tapping a single key is a skill? since when?

an olympic rifleman in SR4 would have attribute 6, skill 6 (maybe 7), and specialization, for a grand total of 14 dice. -3 for range is 11 dice, and -8 (or is it -4? i don't recall) for total darkness. that leaves him with 3 dice, which means that statistically, he's going to hit the target every single shot. go find me an olympic rifleman who can hit a target at extreme range in the pitch black. what's that? you can't? whoah!

He'll actually only hit it like 78% of the time (didn't do the calc, that's just rough), but yeah that's still a lot.

@Rolemodel
The problem with the situation you keep quoting as evidence of SR3's flaw(s), i.e. that a very good fighter can so utterly destroy an opponent when the difficulty is low, is not really one of variable TNs. It's the problem of raising damage levels for net successes - a concept that always struck me as silly in SR3. The bullet from a given gun should always do the same damage (unless aimed at a exceptionally vulnerable spot), no matter how 'good' the shot was.
Maybe the successes could determine how difficult it is to dodge it - but as long as we're talking about non-superhumans dodging a bullet should just not even be considered as an option.
So, you're right: SR3 is broken, too, only it's not exactly where you said it was. Leave out the staging up of damage and variable TNs should be fine.

For those who daydreamed a little while ago about our own open source rules:

I've tried to set up a wishlist for that project which you will find here.

Called shots exist for the 'unusual situations'. Aiming for a hand, a tire, a vulnerable piece of cyber instead of for the most vulnerable spot on the target.

That's why 'calling a shot to avoid armor' is pure silliness (and not canon except under very specific circumstances). Calling a shot to increase the damage level is a loser's game in most cases, since the TN goes up by 4, but only acts as 2 successes (even with the SL2, the TN goes up by 2 and it's still only really 2 successes effectively.)

The only case where 'calling a shot' to increase the damage level makes sense is when the TN goes below 2. We're talking about barrel to the temple sort of thing. Then called shots makes sense again, since it reflects just how easy those shots are.

So 'called shots' as they stand in canon are not immediately clear, but they're reasonably well defined, all things considered. If you try to use it inappropriately, it hurts you. If used how they're meant to be used, it adds realism to the game.

That's a faulty line of reasoning based on incorrect assumptions springing from a total ignorance of what the "quality of a shot" is.

~J

SR3's usage of number of successes as a measure of damage solves the problem of how to have increased skill cause increased damage without causing increased missing. Of course, it depends where you aim--if you aim for the head, a miss is likely to do no damage at all, but if you aim for the left side of the chest, a miss is still likely to do damage. Rather than deal with all that complexity for all types of damage, the approximation is that "number of successes represents how vital a target you hit on this attempt".

It's not fantastic, but it sorta works. It's better than not allowing anyone to ever kill someone with less than four shots, and it's also better than making one shot kills always perfectly "hit or miss" situations. (What about a grazing blow to the head?) And it's way better than hit points.

Do you have a workable alternative suggestion?

Not to say SR3 doesn't have its flaws. For example, there's the "net two successes to do anything" that is quite a pain in SR3. The system nullifies any ability for odd numbers of net successes to have any effect. One way to get around this is to have a house rule that makes an odd number of successes simply do an extra box of damage. If you have 3 net successes, you stage up one level and do an extra box. If you have 5 net successes, you stage up two levels and do an extra box. Same thing with going the other way (resisting damage). Brings a bit more of a sliding scale to SR3's damage system, which I think is helpful, without breaking the mechanic at all.

I'd also like to footnote that SR4's system works a lot better if you use Range and Cover as thresholds (yeah, I'm a broken record like that. Sue me) rather than making every test an opposed test between Attack skill + Agility and Reaction (the SR4 equivalent to using Combat Pool to dodge). In our group, we have made the Reaction roll optional (representing a Dodge test), and if the person isn't Dodging, he's relying on the cover/range to prevent getting hit (increased Threshold numbers). Flipping between both makes it seem very organic, and brings SR4 pretty close to the way it worked in SR3.

Still, a person with an Ares Predator will likely kill a target if you roll 4 to 6 net successes under either system, SR3 or SR4, especially if you are loading out special rounds (which Shadowrunners often do).

I will attempt to explain.

Trained users of firearms practice not only shooting targets, but shooting them well. They spend hundreds of hours firing thousands of rounds of ammunition at human shaped silhouettes. But they do not simply attempt to hit any part of the "person". These targets will have "X-rings" in the center of the head and/or chest, as well as other, larger rings around them, like a dartboard's bullseye. These shooters-in-training will attempt to place as their shots in the X-ring, or as close to the X-ring as possible.

Thus, shooters train themselves to shoot people as close to the center of mass as possible. Certainly, the chaotic environment of a firefight makes this far more difficult, but professionals train themselves until shooting is instinctual, and the more skilled they are, not only will they hit more often, but of the shots that do hit, more will land near the center of the target.

Thus, the more skilled you are, the better placed your shots will be.

But, you ask, what does it matter? Is not the bullet of the same diameter and muzzle velocity, whether the shooter is skilled or a novice? Is not the hole it makes the same size?

And if human beings were homogenous, that would be the case. But we are not. Many portions of the human body are more vital than others. The "center of mass", that area at the center of the chest that trained shooters aim for, contains the heart, lungs and spinal cord and is in the midst of other bits of vital anatomy. If I shoot you right through your center line at chest height, where the X-ring is, I will destroy your heart and sever your spinal cord. You will be almost instantly disabled and die within moments. If I am off by a few inches and hit your lung, you will be hurt badly, but you may be able to remain on your feet or fall but remain conscious and might survive with medical attention. If I am off by nearly a foot, then I might do some damage to your lung, but not as severely. Perhaps I will only get your arm.

But, you ask, isn't specifically targeting some bit of someone's body what called shots are for? Should not shooting for the center of mass be included in that?

No, it shouldn't. Because, by default, anyone who knows how to handle a gun will be aiming for the center of mass. People aim for the center of a target, so that if their aim is off by a little bit, they will still hit something. To aim for a head or arm or leg and miss by a few inches is to miss completely: they're much smaller targets. To aim for the heart and miss by a few inches is to still hit the torso and do damage. The default, non-called, ordinary gunshot in Shadowrun (or in any game, really) is a shot aimed at the center of the target. How close to that center you hit will depend on the conditions (hence the target number or dice pool modifiers) and on luck (hence the use of dice in the first place), but also a great deal will hinge on how skilled the shooter is. Trying to throw yourself out of the way of the gun barrel at the last possible moment could cause the shot to hit further from the center or not at all, which is represented by (in SR3) the use of Combat Pool in Dodge tests and Damage Resistance tests and (in SR4) in Reaction + Dodge rolls. No game system is perfect in this regard, but I always felt that Shadowrun 3rd Edition did a better job of it than most other games I've played.

Now, in some cases, shots will not be to the center of the target, or the center of the part of the target that is visible. Perhaps you wish to shoot their arm so that they cannot hold a weapon. Perhaps you wish to hit their leg so that they cannot run. Perhaps their torso is swaddled in bulletproof armor and you wish to attack their unprotected head and limbs. Perhaps you want a perfect killing shot through their brain. Professionals do not tend to do such fancy things in a normal firefight, as there is an increased degree of difficulty and complexity involved. Nobody wants to get shot while lining up a bead on someone's kneecap. Much safer to simply do what is instinctual and shoot for their center of mass. But situations where shooting for somewhere other than the center of mass occur on occasion, and in fiction (and a roleplaying game is a form of fiction) they occur more often due to dramatic necessity. That is what the called shot rule exists for.

In other words: yes, Kagetenshi did explain it already. The "quality of a shot" is not merely how hard it is to dodge, but how close to the center you hit. Closer to the center means more damage, hence the staging of damage by successes.

As for shotguns and automatic weapons, it still applies. Shotgun spread is not as wide as movies and games (including SR3, sadly) would like you to believe. It's a fairly narrow cone, only a few inches. And how well the barrel of the shotgun is aimed will decide whether all of the pellets hit or only some of them. If at the range of your target the shot has spread to a radius of three inches, then if you aimed at least four inches from the edge of their body (towards the center, in other words) all the shot will hit. Likewise, the closer to the center you aim, the more of it will hit vital parts. And when using an automatic weapon, most professionals will not spray wildly about, but will aim at the center of the target (just as with a single shot) and then fire a short burst. In a longer burst, after a few shots, recoil will pull the barrel of the gun off target. (Hence the recoil penalties in Shadowrun.) There are situations where they will fire more rounds and/or aim less precisely, of course, but even then their skill will have some effect on how well they get the barrel pointed towards the target. And skill impacts aim which impacts shot placement which impacts damage.


I hope I've explained our position thoroughly. If not, feel free to ask one of the board members who is an expert on firearms or is former military (we have a few) their opinion on the matter.


EDIT: Err.... that went on for longer than I'd intended. Sorry guys. Sometimes the fine art of brevity is lost on me.

Don't apologize! It was competently written and interesting. And it even added to the topic under debate!

Thanks. It's just... it's long. I look at this two-screen-length post and go "Damn, can I ramble on, or what?"

Yes, Narrator, thanks. That's what I call an explanation - never mind the length.

I see that skill will help you to inflict more damage on your target statistically. I still believe, though, that the mechanic reflecting this in SR(3 & 4) is blown way out of proportion. Without enough skill to stage up the damage I can never ever kill a person with a light pistol. This may be a dramaturgic decision on part of the game developers so as to make the game less lethal ("It's just a flesh wound, don't worry about me"). On the other hand a very skilled shooter will regularly kill two goons per initiative pass with the same weapon.
As you said:[qoute] by default, anyone who knows how to handle a gun will be aiming for the center of mass.[/quote] (I would add that even those who don't know how to andle a gun will instinctively aim for the center of a given shape they are shooting at). So if that is what everybody does, why can unskilled shooters never pull off a deadly shot?
With a combat pool of only 5 and a little luck I can completely evade the best shot that a novice (skill 1) can ever produce even under best conditions (aiming, smartgun, short distance and using the maximum amount of combat pool and karma pool dice possible). If a very skilled shooter (skill 6) takes up his position and shoots at me under the same circumstances, I can't and chances are that he will leave me stone dead even when I'm extremely lucky and well armoured. And that wasn't even an extreme example like an adept with skill 12 or more.
So, yes, a skilled shooter will benefit from his skill - but it should not have such a terribly devastating effect.

Unfortunately, the descriptions of the skills don't really match how easy they are to get, or, in many cases, the effects of various levels of training. Thus, I'm not sure that makes for a very good argument.

I think Edge in SR4 with exploding dice at least fixed the SR3 issue of low-skill shooters not having any chance of staging up to Deadly a low-power gun (unless I misunderstood what's been posted here). It might take a lot of luck and a lot of 6 to re-roll, but it's possible, which is nice. With a lot of negative modifiers though, you'd have to go with RoleModel's suggestion (or was it someone else's?) to roll modifiers as a 'virtual opponent' and reduce the shooter's hits by the number of hits obtained by this virtual opponent. It is unfortunate that such a mechanic hasn't been included in the official rules to start with. With low skill and attribute, a lucky shot should nevertheless be possible, even in difficult conditions. I don't know the rules for a long-shot test though. (Is it how it's called?) Is it (Edge) dice, but no re-rolls?

The problem with that suggestion is that experts then gain very little relative benefit from positive modifiers. If you're already rolling 14 dice, does it matter if you get +2 more from a smartlink? Not likely. It's not even enough to offset the target being in somewhat dim lighting.

Edit: Well, that's the problem in SR3. In SR4 it would work better than the default system, if by "TN" you mean "threshold", for the reasons you've stated.

Well, I think the whole fixed TN system is inherently flawed, but if you want it as unflawed as possible...well, I don't really know. At some point, having threshold penalties won't matter much either because the skill is so high that it's rare not to generate at least (threshold + average opponent's hits). I can see an argument for smartlinks only reducing penalties--if the target is in the clear and not moving and close by and in the light, you can tell where you're aiming thanks to the sights on your gun. And I can see an argument for not: smartlinks give you precision information that you just can't get visually, regardless of condition.

It's kind of a quandry, because the more dice you roll, the longer of a tail you have where there is still the possibility of success--but the more dice you roll, the more dice you roll. The desire for fast and easy rolling is directly at odds with the desire to always have a chance. I'm not sure I can say how this deadlock should be broken--that depends on individual taste. I will say, however, that if your opponent has more than 3x the dice that you do, you will be very grateful for every single extra die you have due to their penalties, since that may make the difference between you having a chance, albeit a slim one, and you having none whatsoever.

On second thought, setting aside positive modifiers to reduce negative ones doesn't seem like such a good idea. I had suggested it because it was symmetric, but it would actually lower the impact of negative modifiers in an undesirable way. If stuff like smartlinks just add dice, sure, you'll have more to roll, but it will make penalties for shooting while running, for example, a bit more of a pain.

You may be facing penalties also (possibly the same penalty!), and a penalty for you is an automatic success for them. Better that way than losing dice, but still, you'd be better off still if both you and your opponent gained dice.

That was Rolemodel's idea (or at least, he was the first person who proposed it who I am aware of), not mine.

The penalty is always Threshold increase was also not my idea (I forget who first proposed that).

Here, I'm mostly saying, "Hey, look at this! Could be trouble here!" rather than suggesting fixes to SR4. My creative energy is channeled elsewhere, for the most part, since I don't plan on playing SR4 myself. Also, the mindset of those who really like SR4 is somewhat difficult for me to understand, and therefore it's difficult for me to know whether a proposed fix would be likable for such people.

A lot of comments sound to me like, "Yay, this giant glaring hole in the mechanics is a feature I've been waiting for for years! I'm so happy! Now I can tell my players not to drive through it!"

I'm not too sure what one is supposed to do when faced with that.

Well, personally, it's not the giant holes in SR4 that I like, but the SR3 holes they got rid of. If SR4 ends up being unplayable, I might decide to stick with SR3. But I really like what they did with the armor rules, to give just one example. I'll give SR4 a chance though.