Potential Problems with Arms & Equipment Book

[iamtim]

Well, as I posted above my knowledge of arms is next to nil, so using the term "rifle" for any long gun would have been more than acceptable to me before this thread.

Since this thread, however, I've done some research and dictionary checks and "rifle" is, in fact, all sorts of the incorrect term.

Do I care? Am I caring about that? Hmm. I think yes, especially considering that "long gun" would have worked in the book as a direct replacement for "rifle" as far as I can tell, and would have been correct. At least if Wikipedia is to be believed:

A long gun is a firearm with an extended barrel, usually designed to be fired braced against the shoulder. Barrels of such weapons commonly extend to around 50 cm or longer, giving considerable accuracy and range.

Most modern long guns fall into one of two categories, rifles or shotguns, distinguished by their design and type of projectile they fire. Historical examples of long guns include muskets, blunderbusses, Kentucky Rifles and wall guns.

Long guns are at the opposite end of the firearm size spectrum from derringers and handguns, and are longer than carbines.

As far as I can tell, "longarm" is synonymous with "long gun".

So while I normally think most (read: not all) of the problems with MRQ are invented or overblown, this one has definite merit.

 

[AKAramis]

uh??? what you all bothered by that for?

Because it is wrong and it is sloppy.

Yep, that's how I feel too.

I generally hate "Me, Too" posts, but in this case, I'm adding one.

It is sloppy, irresponsible, and bad form. Not to mention dead wrong.

 

[RMS]

Anger, what? Oooookay, let me check the thread...

RPG.net is one of the nicest calmest forums I've ever been too...

TO each their own.

Same here. Heck, a good portion of that thread is myself and a couple of old players just having some fun...hardly the case of anyone being angry in any way. In general, I've found that RPG forums (rpg.net and here) are far calmer than most of the other forums I frequent. When people start challenging each other to actually meet to "settle their differences" (and actually do it), then you've got anger issues....though at least they work them out to an extent!

 

[haargald]

Sorry, didn't really mean to bash RPG.net, just I've seen a lot of posts on company sites where the disgruntled, angry, or generally teed off bring up such and such thread at rpg.net, kind of gives the impression that it is a haven for "misery loves company" types.

 

[Nickbergquist]

Ugh! I started a thread over on thsi subject at rpg.net.....sort of regret doing so. My main issue was the idea of insuring accuracy in the text, and how I don't think being historically accurate about firearms detracts from the product or hurts those who don't know better or care; and it makes those who do care about such little details happy. Somehow, it seems that making any suggestions like that turn in to a "why do you hate the game so much?" and "I hate this game now because of posters like you," nonsense. Argh.

You know what, I think that the A&E, just from the preview, is going to be a very nice book. I can readily overlook any technical issues like the rifling vs. smoothbore simply because I'll assume its all fantasy tech anyway. It would be nice to have perfection in everything, but it's not terminal in this case. Frankly, I love the new MRQ and am agonized at how long its taking the FGLS in my area to get my new Companion and Monsters books in. I think some healthy critiquing, like in this thread, is not a bad or wrong thing; there's nothing like a forum for constructive criticism. For some reason though, people often seem to assume that if you say "I have an issue with this one thing about MRQ" that that by extension means "I hate MRQ and want to see it burn to the ground." yeesh!

Okay, bottom line: I am looking forward to this book and all the others. It would be nice if the book could be fixed to be more accurate, but will not probably make or break the book by any means, but I suspect that the book is already in its final stages, maybe already at the printer, and therefore will not likely be fixable at this point. But again, it's a small, modest detail that neither detracts nor impairs the value of the book overall, although the book would be just that tiny bit better if it were fixed.... :wink:

 

[burdock]

nick bergquist wrote

I can readily overlook any technical issues like the rifling vs. smoothbore simply because I'll assume its all fantasy tech anyway. It would be nice to have perfection in everything,

This is how I have felt about the subject. It seemed such a minor thing to me to seem hardly worth mentioning. Though my views have changed about few people being bothered by it - as a fair amount of people here have expressed that they wish the facts were historically correct.

Another thing - im never likely to use firearms in an rpg (other than crazy mostali contraptions) so my views of the insignificance of the issue is likely to be biased.

 

[Durand Durand]

The day I decide to use guns in a Gloranthan Fantasy Game (what RQ is all about -for me-), just shoot me
(*wink*)

The irony is that I'm into RQ mainly for Glorantha too. However, guns do appear in Glorantha if you have dwarves around.

...and without dwarves you can kiss your precious Iron goodbye! Besides guns, dwarves invented lots of stuff... crossbows, grenades and disorder kegs too. Somebody say bomb?! Ahh ha ha ha!

DD

 

[Exubae]

nick bergquist wrote

Quote:

I can readily overlook any technical issues like the rifling vs. smoothbore simply because I'll assume its all fantasy tech anyway. It would be nice to have perfection in everything,

I agree if this supposed be a generic fantasy book... but if its scope is broader - an all settings book then it should be more specific... IMHO

If this is a core book then surely it is supposed to be setting non-biased, so I assume it could be used in other settings not just fantasy;
If your playing in 1600's then smooth bore is going to be the only weapon of choice.
In more modern settings rifled weapons are going to be the thing.

Paul

 

[duncan_disorderly]

I am definitely not a "gun nut" - (in a game of Aftermath I was asked if my character wanted an SLR, and I was puzzled what use a camera would be on an armed raid) - but I have known the difference between a Rifle and a smoothbore weapon since at least the age of 10. So I would say go for simplicity, but not at the expense of being factually incorrect. (One would not expect the melee weapons to be divided into "Spears" and "Swords" and to then find Axe, Mace and Dagger all listed as "Swords", just because they are all wielded (or can be wielded) one handed...)

I also don't understand the authors supposition that no player would care about the difference, even if they knew it - one only has to look at the long history of detailed firearms rules in "modern" and "near future" rpg's to realise there are a number of people to whom the differences between one model or calibre of rifle/pistol/other gun is of vital importance, never mind the difference between entire classes of weapon. That is definitely a level of detail to far for me.

 

[B_Steele]

...authors supposition that no player would care about the difference...

To be fair, I never said that NO player would care; merely that the common player would not. From the response here, in PMs, and on RPG.net I still believe that to be the case...

That said, it seems that there are at least more RQ players/fans out there that DO in fact care about using an industrially-accepted fallacy for the fluff of a weapon than I believed to be the case. I'll make note of that for the next projects in which this could be an issue.

Like I said earlier, I am always open to good criticism. Some of the notes on here have been a touch on the "personal" side; but you have to have thick-skin as a professional in this industry. Because, at the end of the day, there will always be someone, somewhere who does not like your work for whatever reason and raises a flag for others to rally to.

Such is the nature of the industry these days; although seeing words like sloppy, wrong and patronising in description of anything I have penned stings a little...I love my job. Even if it comes with a few online lumps from time to time. 8)

Take care all, and cheers to those who have PM'd me on this subject;
Bry

 

[RMS]

That said, it seems that there are at least more RQ players/fans out there that DO in fact care about using an industrially-accepted fallacy for the fluff of a weapon than I believed to be the case. I'll make note of that for the next projects in which this could be an issue.

That's all I was asking for and it's good to hear.

 

[klingsor]

Good god, I make one post on a Friday and go off for a weekend and when I come back it has grown like topsy.

I have no intention of using black powder in Runequest myself (actually I have no intention of using it for Glorantha at all) but I think it will be very, very useful for other games using the same system. Pirates spring to mind immediately. Having one system that covers everything from fire hardened wooden spears to Mini-14s is going to be handy.

Runequest looks as if it is going to evolve into one system that can be used for limited run games in experimental settings. So if I have a great idea for a scenario set in Elizabethan England I can use Runequest or if it is a stone age vampire hunt (for which I do have a great idea for a scenario about the first vampire) I can use Runequest. I know GURPS has been able to do this for decades but though I love the source books I do not really care for the system (speaking as someone with several yards of GURPS books).

Most games I have known fall into two clear categories, gun bunny or neophyte. Our group is about 50:50 – two who know, two who don't (it is really, funny if one of them is GMing a modern game with guns "Yes, you can have Barretts") and one who thinks he does but doesn't.

The downside is that I have seen characters who are largely described by their choice of weapon – a phenomenon not restricted to modern or SF settings of course.

 

[TRose]

Might add most characters would in






Might add most people in Glorantha would not have the slightesat idea on how to use a gun even if they found one. For example take the Blunderbuss, how many of you, even though you seen one, know how much gunpowder to use if you plan on shooting one. Too little and the bullet lands on your toes, too much and the weapon goes boom in your face. And how many of you know that you need to swab one out after it fires so you have no burning embers left in tube? Forget that little step and the powder might go boom sooner then you want and the broo you where shooting at will die of laughter instead of the way you where hopeing for.












Mightlorantha

 

[zanshin]

mmm

Not one i would go to the wall about, but yes i would have preferred a distinction between 'rifles' and 'muskets'

And even rifled pistols as well

Main difference after range /accuracy is speed to reload ; with muzzle loaders its quicker to reload a musket than a rifle.

For me some level of chrome or detail adds to the fun.

Also means when you get to play American revolutionary Deadlands with the MRQ rules you can distinguish between the heroic redcoats and the weasly backstabbing colonials with their unfair weapons :wink:

 

[farmer]

Hi all! First post, been lurking for many moons.

This subject caught my interest enough to warrant coming out of the shadows.

I agree with the thought that the text should have been written with a higher level of accuracy regarding firearms. Will it affect how the game plays? Probably not, most people don't generally care about that level of histoical accuracy. But for those that do......

Historically, the first battlefield arms were the handgonne, a barrel on the end of a stick, which was largely a psychological menace as it was difficult to aim but produced a bang, flash and smoke. It wasn't until the late 15th century that the arquebuise appears with a stock that allows the user to aim and fire thus increasing accuracy and usefullness. Another improvement was the caliber of the shot. Prior to the invention of the musket in the late 16th century the pistols, carbines, calivers and arquebuses fired a shot not bigger than 40/100 of inch across (40 caliber).

In fact one thought I had regarding the usuage of firearms was in regard to its effect on armour. In the late 16th century in was possible for armourers to make 'pistol proof' armours cabable of resisting the small size shot (actually proofing armour dates back to crossbows, but that is another subject!). The musket was different from it predecessors in that it had a longer barrel, increasing accuracy, and fired a larger, heavier ball about 70/100 of an inch (70 caliber) something capable of punching through armour of proof. When the musket became the common weapon on the battlfield in the 17th century armour was abandoned as it no longer protected the user from the most common threat (although musket proof armour existed it was too heavy to use in battle).

I guess what I am trying to say is that in introducing firearms to an fantasy rpg there is the possibility of upsetting the balance of believibility in the game that causes reactions as have been posted.

Wow! That was long. Guess I did have something to say :!:

[/quote]Main difference after range /accuracy is speed to reload ; with muzzle loaders its quicker to reload a musket than a rifle.

For me some level of chrome or detail adds to the fun.

Also means when you get to play American revolutionary Deadlands with the MRQ rules you can distinguish between the heroic redcoats and the weasly backstabbing colonials with their unfair weapons

A good thing to point out about loading. But we redcoats don't mind using rifle and trees either

 

[Gnarsh]

That said, it seems that there are at least more RQ players/fans out there that DO in fact care about using an industrially-accepted fallacy for the fluff of a weapon than I believed to be the case. I'll make note of that for the next projects in which this could be an issue.

Just an observation, and please take this in the constructive manner I intend it. While your post goes a long way, and is certainly good intentioned, given the number of different issues within the MRQ product which people have criticized, many of which have at least the appearance of having been caused by either inattentiveness or lack of adequate error checking (the sloppy and wrong stuff), referring to any component of the game design as "fluff" somewhat mutes the meaning of your words.

While I'm sure you didn't intend it that way, it makes it appear as though the details just aren't that important to you (unless "fluff" has an entirely different meaning where you're from). I really don't want to beat a dead horse here, but that's really not going to encourage folks reading this forum, many of whom are already a tiny bit frustrated with the state of the game so far.

Every detail of a game like this is important. It's exactly the little things that set a great game appart from the masses of mediocre ones out there. Hehe. And I think most RuneQuest players want MRQ to be a "great game". So when we criticize, remember that it's not because we're meanies or something, but because we really do care about the game. Every little thing has meaning...

 

[burdock]

this has been a good history lesson. I have an interest in the history of firearms now

 

[mthomason]

unless "fluff" has an entirely different meaning where you're from.

In this case I don't believe Bry meant it in a negative way. Its just that game designers are beginning to use the term simply as shorthand for "important background material I need to write alongside the rules"

I, like you, am more used to seeing it used in a negative way by players "don't worry about that, thats just the fluff, the rules and game balance are more important". I still think of it as a derogatory term personally, mostly because I hate seeing cool settings referred to as being unimportant next to the rules. I usually play a game because of the setting, with the rules coming in as secondary to a good game background. That's more from a wargaming perspective on my part (where I rate accuracy and adherence to background material as being twice as important as game balance), but it has led to my dislike of the word.

But yeah, to cut my rambling off and get back to the point, "fluff" is seeing some use as a shorthand term rather than a derogatory one nowadays

 

[B_Steele]

But yeah, to cut my rambling off and get back to the point, "fluff" is seeing some use as a shorthand term rather than a derogatory one nowadays

In the industry there are really only three parts of any given product:

1> art (self-explanatory)
2> crunch (rules-based information)
3> fluff (narrative story and background information)

That's what I meant, that the descriptions in the preview were just "fluff", as in no hard rules (like damage and Load time, etc.). Sorry for any confusion!

Bry

 

[Gnarsh]

S'ok. I just saw the word and kinda went "hmmm...".

I just tend to see too many game treat fluff as "fluff", if you know what I mean...