Not sure how to better ask, but I'm working on a game project where the protagonist is out in the woods as part of a gubbermint job overseeing a very large forest that allegedly has bears and mountain lions plus potentially the occasional undesirable non-bear/mountain lion. To appropriately prepare him for threats without arming him to easily kill people, they provide a shotgun (Probably some kind of simple pump action) with the idea being the only shells he has are a very small gauge in a configuration that would - in the event of say, a bear or a wild cat, hurt them that in combination with the noise would spook them off, but anything short of a full dump of what's loaded directly into their face wouldn't kill them, and the idea for humans being about the same plus the fact they'd be warded off by the player having a gun.
What would be a good kind of ammunition for this? Based on my very minimal nogunz knowledge I was thinking some kind of very low grain 20 gauge bird shot but I'm certain I'm missing an obvious better answer. I do want it to be an actual gun since I do want players to look at it from a perspective of "This is effective, it can at least partially protect me" and the average player won't look at something like a pepper ball gun and think the same thing.
"bird shot" is your answer. you don't have to go into specifics. bird shot does exactly that.
but it would be very weird for someone to be armed with a shotgun loaded with bird shot to ward off bears and cougars. they'd carry bear spray instead.
>bird shot does exactly that.
Anon, "bird shot" is incredibly vague. It covers everything from the weakest target loads meant for busting clay pigeons all the way up to shit that makes the recoil of Brenneke Black Magics seem weak.
As that anon stated, when people think birdshot they think cheap 5$ box target/clay busting loads. Hell, even on /k/ people here seem to think it's non-lethal. Either way, you came here to ask for help because you said you don't know shit, so why are you arguing when you're given advice? The "birdshot" you think kicks more than some slugs is 3.5 inch Turkey loads. So no, not birdshot.
>so why are you arguing when you're given advice
OP here, my only posts in this thread are the OP,
, and this one. I'm actually very appreciative of the insights posted, I wasn't trying to stir any nests, I actually noticed after I posted there's a "questions that don't deserve their own thread" thread where I should've posted in the first place, to be honest.
It's a game so do whatever is most fun but it terms of realism some scifi BS animal deterrance ray gun makes more sense than a shotgun for what you want.
As others have already said, birdshot won't dissuade large predators like brown bears or big cats - it'll just make them angry and perceive you as a threat that should be killed. And it's not even humane either because after you're dead the animal is left with wounds that'll get infected.
Park rangers carry shotguns loaded with slugs to kill bears if they attack, not to scare them off
The actual way to not get attacked by bears - well you can just google that
>so why are you arguing when you're given advice?
I'm not OP. I'm a random anon who is trying to correct the moronation you mentioned:
>when people think birdshot they think cheap 5$ box target/clay busting loads.
My entire point is that people need to stop doing that, because it's moronic.
>muh turkey loads
That's one example of a stout birdshot load but it's far from the only one.
so what? it's for a game. "bird shot" is specific enough for entertainment purposes. curb your autism.
Used to work on a dude ranch in Colorado. Whenever black bear would come frick around with the horses or the dumpster my boss would put #7.5 shot target loads (standard birdshot) in his shotgun& shoot the bear from like 20-30yd away. Just scared em off, never left behind any blood so i reckon it didn't break the skin. Dean was a mean sonuvab***h I think he enjoyed shooting those bears with birdshot
Anything that can reliably kill a bear will rape a humans torso. Bear spray in canister or flare gun shells and not "real" gun methods are the only ways to equip someone with anti wild life defense while leaving you (mostly) harmless to humans.
In Canada and Scandinavian countries they'll require you to carry a loaner rifle if you don't have one into some remote regions. The rifles will usually be something like mausers or lee enfields or maybe new production guns considering how clapped out the surplus might be.
I think there's a misunderstanding here, I specifically said it'd be a load not meant to kill the animals - just inflict some pain and make them go "Ow what the frick" which alongside the crack of the actual blast would send them running off.
But I'm seeing some good insights and suggestions to avoid this idea entirely, and I appreciate the explanations! I'll try to see if I can find a better alternative that would make more sense and be a lot less confusing or weird to use.
>just inflict some pain and make them go "Ow what the frick
I mean if the main plot device is your self-insert will be mauled to death by the first fricking bear it runs across go for it
>inb4 bear mace
That's for liberals to carry in the woods just to make them feel good without carrying an evil gun
There are really weak cartridges, like ratshot for many guns, or 9mm Flobert--commonly called a "garden gun"--basically meant for shooting small pest animals in the garden. The problem is that shooting one of those at a big animal is really stupid. You might cause it pain and have it run off, or it might get pissed and maul you. And while those rounds are weak as far as guns go they could kill a person.
IRL game wardens, forest rangers, etc, have sidearms (pistols) and the same kind of rifles or perhaps shotguns that a hunter would use. If bears are in the area they all have bear spray.
It's hard to find what you're looking for because if a ranger draws a gun on an animal, it's going to be to kill not wound.
You could say that this person carries #7 birdshot to shoot off in the sky to scare off bears, but never to aim at them or engage them
>load not meant to kill the animals - just inflict some pain and make them go "Ow what the frick"
both a bear and big cat will go into turbo deathkiller mode if you shoot them but don't kill them. same with moose, most deer and elk you can probably scare off that way, but overall its a stupid concept. there is no point to having a firearm unless it is for killing the thing you point it at
If you are absolutely not allowed to defend yourself properly (FYI park rangers in any country with bears carry guns legally and regularly) what you want is a) bear spray and a heavy stick, and possibly flash-bangs/noisemakers or something, they could spook a cat (but not a bear).
if you see a puma, it is too close to be easily scared by you and it is either just curious or it is mad at you. if it is stalking you as prey, you will not see it until it lands on your back.
if you see a bear, congratulations, you have learned that bears do not have a frick to give. they will avoid humans if convenient but thats about it and you can't spook them off with tricks. bear spray will discourage it from chasing you in the short term, but you better looking for a tree to climb unless you can run a few miles pretty quick.
tl:dr stupid idea
>just inflict some pain and make them go "Ow what the frick"
That's what bear spray does. Anything you're doing with a gun is just going to either piss it off, or injure it so badly that the only ethical thing to do is finish it off.
"What ammo can I put in my game that people all understand is reliably less than lethal, but players will feel is different from less-lethal guns?"
Listen to your own description of what you want and try to make that make sense. It doesn't.
this
>small gauge
no
>config that kills bear or wild cat but no human being
impossible since bears are tougher and harder to kill than any human. And you could have reasoned this all by yourself without knowing -anything- about guns
Writegays deserve the rope, no discussion
I still don't quite understand where the meme that shotguns are weak or "short range" comes from, I mean yeah I suppose they're shorter range then modern rifles but even 20ga and #9 or something you're still shooting hundred of 2mm balls at 1200+fps. That can absolutely kill someone or something within 40-50yd and if it doesn't will still seriously frick them up. I don't deny people do do this, a lot of us have or know someone who has shot at an animal to "scare it off" only to be surprised to just drop it. Luck plays more and more of a factor at small sizes but I know people who've dropped coyotes accidentally with #6 at like 70yd. A pellet happened to get into the brain and that was it.
So I'm afraid you concept is stupid if you want to be realistic. Shotguns are still guns, they're weapons. If you shoot any actual load at something it's not a warning.
That said, shotguns DO have less lethal load options, rubber and sandbags are things. And are still going to hurt (and maybe kill point blank depending). If your scenario is government purposefully giving you less-lethal only (note this isn't a thing either, government employees have real weapons and government is mostly interested in protecting itself when you kill someone, see Qualified Immunity) for some odd reason you can use a shotgun for that.
> short range
Video games mainly, due to balancing issues since most shooters have fairly small maps.
40-50 yards is short range when most firearms have lethal ranges of half a mile or more.
Something like 99% of self defense is <20yd, 97% < 10yd. Like nearly every other hunter around here almost everything I get is <100yd, it's hilly forest, maybe 10% 100-200yd, about the only way you ever even have a clean 200yd shot is if you come across swamp or field. And I gimped it there with the smallest lightest pellets. You can use slugs or buck to hunt out to maybe 140yd effectively, but that's not the point at which it stops being lethal energy just a matter of clean hits and margin for error.
That's nothing like meme shotguns where if someone is 20' away from you the guns don't work. Look at OP, he's not describing a scenario where you're sniping stuff from 500yd away.
Video game balance. A game with realistic guns would not be very fun to play
"It wouldn't be fun" is the pussy shit hack designers and hackier writers say.
but games with proper shotguns are ridiculous amounts of fun
That anon was wrong. 20 gauge #9 will not kill anyone anywhere near 40 to 50 yards. People take point blank birdshot shots and don't die. Even to vital areas like the upper thoracic cavity or head. That doesn't happen with buckshot lol. Anyone have that webm where the school shooter shoots a fat girl point blank in the chest with 12 guage birdshot, and she's just standing there like "did I get shot?" p.s. she survives LOL
There's also footage of that shooting in Alaska or whatever where a cop investigating gunshots gets shot by a drunk with birdshot and the neighbors all return fire
He literally just got up and shook it off. Only thing that he had to sit out for was the blood from his head gushing into his eyes
>shooting in Alaska or whatever where a cop investigating gunshots gets shot by a drunk with birdshot and the neighbors all return fire
???
It wasn't Alaska, it was Washington State. The neighbors were armed but only one returned fire
?si=E-Gfn85K56778zxh
Most of the time, birdshot at very close range is fatal or instantly incapacitating.
Obviously the exact size of the shot, the powder load, and the choke makes a big difference.
Literally anons, ignore this samegay. He always brings up birdshot as some sort of alternative home defense option and ignores multiple real-world shooting examples in favor of his cherrypicked shit.
Literally has been given video evidence and doesn't realize how blown the frick out he is and will continue to be. Medical example of fetal alcohol syndrome with his moronation.
Do a flare gun. It fills the niche you're looking for of feeling somewhat threatening and capable of causing a lot of harm but not outright deadly.
comes with an added perk though
>lights the entire forest on fire between the months of april and september
>To appropriately prepare him for threats without arming him to easily kill people, they provide a shotgun
What? Low grain rubber slugs and the shoddiest produced dragon's breath fire loads. Bird shot is going to be inhumane and probably cause an infection that it dies of when the tendon can't support its continued use and the animal dies.
Look, you either shoot to kill, or have something else like mace or some other gayass shit.
If this is happening in the USA, they will arm him to easily kill people. The state wants a borderline paramilitary police/federal force everywhere.
Wax slugs?
Dont be a frickin moron.
handloaded rocksalt rounds for use on ghosts but pretty much blanks in terms of damage
Obviously it would be the lightest gauge birdshot like a clay shooting load. But, like someone else already said, I think a more difficult question to make any sense of is why they bothered to arm the player character with a shotgun that would have the minimum lethality possible. It doesn't make sense. Wouldn't they automatically give him 00 buckshot and/or slugs to stop bears and mountain lions? They premise doesn't make any sense. Couldn't you strike some kind of balance where the shotgun is very powerful but ammo is very limited? If you want combat to be fun and interesting you should make the gun fun and exciting to use.
Honestly, the basic premise is kinda silly. If I were working a job where I needed a shotgun for wildlife but was only issued "scare the mountain lion" ammo, the first thing I'd do is buy myself a box of buck or slugs. Scaring hostile wildlife is unreliable as hell and I'd rather get fired or fined by Fish and Wildlife than get mauled.
It'd be better to have something separate the character from their pack so that all they have is the ammo in their gun and then have that be conveniently exhausted by an ornery bear that missed it's hibernation or something.
>hurt them that in combination with the noise would spook them off, but anything short of a full dump of what's loaded directly into their face wouldn't kill them
Then infection happens and so you've got yourself a dead bear anyway, just in a much more painful fashion and too slow to keep you from getting mauled. Hell, even bean bag rounds might break a limb or joint up close, and a predator that can't run properly will starve to death.
Don't shoot things you don't want dead.
Sorry, animals aren't bulletproof.
Also, a non fatal bullet injury to an animal is just a festering, lingering death and no one would ever write off on it.
>Also, a non fatal bullet injury to an animal is just a festering, lingering death
And likely a human too, if there isn't solid medical care available at reasonable speed. There's a reason for the old
>What do they call the person who dies 3 days after a knife fight?
>The winner.
dark humor. Without modern antibiotics and care serious wounds are no joke.
>Most of the time, birdshot at very close range is fatal or instantly incapacitating.
Exactly. It's so fricking weird people would act like even bird shot is something that just bounces off skin. And it doesn't have to be fatal to be insanely unpleasant/debilitating. To take a trivial example, even at 50-100yd I wouldn't want to have bird shot going into my eyeballs. That'd be gg one way or another. Of course at that range there'd be a lot of luck involved on where it hit but it's not harmless.
>Sorry, animals aren't bulletproof.
Indeed. But, an expert hunter being able to shoot from a position of concealment has nothing whatsoever to do with a random encounter with a dangerous animal. Be honest with me: if you were forced to face a Grizz, and I gave you the option of picking Bella Twin's single-shot .22 or a more capable weapon, which are you picking?
>Indeed. But, an expert hunter being able to shoot from a position of concealment has nothing whatsoever to do with a random encounter with a dangerous animal.
First, I was responding to the OP, who was asking about ammunition that would be immediately lethal after half a dozen hits but "just scare them off" after one.
There's nothing you can kill a bear or man with inside of five shots that won't cause lingering, festering injuries in one shot.
Second, the point of showing that skull is to show the permeability of even large animals to small caliber, low velocity ammunition, even through bone. The point was not whatever you imagined it was.
>Be honest with me: if you were forced to face a Grizz, and I gave you the option of picking Bella Twin's single-shot .22 or a more capable weapon, which are you picking?
I'd fire wolverine the x man at the bear out of a WW2 siege mortar.
>Second, the point of showing that skull is to show the permeability of even large animals to small caliber, low velocity ammunition, even through bone.
If that was your point you utterly failed because you didnt account for angle. Bella Twin shot a grizz through the thin bone of its temple. Meanwhile if you read sixguns by Keith he describes bouncing a dozen 22's off a deer's skull from a less effective angle.
>I'd fire wolverine the x man at the bear out of a WW2 siege mortar.
what if we pretend stupid nonsense answers aren't allowed?
Target loads or birdshot would probly be the weakest without going into meme rounds like beanbags or rubber balls.
Look up rubber shot or baton rounds
>weak
the word you're looking for is "Less Lethal"
Well, I don't know if I'd call it less lethal to a human, but there's this.
>prepare him for threats without arming him to easily kill people
So this guy's some sort of convict, right? Don't give him a gun at all, give him a stick and maybe some bear spray and send another one out if he gets eaten.
If he's not part of some explosive collar penal battalion, why are you worried about him going psycho and killing random hikers? Hire someone who isn't mentally unstable.
Your premise is kind of moronic.
Hi, OP here, so I've compiled some notes based on everything said. Long and short of it is I'm scrapping the bird shot shotgun idea. You've all made it clear it was a very silly choice and with all the statements provided, I agree! Like I said in the OP I'm a huge nogunz so that's why I came here, so people who are actually familiar with the topic could explain things in a very honest fashion.
My current course of action will probably be the player gets access to bear spray in the start and over time maybe put in a request for a stronger firearm, and maybe by exploring and risking their lives they find some sort of hilarious meme gun as the final phase of progression like pic related (if someone has a funnier suggestion though, please tell me! /k/ is getting credited regardless!). The idea is you're fire watch in a spooky national park forest straight out of every innawoodz greentext from /k/ and /x/, so they're arming you for "bears." I was trying to keep my cards close to my chest, but then I realized the final product is still very far out and I'm still in the "writing my scripts on a whiteboard first" stage and I'm not the first guy for any of the ideas I have so I don't know what I was thinking there.
I also saw asking if he's a convict, and that honestly is a way better hook for leaving him stuck as firewatch in a very dangerous forest than a simple job with unfortunate luck so I might steal this.
Thanks again for all your answers, /k/ommandos!
>I also saw
So this guy's some sort of convict, right? Don't give him a gun at all, give him a stick and maybe some bear spray and send another one out if he gets eaten.
If he's not part of some explosive collar penal battalion, why are you worried about him going psycho and killing random hikers? Hire someone who isn't mentally unstable.
Your premise is kind of moronic. asking if he's a convict, and that honestly is a way better hook for leaving him stuck as firewatch in a very dangerous forest than a simple job with unfortunate luck so I might steal this.
Yeah this was said earlier, but if you want to set this in the US in anything like modern times remember that the USG having an employee be unarmed in a dangerous job just doesn't happen, it's not a thing. I'd either drop the direct government angle entirely, change the time/country, or switch it to be a private thing, or a public/private partnership. Shitty entry job at some lowest bidder contractor would cover all the initial job challenge you might want to do.
>convict
>maybe put in a request for a stronger firearm
Don't combine these. Felons can't have firearms, and getting into the weeds on that is a big distraction. It's enough to have a poor person with some history but not a felony getting a shit job with management who are cheapskates and also expect little of most of their hires. That provides plenty of reason to start with crap equipment (you don't need more, we aren't paying for more, we're also worried about insurance liability if you shoot someone) but also room to slowly win them over or demonstrate real need depending on the circumstances. Particularly if you can find some profit angle. Or alternatively if the character themselves decide they need to buy privately as spooky woods shit gets worse.
>Particularly if you can find some profit angle
The main "work" is supposed to be collecting soil samples from different parts of the forest and submitting a report on the soil composition, since otherwise the player can just sit in their tower and avoid actually experiencing any risk or danger. Soil composition is actually proving to be a more reliable metric for measuring danger ratings for forest fires than anything else, and I actually learned this AFTER I had the idea!
https://www.soils.org/news/science-news/improving-wildfire-predictions-soil-science
There's probably a profit angle you can work with from soil sample collection, maybe government grants as you're actually contracted under some sort of fed-adjacent contractor, like a bunch of eggheads the Bureau of Land Management or the USDA's Forest Service is paying and the eggheads get more of a payout with more thorough information and they cheaped out on the player character as an employee.
The other idea I was looking into is that the request isn't a profit incentive, but if you can gather evidence showing you are in a much more dangerous forest than they told you, you tell them this and demand you have some kind of protection and they send over some kind of dinky rifle - something that at least has a more permanent effect than bear spray. But that idea's way on the backboard since I was thinking it'd be photographic evidence since I think it'd be a fun sort of "collectathon" challenge to take pictures of all the encounters.
Yeah that's pretty stupid. Too stupid even for the current state of the US. You're going to have to come up with a pretty fricking compelling reason this guy didn't spend the $300 on a Maverick 88 and a few boxes of slugs and buckshot before going to hang out alone with the bears.
i think the idea of only having a shotgun loaded with birdshot to use against large enemies that would really only be deterred by them is a pretty good ludonarrative justification for Amnesia/walking simulator style horror games.
but this is an absolutely moronic way to justify that. you don't need to rationally justify why your game is the way that it is, just give the main character a shotgun loaded with birdshot. it's the most common gun in the country, and the most common ammo type for that gun. it is not unreasonable for an average non-enthusiast american to procure a pump action shotgun if they decide "i need a gun" and its been that way for like 100 years
Yeah sure from a gameplay perspective it's fine.
The problem is there's such massive dissonance between the functional human being able to do a job long term in an isolated area and the kind of drooling baby bird moron who would go under equipped.
e.g.
>poor noguns liberal college student or something on a summer job
Is not going to be trusted alone, and if they're that fricking poor they're not going to be eating for months either.
>>poor noguns liberal college student or something on a summer job
>Is not going to be trusted alone
This isn't true anon. Like, objectively. I've literally myself been on that kind of job way back when. Granted, standards have all changed a lot over the decades, and I was a rural boy who first hiked to 12k feet when I was 13 years old, had done my own multiweek trip by then etc. But I didn't own a handgun at that point, I had minimal to my name (I don't come from a family that did anything more then "we'll help with 1/4 of your tuition and you can come back on holidays" and I felt lucky for that), and wanted an outdoor job even if it paid less. Few people want these jobs and it didn't take much or much orientation to get it and within a week or three yeah you're on your own. You pick it up on the go. And we had zero phones or anything back then either.
Winter would be much, much stricter, that's serious business. Summer though was not.
>and if they're that fricking poor they're not going to be eating for months either.
I lived with most meals on <$1/meal for years. Rice, beans, noodles and so on go a long ways. It's not a big deal. For water any random stream will work if it's not too muddy, just add the right amount of iodine or bleach and let your bottle sit for 10 minutes after before drinking.
Well done, you have proven that such a moron does in fact exist.
I'm pretty amazed someone on /k/ could be such a sheltered little homosexual as you but guess that's how it is in 2024.
You misunderstand; I think you're very stupid and full of shit, not that your tree planting holiday has any bearing.
No, I'm entirely serious about you being an absolute posing zoomie homosexual who I now doubt has actually been outdoors much. You're acting like anything there is or ever was some big deal. If you have the slightest even day hiking, like just biking over to some small 3-4k footers in middle school or highschool and hiking up and down, then a few weeks of orientation, learning to use a map and walkie talkie, was plenty for a college student to go out and do that sort of thing on their own. It wasn't rocket science, it still isn't. You follow instructions on data collection and drawing, you help out sometimes with other maintenance work, you get more and more comfortable and the summer flies by. They help cover food/fuel costs as part of your job obviously, but it doesn't take that much anyway.
I shouldn't be surprised about shitters like you posing in these threads as if this is some sekrit club of elites but I still am. Most of the outdoors is pretty safe for a reasonably fit person most of the year with proper caution and some basics. Lots of people into that sort of thing do internships or volunteer every year, always have.
Though obviously not you.
If you miss everything as hard as the point you're not safe with firearms. Then again, maybe you don't need one with your natural abilities at projecting things.
You're the one having a hissy fit sobbing break down over the idea of someone doing a low skill summer job innawoods. Not sure why that triggers you so hard but whatever. Those of us who do it have a good time, learn a decent amount, can do something that isn't behind a screen, and don't die.
Whoosh, there it goes again. Are you hearing the crack as it goes by?
You can mindlessly shit fling all you like, won't change that fact that your post
was objectively wrong in response to
.
No, you're a complete fricking window licker.
Let me spell it out for you, if everything is fine and dandy and happily unshotgunned until dangerously spoopy shit starts to happen in the middle of nowhere, there are two reasonable outcomes; Tard Boy dies wishing he had a rifle, or he just fricking leaves.
Great game, genius.
>No, you're a complete fricking window licker.
Nice projection from a window licker who can't read but is very confident in himself.
>if everything is fine and dandy and happily unshotgunned until dangerously spoopy shit starts to happen in the middle of nowhere, there are two reasonable outcomes; Tard Boy dies wishing he had a rifle
Fricking moron. If the spooky stuff ramps up slowly over the course of weeks real time (hours in-game or whatever acceleration is), and starts spooky and threatening before actually getting dangerous, then there is plenty of time for someone to arm up. There's nothing moronic in most of the US national forests most of the time about not having a gun by sheer stats. And the first worrisome encounter is usually survived which is how a lot of us started carrying. And:
>, or he just fricking leaves.
Is exactly what I was trying to help OP think through. The hook to keep the character along was the entire fricking point of the posts! Are you blind? What I wrote:
>normally people would stop. Either they need to be trapped by the supernatural events, or something special becomes available that attracts them despite the danger.
Pretty funny for someone who whines on and on about how I've somehow missed the point to have stopped reading after one sentence apparently THEN complained about others.
>then there is plenty of time for someone to arm up
FROM WHERE, DIPSHIT. There isn't a Walmart nearby for your shitty Mexican target load needs, middle of nowhere with known dangerous wildlife, remember? Why are you hanging around to shoot at spectral clays when YOU CAN JUST FRICKING LEAVE, DUM DUM.
>FROM WHERE, DIPSHIT
Uh, you don't stay in the woods with literally zero contact with society for an entire summer you autistic sperg. It's 1-3 weeks at a time at most. You regularly hike out for resupply, or if you're posted at a tower or shelter somebody else hikes in to pace you and give you a break for a few days, or if there's a road drives in. It's a job, not a prison sentence. You're in a national forest, not the middle of the fricking amazon or antarctica or something. There are gun shops fricking everywhere in rural America. In a lot of states including mine you need no state permit, you just walk in and buy a gun, they run the check, you get instant approval, and that's it. This isn't complicated, and that itself could also be a gameplay element since a small remote gunshop could reasonably not have a huge variety of weapons at least at the start.
>There isn't a Walmart nearby for your shitty Mexican target load needs
OK anon, you could just say "I'm not rural, I've never lived in a rural area, I don't know anything about guns in rural areas" ok?
>YOU CAN JUST FRICKING LEAVE
Yes you complete, total moron. For at least the 3rd time, that's a core central question for the game to deal with. My suggestion was getting trapped, addicted, some huge reward, or a combo. At first there'd be some frog boiling, like you feel a little threatened, but not much. Which is how I started carrying, after a couple of decades I had a few bad encounters, but I didn't interpret that as "never go hiking which I love again" but just "yeah, good idea to have some protection in some areas". But sure as things get worse a reasonable person would be more. But people do find more. Hence why people go to fight in warzones and shit. Money, adrenaline, family connections, ideology, all of that can work IRL even WITHOUT there being magic super rewards.
Seriously how can none of this even occur to you? Why can't you about it even when explicitly spelled out for you?
>You regularly hike out for resupply
Yeah exactly. Why are you going back, frickwit. More importantly why would you complicate the tried and tested "trapped with only what you have" scenario by not having anything and not being trapped.
You're not helping here, you're making everything stupider, and it was pretty stupid to begin with. You're a special boy.
>Why are you going back, frickwit
Why do people volunteer to go fight in warzones, frickwit? Or do massively dangerous stuff because they think there are riches there? Because people have done both throughout history. If you want to know the answer to your moronic question, go find out. I don't need to waste my time on something you could just go to a search engine for. This isn't speculation, you're just wrong. Now frick off.
>you could totally solve this unnecessary problem that I just created by having a wizard do it or something, I am very smart
>also your map now includes a small town and possibly the entire lower 48
Remember that time in Evil Dead when Ash nipped back to S-Mart for a chainsaw? The stop for coffee and a chat with the cute waitress on the way back really helped the tension and worldbuilding.
>he hates Evil Dead
>also fun, dreams and freedom
Figures.
I feel bad for picking on you now, you poor creature.
>You're going to have to come up with a pretty fricking compelling reason this guy didn't spend the $300 on a Maverick 88 and a few boxes of slugs and buckshot before going to hang out alone with the bears.
I'm not going to write OP's game for him, but I think an angle can work if we drop the entire bad person angle and just go for a poor noguns liberal college student or something on a summer job, something like that. Because objectively the fact is that you definitely DON'T need a gun in much of American forest particularly if it's a job and you're well off any main trails. Sacrilege as it is to say on /k/, but in all of the 2020s up until now there have been <20 bear attack fatalities and maybe 120-someodd bear attacks total, of all kinds (black/brown/grizzly/polar), in all of America, across tens of millions of people/trips going outdoors. It's not zero, but statistically it's rare even on average, and in actuality some parts of the country and kinds of bears are much, much more likely to be dangerous then others. When a guy was killed in New Jersey in 2014, it was the first recorded bear fatality in the entirety of NJ history.
In your story of course it sounds like the forest turns unnaturally dangerous and becomes more and more so. But it doesn't start that way, and nobody would have reason to know ahead of time (or maybe you shove some old shaman in there who warns people but he'd reasonably be dismissed as a nut/scammer normally). So a urban-to-granola type would very reasonably just not have a gun, and not even want one, at least for awhile. Then over time that could change. That could be pretty interesting actually, do investigate that mindset and fear plus desire for self defense. You still need to come up with something valuable though. US Forestry work could get it started, but normally people would stop. Either they need to be trapped by the supernatural events, or something special becomes available that attracts them despite the danger.
You could also investigate the psychology of someone becoming addicted to the thrill, though they still need something to fund themselves. But maybe some magic medicines or something become available, you could mix in both health benefits and addictions. Maybe the person suffers fatal damage or poison, but the magic moss keeps them alive yet isn't actually a cure either, so they have to keep taking it or they die until they figure out another solution (or don't, that could be an ending, they decide to end the threat even knowing they have no way to avoid dying afterwards when the magic evaporates). Lots of survival and resource limitation angles to play with on that one.
Given this is /k/, I will strongly urge you as a noguns to find a range rental or ask around and actually do some shooting, at least once. A basic knowledge of firearms for real is sorely needed in games. You can also write down your feelings about it all, right now, researching, before, after, keep a journal. That'd maybe be directly helpful in writing your character's journey.
Good luck. If you were in my area I'd invite you to shoot myself, people trying to make their own stuff and do research are good if they're honest about it.
>silly meme gun
American 180. It shoots .22lr. you know, that cartridge you use to hunt squirrels, groundhogs, and maybe something as big as a fox if you're a good shot?
People drop boar with 22lr all the time.
It's also the most common round for killing cattle.
Pajeets get run over by trains all the time, it doesn't make trains the ideal weapon for depopulating the subcontinent.
Of course, that's a rare machinegun and something that you'd be able to buy unless it was registered pre-'86. So don't use it unless you're going full moron and hurr hurr funny /x/ meme. But it would be funny. Also:
>Given this is /k/, I will strongly urge you as a noguns to find a range rental or ask around and actually do some shooting, at least once. A basic knowledge of firearms for real is sorely needed in games. You can also write down your feelings about it all, right now, researching, before, after, keep a journal. That'd maybe be directly helpful in writing your character's journey.
Alright OP here's your winning idea.
Your guy does the sensible thing and takes along his nice shotgun, a few boxes of slugs, a pile of buck and half a bed's worth of shitty birdshot. This guy knows he's going to be bored and he's going to do a whole bunch of shooting.
Here's the catch, your spooks don't give a single shit about lead, it phases right through them or something. However, the nice thing about shotguns is you can dump the shot out of a shell and load damn near anything that'll fit in there instead.
Rock salt, obsidian chips, chunks of rowan wood, magical acorns... that's how you control lethality. You have to work out what mystical bullshit from the local environment works on what enemy, you have to prep them ahead of time, maybe find out about and perform some ritual, could even randomise it so you can't sequence break. You now have a gun that's at least potentially as effective as it needs to be in any given situation.
This is another really good idea. I still think there needs to be some source for extra shells, but that's a trivial detail really, 12ga shells are so common it'd be completely expected to find local supplies from a range of possible sources depending on how OP wants the resource limits to be. But this would enable a very natural progression, and could also increase the horror bits by making you get closer then with normal rounds given a lot of the make shift magic loads will have awful ballistics. Adds a puzzle and note taking element too. Could even make it randomize off a seed each time, what is affected by what. Cool combo potential for players to discover. Nicely done.
Rolling up with a couple of thousand shells is not unreasonable, your ammo would be restricted by what you're scrounging up and where it is,. Possibly also by time if you're doing a D&D style 'rest and recharge your "spells"' bit between days rather than real-time crafting. Dumping salt in is one thing, burning incense and carving "fuk u ghosts" in Swahili backwards on an acorn is another.
Yeah as I said ultimately a bunch of ways to run with that which is part of the beauty of it, plenty of levers to pull to shift the game one way or another. Another example would be could directly factor in easy/normal/hard difficulty scaling, changing how many shells you start with, how many you can find, what the distribution of less/more powerful ingredients ends up being, maybe risks in their usage. More interesting then merely "hurr ghost has more hitpoints".
You could do a noble savage bit, the local injuns used to shoot obsidian arrowheads at skinwalkers or whatever and that's how you find out about it. Would give you a backup/silent option too.
Lot of potential for cool sequences. Whatever force is increasing the creep shit might also incidentally allow potentially friendly spirits to appear as well, or cause them to if there was already some sacred ground, so player can find them and maybe get them on side and learn about historical battles with it, share how the modern world is. Cool safe zones inside glowing mushroom tree caves or something, lots of comfy potential amidst a dark nightmare twisted forest.
Dunno if OP can actually pull this off in a cool way but if so I'd give it a spin. Though from a /k/ spirit I still kinda like the idea of a noguns slowly learning the value of and appreciation for guns, but that's probably not the right match for OP from the sound of it.
>so player can find them and maybe get them on side
Or call them a bunch of heathen prairie Black folk.
>>so player can find them and maybe get them on side
>Or call them a bunch of heathen prairie Black folk.
Yeah sure, make that an option too, then they refuse to help or even curse you or something, maybe some alternate paths open up. All in favor of variety of options, at least so long as it's realistic for a small dev to do. If OP is serious he'll definitely need to be ruthless about focus, not get too carried away with wishlists and "wouldn't that be neat" such that the game can't get done and out the door.
I dunno, script it right and emergent scenarios can probably do a lot of the heavy lifting. Sort of like that virtual theatre thing they did with Lure of the Temptress. So long as you spawn at least one solution along with its problem and have enough of them going that you've always got something to follow up on.
I mean, not gonna speculate further because no idea what OP's team size is, his experience, engine plans, what kind of feel he's after or whatever else. Really if OP has done even a single project before he's probably aware of the risk of scope creep already so no need for the likes of me to remind him.
It's an independent project - my first independent one, even - but I've worked in game development before on a few projects. I'm aware of scope creep, my process is using white boards for both writing initial scripting and details of whatever's on the whiteboard and my rule is if elaboration or execution is larger than the whiteboard, scrap it. It's kept my scope pretty tightly contained and I have a very clear vision of what I want. If I add on anything, it'll be after a 1.0 release when I don't have to worry about a finished product.
>Rock salt, obsidian chips, chunks of rowan wood
I actually like this idea. As another anon stated, it's a relatively survival horror scenario - with the fun of it being a bit more slice of life between the spooks, which aren't meant to really be ghosts. I want generally corporeal threats, but that doesn't dismiss corporeal solutions.
Also the idea of invoking "ancient" ideas is fun, while I wouldn't want there to be much in the way of any friendly presence, maybe old logs or something. The funny "endgame" progression weapon could just be an old blunderbuss with some of the notes and a guide on how to pack it since if I recall, it was pretty normal for old timey hunters and such to put whatever the hell they could into a blunderbuss be it rocks, bones, or actual grapeshot.
But ultimately, as
there shouldn't always be a permanent "kill it" problem, just at best a "hurt it and scare it off" problem. The punchline of the overall game is meant to be it's every /k/ and /x/ greentext combined, purely because it's funny.
>find a range rental
Unfortunately, part of the reason I'm a noguns is I'm in a particularly blue state where guns are hard to even find approximations of. I do want to actually try whatever weapons I do implement, so at some point I might just drive out to a state that would permit range rentals so I can at least know what I'm dealing with. I have similar plans for a few camping trips so I can get some proper foley and ambience for the outdoors.
>Unfortunately, part of the reason I'm a noguns is I'm in a particularly blue state where guns are hard to even find approximations of.
That's hard. You mind sharing which state? Cali or something east coast? But I hope you are able to get out and find something or someone. In theory every state in America, even the bluest, under Bruen should at least have some reasonable process for anyone to get a permit, no more "may issue". But of course in practice a lot are dragging their feet. And if you're in Hawaii then yeah I hear that's a nightmare, even in Cali or the like there are northern rural parts that are much friendlier but no such like on the islands.
>I do want to actually try whatever weapons I do implement, so at some point I might just drive out to a state that would permit range rentals so I can at least know what I'm dealing with. I have similar plans for a few camping trips so I can get some proper foley and ambience for the outdoors.
Good man, doing the actual experience not just staying totally behind a screen for it is good work ethic the industry could use more of.
>Cali or something east coast?
New England area is as far as I'll dox myself, the only range in my area is exclusively for police officers. There's probably a way to get in as a civilian but if there is, I never figured out the process. I'd be better off just going to New Hampshire or Connecticut.
Well that's the good thing about magical bullshit, it's as effective as you want it to be and banishment isn't necessarily permanent. Blast them with rock salt and they'll be back next night looking for payback.
Supernatural problems require supernatural solutions.
The problem is that anything strong enough to dissuade large predators is strong enough to kill Humans, even birdshot from a .410 at close range is deadly.
I seen a first 48 where a groid gets shot with a birdshot load and croaks. Birdshot can easily be lethal
At indoor ranges birdshot will frick you up because it's all hitting together (probably in the cup) and hasn't lost momentum to the air. On the other hand at about 50 yards with a thick coat you'll barely notice it anywhere but your eye. That's sort of the whole point of birdshot, it's the only thing you can shoot upwards and be confident it's not going to cause problems on the way down.
bolt action .410 if you're dead set on this route
Could you two argue elsewhere? At this point it's just pointless mudslinging and not actually any real discussion, and you've been doing it for hours.
The entire premise of this thread is moronic and I take the mere existence of someone capable of making it dumber as an affront against God Almighty Himself.
No, you're just such a moronic and sheltered contrarian smooth brain you think even completely realistic stuff is impossible lol. But your autism can't handle how hard you've been btfo.
Since the shitflingers are too busy having a diarrhea spraying contest with each other, my suggestion to you, OP, is that your PC explicitly not start with a firearm. Judging from your description I'm assuming it's some kind of survival horror style game where violence isn't always the best option, so as a gameplay element actually getting a weapon that can permanently deal with enemies and being able to use it are core features.
As for the reasoning, your PC is some bottom-tier employee doing scut work for some eco-tourism company that has hundreds of acres of pristine woodlands for rich people to go glamping or park themselves in a luxury cabin and pretend they're roughing it. He's out there picking up trash, managing trails, and making sure any middle-class and lower riff-raff don't get any fancy ideas about walking through the woods. No guns because frick if his company is going to pay the liability rates for armed employees and it would upset the guests anyways.
this is basically what one of the shit flingers already suggested
This is nonsensical. The whole idea of a game warden/park rangers gun is that it can safely stop a wild animal charging at them. Anything that's lethal to animals like that would also be lethal to humans.
Yeah OP already came around and gave up on that idea to his credit. That's why he came to /k/, to bounce it off people with guns. He'll rethink his approach and hopefully figure out something fun. Shouldn't be too hard to set things up for game progression in a few different ways, just not that particular approach.