Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Observant PCs
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
toturi
I'm sure many people know that Calling a Shot is a Free Action, but the Free Action of Observe? I've not seen many people actually declaring Observe. People tend to assume that the GM will tell them what is immediately obvious. But this should not be true, because Observe tells you the immediately obvious, thus people have to spend a Free Action to observe.

How many of your PCs actually declare an Observe action?
Kagetenshi
On the one hand, we rarely declare an Observe action, but on the other it's extremely uncommon that we use all free actions both during our turns and during that of all other characters and NPCs in the combat, so we're not getting a free action out of it.

~J
toturi
Consider... if you Observe, you can no longer Delay Action, forcing you to take your Simple/Complex actions on your Combat Phase. If you Observe, you may not Call a Shot.

Speed King: I delay action.
GM: OK.
Speed King: So what is goon 1 doing?
GM: You don't know... You did not observe.
Speed King: OK, I Observe on his Combat Phase.
GM: Right... you see 3 goons and goon 1 does nothing. He is Delaying his Action. Alright then, please declare all the rest of your Actions now, you can't delay action anymore. You used up your Free Action.
SpasticTeapot
I think that observe applies mostly to small details. For example:
Player: What are we facing?
GM: A troll, and two scrawny guys, in red samurai-ish armor.
Player: I use my Observe free action. Any insignias or logos?
GM: You see the Renrakru logo on their helmets.
fistandantilus4.0
A lot of my players will take a moment to assess a situation in combat, usually if they've just finished off an opponent and are seeing where they're needed most. I don't think they've ever really tried it in a fight though. I think they assume that taking a moment to look away can give their opponent an opening, and I tend to agree.
toturi
QUOTE (SpasticTeapot @ May 11 2005, 11:19 AM)
I think that observe applies mostly to small details. For example:
Player: What are we facing?
GM: A troll, and two scrawny guys, in red samurai-ish armor.
Player: I use my Observe free action. Any insignias or logos?
GM: You see the Renrakru logo on their helmets.

Small details is for Observe in Detail which is a Simple Action.

So it should be:

Player: What are we facing?
GM: Are you spending a Free Action to Observe?
Player: Yeah.

GM: A troll, and two scrawny guys, in red samurai-ish armor.
Player: I use my Observe in Details simple action. Any insignias or logos?
GM: You see the Renrakru logo on their helmets.
scoundrel
IMO, that's an annoying and silly rule that brings no tangible benefit to the game table. I just tell the players anything immediately obvious and roll perception for anything that's not. It makes life a lot easier for both parties. smile.gif
BitBasher
QUOTE (scoundrel)
IMO, that's an annoying and silly rule that brings no tangible benefit to the game table. I just tell the players anything immediately obvious and roll perception for anything that's not. It makes life a lot easier for both parties. smile.gif

Actually I agree with the OP, it does do something, it forces the players to strategically use their free actions. You'd be surprised how this can affect combat.
scoundrel
We've actually used it before, and it just bogged everything down. The players were declaring that they're observing things left and right during combat, and everyone used observe in detail every single time they entered a new room. It was bringing way more frustration than it was worth until we just decided to get rid of the rule all together.
toturi
My group feels that it adds a degree of realism to the game. We are fine with it. Actually Observe and Observe in Detail are good ways to simulate the "tunnel vision effect". If you are so focused on one thing (usually a Called Shot), then you just might end up being hit by something that you might have taken notice if you were paying more attention to your surroundings.
Dawnshadow
Not being told what is immediately obvious is silly, to my mind.

It is not as if you are in a complete void when you don't declare 'Observe'. You should still see, and register, things that are immediately obvious in your field of vision. You might not register things outside, but you should register all the major stuff in the field of vision.

Just because you're calling a shot does not mean you don't see the person right next to your target running straight towards you. You may choose to disregard him/her -- that's fine. But you don't just not see.

Observe should just give you a brief, overall description of the room/situation -- and should NOT impinge on delaying your action.

Observe in Detail should give you specifics, on a perception test.

Just being in the combat should give you the brief description of what is right in front of you.
ShadowGhost
Blatant details should be part of the GM's narrative, not something the players should have to spend actions to notice.

GM: "As the gun battle rages, the east wall shatters inwards in a cloud of drywall and 2x4 splinters as a huge cybered Troll, carrying a large object, easily smashes his way into the room."

PC "I spend a free action to observe"

GM: "The large object the Troll is carrying is a Rotary Gatling Gun."

PC: "Gulp!... Uh Observe in Detail!!!!"

GM:Through the dust and clouds of drywall particles floating in the room you can see the beam of the laser sight on the whirring Rotary Gatling Gun is aimed directly... at.... You." <Evil GM grin>
toturi
GM: The wall explodes into the room.
Player: I duck! Drop prone.
GM: Without bothering to see what caused the explosion(Observe), you drop prone to the ground.

This is true, it happened, I was there:
Officer: How the hell did you fail to notice the red safety light was on?!
Private: I was so focused on hitting the target (Called Shot) that I did not notice (no Observe).

Ever walked into a room so concentrated on what you are doing/absorbed in your own thoughts that you failed to notice the very large pile of dog shit on the floor? Usually people have Free Actions to spare(that is why they are called Free Actions), but sometimes people still fail to see what would have been immediately obvious if they hadn't been otherwise preoccupied. If you are so focused on shooting a target, you'd end up blocking out all else.

I am not saying that you always have to declare that you are Observing. For example, you are moving quietly down the hall, in addition to your Complex Action of Stealth (using a Skill), you are using your Free Action of Observing. Anything up to this point you are aware of, without you explicitly declaring an Observe action. Delaying Action can be explained as consciously holding yourself back from acting immediately.
Wounded Ronin
QUOTE

Player: What are we facing?
GM: Are you spending a Free Action to Observe?
Player: Yeah.
GM: A troll, and two scrawny guys, in red samurai-ish armor.


That's ridiculous.


Player: "I shoot the Company Man"
*sounds of rolling dice*
GM: "Okay, he manages to dodge your first shot, but the second one nicks him for L damage."
*more rolling dice*
GM: "Okay, resist 9M damage with 8 successes behind it. The Company Man to the left of him just shot you."
Player: "What? You never mentioned the second Company Man."
GM: "You didn't observe in detail!" *snort snicker*
Critias
It really depends on the situation. I use a lot of Free Actions to call shots, and my Simple Actions are generally spoken for months in advance. I'm not going to waste valuable shoot-people-in-the-face time on looking around like an idiot instead of pulling a trigger.
toturi
QUOTE (Wounded Ronin)
Player: "I shoot the Company Man"
*sounds of rolling dice*
GM: "Okay, he manages to dodge your first shot, but the second one nicks him for L damage."
*more rolling dice*
GM: "Okay, resist 9M damage with 8 successes behind it. The Company Man to the left of him just shot you."
Player: "What? You never mentioned the second Company Man."
GM: "You didn't observe in detail!" *snort snicker*

Actually that would be:

GM: "Okay, resist 9M damage with 8 successes behind it."
Player: "What the hell?"
GM: "Someone just shot you. You don't know who or from where. You didn't observe in detail!" *snort snicker*
The White Dwarf
Theres a level of detail that has to be given out by the GM in order to run the game. I mean, you could roll initiative, and have each pc continutally spend actions as you describe things for the entier session but like, 5 minutes into that Id kill someone in frustration... and its hard to find good players so Im gonna avoid that scenario.

Ok so you have to give out some level of detail as a GM describing things. This can be specific without being informative. For instance:
"As you step outside you see daylight, and people on the sidewalks hurrying."
Now, spending a free action observe you might get:
"As you step outside you see its noon, and people, mostly human, on the sidewalks are hurrying, probably to lunch."
Spending a simple:
"As you step outside you see its noon, and 3 humans a dwarf and a troll are hurrying on the sidewalks, because the dwarf to the right just drew a small pistol."

The first is a general description neccessary to establish a setting for a roleplaying game.

The second is a free action, resulting in a more detailed description including anything that would take minimal effort to notice (ie, the sun is straight up, not just daylight). Basically stuff that wouldnt take a perception test because any attempt to find it would succeed.

The third is a simple action spent. This would give you anything that actually took concentrated effort, as this level of action would yeild a dice roll if appropriate (ie, noticing the gun as the cause amongst other probable choices, because as a small weapon, low to the ground, behind a few people its rather obscured).

So there is a place for all types in the game. That said, we rarely bother with the level of micromanagment neccessary to include them; instead most things are either stated by the GM, or the players will ask for specifics and make a test to try and notice them. Just my thoughts on it.
Aku
I'd have to agree with white dwarf i think. I'm not going to make them use players that are rather obvious to them, especially in out of combat situations. I might be vague (and generally am) if they are only getting a glance. (is it a big black guy, or an ork with shaved tusks?) But for normal stuff, it's gonna be there. Take this for instance, which would be a normal scene for me.

As you walk out of the bar from the meet, you realize time has past quickly inside, and it is already early evening, as pople of all types and walks of life bustle around, mostly going home from work. Across the street is a short, stocky person seemingly causing mayhem infront of a stuffer shack.

Now, i think thats a good set up to whats going on. If the player asks if he has a gun, I let him roll perception, but since combat hasn't begun, theres no need to spend any actions doing it IMO.
Dawnshadow
PC 'I kick open the door, dive through sideways and shoot at anyone I see'
GM 'You didn't observe, you slam headfirst into the wall -- the door enters into the side of a hallway'

Which is blatantly stupid -- even not spending a free action to observe, you kicked open the door -- so you SHOULD SEE that there's a wall right there. General details should be seen always. People. Obstacles. Not little things on the ground. Not armaments. General stuff -- some guys in heavy looking armour, room with a few tables and lockers.

Observe would tell you that it's 3 guards in security armour, that there are about a dozen lockers, a few benches, and that there are weapons spread out.

Observe in detail would tell you that there's insignia on the armour, that there are a couple people lying down on the benches (you can see a foot, and a vague reflection in the lockers).

Not seeing a red safety light? Fine. That makes sense, it's not a big thing, it's a small one. Not seeing a pile of dog shit? Not a big thing. Not seeing a table, wall, or door? That's stupid. Not seeing how many people are right in front of you? Also stupid. Even walking in and focussing on something, you are aware of people. You might not register numbers, but you're aware of the difference between '1', 'some' and 'many'.

Denying the very general layout and opposition -- 'some guys in armour' or 'some guys in trench coats' or whatever.. on the basis that PCs don't spend a free action on it.. well, it strikes me as nothing more than a way for a GM to abuse PCs. Not as 'good rules' or 'strict rules'.
toturi
QUOTE (Dawnshadow)
Not seeing a red safety light? Fine. That makes sense, it's not a big thing, it's a small one. Not seeing a pile of dog shit? Not a big thing. Not seeing a table, wall, or door? That's stupid. Not seeing how many people are right in front of you? Also stupid. Even walking in and focussing on something, you are aware of people. You might not register numbers, but you're aware of the difference between '1', 'some' and 'many'.

Not if that light is right above the target. It is like one of those stop/walk lights besides the red man/green man on your traffic lights.

Yes, deliberately denying your players information for not declaring Observe when they could possibly have known that information is bad GMing. But once in combat where actions and information are critical and people's attention tend to tunnel, it is not unreasonable to leave out obvious information unless the players ask for them( and use up a Free Action to do so).
nezumi
Yeah, you need to give them the basic information; quick layout of the room, major furnishings, etc. Anything bigger than say 4 or 5 feet tall, you'll notice without 'observe'. I call that not being blind.

The free action observe will tell you smaller details, what the people look like, if they have insignias on, lights shining (but maybe not small lettering), anything you could catch in a glance without really concentrating.

Simple action is when you're looking for hidden PCs, reading that hard to read print, noticing the empty chambers on the revolver, etc.

My PCs regularly use all 3. The second option one person usually uses at the beginning of battle. The third they usually use when in danger, but not actually firing.
Dawnshadow
I've never seen someone tunnel to the point they don't notice general stuff.

I've never seen someone tunnel to the point they aren't approximately aware of where they are in a 5m by 5m square (by which, I mean, within 1m by 1m). In an intense melee. Most of them in fact, know where they are Exactly.

Myself? Even when I'm walking around in a daze, I'm aware of bodies of an approximate size relatively close to my own, or larger. Not usually children. Almost always adults. Always vehicles, walls, doors, stairs, fences.

If I'm concentrating on something? Running, I'm aware of everything. I disregard a lot of it, but I'm aware of it. Sitting working on something at the computer? Even an essay that I absolutely have to have done, out of a few thousand attempts to sneak up on me, only 2-3 have succeeded. No idea about shooting, because surprising someone with a gun is stupid. Even concentrating on doing something with power tools (lots of attention there), I'm aware of where people are.

In fact, the more I think about it, the more wrong I think making people tunnel in combat is. It's the mark of the amateur that they don't have situational awareness. Although it might make a good flaw -- 'no situational awareness'. Unless you're running a very low powered game, I wouldn't make the reverse an edge.
BitBasher
I've absolutely seen people tunnel to the point where they don't notice things. See the video of the LA shootout from a few days ago where several officers were firing at a truck that drove between them and they kept firing,... right at each other through the vehicle windows. They had clear LOS to each other too. One hit the other in the vest.

That's not at all uncommon in life or death scenarios.
Slacker
Dawnshadow, I would have to say that you either don't concentrate all that much or you are just very exceptional at perceiving the area around you.

The vast majority of people do experience the "tunneling" effect when they are concentrating on something.

Like many people, I work in an office environment with lots of cubicles. Unless you do something to make someone aware of your presence (such as knocking on the cubicle wall), it is very easy to startle people when they are concentrating on work. It happens all the time around here.

While I do agree that a well training combatant should have situational awareness, it is also true that when you do something like a Called Shot you are at least temporarily ignoring the things around you so that you can concentrate on hitting your target. You are focusing on the target, not looking at what is happening around you. So it would be quite easy to overlook something to your side and even more so something behind you.

All that being said, in the games I run we typically ignore this rule. It's just not worth it to me or my players to be a rules lawyer all the time.
nezumi
BitBasher, certainly there are plenty of cases where people are distacted. For most people, firing weapons would be one of those cases. However, most of the time we do notice big things like people, and shadowrunners are used to firing weapons. Like Dawnshadow said, it's the mark of an amateur.

I COULD see you having that difficulty when calling shots or aiming, but not if you're talking. So it ceases to be a question of free actions.

Dawnshadow
Slacker, I quite agree -- called shot, getting hit from behind or to the side should happen.

But.. that's not where the 'Observe' action comes in, at least the way Toturi is setting it. Especially in the examples given, you're missing something right next to your target -- and I just don't see how that makes sense. Not registering all the details, sure. Just not seeing it? Not really. You should be well aware that something human-sized is moving.

Keeping track of people not in your immediate field of view is what Observe should be about -- not 'getting a very rough idea of numbers and layout'.
Slacker
I would say that Observe is something done automatically, unless you are doing something else that requires concentration, i.e. any other Free Action.

Yes it is a bit unrealistic to say you can't see movement along field of vision, but the game doesn't require players to say just what their field of vision is. To have it work properly you would have to add a rule for that, adding more complications to an already complicated combat ruleset.
Shockwave_IIc
Just remember, you in the observe in detail to attempt to spot someone trying to be stealthy.......

And all the complications there of....
Dawnshadow
I wonder if that applies if they botch the stealth roll.. Or are defaulting and roll a 2 as the highest...?
The Other DSE
I personally like Slacker's idea. If a character is not using another free action, it defaults to observe.

I definitely think that if a character is making a called shot he doesn't see anything but the target (they don't call it visualizing the target for nothing). As for trained combatants being aware of everything, from certain things I've read it's because they're specifically *not* focusing in on something.

I would imagine that in a swirling chaotic melee the SpecFor operator is not going to be trying to put a bullet over the punk's right eye. Instead you aim for center of mass.

Now, that's a "swirling, chaotic" mess. In all of the takedowns that we see in movies and such yes they are hyper focused, but they're also only seeing what's directly ahead of them. They are completely tunnel visioned in, it's just that they have their teammates checking everything else.

In game terms, I'd argue for allowing a character a perception check for something major if they are "tunneled in". The private that Toturi was talking about just failed his perception check to notice the red light. If he hadn't been making a called shot he would have seen the light without needing the check.

As for the guy kicking down the door and throwing himself into the wall? Well, I'd give him a reaction check to see whether or not he can stop himself. I wouldn't let him not go through the door though.

Yes, I think it's completely possible that this could happen since the person has already committed to the action. This is why SWAT and everyone meticulously study maps and intel about whatever site they're dealing with.
Wounded Ronin
QUOTE (The Other DSE)
I personally like Slacker's idea. If a character is not using another free action, it defaults to observe.

I definitely think that if a character is making a called shot he doesn't see anything but the target (they don't call it visualizing the target for nothing). As for trained combatants being aware of everything, from certain things I've read it's because they're specifically *not* focusing in on something.

I would imagine that in a swirling chaotic melee the SpecFor operator is not going to be trying to put a bullet over the punk's right eye. Instead you aim for center of mass.

Now, that's a "swirling, chaotic" mess. In all of the takedowns that we see in movies and such yes they are hyper focused, but they're also only seeing what's directly ahead of them. They are completely tunnel visioned in, it's just that they have their teammates checking everything else.

In game terms, I'd argue for allowing a character a perception check for something major if they are "tunneled in". The private that Toturi was talking about just failed his perception check to notice the red light. If he hadn't been making a called shot he would have seen the light without needing the check.

As for the guy kicking down the door and throwing himself into the wall? Well, I'd give him a reaction check to see whether or not he can stop himself. I wouldn't let him not go through the door though.

Yes, I think it's completely possible that this could happen since the person has already committed to the action. This is why SWAT and everyone meticulously study maps and intel about whatever site they're dealing with.

See, while that could be good for the purposes of realism, I think that I'd have a hard time convincing any non-military or non-police players to stay in a game if I did that as the GM.

I can only grind my teeth and shake my head in frustration as I imagine the shrill complaints that would follow if the character in question failed his Reaction check and dove into the wall.

Whine whine whine, "well I wouldn't have done that...that...if you told me there was a wall, whine whine whine!"

Whine whine whine whine, "BUT I WOULD HAVE NOTICED THAT SOME GUY ENTERED THE ROOM TO THE LEFT!!! GOD FORBID I TAKE M DAMAGE!"

Whine whine whine whine.

Rargh, it makes me get stomach acid just thinking about it.

The problem is that most people don't understand the effect of tunnel vision and things like that in a stressful situation, so they would just think that you were messing with them in the strangest way possible.

Unless there were some kind of consistient tunnel vision mechanic codified into rules (which I would love to see, personally) then I think the lack of understanding would just result in a pathetic whinefest.
Talia Invierno
Hah. RL I play under a GM who is, shall we say, slightly details challenged. Last week, the action nearly broke as we were discussing what was and wasn't a spirit domain, given the wall that didn't seem to exist a week earlier.

As it turned out, our plans were solid enough that to abruptly incorporate a quantum wall wasn't too much of a problem.
frostPDP
My views on the issue are pretty, well, simple.

Obvious: 4 guys in front of you. One of them is pretty clearly a troll considering he's really fragging tall, the rest you can't exactly make out through their armored jackets.

Observe: One's skinny, one's muscular and one has beer stains on his overweight belly.

Observe in detail: A perception check to notice spells (if such a thing is allowed, may be crossing the rules in my mind), foci, insignias, weapons.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012