Stunners too powerful?

[alex_greene]

It's a lot better than having Imperial Marines turning up to quell a protest wearing Battle Dress, with gauss guns and PGMPs.

Yes, honestly, gamers and Referees seriously consider this option.

 

[phild]

I can't say I've used Stunners, but they do sound OTT. I just suggest you try and alternative, see how it goes, and let us know the results.

Some options might be:
- separate lethal from stunning damage (as many games do) and make stun weapons do 4d6S, which heals back in a minute or two.
- Stunner rolls 2d6 damage: on a double, it does damage, plus END roll with penalty equal to the lowest of the two dice.
- Stunner does 1d6 damage, with END save equal to the roll
- Stunner does no damage, and always forces END save at -X

Give it a go, and see. Sometimes playtesting a few options is the only way to find a rule that fits your personal expectations of game reality.

 

[Anonymous]

Hmmm ... in the real world the police special forces use our technology
level's version of stun grenades ("flash-bang-grenades") in the most
complicated and dangerous situations (e.g. hostages taken by armed
criminals) exactly because these "stun" grenades are "irresistable" and
almost always incapacitate all of their targets at once (although only for
brief moments).

Since I would expect the high tech versions of such "stun" grenades to
be even more efficient than our "flash-bang-grenades" today, I do not
consider stun weapons in Traveller as too powerful.
And as for your example with the pirates in the cargo hold, I consider
the results of the use of the stun grenade as perfectly "realistic" and
plausible - this is exactly what this kind of grenades is intended to do,
I think.

 

[rust]

Hey, you silly forum software, it is me, rust, not some guest ... :roll:

 

[Anonymous]

As to its lethality - there have been incidences, but as usual the media is not a good source of factual information.

Indeed. To a very large degree, the media seems to thrive on peddling fear and the associated kneejerk reactions and outrages, so it's always worth viewing any such reports in that light.

cheers!
Colin

 

[Anonymous]

I think the issue with stunners then, is really this: how realistic do you want their effects to be, because if they model reality well, they are going to be extremely effective indeed.

 

[Woas]

The message board is getting real uppity with all these Guests...

Currently my issue has zero connection to what real stun weapons do. My issue rests with the seemingly superior game mechanic stun weapons employ over other weapons.

I think the issue with stunners then, is really this: how realistic do you want their effects to be, because if they model reality well, they are going to be extremely effective indeed.

Personally I have a couple ideas in mind but none are concrete yet. Stunners should be a deterrent but not a game ender. There are two areas that I see that are the source of the issue:

1) As Alex Greene stated above, crowd control shouldn't have to be handled with lethal rounds to present a high enough threat for people to 'back down'. If non-lethal force was used for crowd control, the Riot Squad would have a crowd of collapsed, sleeping people. Once they woke up they wouldn't be any worse the ware though, as other than be forced to take a quick cat nap, there is no threat.
The stun mechanic is too "On/Off". Since having an unconscious character during a deadly engagement where your opponent could simply do what they wish with your knocked out character, then the effect becomes too much.

So therefore, I think that stun damage needs to be looked at again. Firing lethal ammo at a crowd or person has a trackable, in game effect... their actual stats are reduced. With stun you are either Ok or knocked out. So a system where the stun damage is trackable (does not necessarily have to follow the same lines as lethal damage) would be helpful.

2) The effect itself knocks out the target(s) with a single Endurance check for at least 1 minute (as per the rules of being knocked unconscious). Actually the rules don't really say anything about the unconsciousness of stun. I get the 1 minute rules from the Unconsciousness paragraph, page 74. This also needs to be looked at because I feel it is somewhat of an excessive consequence for being 'stunned'.
The first thing I would change and try is to make the stun mechanic work the same as it currently does with Endurance check an all, but instead of being completely knocked unconscious the target is 'disorientated' for 1d6 rounds. Disorientated = can only perform minor actions.
But the above still doesn't answer the first issue of having that in game consequence to keep someone from wanting it to happen to them.

 

[rust]

The stun mechanic is too "On/Off". Since having an unconscious character during a deadly engagement where your opponent could simply do what they wish with your knocked out character, then the effect becomes too much.

If I would see this as a problem (which I do not), I would change the si-
tuation in the setting in a way to make it very difficult to obtain stun wea-
pons, but I would not sacrifice what I consider "realism" in order to deal
with a perceived rules problem.

 

[BP]

I don't believe that any non-lethal weapon can be guaranteed to be non-lethal every time.

Definitely!

- non-lethal means non-lethal intent - but if you hit a human in the 'right way' just about anything can be lethal (your thumb and only a marginal exertion is quite enough). Non-lethal weapon is sorta a poor combination of words.

Anything you throw or launch should have that potential, and anything that effects the neuro-muscular system doublely so - especially in unusual situations (combat stress, dangerous environs such as cargo holds ).

In Traveller it may be overkill to provide for this except when done intentionally.

BTW: Excellent comments Guest - really well put - you should consider joining

 

[BP]

... perceived rules problem.

I'm still wondering if this isn't more balanced than its being presented as (haven't had research time - still getting exposed to MGT Core and HG)?

I myself have mis-interpreted, mis-read and just plain missed important balancing mechanisms in many games (and posts ) over the years!

 

[whtknght]

Having effective stun weapons encourages their use. All good, really.

A 'flesh wound' with a tazer is going to have a better chance of incapacitating than one by a slug round.

I like it better when the group stuns the natives instead of mowing them down with submachineguns. It also keeps the starport security from poking around the ship after you subdued the gang that tried to steal your cargo.

Dead locals attract more attention than stunned locals. And most players have something that they don't wan't security from discovering.

 

[whtknght]

I don't believe that any non-lethal weapon can be guaranteed to be non-lethal every time. Every target is different, and in a different situation - they may just fall to the ground twitching, or they may die if hit several times, or they may have a heart condition, or a million other different reasons. IMO there should always be a risk.

In Bootcamp, I had Bayonet training. Later when I went through security training, I learned to use batons and riot sticks. The difference between Bayonet training and baton training is what you aim at. One you aim for the head, the other you aim for the body. One is lethal, the other is "non-lethal". Lethal and non lethal can just be how you use it

 

[Vile]

I don't like overpowered stunners for the same reason I don't like gravitics - it makes things too easy. If stunners are that reliable, they will become the method of choice for dealing with anything, to the detriment of the game. Need to get into a building unobserved? Why bother acquiring the blueprints, blackmailing the security guy, deactivating the alarm system and setting up a diversion at the starport across town? Just stun everyone! Etc.

I think stunners presented in this way are too much of a magic bullet. PCs should not have to base their choice of weapons on their effectiveness alone - there are a million reasons why non-deadly force is preferable in SF games, such as law level, access to lethal weapons, noise, disposing of dead bodies, not to mention simple good roleplaying. Most Traveller characters should be civilised enough not to go around killing people at the drop of a filter mask.

So, I will be revisiting the stunner rules IMTU. Either they work like tazers, disabling you only as long as the current keeps flowing, or they actually knock you out. Anything powerful enough to knock you out is going to cause some permanent damage. Nor will they will they be 100% harmless, certainly not if over-used.

 

[EDG]

I don't like overpowered stunners for the same reason I don't like gravitics - it makes things too easy. If stunners are that reliable, they will become the method of choice for dealing with anything, to the detriment of the game. Need to get into a building unobserved? Why bother acquiring the blueprints, blackmailing the security guy, deactivating the alarm system and setting up a diversion at the starport across town? Just stun everyone! Etc.

Well it's got to be better than shooting people with actual guns?

 

[Vile]

What I'm saying is that there should be a lot of reasons in-game for not using guns, not just that stunners are better.

 

[BP]

... So, I will be revisiting the stunner rules IMTU. Either they work like tazers, disabling you only as long as the current keeps flowing, or they actually knock you out. Anything powerful enough to knock you out is going to cause some permanent damage. Nor will they will they be 100% harmless, certainly not if over-used.

By all means - but the rules are actually nicer than yours - they don't require any permanent damage or direct injury !


After examining the rules [Core pg60-66, pg87, pg101]
Stun appears fairly balanced IMHO - at normal initial combat range (Medium) it is DM -2 and at shorter ranges, the character must run away (or risk self-stun) - making them more vunerable during the round. With a 6m effective radius - it can be avoided by moving, and dodge and cover can still work - or it can be picked/kicked out of the air or off the ground right back at you (minor action - may mean they can still attack as well). and if the opponents are wearing combat or battle dress, the DMs make the stun unlikely to succeed.

Plus it is an all or nothing affair - it either stuns or doesn't - and thus leaves the thrower vulnerabe to counter attack.

Also, unconsciuosness is not permanent and opponents may come around with no direct lasting effects [Core pg 74]

 

[alex_greene]

I think medics tend to breathe a lot easier if they know their crews have gone into a stunner fight.

First of all, it'll save on the bandages - they'll be up and running, fully healthy, in a matter of hours, not days or weeks.

Second of all, they can get right back to work afterwards - same reason above.

Third, even though they'll feel hung over, their livers won't have suffered the expected long term damage of a night out on the town.

Of course, being knocked out means the characters have got to go through the tedious and predictable jeopardy of the unfeasibly slow death pit and fourth act villain gloat and evil plan exposition scene, but that's what the Referees will have been rehearsing on the bus all week so it hardly seems fair to deprive them of their little moment of glory, right?

 

[BP]

... - they'll be up and running, fully healthy, in a matter of hours, not days or weeks.

In MGT they are back in a matter of minutes (+1 DM each chance) [Core p74 - in the Encounters and Dangers section], with no ill effects mentioned (that I found)...

Of course, being knocked out means the characters have got to go through the tedious and predictable jeopardy of the unfeasibly slow death pit and fourth act villain gloat and evil plan exposition scene, but that's what the Referees will have been rehearsing on the bus all week so it hardly seems fair to deprive them of their little moment of glory, right?

Well put - you must be a Hollywood producer - I thought the name Alex Greene sounded familiar

 

[Gee4orce]

Perhaps there is readily available protection from stun weapons - helmets with integrated ear and eye protection that gives a big +DM to the roll to resist the effects ? If stun weapons are widely available, then is would be matter of course for anybody to wear this kind of protection (just like body armour has become standard for troops IRL).

Lasers are another potential issue that's explicitly dealt with in the rules: all helmets include eye protection, otherwise it's extremely easy to just blind your opponents with a laser, rather than kill them. This is a real world issue as it happens: it's human nature to look towards a bright light, which is exactly the thing you DONT want to do when it's a laser beam ! I think the geneva convention has been (or is going to be) amended to 'outlaw' blinding by laser....

 

[BP]

Perhaps there is readily available protection from stun weapons - helmets with integrated ear and eye protection that gives a big +DM to the roll to resist the effects ? If stun weapons are widely available, then is would be matter of course for anybody to wear this kind of protection (just like body armour has become standard for troops IRL).

There is - any armour [Core pg 101 - '...Endurance check with a negative DM equal to damage (after armour is subtracted)']. MGT Core is is non-specific as to nature of 'stun' - so protecting hearing/eyes/head may not be sufficient.

Lasers are another potential issue that's explicitly dealt with in the rules: all helmets include eye protection, otherwise it's extremely easy to just blind your opponents with a laser, rather than kill them. This is a real world issue as it happens: it's human nature to look towards a bright light, which is exactly the thing you DONT want to do when it's a laser beam ! I think the geneva convention has been (or is going to be) amended to 'outlaw' blinding by laser....

Eye protecion is listed as an option included for free in TL 9+ armour [Core pg 88].

Recall hearing that blinding with lasers was considered 'inhumane' (but apparently, maiming is ok). I saw a TV documentary that proported that Hitler was against gassing as a weapon (mustard gas? - some prior experience WWI experience) because it was 'inhumane'. I consider that more a (very poor) literary license by the shows writers/producers considering the concentration camps and trains car gassings. More likely there were 'practical' reasons not to use chemical weapons (inefficiency, friendly fire, fear of escalation, collateral damage to people and/or crops). Possibly a similiar thing holds true of 'banning' laser blinding

The 'hey, no fair, you neutralized my million dollar hardware by blinding its crew with your underhanded, cheap, third world laser tricks ...'.
Actually that sounds a lot like the complaint in 'Stunners too powerful?'...