A few other things:

- Don't tell the player what happened to the guy he shot. If he asks, ask him if he wants to spend his next action to "observe in detail" or if he wants to shoot again and who to shoot.
- More generally, just describe the obvious to the players, everything else will need the PC to "observe in detail" the situation. And remember than a character unaware of an attack can't dodge. For example, if a character is busy shooting someone, chances are he won't notice the other guy flanking him and will get shot without being able to dodge.
- Don't let the players agree on a tactic, unless they spend actions to speak. If they argue that their character are much more used to this than them and that their character should use right away the right tactic, just ask them to roll leadership or tactics tests to see if that's true or not.
- Also don't let the player spend too long deciding on what he'll do. You can also ask for a tactics test to check if the player argues that his character is able to instantly choose the right thing to do.

Agreed. That is why gesture and speak are listed as free actions, but this still doesn't have much of a limiting factor. Though, although some gestures or call signs are pretty universal (pointing, yelling "DUCK!, etc.) it would be a good idea for a team of runners to develop a 'system' for more complex actions. As far as using a tactics related knowledge skill I wouldn't worry too much unless it's something more then basic simple tactics. Something like bounding and coordinated coverage and room clearing techniques I would want a player to make a role or having prep time to establish a protocol ahead of time.

Oh yeah, but while you do all that, try to decide whether you want to simply challenge your group and have them be on their toes, or escalate the game into all-out player-vs-GM warfare.

There are different views on whether that is a good or a bad thing...

That's why I wrote that I wouldn't worry about it too much unless it involved more complex tactics and higher levels of coordination. There's no real way to determine the full breath of knowledge a PC would have with skill points. More often then not. If the players can think of it (assuming they aren't shadowrunners or spec ops in real life) most likely the runners would be able to think of it and might have already done so in the past.

1) Why should a PC need to Observe in Detail? If he is sufficiently observant (a high Perception dice pool), it should be no difficulty for him to note whatever happens to the guy he shot.
2) Again, if a PC has a large enough dice pool to overcome "being distracted" and still be able to reach the Thresholds without using Observe in Detail, then the character should be able to notice someone flanking him.
3 & 4) True with a caveat - a tactics-type test or any related skill(like security procedures, etc) test.

1) I think this means to observe his condition. If knocked down, is the NPC knocked out, dead, crippled or concious. This is something that likely would not be immediately obvious in the middle of combat I don't think.
2)High stress and adrenaline causes tunnel vision. It takes training and actual effort to observe your surroundings in such situations. It's a survival response to keep you from being distracted in flight or fight situations.

In a firefight, even if you have training, you will get tunnel vision. The 'training' your talking about is making sure to look around, but your still tunneled and will focus on movement. Someone who falls down and doesn't move will not draw your attention unless you focus on them, especially if there are moving targets in your line of sight which will pull your eyes to them.

The key is to get into cover so you don't have clear LOS to the targets you were engaging and scan the area all around you to make sure other targets are not creeping up, shift behind the cover so you won't pop up where you ducked in, pop up and re-engage the targets.

Great comic. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

But this is how I am. I don't need to prove that i can flex and kill the party. If I wanted to, I could say ''there's a group of 20 Tir Paladins-yes THOSE Tir Paladins that guard the princes-in the room. Who says it's not viable? It's my game. Anyway, they're facing you down. Roll initiative, though you'll lose anyway.'' But that's not how a game is fun. I mean, combat is deadly as it is-I don't mind using little things to make the PCs sweat a bit(some tactics, things like retreating, regrouping, calling for backup-natural things), but I don't want to start to nitpick. Besides, if the PCs have to Observe in Detail, and all of that-the NPCs do, too. Which means the grounds will be even once again anyway. Yes, there are some opponents that are redshirts, and if they get hit, they probably will go down. If the PCs end up biting off too much, I admit, it's kind of on them-but I make sure to give them a bit of warning(in game. As in, if they examine, etc.)

But if the PCs are careful, do their jobs, investigate, etc, I don't see it necessary to turn every Joe Security guard into a 3-IP Street Sam. There will be opponents under them greatly, under them slightly, equal to them, a little better than them, a LOT better than them, and opponents that if they pick on-yeah, they probably WILL die, even if I tried not to let them.

In other words, I like to make things challenging, yes, but not in a way that's...obvious? If that makes sense. (IE, not in the way of ''damnit! they shot my guards again! Ok, then take THIS and put it in your pipes and smoke it! I has bigger guys than you!!!111'')

I kinda agree and disagree with you. In a firefight there are natural reactions that kick in, they can either overwhelm the person or heighten them (depends on personality and training). Most security guards would be taught to identify intruders and apprehend them if needed, otherwise backoff and call in the big boys (companies hate paying out life insurance policies). If security guards are taught how to use weapons (even at a minimal level) they would be taught to fire as a reaction and to always look for a way out. That means they will naturally try to find cover, shoot at targets of opertunity, and if things get hairy to pull back and regroup.

If you really want to play security guards realistacly then you should have them do stuff like if they get shot they pull out (no matter what type of wound they get). They would shoot blindly around corners to cover their retreats, and they would be sending contact reports to a control centre (so that doors could be locked down, police called in, and wounded can be evacuated).

No one wants to die and very few people will lie down and play dead if they think someone is likely to go around shooting boadies "just in case". The flight side of instinct will kick in and they are more then likely going to run from the situation (trying to find cover along the way so they don't get shot again).

I was talking about reality, not a game. I have both training and personal experience in what I was talking about.

If the game is confusing enough, can we stick to it?

So do I.

Yes, that is what "being distracted" is supposed to simulate, the character being distracted by gunfire and other factors. But what if the character has sufficiently good situational awareness to overcome that? If he is good enough to perceive in the heat of combat, the things a person normally would not be able to?



While it is tempting to have an experiential pissing contest, it serves no real purpose here.

That would be what a perception role is for. To me it would seem like Intuition+Perception(1) as a simple action sounds fair. This would be used to observe anything not immediately obvious. The condition of a fallen enemy or NPC (It may be player knowledge, but I wouldn't get too anal about other PCs unless not present), maneuvers of enemies not engaged with, enemies approaching from out of LoS (not attempting to use stealth) and maybe something like IDing who's slinging spells/throwing grenades etc. The better the PCs spatial awareness, the better there roll will be. Also, if they PCs don't actively take stock I would likely invoke a roll at a 2 threshold or so as a free action to notice something not immediately obvious

The roll should be easy, but the use of a simple action representing that moment were the PC/NPC takes stock in the situation is the thing. It's realistic at least, though if it doesn't fit into your playing style, or if you feel it's just not needed no biggie. I like to make combat a bit gritty and a good number of my players like it that way, especially the ones with combat experience tend to appreciate little details like that.

That's the point. Unless specifically Observing in Detail, Perception checks do not take an action. And that is the thing, for some people, noticing things like this is as natural as breathing. They do not need to consciously look for stuff like this. For most people, I'd agree that since taking an action to Observe in Detail removes the distracted modifier and adds its own dice pool bonus, it would help them notice things not immediately obvious. But for some people, they are so situationally aware it doesn't matter to them.

I have used Perception checks in combat for my games before. Smokey conditions, loud noises all help to conceal footfalls and trips wires. Which is why my PCs have Mindnet up and a Perception/Astral Perception Adept with a large dice pool keying them in on details.

Yes, I have a really good (it's pretty much effortless) spatial awareness. It's like living with a wide focus lens, but when it comes down to life and death and that adrenaline kicks in that focus narrows. Yeah, maybe that's not as much as average, but it does narrow and if it's not something I'm immediately engaged in or an immediate threat it takes an effort for some things to register.

Let's say I'm in a fight with two people and one has a knife, but there's ten or twelve other people around. I know the other twelve are there, but it's out of my conscious perception. One of them might pick up a heavy stick, but I might not register as 'important' even if I see it. If in the middle of my desperate melee I see the person with the heavy stick makes a motion towards me, then it will likely register. If one of the guys takes a fall, even if I see him, for a moment he's out of sight out of mind because my attention has went to the next immediate threat.

No matter how good your situational awareness is, it reduces severely in desperate life or death situations. Yes it might be better then the next guys, but it is still reduced. Training and experience will teach you to 'look around' and take stock of things, and at some point doing so will come second nature but even if it's effortless and almost instinctual reflex you still do it. It's not a SR4 rule, but I'd make it easier for a player prompted perception check then one I invoke do to a situational change.

Tacnets from unwired can be helpful to corp sec +4 to hit and dodge can be a real boost. Make sure they are run on a central secure node(where the group cant get to it and steal it) with all the corp sec comlinks slaved to that. So that the moment corp sec see the group the all of the security are alerted.