I think the grazing hit rule (though not sure if it's still in the new rules) is meant to deal with those cases.

The problem to me is just that there is so little variability in the possible damage from a weapon. Either you up the damage so that a single shot has a chance of killing someone with armor and then it's impossible for anyone without armor to survive. Or you keep the damage low (anticipating the pumped up player rolls that will add +8DV) and it's impossible to kill someone with a single shot from a low end weapon even if they're not wearing armor. And conversely, it's nearly impossible for someone to survive two shots from a low end weapon.

I don't think the game needs to perfectly model the real world, as long as it's consistent and fun. Which probably means different levels of damage for different people. Especially since the real way to make the shooting more realistic would be to make everyone miss a whole hell of a lot more often.

But for the sake of discussion from the real world:
In the U.S. if you're shot once by a hand-gun and go to the hospital, you have a 95% chance of surviving. Your rate goes down the more times you've been hit, but I couldn't find reliable numbers. Most of those people are not wearing body armor and not being shot by expert marksman.
Shooting yourself with a gun (usually in the head at close range) is also survivable about 20% of the time, which should be equivalent to the best sniper. Though, you usually are permanently disabled as a result and need medical attention.
Being shot by police officers firing has a survival rate of about 20%(different statistics disagree, could be as high as 50%), so trained individuals firing at unarmored people (and likely hitting multiple times) is much more deadly. EDIT: And those officers only hit in about 1:4 incidents where they fired their guns.
Overall in the U.S. all instances of someone being shot have about a 79% survival rate. This rate is much higher because it includes all weapon types and in most cases people will be shot multiple times.
If you're a soldier in Afghanistan, being shot has a 15% fatality rate. Most of those cases are trained personal wearing armor being shot by assault rifles.
If you're a soldier in Iraq, being shot has a 20% fatality rate. Again, most often that is trained personal wearing armor being shot by assault rifles. The difference is often attributed to different engagement distances as well as better training by the Iraqi opposition.
Interestingly, the old mortality rate for being shot in war use to be 30%, so armor and better medical care do seem to make a difference or we're fighting much less trained individuals.

Find me a system that accurately models that, along with serious complications from injuries, much lower rates of targets being hit, and doesn't take hours to calculate each of shot and I'll be impressed.

"The numbers on the sights are for how much power we want to hit with, right?"





-k

At the pistol level I think SR5 is less deadly for the runner.
Someone posted that narrow bursts are gone, so no quick damage bump for automatics, but it seems the base damage of assault rifles went up to roughl narrow short burst range +50% to compensate for the detail that no one wil fire burst very often thanks to the wonders of recoil stacking between passes. End result at the assault rifle level things are about even with SR4.
Now things like sniper rifles, genades etc from reports are stupid high DVs and are basically with 1 net hit(or 3 threshold) you die if you don't use edge(or aren't a tank style character). And before people start saying grenades should be powerful, well 1 its a game and instatn death isn't fun and 2 people in real life survive grenades all the time.

It was my way to say "score 1 net success on the attack roll".

one single hit on any attack means all bullets hit the target.
and even if all your bullets only hit the foot? guess.
yep, foot and probably a good chunk of lower leg gone.
or at least shot to a pulp with fractured bones and all that.

What?

I thnk its fairly clear that with damage going up by net hits a single net hit is supposed to represent a hit but pretty much the worst hit you can do and not all bullets hit and pulp you. I thik the damage values clearly show they are making no attempt to balance the game against no armor normals, not that a single net hit is supposed to be a solid hit from all of your bullets.

I don't know where you got that. Besides, I'm talking about an assault rifle fired in single-shot.

GURPS + Tactical Shooting supplement.

Incidentally, it uses modern calibers and has enough granularity to model the difference between a HK416 with a 10" barrel, and one with a 14" barrel.

It does auto fire MUCH better than Shadowrun, but still not quite representative of how it is used and works in the real world.

GURPS also has rules for playing a stalk of Asparagus.

What, doesn't everyone play a stalk of asparagus, or at least have one in their group?
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Differentiating between white and green ones.

otherwise you'd have to roll to see how many bullets hit.
or you'd have to roll for each bullet you use to see if it hits.
on a single shot it does not make much of a difference.

... Abstraction, man.

Do you have any idea what real-life hit percentages are like, among trained combatants like cops and soldiers? Honestly, hitting 21-38% of the time, for someone with bog-average stats and a low-end skill (1-3) is very very good. Almost absurdly so, in fact.

And have you worked out how the damage rolls compare, after that fact? Run the numbers after even a one-hit shot connects, and see how your Joe Average is doing. It's really not nearly as "less lethal" as you're making it out to be, in my experience.

Yes, for cops the statistic is 25%. But thats not for targets standing calmly in front of them.
If you add in modifiers for visibility, cover, running target, range, running attacker or target on full defense, you will be way below that statistic.
I am not saying that a roleplaying system can simulate reality perfectly. I am just saying that SR 4 does it better in this case.


Yes, once you managed to hit an unarmored target, it becomes unrealistic the other way around. In reality statistics say that Joe has an ok chance to survive two poorly aimed hits without armor. In SR 5 that seems impossible.

@Garvel
I do not know if you already have the rulebook, if not I would wait with such "checkups" untill you do.
As for now I certainly do not know how the ranged combat modification will play out.

The joke* fooled a friend of mine for about a week while he tried to find the actual book.

Wait, that was a joke?

Then what the hell did I just buy on Amazon? O_O

Dinner.

Can't say had an asparagus in the group, but a few times could have sworn one guy was a mushroom.

I've been in a game with a character who was a tree.
Er. Ex-tree?
Hmm. Tree that had wood harvested from it in some fashion that was crafted into a quarterstaff, enchanted, gained sentience, and then shape-shifted? Yeah, we'll go with that.

So what was worse? His bark or his bite?

And are you sure it was not just a plant spirit possessing the staff? Sounds more like a trickster having a bit of a go.

Well, you will know what to cook for your next session I guess...

For extra fun, serve them some coffee at some point with that asparagus. I've almost knocked myself out from the fumes later when it passes.

I played a Tree that was convinced it as a Paladin. Ahrunk the mighty Oak