Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: The Dreaded Called Shot
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
kevyn668
Last week I was running a fairly new group and one of the guys discovered the joys of the "head shot". After he did it successfully one of the other players asked "wow, we can do that?"
The first responded, "yeah, but I wouldn't do it too often or else he'll [me] use it on us."

Which made me think about it. Would I? These guys spend most of their time sluggin it out w/ gangs and sec guards. They're not quite "gang level" but not much above it, either. As such, the opposition is competent but rarely a match for the runners in a straight fight. So they have to use numbers.

Anyways, the thing is what do you folks think about using head shots on your players? I guess I feel that using head shots is taking it too far. (Unless your playing some Sniper scenario) Its like, I feel as a GM I should provide an entertaining and challenging adventure/story/campaign and useing the Head Shot moves me past "providing challenge" and straight into "trying to defeat" my players. (Which I reserve for when they really, really piss me off biggrin.gif ) So, as it stands, my players and I seem to have an unspoken agreement: don't go buck wild with head shot thing and there won't be an enemy on the roof across the street.
Siege
Well, to take a "called shot" requires or at least implies a certain amount of skill.

Which means it won't be happening in the middle of a regular furball, but piss off a skilled marksman...

However, headshots tend to fall into the "Orbital Cow" group -- the same reason why GMs don't plant c-21 in players' cars or in the toilet bowl of their apartments.

Autokills by GMs tend to be less than popular among players.

-Siege
Ol' Scratch
Lemme guess, you're using the "head shots" that allow people to ignore armor, right? ohplease.gif Oy.
Game2BHappy
This thread sounds a little familiar. smile.gif
Crimson Jack
I use head shots on my group, as appropriate for the enemies that they're going up against. For instance, if they're having a run-in with a street-level gang, all of the shots are being aimed at the parties torsos, more or less. I don't imagine that there's a lot of target practice going on with these gangs... if it is, it's probably bums or devil rats, right? But, say the group is going up against a crack team of Azzie wetwork ops. Different story.

Even then though, I try to keep it believable. If the Azzie black ops are in melee with the group, or engaged in close quarters combat of any type, perhaps its not the best to make called shots to the head. Maybe they fire one off at the onset. Maybe there's a sniper who needs to control the group. Using this once or twice in a game will get lots of mileage. You'll have a savvy group of Shadowrunners if you cap one of them unmercilessly once. It is true that it doesn't go over well, but it creates a sense of paranoia that you simply cannot beat in a game.

Shadowrun should feel deadly in my opinion. It doesn't really have a high fantasy feel to me, so I don't run it that way. Kill someone every once in a while. Offer some starting karma to the recently waxed's player. You'll get wide eyes and a much more careful group after that. If the story continues to rock, you probably shouldn't have too much trouble with the players resenting you for it. I've used it once in one of my games and while it shocked the group, no one had any hard feelings (even the bullet soaker) over it. They all know that they play in a deadly game so.....
Raygun
QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein)
Lemme guess, you're using the "head shots" that allow people to ignore armor, right? ohplease.gif  Oy.


*sigh* *bites tongue*
Ol' Scratch
Do problems arise when using the standard Called Shot rules? No. Players can choose to take a +3 (laser sight), +2 (smartlink), or +0 (smartlink-2) modifier to their shot to improve the Damage Level by +1. If the end result is a Deadly wound, there's your headshot. Targets are still considered armored, so flechette remains just fine for what it's intended for within the game. The rule is totally consistant with the majority of the other rules despite some people's inability to comprehend that the rules are abstract and work because of that.

Do problems arise when using the house ruled Called Shots that ignore armor? Constantly. Armor values become ridiculous and you get posts like the first one of this thread just for starters. You then have the fact that flechette ammo becomes utterly unstoppable (now it's +2 Damage Level at a +0 mod with a smartlink-2), and you have to voluntarily decide not to use it on most shots just because you're afraid the GM is going to do the same to you. All under the misguided and ill-conceived notion that they're introducing "realism" into the game, nevermind that it's wholly inconsistant with everything else in the game. That's just stupid and wrong. I take that back, it's not wrong -- it's admirable if you actually attempt to go the entire way and fix everything so it's all more realistic. But when you don't, it most definitely is wrong.

But go figure.
Corywn
My last headshot was on a courier who the group did not want to destroy the chip she was carrying. It was with a Pepper-Punch Capsule round, so very nonlethal. Nonetheless, it did the job, giving the courier a Deadly Stun contusion (and Light Physical rash from the Pepper Punch.)

Prior, I've done called shots to shoot the pistol out of a guard's hand, headshot to get rid of the leader of a gang (who had just prior shot me to 9 Physical boxes,) and several to avoid cover penalties (more accurately, targets seated in a car, I shot through the windows.)

[EDIT]I thought the "Bypass Armor" rules were a) chemicals only, and b) did not stage up damage. The net result remains the same with Flechette, so I'm not trying to negate what you're saying: Unarmored = +1 DL for Flechette, if you allow it for anything other than chemicals.[/edit]
Raygun
QUOTE
Do problems arise when using the standard Called Shot rules?


Yes, as a matter of fact, they do. But what I consider a problem, you seem to consider acceptable "abstractness". Opinions are lovely things, aren't they?

QUOTE
Do problems arise when using the silly house ruled Called Shots that ignore armor?


If by "problems" you mean characters dying when they get shot in the head, I would assume that it is somewhat constant. Or at least should be. But that kind of thing tends to happen when people really get shot in the head, doesn't it?

How broken! How munchkin! *yawn*
nezumi
I think there's a distinct difference between a called shot to avoid cover (that's technically not a called shot, its covered under the rules for 'cover'. Thats why there's that modifier to hit and all when you can't see most of the target.) using chemicals (covered in the rules specifically), shooting for a specific effect (kind of covered in the rules under shooting out wheels, but still a very different thing) and ignoring armor. All of those I'd say are perfectly fine EXCEPT for the last 1 with the current set of rules. The only question I'd ask about the gang leader is, did your called shot ignore armor? If so, the GM let you break the rules. Every other case, except perhaps for shooting the gun out of the hand, are perfectly legit.
Ol' Scratch
QUOTE (Raygun @ Nov 26 2003, 02:49 PM)
QUOTE
Do problems arise when using the standard Called Shot rules?


Yes, as a matter of fact, they do. But what I consider a problem, you seem to consider acceptable "abstractness". Opinions are lovely things, aren't they?

QUOTE
Do problems arise when using the silly house ruled Called Shots that ignore armor?


If by "problems" you mean characters dying when they get shot in the head, I would assume that it is somewhat constant. Or at least should be. But that kind of thing tends to happen when people really get shot in the head, doesn't it?

How broken! How munchkin! *yawn*

Nice try.

By "problem" you know full well what I mean -- such as posts like the original one of this thread -- though it is your standard operating proceudre to act ignorant in a futile attempt to prove your utter lack of a valid point. So no shock there.

But feel free to go back to your "look how realistic my game is! <hair twirl>" gaming and have a blast with it. I couldn't care less. But when people come here and complain how such a silly house rule is a problem then you act like it's not despite the fact that it obviously is (again, see first post), well... no further comment.
Austere Emancipator
Yay! I'm admirable!

The last called shot in my ongoing game was... The invisible street sammy blowing out the brains of an unarmored, baseball bat wielding troll at 5 meters. No NPC so far has called a shot, but then the toughest NPCs they've faced in combat were average sec guards in CQB.
Raygun
QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein)
Nice try.


Thanks. smile.gif

QUOTE
By "problem" you know full well what I mean -- such as posts like the original one of this thread -- though it is your standard operating proceudre to act ignorant in a futile attempt to prove your utter lack of a valid point. So no shock there.


So his players are ignoring armor by shooting people in the head. (At least, that's what we're assuming at this point.) So what? The fact that he (and you, for that matter) can't figure out a way to deal with that variable seems like a bigger problem to me. Maybe he should keep his players from SHOOTING so much. Guns are loud. Cops/sec guards are abundant. Punishment is severe. Hiding bodies is a bitch. Shooting people is largely counterproductive. So you make the players want to avoid shooting at all. Amazing. Of course, there goes your John Woo bloodbath. *snap*

As for the jab at the validity of my point, I don't think you get in such a twist about it if it weren't valid.

QUOTE
But feel free to go back to your "look how realistic my game is! <hair twirl>" gaming and have a blast with it. I couldn't care less.


Funny. Looks like you care quite a bit to me. But I will certainly go on playing the game my way, as I have more fun with it that way. Likewise, you go on with the more abstract rules and enjoy yourself.

QUOTE
But when people come here and complain how such a silly house rule is a problem then you act like it's not despite the fact that it obviously is (again, see first post), well... no further comment.


Sorry if I'm stating the obvious, but there's usually more than one answer to a problem, Funk. Perhaps you should try to figure out a way to solve it with this variable rather than removing the variable entirely for the sake of ease and the comfort of routine.
Ol' Scratch
Why? It's a broken variable that adds nothing to the game. The standard rule works perfectly well for anyone with a half a wit of creativity in them and who realizes that a Deadly wound created by a standard Called Shot can be a head shot or anything else you want to describe it as. Anything else results in a glancing blow, a non-fatal headshot, or whatever else you feel like describing it as in regards to the shooter's intent. It in no way diminishes the fact that in Shadowrun, unlike D&D and many other games, the defender is bobbing around and weaving, meaning you don't necessarily hit what you're aiming at. It in no way ruins the abstract nature of armor. It in no way makes the Ares Viper Slivergun the ultimate sidearm. etc.

I have no problem modifying decent rules to make them work better for myself and my group, but this is not one of them. It's an artificial, outside rule that's horribly, horribly broken and easily prone to abuse without even really trying or even intending to do so.
Raygun
This is a hopeless waste of my time. Congrats, Funk. Tenacity = correctness.
Saintgrimm
To me, it did not look like the starting post was a whine. It merely asked your opinions on headshots on the PC's. He stated that he and his PCs have an unspoken agreement. They seem to be dealing rather well with it.

It's their houserule. If it works for them. Great.

As for me, and head shots. I rarely use a headshot, as many of my characters tend to be Non-lethal in nature. But I suppose, were I playing a PC, and I used them, I might expect retribution... or perhaps just a bad rep as a messy worker. Leave too many bodies, and no one likes you.

As a GM, I only use the hand of God routine...i.e. Sniper's, C-12, etc...when a point must be made. A big point. I try to compensate the player I do it to with some extra Karma/Cash so he can make a runner of close to the same power level. This is a very rare event, as most of the PC's either kill themselves off through stupid actions, or become very good, and learn not to piss off the wrong people.

Speaking of the Sniper Scenario. It used to be a favorite of mine that a sniper would hunt a group. And each time he shot he'd hit a different body part, working his way to the head. So, he might shoot PC 1 in the right leg. Two days later, they still haven't figured it out. He shoots PC 2 in the left leg. On and on. It was a good scenario. Scared the crap out of them until they figured out who he was and turned the tables on him. His target had been a Sniper on the SR team. Sort of a Sniper war.

Ol' Scratch
QUOTE (Raygun)
This is a hopeless waste of my time. Congrats, Funk. Tenacity = correctness.

Considering you were the one to wander in here and roll your eyes at me without adding even a modicum of worthwhile text to the thread, you're one to talk. But of course it's okay for you to post exhaustively, but heaven forbid someone with an opposing view does the same, right? Of course.
RedmondLarry
Ok, ok, ok. Enough already.

The SR3 book doesn't describe any option to allow Called Shots to bypass armor.

Cannon Companion allows an optional Advanced Melee rule that allows a Called Melee attack to only use armor in the targeted location. (CC p. 85)

Man and Machine rules for Cyber Limbs uses average Cyberware Armor (Body Plating) ratings across all 5 areas for normal shots, but for shots called to a specific location uses only the rating at that location. (M&M p. 35)

Man and Machine rules for ranged combat attacks where a drug is part of what is being delivered let a Called Shot only use impact armor in the targeted location. (M&M p. 106)

The Shadowrun FAQ extends the Called Shot rules of SR3 to let the shooter choose to raise damage level by 1 or to bypass armor.

Many disagree with some of these rules. We should all agree that these rules are there, and simply argue over whether we think GMs should include them, ignore them, or modify them for their games.
mfb
hey, funk, did a headshot kill your first and only love, or something? because if not, stop being such a dick about it.
Ol' Scratch
QUOTE (mfb)
hey, funk, did a headshot kill your first and only love, or something? because if not, stop being such a dick about it.

"*sigh* *bites tongue*" --Raygun
mfb
good boy.
Fortune
I do have to agree with Doc Wookie Cubed though. The new FAQ ruling is totally insane when applied to a canon game as-is. I also does turn a Slivergun into the Ultimate Firearm.
Diesel
Wow. Jesus Wow. I just read the FAQ. Jesus holy wow. That's one rule not in my game!
RedmondLarry
Good for you! It is smart to examine the rule, and to decide for yourself whether it makes sense to use in your game.
mfb
indeed. i like the part where you can completely ignore full-body milspec armor with a called shot. it's dripping with the crazy. mmmm, crazy.

once it includes a caveat that the targeted location must actually be unarmored, the FAQ ruling will please me fairly completely.
Tziluthi
Holy psychotic episode, Batman. I think the bat-radar is picking up some pedantisism. smile.gif

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. smile.gif
Corywn
QUOTE (nezumi)
I think there's a distinct difference between a called shot to avoid cover (that's technically not a called shot, its covered under the rules for 'cover'. Thats why there's that modifier to hit and all when you can't see most of the target.) All of those I'd say are perfectly fine EXCEPT for the last 1 with the current set of rules. The only question I'd ask about the gang leader is, did your called shot ignore armor? If so, the GM let you break the rules. Every other case, except perhaps for shooting the gun out of the hand, are perfectly legit.

The called shot vs cover, well, that's effectively our GM's rule (and since basic SR3 rules gives +4 for cover, it's the same thing). We can called-shot an area, or just shoot, GM call.

Regarding the headshot, you'll have to ask my GM. I just aimed and squeezed, with several successes to back it.

For shooting the pistol out of the guy's hand, I would have been perfectly happy with blasting the guy's forearm (disabling him to a point where he couldn't shoot). Because I stated my intent (get rid of the pistol), and rolled well, the GM just left it at that.
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.gif

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
QUOTE (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?

That's why I asked the question that I asked in my first post, to see if it was because of that house rule or if it was simply because of the standard Called Shot rules. It was one of the other "DSF veterans" who decided to act like a jackass.

QUOTE
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?

Sure we do. Yes, a normal shot can end up with a Deadly wound, but they require more successes to get there. With a Called Shot -- regardless of which type you use -- you're improving your chances to get that Deadly wound by aiming for a more vulnerable spot. Maybe it's the head. Maybe it's the throat. Maybe it's a weak chink in the armor. But whatever it is, it's not the target's center mass... so your chances of missing have increased in exchange for a more lethal single shot.

Describing what happens during combat is just a matter of interpretting all the dice rolls, players intents, and circumstances. It's certainly a possibility that you nailed that goon with a headshot when aiming for center mass (since you are by no means guaranteed to hit what you're aiming at thanks to Armor, Dodge, and Body Resistance Tests) if you stage it up to a Deadly wound, sure, but it's not guaranteed. Of course it's not guaranteed when you make a Called Shot, either, but if you get a Deadly wound on that Called Shot, it's almost always going to be what you were aiming at... be it the head, neck, chink, or whatever else.

QUOTE
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.


As a personal house rule, I allow things like that with a simple TN penalty (based upon my own judgement in these cases). The same logic applies; you're aiming for a significantly smaller area, so your chances of missing completely have skyrocketed. Instead of gaining the +1 Damage Level, though, you succeed in performing whatever task you're trying to perform. If that task is to shoot a gun out of a goon's hand, the base TN's only going to be about +4 (remember, Smartlink-2's reduce that to an effect penalty of +0), whereas trying to shoot the trigger out of a gun will give you a TN in the +8 to +10 region -- while cinematic, it's still gotta be a bitch to pull off in the heat of combat.
Ol' Scratch
QUOTE (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.

I've been saying that from the get-go. Just not as fluidly.
kevyn668
extinguish.gif

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 wink.gif ]

smile.gif
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 :

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. biggrin.gif 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. smile.gif
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012