 Called Shots, Official FAQ |
  |
 Jun 25 2004, 11:36 PM
Post
#76
|
|
|
Moving Target  Group: Members Posts: 577 Joined: 12-June 04 Member No.: 6,398  |
Skill level already accounts for "called shots." The higher your skill level, the higher your chance to hit a vulnerable spot on your target. That's the entire point behind staging damage due to successes. On top of that, the simple action to aim gives you all the benefits you need to actually steady yourself and make a calculated shot.
The system already accounts for a quick shot at a vulnerable spot and a steady, patient aim at a vulnerable spot. So what exactly is a Called Shot supposed to be again? Called Shots belong inthe sole domain of vying for a very specific effect (blowing out a tire, shooting a weapon out of an opponent's hand, etc.). Raising the Damage Code is redundant and ignoring armor breaks the system used to determine armor ratings in the first place. If armor completely negated your ability to do damage, such a system would be viable. If armor had a set Barrier Rating that determined how much protection it granted regardless of its location on the body, such a system would be viable. If the system didn't use an abstract mechanic that combined cover and the ability to stop a round, such a system would be viable. Unfortunately, none of those are the case. Unless you want to go through and completely revamp the combat system from the ground up, such a system will continue to be nonviable. To do it, you have to change what Skill Ratings mean. You then have to change how Staging works. You then have to eliminate the Aim Shot action because it then becomes superflourus. You then have to completely change how Barrier Ratings work. You then have to completely change how Cover works. And so on and so forth. Yes, you can twirl your finger in the air and claim "or I could just use the Called Shot rules and ignore all the other stuff!" But it doesn't change any of the facts above. |
 |
 
|
|
Jun 25 2004, 11:40 PM
Post
#77
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 577 Joined: 12-June 04 Member No.: 6,398 |
Stupid double posts.
In any case, if you want a system that would make bypassing armor more cohesive with the system, something like allowing every two successes on the Ranged Combat Test to either increase the Damage Level by +1 or lower the effective armor of the target by -1. This way, you're either aiming for a vulnerable spot (raising Damage Level) or trying to get around armor (reducing Armor Rating). Aiming your shot lowers your target number. A lower TN gives you more successes. More successes gives you a greater effect either way you want to go. At least that would be the most consistant way to handle it within the context of the rest of the system. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 26 2004, 12:06 AM
Post
#78
|
|
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
Well, I'd go with -2 armor per two successes, down to a minimum of one-half worn armor, but otherwise that works for me.
Wow, I'm agreeing with the troll. Weird. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 26 2004, 05:08 AM
Post
#79
|
|||
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
NPC the team was bodyguarding. Pistols 1 (Tasers 3) and a taser, the kind that does S damage most of the time. Opponent had expended all Dodge, but if he got another action the NPC was going down. Base TN was 6, called the shot and got a single 11, the others were below 6. Edit: I've also decided on what I'm going to do for my armor-bypassing houserule, if anyone cares. I'm going to allow that use at Skill/2 meters or less. Not going to open it up further with scopes unless I get some inspiration. ~J |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jun 26 2004, 02:59 PM
Post
#80
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
Oh come on... You most certainly do not have to change what Skill Ratings mean. Those have nothing to do with this. Neither do you have to change staging, or eliminate Take Aim, or change the rules of Barrier Ratings, or Cover. You just don't. You can get by with simply changing what the Damage Code actually represents, how Penetration of Armor (and other objects) is calculated, how the Armor Rating is calculated and introducing hit locations. The above is nowhere near changing "everything", it is not a full revamp, you don't go to ground level at any point let alone starting building from it. You modify certain rules that have to do with ranged combat, and you re-do certain tables. No matter how many times someone says "That's changing the whole system" it is not and will never be. It's just a set of house rules, and not a particularly long or complex one at that. Ignoring the tables, I can squeeze my modern ranged combat house rules into 2 pages (or less) of Font 10 text. The Armor and Weapon/Caliber tables are longer than the canon ones just because I want them to be, changing the rules to allow for called shots to specific locations (and thus possibly bypassing some or all armor) does not require this at all. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jun 26 2004, 05:52 PM
Post
#81
|
|||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,685 Joined: 17-August 02 Member No.: 3,123 |
I'm curious, do you even have to do all of that? It seems to me that you could just get away with just creating hit-location ratings for each armor piece to be used only when called shots are involved. I can't immediately see the downside to this, aside from some increased lethality (and surges in the stock prices of helmet manufacturers :S ). I've never given it much thought, though, or even read the existing threads on the subject. Is there some reason that this is insufficient? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jun 26 2004, 06:52 PM
Post
#82
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
That does, largely, negate the requirement to re-do armor ratings. However, if you want to get very logical (and I mean far more logical than SR canon ever was) you'd have to change Power ratings etc as well.
Currently, I guess the excuse for Heavy Pistols doing 9M and ARs doing 8M is that HPs do more damage if/when they do penetrate. If you add hit locations and armor ratings based on those, you know when you've got clear penetration and when you don't. A Heavy Pistol penetrating better than an AR is really bad already, and it gets a whole lot worse when it really does penetrate better when you hit a guy with an Armored Vest square in the chest. If you don't want more logic than SR canon comes with, it's no problem. It's just that some of us who create "realism" house rule sets and share them also be sure to make those rules hyper-logical, to cut down the amount of "Your rules suck" comments. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 26 2004, 06:57 PM
Post
#83
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 577 Joined: 12-June 04 Member No.: 6,398 |
Yes you do have to change Skill Ratings. As they currently stand in combat, they represent your accuracy at hitting a vulnerable spot. Called Shots toa vulnerable location conflict with this because you're already doing it by default.
You also have to change how staging works, because due to the way Skill Ratings work, the number of successes you gain determines how vulnerable a spot you hit. Called Shots to a vulnerable location conflict with this because you're already doing it by default. Cover and Barrier Ratings have to be changed because now you have to use them for armor locations. If armor only protects certain locations, you effectively have Cover in those locations. Different armors will also have to have different Barrier Ratings because now that they work as cover, if you hit an armored location, you have to know if it penetrates or not. The standard Armor Values do not work here because they're a composite of the two. The plating of an Armored Vest with Plates is *not* equal to the flimsy material of Form-Fitting Body Armor. Called Shots to a vulnerable location or to bypass armor conflicts with this. You also have to completely redo Damage Codes because now they're a composite of penetration power, damage potential, and size/viciousness of the wound. Since Called Shots to a vulnerable location or to bypass armor force the above changes, they also require this change in order to remain internally consistant. etc. Again, sure, you can be flippant and say "I just wanna bypass armor" and "I'm just going to say what areas armor protect," but none of that will fix the inherent problems. It just makes the whole system extremely more unrealistic, not the other way around. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 26 2004, 07:27 PM
Post
#84
|
|||||||||||||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
This does not change by introducing hit locations or armor by hit locations. You still hit more vulnerable spots with high skill. The only real problem there is the "16 successes hit the the foot" which any good set of house rules (and any decent GM) can completely bypass in any situation. That is certainly no "game-breaking" problem, not compared to stuff like canon shotguns. [Edit]Noting Arethusa's message below: A 16-success hit to the Right Leg (I do not suggest using hit locations smaller/more specific than that) could be described by the GM as such: The bullet enters just below the front thigh kevlar panel as the leg is bent at the waist. Travelling almost lengthwise through the thigh, the bullet completely shatters the thighbone and rips into shreds all the major blood vessels in the thigh before exiting through the right buttock, wreaking havoc in the lower abdomen and breaking the hip bone on its way out. The pressure wave travels through these large bones into the lower spine, strangling the nerves and causing lower body paralysis. Combined with excessive bleeding and massive shock this causes immediate unconsciousness and quick death. It's more interesting for the players this way, I'd think, because 16-success hits are no longer always the standard head and aorta shots.[/Edit]
I don't see that they do. A really good shooter could take an uncertain shot at a person's center-mass, get lucky and hit the target right in it -- representative of e.g. TN 8, several successes, no called shot. I do not wish to abstract everything in shooting to the roll of the dice, just like many do not abstract everything in social situations to the same. Just like in combat, I require characters to describe in some manner how they approach a social situation -- if they want to go and talk to a stranger, I want them to give me an idea of how they approach him/her, the mood, how blunt they are about their business, etc. Different GMs set the limit of abstractness at different places. Regardless of the amount of stupid fucking flaming those kinds of threads inspire, no such approach is wrong -- just suitable for different kinds of people. This approach is suitable for me, and is certainly none less logical than the canon approach.
No you don't, not unless you want to change to rules in such a way. Being hit with a pistol in a kevlar vest is very different from being shot at with a kevlar vest propped up 1 meter in front of you. It does not change visibility to target (no more than clothing anyway), which is one main function of cover, and there are several key differences in how ballistic protection is granted by body armor and hard cover.
See above, plus you still don't need to "know" if something penetrates or not. Even over a single hit location, armor is abstracted. A bullet can hit you in the side, between kevlar panels. It can hit you in the shoulder, missing the ceramic plate and penetrating in a joint of kevlar strips. There is still a lot of description involved in penetration, and the GM can describe the situation however he wants -- the numbers just help to give him a general clue, and make sure he sort of keeps in line with the reality of firefights.
No argument there. You certainly should do something about the Armor ratings if you wish to allow hit locations and/or bypassing armor with Called Shots -- even if you just do something like what Zazen suggested. But all you really need to do about armor is to give them separate ratings by location, and preferably balance these against the Powers of different weapons and the probability and lethality of being hit in different locations. This is extremely easy, if you have any interest in doing it.
They were this before, too, only now the relation in the mix has changed. Power is more about Penetration than it was before. That, I assume, is what drove Raygun to use his Armor Penetration modifiers to separate between rifles and pistols etc, and it certainly was what drove me to use the Penetration Rating for all calibers -- such modifications allow you to use the Damage Code as only a (alpha)numerical description of the type of wound it causes. With an easily scalable Penetration system, you could basically look at wound profiles of different ammunition and select certain parameters which mark the boundaries of different Powers and Damage Levels -- depth, diameter, volume. Or you can just slap new Damage Codes on the weapons based on what looks cool to you, or just stick to the old ones realism be damned. Considering the 7S and 10S LMGs and HMGs and the 4L and 6L Hold-Out and Light Pistols [Edit]respectively[/Edit], it's hard to make up Damage Codes for such a system that make significantly less sense than the canon ones.
I always suggest people to change the armor and Damage Codes as well as introducing hit locations if they wish to allow bypassing armor (with or without called shots). But regardless of how many times we discuss this, that will never transform into changing the whole system. Those few, simple modifications can easily make the game (much) more realistic without making it more complex. You can overdo it, you can make it too complex, and you can break the game if you do such modifications poorly. But that's the way it is with house rules. This post has been edited by Austere Emancipator: Jun 26 2004, 07:47 PM |
||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Jun 26 2004, 07:33 PM
Post
#85
|
|||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,901 Joined: 19-June 03 Member No.: 4,775 |
Right. Because if I call a shot to a leg a total area, clearly, there are no areas within that leg of varying lethality, vulnerability, or necessity to its owner. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jun 26 2004, 07:43 PM
Post
#86
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
There are no 10S LMGs, unless I'm very much missing something.
~J |
|
|
|
|
Jun 26 2004, 07:44 PM
Post
#87
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
"7S and 10S LMGs and HMGs", respectively. If that helps. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jun 26 2004, 07:53 PM
Post
#88
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
The "and HMGs" was what I was missing :)
~J |
|
|
|
|
Jun 26 2004, 08:04 PM
Post
#89
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 577 Joined: 12-June 04 Member No.: 6,398 |
Skill covers what and how well you hit. Period. If you want to avoid killing someone, I believe that's already covered in the game by holding back dice from the test (if not specifically, then in spirit from other rule sets). You can't be "more lethal than lethal" when trying to kill someone... at least not without aiming, and that's precisely what aiming reflects and results in under the rules as written.
Called Shots simply don't fit in the system. At least not the damage-oriented ones. They're the obnoxious red-headed stepchild of the combat rules. They're only there because of players who don't understand how the system works as it stands. As it stands now, you can easily say "I'm shooting the guard in the head" and then roll normally. The GM then describes what happens based upon the staging and other scenarios. If the final result is a Deadly wound, bam, you nailed him right between the eyes. If it was reduced to a Light wound mostly because of his armor, then either your aim was off or he moved at the wrong time and your shot richochetted off his armor. If you only got one or two successes and didn't stage very well, that represents a poor shot. etc. If a player doesn't specify, the GM has even more sway over resolving what the die rolls and modifiers result in. I don't know why I bother getting into it everytime I run into one of these threads. It's a well-established fact that you can't talk sense with gun nuts, katanaphiles, or people who have it in their head that the system sucks and needs to be "more realistic." So I'm pulling out. I've said what I have to say, take it for what its worth, which is obviously not very much. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 26 2004, 08:08 PM
Post
#90
|
|
|
Traumatizing players since 1992 Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,282 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Las Vegas, NV Member No.: 220 |
I totally agree with toy here, (except for the part about degrading the gun nuts and katanaphiles ;)) the system that already exists, coupled with a GM that is competent at giving good descriptions of combat already accomplishes all that a called shot mechanics system already would, with absolutely nothing added. That's how I handle it in my games.
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 26 2004, 08:10 PM
Post
#91
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,751 Joined: 8-August 03 From: Neighbor of the Beast Member No.: 5,375 |
Okay, against my better judgement I've decided to start plowing through this. Its up to four pages so you guys must have something good to say ;) Maybe I'll even weigh in on this if everyone hasn't already made my points...
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 26 2004, 08:12 PM
Post
#92
|
|||
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
It's covered by only accepting a limited number of successes and raising the TN. ~J |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jun 26 2004, 08:28 PM
Post
#93
|
|||||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
I'm not fond of anything that ends with "Period." Skill doesn't exactly cover what you hit IRL, so I don't want it to in my games. Like I already said, it's like with Social skills. I ask a player whether his character just walks up to a stranger, shows him a picture and asks "Have you seen this man?", or starts with small-talk first, or is threatening, or apologetic, etc, regardless of the character's skill level or Charisma rating. Similarly I want the player to tell me if and where is he calling a shot, how much he's aiming first, how much is he shooting, etc. And I want those kinds of choices to have some sort of numerical effect. A good (dramatical, movie-like, inventive, funny) approach in a social situation might offer a lower TN and thus better chance of achieving your goals. Similarly a good mix of snap shots and carefully aimed shots, standard center-mass shooting and calling shots in different places, single shots and fully automatic fire will offer a better chance of prevailing in ranged combat. If you don't like those kinds of choices of exist for more than purely description and IC stuff, that's fine. You're absolutely free to play your game that way. I like to play (or, indeed, run) a slightly different kind of game. It's not that I "don't understand how the system works as it stands", I just like to modify it a bit to suit my gaming style. And it seems some other people do to. I assume they are not all morons either.
Absolutely. And when you've got a GM who likes to describe a lot and has a great imagination as well lots of good sense, you can ditch even more rules, leading to a very quick and simple yet extremely entertaining and rich gaming experience. I have a rather poor imagination and not a lot of sense while I'm using what little of it I have. I need rules and guidelines to keep me from being really silly.
...car enthusiast, politicians, lefties, righties, hippies, yuppies, university students, young people, elderlies, middle-aged people, or people who have a first name starting with a T.
It is worth noting that I haven't said SR "need to be more realistic". I have said that it would be nice if SR were more sensible about some things, and I have said that I want my game to be more realistic. Those are very different things. Personally, I'm glad there are always a few people who come into the realism- and combat-threads to say that "the simpler the better" and "we don't really need realism". Internal logic is important, as is simplicity, and realism doesn't mean anything unless something is fun to play. I just wish those comments would be made in a slightly less annoying tone. Telling someone "Your way of playing the game is wrong" is not very useful, having a more objective discussion about the differences in the styles of play just might be. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Jul 2 2004, 07:46 PM
Post
#94
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,408 Joined: 31-January 04 From: Reston VA, USA Member No.: 6,046 |
reviving an old thread here, but had a related question:
Do the canon rules for bypassing armor apply only to personal armor, or do they also work against drone- and vehicular armor? I don't think they specifically limit it in the errata. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 2 2004, 09:24 PM
Post
#95
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
the rules in the FAQ apply to all armor, as far as i'm aware.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 2 2004, 10:46 PM
Post
#96
|
|
|
Traumatizing players since 1992 Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,282 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Las Vegas, NV Member No.: 220 |
Yes, for a +4tn technically you can destroy the Vault Door at NORAD and an Main Battle Tank with a pistol by bypassing it's armor and aiming at a vulnerable part.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 3 2004, 12:10 AM
Post
#97
|
|
|
Senior GM Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 1,406 Joined: 12-April 03 From: Redmond, WA Member No.: 4,442 |
But, of course, no GM should interpret the Called Shot FAQ the way you keep wanting to, BitBasher. When you find a GM that interprets it that way, and runs it that way, let me know.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 3 2004, 12:13 AM
Post
#98
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 577 Joined: 12-June 04 Member No.: 6,398 |
Whether or not that's how GMs interpret it is of little consequence. As written, the rule allows it. It's just one of the many reasons why it's such a poor rule.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 3 2004, 05:29 AM
Post
#99
|
|||
|
Traumatizing players since 1992 Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,282 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Las Vegas, NV Member No.: 220 |
Er, I don't want people to interpret it that way, and I never have... I'm just pointing out that it CAN be interpreted that way, there's a big difference! :D |
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 13th November 2025 - 06:24 AM |
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.