IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Rewriting Canon, Been a long time coming.
Arethusa
post Apr 13 2004, 10:17 AM
Post #1


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 2,901
Joined: 19-June 03
Member No.: 4,775



Ok, so let's get one thing out of the way first: canon has many problems, but no section so glaringly problematic, so enourmously flawed, so ridiculously broken as the rules governing weapons. Everything from weapon concealability to capacity to damage to armor to recoil has been the subject of countless debates over realism and sanity. And it's about time someone did something.

Yes, I'm aware of Raygun's work. I like it very much, despite a few fairly minor disagreements. I'm also aware of Austere's work, to some degree, though much less so, given that he doesn't have a pretty website to host it or even any other sort of digital publication. But, in any case, I think there's another way to do it that preserves as much of canon as possible while still maintaining levels of internal consistency and realism that Mulvihill couldn't even dream of. And I'm giving it a shot, but I'd also like to get some opinions on what directions I should work in, as I'm not planning on only using this personally.

That said, if there's anything you'd like to see remedied as a piece of quasi/pseudo canon, do let me know. But, for now, one specific question:

Would you prefer to leave armor values as full body abstractions as they are currently (eg FFBA is 2/1 for a shirt while 4/1 for a full body suit), despite errata stating that body parts can be targeted to bypass armor, or would you prefer armor values by body region (eg arms, torso, head, etc)?

In any case, any comments, suggestions, or opinions on this are welcome. I'd definitely like some feedback on this, and it would be nice to know if there's anyone out there who'd actually give a damn about such a project.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Austere Emancipa...
post Apr 13 2004, 11:06 AM
Post #2


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,889
Joined: 3-August 03
From: A CPI rank 1 country
Member No.: 5,222



While it's always extremely interesting to see what kind of discussions springs up about these issues, I must say that I am not as enthusiastic anymore. I certainly do give a damn, I give several, but I probably won't be posting any of those 10-page-messages. On the other hand, I don't think you really want me to anyway. :P

I'm disqualified from answering your first question, because I already use Hit Locations. Sorry. ;)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Arethusa
post Apr 13 2004, 11:12 AM
Post #3


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 2,901
Joined: 19-June 03
Member No.: 4,775



Hey, feel free to post the system you use for hit locations. Assuming I do go that direction, could use some direction in piecing together a system that works.

One addendum to what I did say: as much as I'd like to preserve canon as much as possible, I'm not opposed to new mechanics. Autofire, for example, could benefit from something that didn't work on the canon all-or-nothing approach, but I've yet to find something elegant enough to be worthwhile. Still, I'd very much like to hear any suggestions, and that goes for everything.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Voran
post Apr 13 2004, 11:14 AM
Post #4


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,401
Joined: 23-February 04
From: Honolulu, HI
Member No.: 6,099



Called shots have always been the bane of pretty much any gaming system I've been played in. Heh, I remember the worst offense (though fun in small doses) are the called shots/crit-tables of gurps. "I am for the eyes! No armor!"

As for SR. I still feel that piece of errata about totally bypassing armor, did more harm than good. Anyhoo. I still like the idea of abstract full body applications, just for ease and 'speed' of combat.

However, for arguments sake, lets look at area specific protection/combat.

I'd change the modifiers for called shots. First off, I'd make calling a shot a simple action, not a free one. Next I'd vary the modifier (typically +4) based on the size of the area you're aiming for. I'm not sure, maybe another +1 or 2 for legs, an additional +2/+3 for arms, a huge modifier adjustment for hands/feet/head. Like another +4. So base, +4 for a called torso, +5 or 6 for a called leg, a plus +6 or 7 for a arm shot, and a whopping +8 for a head shot.

As for protection: Maybe a base rule that armored limbs have half the rating (round up) of the basic torso abstract. Security/Military grades maybe have same ratings regardless of location?

Dunno how to incorporate helmets for composite/piecemeal armors.

As for damage. I personally think its kinda cheesy for you to call a shot on a guy's arm, and manage to kill him with a roll. I'd say that there should be a 'damage cap' per area location based on weapon type. Maybe a called shot to a particular location can stage up its damage rating by one, but will never increase beyond that even if the attacker ends up rolling a bazillion successes on that limb shot. So its still possible to kill someone from total health with a limb shot if you're using a shotgun, but not going to happen using a heavy or light pistol.

More thoughts later, this is getting a bit long :)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nikoli
post Apr 13 2004, 11:43 AM
Post #5


Chicago Survivor
*********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 5,079
Joined: 28-January 04
From: Canton, GA
Member No.: 6,033



Concerning auto-fire, to me the point os a fully automatic weapon was to compensate for a lack of truly immersive and extensive training (say, 9 months doing nothing but shooting the eyes out of life size targets 200 yds down range in a cross wind) this means to me that auto-fire should make it easier to hit your target, and do significant damage. not harder and do significant damage.
Does this make sam's more dangerous? Slightly as a professional shooter would use short controlled bursts in most situations.
Does this make the average street punk with an uzi more dangerous? Extremely since your average piece of street trash is barely above a civilian in terms of weapon use skill, this would compensate greatly for their lack of skill, which was the point in the design of the weapon.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Jopp
post Apr 13 2004, 11:46 AM
Post #6


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 2,925
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 948



What should be redesigned?

Autofire
I would like a complete overhaul on the auto-fire rules. Perhaps that you add 1D6 to your attack test for each bullet fired and reduce 1D6 per point of recoil. The amount of bullets fired on a 3 second combat turn should vary from weapon to weapon dependant upon the rpm of the weapon. Any weapon capable of FA should at least be able to fire 30 rounds per combat turn or a specified amount per combat phase.

The weapons shouldnít gain any bonus to damage code or power for every three rounds fire but should instead be modified per the normal rules for staging. A character with a skill of SMG 6 firing a 30 round FA against a target would have a base damage of 6M and make the attack with 6+15 Dice. Letís assume that the character has 5 points of RC which means that the amounts of D6ís are reduced by 5. Total amount of D6 for the attack is 6+15-5=16D6. Base damage 6M, Total damage 12D.

Weapons would make less damage but that also brings us to the second point, armor.

Armor Values

Abstract armor values are nice and all but Iíd like a more realistic approach. A formfitting armor would cover the chest, arms, legs and possibly the head, this would also mean that instead of average armor values we would get lower armor values on specific locations. The layering rules are impossibly silly since the poor Lonestars canít even MOVE due to their armor value. A hit location table would be nice.

Hitting the target
A different targeting system. Instead of the usual 4+ to hit the target I would like a base target number depending on where you aim.

Center mass: 4+ (Upper body, chest area)
Legs/arms: 6+ (Smartlink 2 reduce modifier by -1)
Head: 8+ (Smartlink reduce modifier by -2)
Tiny 9+ No further smartlink bonus ( eyes, mouth, ear )

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Arethusa
post Apr 13 2004, 11:46 AM
Post #7


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 2,901
Joined: 19-June 03
Member No.: 4,775



I like the idea of calling a shot being a simple action, though I may make that optional. I do feel your modifiers are a bit much, though I'll have a look at the probabilities later and see what strikes me as reasonably realistic. Again, suggestions and comments are very welcome.

As for damage, was planning on dropping a damage level for arm shots, two points of power for limb shots, possibly increasing a damage level for upper torso, and adding two or three damage levels for head shots. That's very tentative, at the moment, however. Should also note that unlike soaking damage, if a damage level is to be dropped from light, two points of power would be droped instead.

I'll also need to rework the rules for deadly damage/incapacitation/bleeding to death, but in regards to a single pistol shot to the arm knocking you out, could just make tests going over deadly twice or three times as hard, but, again, I'd like to strike a balance between realism and playability.

[edit]

I'm certainly willing to overhaul the autofire rules, and, to some degree, I do like the idea of tossing on dice per round(s) fired, but past that, in your system, each round fired counteracts itself without recoil compensation. It also has some other probabalistic issues that I'm not comfortable with and don't find especially realistic. Still, that's not to say the concept is lost, but I don't like it as is. Completely dwarfing the effects of skill on a shooters ability is just one of the many issues I have with it.

As for rounds fired varying per weapon RPM, I'll consider adding it, but it's hard to keep that sort of thing elegant. Still, if I do decide to do this, it'll just be one more weaon stat, and a welcome way to differentiate weapons past concealabity, capacity, and damage rating. Would also add in max recoil values, while I'm at it. Any opinions?

I personally didn't really have any issues with the layering rules; cuold use some explanation in that area.

One last addendum: considering that an average person, 2 meters away from you with a pistols skill of, say, 3, is pointing a Predator at your head. His target number to his should simply not be 12. +8 for a headshot is getting to be a bit much, and I'd like to avoid rules for extremely close range, if possible. Since this is all being redesigned, no need to get byzantine.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mfb
post Apr 13 2004, 12:00 PM
Post #8


Immortal Elf
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 11,410
Joined: 1-October 03
From: Pittsburgh
Member No.: 5,670



the suppressive fire rules are fairly useable as-is, but one major change needs to be made: remove the TN mods for cover. suppressive fire should be able to be used for things like shooting at people on the other side of a wall, hiding in the bushes, etc.; as it stands, that's simply not possible. granted, suppression through a barrier will reduce the power of the attack, perhaps drastically, but it should still be possible. the whole damn point of spray-and-pray suppression is that you don't have to know exactly where your target is! if full darkness doesn't affect your ability to shoot someone, why should tall grass?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Arethusa
post Apr 13 2004, 12:08 PM
Post #9


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 2,901
Joined: 19-June 03
Member No.: 4,775



That certainly gets my approval, though I'd like a way to increase damage dealt with the suppression fire rules. As it is, you only sort of get this through staging, and I don't personally find it's effective enough to reflect what good suppressing fire's likely to do. Also, will be modifying it to allow for suppressing fire from semi automatic weapons. As usual, details later; comments now.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Austere Emancipa...
post Apr 13 2004, 12:18 PM
Post #10


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,889
Joined: 3-August 03
From: A CPI rank 1 country
Member No.: 5,222



QUOTE (Arethusa)
feel free to post the system you use for hit locations.

Okay, you asked for it...

Separately armored locations are: Head, Face, Torso, R/L Arm, R/L Leg. I generally discourage people from armoring just one limb instead of in pairs, but the system can handle either just as well. Torso covers the area around the hips for the sake of simplicity, you might as well decide that basic armored vests do not.

No Over-Damage ever occurs from hits to limbs -- drop the DL of any such hit to Deadly after all other modifiers and tests. Hits to limbs drop the Damage Level by one after all other modifiers and tests are made. This never drops the Damage Level below Light. If someone gets hit in the arm with a Deadly + 6 net successes shotgun blast, s/he just takes a Serious (first dropping to Deadly, then -1DL), but I record the original DL (Deadly + 3 Over-Damage) for wound effects on the arm. My usual guideline is that a limb with a Deadly damage before the above modifiers is completely useless, and a limb with enough damage to kill the character is permanently useless -- severed, for example.

Hits to the head and a few special torso locations raise the Damage Level by one before any other modifiers. Basically, an Assault Rifle (8M) hit to the face would be calculated as if the base weapon Damage Code was 8S.

Melee combat, explosions, spells, etc do not roll hit locations and are calculated as in canon without any damage modifiers. Armor against such attacks ("overall armor") is calculated as 0.2xHead + 0.5xTorso + 0.15xArms + 0.15xLegs. This takes into consideration the fact that even though arms and legs are more likely to be damaged than your head, any damage that you do receive in your head or torso is more dangerous than damage received in the limbs.

Hit locations are rolled with 3d6.
3 - Trachea/Spine/Heart (+1 DL)
4 - Trachea/Spine/Heart (+1 DL)
5 - Trachea/Spine/Heart (+1 DL)
6 - Left Leg (-1 DL, No OD)
7 - Left Leg (-1 DL, No OD)
8 - Left Arm (-1 DL, No OD)
9 - Right Leg (-1 DL, No OD)
10 - Left Upper Torso
11 - Right Upper Torso
12 - Abdomen
13 - Right Arm (-1 DL, No OD)
14 - Hip-area
15 - Hip-area
16 - Head, Excl Face (+1 DL)
17 - Face (+1 DL)
18 - Eyes (+1 DL)

Currently, the called shot modifiers are +2 to torso and +4 to limbs and head -- +1/+2 with SL-2. This is not very good for game balance, however, and results in too many called shots to the head in my experience. Thus I'm probably going to change it to +3/+6, +2/+4 with SL-2. If necessary, roll 1d6 when a shot is called to the head to determine where exactly it hits: 1-3 Not-Face, 4-5 Face, 6 Eyes. The torso has, in my games, even armor in all locations, so a separate roll when a shot is called to torso is not required.

Distinctions in the table above such as Left/Right Upper Torso have no in-game function at the moment. The Eyes-location might, if someone uses a protective mask with eye-holes, or other similar protective gear.

That's about it. My take on auto-fire can be found e.g. here.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dashifen
post Apr 13 2004, 01:02 PM
Post #11


Technomancer
********

Group: Retired Admins
Posts: 4,638
Joined: 2-October 02
From: Champaign, IL
Member No.: 3,374



QUOTE (The Jopp)
Autofire
I would like a complete overhaul on the auto-fire rules. Perhaps that you add 1D6 to your attack test for each bullet fired and reduce 1D6 per point of recoil. The amount of bullets fired on a 3 second combat turn should vary from weapon to weapon dependant upon the rpm of the weapon. Any weapon capable of FA should at least be able to fire 30 rounds per combat turn or a specified amount per combat phase.

The weapons shouldnít gain any bonus to damage code or power for every three rounds fire but should instead be modified per the normal rules for staging. A character with a skill of SMG 6 firing a 30 round FA against a target would have a base damage of 6M and make the attack with 6+15 Dice. Letís assume that the character has 5 points of RC which means that the amounts of D6ís are reduced by 5. Total amount of D6 for the attack is 6+15-5=16D6. Base damage 6M, Total damage 12D.

Not a bad way to do that, but I hesitate to add dice because you're adding bullets in the air. The dice represent a person's skill with a weapon. Perhaps, if you wanted to say that you were specialized in using SMGs on FA mode, I would probably allow that to get a few more dice, but not per bullet in the air.

The way I've always done autofire is to slightly modify canon, as I read it. IIRC the TN for your autofire burst at someone determines whether you hit or miss with ALL of your burst. I never liked that. So, I just said that the calculated TN is the TN for the last bullet and each one before it is -1 from it. Gets a little hairy when people change targets, but it's not too bad if you take a moment to think it through. Then, they roll the dice. If they make the last TN then all the bullets hit. Otherwise, they hit with all bullets up to their highest roll. Recoil, visibility, and distance all count to modifiy the TNs.

Example:
Jonny Dark is firing his 6M SMG at two people. He's at medium range (base TN 5) for the first one, but the second one is closer to him (base TN 4). He's firing 5 bullets at the first person and 5 bullets at the second. We'll say he has 3 points of recoil compensation. He's unwounded and the bad guys aren't under cover and there are no visibility penalties. Therefore, to hit the first guy, the TNs are 5, 5, 5, 6, 7 because the recoil from the first three shots is compensated for. Then, he switches targets to the second guy, but he's a little closer, so the next set of TNs are 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13. Now, we roll the dice. With his SMGs skill of 6 he gets: 07 04 03 02 02 01. Aparently it's not his lucky day. That roll of a 7 means that he has one success for the first guy and none for the second. The first guy can try to dodge, but if he gets hit with the 5 round burst, then he's looking at 11S damage (+1 to power per bullet, +1 to DL for every 3, just like canon (I think)).

Also, I should be noted, that I don't usually stage the damage for more than one success at a person since you're already shooting at them in full auto and I don't think I've ever had anyone that didn't put at least a three-round burst in the direction of a single target. If Jonny had rolled a 9, let's say, then he would have sent two bullets at the second guy but the last three were misses. Then, the second guy would be facing an 8M shot, because it's only two bullets and not three.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Clyde
post Apr 13 2004, 02:08 PM
Post #12


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 458
Joined: 12-April 04
From: Lacey, Washington
Member No.: 6,237



No one ever seems to have mentioned one area that I think causes a lot of problems in SR combat: the combat pool! The combat pool has always been the justification for putting insanely high target numbers (12, 13) into the system and for throwing out weapons that are way beyond anything that a normal person could stage. Consider: where else in the system do you ever roll against a target number of 10? Availability on some of the rare weapons? Resist a Force 10 Powerbolt?

The combat pool lets even a fairly mild starting character (weapon skill of 5, say) throw a 10 die attack, more than once per round!

Why not remove that pool and lower the target numbers in combat all around? You'd need to rework armor to a huge degree, but armor already needs work, right?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pistons
post Apr 13 2004, 03:54 PM
Post #13


Not Cameron Diaz
**

Group: Retired Admins
Posts: 472
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Newark, Delaware
Member No.: 188



QUOTE (Clyde)
Consider: where else in the system do you ever roll against a target number of 10?

I see you've never played a decker. :)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dashifen
post Apr 13 2004, 03:56 PM
Post #14


Technomancer
********

Group: Retired Admins
Posts: 4,638
Joined: 2-October 02
From: Champaign, IL
Member No.: 3,374



QUOTE (Pistons)
QUOTE (Clyde @ Apr 13 2004, 09:08 AM)
Consider: where else in the system do you ever roll against a target number of 10?

I see you've never played a decker. :)

Or tried to learn a high force spell.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Chance359
post Apr 13 2004, 04:45 PM
Post #15


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 993
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 313



For called shots, I've always used Blackjack's system where the number of points you are trying to negate is the modifier. It's located at the bottom of the page. I feel it represents "finding the kinks" in armor fairly well, and doesn't require a major system overhall.

Blackjack's rule

As for suppression fire, I allow the application of the "lead-air" theory with any SA/BF/FA weapon, the number of rounds is determined by the player. Each die rolled represents 1 round fired, treating the resulting damage as a burst. The target number for this test is usually based on the size of the area that is being suppressed (4 for a 1 meter area, +1 for each additional meter), plus 1/2 lighting modifiers, standard range modifiers apply.

Example: Lemonhead is ambushing two rival gang member in an alley, since he didn't have time to bring his SMG, he;s forced to rely on his trusted colt manhunter. Knowing that he's not that attacking the gangers is more important than actually killing the, Lemonhead sneaks up to a dumpster 5 meters away from the gangers, stepping out from behind cover he begins firing 8 rounds into the first gangers space (1 meter). His target number is 6 (4 base + 2 for lighting) and he rolls 8 dice: 1,1,3,4,5,7,7,15 giving him 3 success or a 12S attack.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Talia Invierno
post Apr 13 2004, 04:58 PM
Post #16


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,677
Joined: 5-June 03
Member No.: 4,689



Bear in mind also that if you raise the acceptability and canon effectiveness of called shots (simple action or otherwise), the parallel change should be to remove a degree of injury abstraction.

If you have the option to shoot for the arm, with or without a damage cap, damage becomes to a much greater extent specific to that arm. While most of us, I suspect, had already been playing fast and loose with these concepts (and some have made extensive relevant charts ;) ), do you really want to get into canon details of how difficult it is to take an action with one arm v. generally, or even specific limitations of arm movement of a shattered ulna?

Do you really want to start looking at possible parallel damage tracks for different parts of the body?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Austere Emancipa...
post Apr 13 2004, 05:25 PM
Post #17


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,889
Joined: 3-August 03
From: A CPI rank 1 country
Member No.: 5,222



QUOTE (Talia Invierno)
Do you really want to start looking at possible parallel damage tracks for different parts of the body?

I've used the above method for hit locations through at least ~50 firefights, and it has never come up that anyone would want separate damage tracks. Reducing abstraction in that instance does not mean that you have to reduce it in a whole lot of other places too.

Personally, I feel that separate damage tracks aren't very sensible anyway. The human being is still one complete piece of machinery, and one part failing leads to lowered efficiency all around. Blood-loss, shock and pain affect every aspect of your actions.

Sure you could argue that it should be more difficult to fire a pistol when your shooting arm has taken a Serious wound compared to having taken a Serious in your right leg. But considering how far you have to suspend your disbelief with the canon rules considering penetration, armor and called shots, I simly cannot see how this could be any worse.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lspahn72
post Apr 13 2004, 05:39 PM
Post #18


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 88
Joined: 13-January 04
Member No.: 5,975



Did anyone ever play the old Top Secret SI???? I have to say the the damage system there worked nice. The previous post broke it down nicely...One problem..

Does each area recieve a L, M, S or D wound??? and at what point is it disabled.

This is the only downfall that i can see...and how do y ou apply wound mods??

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Austere Emancipa...
post Apr 13 2004, 06:17 PM
Post #19


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,889
Joined: 3-August 03
From: A CPI rank 1 country
Member No.: 5,222



My take on how different locations get wounded is already explained a few posts back. Although it is not mentioned separately, Wound Modifiers work exactly like in canon with my system, and there is only one damage track.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hida Tsuzua
post Apr 13 2004, 06:50 PM
Post #20


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 328
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 1,353



One idea I've been toying with is to divide full-auto fire into bursts. From there, roll for each burst as if the character was firing that many bursts. If the character misses on of the bursts, all the later bursts miss. It's a bit chunky with all the rolling, but hey FA fire is relatively rare in Shadowrun and no new rules where made. The only question is to make the bursts 2 round or 3 round bursts. 3 rounds makes FA really deadly, but 2 round seems somewhat odd.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Austere Emancipa...
post Apr 13 2004, 07:16 PM
Post #21


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,889
Joined: 3-August 03
From: A CPI rank 1 country
Member No.: 5,222



QUOTE (Hida Tsuzua)
One idea I've been toying with is to divide full-auto fire into bursts.

My system, as described in the thread to which I linked above, does exactly this. The extra rolling isn't that bad, since there usually isn't much Combat Pool used there and the TNs are easy to calculate after the first. I do not make follow-up bursts miss if one misses, though, because correcting your aim should be possible. I set the minimum burst size at 3, because it just seems a nice number and fits well with the rules.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Talia Invierno
post Apr 13 2004, 08:08 PM
Post #22


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,677
Joined: 5-June 03
Member No.: 4,689



Just following up the earlier post, per question of suspended belief:

Called shots are something most often used by PCs against NPCs, if only because the GM isn't supposed to take the easy sniping potshots against the PCs (because the GM can always kill a character). Thus, introducing called shots makes a huge difference specifically to PCs: basically allowing a PC to target something specific to obtain an effect specific to that body part and cause "abstract" damage marked on the damage track as a whole while being able to ignore armour as a whole.

That inherent bias is another major reason why called shots introduced into the SR system in order to fix a "broken" abstract approach to causing damage probably should also take the equally abstract damage track into consideration. Let's face it: a broken, unusable arm to one of five team members is a much greater deal than the same broken, unusable arm to one of Renraku's standard security response team with backup on the way. Abstract damage helps the PCs proportionately more than it does the NPCs. By itself, this is not a problem ... but when cumulated with called shots?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Austere Emancipa...
post Apr 13 2004, 08:43 PM
Post #23


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,889
Joined: 3-August 03
From: A CPI rank 1 country
Member No.: 5,222



QUOTE (Talia Invierno)
Thus, introducing called shots makes a huge difference specifically to PCs: basically allowing a PC to target something specific to obtain an effect specific to that body part and cause "abstract" damage marked on the damage track as a whole while being able to ignore armour as a whole.

Very rarely does it happen that someone calls a shot "to obtain an effect specific to that body part", unless the fact that people tend to die easier when shot to the head counts as an effect specific to the head. Being shot in the arm causing an overall modifier to all your actions isn't only an abstract simplification. If you get shot in the arm, everything does become more difficult to you IRL because of several reasons, some of which I mentioned earlier.

As for ignoring armor, if the modifiers for calling a shot are properly balanced it should be no problem. You have to set the numbers so that calling shots to unarmored and vulnerable spots only happens when it would happen IRL. I am fairly sure this will happen in my games once I start using the slightly stricter modifiers mentioned above -- at the moment, called shots are used slightly more often in ranged combat than I would like. Nevertheless, in my games the majority of shots called to the head occur in situations where it might be plausible to do so IRL.

QUOTE (Talia Invierno)
Abstract damage helps the PCs proportionately more than it does the NPCs. By itself, this is not a problem ... but when cumulated with called shots?

Seems I'm even more stupid than normal today. I just don't get this. Why would this be more of a problem with called shots?

I wouldn't consider this a problem anyway. If there was an simple way of doing realistic, non-abstract damage in a RPG, I'd use it regardless of whether a broken arm is a bigger deal for a small group than it is for a larger group. Of course it's always worse to get wounded for a small team that cannot depend on anyone but themselves, but if NPCs are played reasonably, then going from the abstract method of handling a bullet shattering someone's femur to a non-abstract method shouldn't change the balance significantly in any direction.

But the fact remains that there aren't any simple ways of reducing abstractions from damage in RPGs. Most such methods are horribly bulky and extremely time-consuming. Yet they often do not provide results any more realistic than what you get with an abstract system, such as that used by SR. Even with such a system, you should still be getting similar over-all negative modifers to your actions as you already get from hits to specific body locations with a HitLoc system such as the one I described above.

Sorry about hijacking your thread, Arethusa. It seems you don't have to be enthusiastic to write damn long messages.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Talia Invierno
post Apr 13 2004, 09:16 PM
Post #24


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,677
Joined: 5-June 03
Member No.: 4,689



Is it hijacking to question the original parameters of the original question?

I am guessing that your experience must be different from mine, Austere Emancipator: most of those with whom I have gamed would gleefully seize the opportunity to take a more damaging shot to the head, were such allowed. Then again, to some extent, the same re difference of experience can be said for everyone. Especially reading this board, I am beginning to doubt that any two people read the same core book ;)
QUOTE
Abstract damage helps the PCs proportionately more than it does the NPCs. By itself, this is not a problem ... but when cumulated with called shots?
- Talia Invierno

Why would this be more of a problem with called shots?
- Austere Emancipator

Called shots bias toward the PCs, for overall game reasons I have stated and which you have not refuted. Keeping the results of damage abstract while allowing called shots reinforces that pro-PC bias - since abstract results of damage allows the PC to basically ignore any specific (and thus potentially immobilising) damage in favour of a general modifier, and such generalisation benefits the PCs (who are on their own) more than the NPCs (who have an on-site support structure, and thus don't need to worry so much about such things as whether they can still walk).

Still, the only thing I had intended by my post was to note that I don't think (pseudo or otherwise) canon de-abstracted causing of damage is a game-balance desireable thing without also de-abstracting results of damage. If both are broken, then they are currently broken in balance against the larger game setting: the isolated case of - well, call it ridiculous NPC survival against the PC's weapons - against the PCs' sometimes ridiculous parallel survival against what the NPC's can throw against them. (Deadlier Overdamage, I think, remains an optional rule.)

The original intent of the SR damage rules, stated in the rulebooks, was that no PC could die as a result of a single attack. This is not realistic. What you note is absolutely true: it is much easier in game mechanics to maintain abstract results of damage than to follow realism. Certainly it would be possible to make the system as a whole more realistic - and, appropriately applied, more PCs will die. Whether or not any individual GM finds this a problem: these are changes which work to change the original SR intent.

That's all.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Austere Emancipa...
post Apr 13 2004, 10:08 PM
Post #25


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,889
Joined: 3-August 03
From: A CPI rank 1 country
Member No.: 5,222



QUOTE (Talia Invierno)
Is it hijacking to question the original parameters of the original question?

No, but that's not what I'm doing. ;) I'm simply using the thread to discuss my views of the matter, while I've got a feeling that Arethusa would like to have some more specific questions answered, in which I'm not helping in the least.

QUOTE
I am guessing that your experience must be different from mine, Austere Emancipator: most of those with whom I have gamed would gleefully seize the opportunity to take a more damaging shot to the head, were such allowed.

If the TN modifier is left too low, then this might occur. That's why I strongly suggest that every GM personally tunes the numbers of any House Rule he adapts to fit into his own game and group. I know that the +6/+4 with SL-2 I mentioned will balance it sufficiently for my games. In most situations where shots are fired in both directions it is more advantageous to fire un-called shots with those modifiers. Balance is retained, and called head-shots only occur when they might IRL.

QUOTE (Talia Invierno)
Called shots bias toward the PCs, for overall game reasons I have stated and which you have not refuted.

Either I still haven't quite understood, or there is some sort of disagreement on a very basic level.

Have I got this straight: 1) The ability to call shots is biased towards the PCs because GMs rarely use that ability. 2) Abstract damage is biased towards the PCs because non-abstract damage would hurt the PCs more. 3) These together might be too biased towards the PCs. Is that it? Well, as they say, Not In My Game. My NPCs call shots when it is reasonable that they would do so, even if that sometimes means that stupid PCs get killed.

If my NPCs did get non-abstract damage I would act out the penalties of it, as I suppose any GM would. I have no problem whatsoever with the fact that a broken arm would bother a runner team more than it would a company of mooks. Same goes for all kinds of losses: A small group of SF operators might not have as much to gain by blowing up the radio of a company of infantry they run into behind enemy lines, but they have a whole lot to lose if they lose their own radio.

But a single guy on Serious also bothers a runner team a lot more than a single secguard on Serious bothers the secteam of 30. If the rules are sensible, it does not matter whether getting shot in the arm nets you an abstract Serious wound or a set of non-abstract penalties to all kinds of stuff. If both the abstract and the non-abstract systems are reasonable, they will cause exactly the same level of problems to the character on the receiving end as well as to the team that the character belongs to.

I'm fairly sure Arethusa is prepared to for example use Deadlier Overdamage, because his whole point seems to be the extreme un-realism and illogicality of ranged combat aspects of SR rules. If characters can survive getting hit squarely with an ATGM, then that is a great example of that lack of realism and logic. Making the system reasonable will also make it reasonably lethal. If you don't want realism as much as you want reason, you can always tweak the numbers in such a way as to increase survivability across the board while keeping the rules the same.

And I'm still not at all sure we're talking about the same thing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 31st May 2023 - 04:19 PM

Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.