Needs more dakka.

You are aware that people posses the ability to lie?
The normaly do it, if it is in their interest. Like beeing charged with murder.


Would not be so sure about that. Even with supression fire rules that work. You have totally differen engagement distances and of course different situations.
Espacially if you go all the way and make movement speed realistic with sprinting tests and so on.
(Or to make it short: Navy seals do not tend to have hitpoints and they tend not to have unlimited time to rethink what they are doing and perfect overview over the situation.)

Or it could simply be the fact that killing people is a pretty big thing and in the heat of the moment you just wanted the other person to stop being a threat.

I wonder what temperature you start getting cookoff at...

~Umi

Yeah, like every guy who cheated on his girlfriend/wive did not realy meant to cheat...He just wanted to have sex and she was not there...

The point is, the guys who did not really wanted to kill, would probably have missed or never shot. (Hunting accidents are another thing)

This is one of those things which can only really be judged on a case-by-case basis and generalizing isn't really going to help. I mean, I meant to kill all those people to feed my killer flying sharks but normal people...
wait, forget I said anything.

Coming soon... 'I STILL Know What You Did Last Shadowrun'

Assuming they expected anything. Fight-or-flight situations are not something where rational long-term planning gets too much CPU time...I wonder why nobody ever demands that fact to be accurately reflected by the combat rules

If the Defender was the gun user I might be inclined to agree in some circumstances, but when the gun user was the original aggressor in the situation that does not hold up so well.


As for in game, it is more difficult because by the time the GM describes everything you have had those precious moments to mull over and ascertain the situation so right there it is already different than RL.

For an example, Here is a little test, follow each step individually and do not scroll ahead to read it all ahead of time.






Get up and look out a window onto the street (AAAGGHH SUNLIGHT), take 1 second to look from left to right taking in the entire view.

















Now sit back down at your computer, we'll wait.









.














Ready? Let's find out....






.






.







.







How many cars were there (besides your own) and what colour were they?


Most people would not be able to recall all of them exactly, though they will be close, probably off by 1 -2 cars/colours


The point however, in game for that same 1 sec of a glance across the area every character would be reaching for perception rolls to answer that question and a surprisingly high number would be passing, much higher than would in real life as well as demanding more detail as they deem relevant so can decide their actions accordingly.

So it is a hard one to play up with out either rushing the players or losing details.

Depends on what the gun user actually thought to do with the gun, then plan often seems to be "make some aggressive gestures with no real plan for when the other side does not roll over". I mean, we're just nearing the centenary of one such act...


None, our office windows go out to a service road and a bunch of trees


And I'd say the (described) perception is only a small part of it. The real point IMO is that players want to control their characters, split-seconds of absolute mayhem and then rolling Perception to see if you've been hit just sounds like poor fun.

Okay, yes on the grand scale they certainly did not expect to launch everyone into a Great World War, it could have just as easily been left at the national/local level for the police to handle. But the powers in play were looking for an excuse and seized the moment on that one.

But I think it was clear by the attempt that they did mean to kill someone, both by the original botched attempt with the grenade with the followup later by the gunman who did succeed in shooting the archduke and his wife.

I can not imagine the assailants there could have claimed they didn't mean to kill anyone.

Note to self: always check the expiration date on suicide pills when issuing these to the help. Also quit buying the ultra cheap knock off brands, you get what you pay for.


I almost went with trees but then some poor sod next to a forest is basically shafted.




Why would they roll perception to see if they were hit? I was referring to taking the scene and reacting to it.

Counting cars was just a mind exercise, a shootist has to take in the scenario, assess threat levels and and prioritize targets while covering his own backside along the way.

But if a player gets shot from a corner because they didn't pay enough attention or just didn't see it(although that is sort of the reason for camouflage and players love it when it works for them but not when used against them) or you glossed over details it can play havoc...

I can certainly agree that forcing split seconds of mayhem where the characters are barely in control does indeed makes for poor fun, which is why it probably isn't touched on much game wise.

To kinda build off of this idea, why is it that you have two people holding down a trigger (suppression fire) and yet one fires more bullets than the other, all other things considered equal? You have a guy with 1 IP doing suppression fire for a CT taking ten bullets, but the guy with 4 IP doing suppression fire for the same amount of time (1 CT) takes 40 bullets, even if fired from the same gun.

At the end of the day it's just a trigger being held down, so why the difference?

I'm toying with the idea that if someone declares suppression fire then they get their shots off for 4 or 5 IP but they can only change their field of fire or cease suppression if they have an IP remaining. For example, you have 2 IP, you fire twice your first then declare suppression the second, you continue firing each following IP but you can't change direction. Alternatively, if you had declared suppression that first IP, during the second you could have ceased suppression or changed the direction of your suppression.

It would be reasonable, but it would ad an whole new layer to the game. You would need to adjust for the angle your looking. While making the game a lot more tactical (I know of a few computer games working that way (I think even the new Shadowrungame has this mechanic for overwatch))
It is definitly fun (judging from the games), but of course complicated if you do not already play with miniatures in the first place...

Sad day this will be for american soldiers and a happy day for anyone who will be fighting american soldiers...



Well, gurps takes that into account.
Every turn is 1 second, and if you shoot without aiming the turn before (snap shot) you take a penalty according to the bulk of the weapon (bigger, heavier weapons have more bulk).
If you aim, the turn after that, if you have not been shot (which would demain a will roll to keep aiming) you shoot with the accuracy bonus of the weapon along with your skill, the distance of the target and its speed.
The problem is, not everyone likes to play GURPS. And GURPS would have serious balance problems between trolls and anyone else or the awakened characters.

Wow, this got pounded in fast.

I'm still using the SR3R rules where, using a rifle halves all ballistic armor, to represent increased penetration. However, we didn't increase damage overall, because we'd like people to survive the first shot.

I'm a little surprised OP didn't complain about dodge rules.

I've already thought of this. You'd have to re implement cyclic rates of fire, and then suppression fire is a full turn action. So you lose all your other actions but you spray out a full 3 seconds worth of rounds which would be a lot.

Or if you wanted to take into account shaving off fractions of seconds from reflex enhancements 2 seconds + some fraction of a second based on level of enhancement.

In a sense then it could be considered a waste to make the reflex enhanced guy suppress instead of a slower guy, which makes sense if you think about it. The reflex enhanced guy should be the designated marksman and the slower guy can be the suppression guy.

Pheonix command made it take actions to get into a firing position, change posture, and so on. It was like Rainbow Six 3 before that game existed and in pen and paper.

By extension you could also create a Focus Fire action, using a full turn of cyclic rate fire against a stationary object(not players or items that could dodge/move, that takes regular attacks) with a stream of lead to chew it up.
Handy for making a hole in a wall or similar.


Which might indeed be something a normal mook might do when faced with heavily cybered/adept runners trying to move in on his position.

As far as the knife wound/pistol wound thing... I'm curious as to what the definition in play was for a knife wound in determining those percentages, and for that matter what the definition at play for a "knife" was. It seems to me that there's certain categories of wound (such as shallow surface cuts) and knives (particularly especially short blades) in order to truly make the comparison that's being aimed at here.

They say Chuck Norris with a knife has a 100% kill ratio, but then again he also has a 100% kill ratio without a knife, so the knife may not be adding much in this case.

I meant the diplomatic domino that followed: Many of those involved were not really planning to start a shooting war, they just thought that puffing up and waving armed power in somebody's face to demand concessions was a totally cool idea, without wasting any thought about what could (or would) happen if the other side did not just roll over and yield -- in other words, just like some punk knocking over a liquor store.



Because that's how real fights work, and don't we want more realism?

Mr T don't need no gun to put your punk ass down, sucker!

Interesting.

The Nation/Thug is using the threat of violence to obtain a result, be it concessions or cash, and for sake of the argument not really thinking through the consequences of their actions, but when the other side refuses to yield and they choose to act/fire that intent changes.

They could have backed down/left, but instead chose the option of stepping up the level of aggression. The victim Nation/Storeholder didn't force them to take that final action, was not holding a gun to the head of the aggressor saying go ahead and shoot or else.

The intent is now less not meaning to kill and more along the lines of a disregard for what the results of that attack are.

This was not a spur of the moment crime of passion, but rather a result of actions building to this point.

Therein lies the subtle difference, one probably best argued by lawyers and admittedly well outside my skillset.

Or would one argue that the victim is at fault for being shot/killed since they chose to resist?

Afterall, if they had simply conceded/gave in there would have not been an attack/shooting in the first place.

Following in this line, most bigger business do have an official policy stating that in the case of a threat like this, they are supposed to simply hand over the cash. An actual weapon doesn't even have to be seen in this case.

But then that just sets the precedence for more instances of the threat being applied to gain whatever the aggressor wants, which sooner or later will result in the victim taking a stand against the aggressor which will in turn provoke the attack/shooting.



I admit I had to ponder this one for a moment, then I recalled the time when my sister shot me with the .22, well winged me with a grazing shot anyway (note: never hit your sister with a BB gun, they can and WILL escalate), and didn't realize it at first.

So yeah, I blew that perception check initially.

Although.... if you wanted that kind of realism, the GM could keep the health tracks for the players behind the screen with him and you only got vague notions of your current damage.

Certainly would make you a bit more cautious, plus making it a little easier for the GM to fudge the rolls a bit if a player is gets into a really unlucky circumstance.


Chuck Norris and Mr. T once walked into a bar together. The building instantly exploded, because that much raw awesome cannot be contained in one building.

Never had a little sister but I sure have a little brother and with me was the concept of shock and awe. If he did something to me I would come to him so fast and so hard that his only choices would be to yeld or keep getting pounded.
I would not say that I'm proud of that, but I was always of the philosophy that the best way to stop a fight is to make sure the other side won't be capable of fighting again (killing or maiming it), since it was my little brother and kinslaying is frowned upon by the Old Gods and the New, I had to come up with the next best thing that is to scare the shit out of him.

They were a thing in previous editions?

I found I only had to deal with my younger brother wanting to fight once. He slugged me in the mouth, and I spit blood, looked him in the eye, and said 'You better run.'

He didn't start shit after that, and I didn't have to actually flatten him and get Mom on my case.

Sorry, I've thought about them for so many years I always think of it as putting the origin back in. It was just a slip on my part.

Man, it just occurs for me that I've thought for YEARS about how to make SR3 more realistic but it seems increasingly unlikely that I will ever actually run or play another SR3 game.

Someday I'll sit down and write the definitive super realistic SR3 edit after years of thinking about this again and again and again. And no one will play it but it will sit on my hard drive as some statuesque profound perfection that finally allows shadowrunners to break contact using suppression fire and realistic movement rates.

The original question was not "who is legally/morally at fault?", but "did the guy who pulled the gun expect or even want somebody to die?". And my answer was "you sure he expected anything beyond 'bring gun, be boss, no problem'?"



Sure, but my impression of the people constant clamoring for "realism" is that they constantly want more data, not less. Even though that would be anything but realistic

@Sengir

Thats a mood point, because you can say that about anything. If they would have just gave me the money, I would not have stolen it.

Mood Point? Is that the difference between a grumpy gunman and a happy highwayman?

@Sendaz
At this note:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1ZA8XLSJB8

From what I've been reading the M4's are pretty much in the same condition as the SAWs. They've been beat-up and used severely over the last 10 years. I guess my hope that someday there'd be a glut of surplus 5.56N ammo on the cheap is gone......

BTW-As somebody whose closest combat experience is paintball and fencing my take is the first thing you do in a firefight is find cover (assuming there is some). Then start shooting back.

Back OT: Machineguns are best employed as static strong points, the game reflects that by allowing you to mount the MG (for no recoil) on a drone or emplacement with no recoil (SR4 base rules). A troll could probably wield one as well. It is the 1,000 rounds of belted ammo that are hard to carry.

The M4 has other issues, primarily being a carbine it fails to deliver long range return fire capability in the 5.56mm (Many instances in Afghanistan where troops could not return fire because the rounds would not reach). A 6.8 mm might resolve this allowing for that sweet spot where you can have a weapon multi task very well, or an upgrade to 7.62 NATO which would resolve other issues with the 5.56mm, by reducing payload. Not an ideal situation.

When fired upon fire as you reach for cover or you may never get to that cover because dropping in the open is asking for a round to impact.

Yes. They are sweet in a fixed position.

I have shot a Mauser in 6.5mm (iirc has similar ballistics to the 6.8mm), definitely more accurate than the 8mm mauser. Going back to 7.62 might be plausible, except for the weight and number of bullets carried. Of course barring the balloon going up in Ukraine (god I hope not) or South China sea (One of the top 10 ways to ruin the global economy), or North Korea (my guess the biggest problem there would be the Chinese reaction) or other major conflict, the 7.62 is the better choice for a standard rifle round. The only other advantage for the 5.56 is it is slightly less likley to going through walls and hitting unintended targets when fighting in urban environments.

I WOULD PLAY IT.

I have my rocker character already drafted up and waiting.

The government keeps buying new ones from FN, so I'd assume they are replacing the ones that are really beaten to hell.

I read recently that current civilian sales of ammo exceed the peak production rates of WW2, so not really likely.

http://bearingarms.com/think-the-ammo-mark...er-think-again/

Note that the current demand is 17 billion rounds of ammunition, just for the commercial market, excluding military and law enforcement markets.

Let me say that again: that excludes the military and law enforcement markets. The government isn’t to blame.

That’s about 5 billion rounds a year more than we were producing during the height of the Second World War.

Umm...smart grenades? Fire and maneuver? The AT4 working as one hell of an anti-sniper/anti-machinegun weapon? You put a machinegun in a static position, you better pray to all that is Holy that collateral damage is a big worry for those shooting at you because if it's not and they have anything but low-end weaponry it's gonna be your ass in about 15 seconds as they find and fix your position.

90% of our issue in the fighting in our last several wars wasn't finding and killing the enemy. It was killing the enemy while not killing all the civilians that are around them. Believe me, if US Forces had free-range to unleash the Murder Machine, you'd be seeing a whole lot more of really bad stuff in cable news footage than you see now.

I was talking about a prepared position with interlocking fire, and definitely not an urban environment. Also fixed as in mounted on a vehicle. However in a SR environment I would not shy away from it even in an urban environment simply due to the defensive measures likely available, and the very real likelihood of it being remotely controlled. As the Megacorp, equipment is cheap, I don't really care about collateral damage in most situations, and the return on my investment is dead runners and the maintenance of my competitive advantage.



90% of our issue was fighting a war with no real strategic objectives much like Vietnam (outside of secure oil, secure lithium, get one man). Our forces were designed for quick reaction, counter terrorism, small brush war scenarios, get in and get out. Instead we fought two wars of occupation. Undermanned, and unfunded with a military that had changed a whole lot between 1992 and 2001. We were not equipped for nation building like we were after WWII and the historical conditions on the ground never supported it. So yeah if we had gone in and done our dirty deeds quickly and efficiently we would have accomplished the things that were really necessary; capture/kill Osama bin Laden, disrupt Al Qaeda, remove Saddam Hussein and get out almost immediately after. You can get away with civilian casualties if they happen during the initial phase of operations, after that you are just begging for trouble and like you said the murder machine is canned.

Do a glam rock runner team. It would be glorious.

Doing runs to hijack shipments of novacoke and sequin encrusted fabrics...
Blowing up corporate research facilities with hairspray bombs...
The team's fixer is secretly David Bowie who ended up being an immortal elf...

~Umi

Secretly?

Yeah, secretly. Kinda like JetBlack, I guess.

I mean, being David Bowie has its perks, but you can't exactly work in the shadows if you're David Bowie, neh?

So maybe he faked his death to hide his nature as an immortal elf or whatever. That's like the standard operating procedure for immortal elves, ain't it? So he's a member of their little club, he knows the secret handshake and the sacred oath, he goes out for drinks and body-glitter with Harlequin, and he secretly manipulates the world through the Shadows.

He once tried to run them himself under the alter ego of Ziggy Stardust, but it didn't end well so he shifted to working as a fixer.

~Umi

Part of me can see David Bowie and Ziggy Stardust being free spirits.

so he would be an earth elemental due to his ties to 'rock'?

No, come to think of it, Bowie clearly needs to be a Mentor Spirit. An awful, awful Mentor Spirit.

~Umi

I somehow knew that would get linked. Good show!

I tried that once. I would "fix" one thing only to break another. I eventually realized my edit became more and more like another game system, so I stopped and started thinking about porting Shadowrun's fluff to that system. (whose name is an acronym and comes from Austin TX)

There was a HERO port done once, but it had problems. Like not acknowledging SR magic has invisible ranged NND killing attacks, and hence the whole balance thing that you would try to achieve using HERO doesn't work.

Well, I do like Systems to Role-Play who are Generic and Universal.
It's the system with which God designed the Universe...

Any god that designed GURPS would necessarily be malevolent.

~Umi