Realistic Firearms?

[Grynning]

Something SurlySeraph said in another thread got me thinking about something that's bothered me for a long time about modern RPG's. Almost every modern-era based RPG out there does a terrible job of portraying firearms realistically, or even "cinematically." Usually they do less damage than they should (sometimes much less), are limited to very short range, and provide no significant advantage over bows, swords, and other archaic weapons that they replaced. I've especially noticed this in my current WOD campaign, but it also crops up in d20 modern, Mutants and Masterminds (but that system makes NO claims of realism), and especially Palladium, despite their efforts to research real firearms and provide cool descriptions and pictures. The only game that guns have actually proved useful in is my Call of Cthulu game, but I think that has more to do with the fact that people in that game are very frail compared to "adventurers" from other games.
Now I know that A) RPG's are rarely written by people who are experienced with firearms and B) realistic lethality would make tabletop RPG's extremely frustrating, as PC's would die or be crippled much more often. But it seems like a bit more effort could be placed into portraying the weapons that largely define modern combat, especially for games that claim to draw from real-life sources for their information.
Anyways, has anyone ever found a modern-era RPG that handled guns well? thanks, Gryn

[Baxbart]

Now I know that A) RPG's are rarely written by people who are experienced with firearms and B) realistic lethality would make tabletop RPG's extremely frustrating, as PC's would die or be crippled much more often. But it seems like a bit more effort could be placed into portraying the weapons that largely define modern combat, especially for games that claim to draw from real-life sources for their information.
Anyways, has anyone ever found a modern-era RPG that handled guns well? thanks, Gryn

GURPS will cover you there. Get shot, and you're pretty much going to die, or bleed to death... or get infected by something unpleasant and wither away over several agonising days.... (This might be why I never play any modern GURPS games unless I'm allowed to wear lots of body armour).

d20 on the other hand is (usually) about cinematics and heroes... understandably the mechanics aren't really cut out to deal with lethal weapons that propel small pieces of metal at hundreds of feet per second.

I'd recommend going with something like GURPS. Its a bit of a pain to learn at first, but its definitely one of the most detailed and 'realistic' games out there - as I'm sure others will agree.

[Talic]

Let's assume the average human in D&D doesn't exceed 2nd level, and has a con mod of +0.

That means, on average, a warrior will have 9hp, and a commoner will have 5.

A well aimed bowshot that strikes a sensitive spot will likely kill him. For the commoner, an average shot may.

Same applies to guns.

At levels where the equality of firearms vs bows has a real world correlation, they ARE equal in terms of damage. Lethal.

Bows have the advantage of silence, whereas guns have range, speed, and ease of firing. That's where the real advantages come into play.

[Verruckt]

Let's assume the average human in D&D doesn't exceed 2nd level, and has a con mod of +0.

That means, on average, a warrior will have 9hp, and a commoner will have 5.

A well aimed bowshot that strikes a sensitive spot will likely kill him. For the commoner, an average shot may.

Same applies to guns.

At levels where the equality of firearms vs bows has a real world correlation, they ARE equal in terms of damage. Lethal.

Bows have the advantage of silence, whereas guns have range, speed, and ease of firing. That's where the real advantages come into play.

Guns have the advantage of killing people without a well aimed shot. A .50 Cal rifle takes off limbs outside of Princess Mononoke I have yet to see a bow do that. Realistic bows never penetrate to the degree that bullets can and do, nor are they capable of creating exit wounds several times the size of the entry wound.

A well aimed bow shot can kill a 9 hp warrior, a well aimed gun shot should be able to drop a 76 hp rhino in one shot, but it can't. Even with a critical hit for max damage with a 2d12 20mm Cannon that rhino keeps on moving.

[Grynning]

The problem with Talic's argument is that firearms are extremely lethal, much more so than melee weapons and much harder to avoid than arrows. Many game systems explain the wealth of hit points and AC at higher levels to experience at dodging blows, being able to "roll" with impacts, etc. as well as overall physical toughness. This serves well when describing how a person in a melee battle is able to survive multiple "hits" from axes, swords, etc. But guns don't discriminate between a tough guy who's been around the world fighting evil and a normal guy on the street - one bullet has the potential to kill, its simply not possible for a human to in any way mitigate the consequences of being shot once it happens. Body armor helps against some weapons (though most rifles will penetrate it rather easily), but you simply can't be "tough" enough to not die from a bullet wound.
The only effective means of defense against gunfire is using cover and avoiding your enemies' lines of fire, which can only be accomplished through training. Even some cover is not effective, as the kinetic energy of many bullets will smash right through a lot of barriers that would stop an arrow or slower projectile (such as a shield or a plaster wall). Even the shrapnel from a bullet impact on nearby wood or concrete can kill you.
Once again, I don't want COMPLETELY realistic firearms in tabletop games, my point is simply that most games do not truly convey how effective they are as weapons and why they have almost completely replaced other personal weaponry in the modern world.

Edit: As an example, in d20 modern, a hit with a longsword swung by a really strong person has the same chance of hitting and killing a person (+5 to hit with 1d8+5 damage) than a .45 fired with same bonus at close range (+5 to hit with 2D6 damage). Both of these are assuming no special conditions or training beyond proficiency with the weapon. Now, if longswords and .45's were equally effective in real life, people would probably still use the swords to fight with, at least with equal frequency as the guns. They don't, obviously.
A fix for this may be to apply serious penalties to AC versus guns when you don't have cover, and to give guns a much higher critical strike range than melee weapons, at least for d20 games.

[Sebastian]

In D20 Moden bows make 1 dice of damage, guns 2, it may don't look much but with the damage thresold rule of D20 modern it can count a lot. Beside IMO the real advantage of guns over arrow should not be in damage (to have a piece of wood stck in your body* should be as much damaging if not more than having a little piece of metal in it;) ) but in range, ease of aim, practicality (a gun is easier to bring around than a bow and arrows) and rate of fire.

*speaking of which somebody know of a system that handle bows realistically? Because when you are hit with an arrow it is suppoesd to remain in the wound, and someone had to pull it out, and pull it out should be a mess, and almost be as much as painful then when it entered. and yet I've to find even a single system that handle or even consider to handle that part of the thing.

[Grynning]

Just to dispel some misconceptions people seem to have regarding the "arrow versus gun" argument above - a bullet doesn't kill you because it's a "little piece of metal" in your body. It kills you because that little piece of metal is carrying a tremendous amount of force when it impacts. Arrows may be bigger, but kinetic energy is a function of mass AND velocity, and they simply can't compete with a bullet in the velocity department. Also, an arrow's larger size and design limits its ability to penetrate through hard targets. Bullets don't have that problem. Remember, firearms are what made metal armor obsolete.
Not to say that arrows aren't extremely lethal, they are, but weighed versus guns, the gun is far superior in almost every respect.

[Baxbart]

Indeed... blunt trauma can kill you through a vest (which is also reflected in GURPS :P) even if the kevlar stops the actual bullet. Its not hard to work out that even a small mass carries a massive amount of energy (that is transferred to you) at several hundred fps.

[toysailor]

Honestly, damage from other sorts of weapons aren't terribly realistic either. If I roll maximum damage on a longsword for example - 8 - it should be indicative of a terrible wound. The maximum amount of carnage a 3ft blade can cause, if we want to be "realistic" about it, should be along the lines of a complete disembowelment. What about "Fireballs"? Shouldn't a great searing orb of preternatural fire cause some fatal first-degree burns, or even outright melt faces off?

Granted, the small-entry-big-exit impact of firearms like 5.56 rounds should be an insta-kill. Similarly, mortal men shouldn't be able to survive more than a single evisceration.

It all boils down to artistic license when deciding how many bullets can "graze harmlessly past" our plucky hero. It wouldn't be as fun if John McClane died shooting through himself to get the bad guy.

[Grynning]

You are correct, any kind of combat in most RPG's is pretty safe compared to real life. Although fireballs are still pretty lethal compared to melee weapons (since they actually scale with level).

P.S. - I think you meant fatal third degree burns.

[toysailor]

lol yea I get carried away with alliteration very easily.

Anyway, when I first started out DMing, the "realistic combat wounds" thing did bug me alot. I tried introducing different house rules on weapon damage, "bleeding" effects and even tried stuff like doing away with HP gains on level up. All I got were groups of frustrated players who kept dying and didn't really feel too heroic despite being "experienced adventurers from the harsh Northern winterlands".

So when we go back to the traditional rules, archaic weapon wounds could be accounted for with some descriptors. High AC = armour deflects most of the impact. High DEX = "through some fancy footwork, wily weaving and dastardy dodging, the rascally rogue turned what would have been a terrible belly-wound into a harmless nick on the arm".

Unfortunately, we can't keep that sort of thing up for firearms since one can only dodge that many bullets (unless of course, you are playing one particular Mister Anderson). It that sense, I agree with you that its really hard to keep firearms realistic in a RPG.

[caden_varn]

The reason that early firearms took over from bows had more to do with ease of use than effectiveness. English longbowmen trained from a very early age, and there were laws requiring men of military age to practise daily. The strength needed to use the weapon effectively meant the upper body was so over-developed as to be deformed. In comparison, muskets were fairly easy to train men to use, and they did not need to be particularly strong. This made it easier to raise armies.

Back to the original question, I would personally not use d20 in a modern setting for that very reason. I think skill-based systems tend to get the lethality of guns better than level-based ones. If you want a good lethal system, the old version of Twilight 2000 (the percentile based one) worked well. Never played the d10 version, so I dunno what it was like.

[Grynning]

I tend to believe it was ease of use combined with effectiveness, but anyways...
I'm unfamiliar with Twilight 2000. Is that a cyber-punk setting? and who published it?

[kamikasei]

So when we go back to the traditional rules, archaic weapon wounds could be accounted for with some descriptors. High AC = armour deflects most of the impact. High DEX = "through some fancy footwork, wily weaving and dastardy dodging, the rascally rogue turned what would have been a terrible belly-wound into a harmless nick on the arm".

See, I would describe a miss that results from high DEX to AC as being a clear miss. A hit, if it doesn't do significant harm relative to your baseline HP, is what I'd class as "turning it into a harmless graze". It's certainly possible to survive multiple bullet wounds if the extent of the wound is a scratch or graze. "Aw man, bleedin' from the leg! ...It stings, but it makes me feel kinda cool."

Similarly for the issue of the 8 damage on a longsword - that's without rolling a critical, so it's automatically not the worst hit you could have gotten in. Further, if it doesn't knock someone into negatives or kill them outright, obviously it wasn't a gut-spilling evisceration of a strike. When someone has 100 hp vs 10, the same 4 damage will not represent the same wounds.

[Jack_Simth]

(unless of course, you are playing one particular Mister Anderson)

"[His] name is Neo"

Seriously, though, make guns a touch attack and two fort saves. First for death, second for half of Xd6 (based on the weapon) damage (must pass both independently). Touch attack illustrates how bullets tend to go through most obstacles. Death illustrates bullet's lethality, Xd6 damage demo's massive injuries.

You don't get the crippling effects, but then, D&D doesn't model those anyway.

[axraelshelm]

dragonstar done a very good job at firearms the power is right, it will hurt if you get shot but at low level you cant realy afford the bigger guns so you have that to look forward to then after the enchantment you can place on them guns becomes very powerful indeed

[toysailor]

Similarly for the issue of the 8 damage on a longsword - that's without rolling a critical, so it's automatically not the worst hit you could have gotten in. Further, if it doesn't knock someone into negatives or kill them outright, obviously it wasn't a gut-spilling evisceration of a strike. When someone has 100 hp vs 10, the same 4 damage will not represent the same wounds.

I see what you mean - I think it was the 2nd ed PHB that mentioned higher hit points equate to battle survivability. An experienced fighter with tonnes of HP isn't necessarily tougher but he simply knows how to react when taking damage so that the worst of it is mitigated.

Nonetheless, its still a splinter in my foot because I can't get by the fact that the same 8 points of damage, which would have been evisceration to the 0-lvl peasant NPC, would only be a flesh wound to the lvl 10 fighter even if both characters aren't aware of the incoming-hit (i.e. all the experience counts for nought if someone is blindsided by a dagger thrust to the neck or something).

The 3rd ed tried to refine the rules by having coup de graces on prone targets. Still, one can make the case that the higher Fortitude saving throw against the coup de grace of the fighter would be unrealistic since, assuming similar constitution scores, his neck would be as tough as the peasant's neck to behead if both characters are held securely in place.

So after spending some time juggling with this issue, I thought that it would be meaningless to try to make things "realistic" to the point that it just makes the story dreary and boring to play out.

I can see where you guys are coming from though.

[Neon Knight]

Don't forget that HP is a massive abstraction, representing a dozen different things such as physical toughness, luck, ability to dodge, etc. Just consider a bullet that hits but doesn't do enough damage to kill or incapacitate a close call miss or ricochet.

Also don't forget that modern body armor like the Army's Interceptor can supposedly take some upper level rifle rounds like the 7.62x51 NATO (albeit with plate inserts) and keep the guy behind the vest alive, if sorely bruised and wishing badly for some painkillers.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the effectiveness of modern weapons is actually somewhat debatable and controversial. Some will tell you the 5.56mm NATO is a lethal round, and others will describe it as inadequate and will tell you that a bigger, if slower moving round (Like the AK-47's 7.62x39mm) or a simple bigger, more powerful round (like the .30-06 or the 7.62x51 NATO mentioned earlier) is preferable.

Some think the 9mm is a perfect round for pistols and SMGs. Others think the larger .45 ACP is better and that the 9mm is inadequate.

Also, another thing to keep in mind that muskets did not cause armor to go away. The style of mass armies, cannons deployed as field artillery, and other factors were more likely causes. High end plate like the famous plate of Milan could stop musket rounds and keep the man behind alive, and supposedly effective body armor was worn up to the civil war, although it had to be purchased with a soldier's own funds and most people didn't have that sort of money.

I'd be willing to wager you could find moderately effective body armor right up until they perfected smokeless gunpowder, which has nearly 3 times the power of black powder with many other benefits.

[Grynning]

While I am aware of the many debates within the firearm owning/using community over the effectiveness of various calibres and rounds, I imagine that most anyone would agree that firearms are, on the whole, effective and lethal weapons. The fact that there are many and varied opinions on which firearms are the best for particular situations does not negate their universal acceptance as the best personal weapon available. The one piece of advise regarding a fight I've heard echoed by law enforcement, military personnel and Guns & Ammo writers alike is this: Have a gun. Doesn't matter what kind of gun, just have a working firearm to defend yourself with.

I doubt that metal armor was seriously effective against musket and rifle fire for as long as you describe. I admit I have limited experience with black-powder weapons or muskets, but from what I have read it would seem that they negated armor fairly effectively. Crossbows and arbalests were able to penetrate breastplates and kill the man underneath, and as we've pointed out, bullet>bow or crossbow bolt. Any metal armor that could stop a bullet or even a musket ball would have been highly impractical, which is why nobody wore it past the late Renaissance.

[Voyager_I]

Remember, this is a game where a five-foot sword weilded by the strongest man in the world does 2d6+6 damage. Damage is somewhat...scaled down.

Many game systems explain the wealth of hit points and AC at higher levels to experience at dodging blows, being able to "roll" with impacts, etc. as well as overall physical toughness. This serves well when describing how a person in a melee battle is able to survive multiple "hits" from axes, swords, etc. But guns don't discriminate between a tough guy who's been around the world fighting evil and a normal guy on the street - one bullet has the potential to kill, its simply not possible for a human to in any way mitigate the consequences of being shot once it happens.

Where does this come from? Unless we have several centuries of hypochondriacs with the ability to spontaneously generate small pieces of lead in various body parts, I was under the impression that people have been surviving getting shot for almost as long as we've been shooting each other.

Also, the potency of guns varies greatly with the time period. Archaic firearms were effective, but not necessarily better than bows. People tend to overestimate the power of both armor and firearms. Armor did not make you immune to clouds of arrows, and early firearms did not blow through plate like tinfoil. They lost power quickly over distance, and even at close range thickened suits of three-quarters and half-plate offered respectable protection. One shot from either could take you out of a battle, and trained archers had a much higher rate of fire. Guns, on the other hand, required much less experience to use effectively, especially given that aiming could be something of a moot point (the old saying was that killing one man required firing his weight in lead).

Lastly, while it's true that you can't dodge a bullet, that doesn't mean you can't be quick enough to hit the floor as soon as you see someone aiming at you.

I've been working on rules for Thirty Years War (1618-1648) era firearms, over here.

[Grynning]

Of course people can survive being shot, sometimes several times if there are no major organs or arteries hit. But it is more a matter of luck than anything else. Either way, though, in some RPG's you can get shot and the bullet has NO chance at all to kill you (as an earlier poster pointed out with the example of the 2D12 x2 crit of the 20mm cannon. That's not enough to kill a 10th level PC, even if you roll max damage. A 20 FREAKIN MM CANNON!)
Once again, my point is that guns in RPG's are not much more effective than bows and swords, which is more than a bit silly. I believe that games that incorporate guns should either have special rules for them or up their damage and to-hit bonuses to sufficiently reflect the advantages they offer.
Thanks for the link, I will read that over. Interesting project.

[DeathQuaker]

Edit: As an example, in d20 modern, a hit with a longsword swung by a really strong person has the same chance of hitting and killing a person (+5 to hit with 1d8+5 damage) than a .45 fired with same bonus at close range (+5 to hit with 2D6 damage). Both of these are assuming no special conditions or training beyond proficiency with the weapon. Now, if longswords and .45's were equally effective in real life, people would probably still use the swords to fight with, at least with equal frequency as the guns. They don't, obviously.

If someone hits you with a longsword, they'll probably kill you, or hurt you pretty badly. Longswords are pretty freaking deadly weapons. The reason guns are more "effective" than swords is the damage done at range, and that they will pierce the kind of armor that once deflected (somewhat) a sword's swing (i.e., chain or plate). But modern armors are now also absorbing certain bullet strikes pretty well too.
(Pretty soon, we'll be back to fisticuffs. )

When looking at the gun rules in d20 Modern, a lot of times people forget the massive damage rules: that .45, if it does more than 10 damage, which is within its 2d6 damage range, is likely to kill the average human being in one shot (since the average human being's COnstitution is 10), regardless of how many hit points that person has (the Con 10 person doesn't have a good chance to make his save vs massive damage either).

That it takes more to kill a guy with a high Constitution is reflective of the "heroic" level of cinematics that the game tries to enforce.

[kamikasei]

I see what you mean - I think it was the 2nd ed PHB that mentioned higher hit points equate to battle survivability. An experienced fighter with tonnes of HP isn't necessarily tougher but he simply knows how to react when taking damage so that the worst of it is mitigated.

Yup; there's a similar statement somewhere in, I believe, the PHB, though I don't think it's given more than a passing mention. Of course, it leads to believability issues when applied universally - there are some ways of taking damage that you just can't compensate for. Falling from a height, for example, should be just as damaging for everyone (relative to their survivability, not to the actual dice of damage), excepting special abilities to let you reduce/eliminate damage if you can roll or breakfall; you should not be able to jump off a cliff, do nothing to mitigate the fall, and reason that, well, it's max 20d6 and you've more than 120 hp, so...

Nonetheless, its still a splinter in my foot because I can't get by the fact that the same 8 points of damage, which would have been evisceration to the 0-lvl peasant NPC, would only be a flesh wound to the lvl 10 fighter even if both characters aren't aware of the incoming-hit (i.e. all the experience counts for nought if someone is blindsided by a dagger thrust to the neck or something).

Isn't this the sort of thing that wound/vitality points are supposed to represent, though? I could definitely see an argument for having flat-footed strikes going right to wound points, though that might be a bit overpowered. But I thought D20 Modern used that system, so shouldn't it be considerably easier to patch up the firearms issue thereby? Perhaps guns always deal wound damage to a flat-footed opponent, while opponents able to dodge who take damage that doesn't kill them are assumed to have, indeed, almost entirely dodged. Perhaps guns should make a touch attack and armor either converts the damage to vitality points or applies DR (so you may not have been killed, but your ribs are still broken). And so on... point being, the standard D&D 3.5 HP system shouldn't have to account for firearms entirely.

[Crazy Scot]

I know this forum is mostly for D20 and D&D games, but since IMO they don't cover this topic too well I would recommend something else. If you wish to go for a more 'realistic' firearms game I would probably recommend Shadowrun.

Shadowrun is a futuristic d6 game that doesn't work with character levels, but with each 'job' you complete you get a little experience that you can use to improve yourself, your skills and such. Your health is two-fold (lethal and non-lethal, with 10 "boxes" of each) and when you run out of non-lethal it overflows into the lethal category. When you run out of lethal, you are down. One of your main attributes is your "Body" which determines how resilient you are, and you get some 'overflow' boxes of damage equal to your "Body", and when those are up, you are dead. This throws the hit point system of D&D out of the window, and makes everyone fairly equally susceptible to weapons (including firearms) depending upon how strong in body you are. If you have invested your experience into increasing your "Body", though, you are better at shruging off damage than others.

Weapon damage is also variable of course, and do more or less damage than others. If I remember correctly, the damage categories are: Light (1 box of damage), Moderate (3 boxes), Serious (6 boxes) and Deadly (10 boxes). Thus, if a weapon's attack code was 4M it would do Moderate damage as a base. The attacker rolls a number of d6s equal to the number of ranks of their skill in the relative weapon against a base target number of 4 or higher based on range, plus other situational modifiers. For every two successes the attacker rolls, they increase the damage category by one (for example: from Moderate to Serious). The defender would roll a number of dice equal to their Body against a target number given with the weapon (the damage code I gave above was 4M, thus the target number would be 4). If you are wearing bulletproof armor, it can reduce the target number by more. For every two successes that the defender rolls, they reduce the damage dealt by one category (for example: from Moderate to Light). If the defender gets enough successes to reduce the damage below light, they don't take any damage.

I know that this is a huge leap out into the unknown for most gamers as it is a completely different way of handling health and gaming, but of the different systems that I have played, this is the most 'realistic' that I have come across for firearms.

[kamikasei]

But modern armors are now also absorbing certain bullet strikes pretty well too.
(Pretty soon, we'll be back to fisticuffs. )

The slow blade penetrates the shield.

[Grynning]

I've heard good stuff about Shadowrun, it sounds similar to the White Wolf D10 system or the old West End d6 Star Wars rules (which I liked). I do tend to think that systems not based on hit points would work best for modern combat, or systems with limited hit points at least. However, some hit-point-less systems still suffer from severely underpowered firearms.
As much as a lot of people don't like it, the d20 vitality/wound points system is fairly realistic for resolving gunfire. Crits go straight to Wound points, which don't go up with level except via Con increases, so one bullet can end a fight. I think someone asked earlier if this is the default system for d20 modern, IIRC I do not believe it is, or at least every d20 modern game I've played in has not used it.

[Ossian]

Off the top of my head, Iìd quote a few lines from the Talsorian Cyberpunk 2.0.2.0. manual. That is, sometimes a small bullet in your foot will make you pass out and away, and other times the grunt will take 10 .32 shots before he goes down (the body eventually manages to tell the brain "Hey boss!You're dead. Go down and stay down"). Tissue damage, shock, pain and hemorrage are all factors.

So, my two cents are as follows:

Use the cyberpunk 2020 damage scale. It starts with knifes and clubns doing the good old 1d6, and swords at 1d8/2d6 (so, you should be familiar with that) and goes up and above
Small bullet? 1d6
Medium bullet 9mm? 2d6
Heavy bullet (10mm)?3d6
Very heavy bullet (11 or 12mm)?4d6

5.56? 5d6
7.62? 6d6 to 7d6
12.7x99? 7d6
Barret or other sniper weapon with impoverished uranium slugs? 4d10 - 6d10
Anti vehicle 14,7 shot? 7d10
It went up to a sweet 7d10 for each .30 browning vehicle mounted machinegun slug.

Increase threat range by 1. or make them all x3 (5.56 goes from 15 to 90 HP...urgh)

Give a +1 to all confirmation rolls per category (small .22 is +1 and browning is +10 by that rational. i.e. IF i hit you, it's most likely a crit, that is, one limb off!)

For firearms always use the DR variant from unearted arcana (that is, a AC 4 armor becomes a AC 2 and DR 2 armor, less effective when it comes to avoid being hit, but takes part of the momentum away)

Most important: confirmed CRITS by firearms always force you to pass a massive damage test (again, see unearthed arcana for details, it's on the d20srd.org).

For close combat firefights where people just squeeze triggers and hope, DODGE bonuses are denied unless the character is Fighting defensively or using Total defense. (choose one, either you and get shot at, or you don't shoot and perhaps avoid the bullets).

If your attack was not readied, you provoke an attack of opportunity from whoever was aiming in your direction (not necessarily at you).

If you add autofire, is that lethal enough?
O.

[random11]

Edit: As an example, in d20 modern, a hit with a longsword swung by a really strong person has the same chance of hitting and killing a person (+5 to hit with 1d8+5 damage) than a .45 fired with same bonus at close range (+5 to hit with 2D6 damage). Both of these are assuming no special conditions or training beyond proficiency with the weapon. Now, if longswords and .45's were equally effective in real life, people would probably still use the swords to fight with, at least with equal frequency as the guns. They don't, obviously.
A fix for this may be to apply serious penalties to AC versus guns when you don't have cover, and to give guns a much higher critical strike range than melee weapons, at least for d20 games.

The effectiveness of firearms is not so much in damage as it is in simplicity.

It requires certain skill to use a sword. If you are facing a skilled swordman, his fighting skills effects your chances of hitting him. So the basic goal is to become more skilled than the one in front of you in order to have a chance to defeat him (in game terms: levels)
Magic also has limitations of levels, according to the rules of most RPG games, the spells will become stronger with the character's level.

Firearms are a problem.
Their main advantage in real life is to allow complete rookies to do lethal damage with almost no training at all. Trained snipers can hit a coin from long distance, but to hit a regular target from average range hardly requires anything.
Also, since bullets are too fast to dodge (except in Hollywood), the skill of the opponent is almost meaningless.

Skills of advanced soldiers do not involve tricks that help you dodge bullets, but ways to avoid being shot at (camouflage, sneak...), so in a full scale combat that is so common in RPG games, the advanced soldier is not more effective than the guy standing next to him.

[Valairn]

I tend to believe it was ease of use combined with effectiveness, but anyways...
I'm unfamiliar with Twilight 2000. Is that a cyber-punk setting? and who published it?

Firearms were not as useful as you might think at least at first. In fact they were so inaccurate that for a great deal of time after their invention, bows were still the preferred weapon, because you could actually hit what you were aiming at. Early firearms also suffered from power issues, unreliable mechanics, a reloading action that required a great deal more attention than a bow. In addition to this, a bow could fire a great deal many more arrows than a gun could shoot its "bullets." The English Longbow was an extremely effective weapon, and other bows were as well, to the point that archers were not phased out for a great deal of time after firearms were invented.

Firearms also required very very special care and attention, if it rained at any time during the march to the battle, most firearms would have been rendered completely useless, while a bow would not. Also guns backfired A LOT for a long time, in fact guns had a fairly regular backfire rate until the 1800's.

The reason the gun took over as the preffered weapon was for three primary reasons.

One, it was much easier to train someone to load a gun and fire it, and it did not require the lifetime of effort that a Longbow or regular bow required.

Two, significant improvements in the manufacturing of rifles and cannons created a situation where they were accurate "enough" (they still couldn't hit the broadside of a barn(exaggeration)) to be a weapon on a European battlefield. I make a specification of European because the Europeans had a number of religious and traditional reason for engaging in battle by lining up in straight lines and making big fat targets of themselves, because it was "honorable."

Third, there were a number of commanders who came up with rather ingenious tactics(especially at the time), that used the firearms strengths rather than expecting them to perform like bows, for instance one commander I know of used riflemen in conjunction with pikemen to kill heavily armored knights, they used the pikemen in order to create situation where the riflemen could close on their targets and get within an almost pointblank distance to reduce miss chances, and guarantee armor penetration.

Firearms were very very poor weapons for a very long time, and the difficulties that surrounded them made them difficult weapons to even get on the battlefield, much less use them effectively.

[sikyon]

Indeed... blunt trauma can kill you through a vest (which is also reflected in GURPS :P) even if the kevlar stops the actual bullet. Its not hard to work out that even a small mass carries a massive amount of energy (that is transferred to you) at several hundred fps.

No, it cannot. What happens is that the kevlar vest stops the bullet after the vest pushes back into your body a number of inches. This will kill you.

A bullet does not carry that much kinetic energy. It has a very small mass, and while it may be traveling at high speeds, it is still a small amount of energy. Studies have shown that stuff like hydrostatic shock contribute little to a bullet's effectiveness.

Bullets kill through blood loss. Unless you get hit in the spine or the brain, you will die by bleeding out.

Arrows are more lethal against unarmored targets. Consider the size of the wound. BTW, arrows kill in a similar fashion. Through blood loss.

Now the main advantage a bullet has is that it can penetrate armor far more effectively. I'm talking muskets here. Modern firearms obviously have logistical advantages, accuracy, range, and penetration power.

HOWEVER:

If I could be hit by either a sword or shot with a gun, I would choose the gun. A sword will inflict more damage than a gun.. Especially in the hands of that huge Str 18 guy running around. It will take off a normal person's limbs with a solid hit. In contrast, a gunshot will cause them to bleed out but they can easily remain in fighting condition, as long as they can push past the pain.

And yes, a solid gunshot wound to the head will kill you. So will being decapitated.

You are not just "tough" if you are a hero. You are literally heroic. You can shrug off ordinary wounds, no matter if they are from a gun or a sword.