Too much gear

As someone who knows nothing about guns and cares just as much, I want only three guns in games:
A small gun
A big gun
A long range gun
That's it. Call them what you want.

I don't know how complex your system is, but if you remove all equipment that is functionally indistinguishable from another entry on the list and all the stuff that nobody would want to pick because there is a clearly superior option, you should be left with about 20 items per list.

>same stats
Agree on the glock/p226. The rest, well... System works on a "move" base. So different weapons have different stats (reach, parry, effort; for example), and different "moves" (say, halfswording a bastard vs draw-cutting with a katana; pining down with a machinegun vs walking fire with an assault rifle).
The point is, playing a katana or a bastard sword end up completely different in how you play them, because the things you do with them are mostly completely different. The khopesh and the falchion would be obviously different, moveset wise, "feel" wise, capacities wise, which might be the root of the problem.

Modern-ish. Light machineguns covering the advance of halberd-wielding armored guys, but overall pretty much early Cold War.

Not really complex, just took a weird stance on the design and properties of stuff. Atacker rolls his move + skill, defender rolls armor if he has to.

Problem is, there is not a single functionally indistinguishable one, neither are there better ones. They all have different functions and are the best in that given role.
I'm willing to lose functionality is order to tone it down, but I'll end up losing functionality in the end. Or I might condense functionality of many tools in a few, but that ups the baseline power level by a lot.

Here's the thing; nobody will bother with more than 10 statistically best weapons. And yes, there will be statistically best.

Actually, i said it before, and i'll say it again - nobody cares about how Gun A and Gun B are different. You are better off applying your autism to various gear you could strap on your gun.

How about generic bases that are affected by modular tags? For example, instead of listing out Backsword, Katana, Scimitar, Bastard Sword, etc., only list One-Handed Sword and at the end of the weapons' section, list modifiers that can apply like Basket Hilt, No Hilt, Curved, Curved (Extreme), Cruciform, Single Edge, Double Edge, Ricasso, Slender Blade, Short, Long, Extremenly Long, etc., etc. For example, a rapier may be a One-Handed Sword with Basket Hilt, Slender Blade, Long, and Optimized Thrust; a smallsword would be the same but with Short instead of Long; a katana would have Curved and Single Edge, and the German gross-messer would have Curved, Single Edge, and Cruciform.

To clarify better, even with the 150 weapons, if you ask "what role am I filling" and "what is my priority/more expedient for me know", you'll end up with 1 or 2 weapons.
Also, no differentiation like, for example, "oh, Mk18, M4, M4A1, M16, M16A4, Mk. 21, AR-15 are all different weapons". Each design has one entry and that is it. Which doesn't mean the book should have 75 pages of them, because well, no one can work with that.

That would leave ideal 4-people party composition with... 3 guys doing the same thing?
Not what I'm going for. Each one should be able to play a different role in a different way and have more to do than "roll damage".

>That would leave ideal 4-people party composition with... 3 guys doing the same thing?
>Not what I'm going for. Each one should be able to play a different role in a different way and have more to do than "roll damage".

...does your system have ANYTHING non-combat? At all? Or is it Phoenix Command 2: Electric shootaloo?

You don't understand: I built this shit from the ground up so there wouldn't be "better" options, just more suitable options for different situations.
Take my word for it, they would know the difference, specially if they are playing a combat-heavy game in the first place, which is the point here, when they have more than one weapon of each class.
Doing the differentiation via addons isn't a bad idea, however. T-though I already had a page of them.

That may work wonders, thankies. That plus addons might just do it.

>System is modular within the modules of Combat / Diplomacy / Art / Exploration / Research.
This autism is combat-intensive mode. But all of them, even lite, follow this same philosophy.
Yes, sometimes you'll have PCs not engaging at all, and only the ones who specialized doing things. But then, sometimes you'll have everyone going in - and if it works then, it works anywhere else.
And yes, I can be nearly as bad in the other areas.

Sorry, but I have trouble imagining a system where you have 150 different things you'd want to do on a semi-regular basis, each of which requires a different gun.

>autistic
Your picture gave it away

Think of it as if it were spells.
You don't need or even want to have ALL the spells, a few spells well taken allow you to tackle 90% of situations fairly enough.
It it just that which spells you take influence how you'd tackle these situations, how you would play them out and what needs to be done in order to win. "How" is the most interesting and engaging part, and is where roleplay happens.

Here's the thing: 150 different spells for magic missile doesn't sound engaging, and last I remember, there isn't much hullabaloo for that portal gun in your game.

I prefer to categorize weapons by keywords rather than make a list of all the weapons that can exist in real life.
You don't wield a glaive-guisarme, you wield a [two-hand][blade][pole][hook] weapon, and how much damage you roll depends on your skill.

>Think of it as if it were spells.
150 spells in the whole game is okay. 150 spells that deal damage immediately is ridiculous.

Yeah, no. Spells (in the D&D sense, I assume) can do a variety of things.
Guns can only propel ammunition at high speeds, rarely with any other purpose than to injure or destroy.

The answer to having specialized roles is to have more relevant systems/tasks, not more tools for one task. If the goblins are coming over the hill toward your SEAL team, they're all going to be doing pretty much the same thing regardless of the weapon at hand.

Compare with something like a MOBA or TF2/Overwatch. Diversity on roles comes more from class abilities (healing, shielding, invisibility, minion-spawning, etc) than the difference between a shotgun and a SMG.

Thing is, they are not magic missile nor they just deal damage.
Damage is this system goes from 1 to 5, for example. With a modifier of "Piercing" sometimes. That's it. The variation comes from specializations, group interplay and gameplay preference.

You're supposing that one does 1d8 and the other does 1d12 damage. Again, isn't the case. Please trust me on this one, because I can't make a proper argument without going full assburguer on examples, and that would require going even more asspie on how the system works.

The issue isn't that there isn't enough variety to justify them all, it is that I can't have them all and that, being each one mechanically indistinguishiable from a small list of spells, too much small lists is too much to process, maybe even with a "pros/cons" section coming first.

I'll take that approach on melee. It works fine and the moves would be dependent on such parts anyway, so that's great.
It is harder with firearms, though. Not impossible, just a lot less instinctive and harder to, most of all, the GM to build interesting encounters around.

But here class IS weapon. If you are engaging a group of bandits or savages with, say, a shotgunner, a rifleman, a machinegunner and a marksman you would play very differently from a group with, say, an smg, a pistol + sword, a mortar and an alchemical gun.
And if your mg is a "woodpecker" that is controllable and maneuverable and easy to sustain fire, you play differently from having a "buzzsaw" that is lethal on the open and keep heads down like nothing else but is hard as fuck to move and chews through ammo, and the group plays differently too around that.

A modern rifle has 30 rounds per magazine. And yet every rifleman spends multiple mags in combat, without actually killing anyone. I wanted to model what is it that these guys are doing spending thousand of rounds not killing anyone, then to be able to drop someone with two shots.
Which resulted in most of the moves not being "magic missile", and some being real close to "charm person".

Just a thought, but at the end of the day guns aren't that varied.
How do you get this many distinct guns for your list?
I mean sure, a .22 Pistol is different then an .50 BMG Machine Gun, but how do differentiate between say a 9mm Glock and 9mm S&W?
Is it by magazine size only or are there other factors?
Or, to choose two less-similar guns, what are the differences between an AR and AK in your system?

>Please trust me on this one, because I can't make a proper argument without going full assburguer on examples, and that would require going even more asspie on how the system works.
If it is impossible to explain your system to anyone who doesn't share your exact brand of autism, I have to question, what's the point? In regards to both making the system and posting about it here.

>I wanted to model what is it that these guys are doing spending thousand of rounds not killing anyone, then to be able to drop someone with two shots.
So you want to do a detailed simulation of realistic combat conditions? Tabletop RPGs are not exactly a good medium for that.

>9mm Glock and 9mm S&W
I suppose I wouldn't? For example, my 9mms are:
>one specialized for concealed carry and fast drawing
>one specialized in offhanding and sword support
>one heavy, finicky, but very well made and accurate target pistol
>a multirole one meant as universal backup

My AR equivalent is the "multirole" of intermediates. The AK(74) equivalent is focused on advancing autofire and volume of fire, more controllable, less damage but has piercing. More agressive, overall beter against armor.
No AK-47-like because didn't have a place for 7.62x39 equivalent.

No, I just took a very odd approach. Like, for example, I have only 4 combat skills, going from 0 to 5. Which seems simple, right? But then I tell they are "Agression", "Control", "Cohesion" and "Leadership", and now I need to explain myself, because that is a new approach that requires easing into before it becomes familiar.

>So you want to do a detailed simulation of realistic combat conditions?
No, I want to get the "feel". And I believe this real-like interplay is inherently more fun, dynamic and engaging than the usual "roll to hit. Missed. Next turn. Roll again. Hit. Roll damage. Next turn.", where each weapon is the same thing and you end up with 15 shots in the mag after killing 10 guys.

To your answers in response to Then how do you rack up so many weapons?
Do you have similar categories for .22, 10mm and .45?
If that's the case, maybe you could organise the guns by these types and make the cartridge a mod on the main category.

What i mean is that you give stats for the different use-cases (CC, Target, General Sidearm) and the caliber modifies it.
So a .22 would have lover damage and be easier to control, while a .44 Magnum would pack a punch and be more difficult to fire in quick succession, to give off the cuff examples.

I'd generally stick to this 'Role as main aspect' with caliber as modification, maybe with a handful of 'uniques' that are hard to model otherwise.

>No, I want to get the "feel".
Well, you're doing it wrong.
Beyond a certain point, further detail removes "feel" and adds accounting. And 150 weapons is a long way past that point.

I mean
>focused on advancing autofire and volume of fire, more controllable, less damage but has piercing
That's minutiae. You need a useable level of abstraction. You can have a more interesting resolution system than "roll to hit, roll damage" without going full retard with 10 step, 20 variable resolution.

"Do you have similar categories for .22, 10mm and .45?"
Basically, yes. I mean, there is no exact same role, but basically that is it.

And oh, that might just work! I would be able to keep gun/moveset fairly unique within AND keep diversity/faction uniqueness/specialization in caliber, and it would be easy on the GM because he can pick roles and just load them in faction ammo.

Thankies user, you a qt.

"That's minutiae."
Uuhh, no. Damage is minutiae - they all can kill nice anyway, if they are in a position to.
This kind of thing is actually (being forced to) playing an AK differently to an AR, because what you can do with one you can't with the other.
And yeah, single roll per move. No 10 steps or 20 variables. It is just that you have different moves with different weapons, and different moves do different things in different ways.
As I said, I'm not going simulationist. You can keep arguing me on it based on suppositions, or you can take my word for it.

>And 150 weapons is a long way past that point.
Well, yeah. That's why the tread was made.

>You can keep arguing me on it based on suppositions, or you can take my word for it.
Or I suppose you could start explaining your system, because what you're describing sounds impossible.

I was going to suggest a similar thing, inspired by 4e/Gamma World 7e, and Open Legend:
Each gun has a 'category', such as Pistol, SMG, AR, Combat Rifle, etc, which defines the core statistics; and then you select two or three templates to apply that best define it, which give positive or negative modifiers to a couple of stats and either unique actions tied to the template or a further bonus to certain types of actions.
Templates could be caliber, specific weapon properties, specific part kits, or perhaps even represent a character's specialization in using it.
So, SMG plus PDW plus High Capacity (which gives an ammo bonus stacking with the PDW template's) and you get a P90. That sort of thing.

Have you seen all the shit Shadowrun 4th Ed throws at you with the arsenal and core rules?
That is my personal limit for "It's alot, but not too much"

just post your goddamn system already so we can either bask in its brilliance or ridicule its autism

What if all the weapons in a catagory had the same stats but had a modifier or two. Like an AK would would more damage than an M4 but would also miss more shots. So instead of listing all its stats you just have to say "AR class +1 damage -1 accuracy.

>My AR equivalent is the "multirole" of intermediates. The AK(74) equivalent is focused on advancing autofire and volume of fire, more controllable, less damage but has piercing.
How granular are your dice mechanics that the AR 15 and AK74 work differently? Functionally they're basically the same. 7N6 and M855 are almost identical ballistically. The idea that the AK is more about volume of fire is a doctrinal difference between the Russian and Americans, not a product of the weapons. I could understand the AK47 having worse accuracy, but do more damage, but that's a product of the cartridge not the weapon's mechanics. An AR in .300 BLK is functionally the same as an AK in 7.62

>This kind of thing is actually (being forced to) playing an AK differently to an AR, because what you can do with one you can't with the other.
And what exactly can one do that the other can't?

This is also pretty nice. Doing this would allow for differentiation between "cavalry" versions of a rifle or long-barrel handguns or things like RPKs without going retard on mags. Between calibers and attachments, it may be overdoing it, though. Hmm.

I remember reading a Shadowrun book (though I'd guess it was 3e), and all the weaponry from the different megacorps with different design styles was really cool and is a direct inspiration. Gonna take a look at 4e, thanks user!

The moves represent doctrine, and other stuff is bent from reality to support it or to make obsolete doctrines viable.
One of the factions is into soviet like advance and envelop, other is fix-flank, other into mg42 like push-and-gun, other into focal point combined arms, so on... But these doctrines, which would otherwise be impenetrable, are encoded into moves so that they just happen without needing to think about it much.

I might do a post on game design general if its up later, or here when I'm at my pc later on.
But the basic is dice pool d6 system (hits on 4 or more), rolling a base of dice equal to given stat, with skills working to bypass difficulty (Diff 4 Skill 2 is Diff 2) and do misc stuff (like Cohesion boosting teammates when you coordinate actions).
Making shit up on "advancing fire", for example: It is a Aggression move, consuming at least Rate-of-Fire shots and allowing you to move forward as much as you can as you attack. Each additional RoF you want to fire gives +dice (up to the system-wide max of 15)
For each degree of success the target area has -1 to act against. At +3 degrees they are at least at (Aggression) penalty. At +5 any enemy who acts against or moves gets hit once. At +7 they must test against (Aggression) or break. +9 you can hit as much as you shot, distributed on any enemies that acted against or moved.
Now, that is shit and I just made it up and I suck at explaining things on the fly, but that is the gist of it currently - moves have base effect plus bonii on each step on success degree ladder. There is also more generic moves ("potshots", "burst", "aim" with scopes...), but guess posting one that isn't generic gives a better idea.