Implementation and balance of ranged weapons

[Derren]

Ranged weapons are very often a problem in RPGs (and I do not mean the supposed armor penetration ability of early firearms against medieval/renaissance armor).

In RPGs where melee weapons are also heavily used they have to balanced them with ranged weapons. This often means that ranges weapons have quite a short range (after all, it is not fun for melee characters to fight against ranged enemies they can't reach or having the ranged characters kill all enemies before the melee characters can engage) and also either do less damage than melee weapons and/or are at a disadvantage when in melee. If that is not the case, why use melee weapons at all?
This disadvantage in melee raises a other issue. The balance between damage and HP. Ranged weapons gain their power from being able to kill enemies at range before they can harm you (unless they also have ranged weapons). But in systems with HP inflation this is most of the time impossible. The enemies have so much health that you can't kill them before they engage in melee, negating most advantages ranged weapons have.

Ranged weapons also have a other issue apart from that. You no not need to move much, if at all when having a ranged weapon. At any point you can attack an enemy, no matter where he is. So you need a very good reason why you should do something else than attacking. Sure, one round is spend getting to cover, if the system gives a large enough bonus for it, but after that you are just trading shots with the enemy. You can try to flank, but here the system needs to balance the power of cover and the need to flanking. If cover is too strong then fights where it is not possible to flank take forever. If it is too weak then there is no point in flanking instead of doing damage.

A perfect balance is hard, if not impossible to do. So where is your preference, and for which type of setting?
Ranged weapons with a long range which might make it hard for melee characters to get into combat when used at maximum range or short range weapons which negates much of their advantage over melee weapons?
Ranged weapons which can kill enemies before they can engage or weapons which can only tickle the enemy before it becomes a melee combat?
Ranged combat where you are standing your ground and shoot at an enemy till someone drops dead or combat where there is no much point in attacking unless you can somehow flank the enemy?

 

[Andor]

Ranged Weapons are only a problem when you are trying to cram your preferred playstyle down the players throats by configuring the machanics to favor the "Right" way to play.

If you ignore the spectre of badwrongfun then the problem goes away.

Honestly for most of history the decider between whether bows or spears would win any particular battle was the terrain. The French Chevalliers armour was pretty much proof against English longbows for example, but they lost anyway at Agincourt because they tried chargeing up 300 yards of muddy hill insteady of a slower advance though the woods. Earlier at Poitiers the archers couldn't harm the knights but instead killed their mounts, and the French fell to the English field fortifications and superior tactics.

I personally favor simulationist aesthetics in game design. I say let the game model the technology (including magic) you want the world to possess and let them persue it to it's logical ends.

 

[Foxwarrior]

Remember, Halo has fairly rapid long-ranged kills, but the "smash enemy in face with gun" button is still important.

Striking a perfect balance is actually quite easy, because so many different balances in the range are fun.

 

[Derren]

Remember, Halo has fairly rapid long-ranged kills, but the "smash enemy in face with gun" button is still important.

Thats not really a PnP RPG, isn't it?

 

[Foxwarrior]

If you take your inspirations from further away, you seem more creative.

 

[Derren]

If you take your inspirations from further away, you seem more creative.

1. I am not creating anything so I do not need "inspiration" here. I just wanted to hear the thoughts of others on the subject and their preference.

2. A single player FPS video game is a "little bit" different than a group based PnP RPG, so you can't just adapt the mechanics.

 

[Crothian]

Depends on the game. In D&D ranged weapons can be useful but in most dungeons it is tough to use them effectively as hallways and rooms are narrow and small. In modern era games guns are the assumed way of combat and it's balanced since most everyone uses them. In Star Wars the same can be said but the Wookie still charges forth to attack with the Vibro Axe over the Bowcaster.

 

[Derren]

In modern era games guns are the assumed way of combat and it's balanced since most everyone uses them. In Star Wars the same can be said but the Wookie still charges forth to attack with the Vibro Axe over the Bowcaster.

Actually ranged weapons are "balanced" because no one expects them to be balanced. They are supposed to be much better than melee weapons (and it gets quite silly when this isn't the case and everyone is just using them because of the setting. At least till a player looks at the stats and then starts using melee weapons and convices the others to do, too).
In fantasy settings (including Star Wars) ranged weapons are harder because the mentioned balance problem with melee weapons applies.

 

[Argyle King]

Time is also a factor to take into consideration.

How much time does it take to fire a bow versus swing a sword. If the guy across from me just fired his arrow at my friend, he now needs to draw from his quiver, knock the arrow, and fire. There are systems in which each step of that requires time instead of simply being assumed to all happen right away (like is usually the case in D&D.) If I can close the distance between myself and him, I can then engage him in melee; a position in which his bow is now ineffective.

If we're talking a more modern game with guns, there's aren't too many situations in which a melee weapon is going to be better than a rifle or a machine gun. If the opponent is using some sort of large cumbersome weapon, they may have a hard time dealing with a quick melee opponent (similar to the bow example above,) but it's my belief that most of the time the combatant with the ranged weapon is going to win.

Other considerations might be cost and opportunity . Something like a M2 Browning Machine Gun is going to cost more than most people can afford, and, even they can afford it, there's likely not a whole lot of opportunity to legally acquire one. Military grade hardware usually (but certainly not always) has regulations and legal hurdles associated with it that are not associated with other types of equipment. Even then, the cost of ammunition is going to be high compared to other options. In contrast, I can go to the local sporting goods store and purchase many things which can be used as deadly weapons for a price which is probably less than even just the ammo for some ranged weapons.

 

[tomBitonti]

Military grade hardware usually (but certainly not always) has regulations and legal hurdles associated with it that are not associated with other types of equipment.

In some settings (the UK, China), even non-military weapons are even hard to have legally. In very particular settings (say, a passenger air plane) any weapon at all might be difficult to have.

Isn't visibility the bane of ranged weapons? That, and friendly fire, are (somewhat) limiting factors.

Thx!

TomB