I tend to agree, however as a GM it does get a little annoying if your players make a habit of saying "I didn't want that to happen, can we re-wind?". I think 'good' RPG play is when the players clearly declare their actions, and deal with the consequences.

Well in my game, I´d say that´s cinematic bullshit. But if you want to try it, I´d say use a combination of withholding dice from your DP, Called Shot to reduce Damage and increase DR dice, that hopefully puts it into the right range to fuill his P-Damage, but not his Overflow. It´s still a risk, but it´s possible, if you have a large enough DP to start with.

Have we all vented enough now? Or are we going to get closer to shutting down the thread?

The entire situation is over as soon as the GM decides whether he wants the girl to live or not. The GM appears to want input from RAW.

RAW tells us that... the entire situation is over as soon as the GM decides whether he wants the girl to live or not. The mechanic it offers the GM, aside from GM fiat, is burning of Edge. Whether some on this site like that option or not, it is available to the GM and is even mentioned specifically as a tool to keep important NPCs alive. This girl is important, or else there would be no discussion.

The GM is concerned about the gunfire mechanics that seems to suggest in this case that the better you do at a task, the worse it goes for you. He can rectify this perception by explaining to the players for future reference that getting lots of hits on the Ranged Combat Test improves the damage. It does nothing for selecting the place the bullet hits. That is done by the Called Shot mechanic. The player didn't use that mechanic this time, but now he knows about it. He expressed his desire outside of game mechanic terms to the GM, so the GM is now complicit in the result to the girl.

The player also now knows that there may have been other, less destructive ways to stop an injured girl. He's learned. The GM has learned. And in the final analysis...

The entire situation is over as soon as the GM decides whether he wants the girl to live or not.

Wait, you're calling cinematic bullshit in SHADOWRUN? The Game with trolls and magic?

You have to start somewhere. That's a risky shot.

I don't know about you there sabs, but MY Trolls and Magic are of the Trenchcoat Variety, well, most of the times anyways...

But you do make a good point, nonetheless...



Of course, the more realistic way to do that would be to set it up much like Bond did in the "Living Daylights". Give the target an underarmor shirt, with blood packs attached, and then shoot him with a real bullet (though low powered if optional)... the Kill shot looks real, and the target lives, ideally...

Of course, it is Bond, and that is a whole level of Cinematic in and of itself, but at least it was a realistic approach to something like that, rather than just hoping for the best...

Jon "Money" Johnson is a Trenchcoat wearer, and Nas is a Blue Mohawk.

But, yeah, cinematic does have it's place.

*Shoots guard in the kneecaps* "He'll live." - Uncle Bob, Terminator 2: Judgment Day

Neither Trenchcoat, nor Mohawk, that is just plain Thuggery... heheheh

Yes, it's a risky shot, and I don't recommend doing it with a Desert Eagle where the exit wound would be about 1/2 a foot radius. But it should be doable, AND if you're a damned good shot, using the right pistol, you should feel confident that you have a decent shot at it.

Doesn' that depend as much on the ammunition as on the weapon?
+1 and the mechanically better (i.e more hits) result should get you closer to your goal and not the other way around.

That's the trouble with the abstract damage system of shadowrun without hit locations . . there's only damage and more damage usually . .
Also, it seems there is such a think like too much dakka dakka *snickers* ^^

Dakka Dakka, more hits should get you closer… that's what a GM-imposed Threshold is for, though.

I agree and that is probably the way the OP will probably do it next time. The thing is should the character be punished if neither the player nor the GM thought about the proper mechanic?
At my table (if I GM again ) it would be thus:
Player: I want (my character) to shoot the girl to knock her out, not kill her.
GM: OK You need to call a shot and substract 4 dice.
Player: Alright, to make sure, I achieve my goal, I declare to use Edge beforehand.
GM: Fine, roll the dice
Player: *rolls* Wow 14 hits
GM: Girl got none. You hit the floor next to the girl, the Capsule bursts and dowses her in some of the Narcojet. The Girl stumbles on and drops directly in the arms of your partner. *Notes 9S on the girls condition monitor* Since you got much more hits than required for a Critical Success, do you want to add any other colorful details?

IMHO the Player decides what he wants his Character to achieve and the GM tells him what pool with which modifiers and possibly threshold he has to roll. If both made mistakes, the character should not be punished. BTW I like to run more sandbox/freeform games, so whether the girl lived or died probably would not have made much of a difference.

If however the player started with: This girl can't get away, no matter the cost, she would be dead, whether it's a called shot or not.

I had a similar miscommunication with my GM/Storyteller in a VtDA game many years ago. Audience at the Prince's to get visiting rights, the Prince's ghoul enters the room where I have been waiting. The GM tells me the ghoul closes the door behind himself, but what I understood was he locked the door behind himself [(ver)schließen]. My character then politely asked the ghoul to open the door, which he refused. Long story short my character kicked the door in. OK stupid move, but I went with what I understood. Long story short, my character bailed out of the window in the next room under the enraged eyes of the prince and his cronies and never went back to Milwaukee.

We both went with what we said and there are no hard feelings, just a "funny" ancedote, but as a GM I would have handled it differently

14 hits are poor execution? Well, you live in a strange world my friend.

So proper execution would be to gun her down with suppressive fire? Firing 20 bullets on full auto at a little girl?
Rulewise it is the best solution possible, because the damage is known up front. (Yes it is also safer than grabing her, because of the immense risk of a critical failure if she just got 2 points of Reaction)
(You also do not have that much of a problem with possible alergic reactions.)

And this is where the GM should rise form the heavens and smite the rules with the sword of reason.

@Dakka Dakka

You are bound to get some of those. You have 3 misheard words a ssession, of those maybe 50% are obvious, of the remaining 50% are corrected if the player tries to act on and so on. But some are just bound to march all the way through.

The right tool for the right job.

A Dart Gun (Narcojet Pistol or Parashield Dart Gun) or a Capsule Round or DMSO/Narcojet or NeuroStun in a Suppressed Light Pistol (Mmmmmmmmmmm, Colt L36!) for knocking out a target. Just hope they're not allergic to the chemical of use. Stun Guns and Tasers are for more offensive assaults, as they're not likely to leave your target too happy with you when used (They hurt like hell!).

Save your Ares Predator for what it's designed for: Hunting Big Game.

I thought everyone was allergic (in some degree) to lead, specially fast speed lead.

Most people are allergic to the forces exerted by high speed lead.

Again, PROPER EXECUTION would would have been to not have shot her at all. You do not SHOOT someone you are trying to capture alive, it generally ends up in tears, as this should have. I am not sure why you do not get this...

And a critical failure does nothing here to the victim if she is grabbed. Grabbing does not harm the target at all. I am not sure why this is even the defense that you are using. So she Critically fails with her 2 dice and then is what, extra grabbed? Really? As for allergic reactions... to WHAT? being touched? Really?

And you complain my world is strange. At least in my world, regardless of how good you THINK you may be, a critical hit using a Heavy Pistol (with enough damage to kill an uninjured target) on a waif of a girl, and a Toxin intended to take out Trolls results in the death of the Waif... This is consistent with logic and application. Regardless of Intent, the character's actions are diametrically opposed to common sense in this regard.

The sword of reason backs my arguments, not yours...

*BANG BANG BANG BANG*
STOP!
*BANG BANG BANG BANG*
LONE STAR!
*BANG BANG BANG BANG*

Lone Star doesn't try to capture people. Its not in their business interests.

well, they have to make it look like they try at least ^^

Depends on how much effort they're worth.

If they're low priority/high threat target assessment, then they're worth shooting in the street to show that they're fighting crime.

High priority/low threat target, capture and sentence to show that "The Justice System" works under their outsourced care. Also, they own the prisons, which operate a lot like hotels: On filled beds.

High priority/high threat target, attempt to capture, but terminate if need be. Either way, Lone Star wins. As long as they don't end up with egg on their faces.

Vice has a few good statements about how the economics of Crime Fighting are handled. Lone Star doesn't have unlimited resources, and is out to make a profit. A Shadowrun that has only B&E and Theft, maybe a little property damage will have a few hours allocated to it for a detective, most of which will be eaten up by driving time. A Shadowrun that has massive property damage and outright deaths will garner quite a bit more time and resources.

Killing a LS Officer, and those ideas go right out the window, the bean counters be damned.

If Lone Star owns and runs the prisons, it is DEFINITELY in their interests to capture prisoners. Prisons are big business.

No, that's what dice pool modifiers are for, since the shot is an Opposed Test. "Note that thresholds are never applied to Opposed Tests." (SR4A, p. 63)

I think that the "shooting to stun" counts as the Called Shot. This combined with the Take Aims should result in seriously nailing that Called Shot. My vote is girl lives, remind player of Called Shot rules and remind them that there are Bolas somewhere in the rules.

Dice pool modifiers and thresholds are both tools, not holy principles. A GM should use what works best in a situation. In this case, a Threshold can be useful, to simulate the risk of hurting the girl by not hitting her in a safe spot. For example, the GM says the player needs 5+ net hits to shoot the girl without causing major injury.

Case: Net Hits < 1
Effect: Girl not hit

Case: 0 < Net Hits < Threshold (5)
Effect: Girl hit for standard damage (gel round in her back)

Case: Threshold =< Net Hits
Effect: Girl shot down without major injury (say, a gel round to the leg)

This way, the GM gives the player a chance to get all the possible outcomes.

IRL, a gel round to the leg or ankle is extremely unlikely to kill a person, but very likely to make them stop running.



Well, unless you accidentally grab her the wrong way and break her neck perhaps. Or you grab her leg and she falls on her face. Or anything like that. In the real world, lots of people get injured while wrestling.

---

Shooting people in the arm to disarm them, in the leg to stop them running away or pursuing - it happens in the real world, and it happens in movies. It can make for very good action scenes. Therefore it should be possible in Shadowrun.

Of course it's difficult, which is why you need to be skilled, take careful aim, and be lucky even then.

---

Normally, extra hits on a To-Hit roll cause extra damage. But what the To-Hit roll really represents is accuracy - hitting what you tried to hit. I'd let a player say "I don't want extra damage for my To-Hit net hits", and let the weapon do only the weapon's base damage.

There's no physical law that says that careful aim has to be be deadly. Not if you're not aiming to injure. That's merely the default assumption in normal combat.

Because she did not die because of the gun damage code. She would have died because he had a lot net hits. And this is just plain wrong.


Well, shortly anyting.


If you use chems.


So let me get it straight: It is ok to shoot her with a machine gun if you are using suppressive fire. Because well, rule wise it is ok.

But if you try extra hard not to kill her with an ares alpha using Gel rounds, she should die.
This is just plain silly.

See, you are assuming Wrestling, while I am not... A full grown adult grabbing a waif of a girl does not equal wrestling... Now if you tackled her, maybe...



That is what Called Shots are for (and an appropriate Dice Pool Penalty)... if you are good enough to still have dice after the penalty, then you succeded on Hits greater than 0... what is so hard about that?



And again, there are already options in the books to cover that scenario...

See, I never calimed that shooting her with a Machine gun was any better, and in fact, at my table, if the cahracter said that what how they were going to implement said plan, the girl woiuld have died, and I would not have even allowed a roll... There is stupidity, and then there is moronic stupidity. You are right... your example IS just Plain Silly...

But in the end, I, as a GM, would have clarified intent, and then prompted a more correct choice of action that might have fit the intention. If the character still went ahead with his choice, then the chips fall where they may... In this example, the GM shares just as much culpability as the character for the bad choice that was implemented.

The problem I'm pointing out is that GMs overuse and misuse Thresholds with alarming frequency, where there is little rules support for them.

A Called Shot (with the appropriate dice pool penalty) is appropriate here, and I can see the girl being killed if the PC didn't call the shot. Maybe -2 to -4 DP to be able to call out a maximum number of net hits you'll use; I'd call closer to -2, because spellcasters get a similar ability for free (though it's not net hits, spellcasters can choose not to use all of their hits) and because the shooter was at least trying to show some restraint.

I see two problems with the approach you've given:

1. Neglecting for a moment the opposing RAW, your Threshold is variable, because the girl still gets a defense roll. Granted, a schoolgirl probably doesn't have a huge dice pool, but she has nothing else to do but a full dodge.
2. Every point of Threshold requirement is the equivalent of a -3 DP, on average, since it takes 3 dice to get 1 hit. So your Threshold of 5 is basically a -15 DP penalty, which is roughly equivalent to a Called Shot for an area not protected by medium military armor and helmet (which would be -16 DP; Arsenal, p. 50; SR4A, p. 161). Throwing this on top of the opposing roll all but guarantees hosing the PC. Maybe you're just throwing a number out there for example, but it shows me a pretty good example of the problem as I see it.

That's kind of my point, Fringe. It's not a normal combat test, because he's *not* trying to do as much damage as possible. That's the *normal* net hits rules.

Accidents can happen - do happen - in the real world. Untrained combatants are more likely to make some stupid move that gets them hurt (fall down the wrong way, struggle while in a nasty hold, etc.).

On a critical glitch, some accident happens that the player didn't want, in this case injury to the girl is a good example.



It doesn't really matter if you use Called Shots or something else. What matters is that if you try, you can elect not to use your to-hit successes on damage.
I take issue with the idea that taking steps to do a more precise shot (aiming, Edge) would be stupid - they make perfect sense, whether you're using a Called Shot or not.
Because when you do something hard, you're supposed to need more dice.


This is intentional. The girl isn't cooperating after all, and makes the whole thing more difficult.


The number is based on the Threshold for a Critical Success, but it's a fairly arbitrary number.

I definitely think that a dice pool modifier to the firearms test is the best option here. As far as all the RAW options are concerned using a Called Shot seems the most appropriate.


That said, depending on how things went at the table there are different "should haves".

If the Player in question never declared the intent to ONLY stun (saying perhaps to "hit" or "shoot") then the fault was on the player for not being clear. Sucks to be him. And that little girl.

If the Player in question DID declare the intent to ONLY stun and the GM failed to apply an appropriate modifier, etc, then the GM is at fault and should either allow a reroll using a better method or (in my opinion this is the way to go) give the player the outcome he desired in this case.

But a good story trumps those. If it makes it a better story that the girl live/die/get away/turns into a dragon riding a unicycle/whatever then the GM should swing things that way.

Nono, only skunks ride unicycles.
(Sorry for tiny picture, can't locate a better one*)

*Side note: I asked him one time "why a green skunk?" and he said, "because people will remember that."

I'm getting the feeling that a large part of the argument here is stemming from the lack of asking a basic question:

"How gritty or cinematic do you play?"

I, personally, am of the more cinematic preference.

I will say that the Shadowrun rules really just are horrible for pulling off stunts like "shoot to wound".



-k

I'm a firm fan of Film Noir, and it's derivatives, which Cyberpunk is. So, I go with Gritty.

But, sometimes, Rule of Cool overrides my ability to stay gritty.

Cool stuff happens in Noir and Cyberpunk too. Its just different kinds of Cool.

This whole discussion has nothing to do with gritty or not.
It is about two questions:
Do net hits tell, how good a player succeded in any given task and should this general rule be hold higher than special rules?
Burining down do the question: Is it bad work on the GM part if he starts punishing players for not knowing the rules in detail?
This is what this discussion is all about.

Stop calling it 'punishing'.

Agreed. It is not a punishemnt, just a consequence...

Pretty obvious the player did his best to shoot the girl the best he could. He shouldn’t whine when he succeeds.

The whole idea that more hits means that the player succeeds better at what he intended is just stupid; he succeeds better at what he was doing.

A very important distinction. One with which I concur.

There is some merit in the general claim that players/GMs should not be penalized for incomplete knowledge of the rules. It is a game, after all, meant to be fun for all, not a legal case with jail time consequences. If the player is new to the game and learning the ins and outs, he should get the kind of break the OP as GM has been suggesting. There are mechanics within RAW to allow the GM to do just that.

The second time he does it....

If the task was delivering stun-damage to the target, then lots of hits mean you do LOTS of stun damage. Enough to maybe kill it.

If the task instead was deliver JUST ENOUGH stun-damage to knock-out the target, but NOT kill/maim - then lots of hits are required to succeed - and not understun or overstun.

The difference depends on what the player is declaring their action to be.

Human Nartaki, Pistols 6 with a spec in Tasers and a 6 Agility. 4 Defiance EX's with smartlinks.

16 Dice Pool divided by four, totaling out to 4 dice per taser.

Taser 1- 3 hits - 11S
Taser 2- 3 hist - 11S
Taser 3- 1 hit - 9S
Taser 4- 2 hits - 10S

Target has to deal with 41S(e)

Cue eyeballs melting. I had a character that used the quad-taser method frequently, it's incredibly effective.

What are you shooting at, exactly? Ignoring the inherent ridiculousness, you'd think they'd dodge a little.

That particular instance, my character kicked open the door of a closet and unloaded all four tasers into a single orc target's back.

The GM ruled he didnt have an opportunity to dodge.

And don't forget to split the dice pool.

I'm reminded of a similar situation in SR2. The street sam wanted to capture a guy alive, so he bought gel rounds. He aimed, and spend Karma Pool on the shot, and rolled so many successes that the target overflowed and died instantly. He pointed out correctly that 1) No one had explained the damage overflow rules to him, and 2) That his character would know how lethal his attack would be. We agreed to let the guy live, albeit at 9 boxes of physical and a full monitor of Stun, and that he would watch his own control in the future. The situation was neatly resolved.

Now, I know someone's going to call him a moron. Guess what? This was one of the most intelligent players I know. He made a mistake, one his character wouldn't. And so what, we all make mistakes. It's not a major game-breaker to let a player tweak a mistake he made, especially when his intent was so clear. In this case, I'd definitely let the player get the non-lethal shot he was going for. He earned it.

You got the pool splitting rules wrong. Smartlink does not work on splitting, and the spec is not added to the pool that is to be split. It would be 12 split dice (three on each attack), then +2 on each attack from the spec, for a total of 5 dice on each taser