| From: | Mark A Shieh SHODAN+@***.EDU |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Red Dot Sights |
| Date: | Fri, 2 Jul 1999 11:44:37 -0400 (EDT) |
> Seriously, this is something that has to be experienced rather than
> explained. So much of weaponscraft is like that, and is the reason why
> groups that are made up of folks you don't have clue about shooting,
> fencing, staffing, knife fighting or unarmed generally use a "hollywood"
> combat model, while groups that are made up of real life "combat monsters"
> get nasty, gritty and realistic.
I think you're overgeneralizing. I made one attempt at
outlining a proper "realistic" unarmed combat system between 2 or more
strikers (I don't have that much experience outside my style, and only
a bit with weapons), and stopped bothering when I realized how much
work it would take to make it realistic. Basically, I'd want a
computer to crunch numbers or it'd bog down, as there were too many
variables to really want to track by hand.
A "hollywood" combat model is easier to implement, since the
physics aren't as well defined. Shadowrun is storytelling, and combat
is something I'd like to be able to finish as quickly as possible. As
it is, 30 seconds of solid combat might take 2 hours of real time, and
that's way too much already. If I wanted realism in combat, I'd go
play a wargame.
IOW, I'd rather play a decent "hollywood" combat system than a
really slow realistic combat system or a not-quite-realistic but
faster combat system. I haven't found a realistic combat system that
obeys KISS and runs quickly, so I'll stick with "hollywood". (And as
far as shooting goes, I wouldn't recogize realistic anyways.)
Mark
