[X] My Assistant

[suoq]

When did Shadowrun become a simulation based on real life?

[Draco18s]

When did Shadowrun become a simulation based on real life?

When someone said that your average not-gun-toting American can't hit a man-sized target with a pistol.

[suoq]

When someone said that your average not-gun-toting American can't hit a man-sized target with a pistol.

My experience is that your average not-gun-toting American can't find the safety, has difficulty loading a magazine, and doesn't know what a "dominant eye" is.

Heck, half the contestants on this season's "Top Shot" don't know what a spotting scope is or how to use one.

[Draco18s]

My experience is that your average not-gun-toting American can't find the safety, has difficulty loading a magazine, and doesn't know what a "dominant eye" is.

So sad. And I'm not even a republican (meaning: I'm not pro-gun use and I still know more about guns, but then, this is the country that can't find Iraq on a map).

Heck, half the contestants on this season's "Top Shot" don't know what a spotting scope is or how to use one.

I.
What.
A show about "people who know how to shoot guns" not knowing how to shoot guns!?

[suoq]

In season 3, episode 1 of Top Shot they are shooting, as pairs, at 75 yard/100 yard targets from an elevated platform with a LaRue Tactical Optimized Battle Rifle.
Since they were able to choose their pairing, I would assume that the ones who knew what they were doing were the ones shooting at 100 yards.
Frequently the second shooter (the one who would do the 100 yard shot) would use the spotting scope while the first shooter walked it in to the target. Not once did the first shooter go to the spotting scope to help the second shooter. They just stood behind and to the side and cheered.

Watching this, it became clear why the show has experts come in and teach the contestants how to use the equipment properly before competing.

[Yerameyahu]

Oh boy, let's avoid the knee-jerk stuff. If someone has never used a gun, is it necessary to mock them for not knowing how to use a gun? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) It's like saying, 'jeez, people who have never driven a car don't know how to drive stick'.

Untrained is untrained. It is appropriate and expected that they don't know how. The odds of hitting a target should be quite low indeed. In a cinematic game, this can mean either 'no chance at all' (hell, bad guys miss all the time!), or 'beginner's luck' (for the hero). The latter is Edge.

[Draco18s]

Untrained is untrained. It is appropriate and expected that they don't know how. The odds of hitting a target should be quite low indeed. In a cinematic game, this can mean either 'no chance at all' (hell, bad guys miss all the time!), or 'beginner's luck' (for the hero). The latter is Edge.

Point was, people are conflating "untrained" and "incompetent."

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Short range for a simple (not compound) bow? That has a mere 100 pound draw? (i.e. one that an 11 year old boy can pull, albeit with difficulty?)

Ummmm.... I hunt with a Compound Bow sporting a 70 lb. Draw Weight. I have yet to see an 11 year old child that can use a Bow with a 100 lb. Draw Weight. Even the bows that we used in the Boy Scouts were only 30 lb. Draw Weights. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Draco18s]

Ummmm.... I hunt with a Compound Bow sporting a 70 lb. Draw Weight. I have yet to see an 11 year old child that can use a Bow with a 100 lb. Draw Weight. Even the bows that we used in the Boy Scouts were only 30 lb. Draw Weights. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

*Shrug*
It's been almost a decade since I was at summer camp last, I may have mis-remembered the draw weight.

[ZeroPoint]

And today, I think a lot of people don't necessarily need to have actually used a gun to have a skill rank. The first time i fired a gun (a .22 Pistol) was at a barrel approximately 30+ meters out. Emptied an entire clip and only missed about 2 shots of the i think 15. I was 11 or 12.
Never used a gun before....but i did play duck hunt and other light gun games and watched lots of movies with people shooting guns. Having never actually shot a gun before I was still able to observe and absorb information on how to shoot a gun. And lets go 70 years in the future where the average person is watching trideo or sims, experiencing action combat (even if stylized) from the perspective of the shooter. Which means that when they actually get to fire a real gun, the first few shots will suck, but then they'll get used the experience of firing a gun and be able to mesh that with their previous experience..

My point being, that even if they don't know how to operate the safety, eject or load a magazine etc., once you have someone show them the basics, most people today are brought up with guns showing up enough in the media and our everyday thinking, that their first rank in firearms would come almost naturally for some people.

At least that's my 2 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nuyen.gif)

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

In season 3, episode 1 of Top Shot they are shooting, as pairs, at 75 yard/100 yard targets from an elevated platform with a LaRue Tactical Optimized Battle Rifle.
Since they were able to choose their pairing, I would assume that the ones who knew what they were doing were the ones shooting at 100 yards.
Frequently the second shooter (the one who would do the 100 yard shot) would use the spotting scope while the first shooter walked it in to the target. Not once did the first shooter go to the spotting scope to help the second shooter. They just stood behind and to the side and cheered.

Watching this, it became clear why the show has experts come in and teach the contestants how to use the equipment properly before competing.

100 Yards? That's It?
No wonder I don't watch that show.

[Runner Smurf]

I'll step in here, and throw in my 2 cents:
- I agree with Jester that there is a problem with the low-dice pool "cliff" at the low end. Hard shots for low dice pools go from improbable to impossible. I personally am willing to accept that because my proposed system solves a far worse problem, namely that shots that should be extremely difficult are too easy.

- I also think it is ultimately a mistake to compare personal, real world experience on a shooting range with a) combat conditions and b) game statistics. Firstly because real-world experience is anecdotal, and varies a lot from person to person. Actual statistical data is something else, and sometimes is far different. At least from the data I've seen from the Army and various police reports, the vast majority of shots in combat conditions miss. While I don't really expect SR to replicate the real-world conditions (it wouldn't be much fun), I wanted to make the ranged combat system at least a little more believable, especially for long-range and inherently difficult shots. Oh, and fix the ridiculously broken scatter rules.

- Any game system is going to have holes in it, and they are most generally obvious at the extremes. In this case, SR4A RAW have a weird hole at the high end, where shots that even incredibly skilled people cannot do consistently can be made frequently by low-skilled people, and almost without fail for higher-skilled people. There are people in real life that can make 1+ klick shots, but not without fail. In SR4, with a scope, it's nearly impossible to miss, even if you aren't 1-in-a-million skilled. This has driven me nuts, and has made me house rule that snipers are not kosher as they break the simulation, and make it no fun - particularly if the GM starts using snipers.

- There is another hole that SR4A RAW has, as do my rules, and that is the routine shot. Yes, a skilled person should be able to consistently make an easy shot without fail. The variability of the core mechanic is such that they will still miss a significant portion of the time. I think of this as the "Annie Oakley problem" - there are trick shooters out there that can do amazing things with appalling regularity, and there just isn't a good way to simulate this, and my proposed rules in some ways make this worse.

Ultimately, it's a tradeoff - which statistical oddity bothers you more. For me, it's the high end "sniper problem", the low-end cliff and the "Annie Oakley problem" don't bother me nearly as much. So I'm willing to make that tradeoff. A long-winded explanation, but there.

As for the shortened range categories, you can easily take or leave that part for your own games. I like it because it makes range modifiers come up more frequently, which they rarely do in games I run. This causes a weird balance issue in-game because if everything takes place at close ranges, using longer range weapons doesn't really provide any advantages. And, dangit, sometimes the guy with the pistol should be screwed when going up with a guy with a rifle. My adjustment to the ranges tries to make the different range capabilities of different weapons more important. Plus, the ranges just don't fit with my (admittedly limited and probably wrong) intuition.

You know, I should dig up some of the Army's data on small arms accuracy. They should have it around on TRADOC somewhere.

[Andinel]

There is one simple thing to resolve this whole threshold issue.

Pressure.

When you're firing a gun at a still target in a non-threatening situation (like a firing range or an archery range), the shot is going to be significantly easier than when you're aiming a gun at a hostile or potentially hostile target. There is also the distinction in most people's minds between firing at an object and at a person. I'd imagine that shooting any kind of projectile weapon is quite a bit easier when you don't have to worry about getting noticed (for a sniper) or getting shot back at.

[Runner Smurf]

Andinel - Amen!

Or, to (mis)quote Teddy Roosevelt - "There is nothing as exhilarating on this earth as to be shot at and missed."

[Brainpiercing7.6...]

There is one simple thing to resolve this whole threshold issue.

Pressure.

When you're firing a gun at a still target in a non-threatening situation (like a firing range or an archery range), the shot is going to be significantly easier than when you're aiming a gun at a hostile or potentially hostile target. There is also the distinction in most people's minds between firing at an object and at a person. I'd imagine that shooting any kind of projectile weapon is quite a bit easier when you don't have to worry about getting noticed (for a sniper) or getting shot back at.

The thing is that there simply are no consistent rules for actions under pressure. Basically, without pressure you should be able to buy successes. But that disregards the possibility that you might make ever second or third shot without pressure (at dice pools that don't enable you to succeed with buying), but with lead flying at you, you can't do that at all.

So I am inclined to disregard this problem entirely, because it's not represented in the rules so far, and simply handwave that without pressure you can do things that you normally can't. Rolling actually already represents acting under pressure.

[ZeroPoint]

Dice pool modifier?

[Brainpiercing7.6...]

Dice pool modifier?

If you're say that this is a consistent mechanic for acting under pressure I disagree, since acting under pressure or threat of failure is the norm. You could say that you could make that a positive modifier for acting without pressure. But that's also a new rule, in any case, and would solve some of the low-DP probability cliffs for every-day tasks.

Even so things can get iffy:

So your DP 2 boy scouts are practicing their archery. They get a bonus of 2 dice for just practicing without threat of failure.

Now they do an archery contest, and are hence under pressure and threat of failure: And again they can't hit their target at all.

And you have again weird interactions with other rules:

The Focus reality amplifier which automatically calms you, for instance. I could then argue that since I am not experiencing stress, I always receive that DP mod.

Of course you could also add a default DP modifier for whenever lead is flying your way - so that each combat action when actual hostility is being experienced receives a DP penalty due to stress. But that exacerbates the sniper problem: For him, the pressure is always jsut getting the first shot right, becasue the target will try to run and dodge on the second.

[Critias]

*Shrug*
It's been almost a decade since I was at summer camp last, I may have mis-remembered the draw weight.

You have.

[Andinel]

My basic point is that we can argue all thread about low-DP characters, but that will get us nowhere. Most characters in Shadowrun will be at least semi-competent at firing a weapon, so I don't really understand the point of all this arguing about unskilled characters. Yes, there's a wall, but we're talking about a tabletop game, not a physics simulator. As a GM in most cases such as the ones being described I'd say it doesn't matter - let the story take over and do what's necessary, and let's get on with actually designing the parts of the mechanics that will be used for the game. This isn't a game where we're playing unskilled normal people - it's a cinematic game where the characters are at the minimum competent.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

My basic point is that we can argue all thread about low-DP characters, but that will get us nowhere. Most characters in Shadowrun will be at least semi-competent at firing a weapon, so I don't really understand the point of all this arguing about unskilled characters. Yes, there's a wall, but we're talking about a tabletop game, not a physics simulator. As a GM in most cases such as the ones being described I'd say it doesn't matter - let the story take over and do what's necessary, and let's get on with actually designing the parts of the mechanics that will be used for the game. This isn't a game where we're playing unskilled normal people - it's a cinematic game where the characters are at the minimum competent.

Which the rules, as they are currently, already provide for... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

[ZeroPoint]

So your DP 2 boy scouts are practicing their archery. They get a bonus of 2 dice for just practicing without threat of failure.

Now they do an archery contest, and are hence under pressure and threat of failure: And again they can't hit their target at all.

There's a difference between under pressure of failure and under pressure of death

I would only apply penalty to when in active firefight, and a bonus to *no pressure* shots.

and most kids that are in boy scouts probably have higher than 1 agility - kids tend to be more agile than adults - and as a result would most likely have a DP around 3-4 ...if we are going to keep using this example

[Seerow]

There's a difference between under pressure of failure and under pressure of death

I would only apply penalty to when in active firefight, and a bonus to *no pressure* shots.

and most kids that are in boy scouts probably have higher than 1 agility - kids tend to be more agile than adults - and as a result would most likely have a DP around 3-4 ...if we are going to keep using this example

Don't go trying to be all reasonable and give the kids anything resembling a decent dice pool! Then you're changing the numbers to make the example work and that's bad!

[ZeroPoint]

And making a bad example to make them NOT work is any better? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

[Seerow]

And making a bad example to make them NOT work is any better? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

I'm just preempting the argument that was used against me for basically saying the exact same thing about a page ago.

[ZeroPoint]

Thats why I was grinning. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

I fully know how arguments tend to go here on DS.