This is from the firefly thread but I figured it could use some discussion on it's own.

In most fiction variations of the armed standoff are commonplace.

Bad guy points a gun at protagonist. Protagonist then has to follow their orders for a while, until they get a chance to turn the tables, or help comes. (or the same deal with a group and a handful of bad guys).

There is also the very popular grabbing someone from behind and holding a gun to them.

and finally there is the standoff so popular it gets its own name. The Mexican standoff.


There are two issues with having these kinds of situations in game.

First is player psychology, in part fueled by edge and the fact they're probably used to winning. Instead of drama and clever plans you're likely to get rolling for initiative.

Second is game mechanics. How would one even handle somebody trying to grab a PC and hold a gun to them? How would one do a mexican type standoff?

Actually wait would:



Mean that if two people were pointing guns at each others faces if one chose to fire the other would get to take their delayed action at the same time and hence they would, actually, shoot each other.

The trouble with that is does it mean that if someone gets the drop on a player they don't have an advantage? I.e. if both delay actions and act simultaniously if they player can make their quickdraw roll they're going to be able to fire simultaniously with the attacker. Hence the attacker has no advantage in the situation.

Just because a concept works in a book or movie doesn't mean it will work in an RPG. Locking characters up is a classic example.

When the characters don't get given a script to follow they tend to not do what you expect. Besides, most of those situations are due to stupid planning or failure to act when required. The Matt Helm rules for what to do when someone tells you not to move still tend to be the best response, but are hard on the NPCs.

There is a solid reason to want to try to make standoffs possible in-game, even if the result is eventually rolling for initiative: they allow some character interaction and exposition that is rarely possible during a firefight. It's a time for villains to grandstand and shadowrunners to cuss and hurl insults. A standoff is largely a time for talking before gunfire starts.

Ultimately, standoffs probably just have to be a little artificial. I can't see a way to make the rules so that standoffs "just happen" sometimes. As a GM, you'd just have to declare it. Use it as a free opportunity for everyone to draw their weapons, and a chance to make social tests before the fight breaks out (in addition to straight role-playing). Once someone gets aggressive and breaks the standoff, roll initiative. That's how I'd try to run it.

For the Standoff, just use mutual held actions.

For the "got the drop on you" or "got you covered", resolve attack as normal, but do not apply damage. ...scene plays out here... The target, in order to get out of soaking the damage must win an opposed test of some sort with large penalties. I would allow social test, "Oooh, look over there!" or a Surprise test, as the basic actions, but I am sure others can be dreamed up. For the base bonus I'm tempted to look at the same +6 ambushers get for setting up an ambush to be given to the person with the "drop" in the opposed test.

This kind of mechanism has been done in other games, Champions has it for example.

Years of playing has told me that when a PC is a hostage situation with a bad guy it usually ends up where the hostage dies so they can get at the enemy. That reminds me how much protection does a human give against an assault rifle?

A dramatic standoff (as opposed to a stalemate) happens when action by either side will precipitate an event that is unacceptable to the acting side. If you can build that situation, you should have a dramatic standoff.

I concur with Aaron.

Having the villian carrying a bomb/grenade which'll kill the party is generally a good way to stop them just opening op with the machine guns.

Although that tends to work best for both sides backing down and retreating....

It works best if you shoot the other guy between the eyes about the time he finishes the first word.

"Bwahhaa, I'll have" BANG
thump

Naw, I can take it. BANG!

KA-BOOM.

What?! I thought we could take the damage easy.

Let's face it any situation involving an NPC taking another NPC hostage usually ends up with both very dead,

-Chrysalis

If you, as the GM, put the characters in a situation where you want to handle some exposition via a standoff, then you have to train them to recognize the device, especially if your players tend to kill everything that moves.

There are two easy ways to teach this; the beneficent GM, and the evil GM. The nice way is to strongly suggest to the players that force is not the way out of this situation. If they are are particularly dense, simply ignore any attempt by that player (you know the one, every group has one) to get everyone killed. The evil way is to let them try, kill them all, and start from scratch.

The key for the GM is to make the standoff identifiable from the normal heavy encounter. Start by making it clear to anyone in the player group that shooting first means dieing. This doesn't always mean having more people or bigger guns. To have this be believable you would want to have the engagement take place somewhere or at a time where simply making the group disappear in a loud, messy smear is not in the other group's best interest. That in itself is not too hard, but you do have to make it flexible, because PCs have a habit of doing the unexpected.

The trickier situation is to have a standoff that degenerates into an actual encounter. This is much more difficult, because you have to give the players a reason not to start in on the other group, and then push them to the point where they need to start shooting. In that case deside on your objective from the encounter and realize that you may have to accept a bit of artificial structure.

By that I mean that if the groups are evenly matched and the idea is for combat after the exposition, make it plainly clear they need to listen first. Have the Johnson, the fixer, a contact, or anyone believable, make it a requirement for their run. If the idea is to force them to retreat from an area, realize that you may have to make the NPCs shoot like the A-Team bad guys. Every encounter should have a primary and a few secondary goals. Any rolls that get in the way of that should be ignored, in the players favor. I'm not saying don't kill them, just don't kill them for no good reason. Stupidity is a very good reason.

Hmmm. I think this might be acceptable to me. Presuming the hostage is of some import as opposed to the closest metahuman the team will at least get paid less for their lack of imagination.





Well OK, yes, I guess this threads is about doing that well. Preferably so it fits some of the classic models.

Dead mans switch on bombs all over the building could work as would the classic arbitrarily large number of opponents. But that's a bit heavy handed, and contrived.


Alright I guess what is needed realy is some kinda coup de gras type stuff.

So lets try focusing on the mechanical side for a moment.

Now, using (stretching perhaps) RAW how would you model.

Someone with a gun pressed up against a PCs back.
Gun pressed up against a PCs temple
An NPC trying to grab a PC and get to the "gun up against temple" state
Someone being "covered"

Cleverly RAW is set up so there is no way to prevent the street sam who has an initiative of absurd from acting first the next phase. You can't delay actions into the next turn. See "that combat turn" on page 132 declare actions.

Obviously the developers didn't want this situation to occur, and who am I to question their infinite wisdom?

First make sure your players know that you intend to offer them senarios where shots are not the first option. Springing this kind of thing on a power gaming group will cause confusion even if you lay the groundwork.

The secret is how you set the scene. So taking your questions as an example: "Player X, you feel the barrel of a gun in the small of your back and a firm grip on your throat. 'Make one move I don't like and you'll be in two pieces.' You know he means it and offer no resistance."

Yeah, you take the option out of the player's hand, but if they are clueless sometimes it helps to do it that way.
Basically the same, maybe with a bead of sweat running around the barrel.
Have the NPC reveal his presence and describe the gun as well as you can, the sight, the SOTA 'ware the guy has, and the fact that he has an instant kill shot.

If, after all that, they still insist on attacking kill the player held and make sure the others don't get off free. Then explain what they did wrong.

I'm not seeing it, especially in the more detailed rules on 134. You just keep delaying from pass to pass. And when the next pass is in a different turn it just rolls over normally.

That's obviously how they intended it. And to me that's also how they wrote it.

Also I notice under "take aim"



So it would seem that could give some leeway to make a gun to the back or head a dangerous thing without it really being a house rule.

Suggestions?

Here's a strange idea that may or may not work.

Put together a run in which there is no combat. None at all. Nobody so much as draws a weapon. Then, at the run's completion, as you're going through Karma awards, throw in a "... and one [or two or whatever] for not entering combat, and ..." and watch the ears perk up.

If you're really mean, give that award individually.

Dead man switches, usually makes players think twice about capping people straight off.

I realize I'm but a novice posting here, but many who play in my SR4/gamenight look forward to the winner takes all, shoot 'til you see blood and brains smeared on the walls. If you wish to play the adventure without any 'gunplay' how would you view the use of magic? Would it have the same 'effect' if only to persuade or detract gunplay. Meaning, would the mages be the only gamerz to win karma points for said adventure? I've played D&D (old school, first ed.) before and there are so many aspects I really love about SR4 which combine whitty reparte, detect and discover tactics, magic, and gunplay. I think it should be a combination of all these aspects and not soley rely on gunplay for 'squirt and giggle' effect (if you know what I mean.)

This only works out if the group is willing to engage in drama-focussed play (which is the prerequisite to pull off a standof situation succefully, anyway).

If this is the case, taking the player's action out of his hands is unneccessary, as he will be familiar with such situations.
Same goes for the BBEG walking up to the players with a drawn gun and revealing his masterplan.

We are all familiar with such situations from movies and the like and from my experience with badly scripted, railroady off-the-shelf adventures, i can tell that gamers will intuitively recognize them and act appropriately to drive the story forward.

This can easily be enhanced by offering rewards for "enduring" such occurences.
In SR4, my advice would be to partially refresh Edge every time something dramatically appropriate happens (which the players should know before start of the game, to avoid misconceptions about the situation).
Group is forced into a standoff, car ignition doesn't work in the most inappropriate moment, BBEG manages to escape miraculously? That's one point of Edge each.
Yes, i have shamelessly stolen that idea from the BtVS RPG.

If players prove unwilling or unable to play along, coercing them to do so can easily prove disastrous, but will in every case be tiresome for the GM and the players alike and therefore should be left out of the game alltogether.

In such cases, it will always be more appropriate to model the plot under the premise of designing a challenge to be resolved, instead of telling a story by traditional means.

Games are inherently different from stories told by a single narrator and if one attempts to bring the two closer together, game mechanics themselves, as well as a working consensus on "story focus" within the group, should be employed to further this end, if one wants to avoid unsatisfactory gameplay.

Yeah, definitely depends on the group. Even in D&D the guys I game with often cut off the GM with: "Is the bad guy monologueing? If he is than..." followed by our best efforts to smoke the bad guy before he finishes his speech.

The frustrated GM has half joked that he wants to introduce "Summon Fiendish Monologue" a spell that paralyzes players until the speech is complete.

There just isn't any reason to let them rant, and every reason to cap them Right Now.
"Behold the power"
"I shoot him, alpha short burst using edge. Hmm, 10 successes. DV 18, -5 to armor. Let me roll for the next burst..."

This is a problem that is only compounded by the fact that I use RPG's to vent and that I always used to yell at the TV saying "Good god! Just shoot him already!"

I'd put holding a gun to the head of a character under either Unarmed Combat (Subdual Combat) to grab the character. You could also add an Intimidation test to it.

"I grab him by the throat and put my knife to his throat"
"Ok, roll Unarmed Combat... net hits... Yep, you've got him."
"I say 'Move and I'll rip out your larynx and eat it', letting the blade scrape against his bulging adam's apple"
"Okey-dokey. Hmm... Intimidation dice-pool modifiers? Effect is... disastrous to NPC."

But really, don't forget the use of Intimidate. If you want the bad guy to step out of the shadows with a grenade in hand and say "Dead man's trigger. Shoot me and you're all chunky salsa." then that should be an intimidate roll. Just because the players want to shoot him in the head, their characters might be too scared to do so.

In fact, I see the intimidate skill working well in a lot of potential combat situations. If you beat them on the initiative roll, and your pen is mightier than your sword, go for the pen. And then you've got a stand-off, you've got your gun to their head, and theirs is still in their holster.

If your team outnumbers an enemy, don't forget the use of stealth, surprise and subdual. The team might enter a room to kill that one last mook who escaped the bloodbath, only to find that the mook jumps from the shadows, frantic and animalistic, with sweat pouring down his face and grabs the nearest player-character. If he wins on the subdual combat he's got a player character's life in his hands. Roll intimidate against the group. Can their characters deal with this? If they manage to beat this guy in intimidation, do they want to take the chance that they can kill this guy without him blowing their running partner away?

Ok. It's a whole seperate issue with using social skills on PCs. Because they will want to shoot the pornomancer catgirl who they figure will betray them as well.

But as for the standoff what I'm looking for now as much as anything are good mechanical reasons to explain why a shotgun being fired point blank into the skull does more than 8 boxes of damage. That, I think, is the crux of the matter. The dual actions thing allows the attack to hit at least simultaniously. But the players probably figure they (or even a threatened NPC) can take a hit.

also on the talking thing.
http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=1280
if you've never read that before I suggest going to the beginning. Funny stuff.

That's why my bad guys tend to monologue only when they (or their henchmen) kick the PC in the ribs, or when they (or their henchmen) pull out his head from the toilets.

Actually, I've had a similar problem.

A player of mine came across a 2 on 1 mugging, and when he tried to intervene, one ganger took the girl by the throat with a knife. He decided to shoot one ganger in the face and then manabolt the other hostage-taking ganger. Unfortunately for him, he didn't act fast enough and the ganger got a chance to slit the girl's throat.

Unfortunately, it was a knife, (this was SR3) so it was L damage. I ruled it as a called shot so it staged to M. Because of this, everything turned out pretty well, because all the mage had to do was heal the girl's throat with magic and she was right as rain.

But then again, I still got the desired effect. He practically shat himself when the ganger got a better initiative roll than he did and the girl got opened up. The player was visibly angry when he gave the order to cast manabolt.

To be clear I'm not looking to monologue. There are enough ways to make that happen.

What I'm more looking for is the situation where they're trying to think up clever ways out of the situation. And I don't consider just opening up like every other combat "clever".

Again I think liberal use of the leniency in the called shot rules is probably key.

For example a girl getting her throat cut open shouldn't be a "M" wound. Not instadeath either. But S minimum and really it should be D. (In SR4 terms it should be 7-10 boxes or some such).

To be honest the called shot rules in SR4 have become a lot more lenient.

If I was doing it in SR4, I'd say that she takes another box of damage every combat turn unresisted, or I'd give her a breath-holding test - Until medical attention was provided.

Seriously, I'd consider that shooting someone in the head at point blank range or slitting his throat is instadeath in most cases (excluding the use of edge, cyborgs, trolls and so on).
The same way you don't ask for a roll when someone casually drives a car in standard traffic situation, you don't ask for a roll to hit someone in the head at point blank range and you don't ask for a roll to survive a bullet in the brain.

A few thoughts:No, it is more than possible to earn Karma without shooting stuff, even if you are a Sam or PhysAd. I played a troll PA with a passifist flaw (long story) for a while and loved it. I don't think I ever killed anyone with that char. But then the group I was playing with at the time was very big into recon, planning, and laying as much groundwork on a job as they could. The whole goal on most runs was to get paid before the target knew they had been hit, with no evidence or collateral damage. I have also played and GMed much more aggressive games, with a very Tarrentino-esque feel to the violence level. In both cases Karma awards were based on how well you did your job and how helpful you were to the success. Thinking around the problem or very good roleplay also got you bonuses.

I agree with you for the most part. The thing is I find people tend to forget they can think in these situations until you train them otherwise. If every game you ever played had gunplay as the solution to every encounter, why would you talk? Especially with a new or younger group, you find they don't realize just how flexible having a GM is. As the GM you are not beholden to the rules, nor are the players forced to play the game on rails. Some of the most fun you can have as a GM or player is when the gameplay goes "off the reservation" so to speak.

The key is to have open communication between the GM and players. Make sure everyone is looking for the same style of play and knows they will be rewarded for playing the the style you all agreed on. And do reward the players that make the game fun. Punish OOC roleplaying, player grandstanding (if it is in character the PC can grandstand all he likes), rules lawyering, or generally making the game feel like work.

I agree with Blade here. Especially for the GM. Never let the rules or the rolls ruin your game. It is after all your game, if you want someone dead, they are dead. If your players insist they get a move and you don't want them to, tell them they don't. If they insist, let them move and let the run go to hell.

As for the social skills being seperate, they really aren't. Giving karma for best use of a non-combat skill is one way to get them interested in them, as are rewards for excellent roleplay. Again, tell them before you play that you want to see more interaction and less shoot-em-up. Tell them during play that other opportunities are there. Tell them after where they missed big karma, cash, or gear because they let an NPC die. Don't make it unfun, just try to teach them to think more openly.

Good luck.

Shooting someone in the head might be, but it's perfectly reasonable for a mage to be able to heal a knifeslash to the throat.

If you need to kill an NPC as a plot device it works best if you don't do something that the players will confidently feel is easily treated. George getting hit by an ATGM and blown into bloody shreds is kind of an appropriate level of hint for my players that George isn't going to make it.

Sub-orbital Drop Bears. That usually does it.

Ah, my favourite DMotR quote.
"This is the third time you killed someone during negotiations!"
"And yet they keep falling for it. It's hillarious!"

Actually I rather like that. The breath-holding thing.

Actually that's more in the spirit of the called shot wording. The GM assigning effects based on what was hit, i.e. shooting out a tire.

In that case it would be cutting out a throat. So yeah, breath holding and/or extra boxes of damage. I wouldn't do instadeath as that's pretty much reserved for braindeath.

Bullet to the brain. Might be instadeath. Or rather perhaps I would apply some of the extra effects from augmentation and give +7 damage or something. A cyberzombie or someone might be able to handle it.

I ust skimmed the thread so it might have been mentioned, but remember that the Deadman Trigger rules can be used to great effect in a standoff.

The minus 5 or so on the Body+will(3) roll tends to reduce the likelihood of this succeeding.

It's late so I may just be missing it or may simply be remembering yet another house rule, but where are you getting the negative mod from? (Basically I'm asking if you are figuring the ~-5 from Wound Mods or if there is something else I'm missing.)

Minus 5? Wouldn't most punks go down with only a -3 penalty? (Well, unless they got pasted really good).

I had forgotten about that though.

So where are we.

Mexican standoff. -simultanius actions and dead mans trigger means this could actually work out so long as both sides respect the others ability to do serious damage to them in a single shot.

Having the drop on somebody. Same as mexican standoff except for requiring a quick draw roll.

Hey what about if the first person is behind the other? Would you give them free "movement" to turn around? If it's RAW to not allow that then they'd be in a position where they'd have to take a single hit at least before being able to return fire.


Hostage situation -flex called shots rules to make these attacks dangerous

the big question is how would you hand it mechanically if someone wanted to take a PC hostage and hold a gun to them. Seems like it should be some extra roll after rolling a subdue attack, but I can't find anything like that.

The Standoff is built into the rules for Spycraft if anyone is familiar with them. Basically, you have an "attack" that forces the opponent into the standoff and it becomes a contest of wills (SR would use Intimidate or somesuch) where each round the loser takes "stress" damage (SR equivalent would be temporary Stun) until he fails or the standoff is broken. The catch, a participating character who voluntarily breaks the standoff drops to a dying condition - i.e. gets shot.

Well, there's people who have survived headshots, even at pointblank range.
Ruleswise, i'd handle that with the hand of god use of Edge, though, so you have already excluded that.
But besides that, yeah, it's one of those situations where you don't really have to call for a roll, as rolls are there to resolve uncertain situations.

As far as a slit throat is concerned, it certainly isn't instadeath, as you die from bleeding or suffocation, which takes time (not much in that case, though).
You're pretty hosed when someone opens up both of your jugularis blood vessels, but with healing magic, you might have a chance if the mage reaches you in time.

I'd handle that with a called shot and modified base damage (full instead half strenght probably?), followed by massive bleeding damage (based upon the severe wounds optional rules in Augmentation).
Doubling or even trippling the damage (depending on knife size and sharpness) also comes to mind, either before or preferrably after the attack roll.

Yes, in this case, i'd call for a dice roll on the attackers part.
Probably allowing a melee application of take aim, plus other modifiers, but cutting a throat takes more than just pulling the trigger of a gun.
Also, many knives are built more for stabbing than slashing and so on.

Therefore, that's a situation i wouldn't simply handwave.

Note that my suggestions on how to handle this ruleswise are just a spontaneous brainstorming, naming all possible mechanic effects that come to my mind.

Applying all of them would probably also lead to instadeath- but then, i can certainly imagine a STR 10+ troll decapitating someone with a kitchen knife.



There's some points i'd disagree with, but the whole part about communication is crucial.
I was fortunate enough in the past to mostly come across groups with very similar preferences and our games worked out fine most of the time, but that can hardly be taken for granted.

Plus, the whole part about getting the players to think for themselves and come up with creative solutions is spot on.
Many gamers nowadays seem to be lacking in that respect, either because they are conditioned to being railroaded or to have a rule for everything in the book.

That's what i love about old school RPGs like the first editions of D&D or TDE, they are so flexible because they have realy simple mechanics that don't even try to be complete, but encourage making up tests on the spot by calculating plausibility of success.

I blame computer games. You can't argue with a computer, so you learn to play the game the way the developers want you to play it. You can't (in most computer games) simply say "I use a hammer and cold chisel to pop the hinges" instead of using a lock pick. So players learn not to think. Plus some games are not made to be big thought puzzles. FPS and hack and slash RPG computer games are mostly mindless entertainment. They are not games where much strategy or tactics are needed. A good SR game can be very involved and complex, though it need not be.

Sunnyside, maybe I am misunderstanding you. What exactly are you looking for? Are you the GM and you want to create a stand-off? Or are you looking to create one as a player?

[edited for spelling]

I build the mexican standoff into all of my homebrew initiative systems. Basically anytime two characters act on the same initiative against each other, they automatically get locked into a mexican standoff. Their actions get cancelled and they both hesitate a second (an initiative pass in this system, meaning if they both had a 10 they'd act on the 9). The delay gives people not involved in the standoff the chance to act without retaliation from those in the standoff. Then the next pass each player may resume the stalled action or initiate a new action. The catch is, any physical action the player takes allows the other player to act immediately. Things like talking don't trigger it, things like shooting, trying to run, or moving at all will. Make your social checks to get the other guy to flinch first now. Key note: In order to shoot and still get a dodge roll against their shot, you need to split your dice pool between the two rolls. Anything that might break their intense concentration on waiting for the other guy to flinch requires a surprise test. The one less surprised gets to act without triggering the mexican standoff.

I'm the GM. I'm looking to create the situation, preferably using RAW, and ideally in such a way as it could involve the PC being taken hostage or being in a standoff but also allow the PCs to create such a situation if they want to, say, grab some guard and hold them hostage.



Oooooh could the "called shot" rules be applied to a subduing test? i.e. You take an X dice penalty and if you succeed anyway than you get to have a knife at their throat or a gun to their head if you're holding one?

Obviously that isn't the only way to get into a hostage situation. Usually the agressor will just be pointing a gun or knife at an unarmed and frightened NPC who will let the agressor grab them so no test would be required. But the above would probably be needed for PCs or reluctant NPCs.

Getting your opponent into a situation where he hesitates to act due to an immediate threat to his life (a knife to his neck), involves not only him to recognizing that threat, but also you actually being able to do that damage.

So... Called shot: holds knife to neck?
Roll AGL+Blades... success: you've got him.
On his next action: "he's got his arms around you, with his knife to your neck. What do you want to do?"

Sounds fair except for the "on his next action" part. Because this is combat, and his next action will come before yours, and you don't have a held action in case he tries to move. How about interception (SR4 p151)? "Characters who are attempting to move out of melee combat." Of course, you have to expand it to "characters who are attempting anything." And you still have the issue of a very high probability of death due to the proximity of the blade. +2, superior position?