Now we're really on the carebear train. If a player's stupid enough to forget that he's packing narcoject, then he and his character deserve what's coming. I am not about to forgive that kind of a boneheaded move, and frankly it's fucking moronic to expect a GM to hold someone's hand and say "It's okay you made a lethal mistake, have a cookie."

@sabs: Shock otherwise, maybe. I don't like trying to repeat anything I see in Human Target, but it'd have to be a standard round and I would make it very clear that this is a 'Burning Edge' situation. I don't care how good you are, you're toying with someone's life.

To be fair, the GM forgot about the Narcojet too.

Even after it was noted that the guy's buying a dart pistol to avoid this in the future? It sounds much more to me like someone knew he was packing horse tranqilizers.

This is a moot issue - she burns an edge,and I still hope the guy has to tell little Suzy why he had to almost kill her.

How on earth is "spending 3 rounds aiming and then using edge to boost your dice pool for shooting a little injured girl" not an act of stupidity of the highest order.
The player is totally and only punished for being a total moron, there are dozen thinks he could have done and he chose pretty much the worst possible think to do, that kind of stupidity should have consequences.

Realistically/Cinematographically, it makes perfect sense to take the time to aim, if you want to make a precision, nonlethal disabling shot. It's also very, very hard, so only a lucky, elite guy with a lot of Edge would be able to pull it off.

The game mechanics just fail.

This sort of thing is why I like to keep a net gun handy. Won't kill anybody, but if they've never been shot with one, the fist-sized-barrell alone might cow them. And they do a dandy job of stopping runners.

If you have to use gell rounds or a taser, your GM might let you make a called shot to avoid (or reduce) any possible physical overflow. Or heck, just taking a called shot (without any specific mechanical benefit other than naming the location hit) can be used to reduce your dice pool by some arbitrary amount, making it less likely to kill.

No, that means that more skilled characters do not use lethal (or less than lethal) means to capture someone unharmed... They use a weapon that is designed for just that purpose...



Just because you want a specific outcome does not mean that you will get a specific outcome... Especially when you do everything in your power to stack the deck against the target... In the OP's case, the death of the girl is an acceptable outcome for the action that he took. Are you really telling me that he could not have chased the girl down and grabbed her and controlled the situation that way? Really? Instead, he whips out a heavy pistol, AIMS for 3 actions and then shoots her, dealing enough damage to cave her skull in (before the Narcojet is even applied)... I am sorry, but that is not the action of someone that wants to capture their target, but someone that wants to shut her up because she is screaming "rape."

AND I really don't see how this is "screwing" the player / character. The story just takes a different turn now that Suzy's dead. New and different avenues open up. The player learns some important lessons and rules. Everybody wins (except Suzy ). Is this a linear game with rails, or a story that is influenced by the players actions?

NOW, if the GM handwaves it away, the player learns the lesson that they don't have to be careful. That they can forgot what weapon they're using, the possible consequences of using said weapon. They don't have to pick their actions with care. They can just kind of lazily make their intentions known, and the GM will massage things to make sure those intentions come true.

And I think someone here hit the jackpot

@Tymeaus Jalynsfein

Well, as a matter of fact a roll with a lot of hits means exactly that. It means the character succeeds at the task.


What kind of argument is that?
So a master martial artist has to use drugs, if he wants to knock somebody out, because he would kill him otherwise. But his student may knock the guy out no problem. This is fucking silly.


If he could have acted otherwise is not the question to ask.
So you would say: To make sure not to hit a vital area you should be using a wide burst (no recoil compensation if possible) or taking a second gun to shoot somewhere else (splitting dicepool)? (As a matter of fact suppressive fire is the way to go. But sorry, this is silly)
Yes, mechanic wise it would make sense, but I guess that is not what is taught in the real world...

@Doc Chase

Still you are missing the point. If the GM remembered about the narcoject and this would have killed her, I would not say a word about it. But this was not the case.
The point is, the player got punished for net hits, despide declaring what he would like to accomplish.


Here we run in an other Problem of SR, beeing letal damage is not so lethal and Stun is not so non-lethal.
Well, but still: If you are toying with somebodys life, it is better for that somebody if you are good, is it not?

It's better for that somebody if you remember to Call your Shot and not pile on a huge DP.

First off, again, the player isn't getting "punished". The story is moving in a certain direction, different than if Suzy had lived.

Secondly, it's nice that the player declared what he wanted to happen. But the player can't just say "I want to subdue her" and have the GM make it happen. The player needs to choose the manner and method of subdual, and the choices of heavy pistol + capsule round + narcojet + 3 rounds aiming + edge before the test = a really bad idea for subduing a little injured girl.

So the player can learn a lesson or two. He learns the Called Shot rule. He learns that doing this to a large, angry troll is a good move, but against a smaller target isn't a great idea. He learns maybe there are better methods of subdual than doing the above.

@Yerameyahu
As a matter of fact, there is no rule in the called shot section, which would cut damage. Just apply additional effects. A side from the dice pool reduction, there would be no benefit unless the GM is houseruling. Well, the same houseruling which would apply if a player says he wants to make extra sure not to hit vital areas and he is having a huge dicepool.

I mean what kind of dick do you have to be to go like:
"You should have used a called shot!"
"But I told you I do want to aim for a non leathal shot."
"You should have refered to the called shot rules."

Seriously is this how you guy run your games? This sounds more like slapstick than RPG.
@phlapjack77

Please cut out the narcoject, for it is not part of the question.
So you are telling me: If I do want to aim for a non lethal part it would be smart not to aim?

So what if he used a Stoner-Ares M202 (MMG) to lay suppressive fire on the ally for one IP.
Rulewise this would make the girl take 8 boxes of stun. Thus she would have survived.
Well, guess what: In a game I would be running, she would die. No matter the rules. I would not even care to roll reaction or edge.

Irion, that's exactly the point: reduce the DP. Also, don't add 3 aiming or Edge, facrissake.

There is no 'aim for a non leathal shot' option. That's all there is to it. You're firing a gun. If the character specifically pre-declared, 'I'd like to stop her safely by shooting for a lower leg or something', *and* the GM said, 'yes, okay, that will work', then maybe. Maybe. If that's what happened, then it's a different story. I have no reason to think that's what happened.

As I said repeatedly above, I'd certainly support a 'Called Shot to reduce damage' option, even one that lets you use net hits 'backwards', but I'm not basing my argument on the existence of that option. It's just a related comment.

It's clear that you run your games without recourse to the rules. That's fine if your players want that, but most people prefer to use the rules and clearly pre-announced house rules. None of this, 'oh, I didn't want that to happen' silliness.

Well, maybe I consider nobody that stupid to pile up dices and not to declare what he wants to achieve with them.

Sounds like you've never actually GM'd before, then.

"Called left testicle shot, one handed with a rifle, off handed." - Shot made in a Star Wars D6 game. We successfully intimidated Stormtroopers into surrendering.

Ignoring the is your player an idiot, abusing the rules, etc debate.

By RAW short of HoG, which isn't really for this, shes dead.
By fluff (intent, edge is about luck helping the character, etc) she lives.

So I ask you,
Are you a fluffer?

I think this bears repeating, a gun was fired at someone. Regardless of intent, there is the chance of dieing. People die falling down in tubs, a single bullet, of any type, aimed anywhere in the body, can kill someone. If you don't want someone dead, shooting a gun at them is not the right thing to do. If it was a melee weapon maybe there would be cause for argument, but guns are fast, destructive, and frankly random, once the round leaves the barrel, you have no control over what it does.

People die in SR, it happens.

Basic firearms safety: Never point one at something that you absolutely, positively don't want dead. Ever.

As for being a fluffer. Don't judge me! It's the economy, and I needed the money!

@TheOOB

Well, as a matter of fact, there does not need to be.
It is perfectly SAFE to fire a HMG at someone to stun them, without ANY chance of killing.
But a Ares Alpha, well thats the heavy shit.

Heavy Machine Gun?

@CanRay I'm a Care Bear fluffer, so no judgment here

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm... Ma Deuce.

The first thing to realize is that knocking people out is hard. Hard and dangerous.

All those movies where people get conked on the head and just take a nap for a few minutes? Bullshit. Knocking someone unconscious means you gave them a concussion, which is an unpredictable and often life-threatening injury. You probably fractured their skull, too. Highly skilled close combat specialists know they are taking a risk of causing permanent harm to their targets even when using 'safe' techniques. And that's against opponents who are highly trained and conditioned against that sort of damage; children, the elderly, ill, and the already injured are all at greater risk.

Drugs and electroshock are possibly worse, since it's often harder to adjust on the fly. You might have noticed that anesthesiologists need to go to medical school and gain years of experience before practicing, use huge amounts of monitoring and life support equipment, always operate with assistance, and still run a small risk of adverse affects every time they put a patient under. The margin of error between 'just enough to incapacitate' and 'paralyze their heart or diaphragm' is shockingly slim. Some thug using a set dose against some random target? Probably, the first shot doesn't even tickle, and the second one turns them off forever.

That being said: the school of games mastering in which the dicking over of players is not only accepted but encouraged has always been bullshit and continues to be bullshit.

Differentiate between the player making an error and the character making one. The player was absolutely clear in his intentions; interpreting the entirely positive mechanical results of his efforts in a way that is diametrically opposed to his plans is an absolutely dick move, no question. If the player had reason to believe that the mechanical decisions he made would contribute usefully towards his goals, then allowing him to take a suboptimal decision that his character would reasonably have the expertise to find fault with only penalizes the player for having imperfect knowledge of a byzantine and largely arbitrary rules system. I don't believe that it is obvious or intuitive that leveraging a character's high level of expertise in the field of shooting things would lead to him making directly absurd judgment calls when shooting things.

Capping a kid is likely to lead to suboptimal outcomes, this is true. However, it sounds as though the player was aware of this and took what he saw to be reasonable precautions in the defense of his interests. He believed that his firearms skill pool was indicative of his precision and care in the execution of shooting tasks, and went through some trouble to leverage circumstantial advantage towards this quality. If you, as the GM, believe that the firearms skill is a direct metaphysical measurement of one's capacity to use guns to murder (an interpretation neither strictly supported by the letter of the rules as presented nor by any logical extrapolation of the system engine's goals of simulation and play satisfaction), then you should have told the player so before he took the shot. If there were some in-narrative method of interpreting intent to incapacitate, then his character would surely not be ignorant of them. Furthermore, even if you had already made the evaluation that this was an action with no hope for a positive resolution, the player spent edge and rolled well. Fate, fortune, and superhuman skill all fell in his favor; even if you had planned on letting the kid die, it may have behooved you to choose this single instance to allow an upset to the character's benefit.

tl;dr: Not only are you wrong, but you are wrong in every way for every reason and every action and every word you have posted in this thread makes me think you specifically have it out for your players. You, sir, are a dick.

I think the whole point I'm making, and that everyone is making, is that there is no "non-lethal" part, when firing a gun. "Less lethal" maybe, but stuff can still happen. And in this case, something did.

Instead of complaining about how "that's not what I meant to happen!", why not roll with it and see where it leads? A new enemy, a new character trait / flaw...it's supposed to be fun and not about "winning". I'm sure I'm not alone in saying I've had some great games happen precisely because stuff didn't go quite the way we expected.

I think I'm ranting again, sorry

Low Lethality. LOW lethality. Not Non-Lethal.

If someone says Non-Lethal, they're working for a PR Company or Liberal agenda.

I believe runners companion has the big regret negative quality.

Yes, indeed.

Sure, shooting someone is always risky. But it can be done in real life, and it can certainly be done in the movies. So it should be possible in Shadowrun. Of course, it's harder than just shooting to kill.

So, here's how it should go:
Player: I want to shoot her in the legs to disable her, but not kill her.
GM: That's pretty tricky - you'd have to get 5+ net hits on the To-Hit roll. If you hit with less than that, she's taking full damage and might die!
Player: Ouch! I'd better make sure I have lots of dice to succeed at this trick shot. I'll take aim and use Edge!

Did the character have the Common Sense quality? Did the character have Gun Safety as a KS ? Maybe then the GM can give a cautionary statement to the player.

If not, at some point, the player has to be responsible for the character's actions. Otherwise next game I'm going to say "My character is an experienced runner. He breaks into the lab and steals the plans....What's that ? How does he do it ? I don't know, HE'S the runner, not me!"

Incidentally, this thread reminds me of the Infiltration-while-painted-orange-with-bright-orange-streamers thread.

There's a vast gulf between your hyperbole and petulantly antagonistic games mastering. Or rather, it's the same thing, in the opposite direction. If the players and the GM are working against each other outside of the game as opposed to strictly within it, you're going to have a shitty time and feel stupid for bothering, whomever's fault it happens to be.

Yes, it is not wrong to punish the player for HIS actions.
But it is wrong to punish the player for actions, only wrong by the mechanics.

Lets put it plain simple:
Would you consider it a wrong action, if the player would have shot down the girl with a Stoner-Ares M202?
Game wise, he could have done it and he would have achieved the wanted result. Girl knocked out and only a bit hurt. (He would just have needed to fire 20 bullets in her direction)
As a matter of facts the risks involved in this action would have been minimal compared to any other.
Why? She would get her dodge test with edge and reaction, thus reducing the possibility of a critical glitch. (Which could inflict additional damage)
Thus it would be even superior to graping her. Because by graping her, you would risk a critical glitch on her part. Which would leave you open to everything rulewise. (Up to sliped and broke her neck)

I think there's a vast gulf between antagonistic games mastering and what went on here. If anything, it sounds like the opposite of antagonistic game mastering. The GM took what could (should?) have happened and tailored it to what the player wanted.

Yes, I realize what I said was hyperbole, but at what point is the player assumed to be responsible for actually controlling the character? Besides the fact that actually shooting an already-injured little girl with a heavy pistol to subdue her is a bad idea right from the start...

...
(looking up the Stoner-Ares M202)
...
Sorry, I'm really not following here. What is it you're saying? I think you're saying he would have less chance to kill the girl if he fired suppressive fire from a MMG at her? Maybe the rules make it harder to kill someone like this. I don't know - seems it would need some number-crunching.

But this ignores the basic premise that shooting an injured little girl with a heavy pistol to "subdue" her is a bad, bad idea. So something bad happened, this one time.

Where the frak do you get this idea.
The player desided that shooting the little injured girl was the best route to go(first beyond moronic move) then he spend 3 turns aiming and spend edge to boost his dice pool becouse he's usually unlucky and for some moronic reason wanted to make sure he would get as many net hit as possible.
Not a single part of that moronic decision chain give any indication that he was trying to minimise the damage to the girl, it actually very clearly shows he was trying to make very sure that he hits the girl as hard as possible.

Because a nonlethal, disabling shot is much harder to do than just shooting to kill. And most of the time you need more hits to do something difficult.
If you're trying to shoot someone in a nonlethal spot, of course you need to aim much more carefully.
If you're trying to shoot someone in a nonlethal spot, of course you need more luck (Edge).

If you're trying to shoot to disable, then this is the logical way to do it, from an RP/Realism viewpoint. The game rules should adapt to logic, instead of trying to adapt logic to the game rules.



Fixed.

Seconded on the jackpot. Tons of interesting ways this could go, even if the kid doesn't die. Maybe she has brain damage, maybe she goes into shock and has to be rushed to a street doc, maybe she's bleeding internally and dies a day after she's returned. And this is SR, a dystopia crapsack world based on the worst of the 80's multiplied by 5 and magic. The quest givers want to shoot you in the head, your allies are all psychopathic drug addicts, and the opposition is a soulless corporate entity that finds more profit in exploitation than productivity. It's not quite Cthulu but the GM certainly should mess with the players a bit.

Of course, it looks like the OP decided not to have the girl die and honestly, I really can't find anything wrong with that. I don't like the idea of "punishing" or "teaching" players, it's ludicrous if you ever been a player in one game and a GM in another. This is a bunch of adults (hopefully) sitting around playing make-believe, it not "serious business" and you're not going to teach anybody anything, just piss them off if you try. I would recommend that the OP take this opportunity to have some consequence of the overpowering shot, it just seems like too good an opportunity, but having her suffer something like memory loss seems like it'd be more fun than just having her be fine.

Don't stress out, it's a cool opportunity to throw a curve ball into your game, nothing else.

Using extremely granular rulesets as a completely literal interpretation of the laws of physics is probably going to lead to absurd outcomes. As was mentioned, the mechanically optimal tactic would have been to hose the little girl down with an automatic weapon. That is, for lack of a better word, stupid. And, at the risk of venturing into personal attack territory, failing to differentiate between rules-as-necessary-abstraction and rules-as-impartial-adjudicator inspires confidence in neither the wisdom nor fairness of your decisionmaking.

Having a high pistols dice pool means you have a better shot (so to speak), given the circumstances, of minimizing the lethality of your attacks, among other difficult and exotic applications of the skillset; if this is not so, then I defy you to define any other parameter in the mechanics as presented that serves this function. By any rational interpretation of the rules, more successes at a given task mean something other than MOAR MURDER AND NOTHING ELSE.

The player explicitly intended to take the prisoner alive, and got the nod from his GM to attempt to do so. It may not have been clear (we have no access to the context of the story given, though it would be helpful to knowhint, hint) in what spirit the campaign was being played; were the runners competent, heroic operatives (admittedly unlikely, given that the crew was kidnapping a small child in broad daylight) in a world in which Judo chops and tranq darts worked as reliable nonlethal takedown methods, a la any number of pulpy spy flicks; or were they violent, ill-qualified thugs in way over their heads trying to accomplish any task more delicate than cutting a swathe of murder through the streets? And if the player's impression was different from that of the GM, why did he have to wait until after he'd murdered a child to find out?

It's hard to accuse the player of being particularly clever, but unless this was only the last in a long history of excessively violent decisions made against the spirit of the campaign, this an uncalled-for "gotcha!" moment. Hell, even if it were, the single instance in which the player took extra care in playing it safe and got lucky is not the right moment to call him on his bullshit.

Honestly, if this scenario were the result of an obviously stupid decision and/or an egregiously unlucky roll, I would support your ideas and add more of my own.

If.

No the non moronic tactic would have been to not shoot at the injured girl.

Bad things don't happen only when you screw up. Sometimes they happen if you do everything right. And a bad thing that leads to a cool story is the essence of SR and noir in general.

Having said that, from a rules standpoint it seems pretty stupid. From a real life standpoint, shooting the girl with a knockout gun seems fairly reasonable, presuming the guy isn't a RL cop or something and therefore familiar with the dangers of non-lethal weapons. Lets face it, tasers were sold as a non-lethal option, cops bought the line, and it's only now coming into question as evidence mounts that tasers aren't as non-lethal as people thought.

Not what I said, or even implied... But in this case, his actions do not mesh with his intent. There is this great mechanic in the main book called "Called Shots". If you want something special, you use that mechanic, and then the GM determines teh outcome based upon your level of success. You LOSE dice to make that called shot, and then excessive successes mean very little other than to have accomplished your goal. Unfortunately, teh OP's issue is that he did not use such a mechanic, but the mechanic for increasing Damage, regardless of his stated intentions. His Tactics did not match what he wanted, and he should pay that price. Happens all the time in the Military in fact. Overkill is a fact of life, let alone a fact of the Shadows.



At which point, you reward the player/character for pooor preparation and execution. Consequences now have no meaning, as you shape your world around the intent of the Character, regardless of actions. Boring...

Stun is exceedingly less-lethal, as long as you remember that you can still kill someone by continuously beating them with a weapon that does only stun damage.

And yes, Better skills means you should have an easier time utilizing less-than-lethal options. Unfortunately, the OP chose not to do so, and opted for an option that had a high chance of killing the target, considering the Target. AGAIN, you do not shoot a waif of a Girl, who is already injured, with a Troll Stopping Round, unless the end result is to actually treat that waif of a Girl as a Troll Target. Basic Common Sense.

I doubt the player in question took 'extra care to make sure the girl survives'. From what I heard, I can only come to the conclusion, that his top priority was to make sure he will hit and knock-out. Apparently he thought the gel/capsule ammo would make sure of the not-killing-her part. That´s as much as I can tell, from the little information we have. Asking to use the excess hits to make sure the damage is not too high, after they already made sure the target will be hit and there will be enough damage, is doubledipping!

Pulling your punch does make it less likely to hit! Shooting at the legs is harder then shooting at the body! If a player wants to make sure he does not do too much damage, he should ask for that specifically. Then the GM can suggest a ruling* and appropriate penalties. The player dosn´t have to know all the rules, but neigther does the GM have to considder all the players possible intentions, if they are not clearly stated. What´s more, combat situations leave little time to think, so somtimes your PC will overreact or not make the ideal choice.

*As stated above, my ruling would be, that the attacker can voluntarily reduce the DP, to limit the max. possible number of hits. A Called Shot to reduce damage would be another possibility (Base Damage -1 per -1 Die). Another idea I got was to modify the rules for Called Shots to avoid armor, to add damage resistance dice instead of reducing armor. These are all solutions that give some amount of controll (although at a price, as it should be IMHO) and need a minimum of houseruling and still contain an amount of uncertainty.

Actually, the mechanically optimal task would have been to chase her down and put her in the car approaching/waiting at the end of the alley. Shooting her, with any weapon is not optimal mechanically. I think that is where the disconnect is. Everyone seems to be arguing that a better skill with a weapon makes it easier to take that non-critical shot, when the plain fact is that being shot can Kill you, regardless of where and how you are hit, in suboptimal situations. This is one of those situations. The character chose poorly, and regardless of his intent, the situation proves to be something other than he expected. Expectation and Outcome do not have to match, and often do not, in such circumstances.

My 2

Agreed, the guy shooting the girl was a moron

Being shot in the back of the thigh or heel will not kill you, unless the "suboptimal condition" is "you're standing on the edge of a cliff/rootop" or "there's a car coming your way full speed." Especially with gel rounds with little to no penetrative ability. You'll haemorhage, probably, perhaps draw some blood even. There isn't enough blood by far going through any branch of the calf arteries to kill you within the space of a combat turn.
You might chip the bone if you hit in the heel, perhaps inflict some cartiledge damage, but niether is going to kill you.

I'm sure I don't need to point out dying from being shot in the pinky toe is about as likely as death by drowning is in space. In the space of hours, anyway.

I think the entire discussion hinges on him having said "I wan't to inflict minimal damage to the girl". If he didn't use the Called Shot rules after that, it's the gm's fault.
OTOH if he hasn't specifically said so, out of being unaware, it still is the GM's job to point him in that direction.

No, I'm not. You just can't grasp the fact, still, that actions have consequences. Even if the Narcoject is taken out of the situation, if it was a heavy pistol, light pistol, or an MMG, it does not matter - and here I will use small words so even you can understand them - He. Shot. Her. With. A. Gun.

Did you understand that? I used single syllables. I'm afraid my interpretive dance coach isn't available so it's the best you're going to get.

Stun damage is just another track to fill first before it goes physical, with the added benefit of knocking the target out before it goes into Physical overflow. It makes things nice because hey, people can wake the taret back up afterward. It's nice!

I don't see where someone 'forgetting' what they're packing is even relevant. "Oh I forgot the gun was loaded when I was cleaning it!"

Still a manslaughter charge if it takes someone out. Still a fucking boneheaded move, and I'm not about to hold someone's hand. People do stupid shit in SR, people do stupid shit in RL.

Frankly, I'd be happy saying someone with the apparent skill levels this guy had would know enough about the gun he's so good with that it kills people and wouldn't do something this fucking stupid. This entire argument is fucking stupid. I'm stupid to keep pressing my point to a couple of people who just don't listen and seem to believe that just because you're really good at aiming you can inflict a potentially lethal wound and everything is okay.

You just shot an unarmed waif. Congratulations. Live or die, you go down as a complete fucking moron.

Again another jackpot.
Specially with the "teaching lessons" part. I mean, I've learned lots of things from RPG's and for RPG's, but I don't take the "master" part in GM in the same sense as a martial artist does inside his dojo... I don't want the GM being my father/mother. She/He is not.

Here's my problem.

It's a common 'thing' in certain types of shadowrun like TV shows to have the really good shot shoot someone in the chest (just missing their heart) to make it look like they killed them, and then rushing them to the hospital.

How do you represent doing that in Shadowrun.

Wouldn't more skill which is represented with a bigger DP mean you're MORE likely to pull this shot off?