I think the whole "mexican standoff" thing is what happens before you roll initiative. Initiative is the start of combat, a standoff is what leads to a gunfight. Or a not-gunfight, if everyone is very lucky. Thus it seems to be more in the area of roleplaying, or even just dramatic description from the GM.

Edit: I cannot get the song "Mexican Radio" out of my head now.

if YOU're really lucky, it does not lead to a gunfight but only to an execution *g*
the shootists going up against each other is roleplaying, once they try to draw, the need for ini arises and the roll-playing starts *g*

"I hear you've been saying some shit about me down at the docks. Well, grab my wrist, bitch, and then you'll be sorry!"

Yes. It took a while to get my head around the rules. Overall I wouldn't say they were not good, just different to what I am used to, and quite different to what I was expecting.

I don't get it; maybe I'm doing the math wrong. Surely firing a shotgun, with slugs, on FA does more damage than any other weapon...why is anyone saying they're underpowered? Explain it to me like I'm stupid. Cos I am.

Sorry, can't see why the Franchi SPAS and Auto Assault aren't the weapons of choice for maximum bang, provided you take care of the recoil (which isn't that hard to do).

Good luck doing that without a gyro harness since you can't use gas vents. What about the semi-autos? Best you're going to get out of those is a hunting rifle that can't even shoot across the parking lot without a scope and takes forever to reload. Flechettes with spread settings are nearly useless according to RAW because they add either +7 or +9ap and drop the DV as well. As it stands, the only good reason to take one is style.

I think designing in a good 'mexican standoff' inititative rule would be fairly simple.

Presume that one can spend a point of edge (working from a SR4 base here) to match (not beat) the 'fastest int in the fight'.

This leads to fairly common 'simultanious draws' or whatever you want to call them, particularly when facing against a 'named' opponent.

From there you include a note about simultainious actions where each action peformed is simultanious with the other combatants (that is: You use a free action to draw (fastdraw) the opponent can take a fast draw at the exact same time (if he needs) or do some other 'free' action. A simple action is matched with another simple action and a simple vs complex action... well, I'm not a developer but I'm inclined to go either way (the simple goes off first or they go off together). that sets up stage two of the mexican Standoff (getting guns pointed at eachother without actually shooting... yet...

The final stage (????.. then profit?) is to put in some sort of 'judge intent' extended action, maybe even a contested roll for that bonus initative (as a simple action...) as each 'player' either tries to work out how to get away, or get fast enough to shoot without getting shot.

How it might work:

A&B get in a fight. A rolls REALLY FAAKING GOOD on his Init check. B spends a point of Edge which creates a simultanious init in this new ruleset.

A Fastdraws his pistol as a 'free action'. B does the same. This happens at the same time, now they are both pointing guns at one another.

Right now, either one could shoot, but if he does the other guy still gets to shoot back, double death, yo. Either one can start it off, though tradition lets A declare actions first.

So B, instead, decides he wants to 'jockey for position', hoping to win a temporary advantage over his opponent, A. He decides he wants to bluff A into lowering his guard... Now for contested checks on bluffiness. (note that both characters have essentially 'held action' so anyone coming in teh room and drawing down on them just winds up adding to the standoff... even without spending edge).

A manages to beat B's bluff, so they are still stuck, meanwhile he wants to negotiate a truce, so he...



Well, you get the picture. I changed one rule (edge expenditure for Init) and codified the ettiquette of action and, with the help of a sample more or less created a mexican standoff in Shadowrun's ruleset.


EDIT::: I must apologize for the utter lack of English 101 in the above post. I am sick like the dog.

Since when can shotguns not use gas vents? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/proof.gif)

I finded it. p.311 "Gas-vent systems can be built into machine pistols, SMGs, assault rifles, and machine guns." [PS wasn't the band 311 the biggest turd ever?]

Mexican standoffs require 2 main things in Shadowrun. The party (or parties) who win initiative need some desire to not shoot the other and a belief that the other party really doesn't want to get hurt or possibly die. After that, all you need is 1 remaining edge point and the dead-man's trigger rule. Stock up on aim actions as you can.

Which is why they don't really happen very often (just like in real life, not Hollywood). Generally if one side's got guns pointed at the other side, there's no good reason at all to stand there and pose while the other side readies their weapons, too, and points them back.

Once a situation dictates that a firearm be levelled at someone, normally that person doing something like pointing a firearm right back at you is grounds for applying a couple pounds of pressure to a trigger and -- voila -- resolving the situation.

If you really want to have a Mexican (or Chinese) standoff I think there should actually be a mini-game.

It would be like the mini-game for dueling, as opposed to melee combat, in Legend of the Five Rings.

Hehehehehe, minigames in a tabletop RPG. It's brilliant! They could print supplemental books that were essentially modules and replaced the normal abstract rules with crazy complex ones, and they would be modular, you could add and subtract them at will, and crazy obsessive insane people would buy and use all of them, and I would (like in most games with minigames) ignore all of them and play the real game!

I'll give it some more thought when I'm done training my neural network, but I'm not seeing why the final stage isn't just "pull the trigger".

~J

The only one I can see is when there at least three groups:

Group A, who has group B aiming guns at them, and group A', who is hidden initially, less in number then group B and reveals that they have guns aimed at group B and suggest that shooting group A would be bad.

Either one side believes killing is wrong (unlikely in Shadowrun) or needs information or wants to avoid escalated retaliation or ... there are more reasons I'm sure. The other side just needs a desire to avoid pain that's stronger than its desire to inflict it (much more likely). I don't think Mexican Standoffs are or should be common in SR, but they can certainly be modeled effectively.

One way a mexican standoff could develop is if gunman A has his gun drawn on gunman B and is trying to intimidate him into surrendering, and gunman C, an ally of gunman B enters the room and draws a bead on gunman A. C can't shoot A without A shooting B, A can't shoot B without getting shot by C, therefore noone shoots. Of course this does require A to not want to shoot B immediately, which is kinda contrived.

Ditto, Gunman C.

If you walk in on someone who's got their gun, and attention, trained on your buddy, your best bet isn't to go "Hey, buddy, what're you doing?" and reach for your Intimidation dice. Your introduction should consist of "BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM" (repeat as needed).

Well, There's still a risk of gunman A managing to put a round in gunman B's head if gunman C shoots him. Of course, if gunman C really doesn't give a damn about gunman B, there's nothing preventing him from shooting gunman A, but I'm rather presuming that B and C are tight, and C doesn't want to be responsible for B's death.

The other problem with mexican standoffs is that Blondie already knows that Tuco's gun is empty.

~J

DUDE 1: Ah hah, I'm pointing my pistol at you, and you're pointing your pistol at me, and we just happened to pause, so now we're in....MEXICAN STANDOFF!

DUDE 2: Dude, your slide is racked back.

*bakam bakam bakam*

The Auto Assault has gas vent recoil fitted (admittedly gas vent 2). Throw in an auto-adjusting underbarrel weight, a sling and a stock and you've got fairly good recoil compensation. Firing slugs on burst fire, you're going to do ok.

Am I wrong here? I'm second guessing myself. What is today's twinked up street sam carrying to PTA meetings this season?

An Ares Alpha. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

What Fortune said.

AA16 w/ Auto Weight, favorite flavor of Stock and Personalized grip: 6 RC, full burst recoil is 6
AK97 w/ Same as above + Gas Vent 3 accessory: 7RC, full burst recoil is 2
Ares Alpha w/ Same as AK97 gets no recoil at all on a full burst.

AA16 Pros: It does lay down some wicked suppressing with flechettes and can attack multiple targets without splitting or penalizing it's user's dicepool. Damage is quite respectable with SA or BF. Can use shocklock rounds.
AA16 Cons: It is also more than 4 times the base price of either of the ARs, despite not having a grenade launcher. If a GL is added, RC suffers. Has much shorter range, isn't concealable and is slower to reload. Full bursts are very ineffective even when built for RC if not using a gyromount. Given that full bursts aren't really an option it has lower overall firepower than the ARs even before considering a GL.

Losing out to an Ares Alpha would not be so embarassing if the AA16 weren't so goddamn expensive. The Alpha is also available at chargen while the AA16 is not. Losing out to the cheapest, most bare-bones AR in the game is downright pathetic, especially for a weapon sixteen times the price and so difficult to find.

which is silly, because i know they've made gas vents for shotguns, and it seems rather abitrary that Machine Pistols can have a gas vent, but not a standard pistol.