Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ammo Consumption

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Ammo Consumption

    Looking at the new Fria Ligan edition of Twilight: 2000 and that game's ammo consumption rule in a resource constrained environment. Does the following sound FFF?

    (Replacing Pg 93)
    A Rate of Fire higher than 1 is an abstract value where each “shot” is actually a number of bullets. If you’re tracking bullets, the character expends d6 bullets for each shot the player actually fires in an action, not the weapon’s maximum.

    The intent is to have an uncertain ammo expenditure in the attack; pull trigger, repeat if necessary.

    Should this roll Ace, too, to allow the possibility of getting the the ammo expenditures of the chart?

  • #2
    Originally posted by paladin2019 View Post

    (Replacing Pg 93)
    A Rate of Fire higher than 1 is an abstract value where each “shot” is actually a number of bullets. If you’re tracking bullets, the character expends d6 bullets for each shot the player actually fires in an action, not the weapon’s maximum.

    ...Should this roll Ace, too, to allow the possibility of getting the the ammo expenditures of the chart?
    So... firing a RoF3 burst as a single action can potentially fire only one bullet?? Am I missing something here? If you really want to use this Setting Rule, I would forget about Acing the roll and just have each Rate of Fire above 1 expend +1d6+1 ammo. So if firing RoF3, you would roll 2d6+2.

    The intent is to have an uncertain ammo expenditure in the attack; pull trigger, repeat if necessary.
    Okay... but why? Is this intended to keep players in suspense of how much ammo they may or may not consume? I understand the desired mechanic, but what is the desired effect?

    It also seems the "ammo roll" is made after the attack, which can seriously screw up one of the intended functions of the chart. If a character doesn't have enough ammo to use a particular RoF, they cannot make that attack; they must drop to a RoF they CAN complete. You're proposal seems to eliminate that aspect of the rules. Furthermore, what actually happens if a player rolls higher than their remaining ammo?

    There are too many unknowns for me to call this a completed Setting Rule.

    Comment


    • ValhallaGH
      ValhallaGH commented
      Editing a comment
      I think RoF 3 uses 3d6 ammo. Potentially 3, potentially 18+.

    • Deskepticon
      Deskepticon commented
      Editing a comment
      ValhallaGH Ahh, you're right!
      I misread the part that says "each shot... in an action" as simply "each action."

      So the rule would actually change the chart to:
      RoF 1 = one bullet
      RoF 2 = 2d6 bullets
      RoF 3 = 3d6 bullets
      Etc.

      Okay, that makes sense. However, the other concerns still stand.

  • #3
    Originally posted by paladin2019 View Post
    Looking at the new Fria Ligan edition of Twilight: 2000 and that game's ammo consumption rule in a resource constrained environment. Does the following sound FFF?
    Fast, yes. Furious, maybe. Fun, probably not.

    Originally posted by paladin2019 View Post
    If you’re tracking bullets, the character expends d6 bullets for each shot the player actually fires in an action, not the weapon’s maximum.
    This is not clearly worded. It sounds like you're saying that RoF 2+ uses [RoF]d6 bullets, up to the current maximum. But there are many ways to read this.
    Also, how many does Suppressive Fire use?
    Also, what happens if a shooter with six bullets left wants to use RoF 3? He's got more than twice the minimum ammo required (3), but less than the average ammo required (10.5). Can he use RoF 3?

    Originally posted by paladin2019 View Post
    The intent is to have an uncertain ammo expenditure in the attack;
    Okay, but why? Real life shooters will lose track of ammunition as adrenaline, stress, pain, safety concerns, communication, and mission objectives distract them from counting shots. But that doesn't really apply in a table top game, especially games where the players have to take an action to reload their weapons. Unless you, the GM, want to track the bullets in every single character's firearms, you must offload that tracking to the other players, and they will know when their character's need to reload. Uncertainty in ammo consumption just makes it more likely that mistakes (or cheating) will keep those reloads from being correctly timed.
    So, why do you want ammo expenditure to be variable?

    Originally posted by paladin2019 View Post
    Should this roll Ace, too, to allow the possibility of getting the the ammo expenditures of the chart?
    No benefit. You're exceeding the table for RoF 2 and 3, but about half for RoF 4+. Acing will mostly punish the lower RoF without reliably affecting the high RoF.
    RoF 2 = 5 ammo; 2d6 averages 7 ammo. (8.4 Acing)
    RoF 3 = 10 ammo; 3d6 averages 10.5 ammo. (12.6 Acing)
    RoF 4 = 20 ammo; 4d6 averages 14 ammo. (16.8 Acing)
    RoF 5 = 40 ammo; 5d6 averages 17.5 ammo. (21 Acing)
    RoF 6 = 50 ammo; 6d6 averages 21 ammo. (25.2 Acing)
    Last edited by ValhallaGH; 08-22-2021, 01:07 PM.
    I hope you find the above post useful. And not insulting, because I was trying to be helpful, not insulting; being a pedantic jerk, that isn't always clear.

    Comment


    • #4
      The why is to simulate less than perfect ammo counts when someone is shooting back. I figure it's either that or add a new stat that rates a weapon's magazines in bursts, like a rail guns.

      Originally posted by ValhallaGH View Post
      This is not clearly worded. It sounds like you're saying that RoF 2+ uses [RoF]d6 bullets, up to the current maximum. But there are many ways to read this.
      This replaces the sentence preceded by "A Rate of Fire higher than 1 is an abstract value where each “shot” is actually a number of bullets." Does that make it more less confusing?

      (And I can't find a random out of ammo rule to support not tracking bullets that I was sure was in the book. Otherwise, I'd use that.)
      Last edited by paladin2019; 08-22-2021, 08:45 PM.

      Comment


      • #5
        Originally posted by paladin2019 View Post
        The why is to simulate less than perfect ammo counts when someone is shooting back.
        Yeah, we figured that.
        But what will that add to your games? How will the variability make the games more fun?
        Originally posted by paladin2019 View Post
        I figure it's either that or add a new stat that rates a weapon's magazines in bursts, like a rail guns.
        ... So, you're sick of players knowing they have one bullet left in their character's guns?
        If so then that sounds like a personal problem, not a rules problem.


        You can just use the Ammo rules for Allies (page 112) for Player Characters.
        I hope you find the above post useful. And not insulting, because I was trying to be helpful, not insulting; being a pedantic jerk, that isn't always clear.

        Comment


        • #6
          Originally posted by ValhallaGH View Post
          If so then that sounds like a personal problem, not a rules problem.
          Thank you for the constructive criticism.

          Comment


          • ValhallaGH
            ValhallaGH commented
            Editing a comment
            When the goals are unstated I have to guess at what you want. If you want players to be ignorant then you want something that doesn't fit with table top games. You could just as easily make them guess the result of a coin flip - if they are wrong then their guns are out of bullets.
            If you want something else then you need to tell us what that is. Otherwise you will not get anything helpful by anything other than random chance.

          • Deskepticon
            Deskepticon commented
            Editing a comment
            To be fair, you're not giving us much to work with.
            Both Valhalla and I have raised similar questions on how you plan to handle things like knowing when to reload and what happens if an Ammo Roll results in more consumption than the weapon's current capacity. You haven't addressed these yet. Instead, you merely repeated your desire to inject uncertainty into ammo consumption.

            Valhalla's question was a reiteration of one I asked earlier: Is this a case where you want to keep players in suspense? If so, what is the purpose for that? Because if it's a matter of simply not liking the predictability of the current ammo rules, that does seem like a personal reason rather than something lacking in the rules. What is the overall effect on gameplay that ammo uncertainty is suppose to achieve?

            Rather than making snide or sarcastic retorts, you can instead address the questions posed, even if just to say you have no answer or solution.
        Working...
        X