@Dazsos Well you've gotta look on the opposite side of things. Humans are notoriously hard to kill, especially the tough ones. A human can be riddled with so many bullet holes that they look like swiss cheese. As long as it doesn't irreparably damage a vital organ, they can keep kicking. And even then.

Humans can survive on half a brain, a single lung, one kidney, half a liver, one kidney, so on and so forth.

Guns are super lethal.
Humans are designed to survive lethal things.

@DLL@Divinity
I said no guns because I'm not bringing a gun to the fight. Guns are definitely on the high end of the easy spectrum for 'low tier'... it takes virtually no energy to pull a trigger, and the result is extremely lethal. But this is an issue of personal preference, nothing I'm shoving down your throats. I live in a modern era that I'm trying to escape, gunslinging fights are just so fast paced, I'd rather play a video game for that thrill.

Then there's the issue with logic. Sure bullets can be dodged, but we forget just how fast a character actually needs to be to dodge a bullet, and at that speed alone, then we're getting in to a tier where it doesn't matter what you argue... everything is cheap and easy, everyone is OP. Not many of my mid-tier characters can run at 1,500mph, which isn't even as fast as most bullets travel. The fastest human alive runs at what... 25mph? Dodging bullets isn't logical, we just want it to be so we can enjoy our gun battles.

About the only gunslinger I have is Jacer and his rounds, save his splicer ones, are actually more paint-balls in function. They deal bruising damage at best if they hit in favor of abilities like brief shocking, creating a slight icing effect (which with multiple hits will create ice rather than slow a target down), or tagging someone with his magick where he can sense where you're at or anything hit by it. when it comes to gunslingers, I think it might more or less depend on who they are taking on especially if you want keep with the logic. There's more than one way to prevent a bullet from hitting rather than simply avoiding it and if you do it carefully, it might work out decently. However, I will agree that it's easier and much less hassle with melee weapons compared to bullets especially in the logic area.

@LeeRoy
I'm pretty sure that if we were designed to survive lethal things, the word lethal wouldn't exist, and we wouldn't need to memorize all of the symbols for toxicity and eye irritation and whatnot.

I knew a guy who went blind because he rubbed his eyes after dealing with cat shit. Maybe we should be shooting cat shit at our enemies?

@Dazsos
Are you literally contesting human fortitude when I could go out of my way to list off hundreds of cases of human beings surviving and thriving after being shot?

Don't underestimate a human being when you're trying to kill a human being. That will get you killed.

Edit: To completely drive this point home. Here's a guy who throws your logic out the window. Enjoy.

@LeeRoy
I don't have to make a list of how many people don't survive... each country involved in either of the World Wars made their own, and it's bone-chilling, if you really think about it. Human prowess is something to be reckoned with, but there's no way you can deny the fact that speeding bullets kill people; I don't know what you're trying to argue here, this is only going to get me worked up about real life tragedies. Let's call it quits on this pointless debate, shall we?

EDIT: I wasn't really arguing, per-say, I was actually making a sarcastic jibe at your phrasing. If someone didn't die from a 'lethal blow' then it really wasn't lethal, now was it?

The debate isn't whether or not your average joe can survive. It's this stupid aversion that literally everyone in the Arena and pretty much every other writing medium has to guns. Though I did honestly make it out to be the former, and I apologize for not being clear what point I was making. I also apologize for the rant, because this isn't actually directed at you @Dazsos. Though your statement did actually arise the frustration in me. I feel as though I'm being an asshole, and again I apologize. Anything from this point onwards isn't directed at you, and I pray you don't interpret it as such.

It's honestly just me venting.

Even the weakest human characters in writings, no matter how normal you want them to seem? They're superhuman. If normal humans HAVE survived gunshots, then why can't the ones who aren't simply normal humans, but important characters survive?

This stupid fucking aversion is the most infuriating mindset I have ever read and it is entirely universal.

Humans have survived shotgun blasts to the face, they've had acid thrown on them and they've performed surgery on themselves. These were all normal human beings. And yet somehow, in the most aggressive community among roleplayers. Save for nation roleplayers, apparently. We shy away from this normalcy and pretend as though a single gunshot is going to be enough to stop our soldier from saving those children from the crazed mass murdererr. We fear that we're going to be judged because:

"Oh well people have died from being shot! People die when they are killed!" It's this totally encapsulated and entirely immovable reasoning that is the biggest reason I HATE ROLEPLAYING AT ANYTHING LESS THAN HIGH TIER.

Because humans are always marked down as these fragile little babies who are to be cherished and protected, instead of the race of incredibly hardy surviving apex beasts that we truly are. No we aren't the strongest, fastest, or even the toughest.

But we can survive anything. That man survived two atomic bombs within a few miles from the drop-zone. Another man had his entire face blown off in combat and is still alive today with a prosthetic face mask. Other men have artificial limbs from being trapped in an explosion's blast radius.

And yet we think that a single gunshot wound is going to drop these characters who can't even really be considered humans?

They're better than humans. They don't make the same kinds of mistakes that we do. Their mistakes lie in the writer over-estimating their ability, rather than mistakes in their own action. They get caught in some loop of logic.

Which is fine, even the greatest humans make mistakes.

All I'm saying is that if human level combat isn't to be considered a fucking joke, then it should at least take into consideration how fucking tough humans actually god damn are.

Sorry for the rant.

I think we've survived as a race because we breed so goddamn much.

One hit could kill someone almost instantly on the flip side of the coin. If you're fighting a gunman who can shoot a fly then it would tend to lean towards that direction if he shoots your character, but a normal gunslinger you can get away with more.

@ImportantNobody It's exactly that same problematic logic that fuels this circular argument! Just because it CAN happen doesn't mean it's guaranteed. A human CAN survive a gunshot to the head, a human CAN die to a gunshot to the head.

Also, marksmen characters are never untrained in any regard. They're always able to shoot the tits off a maggot from a mile away with a nine mil.

It's really circumstantial. I mean yeah, you're absolutely right, it's possible to survive a gunshot, @LeeRoy. (Moreso than dodging a gun shot, which was my original argument that nobody touched.) But hey... dude, you fucking just got shot! That's not like a paper cut or anything, it's a metal bullet wriggling around in your fleshy ass. Sure you might survive, but that's a legitimate hit that could lose you the match in an RP. Just cause you can survive a gunshot... doesn't mean you will. A character who relies mainly on luck could be punted by any judge.

Good ol' @LeeRoy. Glad to have you back. We continuing our fight with your tar-energy character? I'm still excited for that.

Also what's the progress on your faction idea?

@dazsosI've seen many mild powers characters dodge bullets. Usually through some means of sorcery or self-augmentation, but that's the entire point of having metahuman characters in the first place. In Realistic fights guns are a giant issue and at best you're blocking them. MP offers options and leverage. As long as there is some substantial backing to your evade, most judges I've seen, and players, dont have much of an issue with it. I haven't seen any rulings or arguments over guns here that required judging so the verdict is out on that. But it remains that an MP character is certainly capable of dodging bullets.

It's not luck! It's human durability!

There was a soldier who had been shot, he was left behind with a gun with like six or eight bullets. They returned later to find that he had killed eight enemy soldiers, and then died. Simply because he survived longer than they could, because he was better at surviving than they were.

It's not luck, it's not happenstance, it's not even cheating! Humans can survive just about anything save for a shot to the heart and cerebral cortex without dropping for a fair stretch of time.

This logic fuels this circlejerk that makes human level roleplaying a joke!

It's not an argument about whether or not a character can survive a gun-shot -- not entirely. Being run through with a sword is as liable to put a damper on your day as being shot, in terms of whether or not you're about to shuffle off the mortal coil due to fatal wounds.

The issues with firearms IN MILD POWERS are threefold:

1) The ability to attack at range at speeds that are, by and large, going to be impossible or nearly impossible to dodge or accommodate. See: a 125 grain .308 Winchester travels at 3,100 ft/s. If someone is 100 feet away, you have .03 seconds react with a meaningful defense, be it a dodge or a block. At mild powers, that's not likely to happen.

2) No particular draw-backs or means of mitigating the weapon's use. This is especially an issue with automatic weapons. If I have a Glock 17c, it doesn't matter if I miss my first shot. I have sixteen others. At least with a bow or crossbow, I have to re-nock and draw. With a firearm, that action is removed entirely until you have to change your magazine. If I have 17 rounds loaded, I have, effectively, 17 attempts to hit you. No cooldown, no preps or charges required.

3) The capacity for enormous tissue damage. Sure, you can find outliers who survive getting shot. You can even find soldiers who might continue to fight in some circumstances. But you know what you find a lot more of? People who died. Millions of them. Tens of millions, from WW1 onward. Even if a person can survive, that's not really the question. The question is: what kind of damage am I doing? The answer varies, but usually falls into the area of "a fucking lot." The next question is "How hard is it for me to do this damage?" and the answer is "Not very."

So what you have is: a weapon capable of striking from a considerable distance, capable of doing enormous amounts of trauma/damage, that has no draw-backs to its use. It's essentially stronger than any supernatural power a character might have at mild powers, but has zero limiting factors other than how many bullets and how talented the character is at shooting. And let's be real: the former is a minor issue, and the latter is probably non-existent when every character is essentially proficient at their chosen form of combat. The reason people disallow guns in mild powers isn't solely because of the fatality of the weapon. A sword is fatal, but I can't hit you with a sword seventeen times from 100 feet away at 3,100 ft/s in mild powers.

The question isn't "Can someone survive it?" The question is"Can someone reasonably defend against it?"

Again, this is purely for MILD POWERS. There's absolutely zero reason to disbar guns from higher tiers of power. Guns are actually one of the reasons I will play at higher tiers, because otherwise they see so little use. My Kindred vampire uses guns, and used to get shot all the time. My Shadowrun character, as previously described, will gladly run face-first into gunfire. But these characters are meant to be played at a level where firearms aren't game-changers.

@Gun I doubt we'll continue that one, I'm probably gonna use a totally different roster for this year than I did for last year. I kinda came to that conclusion while I was on hiatus. I tried to improve my writing by researching through the library, and that worked out pretty decently. I now own a pretty decently sized collection of comics and my character sheets are going to be improved from what they once were.

No longer will I rely on numbers and shit to portray a character's ability, since I've realized that's kinda part of the problem that makes judgements in tournaments a hassle. "This number is bigger than his number, so my number wins." And all that.

The fight with @DLL will be my first experimental foray into this new area of roleplaying for me. Speaking of, I'll have my sheet written up in about two more hours, sorry for the wait.

How can you argue that human durability is awesome by explaining how eight soldiers got killed with six to eight bullets, from a guy who was half dead? Kudos to the guy, but you just took a shit on the 8/9 other assholes; where was their 'human durability' they went down like redcoats in a stormstrooper suits.

@LeeRoy That actually brings up a point I made about numerical values in the past where one character states a number or a quantity, and the other guy just raises that number, and it turns into a pissing match of numbers instead of an actual tactical engagement.

@LeeRoy@Dazsos

Girls, girls... you're both pretty and honestly you both have points.

Personally I think when it comes to what a human can survive, it usually depends on the individual. There are multiple accounts of people dying from both major and minor things while others survive them. From shark bites to bullets, there's rarely a one time incident in the world that never happens again to someone else if you look hard enough. Humans can survive a lot of shitty damage, some that feel almost like divine intervention type, but they can also die from the minor things. Allergies, infection, plagues, and insect stings are a few I can come with that I consider minor compared to something like a car crash that could send a pipe right through your chest (which an individual has survived and many have died from, btw). Point is... generalizing what the human race can survive isn't possible because there's way too much variety for that.

So, can we agree to disagree or at least can you two be so kind and polite to please take this shit fest to the PMs? This seems to have turned from a debate into something rather aggressive and annoying.

*braces for the two to turn on her like wolves*

@Darth
I understand this series of logic, it's been touted to me time and time again. But it absolutely doesn't change my argument of human level roleplaying. I'm not talking about mid tier, I'm talking about flatline human level combat. Using only real weapons and real human abilities.

Let's break it down piece by piece and try to tear apart this argument that I keep running into every time I bring this up.

1: Impossible to dodge? Yes. Impossible to survive? No. If you can't dodge it, survive it. Where YOU get shot is up to you. Plus, Humans have this keen little ability to move faster than the hand of another human. We do it all the time. Don't dodge the bullet, avoid the line of fire entirely. If you're fighting against a person who HAS a gun, and don't HAVE a gun. You should be prepared to have to dodge and weave, serpentine and roll. Cover is totally up to the game master or players, relying solely on a flat plane where you fight your opponent is stupid. No matter what weapon you're using, a flat plane doesn't really exist in real life. Save for maybe a city street, but even then you've got windows nearby that you could leap into.

Giving the enemy every advantage, giving them what basically equates to a shooting range is stupid and your own fault for agreeing to it anyway.

2: This is true, entirely. I can't argue the sheer ease of using a gun, it's simple to point and click someone dead. People do it all the time, there's literally training programs to show you how to do it better. Though to mitigate this point, please refer to point 1 and 3.

3: Yes, the damage of a bullet is substantial. EVERYONE understands that. However, the damage a human body can survive by simply being durable is just as much as most bullets put out. This has been proven time and time again, with the numerous cases I just listed. And as I stated before, just because people HAVE died to guns before, doesn't mean that they WILL die to guns. No matter how normal a human character IS, they're still more than human. The writer knows what the character does not. A great writer can, yeah, sort of circumvent this. But a competetive writer doesn't want to circumvent this, becasue it means they're going to lose. So instead of just giving them this shooting range where the marksman has the total advantage, you give a REAL battlefield.

This is the thing so often overlooked by writers in the Arena, but never overlooked by action movies and shooter games. An absense of cover is suicide. A realistic amount of cover is, well, realistic.

If you don't want guns to be overpowered, don't LET them be. Don't give them a shooting range with a slow moving target that drops in a single shot.

Give them a setting with a human that can survive a shot or two.

@Fallenreaper And no, I can't bring this to PMs. This is a legitimate complaint that has ruined an entire portion of roleplaying for me since I joined. I've held in my complaints for damn near two and a half years and now's about the time where I finally settled it.

@FallenreaperHEY, HEY, HEY!

First up, I'm obviously the prettiest.

Secondly, I agree with everything else you said. I wasn't really arguing the absolute frailty of humans, I was just stating the obvious possibility of their sweet sweet demise. (And the fact they can't dodge bullets.) Feel free to step in and continue debating on my behalf, though! I mean that's how most arguments start, right? By asking angry people to stop arguing!