Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Wounded Ronin Apr 16 2008, 11:22 PM

So, in lots of video games that are trying to handle firefights in a tactical manner, such as SEAL Team, the original Ghost Recon, and many others like it, an important gameplay consideration is which way your troops are facing. Basically, the game is set up so that if a NPC runs into the field of view of another NPC who is stationary visually covering a certain area or direction, the incoming NPC is likely to be killed by the stationary NPC. If a NPC is approached by another NPC while facing away from the approaching NPC, the approaching NPC is highly likely to kill the stationary NPC since he did not enter the stationary NPC's field of vision. Therefore, an important part of these games is often having your NPCs waiting and facing the right directions to be able to eliminate enemy NPCs who approach.

However, in many RPGs like Shadowrun, there aren't really specific rules for having a field of vision. There's perception tests, and TN modifiers to hear and see things, but it actually seems like the whole question of who gets to shoot whom first is mostly decided by the initiative roll. If I have wired III in SR3 or SR2 rules I will probably get to act first against any non-wired NPCs who approach me and the rules don't really deal explicitly with how to handle if the NPC runs up in front of me versus if he runs up behind me.

Does that make for a better or worse gameplay experience; does it detract from tactics in favor of number crunching? Is it possible or desirable or even realistic to have a "Ghost Recon Field of View" mechanic in a game if you wanted to be simulationistic? As a GM, how would you handle Wired Reflexes III versus normal goon based on whether the goon was approaching in front of the wired person or behind the wired person?

Posted by: WeaverMount Apr 16 2008, 11:40 PM

Now don't take this the wrong way, but go play GURPS. It has all that. I even has non mechical suggestions for how to choice what rules to run when. It's a great system. The rules for SR though.... not so much. I see played SR as a way to wonder the 6th world. All I feel I can ask for from the mechanics is that it models the fluff, I would love more, but eh I don't think I'm going to get that. IMO IPs are about as big an advantage as I think they should be so I'm happy with it.

Specifically about the field of view thing, I just don't think SR4 is up to it.

Man I keep coming thisclose to doing a GURPS write up

Posted by: Tarantula Apr 17 2008, 12:07 AM

You want to represent sneaking up behind someone? Mook A decides, I'm gonna sneak up behind that stationary sam looking away from me. Sam gets -2 for distracted. Perception vs infiltration. The guy succeeds, sam gets to eat a surprise round. The sam succeeds, he can turn and fire at the guy.

SR doesn't have the "if hes behind you there is no chance to notice him unless you just happen to decide to turn around" syndrome.

Posted by: Wounded Ronin Apr 17 2008, 02:12 AM

It's the truth that GURPS is a badass system. Unfortunately I have never found a single GURPS player or campaign in my entire life. I even went through the trouble to buy a bunch of GURPS Conan solo campaigns from last edition and really enjoyed those, but I have never actually encountered an actual live GURPS player.

Posted by: Fix-it Apr 17 2008, 02:29 AM

QFT. Sneaking up on people isn't easy under ideal circumstances, and humans have decent senses for that sort of thing. it comes from all the guys with poor senses being eaten by lions/tigers/bears.


as for the original post. I HATE IT when I have to direct my teammates as to where they should be looking/taking cover. I don't expect them to always pop the guy before he gets shot, but at least be aware enough to do something as simple move/look. must be why I found the entire Ghost Recon Single Player series so irritating.

COD4 significantly reduced this problem, because the AI advanced to the point where it more or less took cover, followed you, and reacted to enemy contacts.
sure it was scripted, sure it was a rail-roaded campaign, but when I'm fighting an enemy I don't need to be fighting a cumbersome command-giving system at the same time.

Posted by: Blade Apr 17 2008, 10:12 AM

SR4 (and maybe previous editions too, I can't remember) somehow handles this: in combat the GM is supposed to give a simple description of what the character sees. If the player wants more detail, or if he needs to perceive more (such as someone approaching from outside his F.O.V) he'll have to spend a simple action to be able to roll his perception test.
Since the PC is unable to defend against an attack he's not aware of, he'd better take cover and often spend actions to look around (or have his teammates/drones/whatever cover other directions).

Posted by: Critias Apr 17 2008, 10:21 AM

Field of vision descriptions really aren't easy to add to play in any sort of tactical sense without introducing miniatures, maps, yadda yadda yadda. Some games are built with stuff like "facing" in mind, some games aren't. Shadowrun's in the "aren't" category.

Posted by: wanderer_king Apr 17 2008, 10:29 AM

I'd like to point out that static fields of view are rare as most people look around themselves with somewhat regularity (at least if they have enough paranoia sense to remain a runner for long.)

Also, humans (and meta's too I'm assuming) have fairly decent perphrial vision. Most games with a field of view mechanic seem to assume a fairly narrow field of view from my experience.

Posted by: Blade Apr 17 2008, 10:56 AM

Oh yeah forgot that SR1-3 could take this into account with the combat pool: the more you spend on shooting, the less you can spend on dodging, which could indicate that you're focused on shooting instead of looking around for threats.

Posted by: Critias Apr 17 2008, 11:06 AM

Right, but in the FPS games Ronin's brought up, you're not just concerned necessarily with a field of view, but with a field of fire. They're on "overwatch," essentially, very specifically concentrating on their own little piece of the pie, and shooting anyone that wanders into it. It's not a matter of standing there whistlng a tune and glancing all around you, in the instances Ronin's mentioning, it's very specifically watching a given area and covering it.

That narrows your zone significantly. Go pop in any halfway realistic action flick that shows a somewhat modern small unit type group (Blackhawk Down, Tears of the Sun, whatever). You'll see lots of guys all covering a different angle, not a group of five or six guys all standing near each other and spinning in their own, independent, circles to cover every direction at once.

Posted by: Shiloh Apr 17 2008, 11:11 AM

Miniatures/maps are the only way to game this. But even *if* the character is positioned to be facing in a given direction, the ref should give perception tests to notice threats. The modifiers on those tests might mean they don't succeed, but the dice should get thrown. If someone says, "I'm holding my action, ready to pop that guy if he comes up from behind that isolated piece of cover he dived behind," then they should have a larger negative modifier than if they are just covering a particular arc and the threat is from a different direction. If they're firing and relying on hearing someone sneaking up behind them, there should be a large negative modifier.

Combat should be well-described, as in *definitively*, so that people know their tactical options and limitations, or it should be fast and loose and just use the dice to decide.

Posted by: ArkonC Apr 17 2008, 11:13 AM

As Critias said, there are no built-in facing rules, but it's not that hard to "fake them", just give a character covering an area a +3 to perception rolls for events coming from that area and -3 for events coming from other area...
If you want, you can also apply this to non perception rolls, like defense rolls, but I'm not sure this is a good idea with respect to ease of play...