The Dreaded Called Shot, To use, or not to use Options

[Tziluthi]

Holy psychotic episode, Batman. I think the bat-radar is picking up some pedantisism. :)

No offense meant, mfb, but I feel your addition to the FAQ is implied in the said document.

[CanvasBack]

I think it's telling that kevyn668 did not say one way or the other how his group handles the mechanic of the head shot. Probably expects to be flamed out of existence if he responds one way or another. To me, whether or not your using just the BBB or every piece of erratta and whatever FAQ that just came out is really not the point, since either way, the PC/NPC that doesn't dodge is in for a bad day anyway. Kevyn668's question was more along the lines of "Is it fair for the gm to pull this on the players?" My sentiment is Yes, but it has to be situationally appropriate. What's situationally appropriate? Well, if you're running the game, you'll have to decide that yourself. It should probably depend on the professional rating of an NPC shootist and what they're trying to accomplish. If shooting a player in the head is what needs to be done, that's what a corporate strike team member will do. Lower echelon people either don't think of it OR they try it but can't accomplish it because they are relatively unskilled/unprofessional... I can't remember which one but I seem to recall an SR adventure set where a player was set up to take a headshot while stopped at the Salish border crossing. Nasty stuff and at the end of the night the GM can show the player that he didn't intentionally screw him, it was "In the module..."

The bottom line is that head shots are not a viable option all the time, unless you have smartlink-2 or have gotten the drop on someone (so that they can't dodge) they are pretty inadvisable since netting successes is king in SR. When they work, they should really work though.

The whole realism vs. abstract thing is kinda played. To be honest, if you wanted to make the game more realistic you should make called shots to the head easier at the shortest range and harder at long and extreme ranges. Cops are always having to explain to civilian review boards why they shot a suspect in the head, and they almost never can get away with "I didn't mean to..." But they almost always resort to "Well, at the academy they trained us to put two in the chest and one in the head so that's what I did." Of course, the whole magic, elves, and dragons thing kinda takes a dump on realism to... Oh well, suspension of disbelief is good, but being able to walk away from the table with no hard feelings is better. :)

[Corywn]

[DigitalMage]

On reading the first post - and noting that he wasn't saying either way how the player in questioned handled Called Shots - I wondered how long it would be for someone to turn the thread into the great debate, not long eh?

It is strange that the DSF veterans moan when anyone posts a thread that turns into the great debate, but more often than not it is one of those same DSF veterans who turn it into the great debate.

Anyway, enough off topic stuff. One thing that Doc Funk said that got me thinking was to do with the fact that - if the final result ends up being Deadly damage then interpret that as a successful headshot.

My question is therefore, do we actually need a Called Shot modifier. Every time a character shoots he is aiming at something - the head, hand, arse or whatever of a person or vehicle. Couldn't we just say how well, or even whether, a character hits that spot is reflected in the number fo successes rolled?

For example a player doesn't elect to Call a Shot but rolls enough successes to stage Damage up to Deadly - this could be interpreted as a Headshot, just as making a Called Shot and ending up with a Deadly result could be interpreted as a successful headshot.

For special effects, such as shooting a gun out of a characters' hand, couldn't the GM just state how many successes are required? If fewer successes are gained, the shot missed or may have simply inflicted base damage.

Any thoughts?

[Solidcobra]

*Pops in*
*Reads half topic*
NAPALM! HIT THE DECK!!!!

.
.
.
.
.


Anyhow....
this is how i handle Called Shots: +1 Damage level, if the damage level was already Deadly then it's +1 Power, easy!
And, of course..... Headshots are boring anyway...
BOOM! Target dead
Throatshots are MUCH more fun!
BOOM! Target claws at throat, gurgling on his own blood and slowly falls to the ground...... Fun, fun!

[Zazen]

I just had a thought about why I find calling shots to ignore armor to be absurd: It highly restricts the way the GM defines the wound, sometimes into the realm of the ridiculous.

Without the ignore-armor rule a GM can say that a called shot hit the wrong area of the body because the dice turn out to produce only a small wound. With the ignore-armor rule the shot necessarily has to hit the unarmored area, restricting the GMs descriptors. This isn't stupid by itself (it's not, succeeding at a called shot should make the bullet go where you wanted) until you realize that it works in reverse.


How? Like this: I fire a shot normally (without calling a shot) at Bob the Nudist Security Guard, who is wearing nothing but a security helmet. His armor applies to this shot, and the ignore-armor rule says that this means that I hit something armored (because if I'd hit an unarmored location, he'd get no armor bonus). The only thing armored is his head. Therefore the GM must rule that every single round I fire hits his head, totally missing the rest of his body. It reminds me a bit of that gun in The Fifth Element with the homing bullets. No matter how much lead I spray at Bob, it all hits him in the head.

And so, to those who say that ignoring armor makes more sense, I say that it makes less sense because of this.

[Pavlov]

:grinbig:

I think that example illustrates why Shadowrun works better as an abstract system. Overthinking the combat system leads to all sorts of absurd scenarios, no matter how you feel about called shots. I like a certain amount of realism and lethality in the game, but it's much more important to me that the mechanics are intuitive and consistent--it makes gameplay smoother and more fun. That's priority A.

[Ol' Scratch]

[Ol' Scratch]

[kevyn668]

:noflame:

Okay, Okay. Let me set a few things straight: I was unsure about this post when I was writing it for the exact reasons that have come up--The Great Debate. So I'd like to appoligize to everyone involved.

I appologize for my lack of specifics.

My question was more a philisophical debate rather than a mechanics question. Kinda like "Where do you draw the line between challenge and vindictiveness?" with an example from recent game play. Did I mention that I'm new to GMing?

I've seen the mechanics question turn onto a flaming train wreck before and feared it might happen again but I was still curious to see if there are REALLY vengful GMs out there.

[Nods to those who noticed I didn't post how me and my group handle the called shot, note that I still haven't ;) ]

:)

[nezumi]

Let me tell you how to handle called shots. Now imagine a giant, nude troll running around... oh wait, never mind, you didn't want to hear about that : Þ

Every GM eventually learns the point of the game is a balance between being too cruel and too nice. If you hand everything to them on a silver platter, there's no challenge, and if you let gangers pop 'em with one shot, it's too tough. You are going to have to kill characters periodically just to keep the paranoia level up, but as long as they're sweating, there's really no need to kill 'em. If they come in all ballsy and ready for anything, go ahead and mortally wound someone at your leisure (giving them a warning shot is optional; generally aim for a serious wound on that to make sure they recognize it for what it is.) But that's really dependant on how your game is run. Some people like it easy and some people like the skin of the teeth feel.

As for being vengeful... vengeful GMs usually don't GM for long. No one likes to be the target of god. The only time I get vengeful is on online games when characters don't respond for a month (and you have to admit, that's asking for it.) Even then, I give 'em plenty of warning shots before causing them to spontaneously combust or be torn limb from limb by mutant bunny rabbits (actually, they're great red shirts to make sure your other characters have proper respect for a man with a gun.) Just reread the GM suggestions in the book; be fair, be tough and make it fun.

[Dim Sum]

Hey, Kevyn, welcome to GMing - there aren't enough of us to go around. :D With time, I think you'll find it a very rewarding role.

Nezumi has already made a good point about balance between being too soft and being too hard, but the one thing I've found my players most valued in my games was consistency. Consistency in the way NPCs behave, in the way you judge things, in the way your world develops. Sure, I've been told by some newbie players that they "saw it coming a mile away" when my NPCs spring "surprises" at them but my veteran players appreciate it because they can rely on certain presumptions in the game world just as they can in the real world, eg. start a gun battle in the streets, the police will respond - if the cops responding report they're facing heavy firepower or determined opposition, SWAT gets called in. A certain amount of "predictability" goes a long way because that's what you get in real life (plus the fact that your players learn to trust that you're not going to change things on a dime just to foil their plans).

In your case with the head shots, I'd say go with it wherever it's reasonable. I think someone else has mentioned it already: if your PCs are facing gangers, chances are slim any of them would be aiming for heads. If your PCs are holding hostages and the SAS storm the building, I'd say they can expect double-taps and bursts to their heads. To me, that's not so much a question of fairness but of consistency and credibility.

[kevyn668]

Hey Dim, thanks for the support. :)