Shadowrun and guns question

So my group and I are playing shadowrun. A couple questions keep coming up like why not just head shot everything and seriously how does this armor stop any of my point blank shotgun blasts. I tried explaining that while they themselves are taking turns the game as a whole is continually moving so it's not like you walk up to a static target and shoot. Any other good explanations? We are VERY laid back and are almost using the rules as a basic framework more than anything. We are there to just have fun and laugh more than anything. I NEVER see us using wind charts or atmospheric pressure or stuff like that. :)

What I would probably say is that the rules for any RPG are rules for a game. They are meant to be reasonably quick and fun. Part of being fun is that the results they produce will have a tendency towards results that are more cinematic than accurate. They aren't meant to be a simulation and if they were a simulation they probably wouldn't be any fun. First of to be an accurate simulation the complexity of the rules would grow enormously (oh, you sprinted three turns ago. That means that on this phase your body will move from anaerobic respiration to aerobic respiration. The increase in pulse will give you an additional -1 this turn, -2 for the next three turns, and then another -1 for 4 turns after that, provided you don't sprint again...) Secondly your players don't really want accurately simulated outcomes. Not many people are going to be interested in playing a game where the odds are fairly good that there character will be killed or maimed within their first dozen fights (and where the odds won't really go down as they get more experienced).

Okami exactly. If I might though, I think you are coming at it from player defense where I would be the one wanting to kill them with one hit. It's kind of more the other way around where they think if they have guns and point them at people their heads should explode. :) We DEFINITELY play it as a game. i LOVE the idea of shadowrun but wow is it complicated. We played it more a little like d&amp;d and rolled very simple skill checks based on an attribute versus the number of successes. Assuming it's not marked private here is the recap of our last session. It was a pretty good laugh. <a href="https://app.roll20.net/forum/post/392725/finale-summary#post-392725" rel="nofollow">https://app.roll20.net/forum/post/392725/finale-summary#post-392725</a>

I threw in a bunch of way too hard stuff since we were trying to kill the characters as they were intro characters and next we were going to make our own. Go out with a bang you might say.

. . .I think you are coming at it from player defense where I would be the one wanting to kill them with one hit. It's kind of more the other way around where they think if they have guns and point them at people their heads should explode. :). . . Most games (and Shadowrun is one of them) don't really do anything to differentiate combat between characters and NPCs. A system in which it is possible for the NPCs to get killed in one shot usually results in a system where it is possible for the players to get killed in one shot. It is certainly possible to design a system in which NPCs receive damage different from characters, but doing so adds to the complexity as players and GMs now have to remember two different sets of rules for resolving damage so in general it isn't worth it. Instead usually the PC/NPC problem is handled through giving PCs better stats. This helps to insure that the odds tip heavily in favor of the players but it still tends to prevent the system from allowing the NPCs to be constantly one-shotted.

Scott H. said: So my group and I are playing shadowrun. A couple questions keep coming up like why not just head shot everything and seriously how does this armor stop any of my point blank shotgun blasts. I tried explaining that while they themselves are taking turns the game as a whole is continually moving so it's not like you walk up to a static target and shoot. Any other good explanations? Since a character that is being shot at usually can roll Reaction+Agility to evade, I feel that even if you walk up to someone and try to shoot him in his face, he can still move to dodge your shot. Whoever you point your gun at will not hold still, they'll try to lean, jump, roll etc. to get out of the way, making it possible for the shot not to actually hit the head. Also, With an aimed shot free action, you can circumvent armor by aiming at a weak, unarmored spot, but you have to hit for it to work.

Awesome thanks guys those are great points!

I haven't played Shadowrun, but many games have rules for "called shots," doing exactly what your players are asking for. In exchange for making the hit more difficult, you can hit a specific/more vulnerable target, resulting in things like ignoring body armor, upgrading damage, or maiming the target.

Another thing to consiter, and its the rule of cool for scifi, but even basic clothing is the effectiveness of a flakk vest (thin kevlar). A lined coat is at least as effective as my sappy plates, which is calibered up to 7.62 before shattering. Ive personally taken such a round and "soaked it". So, movies are a little over the top on ballistic damage.

In 4th edition, if you're not calling head shots you're playing it wrong, TBH. It is the primary flaw in the system that the penalty for called shots is negligible compared to the benefit. All of a sudden, full defense becomes the only action the NPCs ever get to take, and that isn't enough. Okami - The original D20 system, from GDW, not WotC (Twilight 2000, Dark Conspiracy, Traveller TNE, Cadillacs and Dinosaurs) had that idea built in. Very ahead of it's time that way. Damage was generally quite low. NPCs had a very small wound track, whereas players had a considerably larger one. The general idea was that characters were more likely to be wounded and taken out of a fight from shock and injury instead of killed outright.

If you only call head shots in my games, youd soon find yourself against things that dont give a fuck, like bug/toxic spirits. Players who abuse the rules end up getting abused at my table.

Eventually you run out of things with "Immunity to Normal Weapons". Remember that in SR4, "head shot" is just an example of calling a shot for damage over armor penetration (which is never worth doing), not necessarily a literal head shot. My question is, why be so bothered about that and call it abuse of the rules? It is exactly what the OP's players are seeking - cinematic action where the PCs are Ramboing it up against nameless goons. To penalize players for playing the game that they want would be abhorrent. Besides, if someone only cared about squeezing the most out of the rules all of the time they'd never play anything but a direct-spell combat mage anyway, because why would anyone ever use anything but manabolt? To penalize a gun-bunny for doing the same thing, always using the hammer of a called shot for damage, is ridiculous, especially considering all the work it would take to tweak that character compared to the fact that any chucklehead street goon can manabolt his way through the vast majority of dangers in the Sixth World without taking a penalty from drain.

Honestly Called shot is a good action but it limits a lot what you can do. Sure you only get a -4 dice pool for a +2DV in 5th but it also means you can't split the pool to attack multiple enemies. So one on one, sure its great no doubt about it or for a sniper, again amazing. But when you are out gunned and want to split your pool to attack more then one enemy... then it sucks, the modifier is just to great. Agility 6 Longarms 6 That means your pool is 12. Splitting the pool to attack say... 4 targets would mean you have 3 dices left, you have a smart link so it bumps up to 5. If you decide to spend a free action to turn one of them into a called shot then you will have 5,5,5,1. So then its no viable at all. And for 5th you dont really need the extra +2DV when APDS rounds will give you a far better bonus. Then we can argue if its not better to well use a grenade to take out multiple enemies at the same time. But to get back on track. A issue with many playing Shadowrun is that they look over the book and the rules and get overwhelmed. I mean who would not? I have played Shadowrun for a very long time and I have come to the conclusion that its best to take the core rules and use them, and then slowly introduce new rules as you play so that you do not have to learn them all at one time. For instance, I run a Shadowrun game where we have a decker, we have slowly introduced all the matrix rules so that she would feel that she understood everything and by now we are using all the rules and she have no problem with the rules anymore. Just take it in steps and slowly introduce more and more rules, its the best way to do it, just be clear that you will do it like that and that things will change, Do not change them during a session. Only do it at the start of a new session and be very clear what you are adding/changing so that the group will understand why things just got harder. Also... If you dont like a rule, change it or dont use it. You are playing a game to have fun not to follow the rules exactly. Never let the rules get in the way of fun or a good story, just be clear with that goes and what rules you are using. If you need help I will be more then willing to help you out.

The only thing I currently know about 5th is that they brought decks back...I was speaking purely of 4th edition rules, where the trade-off is one for one. So a -4 dice pool for +4 damage is always the way to go for any gun bunny. Obviously other party roles will have other options, usually more effective options.

Guess you thought my idea of abuse rules was limited to head shots. Your mistaken.

Why is headshots rule abuse?

Brandon C. said: Guess you thought my idea of abuse rules was limited to head shots. Your mistaken. The player's shouldn't be expected to reign themselves in when the system is flawed. You should either have NPCs cheese the rules just as hard to balance it out, house rule the problem away or just accept that the players are going to play that way. Otherwise you are just replacing a concrete rule with a vague one EG "Don't *abuse* the rules." is incredibly difficult to follow whearas "In my game, headshots are X% harder to hit with." or "NPCs will act as if they know the rules of the game." is pretty clear.

Speaker as someone who in the past use to abuse rules pretty badly, if you think it's an abuse don't allow it. Don't threaten to have the NPCs use the same tactic, just figure out why you feel the action is an 'abuse' and fix it with a house rule. Headshots are too damaging for their general difficulty? Make them more difficult or less damaging. Someone can do funny things to the rules so that their character can make lots and lots of headshots while it remains difficult for other players and NPCs? Disallow whatever funny thing it is that they are doing (usually things that allow people to stack up bonuses or negate penalties to unreasonable levels. Limit how much the players can 'stack up'). If the majority of your players are upset with your 'fix' then ask yourself what the real goal is and why the players are upset. Maybe you're seeing a problem where one doesn't exist. Also talk with your players about why you think it's an abuse. Remember that in a game the GM is working with the players to tell a story, not against them. If the GM wants to tell a story the players don't want to be part of that's no better than the players wanting to be part of a story that the GM doesn't want to tell. Sometimes it just doesn't work out with players who want to be part of a John Woo story while a GM wants to tell a John LeCarre story. If you're both on completely different scripts then that's a problem. If neither of you wants to tell the story the other person is telling, on the other hand, you're better off just wrapping it up.