QUOTE (Sengir @ Mar 10 2014, 08:11 PM)

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

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.

QUOTE (FuelDrop @ Mar 10 2014, 08:18 PM)

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