Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Lars Richard Olsen <larsols@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 23:52:02 GMT
I've seen that a lot of people refuse to let players use one gun in
each hand. Now, 60 years into the future, when you have lasers,
matrix and wireds, how hard would it be for a smartlink in each hand,
connected to your brain or whatever, to direct the fire at one target.

I'm not talking about shooting at two separate targets, but when you
shoot at only one, how hard is that to fix, compared to plugging the
freaking matrix to your brain?


-lars
Message no. 2
From: Brett Barksdale <brett@***.ORST.EDU>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 17:06:34 -0700
>I've seen that a lot of people refuse to let players use one gun in
>each hand. Now, 60 years into the future, when you have lasers,
>matrix and wireds, how hard would it be for a smartlink in each hand,
>connected to your brain or whatever, to direct the fire at one target.
>
>I'm not talking about shooting at two separate targets, but when you
>shoot at only one, how hard is that to fix, compared to plugging the
>freaking matrix to your brain?

A lot of the refusals by some of us to allow our players to do certain
things has little to do with "realism" and everything to do with game
balance. Even if something makes sense, if the rules or system around it
are unbalanced, you /don't/ allow it in your game.

There's nothing wrong with allowing players to use a gun in each hand.
However, there is something wrong if both:

(a) It gives some tactical advantage to the player (extra damage or lower
target numbers) without some disadvantage to balance it.

and

(b) It has easy availability.

If both (a) and (b) are true, there is absolutely no reason for everyone in
the SR world (that uses guns: sammies, etc.) to NOT go "two fisted". Who
wants that?

Why does /everyone/ have smartlinks in SR? Because there's little or no
disadvantage to them and a BIG advantage to having them. Now, in the SR
world, there's nothing (at least to me) wrong with most sammies/grunts/
security guys having smartlinks. That is part of the genre. However,
there would /definitely/ be something weird about every sammie/grunt etc.
using a gun in each hand.

Since the vision of my world doesn't have everyone going around "two
fisted", I won't allow the ability to do so in my game w/o a detriment
that explains why everyone /else/ in the game world (besides the PCs)
aren't doing it as well.

To me, "two fisted" doesn't really add anything to the game, so I don't
bother with it.

- Brett
Message no. 3
From: Lars Richard Olsen <larsols@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 01:35:34 GMT
On Wed, 7 May 1997 17:06:34 -0700, Brett Barksdale <brett@***.ORST.EDU> said:

>> I've seen that a lot of people refuse to let players use one gun in
>> each hand. Now, 60 years into the future, when you have lasers,
>> matrix and wireds, how hard would it be for a smartlink in each hand,
>> connected to your brain or whatever, to direct the fire at one target.
>>
>> I'm not talking about shooting at two separate targets, but when you
>> shoot at only one, how hard is that to fix, compared to plugging the
>> freaking matrix to your brain?

> A lot of the refusals by some of us to allow our players to do certain
> things has little to do with "realism" and everything to do with game
> balance. Even if something makes sense, if the rules or system around it
> are unbalanced, you /don't/ allow it in your game.

> There's nothing wrong with allowing players to use a gun in each hand.
> However, there is something wrong if both:

ah...thank you :)

> (a) It gives some tactical advantage to the player (extra damage or lower
> target numbers) without some disadvantage to balance it.

It looks cooler, and a really large number of runners want to do that,
but can't because of strange rules that really try to cover a way to
do double damage.
So, why not make is cost plentymuch, and give them the bonus, and
subtract a fair bit of essence, that should do it.

> and

> (b) It has easy availability.

And make it hard to get..

> To me, "two fisted" doesn't really add anything to the game, so I don't
> bother with it.

But remember, at many covers of the FASA books, the runners do use two
weapons...(not that i take cover-art for canon but...)


-lars
Message no. 4
From: Peter David Boddy <pdboddy@****.CARLETON.CA>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 21:53:49 EDT
Ahhh, the two gun rule...wheeee, the fun I have had with this over the
years.

Having a smartlink in each hand might be a good idea (if you have no need
for half a point of essence for anything else), if one or the other hand
is injured, you have a good one to turn to. Now, using both at the same
time, might cause problems, especially if you are trying to shoot at
different targets. The way I see it, add to the target number, making
it harder to hit. Now, of course, you have to consider what kind of
weapon you are trying to shoot. Two fisted pistols, maybe machine pistols
or even the Savalette, could be done. Twin sub-machine guns, probably not
easily (unless you're a troll), forget trying twin light machine guns.
The best idea for trying to use twin smartlinks would be to get the
targeting computer, which means you are going to be a good shot with a
gun, but you're not going to have much else in the way of cyberware.

Hehehhehe, now consider Cyberpunk 2020, where you can have two extra arms
attached...yes, I have tried firing four pistols at once, and I have to
tell ya, my character threw a lot of lead downwind, but didn't hit much.
The enemy kept his head down though....

If you want to shoot a lot of bullets, and hit lots of targets, make a
munchy troll, and carry a minigun... =).

Pete

Pete aka Spitfire
Test your might...
at http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/8920/index.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter David Boddy
Carleton University
Email address: pdboddy@****.carleton.ca
Email address: bx955@*******.carleton.ca
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 5
From: Lars Richard Olsen <larsols@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 02:38:54 GMT
On Wed, 7 May 1997 21:53:49 EDT, Peter David Boddy <pdboddy@****.CARLETON.CA> said:

> Ahhh, the two gun rule...wheeee, the fun I have had with this over the
> years.

> Having a smartlink in each hand might be a good idea (if you have no need
> for half a point of essence for anything else), if one or the other hand
> is injured, you have a good one to turn to. Now, using both at the same
> time, might cause problems, especially if you are trying to shoot at
> different targets. The way I see it, add to the target number, making
> it harder to hit. Now, of course, you have to consider what kind of
> weapon you are trying to shoot. Two fisted pistols, maybe machine pistols
> or even the Savalette, could be done. Twin sub-machine guns, probably not
> easily (unless you're a troll), forget trying twin light machine guns.
> The best idea for trying to use twin smartlinks would be to get the
> targeting computer, which means you are going to be a good shot with a
> gun, but you're not going to have much else in the way of cyberware.

Well, I know this has been a hot topic, but if you study what I
actually wrote, you'll see that I only talk about fireing at one
target. (not that I don't think a master gunfighter can't hit two
separate targets :)

> Hehehhehe, now consider Cyberpunk 2020, where you can have two extra arms
> attached...yes, I have tried firing four pistols at once, and I have to
> tell ya, my character threw a lot of lead downwind, but didn't hit much.
> The enemy kept his head down though....

Spare me...:)

> If you want to shoot a lot of bullets, and hit lots of targets, make a
> munchy troll, and carry a minigun... =).

I really would like people to agree that shooting with two guns at one
target is not as preposterous as some want it to be. Some present
ridiculus reasons for it not to be feasable, while the real reason is
just to prevent munchkinism. I only want it to be possible, cuz it
looks really cool :)

-lars
Message no. 6
From: tom Cone <Brother-1@*****.NET>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 00:12:56 -1000
>I only want it to be possible...
It is possible, but it's not gonna be easy. I'd probably give it a +4
TN, not including the off-hand penalty.

Brother-1. Decker for hire.
>Visit Dot's Deck Technologies! Just north of the Sea-TAC!
Message no. 7
From: TEGTMEBC@******.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 02:20:26 -0500
Lars whined incesantly:
> On Wed, 7 May 1997 21:53:49 EDT, Peter David Boddy <pdboddy@****.CARLETON.CA>
said:

> Well, I know this has been a hot topic, but if you study what I
> actually wrote, you'll see that I only talk about fireing at one
> target. (not that I don't think a master gunfighter can't hit two
> separate targets :)

So you want some really good runners to be able to hit two people at
the same time? They can do it in the movies, I'd love someone to try it in real
life. Granted, Shadowrun is geared to be played rather cinematically, but I
don't think we need cinema to be Rambo, or Schwartzinegger. Do we? It looks
good on film to have the characters do crap like this, but what a lot of GMs
want, is some semblance of REALISM. If they wanted the characters to be Rambo,
they'd play some game like **&*. That way the characters would all be able to
fall off thousand foot cliffs, stand up, brush themselves off, and go on their
merry way. Just because it happens in the movies, doesn't mean it SHOULD happen
in a game as good as SR.

> > Hehehhehe, now consider Cyberpunk 2020, where you can have two extra arms
> > attached...yes, I have tried firing four pistols at once, and I have to
> > tell ya, my character threw a lot of lead downwind, but didn't hit much.
> > The enemy kept his head down though....

> Spare me...:)

> > If you want to shoot a lot of bullets, and hit lots of targets, make a
> > munchy troll, and carry a minigun... =).

> I really would like people to agree that shooting with two guns at one
> target is not as preposterous as some want it to be.

Well, if you would like people to agree with you here, I'll do it. It
isn't preposterous to shoot two guns at the same time at the same person.
However, it is preposterous to think you could hit them with either of them, if
you aren't favoring either gun.

Some present
> ridiculus reasons for it not to be feasable, while the real reason is
> just to prevent munchkinism. I only want it to be possible, cuz it
> looks really cool :)

Now this is the most intelligent reasoning I've ever heard. The reasons
against it happening are rediculous, even though you haven't said why not, and
to top it off, you only want it "cuz it looks cool." OK, let's try an
experiment, shall we? Let's go down to the firing range and shoot two guns at
the same time. After your wrists heal, you can write us whether it's a good
idea to have people shooting "two fisted" and expecting to hit jack. I just
know you'll have a differing opinion.

-The Immortal Mental

PS- If this sounds rather pointed, its because it's supposed to, the whole
notion of shooting two guns at once just isn't as wonderful as you might think.
Message no. 8
From: Benjamin Pflugmann
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 16:33:28 +0100
> > There's nothing wrong with allowing players to use a gun in each hand.
> > However, there is something wrong if both:
>
> ah...thank you :)
>
> > (a) It gives some tactical advantage to the player (extra damage or lower
> > target numbers) without some disadvantage to balance it.
>
> It looks cooler, and a really large number of runners want to do that,
> but can't because of strange rules that really try to cover a way to
> do double damage.
> So, why not make is cost plentymuch, and give them the bonus, and
> subtract a fair bit of essence, that should do it.

I would consider some other points:

1. Someone without special abilities (tech, skills) who try to use two
weapons at once, should get a modifier (+2?) for having to target two
weapons at one time.

2. One could think about adding both modifiers that one gets from firing
several shots, or even increase it (with two weapons it is not as easy
to stop the "push back" with your shoulder or so... i mean, you have to
prepare for the push you get from the weapon. with two ones it is more
difficult to concentrate on, and if you shoot both at the same moment,
the force is greater)

3. To be able to reduce the above points, one would have to use talent
soft of a certain rank, or a skill. I do not want to think about any
system here, but if you want to reduce the modifiers, i would say one has
to have successes with the skill against some TN. One can adjust the TN
to how difficult two handed should be. (btw, you can make the talent soft
rare, if you want)

4. Do not forget something: If you carry TWO weapons you have no free hand.
You cannot trow something. You cannot open a door easily (it would take
more time, or something like this). You cannot get something and so on.

5. And if the runner does not "wield" both weapons, he have to get it first
into his second hand, what takes an action. Maybe you want this to be
an explicit action, or a relativ high modificator for the other actions
he want to perform at the same time.

I think there a lot of possibilities to get a two handed feature balanced.

Any comments?

> > To me, "two fisted" doesn't really add anything to the game, so I
don't
> > bother with it.

I agree. It is nothing that I would really miss. But if someone just like
it, I think it is no problem, as long the players think a little bit of
roleplaying.

> But remember, at many covers of the FASA books, the runners do use two
> weapons...(not that i take cover-art for canon but...)

<threat maker on>
But it is not only the cover art. In the stories the use of two weapons
is mentioned, too!
<threat maker off>

*evil grin* - just ignore it :-)

Bye,

Benjamin.


--
pfb08188@*****.physik.uni-regensburg.de
benjamin@*****.leibniz.in-passau.de
Message no. 9
From: tom Cone <Brother-1@*****.NET>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 00:17:29 -1000
>and many players want to do that.
None that I've known have voiced such an opinion.

Brother-1. Decker for hire.
>Visit Dot's Deck Technologies! Just north of the Sea-TAC!
Message no. 10
From: Sascha Pabst <Sascha.Pabst@**********.UNI-OLDENBURG.DE>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 19:36:22 +0000
On 7 May 97 at 23:52, Lars Richard Olsen wrote:
> I've seen that a lot of people refuse to let players use one gun in
> each hand. Now, 60 years into the future, when you have lasers,
> matrix and wireds, how hard would it be for a smartlink in each hand,
> connected to your brain or whatever, to direct the fire at one target.
> I'm not talking about shooting at two separate targets, but when you
> shoot at only one, how hard is that to fix, compared to plugging the
> freaking matrix to your brain?
May I suggest you just try to follow two TV programs simultanously?
Since I got a TV card for my PC, I tried this several times, and
although I am quite used to follow different things simultanously (11
years GMing, classes, work) I usually fail miserably, although I just
have to follow and not actively do anything.

Sascha
--
+---___---------+----------------------------------------+--------------------+
| / / _______ | Jhary-a-Conel aka Sascha Pabst |The one who does not|
| / /_/ ____/ |Sascha.Pabst@**********.Uni-Oldenburg.de| learn from history |
| \___ __/ | | is bound to live |
|==== \_/ ======| *Wearing hats is just a way of life* | through it again. |
|LOGOUT FASCISM!| - Me | G. Santayana |
+------------- http://www.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de/~jhary -----------------+
Message no. 11
From: Peter David Boddy <pdboddy@****.CARLETON.CA>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 23:22:43 EDT
Lars Richard Olsen writes:
> I really would like people to agree that shooting with two guns at one
> target is not as preposterous as some want it to be. Some present
> ridiculus reasons for it not to be feasable, while the real reason is
> just to prevent munchkinism. I only want it to be possible, cuz it
> looks really cool :)

I think that it's not preposterous at all, two guns at one target is very
reasonable. Firing two pistols, or two sub-machine guns, is probably much
easier than trying to use two Katana's, or monowhips at the same time, on
the same target. And, after just recently seeing Grosse Pointe Blank,
you're right, it looks really cool! =).

Pete

Pete aka Spitfire
Test your might...
at http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/8920/index.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter David Boddy
Carleton University
Email address: pdboddy@****.carleton.ca
Email address: bx955@*******.carleton.ca
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 12
From: Caric <caric@********.COM>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 11:24:13 -0700
| I would consider some other points:

<snip some other decent points>

One other to add...I cannot see how someone would be able to use smartgun
links on two separate weapons at the same time. I would work ok I guess as
long as they were both going after the same target, but I don't think they
could handle different targets. From what I understand the neural
interface won't allow the weapon to fire unless it's got a good chance to
hit ( I envision cross hairs in the shooters vision, maybe a readout for
ammo expenditures etc.) Basically it would be like trying to remote
operate two vehicles. One has to be on autopilot or a set of commands,
can't do that with a gun.

-Caric


Word to the wise... Never anger a dragon, for you are crunchy, and would
be good with brie!!!

-Karl Teranssen av Drakkar
Message no. 13
From: Jason Griffiths <neptune@*****.REPLICANT.APANA.ORG.AU>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 18:48:42 +1000
Since smart gun links are palm pads, and the great majority of people are
right handed, I find it extremely unlikely that mass-produced weapons
with smart-gun circuitry would be set up for left-handed people. Hence,
it would cost plenty of nuyen to get a left-handed smart-gun. Not to
mention the fact that a second palm-link would be required and that the
extra cross-hair in the viewing region from the second smartgun would
add a target number penalty for distraction.....

Just my 2 cents woth,
Neptune.
Message no. 14
From: MENARD Steve <menars@***.UMONTREAL.CA>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 01:27:34 -0400
On Thu, 8 May 1997, Lars Richard Olsen wrote:

> I really would like people to agree that shooting with two guns at one
> target is not as preposterous as some want it to be. Some present
> ridiculus reasons for it not to be feasable, while the real reason is
> just to prevent munchkinism. I only want it to be possible, cuz it
> looks really cool :)
>
Who said it was preposterous? In fact, I am playing just such a
character. However, we use the Companion's Edge instead of the FoF rule.
The way we play it, you cant get reduced target number through targeting
system for only one of the weapons. Does not matter what kind of system
you have, be it laser of smartlink.

So, let's say you're an average "sam" (mine is not ....). You're sure
to have at least 5 point of Strength, so 1 natural recoil compensation.

Using two guns imposes a +2 target number modifier for both shots. So,
with smartlink, and at short range, you get a t# of 4 with one weapon and
6 with the other for the first two shots. t#of 6 and 8 for last two,
unless you're stranger than 5 or have some recoil compensation on the
weapons. if you compare that to t# of 2 and 2 on a single weapon, well,
unless you're very good at it, you'll actually be better with a single
gun.

However, since most people wanted to use 2 guns will probably know how to
use them, I'd say successes and resulting damages will probably be
similar.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--- |\_/| Still The One and Only Wolfbane! ---
--- |o o| " Hey! Why ya lookin' at me so weird? Ain't ya 'ver seen a ---
--- \ / decker witha horn ?" --- Scy, Troll decker with a CC ---
--- 0 Steve Menard menars@***.UMontreal.Ca ---
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 15
From: Adam J <fro@***.AB.CA>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 13:20:09 -0600
At 18:48 5/8/97 +1000, you wrote:
>Since smart gun links are palm pads, and the great majority of people are
>right handed, I find it extremely unlikely that mass-produced weapons
>with smart-gun circuitry would be set up for left-handed people. Hence,
>it would cost plenty of nuyen to get a left-handed smart-gun. Not to
>mention the fact that a second palm-link would be required and that the
>extra cross-hair in the viewing region from the second smartgun would
>add a target number penalty for distraction.....

Somewhere in Sprawl Sites (Can't find the darned page now), one of the
little encounters was 'Such and such wants you to test a new 2 gun
targetting smart
link system', or something along those lines.. I never got around to
fleshing it out for a full adventure, but it actually added to the players
target number. +2, I think. Of course, this only works if you keep
target numbers secret, or at least don't explain the reasoning why Jill's
target numbers seem to always be higher now..

*Five minutes pass*

Nope, still can't find the page :\

-Adam
--
http://shadowrun.home.ml.org -- fro@***.ab.ca
"Do you know how many times I have said something that ends up in
someone's .sig?" -Dvixen, a phone call that turned out to be bloody cheap.
-
"Leading by example" in Target:UCAS
Message no. 16
From: David Thompson <david.s.thompson@****.EDU>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 15:59:58 -0400
At 01:27 AM 5/8/97 -0400, you wrote:
>On Thu, 8 May 1997, Lars Richard Olsen wrote:
>
>> I really would like people to agree that shooting with two guns at one
>> target is not as preposterous as some want it to be. Some present
>> ridiculus reasons for it not to be feasable, while the real reason is
>> just to prevent munchkinism. I only want it to be possible, cuz it
>> looks really cool :)
>>
> Who said it was preposterous? In fact, I am playing just such a
>character. However, we use the Companion's Edge instead of the FoF rule.
>The way we play it, you cant get reduced target number through targeting
>system for only one of the weapons. Does not matter what kind of system
>you have, be it laser of smartlink.
>
> So, let's say you're an average "sam" (mine is not ....). You're sure
>to have at least 5 point of Strength, so 1 natural recoil compensation.
>
>Using two guns imposes a +2 target number modifier for both shots. So,
>with smartlink, and at short range, you get a t# of 4 with one weapon and
>6 with the other for the first two shots. t#of 6 and 8 for last two,
>unless you're stranger than 5 or have some recoil compensation on the
>weapons. if you compare that to t# of 2 and 2 on a single weapon, well,
>unless you're very good at it, you'll actually be better with a single
>gun.
>
>However, since most people wanted to use 2 guns will probably know how to
>use them, I'd say successes and resulting damages will probably be
>similar.

I think you missed something. If in the above you are talking about the
core rules for firing two weapons at once, I believe they state that you
apply a +2 to TN to both weapons, that any recoil modifiers apply to both
weapons (so a HP in one hand suffers +2, or whatever, to TN due to the
recoil of an SMG in the other), and that NO targeting systems like smartgun
links or laser sights or scopes apply. That means a guaranteed base 6 TN
for each gun, not including recoil or visibility or cover or wound or
movement penalties. Not an easy shot, and pretty much the only ones who can
pull it off are high initiate grade physical adepts with enhanced centering.
Everyone else will be putting a lot of lead into nothing.

--DT
Message no. 17
From: Grendel <grendel@*****.NET>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Tue, 6 May 1997 16:20:54 -0400
<snip> of all that is was said before

What I'm asking myself, is, can a smartlink support 2 weapons? If not, does
the smartlink can handle 1 of the weapon or does it freak and do nothing? To
me, the smartlink freaks a little and do not add the -2 bonus. By freaking,
I mean that the circuits get confused and do not work properly. The
smartlink can't adjust for 2 weapons because of the place they are in the
space. What I mean is for me the smartlink is kinda like in Robocop, helping
you to aim with the position of your arm. It calculates the position of the
arm, hence the gun and tell you where the bullet will go. Using 2 guns will
confuse the smartlink, calculating 2 different positions, it's kinda like
doing 2 different things with a program at the same time, usually, it locks
up and you have to restart the program, sometimes, the whole computer.

You can remedy to that by installing 2 different smartlinks, but I don't
know many sammies who can spare 0.5 essence just for coolness. Or you can
try to reprogram the smartlink into accepting 2 weapons, but it equals
devising a new type of smartlink, and it's kinda difficult if you don't have
access to a MAJOR shop, aka a corp with lot of scientists and engineer.

And there's the recoil factor too. Firing 2 weapons will surely break your
wrists. One way to come around would be to install cyber arms that can
absorb the recoil. But it costs a max. And I don't know many sammies who
wants to have 2 cyber arms and then go wherever it have a metal detector:)

Just my thoughts
____________________________________________________________________________
________
Grendel Khan

Sam:"So where'd you park the car, Max?"
Max:"I don't know. I couldn't see over the wheel."
Sam:"That's okay. I think I can smell it."
____________________________________________________________________________
________
Message no. 18
From: James Paulsen <lowfyr@***********.COM>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 15:24:42 -0500
Peter David Boddy wrote:
> <snip stuff from Lars about using two guns>

> I think that it's not preposterous at all, two guns at one target is veryreasonable.
Firing two pistols, or two sub-machine guns, is
probably mucheasier than trying to use two Katana's, or monowhips at the
same time, on the same target. And, after just recently seeing Grosse
Pointe Blank, you're right, it looks really cool! =).
>
> Pete

What it all comes down to is the style of GMing. Some GMs (I had one who
ran AD$D this way) are totally focused on realism. To each his own, but
the point for me as a GM is to create a cinematic-like environment for
the players to act out some fantasies in. If they want to go in with two
guns blazing, cool, if not, just as cool.

I'll let them try just about anything, even if it seems unrealistic, if
it seems like a cool thing to do, and there are ways to solve game
balance problems--smarter NPC's.

I have to agree the two gun thing looks cooler than hell, but on a
realistic note I have shot two 9mm simutaneously with absolutely no
accuracy what so ever. But who cares, SR ain't RL :)

Jim
Message no. 19
From: "Faux Pas (Thomas)" <thomas@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 15:44:22 -0500
At 04:20 PM 5/6/97 -0400, Grendel whispered:
> <snip> of all that is was said before
>
>What I'm asking myself, is, can a smartlink support 2 weapons?

Why not? Two separate systems, one through your right hand, one through
your left hand. Right gun puts a red dot in your line of vision, left gun
puts a neon green dot. Only thing holding you back is the human factor.
Can you operate both hands equally well?


-Thomas Deeny
Visit http://telltale.hart.org - faster, stronger, better than before!

"... what character deserves to be left alone more at the end of the world
than that idiot Ash?"
-Bruce Campbell on the dropped ending for _Army of Darkness_
Message no. 20
From: David Thompson <david.s.thompson@****.EDU>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 17:30:20 -0400
At 04:20 PM 5/6/97 -0400, you wrote:
> <snip> of all that is was said before

snip explanation for what is already in the rules -- smartlink bonuses don't
apply to 2 weapons at once.

>And there's the recoil factor too. Firing 2 weapons will surely break your
>wrists. One way to come around would be to install cyber arms that can
>absorb the recoil. But it costs a max. And I don't know many sammies who
>wants to have 2 cyber arms and then go wherever it have a metal detector:)
>
Out of curiosity, why does everyone insist that firing 2 weapons will break
both wrists when no one ever says that firing 1 pistol one-handed is
dangerous? Granted, if you fire assault rifles burst fire from each hand,
expect pain, but not in all cases. It is possible to brace a weapon on your
hip and fire with one hand, and the Franchi SPAS is specifically designed to
be fired from one hand, if the folding stock is extended and braced properly
from the arm. If you line up the recoil with major bone structures in the
body (kind of like a solid frame firing position that relies on bones, not
muscles, to steady the weapon) you're fine. If you decide to point an
assault rifle around a corner using just your wrist, then you'll get hurt.

Just trying to avoid over-generalization,
--DT
Message no. 21
From: L Canthros <lobo1@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 18:05:44 EDT
On Wed, 7 May 1997 21:53:49 EDT Peter David Boddy
<pdboddy@****.CARLETON.CA> writes:
>Ahhh, the two gun rule...wheeee, the fun I have had with this over the
>years.

I don't mind it, because once you add in appropriate modifiers (+2 for
off-hand, + recoil (twice)), it gets pretty hard to hit anything with the
second gun (I'm assuming a heavy pistol type), and it's not that easy
with the first. Assuming you have no recoil comp or targeting
enhancements. A character of average (for a shadowrunner) skill just
isn't going to do all that great. Add in Gas Vents (level 2 normal) and a
smartgun and it's, well, no harder than normal (technically, you ignore
the smartgun for this and recoil is eliminated, but you've still go the
off-hand mod). Note that this makes it a six to hit anything at close
range with that second gun, on either shot. You probably won't hit much
with it. Ambidexterity makes this lots easier, but not too much,
especially since you still have to figure in such modifiers as lighting,
cover, etc.

[snip on smartguns]

On smartguns, I'd allow a character with a specially modified smartgun
and two smartlink induction jacks (one in each hand) to use (and gain the
advantages of) two smartguns. And they'll only be getting those
advantages by shooting at the same target, unless they've got an
encephalon. But, the special cyber isn't common, it won't be cheap, and
it won't be available at better than one level below the best currently
available (level I, unless you've decided to use the Smart 3 James Meiers
submitted to Paolo's Archive). As for why everyone doesn't have
ambidexterity skill/use two weapons: obviously, such people aren't
common. First, rule that the Strength-based recoil comp doesn't apply to
two-fisted firing, as it was probably intended for use when the gun is
braced with two hands. Second, don't make ambidexterity a skill. Make it
something

>weapon you are trying to shoot. Two fisted pistols, maybe machine
pistols
>or even the Savalette, could be done. Twin sub-machine guns, probably
not
>easily (unless you're a troll), forget trying twin light machine guns.

I can see SMGs, plausibly. It wouldn't be easy, but it would be possible
(Hey, anything's possible). Anything above that usually requires two
hands.

[...]
>Hehehhehe, now consider Cyberpunk 2020, where you can have two extra
arms
>attached...yes, I have tried firing four pistols at once, and I have to
>tell ya, my character threw a lot of lead downwind, but didn't hit much.
>The enemy kept his head down though....

And there probably wasn't much left of anything around where he was
aiming:)

>If you want to shoot a lot of bullets, and hit lots of targets, make a
>munchy troll, and carry a minigun... =).

No, make a munchy troll and get your GM (a close friend) to allow you to
use a specially modified Vigilant cannon. And don't laugh. We had a guy
that did that before I was GM.

--
-Canthros
And ye shall know the truth, and lobo1@****.com
the truth shall set you free. canthros1@***.com
--John 8:32, KJV
http://members.aol.com/canthros1/
Message no. 22
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 21:48:28 +0100
In message <2.2.32.19970506202054.00683d34@***.maska.net>, Grendel
<grendel@*****.NET> writes
> <snip> of all that is was said before
>
>What I'm asking myself, is, can a smartlink support 2 weapons?

Nope. We played it as not even supporting two hands. Decide which hand's
got the link and stick with it.

>If not, does
>the smartlink can handle 1 of the weapon or does it freak and do nothing?

It handles the weapon fine. The other hand is unaimed fire with no
bonus, and we play a blanket +2 to each hand anyway. And don't forget
the way the recoil adds up...

>What I mean is for me the smartlink is kinda like in Robocop, helping
>you to aim with the position of your arm. It calculates the position of the
>arm, hence the gun and tell you where the bullet will go. Using 2 guns will
>confuse the smartlink, calculating 2 different positions,

Nope, it just only aims the gun it's linked for, and you're not going to
be doing a good job of aiming the offhand weapon.

>You can remedy to that by installing 2 different smartlinks, but I don't
>know many sammies who can spare 0.5 essence just for coolness.

Depends if your PC's ever had an arm ripped off in a fight :)

>And there's the recoil factor too. Firing 2 weapons will surely break your
>wrists.

If I can shoot a .45ACP one-handed and left-handed without hurting my
wrists, one pistol in each hand will surely not break bone. Unless
you're firing some ungodly monster like a .454 Casull, a little training
is all you need.

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 23
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 21:35:00 +0100
In message <3.0.32.19970508131959.006c0704@****.lis.ab.ca>, Adam J
<fro@***.AB.CA> writes
>Somewhere in Sprawl Sites (Can't find the darned page now), one of the
>little encounters was 'Such and such wants you to test a new 2 gun
>targetting smart
>link system', or something along those lines..

>I never got around to
>fleshing it out for a full adventure, but it actually added to the players
>target number. +2, I think.

>*Five minutes pass*
>
>Nope, still can't find the page :\

Page 71 :)

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 24
From: Rune Fostervoll <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 22:07:50 +0000
> On Thu, 8 May 1997, Lars Richard Olsen wrote:
>
> > I really would like people to agree that shooting with two guns at one
> > target is not as preposterous as some want it to be. Some present
> > ridiculus reasons for it not to be feasable, while the real reason is
> > just to prevent munchkinism. I only want it to be possible, cuz it
> > looks really cool :)
> >

Just a quick question.. what kinds of modifiers would you (any one of
you) use for someone using two Ruger Warhawks? AFAIK it is a single
shot gun, and single shot weapons can fire as a simple action but
only once per action. It would, technically, be an ideal two-fist
weapon since you use two simple actions to fire, no fuzz, no double
firing.

If I fired two guns RL I would probably aim my right hand one and
keep the left one parallell to my right one. In either case, I would
not fire heavy pistols that way. I feel kinda attached to my
writsts.... (Actually, heavy pistols has less recoil than smaller
guns, as long as they use regular ammo, right? Their weight soak up a
lot more of the recoil.).

common Movie Combat Misconceptions..

First off would be the overly effective silencers. I mean, I've used
silenced weapons, and it's actually hard to notice a difference.
The sound isn't supposed to carry as well, though.
In some movies, though, they can fire a silenced gun in a quiet room
and not get heard by someone else in the room! Right.

The Energizer Bunny Fight: all end of movie fights are,
usually, long, and end after most involved has taken enough damage to
kill them several times over. Secondly, usually the 'hero' gets the
shit kicked out of him the first few scenes, then the other guy just
stands there and gets wasted. (Usually, when the 'hero' makes his
comebac, the other guy does not even try to parry/evade his blows.
Strange, no?)

The Hip - fired assault rifle: In movies, they actually hit. In
movies, the elite units and heroes fire this way.
This miscnonception has, in fact, been of great use to most elite
units, because untrained soldiers are occasionally influenced by this
constant misdirection, and use their weapons in this manner. And
thus, when they face troops who use their weapons properly - braced
and aimed - they get slaughtered.

Any other suggestions?
"But the dread of something after death,
The undiscovered country, from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have,
Than fly to others that we no not of."
Message no. 25
From: L Canthros <lobo1@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 22:04:19 EDT
On Thu, 8 May 1997 18:48:42 +1000 Jason Griffiths
<neptune@*****.REPLICANT.APANA.ORG.AU> writes:
>Since smart gun links are palm pads, and the great majority of people
are
>right handed, I find it extremely unlikely that mass-produced weapons
>with smart-gun circuitry would be set up for left-handed people. Hence,
>it would cost plenty of nuyen to get a left-handed smart-gun. Not to
>mention the fact that a second palm-link would be required and that the
>extra cross-hair in the viewing region from the second smartgun would
>add a target number penalty for distraction.....

Actually, I don't see why the induction pad/wiring and the smartgun
circuitry in the head wouldn't/couldn't be separate parts, and I
certainly see no reason that they could be installed to work in either
arm/eye. As for a second crosshair/dot, it would be distracting, and
probably nigh on impossible to keep track of unless they were different
colors. Even then, you wouldn't be able to target two people/things at
once, you simply cannot focus your eyes on two separate objects at one
time.

--
-Canthros
And ye shall know the truth, and lobo1@****.com
the truth shall set you free. canthros1@***.com
--John 8:32, KJV
http://members.aol.com/canthros1/
Message no. 26
From: L Canthros <lobo1@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 22:04:19 EDT
On Thu, 8 May 1997 11:24:13 -0700 Caric <caric@********.COM> writes:
>| I would consider some other points:
>
><snip some other decent points>
>
>One other to add...I cannot see how someone would be able to use
smartgun
>links on two separate weapons at the same time. I would work ok I guess
as
>long as they were both going after the same target, but I don't think
they
>could handle different targets. From what I understand the neural
>interface won't allow the weapon to fire unless it's got a good chance
to
>hit ( I envision cross hairs in the shooters vision, maybe a readout for
>ammo expenditures etc.) Basically it would be like trying to remote
>operate two vehicles. One has to be on autopilot or a set of commands,
>can't do that with a gun.

That's where an encephalon comes in. Without multitasking, you can't even
_look_ at more than one person at a time (not and focus on them, anyway).
With multitasking, it might (might!) be possible to focus in each eye on
a separate target. You might consider requiring a certain level of
encephalon to do this. If you decide to allow it.

--
-Canthros
And ye shall know the truth, and lobo1@****.com
the truth shall set you free. canthros1@***.com
--John 8:32, KJV
http://members.aol.com/canthros1/
Message no. 27
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 21:31:47 +0100
In message <199705080848.SAA31688@****.replicant.apana.org.au>, Jason
Griffiths <neptune@*****.REPLICANT.APANA.ORG.AU> writes
>Since smart gun links are palm pads, and the great majority of people are
>right handed, I find it extremely unlikely that mass-produced weapons
>with smart-gun circuitry would be set up for left-handed people.

The French FAMAS can be switched from right-handed to left-handed
operation in about ten minutes, in the field. _Some_ weapons would be
fairly readily available in left-handed versions. Others, especially
popular ones like the Predators and Max-Powers, would have a lot of
aftermarket accessories to let you switch the controls and smartlink
induction pad over fairly cheaply.

Some wouldn't be switchable, period.

>Hence,
>it would cost plenty of nuyen to get a left-handed smart-gun. Not to
>mention the fact that a second palm-link would be required and that the
>extra cross-hair in the viewing region from the second smartgun would
>add a target number penalty for distraction.....

I go with needing two smartgun links: and they only apply a bonus if you
go for the same target. Try shooting multiple targets and you get no
help from the links. Can't get aiming bonuses, either.

Tends to make the John Woo gun-in-each-hand style useful at short
ranges, and it comes in handy for suppressive fire.

Some players swear by it. Others prefer to take a SMG.

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 28
From: Tim P Cooper <z-i-m@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 22:39:29 EDT
On Tue, 6 May 1997 16:20:54 -0400 Grendel <grendel@*****.NET> writes:
> <snip> of all that is was said before
[snip question of whether ONE smartlink system could handle 2 guns]

Well since the smartlink is a system that has a neural connection to your
eyes and an induction pad in one hand that connects to the built-in (or
added on) sensors for the gun... I'd say NO. How do you expect to hook 2
guns up to ONE induction pad? Each gun would also need it's own smartgun
sensors. (obviously)

>You can remedy to that by installing 2 different smartlinks, but I don't
>know many sammies who can spare 0.5 essence just for coolness. Or you
can
>try to reprogram the smartlink into accepting 2 weapons, but it equals
devising a new type of
>smartlink, and it's kinda difficult if you don't have access to a MAJOR
shop, aka a corp with
>lot of scientists and engineer.

Again, No.... well partially. No you couldn't reprogram a single
smartlink system with one set of "smartlink" sensors to track 2 guns,
you'd need two separate systems. As for displaying output from two
separate systems... that's not terrribly difficult. Now having the user
be able to concentrate and utilize the simultaneous feed from two
separate systems is another thing entirely. How many of us can focus on
and track two moving points at the same time?

>And there's the recoil factor too. Firing 2 weapons will surely break
your
>wrists. One way to come around would be to install cyber arms that can
>absorb the recoil. But it costs a max. And I don't know many sammies who
>wants to have 2 cyber arms and then go wherever it have a metal
>detector:)

Yup, recoil is a legit factor.

As for your metal arms... well it's either the two guns your carrying OR
your arms.. your choice... or maybe it's your titanium bone-lacing or
your spurs or razors or all them wires that are strung throughout your
body, or etc..

~Tim
Message no. 29
From: Tuvyah@***.COM
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 01:18:09 -0400
Neptune wrote:

>>Since smart gun links are palm pads, and the great majority of people are
>>right handed, I find it extremely unlikely that mass-produced weapons
>>with smart-gun circuitry would be set up for left-handed people. Hence,
>>it would cost plenty of nuyen to get a left-handed smart-gun.

Yes, but SO MANY guns are made that if even 10% of your market is
left-handed, that could still add up to hundreds of thousands, even millions,
of sales.

Also, it's not so difficult today to switch a grip from right to left (this
is based solely on my experience with my own revolver -- YMMV. And things
integral to the gun frame, like cylinder releases, will remain biased, of
course). If the smart-link pad itself is not biased -- if the "handedness"
depends on the location of the pad, not its shape -- then it seems to me that
a left-handed smart gun would not be such a big deal. At worst it would be a
customized gun as per the FoF rules, at twice the normal cost. IMHO of
course.

This is not intended as an endorsement of any two-gun rule; I'm still
pondering that. Ponder, ponder, ponder....

Smilin' Ted
"...who knows why he's smilin'."
Message no. 30
From: david lowe <dlowe@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 23:21:34 -0800
At 2:07 PM 5/8/97, Rune Fostervoll wrote:

>common Movie Combat Misconceptions..
>

<Major snippage...>

One of the better movies I've seen regarding "movie gun realism" lately is
Executive decision. It has a few scenes with special ops types taking out
some bad guys and they actually aim their weapons and fire in short,
controlled bursts. Its nice to see a film where supposedly combat trained
soldiers actually act like they know how to use their weapons.

d.
Message no. 31
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 12:47:07 +0100
Grendel said on 16:20/ 6 May 97...

> What I'm asking myself, is, can a smartlink support 2 weapons? If not, does
> the smartlink can handle 1 of the weapon or does it freak and do nothing? To
> me, the smartlink freaks a little and do not add the -2 bonus.

SRII supports this (page 90), but I think it's not for the reason you
give. Smartlinks, smart goggles, or laser sights don't give any TN
modifiers when you use two guns, but I assume this is because the rules
assume it's hard to keep track of which red dot (or crosshair) belongs to
which gun. Even if you use two different colors for the different guns,
IMO it's hard to track them both at the same time.

At any rate, since a smartlink is installed in one arm, you'd have to hold
both weapons in the same hand for a single smartlink to control both
weapons; not an easy feat, I think :) With smart goggles you may modify
a set to accept input from two guns at once, though.

> And there's the recoil factor too. Firing 2 weapons will surely break your
> wrists.

Not necessarily... Firing two .44 Desert Eagles as fast as you can, I'd
guess is bad for the wrists, yeah. But two semi-auto .22LR weapons?

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
You've got to go there and find it, my friend.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 32
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 12:47:07 +0100
Benjamin Pflugmann said on 16:33/ 8 May 97...

> 1. Someone without special abilities (tech, skills) who try to use two
> weapons at once, should get a modifier (+2?) for having to target two
> weapons at one time.

That's in the rules: you get an automatic +2 to each weapon's TN for
aiming/firing both at the same time.

> 2. One could think about adding both modifiers that one gets from firing
> several shots, or even increase it (with two weapons it is not as easy
> to stop the "push back" with your shoulder or so... i mean, you have to
> prepare for the push you get from the weapon. with two ones it is more
> difficult to concentrate on, and if you shoot both at the same moment,
> the force is greater)

Also in the rules: recoil from one weapon affects the other one too. Say
you fire 10 rounds from a gun with a gas vent 3, and 6 rounds from a gun
with gas vent 2, you end up with a +10-3+6-2 = +11 modifier.

> 3. To be able to reduce the above points, one would have to use talent
> soft of a certain rank, or a skill. I do not want to think about any
> system here, but if you want to reduce the modifiers, i would say one has
> to have successes with the skill against some TN. One can adjust the TN
> to how difficult two handed should be. (btw, you can make the talent soft
> rare, if you want)

That would be a sort of special Ambidexterity skill soft, applying only to
shooting guns. Not sure if I'd allow something like that...

> 4. Do not forget something: If you carry TWO weapons you have no free hand.
> You cannot trow something. You cannot open a door easily (it would take
> more time, or something like this). You cannot get something and so on.

You'd first have to spend an action to put one gun away before you can do
something else, yes. The way I see it, though, most people aiming two guns
do so only when they're facing the enemy, not when they're walking through
corridors where they have to open lots of doors.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
You've got to go there and find it, my friend.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 33
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 12:47:07 +0100
Jason Griffiths said on 18:48/ 8 May 97...

> Since smart gun links are palm pads, and the great majority of people are
> right handed

About 1 in 10 is left-handed (I read somewhere that in animals it's
closer to 50/50, BTW).

> I find it extremely unlikely that mass-produced weapons with smart-gun
> circuitry would be set up for left-handed people. Hence, it would cost
> plenty of nuyen to get a left-handed smart-gun.

Or they could simply have wrap-around links in the grip. Traditionally,
firearms have been made for right-handed shooters, but the last couple of
decades have seen gun design move toward being suited for both right- and
left-handed shooters. This is obviously a necessity with bullpups (except
in the British army :) but many other weapons also have the various
controls on the centerline, one on each side, or so they can be easily
changed from side to side. With smartlinks, this would likely be the case
too.
Remember that in most weapons except pistols, the grip is largely empty.
It would be easy enough to install the smartlink on the side the customer
prefers, and if the gun has removable grip plates (like pistols), all you
need is a smartlink plate for each side, and install the one you need, or
both.

Also note that this only applies to smartguns feeding through a palm
induction plate. If you wear smart goggles (or have one of the smartlinks
from NERPS: ShadowLore) the gun is plugged into the goggles (or a
datajack) directly.

> Not to mention the fact that a second palm-link would be required and
> that the extra cross-hair in the viewing region from the second smartgun
> would add a target number penalty for distraction.....

Smartlinks don't give any TN modifiers when you use a gun in both hands,
so in essence you can say they impose a +2 modifier that negates their
normal -2.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
You've got to go there and find it, my friend.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 34
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@****.ORG>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 07:17:38 -0600
david lowe wrote:
|
| One of the better movies I've seen regarding "movie gun realism" lately is
| Executive decision. It has a few scenes with special ops types taking out
| some bad guys and they actually aim their weapons and fire in short,
| controlled bursts. Its nice to see a film where supposedly combat trained
| soldiers actually act like they know how to use their weapons.

"Heat" (which was discussed on this list when it first came out) has
an outstanding example of suppressive fire with automatic weapons.
"Grosse Point Blank" also has some fairly realistic gun and fight
scenes, and an excellent TV scene (you gotta see it :).

-David
--
/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\ dbuehrer@****.org /^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\
"His thoughts tumbled in his head, making and breaking
alliances like underpants in a dryer without Cling Free."
~~~http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm~~~~
Message no. 35
From: Lars Fucking Olsen <larsols@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 14:42:33 +0200
On Thu, 8 May 1997 TEGTMEBC@******.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU wrote:

> Lars whined incesantly:
> > On Wed, 7 May 1997 21:53:49 EDT, Peter David Boddy
<pdboddy@****.CARLETON.CA> said:
>
> > Well, I know this has been a hot topic, but if you study what I
> > actually wrote, you'll see that I only talk about fireing at one
> > target. (not that I don't think a master gunfighter can't hit two
> > separate targets :)
>
> So you want some really good runners to be able to hit two people at
> the same time? They can do it in the movies, I'd love someone to try it in real
> life. Granted, Shadowrun is geared to be played rather cinematically, but I
> don't think we need cinema to be Rambo, or Schwartzinegger. Do we? It looks
> good on film to have the characters do crap like this, but what a lot of GMs
> want, is some semblance of REALISM. If they wanted the characters to be Rambo,
> they'd play some game like **&*. That way the characters would all be able to
> fall off thousand foot cliffs, stand up, brush themselves off, and go on their
> merry way. Just because it happens in the movies, doesn't mean it SHOULD happen
> in a game as good as SR.

Ok, you are talking about realism and so on, then you go on to critizise
AD&D :))....Well... Without (unspeakable game) I seriously doubt we would
ever have Shadowrun. And the two games are not that different really. You
have Elves, trolls, drows, magic and so on. True it's thrown together
with Gibson, but it's not like SR is so terribly realistic is it?
Perhaps you deal with magic and lasers everyday, but i don't.

>
> > > Hehehhehe, now consider Cyberpunk 2020, where you can have two extra arms
> > > attached...yes, I have tried firing four pistols at once, and I have to
> > > tell ya, my character threw a lot of lead downwind, but didn't hit much.
> > > The enemy kept his head down though....
>
> > Spare me...:)
>
> > > If you want to shoot a lot of bullets, and hit lots of targets, make a
> > > munchy troll, and carry a minigun... =).
>
> > I really would like people to agree that shooting with two guns at one
> > target is not as preposterous as some want it to be.
>
> Well, if you would like people to agree with you here, I'll do it. It
> isn't preposterous to shoot two guns at the same time at the same person.
> However, it is preposterous to think you could hit them with either of them, if
> you aren't favoring either gun.

I think it is mentioned somewhere else (either on this list or in the
newsgroup, that there exist people who can do everything with both hands
with equal success..
Building on that, if you are sufficiently proficient at doing something
with one hand, you should be able to do ut with the other, hence the
ambidexterity rule. (and my suggestion of allowing 2 smartlink, which
should be technically feasable in 2058)

> > Some present
> > ridiculus reasons for it not to be feasable, while the real reason is
> > just to prevent munchkinism. I only want it to be possible, cuz it
> > looks really cool :)
>
> Now this is the most intelligent reasoning I've ever heard. The reasons
> against it happening are rediculous, even though you haven't said why not, and
> to top it off, you only want it "cuz it looks cool." OK, let's try an
> experiment, shall we? Let's go down to the firing range and shoot two guns at
> the same time. After your wrists heal, you can write us whether it's a good
> idea to have people shooting "two fisted" and expecting to hit jack. I just
> know you'll have a differing opinion.

bah! (ie: i don't have time to write more :)
>
> -The Immortal Mental
>
> PS- If this sounds rather pointed, its because it's supposed to, the whole
> notion of shooting two guns at once just isn't as wonderful as you might think.
>

yeah yeah

-lars
Message no. 36
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 13:45:27 +0100
|
|Jason Griffiths said on 18:48/ 8 May 97...
|
|> Since smart gun links are palm pads, and the great majority of people are
|> right handed
|
|About 1 in 10 is left-handed (I read somewhere that in animals it's
|closer to 50/50, BTW).

But.... but animals don't HAVE hands....

:)


--
______________________________________________________________________________
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
|Andrew Halliwell | |
|Principal subjects in:- | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
|Comp Sci & Electronics | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 37
From: Peter David Boddy <pdboddy@****.CARLETON.CA>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 10:49:52 EDT
L Canthros writes:
> I can see SMGs, plausibly. It wouldn't be easy, but it would be possible
> (Hey, anything's possible). Anything above that usually requires two
> hands.

Yeah I could see it, SMG's can use shock pads, can't they? Though I doubt
that they could be fired on full auto...

> [...]
> >Hehehhehe, now consider Cyberpunk 2020, where you can have two extra
> arms
> >attached...yes, I have tried firing four pistols at once, and I have to
> >tell ya, my character threw a lot of lead downwind, but didn't hit much.
> >The enemy kept his head down though....
>
> And there probably wasn't much left of anything around where he was
> aiming:)

Every window, and three tires, of the car had been shot out. Boy, the guy
I was shooting at was pissed, it was his car.

> >If you want to shoot a lot of bullets, and hit lots of targets, make a
> >munchy troll, and carry a minigun... =).
>
> No, make a munchy troll and get your GM (a close friend) to allow you to
> use a specially modified Vigilant cannon. And don't laugh. We had a guy
> that did that before I was GM.

Yikes! How did he walk around with that? Can't hide that under a jacket...

Pete

Pete aka Spitfire
Test your might...
at http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/8920/index.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter David Boddy
Carleton University
Email address: pdboddy@****.carleton.ca
Email address: bx955@*******.carleton.ca
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 38
From: "Faux Pas (Thomas)" <thomas@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 10:18:09 -0500
At 12:47 PM 5/9/97 +0100, Gurth whispered:
>Grendel said on 16:20/ 6 May 97...
>
>> What I'm asking myself, is, can a smartlink support 2 weapons? If not, does
>> the smartlink can handle 1 of the weapon or does it freak and do
nothing? To
>> me, the smartlink freaks a little and do not add the -2 bonus.
>
>SRII supports this (page 90), but I think it's not for the reason you
>give. Smartlinks, smart goggles, or laser sights don't give any TN
>modifiers when you use two guns, but I assume this is because the rules
>assume it's hard to keep track of which red dot (or crosshair) belongs to
>which gun. Even if you use two different colors for the different guns,
>IMO it's hard to track them both at the same time.

But it would be worth it for the auto clip eject feature (one complex
action to replace both clips instead of two actions) or the feature that
displays how many bullets are left in each gun.


-Thomas Deeny
Visit http://telltale.hart.org - faster, stronger, better than before!

"... what character deserves to be left alone more at the end of the world
than that idiot Ash?"
-Bruce Campbell on the dropped ending for _Army of Darkness_
Message no. 39
From: tom Cone <Brother-1@*****.NET>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 05:28:47 -1000
>auto eject feature (one complex action...
Okay, but you have to put a gun down in order to load the other one. I
don't think you're really saving time this way, unless you drop one of
the guns after emptying the clip.

Brother-1. Decker for hire.
>Visit Dot's Deck Technologies! Just north of the Sea-TAC!
Message no. 40
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@****.ORG>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 09:35:55 -0600
Faux Pas wrote:
|
| At 12:47 PM 5/9/97 +0100, Gurth whispered:
| >Grendel said on 16:20/ 6 May 97...
| >
| >> What I'm asking myself, is, can a smartlink support 2 weapons? If not, does
| >> the smartlink can handle 1 of the weapon or does it freak and do
| nothing? To
| >> me, the smartlink freaks a little and do not add the -2 bonus.
| >
| >SRII supports this (page 90), but I think it's not for the reason you
| >give. Smartlinks, smart goggles, or laser sights don't give any TN
| >modifiers when you use two guns, but I assume this is because the rules
| >assume it's hard to keep track of which red dot (or crosshair) belongs to
| >which gun. Even if you use two different colors for the different guns,
| >IMO it's hard to track them both at the same time.
|
| But it would be worth it for the auto clip eject feature (one complex
| action to replace both clips instead of two actions) or the feature that
| displays how many bullets are left in each gun.

Or having a couple of shotguns and being able to adjust the choke
with a free action (I'm thinking of a troll with muscle augmentation
and bone lacing doing this with custom designed shotguns, not a
normal human).

-David
--
/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\ dbuehrer@****.org /^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\
"His thoughts tumbled in his head, making and breaking
alliances like underpants in a dryer without Cling Free."
~~~http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm~~~~
Message no. 41
From: Tuvyah@***.COM
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 11:56:58 -0400
My two cents-

I find that I need two things to fire a gun effectively: A supported, steady,
flexible arm (to cushion the recoil); and an eye that's focused on the target
while I pull the trigger. Both of these requirements would have to be
addressed before I accepted two-gun fire.

I use my second hand to support my first; perhaps with cyber-enhanced arms
the lack of this support in two-gun fire would no longer be a problem. (I
seem to recoil a gyro-mount cyberarm in Cybertechnology....)

The aiming issue is more difficult. Even with a smartlink, I need to look
directly at the target when I fire; peripheral vision is not enough. If you
are aiming both guns at a single target, and you have cyber-arms, it might be
possible to wire your off-hand to move and track in unison with your primary
hand; but I think that would also burn more essence.

As for aiming and firing at SEPARATE targets, I have a lot of trouble with
that. I don't think it's possible no matter how many smartlinks you've got.
You'd need a special separate coordinating chip that would be doing most of
the thinking and aiming for you. This would be expensive, essence-intensive,
and kinda dangerous -- after all, even chips make mistakes, and this one has
massive influence over your gun hands....

Two final notes:

1. "You'll break your wrist!" And I'll poke my eye out running around with
that pencil, too. ;-) I've fired 9mm semi-autos one-handed. My accuracy
stunk, but my wrists were unfractured. There probably are guns that will
damage an unsupported wrist; it's not axiomatic, though.

2. Firing two guns means each hand is only a few feet away from the other
hand's gun. Given the semi-auto penchant for throwing hot brass casings and
the hot gasses that can come from any gun (particularly with magnum loads),
there could be problems....


Smilin' Ted
"...who knows why he's smilin'."
Message no. 42
From: "Faux Pas (Thomas)" <thomas@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 10:58:44 -0500
At 05:28 AM 5/9/97 -1000, tom Cone whispered:
>>auto eject feature (one complex action...
>Okay, but you have to put a gun down in order to load the other one. I
>don't think you're really saving time this way, unless you drop one of
>the guns after emptying the clip.

Is it possible to load a clip into a pistol without setting the pistol
down? I know I've seen it done in several movies (when they actually
bothered to reload, so I take that with a grain of salt).

Only fired two guns in his entire life over the course of one weekend,
-Thomas Deeny
Visit http://telltale.hart.org - faster, stronger, better than before!

"... what character deserves to be left alone more at the end of the world
than that idiot Ash?"
-Bruce Campbell on the dropped ending for _Army of Darkness_
Message no. 43
From: Lars Fucking Olsen <larsols@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 18:08:40 +0200
On Thu, 8 May 1997, Jason Griffiths wrote:

> Since smart gun links are palm pads, and the great majority of people are
> right handed, I find it extremely unlikely that mass-produced weapons
> with smart-gun circuitry would be set up for left-handed people. Hence,
> it would cost plenty of nuyen to get a left-handed smart-gun. Not to
> mention the fact that a second palm-link would be required and that the
> extra cross-hair in the viewing region from the second smartgun would
> add a target number penalty for distraction.....

You would still only have one crosshair, since I want to shoot at one
target with 2 guns..
When I suddenly change my mind, I will have 2 crosshairs yes, but only if
I choose to continue the left handed smartlink.. should not be difficult
wireing that to a free action.

-lars
Message no. 44
From: Tuvyah@***.COM
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 13:41:54 -0400
>>Is it possible to load a clip into a pistol without setting the pistol
down? I know I've seen it done in several movies (when they actually
bothered to reload, so I take that with a grain of salt).

Of course. IF you have one hand free. (Tom Cone was talking about having both
your hands full -- "you have to put a gun down in order to load the OTHER
one") The clip release on most semi-autos is near your thumb. Press it, the
empty clip falls out of the handle (ideally) and you put another clip in.

But you need one free hand to put the full clip in and (in most semi-autos)
work the slide so that the first round is chambered.

Smilin' Ted
"...who knows why he's smilin'."
Message no. 45
From: tom Cone <Brother-1@*****.NET>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 10:56:07 -1000
>possible to load a clip into a pistol without >putting it down?
Yes, but if you're firing two guns you have to free up a hand to put
another clip in. I can't think of another way to do it.

Brother-1. Decker for hire.
>Visit Dot's Deck Technologies! Just north of the Sea-TAC!
Message no. 46
From: L Canthros <lobo1@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 17:38:22 EDT
On Fri, 9 May 1997 10:49:52 EDT Peter David Boddy
<pdboddy@****.CARLETON.CA> writes:
>L Canthros writes:
>> I can see SMGs, plausibly. It wouldn't be easy, but it would be
possible
>> (Hey, anything's possible). Anything above that usually requires two
>> hands.
>
>Yeah I could see it, SMG's can use shock pads, can't they? Though I
doubt
>that they could be fired on full auto...

Don't know if they can use shock pads, it might depend on the SMG (not
all of them have stocks/shoulder braces, I don't think).



[..]
>> >If you want to shoot a lot of bullets, and hit lots of targets, make
a
>> >munchy troll, and carry a minigun... =).
>>
>> No, make a munchy troll and get your GM (a close friend) to allow you
to
>> use a specially modified Vigilant cannon. And don't laugh. We had a
guy
>> that did that before I was GM.
>
>Yikes! How did he walk around with that? Can't hide that under a
jacket...

First, who said he bothered to hide it? His character was the main reason
I asked everyone to make new characters about the time I took over as GM.
Second, before I started playing, rules were not even considered. Add in
a severe lack of common sense and you wind up with Strength 22, full
milspec, the modified Vigilant and a penchant for sniper rifles (because
they did they most damage outside of cannons). As a note on how badly
out-of-whack this character was, he wasn't actually a troll, he was a
race pulled off a post from Compuserve (strength bonus was +2). The race
was balanced OK, but Racial maximums were not even considered <sigh>. I
think the fact that this guy isn't playing SR these days is one main
factors in reducing the munchiness of the current campaign.

--
-Canthros
And ye shall know the truth, and lobo1@****.com
the truth shall set you free. canthros1@***.com
--John 8:32, KJV
http://members.aol.com/canthros1/
Message no. 47
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 23:30:29 +0100
In message <199705090049.CAA29372@***.uio.no>, Rune Fostervoll
<runefo@***.UIO.NO> writes
>Just a quick question.. what kinds of modifiers would you (any one of
>you) use for someone using two Ruger Warhawks? AFAIK it is a single
>shot gun, and single shot weapons can fire as a simple action but
>only once per action. It would, technically, be an ideal two-fist
>weapon since you use two simple actions to fire, no fuzz, no double
>firing.

And Wild West heroes blaze away with a Colt Frontier in each hand
without problems :)

>common Movie Combat Misconceptions..
>
>First off would be the overly effective silencers. I mean, I've used
>silenced weapons, and it's actually hard to notice a difference.
>The sound isn't supposed to carry as well, though.
>In some movies, though, they can fire a silenced gun in a quiet room
>and not get heard by someone else in the room! Right.

Silencers do reduce the noise a lot. From about 160dB peak impulse to
120dB for a Knight Armaments suppressor on a Beretta 92, for instance.
Translates to greatly reducing the distance at which the shot is
recognisable at gunfire: but still enough to make your ears ring in a
confined space.

(120dB is, roughly, a sledgehammer on thick steel or a 747 on final
approach overhead, by the way...)

>The Energizer Bunny Fight: all end of movie fights are,
>usually, long, and end after most involved has taken enough damage to
>kill them several times over.

Except bad guys, hit once, spin around and backflip off high catwalks to
fall through plate glass windows, while good guys hit once curse and
keep moving.

>The Hip - fired assault rifle: In movies, they actually hit. In
>movies, the elite units and heroes fire this way.

>Any other suggestions?

The napalm hand grenade that emits a huge cloud of flame and throws
people bodily through the air.

Whistling artillery.

Artillery shells that land a few feet from someone yet leave them
unhurt.

Nobody uses tracer, even from helicopter door guns and similar.

The most flimsy structure will withstand .50cal machine gun fire while
the hero is using it as cover.

Never enough smoke or noise.

Nobody ever has their foot slip on an empty cartridge case.

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 48
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 23:24:12 +0100
In message <v01540b00af987ff91481@[140.174.162.181]>, david lowe
<dlowe@****.COM> writes
>One of the better movies I've seen regarding "movie gun realism" lately is
>Executive decision. It has a few scenes with special ops types taking out
>some bad guys and they actually aim their weapons and fire in short,
>controlled bursts. Its nice to see a film where supposedly combat trained
>soldiers actually act like they know how to use their weapons.

"Clear and Present Danger" was also excellent in this regard.

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 49
From: Dale Talbert <LuvsAmanda@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Sat, 10 May 1997 00:11:07 -0400
I think that 2 SMG's could be used....with some difficulty.
For instance, a character with sufficient strength and/or the new cyberarm
gyromounts could pull it off.
Message no. 50
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Sat, 10 May 1997 12:09:43 +0100
Faux Pas (Thomas) said on 10:58/ 9 May 97...

> Is it possible to load a clip into a pistol without setting the pistol
> down? I know I've seen it done in several movies (when they actually
> bothered to reload, so I take that with a grain of salt).

Just about any magazine-fed firearm (IRL excluding cannons and some
machineguns) can be reloaded with one hand, since you need the other to
hold the weapon. For a pistol, how fast this can be done depends on where
the magazine catch is located and whether there's a spring pushing the
magazine out -- in a lot of pistols, the magazine release is behind the
trigger guard and can be pushed by the thumb of the firing hand (if you're
right-handed; in some it can be installed for left-handed shooters too)
and the magazine falls out of the weapon (pushed by a spring), leaving
your left hand to grab a full magazine and insert it into the weapon.

Other pistols require the left hand to operate the catch (at the
bottom of the grip) and pull the empty magazine out, then use that same
hand to take and insert a full magazine.

In any case, it would be very difficult to load any weapon when you're
holding a gun in each hand. With the first type of pistol (or SR
smartguns), you could eject the magazine from at least one of the guns,
but then you'd have to put one or the other down to actually reload.
Unless you're holding a magazine between your teeth, or something...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
It wouldn't work. My face is too expressive.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 51
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Sat, 10 May 1997 12:09:43 +0100
Peter David Boddy said on 10:49/ 9 May 97...

> Yeah I could see it, SMG's can use shock pads, can't they?

The SR rules are very confusing about which weapons can take which
accessories, but I allow shcok pads to be put onto any weapon that has a
stock you can put against your shoulder. Of course they only work when
you actually do put it against your shoulder :)

> Though I doubt that they could be fired on full auto [with one hand]...

Firing them? Sure. Hitting anything? Not likely...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
It wouldn't work. My face is too expressive.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 52
From: Smedley <smedley@***.COM.AU>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Sat, 10 May 1997 22:59:04 +1000
TEGTMEBC@******.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU wrote:
> > ridiculus reasons for it not to be feasable, while the real reason is
> > just to prevent munchkinism. I only want it to be possible, cuz it
> > looks really cool :)
>
> Now this is the most intelligent reasoning I've ever heard. The reasons
> against it happening are rediculous, even though you haven't said why not, and
> to top it off, you only want it "cuz it looks cool." OK, let's try an
> experiment, shall we? Let's go down to the firing range and shoot two guns at
> the same time. After your wrists heal, you can write us whether it's a good
> idea to have people shooting "two fisted" and expecting to hit jack. I just
> know you'll have a differing opinion.

haven't you ever seen Desperado? any John Woo films? Not too
realistic, the two-weapon users don't have chance of hitting a barn door
at 2 paces, but damn it makes for fast paced, FUN action. Now, i dunno
about you, but next time i sprint from cover to cover, randomly blazing
away in the vague hope that this will keep the heads of my assailants
down, i think that cranking away with two pistols would be far cooler
than with one. remember, Shadowrun isn't (usually) about sensible
people, its about money-hungry, gunslinging criminals; the flamboyancy
factor is a biggy. And as for realism: if you go by the canon rules,
one cannot fire more than two rounds from a semi-auto in three second no
matter how mojoed or chipped they are:)
>
> PS- If this sounds rather pointed, its because it's supposed to, the whole
> notion of shooting two guns at once just isn't as wonderful as you might think.

i say style over substance, fun over grinding Rolemasterish realism:)
Message no. 53
From: Smedley <smedley@***.COM.AU>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Sat, 10 May 1997 23:06:27 +1000
MENARD Steve wrote:
> Does not matter what kind of system
> you have, be it laser of smartlink.
>

Big Black says that if you are using two guns simultaneously, then no
bonuses for smart links, laser sights, etc, are gained(page 90)
Message no. 54
From: The Digital Mage <mn3rge@****.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Sat, 10 May 1997 16:36:18 +0100
On Sat, 10 May 1997, Smedley wrote:

> haven't you ever seen Desperado? any John Woo films? Not too
> realistic, the two-weapon users don't have chance of hitting a barn door
> at 2 paces, but damn it makes for fast paced, FUN action. Now, i dunno
> about you, but next time i sprint from cover to cover, randomly blazing
> away in the vague hope that this will keep the heads of my assailants
> down, i think that cranking away with two pistols would be far cooler
> than with one. remember, Shadowrun isn't (usually) about sensible

I must agree with this, my current character has the Ambidexterity Edge
and enough strength to counter 1 point of recoil. Last night he was
running towards a limo with both guns (Colt Manhunters) blazing aiming for
the troll driver. He actually ended up having less chance of doing damage
but it looked damn cool:

Base TN: 5 (medium range), troll has cover +4, my character
was running +2, and has an aptitude for pistols -1. Base TN: 10

Firing two guns the TN would be modified +2 for each shot and no laser
sight. Final TNs: Right hand 12, left hand 12, right hand 12, left hand 13
(recoil kicks in).

Firing only one gun TN would be modified by laser sight -1, final TNs: 9,
9.

Despite those odds I still chose to do the former as it was realistic to
want to fire off as many rounds as possible, and it had good intimidation
factor.

If the cover modifier hadn't been in place teh TNs would have been 8
versus a 5, much better chance of hitting firing only one gun but not as
fun!

But then last nights game was quite cinematic - I ended up killing a
Wendigo by ramming it with a Nightsky and driving at full speed at a brick
wall preying the limo's armour and APPS would save me (it did!).

The Digital Mage aka Grant Erswell - mn3rge@****.ac.uk
"Sadder still to watch it die, than never to have known it"
-Rush, Losing It
Message no. 55
From: "MARTIN E. GOTTHARD" <s457033@*******.GU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Sun, 11 May 1997 13:36:46 +1000
> factor is a biggy. And as for realism: if you go by the canon rules,
> one cannot fire more than two rounds from a semi-auto in three second no
> matter how mojoed or chipped they are:)

Umm, where's the reference you got this one from??? The way we play, you
can unload 2 shots out of a pistol every action, which makes it up to 8
per 3 seconds.

As an aside; If you've got two guns, and you're prone to hosing off
at full auto-fire, you're better off using the covering fire rules out
of F.O.F. 20 rounds through a 1m2 area, with a 4 TN to hit isn't bad
with 20 dice; An average of 10 successes, or 5 bullets, will hit a target.

Marty
Message no. 56
From: Smedley <smedley@***.COM.AU>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Sun, 11 May 1997 15:07:46 +1000
MARTIN E. GOTTHARD wrote:
> Umm, where's the reference you got this one from??? The way we play, >you can
unload 2 shots out of a pistol every action, which makes it up >to 8 per 3 seconds.

don't you mean 4 rounds per 3 seconds? or is 8 a maximum for those who
are enhanced?

> As an aside; If you've got two guns, and you're prone to hosing off
> at full auto-fire, you're better off using the covering fire rules out
> of F.O.F. 20 rounds through a 1m2 area, with a 4 TN to hit isn't bad
> with 20 dice; An average of 10 successes, or 5 bullets, will hit a target.
>
> Marty

Big Black, page 92: "Firearms that are capable of firing in
semi-automatic mode can fire up to twice in one Combat Phase. Each shot
requires a simple action".

oops. <hide.in.corner> guess i didn't read it properly:) still, the
average slob should be able to fire more than 2 shots in 3 seconds:)

i decided that i didn't like the canon rules, and ditched them ages
ago. in my game, a semi-auto can fire once per simple action, or a
character can spend a complex to fire up to their fiearms score in
shots(min. 3). I treat these as i would burst fire for damage, etc, so
6 shots fired at one person is as quickly resolved as one shot. Note
that burst and FA weapons also have higher rates of fire in my game (SA
and BF guns can't potentially fire at equal rates).
Message no. 57
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Sun, 11 May 1997 12:04:34 +0100
Smedley said on 15:07/11 May 97...

> Big Black, page 92: "Firearms that are capable of firing in
> semi-automatic mode can fire up to twice in one Combat Phase. Each shot
> requires a simple action".
>
> oops. <hide.in.corner> guess i didn't read it properly:) still, the
> average slob should be able to fire more than 2 shots in 3 seconds:)

The way I see it, the SR rules assume you aim your shots, and the time
between actions is taken up by aiming. It would make sense to allow
average people to fire only two aimed shots in three seconds, even though
they'd be able to fire many more if they just pull the trigger as fast as
it will go.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
It wouldn't work. My face is too expressive.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 58
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Sun, 11 May 1997 09:11:24 +0100
In message <Pine.SOL.3.91.970511133252.24301G-100000@*****.student.gu.ed
u.au>, "MARTIN E. GOTTHARD" <s457033@*******.GU.EDU.AU> writes
>As an aside; If you've got two guns, and you're prone to hosing off
>at full auto-fire, you're better off using the covering fire rules out
>of F.O.F. 20 rounds through a 1m2 area, with a 4 TN to hit isn't bad
>with 20 dice; An average of 10 successes, or 5 bullets, will hit a target.

Hell with that. Get a pair of Ingram SuperMachs :) Thirty rounds into
one metre, averaging seven hits.

It's about all those things are good for...

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 59
From: "Arno R. Lehmann" <arlehma@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Sat, 10 May 1997 23:49:15 +0200
On Fri, 9 May 1997 14:42:33 +0200, Lars Fucking Olsen wrote:

<snip SR<>Reality and 2 guns, ambidexterity etc. ... you all know>

>Perhaps you deal with magic and lasers everyday, but i don't.

I'll send you a watcher to prove the existence of magic...
:)

One more thing to consider when trying to shoot with your off-hand is
your way to look. I think that most beople look equally with both eyes,
but not all. I for example simply can't focus, or target anything with
my right eye. So I have to shoot with my left hand, although I'm
right-handed like most of you. Using my "right" eye with my "wrong"
hand does not make me better at shooting (with bows at least).
And I can't even close my left eye, which makes things like using
cameras designed for right-eyed people more difficult.

Perhaps this would be a nice flaw for the companions CharGen rules
(never looked in that book, but did read a lot about it on this list)

<snipping more>

--
Arno
*********************************************************************
Be careful when replying to this mail - check the address !!!
(And send me a note when you notice that
the reply-to-address points to the list!)
*********************************************************************
Message no. 60
From: "Paul J. Adam" <paul@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Sun, 11 May 1997 23:27:15 +0100
In message <199705111903.TAA350897@****.ibm.net>, "Arno R. Lehmann"
<arlehma@***.net> writes
>One more thing to consider when trying to shoot with your off-hand is
>your way to look. I think that most beople look equally with both eyes,
>but not all. I for example simply can't focus, or target anything with
>my right eye. So I have to shoot with my left hand, although I'm
>right-handed like most of you.

With pistols, I shoot right-handed but left-eyed (I'm right-handed but
left-eye dominant).

With rifles, I just concentrate on my right eye and get good results
anyway.

>And I can't even close my left eye, which makes things like using
>cameras designed for right-eyed people more difficult.
>
>Perhaps this would be a nice flaw for the companions CharGen rules
>(never looked in that book, but did read a lot about it on this list)

Yeah, it does complicate things. Rifle's OK, but it took me a while to
discover which pistol style suited me best (close my left eye, shoot
left-handed, shoot opposite eye and hand)


--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 61
From: Smedley <smedley@***.COM.AU>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 17:37:57 +1000
Gurth wrote:
> The way I see it, the SR rules assume you aim your shots, and the time
> between actions is taken up by aiming. It would make sense to allow
> average people to fire only two aimed shots in three seconds, even though
> they'd be able to fire many more if they just pull the trigger as fast as
> it will go.

while this is true, its rather unfair of the game to assume this.
afterall, the rules completely ignore the fact that if you DO want to
pull the trigger as fast as you can, you should be able to,accuracy be
damned. Similarly, the fact that all standard full auto weapons fire 10
rounds per complex is just a little weird, when you consider that some
present day auto weapons can empty their entire clips in a second or
so..

also, if time was being taken to realign the gun and take aim after
every simple action shot, why does the second shot incurr recoil
penalties? food for thought.. i love rationalising things that don't
seem to make sense, particularly in rpg mechanics:)
Message no. 62
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 10:43:53 +0100
Smedley said on 17:37/12 May 97...

> while this is true, its rather unfair of the game to assume this.
> afterall, the rules completely ignore the fact that if you DO want to
> pull the trigger as fast as you can, you should be able to,accuracy be
> damned.

Let's see, most games assume a max of 4 rounds per second on semi-auto
(can anyone with hands-on firearms experience confirm or deny this?).
Since in SR a combat turn is about 3 seconds long, that's 12 rounds. For
ease and to compensate for the Simple Action in which you can fire two
rounds, let's say 10 rounds per 3 seconds. So divide the highest
Initiative in the turn by 10 to find how many Combat Phases must pass
between shots. Then allow each character an unaimed shot (say, +4 or +8
TN?) by spending a Free Action in those Combat Phases.
For SS weapons, double this time. BF weapons may fire a burst, and FA
weapons may fire 3 rounds too.

For example, a turn where the highest initiative is 16, every 1.6 Combat
Phases everyone may spend a Free Action to shoot a SA weapon once, or
every 3.2 Phases for a SS weapon. The easiest way to round this off would
be to do it like this:

Action Weapon type that may fire
16 SA, SS
15 none
14 SA
13 SA,SS
12 none
11 SA
10 SA,SS
9 none
8 SA
7 SA,SS
6 none
5 SA
4 SA,SS
3 none
2 SA
1 none

> Similarly, the fact that all standard full auto weapons fire 10
> rounds per complex is just a little weird, when you consider that some
> present day auto weapons can empty their entire clips in a second or
> so..

And some can't. SR uses a very simplified system for autofire rates in
order to keep the rules simple and the number of weapon stats down. It
wouldn't be hard to write up new stats for the exact ROF for each
individual weapon, though.

> also, if time was being taken to realign the gun and take aim after
> every simple action shot, why does the second shot incurr recoil
> penalties? food for thought..

Double-tapping? You aim the weapon, then pull the trigger rapidly twice.
The second shot will end up near the first, if you do it right, but its
aim does suffer from the first round's recoil.

> i love rationalising things that don't seem to make sense, particularly
> in rpg mechanics:)

Are you a trekkie? :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
... just ... for ... FUN ... !
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 63
From: Shaun Sides <arch@****.ABTS.NET>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 08:44:04 -0500
Date: 12 May 97 Time: 17:37
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule

TO: Smedley

> also, if time was being taken to realign the gun and take aim after
> every simple action shot, why does the second shot incurr recoil
> penalties? food for thought.. i love rationalising things that
> don't seem to make sense, particularly in rpg mechanics:)

That's certainly an interesting point. The way the rules are
written, it's as if there were a pause between action phases, during
which the character recovers from the recoil of the 10-round FA
burst he just fired. In truth, the guy's next action occurs
immediately after that burst, so it wouldn't be outlandish, IMO, for
some sort penalty to be applied based on the action(s) take in the
immediately preceding action phase.

a chaoidh teabadaich,

Shaun Sides
arch@****.net
http://www.abts.net/~arch

And now for something completely different,
a man with a phonograph in his nose.
Message no. 64
From: Lars Fucking Olsen <larsols@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 15:23:13 +0200
On Sat, 10 May 1997, Gurth wrote:

> but then you'd have to put one or the other down to actually reload.
> Unless you're holding a magazine between your teeth, or something...

Oh no, you do not know what you have done. The munchkins will now be seen
all over seattle with a clip or two in their mouths!!!


-lars
Message no. 65
From: Lars Fucking Olsen <larsols@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 15:45:22 +0200
On Sat, 10 May 1997, Arno R. Lehmann wrote:

> On Fri, 9 May 1997 14:42:33 +0200, Lars Fucking Olsen wrote:
>
> <snip SR<>Reality and 2 guns, ambidexterity etc. ... you all know>
>
> >Perhaps you deal with magic and lasers everyday, but i don't.
>
> I'll send you a watcher to prove the existence of magic...
> :)

I'm still waiting!! I'm gonna banish the moffo too you know. I have a
weapon foci (my playstation joypad!!)


-lars
Message no. 66
From: tom Cone <Brother-1@*****.NET>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 03:55:33 -1000
>I have a weapon foci!(my playstation joypad!!)
Images of decker/physads... tasty...

Brother-1. Decker for hire.
>Visit Dot's Deck Technologies! Just north of the Sea-TAC!
Message no. 67
From: Caric <caric@********.COM>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 05:41:29 -0700
| That's where an encephalon comes in. Without multitasking, you can't even
| _look_ at more than one person at a time (not and focus on them, anyway).
| With multitasking, it might (might!) be possible to focus in each eye on
| a separate target. You might consider requiring a certain level of
| encephalon to do this. If you decide to allow it.

And cybereyes so you can move your eyes in oposite directions from one
another. =)


-Caric


Word to the wise... Never anger a dragon, for you are crunchy, and would
be good with brie!!!

-Karl Teranssen av Drakkar
Message no. 68
From: Caric <caric@********.COM>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 12:02:55 -0700
| Two final notes:
|
| 1. "You'll break your wrist!" And I'll poke my eye out running around
with
| that pencil, too. ;-) I've fired 9mm semi-autos one-handed. My accuracy
| stunk, but my wrists were unfractured. There probably are guns that will
| damage an unsupported wrist; it's not axiomatic, though.

I agree whole heartedly with this...i've fired 9mm as rapidly as I could
with my off hand from the hip, and while I didn't hit jack I wasn't
physically harmed in anyway.

| 2. Firing two guns means each hand is only a few feet away from the other
| hand's gun. Given the semi-auto penchant for throwing hot brass casings
and
| the hot gasses that can come from any gun (particularly with magnum
loads),
| there could be problems....

Well if the guns are different the casings could be going away from the
shooter on both sides. There is always caseless ammo as well for a little
more money. Worst i've ever seen was a Browning that liked hitting the
shooter in the forehead.

| Smilin' Ted
| "...who knows why he's smilin'."

And whipe that smirk off your face mister... =)

-Caric


Word to the wise... Never anger a dragon, for you are crunchy, and would
be good with brie!!!

-Karl Teranssen av Drakkar
Message no. 69
From: Tuvyah@***.COM
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 01:41:40 -0400
>>| Smilin' Ted
| "...who knows why he's smilin'."

>>And whipe that smirk off your face mister... =)

>> -Caric

I can't. You see, why I'm smilin' is because....

("No. It's too terrible. They can't face the truth yet!")
Message no. 70
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 10:24:21 +0100
Lars Fucking Olsen said on 15:23/12 May 97...

> > but then you'd have to put one or the other down to actually reload.
> > Unless you're holding a magazine between your teeth, or something...
>
> Oh no, you do not know what you have done. The munchkins will now be seen
> all over seattle with a clip or two in their mouths!!!

A better way that should allow you to reload a pistol with one hand (after
some practice, perhaps) would be to wear some kind of velcro-covered vesr,
then put velcro on the bottom of the magazines as well. Stick the mags
onto the vest so they stand out from your body, and hey presto!

It may not be all that practical, however :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
... just ... for ... FUN ... !
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 71
From: "MARTIN E. GOTTHARD" <s457033@*******.GU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 20:38:02 +1000
> u.au>, "MARTIN E. GOTTHARD" <s457033@*******.GU.EDU.AU> writes
> >As an aside; If you've got two guns, and you're prone to hosing off
> >at full auto-fire, you're better off using the covering fire rules out
> >of F.O.F. 20 rounds through a 1m2 area, with a 4 TN to hit isn't bad
> >with 20 dice; An average of 10 successes, or 5 bullets, will hit a target.
>
> Hell with that. Get a pair of Ingram SuperMachs :) Thirty rounds into
> one metre, averaging seven hits.
>

Yeah, well..... I decided to leave some room for improvement. ANother
good combo would be a grenade launcher/ supermach.

I _like_ those things; It's the only time you get to use half your
body-weight in ammo.

Marty
Message no. 72
From: The Digital Mage <mn3rge@****.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 13:20:54 +0100
On Tue, 13 May 1997, Gurth wrote:

> A better way that should allow you to reload a pistol with one hand (after
> some practice, perhaps) would be to wear some kind of velcro-covered vesr,
> then put velcro on the bottom of the magazines as well. Stick the mags
> onto the vest so they stand out from your body, and hey presto!
>
I can just see it now, the runner known as Porcupine!


The Digital Mage aka Grant Erswell - mn3rge@****.ac.uk
"Sadder still to watch it die, than never to have known it"
-Rush, Losing It
Message no. 73
From: Bull <chaos@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 08:25:08 -0400
At 10:24 AM 5/13/97 +0100, Gurth wrote these timeless words:
>Lars Fucking Olsen said on 15:23/12 May 97...
>
>> > but then you'd have to put one or the other down to actually reload.
>> > Unless you're holding a magazine between your teeth, or something...
>>
>> Oh no, you do not know what you have done. The munchkins will now be seen
>> all over seattle with a clip or two in their mouths!!!
>
>A better way that should allow you to reload a pistol with one hand (after
>some practice, perhaps) would be to wear some kind of velcro-covered vesr,
>then put velcro on the bottom of the magazines as well. Stick the mags
>onto the vest so they stand out from your body, and hey presto!
>
>It may not be all that practical, however :)
>
I don't usually get into these gun discussions, but I've just had one
thought about velcroing teh clips like that...

Think of all the exposed ammo just waiting to be cooked off by a fireball!

Goodness, not even the protection of a pocket or a pack/pouch!

And imagine if you had a clip in between your teeth!

<innocent grin>

I just WISH i had players this stupid...

<Hell, lately, I just wish I had players! Maybe it is time to give GMing
SR another go... I'm still working on my EGM merit badge...:)>

Bull
--
Now the Offical Celebrity Shadowrn Mailing List Welcome Ork Decker!
Fearless Leader of the Star Wars Mailing List
NEW HOME PAGE!: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/3604/home.html

Bull, aka Steven Ratkovich, aka Rak, aka a lot of others! :]

"The best Ork Decker you never met"
-Me, in the upcoming "Target: UCAS" Shadowrun Sourcebook!
Message no. 74
From: Lars Fucking Olsen <larsols@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 19:31:17 +0200
On Tue, 13 May 1997, Gurth wrote:

> Lars Fucking Olsen said on 15:23/12 May 97...
>
> > > but then you'd have to put one or the other down to actually reload.
> > > Unless you're holding a magazine between your teeth, or something...
> >
> > Oh no, you do not know what you have done. The munchkins will now be seen
> > all over seattle with a clip or two in their mouths!!!
>
> A better way that should allow you to reload a pistol with one hand (after
> some practice, perhaps) would be to wear some kind of velcro-covered vesr,
> then put velcro on the bottom of the magazines as well. Stick the mags
> onto the vest so they stand out from your body, and hey presto!
>
> It may not be all that practical, however :)

Sounds like something your runner buddies will tease you for.. and if you
fall. *ouch* :)


-lars
Message no. 75
From: Rune Fostervoll <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 22:46:58 +0000
> Lars Fucking Olsen said on 15:23/12 May 97...
>
> > > but then you'd have to put one or the other down to actually reload.
> > > Unless you're holding a magazine between your teeth, or something...
> >
> > Oh no, you do not know what you have done. The munchkins will now be seen
> > all over seattle with a clip or two in their mouths!!!
>
> A better way that should allow you to reload a pistol with one hand (after
> some practice, perhaps) would be to wear some kind of velcro-covered vesr,
> then put velcro on the bottom of the magazines as well. Stick the mags
> onto the vest so they stand out from your body, and hey presto!

Well, how did Willis do it in Last Man Standing? He used two guns and
changed clips fairly often, I seem to remember. A while since I saw
it though...


"But the dread of something after death,
The undiscovered country, from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have,
Than fly to others that we no not of."
Message no. 76
From: "Arno R. Lehmann" <arlehma@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 02:34:32 +0200
On Mon, 12 May 1997 15:45:22 +0200, Lars Fucking Olsen wrote:

>> >Perhaps you deal with magic and lasers everyday, but i don't.
>>
>> I'll send you a watcher to prove the existence of magic...
>> :)
>
>I'm still waiting!! I'm gonna banish the moffo too you know. I have a
>weapon foci (my playstation joypad!!)

So now you admitted that there _is_ magic! I'm very satisfied.

[And let's end this OTness without subject line now before Fro or Mark
send any Elementals or Deckers :]

--
Arno
*********************************************************************
Be careful when replying to this mail - check the address !!!
(And send me a note when you notice that
the reply-to-address points to the list!)
*********************************************************************
Message no. 77
From: David Thompson <david.s.thompson@****.EDU>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 18:15:57 -0400
At 10:46 PM 5/13/97 +0000, you wrote:
>> Lars Fucking Olsen said on 15:23/12 May 97...
>>
>> > > but then you'd have to put one or the other down to actually reload.
>> > > Unless you're holding a magazine between your teeth, or something...
>> >
>> > Oh no, you do not know what you have done. The munchkins will now be seen
>> > all over seattle with a clip or two in their mouths!!!
>>
>> A better way that should allow you to reload a pistol with one hand (after
>> some practice, perhaps) would be to wear some kind of velcro-covered vesr,
>> then put velcro on the bottom of the magazines as well. Stick the mags
>> onto the vest so they stand out from your body, and hey presto!
>
>Well, how did Willis do it in Last Man Standing? He used two guns and
>changed clips fairly often, I seem to remember. A while since I saw
>it though...
>
I'm pretty sure he tucked one under is arm, reloaded the other, and then
switched -- it sure took a while. I know I saw someone do that in a movie.

--DT
Message no. 78
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 23:39:18 +0100
In message <199705132050.WAA28277@***.uio.no>, Rune Fostervoll
<runefo@***.UIO.NO> writes
>Well, how did Willis do it in Last Man Standing? He used two guns and
>changed clips fairly often, I seem to remember. A while since I saw
>it though...

Van Damme did it in Hard Target by the simple expedient of:

1 - drop both magazines

2 - tuck one gun under his arm while reaching for spare mag

3 - replace magazine in the pistol he's still holding

4 - repeat for the other hand.

Reasonably expedient. Call it a Free Action to drop the magazines if
both guns are smart and the PC has a dual smartlink, else it's a Simple
(it's just thumbing the magazine releases and giving a practiced flick
of the wrist to drop the empty out): one Simple Action to reload one,
another Simple to swap hands, another to reload the other.

Three or four Simple Actions. Not too onerous, but maybe enough time to
make a difference under fire.

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 79
From: Zach Hall <fdelirium@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 22:36:08 -0400
>Well, how did Willis do it in Last Man Standing? He used two guns and
>changed clips fairly often, I seem to remember. A while since I saw
>it though...

He had two clips taped together, or at least attached somehow. Maybe he
just grabbed two clips. He then put both pistols in one hand, and slammed
both clips in with the other. Then he broke the guns apart (breaking the
tape).
Message no. 80
From: L Canthros <lobo1@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 22:17:44 EDT
On Mon, 12 May 1997 05:41:29 -0700 Caric <caric@********.COM> writes:
<snip requiring encephalon>
>
>And cybereyes so you can move your eyes in oposite directions from one
>another. =)

Point taken, and noted:) The eyes would probably have to be specially
modified though, or else they'd simply move normally.

--
-Canthros
And ye shall know the truth, and lobo1@****.com
the truth shall set you free. canthros1@***.com
--John 8:32, KJV
http://members.aol.com/canthros1/
Message no. 81
From: Lars Fucking Olsen <larsols@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Wed, 14 May 1997 16:30:51 +0200
On Tue, 13 May 1997, L Canthros wrote:

> On Mon, 12 May 1997 05:41:29 -0700 Caric <caric@********.COM> writes:
> <snip requiring encephalon>
> >
> >And cybereyes so you can move your eyes in oposite directions from one
> >another. =)
>
> Point taken, and noted:) The eyes would probably have to be specially
> modified though, or else they'd simply move normally.

Hmm..Why stop at two independent eyes? Why not get eyes at the back of
your head implanted, plus an extra arm or two. With some geneering on the
brain, this shouldn't be impossible :)
Sounds like a cool NPC at least...IEGG (impossibly evil gm grin)


-lars
Message no. 82
From: Shaun Sides <arch@****.ABTS.NET>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Wed, 14 May 1997 11:30:55 -0500
Date: 13 May 97 Time: 18:15
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule

TO: David Thompson

> I'm pretty sure he tucked one under is arm, reloaded the other, and
> then switched -- it sure took a while. I know I saw someone do that
> in a movie.

Antonio Bandaras does it in "Desperado"

Excellent flick for the less than squeamish. :)

a chaoidh teabadaich,

Shaun Sides
arch@****.net
http://www.abts.net/~arch

Thought for the day:
Book (n): a utensil used to pass time while waiting
for the TV repairman.
Message no. 83
From: L Canthros <lobo1@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Wed, 14 May 1997 21:11:05 EDT
On Wed, 14 May 1997 16:30:51 +0200 Lars Fucking Olsen
<larsols@***.UIO.NO> writes:


>Hmm..Why stop at two independent eyes? Why not get eyes at the back of
>your head implanted, plus an extra arm or two. With some geneering on
>the
>brain, this shouldn't be impossible :)
>Sounds like a cool NPC at least...IEGG (impossibly evil gm grin)

Add in a third eye in the forehead, multiple smartlinks, high level
encephalon abilities, a tactical computer, skillwires, lots of sensory
enhancements, etc, etc:) Lots o' fun!

>:)
--
-Canthros
And ye shall know the truth, and lobo1@****.com
the truth shall set you free. canthros1@***.com
--John 8:32, KJV
http://members.aol.com/canthros1/
Message no. 84
From: "Faux Pas (Thomas)" <thomas@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 09:59:32 -0500
At 04:30 PM 5/14/97 +0200, Lars Fucking Olsen whispered:

>Hmm..Why stop at two independent eyes? Why not get eyes at the back of
>your head implanted, plus an extra arm or two. With some geneering on the
>brain, this shouldn't be impossible :)
>Sounds like a cool NPC at least...IEGG (impossibly evil gm grin)

Yeah, and the runners can meet the four-eyed, three-armed freak at a bar
where he's on yet another alcoholic binge because every woman he asks out
runs away in terror. And don't *even* get him started on buying clothes.
"Go to a Big and Tall Men's store? Right - Excuse me miss, do you have
something like this but with two extra sleeves? Frag! I've got to shop at
outlet malls and dig around the irregular bin for a real screwed up shirt!"

Street Name: "Freakshow" or "Four-Eyes"




-Thomas Deeny
Your Guide to Shadowrun - http://shadowrun.miningco.com
Thomas's World is http://telltale.hart.org - come visit!

"... what character deserves to be left alone more at the end of the world
than that idiot Ash?"
-Bruce Campbell on the dropped ending for _Army of Darkness_
Message no. 85
From: Rune Fostervoll <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: Re: Stupid 2 gun rule
Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 04:34:06 +0000
> >Hmm..Why stop at two independent eyes? Why not get eyes at the back of
> >your head implanted, plus an extra arm or two. With some geneering on
> >the
> >brain, this shouldn't be impossible :)
> >Sounds like a cool NPC at least...IEGG (impossibly evil gm grin)
>
> Add in a third eye in the forehead, multiple smartlinks, high level
> encephalon abilities, a tactical computer, skillwires, lots of sensory
> enhancements, etc, etc:) Lots o' fun!
>
Hm. Check out the 'Cyberzombie' in Cybertech. He has that cyberarm
mount with an Ares MP-LMG and in his gear it's listed two Ares Alpha
combat guns. Doesn't that give the impression he's intended to use
all three at once?

Rune
--
"But the dread of something after death,
The undiscovered country, from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have,
Than fly to others that we no not of."

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Stupid 2 gun rule, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!