In reply to The Marshall (msg # 895):

How was the lake Tony ? Have you seen this ?

http://www.drivethrurpg.com/pr...t?affiliate_rem=7242

In reply to Increase Trask (msg # 896):

What is this Traveler that I hear so much about? And I forgot how many gun bunnies are in this game.

Gun bunnies? Awww, cute.....

Reminds me of Bun-Bun from the Sluggy Freelance webcomic.

Marc

In reply to Tech. Sgt. Airen Crichton (msg # 897):

At this point I think it's too late to switch our rifles. Maybe save it for if and when you rescue Simon!

"Gun Bunny" is not just an RPG term for people who are interested in weapons but real-life military slang for an artillerist.

Often, but not all the time, this genre tends to draw the gun-bunnies. I remember in one rpol game I was in I got hassled by some players for talking about guns, and not the highest-tech milspec killing machines, you understand, but common home defence firearms. That reaction seemed a little odd and excessive, and then those players began a discussion of how kick-ass their D&D characters were in a completely different game. At least my discussion had some relevance to the particular game and genre we were playing, but under no circumstances is talking about your D&D character interesting to anyone else in the least.

Point being unless you restrict weaponry to rusty spoons and sticks (which could be interesting in itself) guns are pretty much part of this territory.

Added: as a note, when the CF transitioned to the C7/C8 (L119A1 in SAS/RM service) some of the old C1A1 (FN-FALs) were squirrelled away in various armouries. In Afghanistan some were brought back into service, refurbished and issued as marksman weapons.

Tony
This message was last edited by the GM at 05:52, Sun 06 Sept 2015.

Of course, you also have to remember that there are people from all over the world here and they bring with them their local views on firearms. To those of us from the UK there is no such thing as a 'common home defence firearm' - private gun ownership is actively discouraged here. If you want a permit you need to have a good and specific reason for wanting to own a firearm at all.

Being a role-player for over 30 years and having seen service in the Army, I'm a lot more familiar with firearms than most Brits, but they are still not such an everyday part of life as they are in some countries.

 One thing that I always disliked about the Brits is that. Those laws do not dissuade the criminal element from acquiring illegal weapons.

In reply to Jason Sinclair (msg # 901):

That is true in any country not just the U.K. Unlike Japan an ordinary citizen can still own firearms you just have a certain level of hurdles that need to be climbed to do it.

In reply to Increase Trask (msg # 902):

Never said it isn't true of all countries globally. I know for a fact just how easy it would be to get a FN-FAL with all sorts of mods that would make it super illegal in the US doesn't mean I think I should go out and get one that way. Unfortunately I am a firm believer in the Founding Father's Vision of the USA not what it has become. The 1st and 2nd Amendments are the most abused and really it irritates me to no end that they are especially the 2nd Amendment. I detest people that assume the second amendment applied to military weaponry. It doesn't and never did. Joe has no need for a howitzer artillery piece. Now a .30-06 hunting rifle sure. A fully functional Browning M-2 never. And so on. The fact is restricting guns makes sense if and only if the restrictions make sense. I.e. no military tech or nothing above 44 cal. In pistol .30-06 in rifle and nor more than three round bursts. It makes sense all in all to have restrictions, but they need to make sense. Sorry guys I'm a bit irritated in general right now so I make "speeches" not my intent to upset merely to clarify(?) What I meant.

One thing I do like about England's gun laws is mandatory sentencing. If you are caught with a handgun you will be going up river for five years, no if or buts or wishy washy judges can change that. Of course it still does not deter the harden gangster types who have no problem obtaining such weapons.

In reply to Increase Trask (msg # 904):

Now that is one thing I do like and something the US needs for some stuff. No trial, no jury, no need because the law is simple.

*Resist urge to join discussion, resist urge to join discussion, resist urge to join discussion....Resisted. Phew!*

Anyways. Are we still with/on the vehicles or are we on foot?

Marc

I once met a gentleman from America, a retired police chief no less, who seemed to be quite an advocate of stricter gun controls... until it turned out that he possessed ELEVEN handguns, apart from his service weapon (and he wasn't even a gun collector)!

To be honest, I don't particularly feel the need to carry. But I would like to be able to if I wanted to!

In reply to Smoker Nix (msg # 907):

There are gun controls and then there are gun controls. I am a firm advocate for the punishment being harsh enough to deter the crime. CCW is a strange beast some counties it works very well others it would be more of a liability and then you have the case as in the U.K where the mere sight or discussion of a gun/shooting sports is enough to set off cultural sensitivities that are now ingrained in the population psyche only after 18 years.

In reply to Jason Sinclair (msg # 901):

I'm not saying anyone is saying this, but to me there always seemed to be some kind of funny logic to the opinion that gun laws don't dissuade criminals from getting guns because criminals, by nature, don't follow the law. This always seemed like an ideological tautology but even if this were true then why have any laws at all if the ones they target (criminals) by nature are most likely to break them?

In Canada the common sense seems to be that as long guns are not commonly used for crimes,  at least hunting weapons like shotguns and rifles are fairly unrestricted. They make up 90% of firearms, handguns are only 10%. (Military style weapons are still unpopular due to the perhaps unrealistic belief that people will not need to engage in the wholesale slaughter of our neighbors nor overthrow the government. In the words of a local gun store owner "only idiots and Yankees buy an AR15 to go hunting, or at least say they're going hunting".) Home defence is not a primary concern of Canadian firearm owners and is unlikely to become so as the crime rate keeps dropping like a rock, and so handguns are highly restricted. They are also ineffective in this role compared to shotguns so this is not a very hard sell. Compared to the countryside, the cities are safe and per-capita gun ownership is much lower compared to the US, whereas per capita firearms ownership outside the city is higher. This makes sense as most of Canada is howling wilderness and there is much wildlife out there that is highly dangerous and/or tasty. That's about the gist of it.

As for Traveller, it's a very old school RPG. It dates back to 77 or so, only really predated by D&D by a few years. It's basically a fairly hard SF setting, and the first RPG to feature skills as a major component. There are five major editions (Classic Traveller, MegaTraveller, The New Era, Traveller Zero and now T5) with much GURPS material and a whole ongoing licenced line from Mongoose using the CT background and an update of the CT/MT rules.

You will be on vehicles until you reach the area where Buck can cut a trace.

Tony

In reply to The Marshall (msg # 909):

First off only idiots use an AR-15 for hunting. Second Traveller sounds interesting. Third even in the States 11 handguns makes you a collector. I wasn't trying to set off a multinational gun rights discussion. Though it was interesting. Not often does this Yankee get to talk to intelligent gun bunnies about gun control Yankee or otherwise. Yankee gun rights tend toward slavering crazies or pious morons.

Well, in Germany it's about 85% morons, 10% reasonable people and 5% crazies. No those aren't really statistical numbers, just what it feels like to me.

Marc

In reply to Tech. Sgt. Airen Crichton (msg # 910):

If there's one game that can spark a discussion on guns, it's a post-holocaust rpg!

I am happy we all got to share opinions without things blowing up, a credit to our group. I think we can let the subject drop unless anyone wants any last words.

In fact, Traveller was published in 1976. In true early RPG form it started off as a fairly specific set of rules seemingly without a background, then the background came in dribs and drabs over a period of years. The "standard" background of Classic Traveller is of an immense star-spanning empire (the Imperium, roughly based on Imperial Rome) that was not really evil but basically remote and somewhat corrupt, some three-plus thousand years in the future. The next iteration, MegaTraveller, very 80's name, was a little later on in the timeline of a senseless many-sided civil war that tears the Imperium apart just after Imperial Year 1100 or so. The New Era saw almost the entire Imperium and much beyond it completely and permanently annihilated by (sigh) an intelligent computer virus, or "Virus". (This was an almost universally hated version and set latest in the Official Traveller Universe.) GURPS Traveller set back the clock in an alternative timeline where the Rebellion of MegaTraveller never happened, thus no Virus. Mongoose Traveller's setting is that of Classic Traveller, again repudiating the Rebellion and Virus. Oh yes, I forgot yet another version of Traveller, the d20 version: T20, set around Year 800.

I am currently running a Classic Traveller game using the original LBBs (Little Black Books), the Sky Raider Saga. In eschewing Golden and Silver age SF, this 70's game version of hard SF had portable lasers but they needed backpack power supplies. (Traveller eventually did come up with military grade high-energy weapons like plasma and fusion guns, gauss rifles, etc. but generally everything was very bulky.) Anti-Grav was common so there you'd often be, hanging off the side of an Air/Raft, taking pot shots with your FN FAL or G3 equivalent Auto-rifle.

Tony

And now, Mongoose has released a second edition of their Traveller ruleset, which is apparently called Traveller J (according to Matthew Sprange, the boss of Mongoose Publishing). It's in public beta right now, and next on the review pile (after Mutant Chronicles 3e).

In reply to Smoker Nix (msg # 913):

Would you pay $20 for a Beta version?  If I remember right, that is what DriveThruRPG was offering it at.

I'm not sure that I would because I would know that it would get changed by the time the final product comes out.

I got a freebie... but you will get $20 off the final version once it is released.

Sry guys, kinda busy at the moment. Wont be posting much but i stoll checkin regulary

Ok, I know that the ghillie suit won't be exactly working but it should still break up the Colonel's silhouette...and he doesn't have to blacken his face while wearing it.

Tony, where do I post rolls? OOC at the bottom of my post or in another thread?

Marc

I'm sorry about not replying to Peter's post. There was no slight intended. That's what happens when I'm posting dead tired and forget half of what I wanted to do.

Marc

Letting you guys know that I am likely to be absent from RPoL for a bit. Got to see how things play out at this point.

In reply to COL Kurt L. Schaeffer (msg # 918):

To reassure you, I don't think Peter's comments were directed to Schaeffer as much as they were at Buck.

Jason can be NPC'd as necessary if you need to stop posting for a while. Sorry to hear that!

Tony