08 PM
Well, there's a reason modern soldiers don't carry anything stabbier than a utility knife; in terms of killing people ASAP the gun is just an awesome weapon. Heck, with rubber bullets, maloderant/tear gas bullets and the XREP (mini-Tasers which shoot out of shotguns) you can even do a passable job not killing people with a gun. So, yeah, the rules should probably reflect that in any simulationist RPG.

And a cite on the sodium bullets? I know incendiary bullets in nWoD would work (though the Armory book berates you for thinking about using anything cool), and Old WoD was pretty wild west, but sodium bullets?

Kelb_Panthera
2012-11-15, 05:10 PM
That idea only holds if the only thing modern about your setting is the technology level.

Throughout large portions of europe and even larger portions of asia the difficulty in aquiring and the consequences for having fire-arms are so overwhelming that even organized crime syndicates only pass them out to high-level agents for very important events.

You don't give guns to minions that are cheaper to replace than the guns.

Kalmarvho
2012-11-15, 05:18 PM
What about knives and FYST though? Handguns and long guns are pretty important, but you can't open a tin of baked beans with a rifle. Unless you want beans all over you.

Morty
2012-11-15, 05:34 PM
I'm not sure where you heard about sodium bullets in the World of Darkness, but it doesn't work.
Anyway, it's the answer to this question obvious? We live in a modern setting, after all. Firearms are strictly superior to melee weapons in terms of making people and things die. However, people still use the latter for a variety of reasons.

Jerthanis
2012-11-15, 05:47 PM
Heck, above and beyond the consequences or rarity of guns on a strategic level, what about situations where weaponry is restricted for other reasons? What if the Predator scares you into firing all your ammo blind into the jungle, and have to make makeshift traps or improvise bows? What if you've just been knocked into the water and your bullets are soaked? What if your path is blocked by a bullet resistant piece of glass and you're trying to undermine its structural integrity enough with a metal baseball bat before you can get through it? What if you're on a plane and no one can fire without risking depressurization? What if you're trying to make no noise? What if you're pretending to be an actor in a play that has swords in it to get close enough to the ambassador to assassinate him, and swapping a prop sword for a real one is your plan?

I mean, I'm now kind of interested to read this article too, since the person has a controversial position and I'd be excited to hear them defend it. Unfortunately my Google-fu doesn't appear to be up to the task.

Yora
2012-11-15, 05:48 PM
Well, there's a reason modern soldiers don't carry anything stabbier than a utility knife; in terms of killing people ASAP the gun is just an awesome weapon.
I think most handheld guns don't kill someone faster than a knife. But with a gun you can kill someone without getting close enough to be stabbed yourself. I've read about american civil war soldiers who would rather reload their muzzle loading muskets during combat inside buildings than to go stabbing with the bayonet. Because the moment you have your bayonet in your enemies chest, you will have the bayonets of his three buddies in yours. And then there will be no crawling away to safety with a grazing cut in your leg, you just will be stabbed until you stop moving because you're still close enough to them to fatally stab them.

If someone is shoting at you, you can hope that you hit them before they hit you, and if you get hit, you might be able to retreat and survive the single injury. With knives and bayonets, there will be a chaotic slashing of blades all over the place with probably everyone getting injured several times, and it will likely stop only when the last enemy has stopped moving.
If you give someone the opportunity to stab you, you will probably die. That's the real reason everyone is chosing guns over knives whenever possible.

Water_Bear
2012-11-15, 05:50 PM
That idea only holds if the only thing modern about your setting is the technology level.

Throughout large portions of europe and even larger portions of asia the difficulty in aquiring and the consequences for having fire-arms are so overwhelming that even organized crime syndicates only pass them out to high-level agents for very important events.

That's why you don't set games of Hunter; the Vigil in Melbourne, and why British zombie-apocalypse movies focus so heavily on the military. Gun Control is great for keeping people from being shot IRL, but in a game it's a really obnoxious handicap for the action.


What about knives and FYST though? Handguns and long guns are pretty important, but you can't open a tin of baked beans with a rifle. Unless you want beans all over you are the best person EVER.

FTFY

Kalmarvho
2012-11-15, 06:01 PM
My mistake. That acrid taste of bullet-n-bean is clearly what men look for in their breakfast.


I think most handheld guns don't kill someone faster than a knife.

They may not, but they're far more damaging. Shooting someone in the thigh is potentially fatal and crippling, while stabbing someone in the thigh might not impede their performance in the least. Depending on the weapon used, at least. A piddly .22 rifle like kids get for their thirteenth birthday is nowhere near as potentially lethal as a gun made for fighting.

SowZ
2012-11-15, 06:05 PM
With super powers, though, melee weapons become far more viable. They are silent and, if you CAN close to melee range, you have a distinct advantage. Super speedsters, teleporters, invisibles, force field creators, even super strengthers may prefer to take advantage of their incredible muscles. Also, modern forces DO use melee weapons in some places.

You could also be surrounded or snuck up on, or out of ammo, or jammed, or reloading when it is impractical, etc. etc. making carrying a melee weapon a reasonable decision. And even if the PCs have access to guns, if most the NPCs don't, having melee skills gives defense to melee as well when wielding a melee weapon in many games. So, that is one advantage. (Though I would agree that gunning them down BEFORE they reach you is superior.)

A stealthy person may prefer the noiselessness and control they have when slitting someone's throat, so I second knife as important. That is another thing. Melee weapons are more controlled. Your attack is less likely to miss and kill some random bystander.

Going into a street or prison riot? A shield and club work wonders. There are also shock stick things to KO people in hand to hand range. Besides, the players may not always get to decide WHAT they have so rules for wielding anything from a pole or a machete should be included even if they are abstracted so that most melee weapons have the same stats.

Guns ARE better, but that doesn't mean a modern setting needs only guns.

Knaight
2012-11-15, 06:53 PM
You need knives. Regardless of whether or not guns are nicer (I'd argue they generally are), there are way more people who casually carry knives around, particularly in areas which frown on citizens owning firearms. Similarly, baseball bats, crowbars, etc. are necessary, simply because they see use.

Tengu_temp
2012-11-15, 06:59 PM
In very short quarters, it's quicker to draw a knife, charge and stab than to draw a gun, aim and fire. Other than that though, guns are the superior weapon in a realistic setting. Realistic is the key word here.

SiuiS
2012-11-15, 07:07 PM
But then how do you kill vampires and ninjas?

Bayonet.


Knives don't need to be reloaded. :p

Neither do bayonets ;D


Heck, above and beyond the consequences or rarity of guns on a strategic level, what about situations where weaponry is restricted for other reasons? What if the Predator scares you into firing all your ammo blind into the jungle, and have to make makeshift traps or improvise bows? What if you've just been knocked into the water and your bullets are soaked? What if your path is blocked by a bullet resistant piece of glass and you're trying to undermine its structural integrity enough with a metal baseball bat before you can get through it? What if you're on a plane and no one can fire without risking depressurization? What if you're trying to make no noise? What if you're pretending to be an actor in a play that has swords in it to get close enough to the ambassador to assassinate him, and swapping a prop sword for a real one is your plan?

I mean, I'm now kind of interested to read this article too, since the person has a controversial position and I'd be excited to hear them defend it. Unfortunately my Google-fu doesn't appear to be up to the task.

Most bullets and guns are designed to fire after immersion. Or most by per capita (per gun-pita?), as a kalashnikov is designed to fire in every bad situation possible.

Also, on guns killin slow as knives; a good Stab can kill someone in 30 seconds, and most small arms deaths occur from Hydrostatic shock causing brain hemmoraghing. It doesn't matter if the knife kills somewhat faster, because half a minute is still pretty quick, and guns can cause similar death from longer ranges.


My mistake. That acrid taste of bullet-n-bean is clearly what men look for in their breakfast.


We call that coffee, actually.

Xiander
2012-11-15, 07:08 PM
Okay, I tend to agree that for killing things guns are great. I still find the notion that no other weapon is necessary rather ludicrous though.

What about when you don't want to kill people?
What about when you want to kill people gunfire and shells fouling up your day?

I could probably come up with other situations where guns were less usable, but the point is, that killing is not always solve all problems.

Aron Times
2012-11-15, 07:15 PM
In the nWoD, at least, guns rule supreme. Even against vampires, who are notably resistant to bullets, the sheer amount of bashing damage you inflict can overwhelm even stronger vampires. Also, if you're willing to take a -3 penalty for a headshot, you can deal lethal damage, and a -3 penalty translates to -1 success (3 dice roughly equals 1 damage).

It gets even worse with Combat Marksmanship, which is the most powerful fighting style in the system. A starting character with Combat Marksmanship 5 can easily overwhelm a vampire or a werewolf's regeneration ability and kill them dead. This is using standard bullets, not Dragonsbreath or silver ammunition. If you use the appropriate ammo, you can take down several supernaturals in one turn.

The only problem with firearms are that they are loud, and they may be illegal depending on where the game is set. A supernatural using guns in London will attract lots of unwanted attention, which is bad for most supernaturals. Even in the USA, civilians ordering large amounts of ammo on a regular basis will alert the feds, let alone using assault rifles with exotic ammunition such as silver, Dragonsbreath, cold iron, etc.

My last vampire character was a Ventrue who had to learn how to defend himself after Elysium got attacked by VII and he had to cower like a little girl because he had no fighting ability whatsoever. My character went ahead and bought a Colt Anaconda (one of the best midgame weapons in Vampire: Bloodlines) and backed it up with Combat Marksmanship 3 (the game died before I could get up to Combat Marksmanship 5). Along with some Kevlar for protection, my character was able to take down more VII vampires in the next combat encounter than the Gangrel Ancilla with Protean 3, from the safety of long range.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-11-15, 07:17 PM
Okay, I tend to agree that for killing things guns are great. I still find the notion that no other weapon is necessary rather ludicrous though.

What about when you don't want to kill people?
What about when you want to kill people gunfire and shells fouling up your day?

I could probably come up with other situations where guns were less usable, but the point is, that killing is not always solve all problems.

No, it always solves the immediate problem. It just often causes new, sometimes worse, problems to crop up in place of the one it solved.

The Glyphstone
2012-11-15, 07:19 PM
My last vampire character was a Ventrue who had to learn how to defend himself after Elysium got attacked by VII and he had to cower like a little girl because he had no fighting ability whatsoever. My character went ahead and bought a Colt Anaconda (one of the best midgame weapons in Vampire: Bloodlines) and backed it up with Combat Marksmanship 3 (the game died before I could get up to Combat Marksmanship 5). Along with some Kevlar for protection, my character was able to take down more VII vampires in the next combat encounter than the Gangrel Ancilla with Protean 3, from the safety of long range.

Were the VII also using guns? Their unique discipline is basically Vigor: Dexterity Edition, so it's how they should be fighting whenever possible.

Aron Times
2012-11-15, 07:29 PM
Were the VII also using guns? Their unique discipline is basically Vigor: Dexterity Edition, so it's how they should be fighting whenever possible.
Some of them were using guns, some were using Protean 3 (Claws of the Wild). Also, it was a homebrewed version of VII my ST used, taking from all three of the possible backstories with a dash of Belial's Brood. They were immune to Dominate and Ortam (the Prince was a Gullikan who tried to interrogate a survivor), but not Majesty, and their vitae burned normal Kindred's mouths and caused demonic hallucinations when ingested.

Also, they were like a virus, in that a newly-Embraced VII vampire can Embrace seven childer in rapid succession before dying from the strain, and those childer can themselves Embrace seven childer each before they also die from the strain, and so on. And IIRC, newly-created VII retain their minds and are very confused about the mind-numbing ordeal of the Embrace, until seven days later when they become mindless automatons who exist only to destroy normal Kindred and spawn seven more VII Kindred.

The Glyphstone
2012-11-15, 08:48 PM
Ah, okay - if they weren't actual Akhud VII using the Praestantia discipline, then it might not have been as guaranteed-good for them to be gunbunnies.

TheThan
2012-11-15, 09:22 PM
Gentlemen, this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNhYJgDdCu4) is why you need a knife.

(thank you sergeant zim).

Kalmarvho
2012-11-15, 09:28 PM
Gentlemen, this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNhYJgDdCu4) is why you need a knife.

(thank you sergeant zim).

Is it heresy to like that scene better in the film than in the book? Because if so, then call me a heretic.

I don't need no lectures about spanking babies with axes.

TheThan
2012-11-15, 09:43 PM
The movie wasn’t that bad (the second, and third, yeah those were bad). I’m aware that it bears little resemblance to the book. So I just look at it like a different take on the same basic plot.

Kalmarvho
2012-11-15, 09:50 PM
Technically, it's the same plot from two different perspectives. Heinlein on the pro-war end, as a moralizing force, and Verhoeven on the anti-war end, where war is silly and everyone dies.

But to bring things back on topic, even Starship Troopers involved melee contact, given that one close encounter in the book where the marauders came up against bug soldiers and neither of them had the space to fire their weapons.

Slipperychicken
2012-11-15, 10:52 PM
My mistake. That acrid taste of bullet-n-bean is clearly what men look for in their breakfast.

The mental image of a man casually shooting open a can of beans is far too awesome. Here, have an internet, both of you.


Modern RPGs need grenades and rockets, too. It's just not the same without high explosives...

PJ Garrison
2012-11-15, 11:00 PM
Well, there's a reason modern soldiers don't carry anything stabbier than a utility knife; in terms of killing people ASAP the gun is just an awesome weapon.

Plenty of soldiers still carry large knives and machetes. You never know when you'll run out of ammo, or get stuck with a weapon malfunction that will render firearm useless.

When I was an infantryman, most of us carried a combat knife, machete, bowie, bolo, khukri, or a Kabar or something similar at a minimum. A lot of the time, those big blades were used for camp chores, but it was always understood that they were a viable secondary weapon. I remember a bunch of us going to the PX to pick out knives prior to deployment, specifically looking for a backup weapon.

In 3rd world countries, pretty much anybody who doesn't have a gun will have a machete, and those guys have killed plenty of people. In fact, the genocide in Rwanda was carried largely by soldiers and militia with machetes.


They may not, but they're far more damaging. Shooting someone in the thigh is potentially fatal and crippling, while stabbing someone in the thigh might not impede their performance in the least. Depending on the weapon used, at least. A piddly .22 rifle like kids get for their thirteenth birthday is nowhere near as potentially lethal as a gun made for fighting.

The firearm used has a definite impact on stopping power, but the popular combat weapons (military rifles and service pistols) tend to be of middling power.

Shotguns have good power if loaded with 12 GA buckshot (NOT birdshot), but they've got a VERY short effective range and are slow to load. Also, the ammo is heavy and bulky.

The advantage of a firearm is that ability to engage at a distance. The further away he is, the harder it is for him to hurt you in return.

On the other hand, guns are much less effective at short ranges. At short ranges, a guy with a knife could stab you several times before you can pull your pistol out of the holster or bring your rifle to bear.

Edged weapons can inflict massive damage VERY quickly, especially in the hands of somebody who knows that they're doing. An individual bullet might very well have more stopping power than a stab wound, but people tend to get stabbed repeatedly. It's not uncommon for victims of a knife murder to have dozens of stab wounds.

While gun wounds often do take somebody out of the fight quickly, the wounds are actually quite survivable. Knife wounds on the other hand are much harder to treat because they cut, instead of tear their way through the body. A stab to the heart is an instant kill, and a cut artery will usually bleed you out quickly.

The big knives and machetes on the other hand, can remove limbs.

The bottom line is that a guy with a knife is extremely dangerous to a guy with a gun if he can get close enough to stab him.

Knives are also intimidating. When somebody pulls cold steel and starts coming after you with murder in his eyes, it's really hard to stay calm enough to shoot.

You may want to google Cpl. Samuel Toloza. A few years ago in Iraq, he was surrounded by insurgents, out of ammo, and with a bunch of his squadmates wounded. So he charged the enemy with his crappy pocketknife and started stabbing insurgents left and right, and managed to run them off.

You may also want to look into the Ghurkas who are still known for their prowess with the Khukri, a large fighting knife. They're well know for being amongst the best (and scariest!) soldiers in the world. They'll take your head off with their knives.

Tomahawks have also experienced a surge in popularity in recent years. They're great tools and fearsome weapons.

You may also want to consider the various clubs, batons, and bludgeoning weapons available. Cops love their batons and billy clubs, and the baseball bat is still a classic streetfighting weapon. Crowbars, tire irons, hammers, and cast-off lengths of pipe or rebar are also popular.

Cuaqchi
2012-11-15, 11:22 PM
Continuing with the value of blades a simple statistic here. Until the mid 1980's the weapon with the greatest number of kills in human history was the Gladius (The sword of the Roman Legions, which was modified and refined over the years.) This even trumped the standard firearms of the Napoleonic Era and the World Wars when total warfare with millions of casualties became the norm. What finally beat it out? The AK-47 which was in use throughout the war-torn regions of Africa and Central America by all sides.

Also a perfect line that is generally rehashed by anyone with the ability to use one - A knife is more dangerous than a gun. It never jams, never needs to reload, and little protects against it. The last part is the most telling, ballistic cloth/kevlar is resistant to pressure but is a woven fabric and as such is easily cut. To protect against a blade you need a heavier - generally metal or ceramic - plate to absorb the impact. This also results in reducing your own reflexes and reaction meaning you have to be even more careful around some one with a knife.

Marnath
2012-11-16, 12:21 AM
A piddly .22 rifle like kids get for their thirteenth birthday is nowhere near as potentially lethal as a gun made for fighting.

You are aware that a majority of firearms deaths in the U.S. are caused by the .22? It's plenty lethal.

Kalmarvho
2012-11-16, 12:28 AM
You are aware that a majority of firearms deaths in the U.S. are caused by the .22? It's plenty lethal.

Of course it is, it's a bullet. But the reason the majority of firearms deaths in the US are caused by the .22 isn't because it's particularly lethal, it's because it's the most common round in the US, used in a whole host of weapons that may or may not be suitable for children.

This, of course, may not be the thread for this argument.

Jerthanis
2012-11-16, 03:27 AM
Most bullets and guns are designed to fire after immersion. Or most by per capita (per gun-pita?), as a kalashnikov is designed to fire in every bad situation possible.


Wet ammo was just one idea that came to mind. I'm familiar with the AK-47's remarkable worksmanship, but I was under the impression it was a significant outlier that would merit its legend in this capacity, and thus, taking a swim would be a pretty good start to a gun jam/misfire/failure of some kind. If not... well, at least the Predator tricking you into wasting all your ammo is still at least still a plausible scenario.


Of course it is, it's a bullet. But the reason the majority of firearms deaths in the US are caused by the .22 isn't because it's particularly lethal, it's because it's the most common round in the US, used in a whole host of weapons that may or may not be suitable for children.

This, of course, may not be the thread for this argument.

It's the whole "The fact that 95% of shark attacks happen in shallow water doesn't imply that shallow water has 95% of the sharks." situation.



The last part is the most telling, ballistic cloth/kevlar is resistant to pressure but is a woven fabric and as such is easily cut. To protect against a blade you need a heavier - generally metal or ceramic - plate to absorb the impact. This also results in reducing your own reflexes and reaction meaning you have to be even more careful around some one with a knife.

I thought this was a myth. I'm no expert on Kevlar, but I was under the impression that those safety gloves that are supposed to stop circular saws from taking off your fingers were made of Kevlar.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-11-16, 05:00 AM
Wet ammo was just one idea that came to mind. I'm familiar with the AK-47's remarkable worksmanship, but I was under the impression it was a significant outlier that would merit its legend in this capacity, and thus, taking a swim would be a pretty good start to a gun jam/misfire/failure of some kind. If not... well, at least the Predator tricking you into wasting all your ammo is still at least still a plausible scenario.



It's the whole "The fact that 95% of shark attacks happen in shallow water doesn't imply that shallow water has 95% of the sharks." situation.




I thought this was a myth. I'm no expert on Kevlar, but I was under the impression that those safety gloves that are supposed to stop circular saws from taking off your fingers were made of Kevlar.

Kevlar stops a slashing object from doing damage less well than it stops a bullet, but it will still stop it pretty quick. The problem is that kevlar is nearly worthless against a thrust from a knife. The tip of the knife gets in between the woven fibers and the force behind it pushes the weave apart as well as cutting through some of the fibers. It's tensile strength is nothing less than phenomenal but its sheering strength isn't that much better than steel fibers, IIRC.

In a nutshell, it'll stop a bullet (up to a point) and it'll slow a slashing knife, but it doesn't do much better than a really heavy sweater against a bodkin arrow or a thrusting knife.

(protip: that's why "armor piercing" rounds have a much pointier tip than regular bullets. To get through kevlar and to increase the surface pressure at the point of impact on solid armors.)

Reaper_Monkey
2012-11-16, 06:39 AM
You need a knife, and an axe too (or a machete if you're in a jungle). Access to grenades also helps (even if they're only flash-bangs). You should generally also have a sidearm and some sort of rifle/fully-automatic/shotgun too really - but a gun is a gun at the end of the day and we're discussing non-gun requirements.

Guns are loud, require ammo (that needs to be carried in addition to the gun itself), they can malfunction and they can easily miss. They are of cause very very good and you should generally never bring just a knife to a gun fight - but without a knife to fall back on, you can quickly find yourself 'out-gunned' in terms of weaponry.

A knife is small, light, serves multiple functions beyond killing (tools are useful) - they can kill more quietly, 'fire' without reloading, and are just as useful for intimidation and "questioning" purposes as a gun is (if not more so) assuming you've disarmed them first.

The axe/machete is primarily for tool use, but also serves as a very capable weapon with much more reach and potential damage when used as such. Regardless of terrain, an axe is invaluable - it lets you cut through doors, cut down trees etc - it basically gives you the ability to alter your terrain and remove obstacles. A machete is more useful in a jungle/heavy undergrowth terrain simply due to an axe not being very good at clearing that kind of thing, but I'd still want an axe to take out the lock on the back door of the hut I'm about to assault so that I can get behind my foes or into a flanking/less well defended position!

Of cause you could just drop large explosives on whatever you're wanting gone - which works well too, more so when you have large explosives which can be precisely targeted (and don't care about the collateral in terms of treasure/hostages/occupation of the land afterwards etc). :smallamused:

Boci
2012-11-16, 06:56 AM
That's why you don't set games of Hunter; the Vigil in Melbourne

Sounds like it could be fun.


and why British zombie-apocalypse movies focus so heavily on the military.

Such as? I haven't seen 28 days/weeks later, but my understanding was it did not focus on military personel, and I know Dead Set didn't. What zombie apocalypse movies set in Britain are you thinking of?


Gun Control is great for keeping people from being shot IRL, but in a game it's a really obnoxious handicap for the action.

No more than low magic is for a fantasy setting. They just change the tone of the setting.

Kalmarvho
2012-11-16, 07:02 AM
Such as? I haven't seen 28 days/weeks later, but my understanding was it did not focus on military personel, and I know Dead Set didn't. What zombie apocalypse movies set in Britain are you thinking of?

The only one I can think of off-hand is Shaun of the Dead. Which is, you know. Not serious at all.

Boci
2012-11-16, 07:06 AM
The only one I can think of off-hand is Shaun of the Dead. Which is, you know. Not serious at all.

Shaun of the Dead focused on Shaun + his mates and family, in the rural village setting. The military only show up towards the end, after the climax.

Kalmarvho
2012-11-16, 07:15 AM
Exactly. Not much military presence at all.

DigoDragon
2012-11-16, 07:46 AM
The value of the gun is going to be dependant on what kind of modern setting you have. In a mundane world without super-powered kryptonians and blood-sucking vampires, a gun would be one of the most deadly weapons and a common staple.
And yeah, a knife is a good back up. Very useful tool for many applications.

However, my favorite modern setting is akin to X-Files and the way my group plays that setting, guns are pretty darn useless against half the supernatural creatures out there. Knives too. We learned the hard way that nothing says "Aggro" to a Jersey Devil like a shotgun shower to the chest. :smallbiggrin:


So in my opinion, Mileage varies by type of modern setting.




Knives don't need to be reloaded. :p

Unless it's like that spring-loaded knife The Punisher had in the 2004 movie. :smallbiggrin:

mishka_shaw
2012-11-16, 08:20 AM
It's a bit unfair to say knives are better since they are used more in murders and massacres than guns are. I mean you can murder and massacre people with a toilet seat probably, they are unarmed civilians afterall.

Also the damage between the two weapons is unfair to compare due to the comparisons.
Are we comparing pistols to daggers or claymores? are we using hollow-points? what about weapon weight? .etc .etc

Eldan
2012-11-16, 08:24 AM
You don't just need guns, silly people. My shadowrun experience showed me that you also need explosives. Oh so many explosives. And armoured school busses with bulldozer blades.

Ashtagon
2012-11-16, 08:32 AM
...weapons that may or may not be suitable for children.

What makes a weapon suitable for children? Should I be looking for something that says "for ages six and up"?

DontEatRawHagis
2012-11-16, 08:33 AM
I have trouble with some of my players when it comes to the effectiveness of guns vs melee weapons. At some points the arguments invoke the Boxer Rebellion, with one person saying he should be able to block bullets with his katana(Impossible) or that just by closing the distance means that the gun is now useless(Not necessarily).

There is training to escape from grapples to get back to your gun faster in real life. And just because a person is five feet away shouldn't mean that a guy with a pistol or machine gun should be at a disadvantage.

One thing I never got about vampire mythology was if all you had to do was impale them in the heart why couldn't a bullet do the job? Its pointy.

Eldan
2012-11-16, 08:36 AM
I have seen the explanation that the object would have to stay in the heart, while the bullet comes out on the other side again. But that doesn't work with vamps who immediately collapse into dust. Alternatively, a special kind of wood is needed. I've seen several "magical" woods cited, Elder, Holly, Rowan, Oak...

Could you make a wood-tipped bullet? Or would that just shatter on impact?

Heliomance
2012-11-16, 08:46 AM
I'm not convinced about the supremacy of firearms in WoD. Archery is pretty damn overpowered if you spec for it, mostly because the damage rating of a bow is your strength. Means your dice pool for archery is dex+str+athletics (which unlike other combat skills is also useful out of combat. Everyone wants athletics anyway, so archery means you don't also need to spend points on a combat skill). Archery combat style adds one to that, removes the downsideof only being able to fire every other turn, gives you a silly range and a few other goodies.

Changeling Wizened archers are terrifying, and I hate to think what a Potence using vampire could do.

Worira
2012-11-16, 09:03 AM
I have trouble with some of my players when it comes to the effectiveness of guns vs melee weapons. At some points the arguments invoke the Boxer Rebellion, with one person saying he should be able to block bullets with his katana(Impossible) or that just by closing the distance means that the gun is now useless(Not necessarily).

There is training to escape from grapples to get back to your gun faster in real life. And just because a person is five feet away shouldn't mean that a guy with a pistol or machine gun should be at a disadvantage.

One thing I never got about vampire mythology was if all you had to do was impale them in the heart why couldn't a bullet do the job? Its pointy.

Wait, wait, are you saying someone cited the Boxer Rebellion as a reason why swords beat guns?

Water_Bear
2012-11-16, 10:14 AM
Such as? I haven't seen 28 days/weeks later, but my understanding was it did not focus on military personel, and I know Dead Set didn't. What zombie apocalypse movies set in Britain are you thinking of?

The 28 Days/Weeks movies, Shaun of the Dead, that one with the Scottish medieval Reavers; it seems like in every British zombie movie I've ever seen, the civvies spend the movie running away and hiding until the third act when the army comes in to actually kill some zombies. Compare to American zombie movies where the protagonists are killing zombies pretty much the whole run-time, and if the military shows up it's as another human faction to deal with like Raiders.

That's not a slight, but it's a totally different mindset. The British Zombie movies are like "OMG we're doomed because we can't defend ourselves! Horror! :smalleek:" while the American Zombie movies are more "Eat Lead Zombie Dickweeds!! HAHAHAHAHAHA! :smallcool:"

In a modern RPG without guns, you're the George in S1 of Being Human. In a modern RPG with guns, you're Buffy taking the Judge out with a bazooka. I like both shows (though Being Human's new season kind of blows...) but they're not really the same genre.

Boci
2012-11-16, 10:32 AM
The 28 Days/Weeks movies, Shaun of the Dead, that one with the Scottish medieval Reavers; it seems like in every British zombie movie I've ever seen, the civvies spend the movie running away and hiding until the third act when the army comes in to actually kill some zombies.

Okay, I got confused by your origional wording with implied British zombie movies have military personel as main character.


That's not a slight, but it's a totally different mindset. The British Zombie movies are like "OMG we're doomed because we can't defend ourselves! Horror! :smalleek:" while the American Zombie movies are more "Eat Lead Zombie Dickweeds!! HAHAHAHAHAHA! :smallcool:"

To a point yes, but in most Resident Evil movies, despite all their weapons and ability to use them, the protagonists are still constantly on the move for the most part.


In a modern RPG without guns, you're the George in S1 of Being Human. In a modern RPG with guns, you're Buffy taking the Judge out with a bazooka. I like both shows (though Being Human's new season kind of blows...) but they're not really the same genre.

I agree, I just found it strange you assumed the former scenario in a game to be "obnoxious handicap for the action".

Water_Bear
2012-11-16, 11:07 AM
I agree, I just found it strange you assumed the former scenario in a game to be "obnoxious handicap for the action".

Drama =/= Action. True helplessness teaches you alot about a character, but it's not so hot for player agency. It's one of those things that you shouldn't try until you've mastered the system already, because it's so much harder to do correctly.

Slipperychicken
2012-11-16, 11:20 AM
Could you make a wood-tipped bullet? Or would that just shatter on impact?

It's called a Crossbow. Or just a regular bow. Or craft a Stake-Gun (http://buffy.wikia.com/wiki/Stake_gun).

Get the machine-gun crossbow which Van Helsing used in the movies. I know it's complete nonsense, but it would be great for vampires.

Boci
2012-11-16, 11:45 AM
Drama =/= Action. True helplessness teaches you alot about a character, but it's not so hot for player agency. It's one of those things that you shouldn't try until you've mastered the system already, because it's so much harder to do correctly.

There's a fair amount of space between "true helplessness" and "doesn't have a gun". It would force players to use ingenuity in dispatching zombies, using traps, distractions (depending on the zombie lore) and teamwork.

Reaper_Monkey
2012-11-16, 12:06 PM
That's not a slight, but it's a totally different mindset. The British Zombie movies are like "OMG we're doomed because we can't defend ourselves! Horror! :smalleek:" while the American Zombie movies are more "Eat Lead Zombie Dickweeds!! HAHAHAHAHAHA! :smallcool:"

Well yes, because us brits tend not to keep armouries in our sheds (just cricket bats and shovels) - and as such can't shoot zombies. But then again, you want to shoot zombies from behind some nice barricades/at range, because one scratch from them and its "welcome to the other side" time.

There's a pretty big difference between "anything but a gun is mostly useless/too dangerous for a standard loadout in a zombie situation" and the same assessment for any other situation. Plus, I'd still carry other non-gun weapons in a zombie setting, as I really don't want to find myself without a weapon when my gun inevitably goes *click*. (In fact my previous assessment of also carrying an axe and knife goes double here. You really should have an axe in a zombie setting, as you're going to need to both make and clear barricades quickly to survive those undead mobs).

LibraryOgre
2012-11-16, 12:19 PM
Here's the thing about knives, axes, and machetes... they're tools, moreso than weapons. Yes, you may have your killin' knife, and you may have a bayonet, but the main reason you want a knife, an ax, and a machete isn't because they're killing tools, but because you need something to open boxes, chop firewood, and clear brush. If you're killing someone with a wood-chopping ax, it's because it's the convenient tool for the job, not because it's the best tool for the job.

In a modern setting, there MAY be times when a knife is better than a gun. But then, there's also things like tasers, stun guns, and the half-brick in a sock.

Oh, and in OWOD, I think the agg-causing bullets were phosphorous, not sodium.

Jacob.Tyr
2012-11-16, 01:28 PM
... there's also things like tasers, stun guns, and the half-brick in a sock.

Show me a system that has stats for a half-brick in a sock, and I will buy it from you on the spot.

Although I am more partial to the one-time use pillow case filled with soda cans.

The Glyphstone
2012-11-16, 01:43 PM
I have seen the explanation that the object would have to stay in the heart, while the bullet comes out on the other side again. But that doesn't work with vamps who immediately collapse into dust. Alternatively, a special kind of wood is needed. I've seen several "magical" woods cited, Elder, Holly, Rowan, Oak...

Could you make a wood-tipped bullet? Or would that just shatter on impact?

Task Force Valkyrie agents can buy mistletoe-wood bullets called HOD Rounds that splinter on contact and can 'stake' targets.

scurv
2012-11-16, 01:45 PM
There is something to be said about a weapon that makes little to know noise and can render a fatal blow in one swift strike. If you think knifes are not a viable weapon, Do some research on prisons. The below link has some useful information on self defence though

http://www.aware.org/arttruelaw/knifeattack.shtml

But when it comes down to it, A weapon is only as good as the persons ability to use it, And in some modern and even DnD campaigns It is not always permitted in area's to have your weapons on you. So then it comes time to find weapons that blend (think ninja and using tools for weapons) Or straight up putting a poolball in a sock to take across someones face.


But as a soft rule of thumb, it takes one and a half seconds to draw a gun if my memory serves me. That means the person with a knife drawn ten feet away is armed, and you are not. if you are the one with the holstered gun

LibraryOgre
2012-11-16, 03:13 PM
Show me a system that has stats for a half-brick in a sock, and I will buy it from you on the spot.

Although I am more partial to the one-time use pillow case filled with soda cans.

For that explicitly, as opposed to the usual "improvised club"?

Slipperychicken
2012-11-16, 03:22 PM
Show me a system that has stats for a half-brick in a sock, and I will buy it from you on the spot.

Although I am more partial to the one-time use pillow case filled with soda cans.

It's called a Sap, bro. If you're really picky, Improvised Sap (same stats as Sap, deals lethal damage, -4 non-proficiency penalty).

ahenobarbi
2012-11-16, 03:45 PM
Whoa a lot of responses... there are many concerns that are valid in real life but not in RPG I'll try to summarize them and answer why I think they don't apply to RPG characters:

It's troublesome to get a gun that you can freely use to kill people in real life, but everyone has fists and knifes! Well in RPG you can just put a few points in place where you'd want them anyway (wealth and black market access) and get illegal fire arms, ammo and fake permits from back story.
Most people don't carry around guns 24/7! That's because they have regular lives, your character doesn't so it should have no problem with that.
Most people aren't proficient with guns! Yeah, but RPG systems don't care if you spend XP on Firearms proficiency or bare fist fighting, it costs the same.
But it's easier to get knife into secured place! No. And if you plan to take on heavily-secured place bare fist...
Guns are noisy! No. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muffler).
Guns jam, run out of ammo etc. ! That's why you carry more than one gun and extra ammo.
But if guy with a knife is next to you you are screwed! Not in any RPG I played.
But knifes, axes,... have extra utility! So carry them around for utility, not for combat.


Also guns can out damage melee and unarmed fighting (with the same investment) in any (modern) RPG I played. And have range advantage.


Oh, and in OWOD, I think the agg-causing bullets were phosphorous, not sodium.

Thanks :smallredface:

Siosilvar
2012-11-16, 03:58 PM
Guns are noisy! No. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muffler).

If you're quoting Wikipedia, cite the correct article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressor#Real_world_data).

Gunpowder still explodes, and you can reduce the sound, but note that the ~140 dB that a suppressed .22 produces is still the same volume as a jet engine (albeit for a much shorter time). Subsonic rounds are only slightly quieter.

But if you're going to use game mechanics from some games to generalize about all RPG settings, I don't see how this discussion can be productive.

ahenobarbi
2012-11-16, 04:06 PM
If you're quoting Wikipedia, cite the correct article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressor#Real_world_data).

Gunpowder still explodes, and you can reduce the sound, but note that the ~140 dB that a suppressed .22 produces is still the same volume as a jet engine (albeit for a much shorter time). Subsonic rounds are only slightly quieter.


I didn't know they are that loud :smalleek:
Well I guess that may be one valid reason to use non-gunpowder based weapons.



But if you're going to use game mechanics from some games to generalize about all RPG settings, I don't see how this discussion can be productive.

Well if you know a modern-setting game where there is a valid reason to use something different than guns then bring up the example :smallsmile:

Boci
2012-11-16, 04:13 PM
Well if you know a modern-setting game where there is a valid reason to use something different than guns then bring up the example :smallsmile:

1. Difficulty of acces. Yes you can make a character with access, but thats extra resources (contacts on the black market and forgers) which could be spent elsewhere.

2. What if you don't want to kill the target? E.G. some mafia thugs want to beat up a witness to intimidate them into not testifying.

3. Legal issues. What if the story takes place in Europe?

4. Precision. Hitting the head with a knife can often be easier than hitting the head with a gun.

5. Forensic counter measure. With a gun, you are generally going to be leaving behind bullets. Might not matter that much in a real life based setting, but with magic it might become significantly easier to track you down.

DontEatRawHagis
2012-11-16, 04:13 PM
But as a soft rule of thumb, it takes one and a half seconds to draw a gun if my memory serves me. That means the person with a knife drawn ten feet away is armed, and you are not. if you are the one with the holstered gun

I'll have to stop you there. This assumes that the knife wielder has the advantage, it can easily go both ways depending on the situation. Knives have to be unsheathed, sometimes in similar ways to guns depending on the type of holster. A friend of mine has a holster that is designed to make sure the blade does not fall out and would require a similar unholstering time as a gun. At the same time some gun holsters are built for quick draws.

It all boils down to a case by case basis. The difference involving distance, skill, and a boatload of other variables too numerous to name.

Ravens_cry
2012-11-16, 04:22 PM
Knives aren't as silent as one might think. People tend to make noise when you stick bits of metal in them, whether at high or low velocity.:smallamused:

DontEatRawHagis
2012-11-16, 04:26 PM
But if you're going to use game mechanics from some games to generalize about all RPG settings, I don't see how this discussion can be productive.
To be far most games take unrealistic approaches with everything. Honestly its unfair to assume that realism should factor at all into this conversation if games take liberties with such concepts.



I didn't know they are that loud :smalleek:
Well I guess that may be one valid reason to use non-gunpowder based weapons.

Well if you know a modern-setting game where there is a valid reason to use something different than guns then bring up the example :smallsmile:
An interesting semi-modern/futuristic idea is that of Flechette/Needleguns. They are guns that utilize springs/coils to fire darts at high velocity. I say semi-modern because I only know about them from the book Neuromancer. The idea is that they make little noise yet act similarly to gunpowder guns.

As far as Martial Arts over Guns:
In the Spycraft System while there are options for gun fighters, the martial artist class is by far the most broken. There is a point where martial artists can do more damage then C4, because they have trained so much. If you have Wuxia maxed out you can effectively do an orbital drop without taking any damage.

Boci
2012-11-16, 04:29 PM
Knives aren't as silent as one might think. People tend to make noise when you stick bits of metal in them, whether at high or low velocity.:smallamused:

True, but its possibly to stab someone in a way that won't allow them to do so. And even if they do, a scream of pain/fear is still not as attentino worthy as a gunshot.

Ravens_cry
2012-11-16, 04:33 PM
Needlers are a sci-fi staple actually. Not as common as blasters or some other unrealistic depiction of lasers, but they are pretty common. They appeared at least once in one of Anne McCaffrey 'Ship who Sang' stories.

True, but its possibly to stab someone in a way that won't allow them to do so. And even if they do, a scream of pain/fear is still not as attentino worthy as a gunshot.
It's not as loud, but we are evolutionarily designed to be able to pick those kinds of sounds up. Depending on how far between guards, and they should be fairly close, it wouldn't be unreasonable.

scurv
2012-11-16, 04:33 PM
I was delighted in a white wolf campaign that the kinsfolk opted to use firearms to do the dirty deed.

It made a big bang, NPC_0021 called the cops, And we let the good times roll.

But the level of realism in a game is up to the DM/Programmer and the players.

ahenobarbi
2012-11-16, 04:41 PM
1. Difficulty of acces. Yes you can make a character with access, but thats extra resources (contacts on the black market and forgers) which could be spent elsewhere.

If you are in a game where you kill stuff you will need those contacts anyway. And resources you save on acquiring fists/melee weapons you have to spend to match fire arms effectiveness.


2. What if you don't want to kill the target? E.G. some mafia thugs want to beat up a witness to intimidate them into not testifying.

Intimidate them with the gun not to move and have your buddies start the beat up.


3. Legal issues. What if the story takes place in Europe?

You don't want to kill anything with a registered gun. Anywhere.


4. Precision. Hitting the head with a knife can often be easier than hitting the head with a gun.

In every RPG I played you get a fixed penalty for trying to hit small target, it doesn't depend on what weapon you use.


5. Forensic counter measure. With a gun, you are generally going to be leaving behind bullets. Might not matter that much in a real life based setting, but with magic it might become significantly easier to track you down.

It's easy to remove real-life evidence (fire a lot of bullets in training session). Mystical connection established by you using bullet will be overwritten by the bullet making pretty intense contact with your target... unless you miss :/

SowZ
2012-11-16, 04:46 PM
Whoa a lot of responses... there are many concerns that are valid in real life but not in RPG I'll try to summarize them and answer why I think they don't apply to RPG characters:

It's troublesome to get a gun that you can freely use to kill people in real life, but everyone has fists and knifes! Well in RPG you can just put a few points in place where you'd want them anyway (wealth and black market access) and get illegal fire arms, ammo and fake permits from back story.
Most people don't carry around guns 24/7! That's because they have regular lives, your character doesn't so it should have no problem with that.
Most people aren't proficient with guns! Yeah, but RPG systems don't care if you spend XP on Firearms proficiency or bare fist fighting, it costs the same.
But it's easier to get knife into secured place! No. And if you plan to take on heavily-secured place bare fist...
Guns are noisy! No. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muffler).
Guns jam, run out of ammo etc. ! That's why you carry more than one gun and extra ammo.
But if guy with a knife is next to you you are screwed! Not in any RPG I played.
But knifes, axes,... have extra utility! So carry them around for utility, not for combat.


Also guns can out damage melee and unarmed fighting (with the same investment) in any (modern) RPG I played. And have range advantage.



Thanks :smallredface:

Have you ever shot a silenced pistol, man? The whole, pting pting, James Bond stuff is a joke. It still sounds like a gun and it is still fairly loud. It just doesn't travel far. In melee range, a machete has an advantage over a rifle. It's clumsy. Saying, "Draw a pistol!" doesn't explain away the advantage of teleporting in front of someone with a sword. You can be out of ammo for multiple guns or they can both jam, too.

Besides, physical strength comes into play with melee weapons. If you are a super strength person, you can dish out more damage with them. Also, just because you are a player character doesn't mean you can automatically get a hold of illegal weaponry. It may be hard to do in the setting. Further, sometimes improvised melee or fisticuffs is all you can do as sometimes you won't be able to get any weapon behind a security checkpoint.

Besides, you STILL need non-gun weapons for those people who can't access guns or grab a baseball bat or what-have-you.

ahenobarbi
2012-11-16, 04:51 PM
True, but its possibly to stab someone in a way that won't allow them to do so. And even if they do, a scream of pain/fear is still not as attentino worthy as a gunshot.

Sneaking onto someone, holding them helpless and silent and slicing their throat on top of that seems extremely hard.

You could try to sneak on them, render them unconscious with a single hit (that will make little noise) and kill after that. But is you typically can't one-shot enemies.


I was delighted in a white wolf campaign that the kinsfolk opted to use firearms to do the dirty deed.

It made a big bang, NPC_0021 called the cops, And we let the good times roll.

But the level of realism in a game is up to the DM/Programmer and the players.

Would a big brawl draw less attention? Or wouldn't NPC_0021 not call cops "because they are killing each other with non-ranged weapons"?


As far as Martial Arts over Guns:
In the Spycraft System while there are options for gun fighters, the martial artist class is by far the most broken. There is a point where martial artists can do more damage then C4, because they have trained so much. If you have Wuxia maxed out you can effectively do an orbital drop without taking any damage.

I have to check it out some day :smallbiggrin:

Frozen_Feet
2012-11-16, 04:51 PM
My counter-point to this is simple: it's easier to make make-shift explosives from kitchen supplies, than it is to legally carry a gun around. The most abundant weapons are not guns, but various types of knives and axes. You'll get into less legal trouble if you beat someone with a stick, than if you shoot them. And finally, even soldiers, who usually have guns, are trained to bash their enemies with a shovel if necessary. :smalltongue:

This assumes the PCs are not professional soldiers, law-enforcers, or criminals. And even they need stats for knives, batons, blackjacks, unarmed combat, shovels, pepper spray, tasers, artillery, bazookas, grenades, mines etc., for those times a gun won't cut it. Perhaps literally. :smalltongue:

Zombimode
2012-11-16, 05:02 PM
Continuing with the value of blades a simple statistic here. Until the mid 1980's the weapon with the greatest number of kills in human history was the Gladius.

I would like to see the research papers on that claim, because I find it highly implausible. Seeing that the spear was the most common weapon in the world for, I dunno, like 7000 thousand years, I find it hard to believe that a weapon of such limited usage could top headcount.

SowZ
2012-11-16, 05:06 PM
I would like to see the research papers on that claim, because I find it highly implausible. Seeing that the spear was the most common weapon in the world for, I dunno, like 7000 thousand years, I find it hard to believe that a weapon of such limited usage could top headcount.

Spears are so great. Cheap and easy to make and an amateur with a spear vs. amateur with a sword goes to the spear guy, since he attacks first. I'd doubt favor polearm kills in general over sword kills. Knife kills, though, I could easily believe as topping spear kills.

ahenobarbi
2012-11-16, 05:07 PM
Have you ever shot a silenced pistol, man? The whole, pting pting, James Bond stuff is a joke. It still sounds like a gun and it is still fairly loud. It just doesn't travel far.

Nope. I don't remember James Bond firing silenced pistol either, those movies make me fall asleep. My knowledge on silenced guns comes solely from playing Counter Strike... come to think of it knifes were extremely deadly there.

However if you fail to insta-kill human with melee weapon the human will become at least as noisy as a gun shot.


In melee range, a machete has an advantage over a rifle. It's clumsy. Saying, "Draw a pistol!" doesn't explain away the advantage of teleporting in front of someone with a sword. You can be out of ammo for multiple guns or they can both jam, too.

That's why you kill them before they get into melee range :smallwink:
And guns work surprisingly good in melee range in most RPGs (it's something like -1 damage on average).


Besides, physical strength comes into play with melee weapons. If you are a super strength person, you can dish out more damage with them.

That's one of points where RPG differs greatly from real life. See in real life you can be born a super strength person. Then it makes sense to use that strength and go melee. In RPG you can choose to be a super strength person and use that in melee. Or you could just as easily choose to be a super dexterity person and use that in ranged combat.


Also, just because you are a player character doesn't mean you can automatically get a hold of illegal weaponry. It may be hard to do in the setting. Further, sometimes improvised melee or fisticuffs is all you can do as sometimes you won't be able to get any weapon behind a security checkpoint.

Yeah I guess if DM bans guns they are not a good option :smalltongue:

[QUOTE=SowZ;14235193]Besides, you STILL need non-gun weapons for those people who can't access guns or grab a baseball bat or what-have-you./QUOTE]

So RPG system should describe how non-gun weapons work. That doesn't mean PCs that want to be effective combatants should invest in those combat forms.

Boci
2012-11-16, 05:08 PM
If you are in a game where you kill stuff you will need those contacts anyway.

You are playing as group of university students who decide to take justice into their own hands. Good luck justifying to the GM your pre-existing contacts.


Intimidate them with the gun not to move and have your buddies start the beat up.

Or not, since taking a gun to a situation where not killing is the aim can be a bad idea, if they struggle someone might shoot it out of reflex.


In every RPG I played you get a fixed penalty for trying to hit small target, it doesn't depend on what weapon you use.

In D&D you cannot flank with a range weapon, so SA can be tougher.


It's easy to remove real-life evidence (fire a lot of bullets in training session).

You want to start rooting through the corpse of someone you just shot to death?


Mystical connection established by you using bullet will be overwritten by the bullet making pretty intense contact with your target... unless you miss :/

Not in V:tM. Spirirt touch will link the bullet back to you, not the person you shot.

Istari
2012-11-16, 05:12 PM
My counter-point to this is simple: it's easier to make make-shift explosives from kitchen supplies, than it is to legally carry a gun around. The most abundant weapons are not guns, but various types of knives and axes. You'll get into less legal trouble if you beat someone with a stick, than if you shoot them. And finally, even soldiers, who usually have guns, are trained to bash their enemies with a shovel if necessary. :smalltongue:

This assumes the PCs are not professional soldiers, law-enforcers, or criminals. And even they need stats for knives, batons, blackjacks, unarmed combat, shovels, pepper spray, tasers, artillery, bazookas, grenades, mines etc., for those times a gun won't cut it. Perhaps literally. :smalltongue:

Some statistics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Gun_ownership)
At least in the United States, getting access to a firearm isn't that hard for someone who wants to acquire one, with about 25% of adults owning at least one.

Water_Bear
2012-11-16, 05:13 PM
My counter-point to this is simple: it's easier to make make-shift explosives from kitchen supplies, than it is to legally carry a gun around. The most abundant weapons are not guns, but various types of knives and axes. You'll get into less legal trouble if you beat someone with a stick, than if you shoot them.

Depends on where you live.

In the US guns are the murder weapon of choice by a huge margin, fairly easy to get legally in most of the country, and in a number of states can be carried concealed anywhere except certain public buildings like schools and courthouses. On the other hand, cooking up explosives (or buying the materials to do so) is a great way to get a couple of black vans full of BATFE / DHS Agents with assault rifles and balaclavas to come in and whisk you away to a Federal Supermax Prison, if you're lucky, or Guantanamo Bay if they think you're linked with terrorism.

And in terms of legal trouble, from a PCs perspective anyway, a 5 year prison sentence for Assault isn't any better than a 25+ year prison sentence for Murder; either way they are completely out of the game unless the other PCs are game for a prison break.

Wraith
2012-11-16, 05:15 PM
Show me a system that has stats for a half-brick in a sock, and I will buy it from you on the spot.

GURPS' "Discworld" supplement, since you ask. :smallbiggrin:

And I'm going to be the boring kill-joy guy; there is no such thing as a 'best' weapon, only 'most appropriate'.

In many situations knives and swords are really, really great.... unless (just for example) you want to kill all of Hiroshima in 30 seconds, in which case history suggests there might be a better way. :smalltongue:

ahenobarbi
2012-11-16, 05:16 PM
My counter-point to this is simple: it's easier to make make-shift explosives from kitchen supplies, than it is to legally carry a gun around.

Guns are more selective. Usually you want to do something more than just kill. But for times when you are just killing :smallbiggrin:


The most abundant weapons are not guns, but various types of knives and axes. You'll get into less legal trouble if you beat someone with a stick, than if you shoot them.

Well the advice in the article was for character that want to kill enemies. I think killing people with knifes is just as legally-troublesome as killing them with guns :smallwink:


And finally, even soldiers, who usually have guns, are trained to bash their enemies with a shovel if necessary. :smalltongue:

Hmm. I'll think about that. I really wish I could find that [cut] article. Some time ago it kept popping up all the time and now I can't find it for the tea of mine :smallannoyed:


I would like to see the research papers on that claim, because I find it highly implausible. Seeing that the spear was the most common weapon in the world for, I dunno, like 7000 thousand years, I find it hard to believe that a weapon of such limited usage could top headcount.

Could be because of very detailed weapon categories. If you divide "spear" category to bazilion sub-categories glaudius might win.

DontEatRawHagis
2012-11-16, 05:32 PM
Not in V:tM. Spirirt touch will link the bullet back to you, not the person you shot.


2. Why? Technically the bullet is contaminated with the life essence of someone else. I don't know how Spirit Touch works, but if I was playing a detective game in the setting I might take that out, since it would be pretty overpowered. What makes something owned by someone else?

If I handed my knife to a friend and he stabbed someone and left it in them would it tell a Spirit Touch that I killed the man or that my friend did it?

What if I took the bullets from another man's gun? Are they mine or the guy's I took from?

This concept of ownership is why I didn't really like the ending of Harry Potter. "Because I stole Malfoy's wand the Elder wand see's me as its master now. Even though he and I never actually touched the elder wand in the first place." Doesn't make sense to me.

Boci
2012-11-16, 05:38 PM
2. Why? Technically the bullet is contaminated with the life essence of someone else. I don't know how Spirit Touch works, but if I was playing a detective game in the setting I might take that out, since it would be pretty overpowered. What makes something owned by someone else?

A bit more than the connection that the object happened to penetrate your flesh?


If I handed my knife to a friend and he stabbed someone and left it in them would it tell a Spirit Touch that I killed the man or that my friend did it?

You would show up as the owner most likely (story tellers call), but with enough successes they would know your friend had used it. Assuming the knife is found.


This concept of ownership is why I didn't really like the ending of Harry Potter. "Because I stole Malfoy's wand the Elder wand see's me as its master now. Even though he and I never actually touched the elder wand in the first place." Doesn't make sense to me.

You are confusing ownership with touch. Its problomatic, but the above example made sense. You had to beat the previous owner of the wand to gain mastery of it, touch never came into play, so remove the second sentance and replace stole with "disarmed, and thus defeated" and it makes sense.

ahenobarbi
2012-11-16, 05:38 PM
You are playing as group of university students who decide to take justice into their own hands. Good luck justifying to the GM your pre-existing contacts.

The character smokes weed. That gives the character some criminal contact(s). The character lived in poor neighborhood, now half of the kids it knew are criminals (sure you didn't see each other for a while but you can find them). Your friend was dragged into organized crime (you didn't like it but now that you decided to do justice on your own it will be useful).


Or not, since taking a gun to a situation where not killing is the aim can be a bad idea, if they struggle someone might shoot it out of reflex.

That's why only a PC holds a gun. They do not fire on reflex :smallwink:


In D&D you cannot flank with a range weapon, so SA can be tougher.

Oh. I forgot about D&D Modern existence. This might be a reason... But is SA any good in D&D Modern?


You want to start rooting through the corpse of someone you just shot to death?

No. Fired bullets stay where they landed. After you are done shooting you go to train shooting. You fire a lot of bullets (and destroy them). Gun balistics change, no one can confirm that the bullets at crime scene were fired from your gun (if someone can find your gun, which should not be registered).


Not in V:tM. Spirirt touch will link the bullet back to you, not the person you shot.

Victim touched bullet when the bullet was killing it. The discipline tracks back to the last person touching it (that is victim).

Boci
2012-11-16, 05:43 PM
The character smokes weed. That gives the character some criminal contact(s). The character lived in poor neighborhood, now half of the kids it knew are criminals (sure you didn't see each other for a while but you can find them). Your friend was dragged into organized crime (you didn't like it but now that you decided to do justice on your own it will be useful).

Neither of those are going to get you access to firearms in Britain.


That's why only a PC holds a gun. They do not fire on reflex :smallwink:

Ever failed a self-control roll?


Victim touched bullet when the bullet was killing it. The discipline tracks back to the last person touching it (that is victim).

The wording is "handled", not touched. Nice try.

Frozen_Feet
2012-11-16, 06:00 PM
Some statistics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Gun_ownership)
At least in the United States, getting access to a firearm isn't that hard for someone who wants to acquire one, with about 25% of adults owning at least one.

I didn't talk about owning. My family owns 10+ guns. The point was about carrying them, ie. having them around when you need them.

Want to go into grocery store? A bar? Your workplace? A School? Want to leave your gun unattended into your car? All of these are illegal where I live (Finland).

Bomb-making really is easier by comparison.

You can't conceal something like a rifle. Even (effectively) concealing a handgun means it won't be as readily available as you'd like. In civilian situation, you will have better luck defending yourself by hands, or by any of the various bladed implements commonly lying about.

ahenobarbi
2012-11-16, 06:06 PM
Neither of those are going to get you access to firearms in Britain.

Ok, I have no idea how to get (illegal) fire arms in Britain. But if you are basically playing in no-guns setting then of course guns are not a viable option.

"Characters grandpa hid some weapons after WW2, which the character discovered when it was cleaning up attic after death of said grandfather. They may be old but were kept in good condition" ?


Ever failed a self-control roll?

Not when it was important, that's why we have willpower in WoD :smalltongue:

And what the guy could do to force self control roll?


The wording is "handled", not touched. Nice try.

You are right about discipline wording. Hmm.

ahenobarbi
2012-11-16, 06:10 PM
I didn't talk about owning. My family owns 10+ guns. The point was about carrying them, ie. having them around when you need them.

Want to go into grocery store? A bar? Your workplace? A School? Want to leave your gun unattended into your car? All of these are illegal where I live (Finland).

Bomb-making really is easier by comparison.

You can't conceal something like a rifle. Even (effectively) concealing a handgun means it won't be as readily available as you'd like. In civilian situation, you will have better luck defending yourself by hands, or by any of the various bladed implements commonly lying about.

I think carrying bombs around isn't legal either :smalltongue:
And in combat it's pretty hard to use bombs without killing your self.

Boci
2012-11-16, 06:11 PM
Ok, I have no idea how to get (illegal) fire arms in Britain. But if you are basically playing in no-guns setting then of course guns are not a viable option.

Its more a setting when it is difficult to start with guns. If you live long enough, you'd expect to find a couple eventually if you periodically take what you can from the criminals you capture.


And what the guy could do to force self control roll?

Get scratched when you are hungry, insult your mother sire, punch you...

Frozen_Feet
2012-11-16, 07:12 PM
Depends on where you live.

In the US guns are the murder weapon of choice...Just the word "murder" tells me you're looking at the wrong sample. Try the wider sample of all self-defense situations, and I'll bet you my hat that gunfights will be the minority. (Also, when I said kitchen supplies, I meant it. No-one will be tracking them, because they are everyday conveniences. Right now, your cupboard is likely to contain at least one inflammable and one poisonous chemical.)

Anterean
2012-11-16, 07:27 PM
Show me a system that has stats for a half-brick in a sock, and I will buy it from you on the spot.

Although I am more partial to the one-time use pillow case filled with soda cans.

Violence (http://www.costik.com/Violence%20RPG1.pdf) have stats for a "sock full of quarters" does that count ?

Ofcourse it's value as an rpg system is... debatable, but it's a good laugh

Kelb_Panthera
2012-11-16, 10:49 PM
What makes a weapon suitable for children? Should I be looking for something that says "for ages six and up"?
In some cultures (I'm thinking southeast US, since that's where I'm from) it's not uncommon for a boy to be given some kind of weapon for his 12th or 13th birthday. I got a .22 caliber varmit rifle for my 13th birthday and so did many of my friends. Whether or not a weapon is appropriate for a "child" depends on the culture, the child's maturity, and (of course) local laws. As with many potentially dangerous objects, learning to handle weapons safely goes much further in preventing accidents than trying to prevent access. See also; half of what's in your kitchen.

Drama =/= Action. True helplessness teaches you alot about a character, but it's not so hot for player agency. It's one of those things that you shouldn't try until you've mastered the system already, because it's so much harder to do correctly.
That is entirely dependent on the notion that the enemy has superior weapons to the PC's and would be just as true if we were talking about melee weapons or even differing tech levels in a more historical setting. If the enemy has iron blades and composite bows, while the PC's are stuck with wooden clubs and flint-knives, it's the exact same thing.

It's troublesome to get a gun that you can freely use to kill people in real life, but everyone has fists and knifes! Well in RPG you can just put a few points in place where you'd want them anyway (wealth and black market access) and get illegal fire arms, ammo and fake permits from back story. That's extremely system and GM dependent.

Most people don't carry around guns 24/7! That's because they have regular lives, your character doesn't so it should have no problem with that.Another unfounded assumption. This is as dependent on the player as it is on the GM, system, and setting.

Most people aren't proficient with guns! Yeah, but RPG systems don't care if you spend XP on Firearms proficiency or bare fist fighting, it costs the same.This one I'll give you. Most systems don't make a significant distinction between becoming proficient with guns and becoming proficient with any other kind of weapon, as I understand it.

But it's easier to get knife into secured place! No. And if you plan to take on heavily-secured place bare fist...Right again, though whether knives and fists are as effective as guns in storming a well defended building is, once again, system dependent.

Guns are noisy! No. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muffler). Wow that's wrong. A silenced, low-caliber weapon firing sub-sonic amuntition -might- be quiet enough to use in an stealth scenario, but the stopping power would be just sad. You'd have to be nearly as precise in your shots as you would if you were using a knife, the only advantage you've preserved in using a gun is range, assuming you only have isolated targets. If you've got two guards chatting it up, your gun is now officially no better than a knife since the optimal choice is to bypass these guys.

Guns jam, run out of ammo etc. ! That's why you carry more than one gun and extra ammo. Because cost and weight capacity are never things you need to worry about in an RPG. You never need to conceal you weapons either right?

But if guy with a knife is next to you you are screwed! Not in any RPG I played. This is generally true, but there are specific systems and circumstances. Supers and stealth-kills anyone?

But knifes, axes,... have extra utility! So carry them around for utility, not for combat. This may not add to their lethality at all, but it's certainly not something to be completely disregarded.


Also guns can out damage melee and unarmed fighting (with the same investment) in any (modern) RPG I played. And have range advantage. For the weapon alone, sure. But many systems have the weapon's base damage as only one of a number of factors in a damage calculation. In these systems the best weapon is the one you built your character around, be it a melee weapon, an archaic ranged weapon, or a modern firearm.

Sneaking onto someone, holding them helpless and silent and slicing their throat on top of that seems extremely hard. IRL, it's not as hard as you'd think. It takes skill to be sure, but so does effectively using firearms; especially at medium to long range. Spray and pray is horribly inefficient and strongly discouraged by military training in any but a select few situations. In an RPG it's (once again) system dependent.



The simple fact of the matter is this: all other things being equal and close to reality; yes, guns are the go-to weapon for taking down other equally well-armed foes. The rarity of all things being equal is astounding in all but a select subset of gaming situations though; nevermind it almost never being the case in reality.

snikrept
2012-11-17, 02:09 AM
I dunno about vampires, but with ninjas you just lure them into groups of other ninjas. When the ninja density gets high enough, bullets mow them down quite easily even when shooting from the hip.

Ashtagon
2012-11-17, 05:30 AM
It's called a Crossbow. Or just a regular bow. Or craft a Stake-Gun (http://buffy.wikia.com/wiki/Stake_gun).

Get the machine-gun crossbow which Van Helsing used in the movies. I know it's complete nonsense, but it would be great for vampires.

No, crossbows are not "wood-tipped bullets". Crossbow bolts are traditionally wood with steel tips, although modern versions tend to replace the wooden shaft with a hollow aluminium one.

An actual wooden bullet fired from a gun would only be possible for a low-energy round, as the explosion of the propellant charge would otherwise shatter the bullet. This principle (fragile bullets that disintegrate on firing) is in fact used for designing certain "blank" firearm rounds.

Ashtagon
2012-11-17, 05:38 AM
Show me a system that has stats for a half-brick in a sock, and I will buy it from you on the spot.

Although I am more partial to the one-time use pillow case filled with soda cans.

Complete Warrior has rules for this. It's an improvised light flail.

paddyfool
2012-11-17, 08:58 AM
Another reason for making melee weapons an option is Rule of Cool (not commenting on the relative cool of melee vs ranged, so much as the fact that sufficient people will find the idea of RPing a melee weapon expert cool to want that option). And replayability / flexibility - it's nice if you can try different modes of dealing with combat situations, either with one flexible character or two different characters in two different games within one system.

I can't really comment on the mechanical implications in most modern-world systems, however. To my mind, a modern-world system should cover rules for unarmed, improvised-weapon, proper melee-weapon, and ranged-weapon combat, with everything else being gravy. Unarmed should be mechanically inferior to the others unless you're going for very high cinematics, in which case, fine, your kung fu expert can somehow hit as hard as an AK47, but proper melee weapons should be marginally superior to ranged weapons at close quarters (less so for shotguns or sidearms than for rifles, but you still have to aim and shoot, rather than just swing/stab).

Maugan Ra
2012-11-17, 12:27 PM
I once ran a Call of Cthulhu game in modern-day Britain. All of my players are British, and we realised a short way in that actually, weapons can get you into a lot of trouble in Britain. You'll probably be fine if you keep it hidden and don't draw attention to it, but really, that's quite difficult to do in these games...

(Of course, the fact that one player insisted on Roleplaying a complete lunatic did not help. Wandering into a hospital with a balaclava on and politely asking to be let into the morgue...)

Ravens_cry
2012-11-17, 01:03 PM
Reminds me of a d20 modern campaign we were part of. We, the players, were all Canadian, it was set in Canada, and most of us didn't have firearms proficiency, let alone carry around a pistol everywhere.

Mike_G
2012-11-17, 01:31 PM
It's not how fast a weapon kills you, it's how fast it stops you.

I've treated many kinds of wounds, and guys who get shot tend to be incapacitated even if they survive. Guys who get stabbed keep right on functioning until they bleed out.

For making a guy fall down and leave you alone, you can't beat a bullet.

So, guns are the best choice. But you do want a viable backup, which won't jam or run out of ammo. So a good knife is a good idea.

And if you are playing a horror type game, there may well be a reason to carry a big melee weapon. A machete might dismember a zombie where emptying a clip of 9mm into him might not do all that much.

LibraryOgre
2012-11-17, 01:39 PM
My counter-point to this is simple: it's easier to make make-shift explosives from kitchen supplies, than it is to legally carry a gun around.

I play, and tend to set games in, Texas.

The Glyphstone
2012-11-17, 04:23 PM
I play, and tend to set games in, Texas.

Texas: The state where you need a license to not carry a weapon.

LibraryOgre
2012-11-18, 04:18 AM
Texas: The state where you need a license to not carry a weapon.

Not quite, but I have heard that put forth as a good idea.

erikun
2012-11-18, 08:29 AM
A lot of people have mentioned knives, but I'd also like to mention clubs and club-like weapons (crowbars, baseball bats, nightsticks, Maglites). At least in a psudo-realistic setting, you probably don't want everyone you encounter dead. The ability to injure/incapacitate a person without the risk of bleeding them out or damaging internal organs (intentionally) is probably worth carrying around a stick of wood.

That, and tear gas/flash-bangs are expensive and far more noticable when used.

Aragorn_cro
2012-11-18, 11:00 AM
I agree with erikun, 'weapons' that would allow person to incapacitate his enemies (like tazer) would be invaluable in such setting.

Slipperychicken
2012-11-18, 11:12 AM
No, crossbows are not "wood-tipped bullets". Crossbow bolts are traditionally wood with steel tips, although modern versions tend to replace the wooden shaft with a hollow aluminium one.


Put big wood stick through vampire's heart -> Vampire is staked. Who cares if there's a bit of metal on the end? Just take the tip off and sharpen the end (or get all-wood bolts) if it actually matters.

nedz
2012-11-18, 11:41 AM
In a modern setting: those who live by the sword — get shot.

One of the main advantages of guns is that they don't require much skill to use. To shoot at long range, and hit, sure — but at close range, not so much.

Given an expert swordsman V a novice with a hand gun, at less than 30' range: my money would be on the swordsman. At longer ranges, or with less skill, the odds favour the man with the gun.


Could you make a wood-tipped bullet? Or would that just shatter on impact?

I've seen candles fired from shot-guns. Also baton rounds.

Talya
2012-11-18, 04:03 PM
What makes a weapon suitable for children? Should I be looking for something that says "for ages six and up"?

http://s16.postimage.org/diir70xhh/olfa_knife.jpg

Slipperychicken
2012-11-18, 06:38 PM
[Keep Out of Children]

That says "keep out of children"... so many disturbing implications...

Kelb_Panthera
2012-11-18, 06:48 PM
That says "keep out of children"... so many disturbing implications...

One would think that would go without saying.

The label there says it's manufactured in Osaka, maybe army brats in japan are roudier than we think?

That's just a joke, btw. :smalltongue:

Fhaolan
2012-11-19, 01:34 AM
Beware the escallation.

Part of the role of the GM is to challenge the characters. If the players insist of being armed to the teeth all the time, the GM will likely feel the need to over-arm their opponents as well. And given the opponents of most modern-day RPGs are rich corporation-backed mercenaries and similar, these opponents can afford stupidly expensive weapons. Which will end up in the PC's hands, so the GM then feels that they have to put even more armanents into the hands of the opponents; wash, rinse, repeat.

I find that in most of the modern-day games I've played in, the characters who stealth the session with garrotes, combat knives, and tasers, and the characters who provides overwatch as snipers, hackers or even old-fashioned lookouts, are the ones that last longer overall than the bruiser who tries to carry a minigun with built-in grenade and flamethrower down a busy city street.

Narren
2012-11-19, 12:29 PM
Neither of those are going to get you access to firearms in Britain.


Why would having criminal contacts not gain you access to firearms? I don't know much about gaining illegal firearms in Britain, but how else would you do it?

Wardog
2012-11-19, 03:46 PM
My counter-point to this is simple: it's easier to make make-shift explosives from kitchen supplies, than it is to legally carry a gun around. The most abundant weapons are not guns, but various types of knives and axes.

Although is it easier than to illegaly carry a gun around?

Making explosives from a few household chemicals in the proper proportions requires knowing something about chemistry. (Or at least knowing a receipe for explosives).

Legally acquiring a gun might normally be difficult for someone, but if the plot hands you one, anyone could carry one around illegaly, and probably without being noticed (assuming it's a small handgun).



However, you've all missed one other important reason for non-firearm weapons:

Also, I think knives are a good idea. Big, -off shiny ones. Ones that look like they could skin a crocodile. Knives are good because they don't make any noise, and the less noise they make, the more likely we are to use them. - 'em right up. Makes it look like we're serious. Guns for show, knives for a pro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lock,_Stock_and_Two_Smoking_Barrels).

The Glyphstone
2012-11-19, 04:57 PM
Knives being quieter was discussed for most of a page, actually, and partly debunked in that people stabbed/cut with knives and not instantly killed can be very, very loud indeed.

Hiro Protagonest
2012-11-19, 05:12 PM
Knives being quieter was discussed for most of a page, actually, and partly debunked in that people stabbed/cut with knives and not instantly killed can be very, very loud indeed.

Loud enough that the guy stabbing him would need ear protection so he won't risk permanent hearing loss? People don't wear those ear covers because it's cold at the shooting range.

And people scream because they see you about to stab them with a knife, not because you stab them with a knife. Seriously, try to picture someone suddenly being stabbed in the back. Does a big loud scream make sense in that situation? Or is a sharp intake of breath at the sudden, unexpected pain more appropriate?

Kalmarvho
2012-11-19, 05:24 PM
I believe the virtues of the knife being 'quieter' hinges on situations that require no noise at all. So in such a situation, someone hollering from a botched stab to his meaty-ass traps is just as dangerous as as gunshot.

Gnoman
2012-11-19, 07:12 PM
What makes a weapon suitable for children? Should I be looking for something that says "for ages six and up"?

Late to the conversation, but there's specific models of firearms specifically designed for adolescents. Typically, these are .22LR rifles or shotguns in 20-gauge or .410 that are built on smaller dimensions than an adult arm. The inherently low recoil of these rounds combined with the better handling permitted by the smaller size makes range accidents (often caused by a dropped weapon or the recoil taking you well off target) much less likely, while the lower power limits the damage such accidents cause in the event that they do occur. This makes them excellent training weapons for youths in families that hunt or own a firearm for other reasons.

DontEatRawHagis
2012-11-20, 12:34 AM
Seriously, try to picture someone suddenly being stabbed in the back. Does a big loud scream make sense in that situation? Or is a sharp intake of breath at the sudden, unexpected pain more appropriate?

Pain exists. If you stab someone expect them to say something afterwards and yell. The illusion that you can stab someone in the back quietly is similar to that of Suppressors on guns stopping noise altogether. Will the scream of being stabbed be heard as loudly as a gun shot, no, but it would probably get the guys in the next room over quickly to hear what happened.

I think if you realized that you were just stabbed in a battle situation you would yell at your allies to warn them. That is, if your allies don't know you just got stabbed.

I don't like Hollywood when they have melodramatic scenes where people get stabbed cough up blood or make little to no noise. Sometimes they stay alive just long enough to finish their monologue, other times they die in a split second.

Edit: Hell even if you use a chemical to try and knock someone out they will be fighting for a long time before it takes effect. Not to mention the brain damage such chemicals can cause.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-11-20, 01:32 AM
Haggis is right. Killing someone silently with a knife requires that you catch them completely off-guard and either cover their mouth with your free hand, and/or bury your knife in a spot that makes crying out impossible.

The old ear-to-ear cut makes saying more than "gurgle" more than a little difficult, and a quick thrust into the brain-stem actually is an instant kill, but any of these techniques requires more than a little skill, though I wouldn't say it's significantly more skill than successfully making a kill-shot against a target with a gun from more than 100ft; depending on training and circumstance.

snikrept
2012-11-20, 02:41 AM
The half brick in the sock seems like the better choice for sneaky silent combat, over the knife. Hard to yell when you've been conked on the head and knocked out.

Boci
2012-11-20, 09:44 AM
Knives being quieter was discussed for most of a page, actually, and partly debunked in that people stabbed/cut with knives and not instantly killed can be very, very loud indeed.

But aren't their studies that show humans can be remarkably blase with their response to hearing screams?


Why would having criminal contacts not gain you access to firearms? I don't know much about gaining illegal firearms in Britain, but how else would you do it?

That's how you'd do it, its just unlikely that a teenager who got into organized crime would have access to guns. Meatcleavers and drugs? Sure, but not guns.

blackseven
2012-11-20, 10:21 AM
A real gunshot actually is not that easy to identify. It sounds more like a firework (in my experience) than the gunshot sound effect we hear in movies. People will still call the police, hopefully, but I would not assume people will identify it correctly.


The problem is that kevlar is nearly worthless against a thrust from a knife. <snip>

.. it doesn't do much better than a really heavy sweater against a bodkin arrow or a thrusting knife.

Kevlar can be treated to be stab resistant. It's not as good as a rigid plate but it's much better than a "really heavy sweater."


(protip: that's why "armor piercing" rounds have a much pointier tip than regular bullets. To get through kevlar and to increase the surface pressure at the point of impact on solid armors.)

This is correct. Just as important to note, though, is that armor piercing is comparatively good at piercing because the standard self-defense bullet (for non-military use) is a hollow point, which is designed to flatten and expand upon impact, transferring more energy to the target. This is more effective against flesh, but less so against a vest, which tries to disperse the energy across a wider area. The hollow point works into this tendency, while the "armor piercing" bullet fights against it.


I'll have to stop you there. This assumes that the knife wielder has the advantage, it can easily go both ways depending on the situation.

<snip>

It all boils down to a case by case basis. The difference involving distance, skill, and a boatload of other variables too numerous to name.

The person you quote specified an already drawn knife. The Tueller Drill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill) puts the threat range at about 21 feet for holstered gun versus a drawn knife ...which is pretty scary.

The Glyphstone
2012-11-20, 11:52 AM
But aren't their studies that show humans can be remarkably blase with their response to hearing screams?

.

Civilians, maybe, and even that is heavily dependent on the local area. If you're just out randomly murderizing late-night joggers, silence is less important than your ability to escape the scene of the crime quickly. If you're concerned with being quiet, you plan to stick around, which probably means you're somewhere with security guards or other significantly more alert and scream-sensitive people.

DontEatRawHagis
2012-11-20, 12:47 PM
The person you quote specified an already drawn knife. The Tueller Drill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill) puts the threat range at about 21 feet for holstered gun versus a drawn knife ...which is pretty scary.

Yes, which is why I brought up the point. The issue was that it is a one sided fight, catching the gun user off guard. In a case by case basis, a gun user could do the exact same thing.

Interesting read by the way.

blackseven
2012-11-21, 03:20 AM
Yes, which is why I brought up the point. The issue was that it is a one sided fight, catching the gun user off guard. In a case by case basis, a gun user could do the exact same thing.

I think we are on the same page, but just make sure we are on the same wavelength.

The Tueller drill assumes that the gun wielder *knows* that the knife user is present, armed, and has hostile intent. The knife wielder does NOT catch the gun user off guard in the sense that it is an ambush.

Honestly I think the important parts of this study are to make officers aware of just how dangerous a knife user is, and also to show the public that an officer drawing a gun on a knife user who is "so far away" is NOT overreacting. 21 feet seems like a long distance if you just look real quick, right?

EDIT: Obviously, a drawn gun changes the equation somewhat, but the big problem is that the gun often gives the gun user an unjustified sense of "advantage." Even with a drawn gun versus a drawn knife, the "safe zone" is something like 15 ft or so. (I forgot the study that measured this.) It takes almost a second from when the "attacker" starts moving until the gun user processes the movement and puts a shot on target.