Forums of the Megaverse®

Killer Cyborg wrote:If anybody really expanded on what "getting into position" entails in this scenario, I must have missed it.

The question would be on point if I had made any claims about one way being more work than the other, or about more work being better, or something. But I haven't.
Since you ask, though, I would say that it's more work to make 160 successful strike rolls and a roughly equal number of successful parties would be harder work than making a half dozen decisions and rolls that result in a one-shot.

I think "getting into position" is an example, a metaphor, for the process of putting oneself in a situation to succeed. I think I tried to give examples of situations. I think Slade did as well.

Your argument against Alrik from the beginning is that a GM should basically measure the capabilities of his party according to average possible MDC output per round, and create encounters based on this. Aside from the fact that the player group will most likely deny, either through cleverness, stupidity, or unpredictable decision, any such perfect planning the GM tries to do, I think hoping for a Palladium game to conform to codified damage scale and balance like a finely tuned computer RPG is wishful thinking, unless the encounters are very very simple.

The more complicated the story, the more complicated the player's actions. Even in simple combat, the player will often say something weird. He'll engage the opponent in an unexpected way, because there are infinite possibilities for him to do so. He can insult the opponent, he can make love to the opponent, he can throw a rock at the opponent to prove he means business, he can shoot first and ask questions later, he can try to steal the opponent's weapon, or give the opponent his weapon. The computer game limits choice, the P+P RPG does not.

Alrik seems to think that sticking purely to the rules as written encourages limitation of choice. I agree. And I don't think even the RAW really wants every fight to be just a matter of round after round of fighting until MDC is depleted. Rifts is certainly not written like a tactics game. Player creativity should be encouraged for the story. Just because an eye does not have a MDC rating, does not mean the eye cannot be shot. If the character is really trying to go for a kill shot, and has good reasoning as to why the shot should kill, why not let the character try?

Even more significant in Alrik's OP was the contention that allowing the NPCs to do such things creates caution and encourages advanced decision making among the players. If they see the unarmed guards (in your example), they could perhaps calculate that their MDC is better than the opponent's MDC and that they should, all things being equal, kill all the guards within a round. Unless the dice go horribly against them, perhaps this is true. In such a situation, all the player is doing is betting that they will outlast the opponent. There is no further decision making. The story is not enhanced by the decisions of the players. The GM gave them an objective, and the players bet that they could meet it through sheer force of the stat sheet.

There still may be good story around the encounter, but the encounter isn't really that exciting or nerve wracking. It's measured, and gambled on according to pre-existing expectations, instead of reacted to according to events as they unfold. The gambling just takes a few minutes of back and forth dice rolling. That's not "hard work. " It's definitely not creative, which is an end Alrik hopes to encourage via the danger of immediate death.

In general, a GM playing fast and loose with player ideas is gonna go "off book." That's not cheating, or "easy" or anything. Instead of saying "there isn't a rule for that so you can't do it," you can say "ok, roll X against Y in order to get this result or some part of this result." You can make the roll really really hard, but it should be sensible in relation to other similar roles. You can say a vibro-knife will never penetrate a Brodkil's head, if you like, but at some point a player's gonna make a good case for a one-shot against something.

I generally stick to RAW combat but I believe careful planning and clever ideas should be rewarded. So if you meticulously plan out how you are going to sneak around and slit the throats of the brodkil sentries with your vibro-knife, I'd allow it.

If you don't give a little leeway with stuff like that, you can have a situation where you can just have too much MDC to get snuck up on. Like the Brodkil example, if you make your players overcome 400 MDC to sneak up and kill them in one shot, the Brodkil are able to be surprised and attacked, but they would still have so much MDC that they could react and it wouldn't matter.

To the OP: I like my Rifts games to be deadly. I will throw my players up against things they should run from and I will not feel bad about killing them when they don't. I don't use the GI Joe rule and I still use a variation of the old burst rules for suppressing fire. Because of this, I also have my players bring at least 2 characters, ready to play, to each session.

/thumbs up

Glad you guys understand.

Also, the way it works, KC, if you don't get fancy or take risks, you can end up pew-pewing all 400 mdc down, if you live that long.

Outside of a normal combat situation, I use a number of house rules that allow for one-shot kills, such as ignoring armor altogether, damage multipliers for hit locations, and forgoing the GI Joe rule.

That means that you can often one-shot someone from stealth that would take a considerable time to take out in the heat of battle. It also means that my players have to practice constant vigilance.

Alrik Vas wrote:

Kagashi wrote:

Alrik Vas wrote:I'm also talking about relatively strong enemies dying quick, though. So is the answer just get triple boomgun and aim for the head? That goes back to needing a bigger stick, like a missile volley.

Though I can see most folks like the way the system is played, which is fine. I just don't see it as deadly as most do on average.

strong enemies shouldn't die quick...they are strong. That's why they are strong.

I understand what you're saying, but I think the strong can be brought low by a proper and direct application of awesome. Sometimes you drive a vibro-edge into a big bad's brain. Just saying.

This is one of the reasons why I implement MDC by location on biological targets just like body armor, power armor, and robots are statted out. Aim for the head (which my house rule is 50% of the main body). Thats still not going to allow a vibro blade to instantly kill a 400 MDC Brodkil, but its better than micro cutting him to death.

I also think that even though you take it out, doesn't mean it's quite dead. Things that's bioregenerate can be put out of commission early, but will return unless their healing is stopped by the damage (U-rounds or similar) or their MDC is fully depleted.

But for the purpose of immediate combat, it's as good as a kill.

Jorick wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:If anybody really expanded on what "getting into position" entails in this scenario, I must have missed it.

The question would be on point if I had made any claims about one way being more work than the other, or about more work being better, or something. But I haven't.
Since you ask, though, I would say that it's more work to make 160 successful strike rolls and a roughly equal number of successful parties would be harder work than making a half dozen decisions and rolls that result in a one-shot.

I think "getting into position" is an example, a metaphor, for the process of putting oneself in a situation to succeed. I think I tried to give examples of situations. I think Slade did as well.

You gave examples that didn't seem to be part of the scenario that I'm asking about.

Your argument against Alrik from the beginning is that a GM should basically measure the capabilities of his party according to average possible MDC output per round, and create encounters based on this.

Ah, no. That must be where some of the confusion is coming in.
One point that I made to Alrik in the beginning was that a GM could basically measure the capabilities of his party according to average damage output, and base encounters on that. Because if what you're looking for is shorter combat and easy victories, that's a simple way to do it most of the time.
Basically, all I was saying is that if you want a one-shot kill, there are plenty of ways to do it legitimately, within the scope of the existing rules.

Alrik seems to think that sticking purely to the rules as written encourages limitation of choice.

RPGs are by their very nature a limitation of choice. All games are.
Games consist solely of rules.
Rules are restrictions on choice.
That's the nature of games.
The skill of games is to see how much you can accomplish through these restrictions, by having your creativity focused and channeled, by having obstacles to overcome.

I don't think even the RAW really wants every fight to be just a matter of round after round of fighting until MDC is depleted.

Same here.
That's why there's stuff like neural maces and magic nets.
But I think that it's pretty clear that they didn't intend for MDC counts to be easily bypassed in combat.

Rifts is certainly not written like a tactics game.

It's not written like a game of pure chance either

Player creativity should be encouraged for the story. Just because an eye does not have a MDC rating, does not mean the eye cannot be shot. If the character is really trying to go for a kill shot, and has good reasoning as to why the shot should kill, why not let the character try?

1. That IS a tactic.
2. "Good reasoning" for why an enemy can be killed in one shot pretty much comes down to "because my weapon can inflict that much damage in one shot."
(Or there's a Save or Die component in play, like a Soul Drinker or something).

Even more significant in Alrik's OP was the contention that allowing the NPCs to do such things creates caution and encourages advanced decision making among the players.

I'm sure that "anybody can kill me pretty much at any time, no matter how much MDC I have" is a very good motivator to be cautious.

If they see the unarmed guards (in your example),

As an aside, I don't remember that example. It was days ago.

they could perhaps calculate that their MDC is better than the opponent's MDC and that they should, all things being equal, kill all the guards within a round. Unless the dice go horribly against them, perhaps this is true. In such a situation, all the player is doing is betting that they will outlast the opponent. There is no further decision making. The story is not enhanced by the decisions of the players. The GM gave them an objective, and the players bet that they could meet it through sheer force of the stat sheet.

How much decision-making goes on is up to the players.
They might take that chance, they might not.
They might understand that one of the guards might be a dragon in disguise, they might not.
They might understand that if a guard has time to call for help, then they'll be facing reinforcements, or they might not.
They might know that one of the guards is a powerful mage/psychic, or they might not.
There are always reasons to be cautious in Rifts.

There still may be good story around the encounter, but the encounter isn't really that exciting or nerve wracking. It's measured, and gambled on according to pre-existing expectations, instead of reacted to according to events as they unfold. The gambling just takes a few minutes of back and forth dice rolling. That's not "hard work. " It's definitely not creative, which is an end Alrik hopes to encourage via the danger of immediate death.

a) There is always the possible danger of immediate death in Rifts, without messing with the rules.
b) Yes, I'm sure that your method of rolling dice is much better and more creative than other people's method of rolling dice.

In general, a GM playing fast and loose with player ideas is gonna go "off book." That's not cheating, or "easy" or anything. Instead of saying "there isn't a rule for that so you can't do it," you can say "ok, roll X against Y in order to get this result or some part of this result." You can make the roll really really hard, but it should be sensible in relation to other similar roles. You can say a vibro-knife will never penetrate a Brodkil's head, if you like, but at some point a player's gonna make a good case for a one-shot against something.

Right.
Any time his weapon can inflict sufficient damage to kill the enemy in one shot.

Since day one of playing Rifts, I have run into people who have tried to do clever stuff to one-shot enemies.
"I make a called shot to his left nostril!"
"Lasers should be able to penetrate transparent visors, and hit the person inside of the EBA/PA"
And so forth.
The problem is, IF that stuff worked, THEN the world of Rifts itself would be different.

IF shooting somebody in the nostril with a laser weapon that's as powerful as 20 sticks of dynamite is significantly more effective than shooting them anywhere else in the head with a laser that's as powerful as 20 sticks of dynamite, then one hell of a lot more MDC critters would wear nose-guards, because the players aren't going to be the only geniuses in the planet that think, "Hey, I'm going to stick my gun up his nostril!"
IF lasers could go through transparent visors, THEN shooting for the visors would be a pretty standard tactic that everybody knew, OR such visors wouldn't be in wide use, OR both.

IF stabbing a Brodkil in the head with a vibro-knife gave a decent chance for a one-shot kill, THEN Brodkil as a rule would wear helmets, because everybody would be freakin' head-shotting them to death all of the time.

I like player innovation. I like clever ideas.
But "Can I kill this guy in one shot, rather than fight him outright, using a method that would likely be pretty common if it worked" just doesn't strike me as all that innovative or clever.
Which is why I'm looking for specifics.
Because so far, all I'm picturing is that you guys essentially run Rifts with a version of D&D's Backstab ability that bypasses MDC entirely to outright kill opponents.

Are you thinking of something a bit more effort and brain intense than "Look behind you!" followed by a groin-stab?
If so, then what?

Edit:
Be specific.

Killer Cyborg wrote:RPGs are by their very nature a limitation of choice. All games are.
Games consist solely of rules.
Rules are restrictions on choice.
That's the nature of games.
The skill of games is to see how much you can accomplish through these restrictions, by having your creativity focused and channeled, by having obstacles to overcome.

We just see RPGs differently.

My view of RPGs (at least old school ones) is that they create a world for people to play in as they do in their imaginations.

For example, when you're a kid you play out whatever your favorite action cartoon is, or "cowboys and indians," or something. There's action and drama. You create a scenario (we're the TMNT and we re fighting the Foot, or we're the pirates protecting our booty from the ninjas). You tell each other "I do this!" And another person says "I do that!" For the most part, like in professional improv, everyone kind of agrees about what's happening, and takes instruction from each other.

But sometimes it's like "why does that kid always kit with every shot?" Or "why's that guy never ever hit?" Or, my case, which was always jumping in front of the missile and dying heroically thus making for an abrupt, if dramatic, end to the game.

Dice rolling and some rule structure gives a way to resolve difficulties, and it adds some reality to the difficulty/danger of success, and therefore some real dramatic tension to the play. Not everything is in the player's control, and there's some way to resolve any action (at least the GM, if not the dice).


KS talks a lot in some of the podcasts about writing Robotech. He'd watch the show, and try to crate structures that would allow for the events happening iin the show to be judged in the game, and to make the outcomes about what they're be in the show. But there's lots of problems created by the show. For instance, sometimes a mech shrugs off a salvo of mini missiles. Sometimes it takes a single blast to blow the same mech to dust. How does one determine the amount of damage the mech can take to make the outcome seem similar to the show?


The problem is even greater in real life. There are too many variables. In general, old school games try to create verisimilitude via their rules, but the rules are just simple metaphors for average outcomes in real life. Thus the constant complaining on these forums of inconsistencies, or individually rare circumstances (though, in aggregate, quite common) that the game suggests should be possible, but are contradicted, or made confusing by the rules.


Can you cut off someone's arm with a vibro knife? Can you cut off someones finger with a vibro knife? Without misting the entire person? Not strictly according to the rules.

But I don't think of this is a computer, or board game. I think of this as a world I want to play in, and the rules are a way for me to start managing to play in this world. If a player wants to cut off someone's finger with a vibro knife, which should by all reason be possible, I'm going to let the player do it. If the act deserves some tension (is he under duress and scared/stressed? is he trying to perform surgery and needs to be super duper precise?, is it, in some way, the difference between life and death or significant success/failure?), I'll come up with a roll for it (based on other roles and rules in the game).

And if a player can come up with a valid reason why hitting what should, reasonably, be a weak spot on a creature, no matter how simply statted that creature is, and has a way to hit that creature in that spot, and it doesn't take away from, or limit anyone else's participation and relative enjoyment, then I'm gonna try to find a way for him to roll on that too.

I like the story above all. The "living" in the awesome world that is Rifts. The rules are a means to that end. They are not, to me, the essential element of the game.

Jorick wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:RPGs are by their very nature a limitation of choice. All games are.
Games consist solely of rules.
Rules are restrictions on choice.
That's the nature of games.
The skill of games is to see how much you can accomplish through these restrictions, by having your creativity focused and channeled, by having obstacles to overcome.

We just see RPGs differently.

My view of RPGs (at least old school ones) is that they create a world for people to play in as they do in their imaginations.

Same here.
Imagination, past a certain early age, involves imposing restrictions.
Except for the kid that always imagines that he wins everything he ever wanted, and more, without expending any effort.
And that kid's boring.

For example, when you're a kid you play out whatever your favorite action cartoon is, or "cowboys and indians," or something. There's action and drama. You create a scenario (we're the TMNT and we re fighting the Foot, or we're the pirates protecting our booty from the ninjas). You tell each other "I do this!" And another person says "I do that!" For the most part, like in professional improv, everyone kind of agrees about what's happening, and takes instruction from each other.

But sometimes it's like "why does that kid always kit with every shot?" Or "why's that guy never ever hit?" Or, my case, which was always jumping in front of the missile and dying heroically thus making for an abrupt, if dramatic, end to the game.

Dice rolling and some rule structure gives a way to resolve difficulties, and it adds some reality to the difficulty/danger of success, and therefore some real dramatic tension to the play. Not everything is in the player's control, and there's some way to resolve any action (at least the GM, if not the dice).

Right.
Because games are all about limitation of choice.
Otherwise, we always win everything except when we choose to die, and that's just boring. There has to be some kind of limitation on things. That's why games have rules.

Can you cut off someone's arm with a vibro knife? Can you cut off someones finger with a vibro knife? Without misting the entire person? Not strictly according to the rules.

Sure you can.
Just make a Called Shot to that person's arm or finger.

But I don't think of this is a computer, or board game. I think of this as a world I want to play in, and the rules are a way for me to start managing to play in this world. If a player wants to cut off someone's finger with a vibro knife, which should by all reason be possible, I'm going to let the player do it. If the act deserves some tension (is he under duress and scared/stressed? is he trying to perform surgery and needs to be super duper precise?, is it, in some way, the difference between life and death or significant success/failure?), I'll come up with a roll for it (based on other roles and rules in the game).

And if a player can come up with a valid reason why hitting what should, reasonably, be a weak spot on a creature, no matter how simply statted that creature is, and has a way to hit that creature in that spot, and it doesn't take away from, or limit anyone else's participation and relative enjoyment, then I'm gonna try to find a way for him to roll on that too.

I like the story above all. The "living" in the awesome world that is Rifts. The rules are a means to that end. They are not, to me, the essential element of the game.

Spiffy.

So... I'm still left with "Look behind you!" followed by a groin-stab.
Which is great. I'd give that player extra XP and a critical strike... Just not an automatic kill for a pretty simple maneuver that goes against the nature of the gameworld that has been crafted.

Specific of what? My post is about my disagreement with the way damage is handled in the game.

I feel combat takes too long unless massive, earth-shattering explosions are involved.

A 2d6 damage rifle can obliterate a house, burn the air, send piles of molten dirt into the sky, but it can't even make an 8ft tall critter twitch. To some that's fine, and to a degree I follow it (demons...they don't have to make sense), but there's a limit to it.

And a lot of subdemons do wear helmets.

So, in being specific, in how it relates to my OP, what kind of specifics are you looking for?

Rules changes? What I deem tense and exciting?

Killer Cyborg wrote:
So... I'm still left with "Look behind you!" followed by a groin-stab.
Which is great. I'd give that player extra XP and a critical strike... Just not an automatic kill for a pretty simple maneuver that goes against the nature of the gameworld that has been crafted.

I think we're just not gonna see this the same way. I feel like lots of people run into the issue of the game breaking the flow of reasonable player creativity, and the problem is the rules as written. And I feel like the rules aren't written to get in the way of the flow. They're just there to help with give a guide to structure, which can then be expanded upon.

As the writers do constantly. For instance, Vampires have only one weak spot. The rules for this weak spot and how to get to it, are written out because the vampire calls for such a description. The writers said "well, we have these basic rules, but they don't cover what to do in this particular situation that we want to detail because it's a significant part of the regular drama of fighting this creature. We came up with the rule after we came up with the story."

Any individual situation can be given the same treatment, but it is not possible for the writers to describe every situation. The creating of the specific rule is left up to the GM.

Brodkil have brains. They must because they get MOM implants in their heads. Their brains affect their bodies in similar ways as do human brains. It is reasonable to think that hitting the brain directly does similar things to Brodkil as well.

Maybe we can rule that Brodkil's heads are super shielded from every angle and therefore cannot be penetrated by one thrust of a vibro dagger. But I'm willing to bet the laser scalpel that cut into the skull in order to place the implant wasn't stronger than a laser rifle. It is reasonable for a player to conclude that shooting the brain will take the Brodkil out, and that the brain can actually be shot (or knifed, or something). Just because the writer's didn't write WB 128: Brodkil Empires (or even if they did, just because they didn't get deep into the physiology), does not mean that a rule couldn't be made for this specific situation.


I'm not allowing a player to get away with "Look behind you!" and a stab at the heart of a vampire without some good rolling, either. And even then, the rolls are gonna be based on the broader situation (does he have to roll perception? initiative? a skill check? etc....and what's the Vamp doing?).

Alrik Vas wrote:Specific of what? My post is about my disagreement with the way damage is handled in the game.

I feel combat takes too long unless massive, earth-shattering explosions are involved.

RIGHT!

THAT right there is the issue, not "I feel that people should be clever," or "I feel like good planning should be rewarded," or "I fee like a role-playing game is like...."

You feel that combat takes too long.
All I'm saying is that's because you don't likely plan appropriately when you play by the rules.

A 2d6 damage rifle can obliterate a house, burn the air, send piles of molten dirt into the sky, but it can't even make an 8ft tall critter twitch. To some that's fine, and to a degree I follow it (demons...they don't have to make sense), but there's a limit to it.

Well, that depends on the 8' tall critter.
If you're talking about a 400 MDC Brodkil, then yeah, it can't. Because they are incredibly tough.
They're so tough that it'd take roughly 1,1143 sticks of dynamite in order to blow them into pieces, and the weapon you're using only fires with the strength of about 20 sticks of dynamite.

If you pit players against things that aren't [i]incredibly tough for their weapons to kill, then combat doesn't last long.
Say you have a medieval knight, and you send him up against a Sherman tank, and you complain that it takes forever for your knight to hack through that tank armor. That's not really going to resonate with me, because you're expecting a frickin' medieval knight to take down a war tank. The whole point of having tanks was that they weren't easy to destroy, so I have zero understanding for complaints that "tanks are too tough to destroy."
That's where I'm coming from.

And a lot of subdemons do wear helmets.

Not as many as would wear them if a 1d6 MD poke to the head would have reasonable odds of killing them.

So, in being specific, in how it relates to my OP, what kind of specifics are you looking for?

There's been a lot of talk about how much cleverness and Hard Work it takes to set up one of these one-shot kills. That's what I'm asking about.
All I'm picturing is essentially a Backstab, only you count it as an automatic kill, and that's not particularly clever or difficult as far as I'm concerned.
If you spend about three hours of gameplay setting yourself up for that shot somehow, then yeah... that's a lot of hard work.... but I don't see how it makes combat move any faster.

Either way, if all you're talking about is a "Look Behind You!" (groin-stab) scenario, then give me an example.
If you're talking about some kind of elaborate, "Spend a week studying Brodkil anatomy charts, sneak into his lair, cross-dress and seduce him Bugs-Bunny-Style, get him drunk, lead him to the top of a stairway, then you stab him right between the top vertebrae and his skull (a specific vital point for his species that for some reason he doesn't have armored) with a MD-poisoned vibro-blade, then kick him down the stairs into the basement and burn down his house around him" kind of thing, then give me an example of that.
Or, if what you're talking about falls somewhere between the two spectrums, then give me an example of whatever you're talking about... because the first example doesn't seem like hard work or cleverness, and the second example doesn't seem to really be a "one-shot kill with a vibro-knife," since there are a lot of other factors involved.

Jorick wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:
So... I'm still left with "Look behind you!" followed by a groin-stab.
Which is great. I'd give that player extra XP and a critical strike... Just not an automatic kill for a pretty simple maneuver that goes against the nature of the gameworld that has been crafted.

I think we're just not gonna see this the same way. I feel like lots of people run into the issue of the game breaking the flow of reasonable player creativity, and the problem is the rules as written. And I feel like the rules aren't written to get in the way of the flow. They're just there to help with give a guide to structure, which can then be expanded upon.

If what you're talking about is any more creative than "Look behind you!" followed by a groin-stab, then by all means give me an example.
If it's NOT more creative than that... then man... just tell me that's what you're talking about when you talk about "hard work" and "creativity."

As the writers do constantly. For instance, Vampires have only one weak spot. The rules for this weak spot and how to get to it, are written out because the vampire calls for such a description. The writers said "well, we have these basic rules, but they don't cover what to do in this particular situation that we want to detail because it's a significant part of the regular drama of fighting this creature. We came up with the rule after we came up with the story."

Any individual situation can be given the same treatment, but it is not possible for the writers to describe every situation. The creating of the specific rule is left up to the GM.

Brodkil have brains. They must because they get MOM implants in their heads. Their brains affect their bodies in similar ways as do human brains. It is reasonable to think that hitting the brain directly does similar things to Brodkil as well.

I think the fact that Palladium spells out such unusual weaknesses indicates that Brodkill don't have any.

Maybe we can rule that Brodkil's heads are super shielded from every angle and therefore cannot be penetrated by one thrust of a vibro dagger. But I'm willing to bet the laser scalpel that cut into the skull in order to place the implant wasn't stronger than a laser rifle. It is reasonable for a player to conclude that shooting the brain will take the Brodkil out, and that the brain can actually be shot (or knifed, or something).

I'm willing to bet that the laser scalpel beam was on for more than a small fraction of a second.

Just because the writer's didn't write WB 128: Brodkil Empires (or even if they did, just because they didn't get deep into the physiology), does not mean that a rule couldn't be made for this specific situation.

Agreed.
But I don't see the point of house-ruling new weaknesses into existing powerhouse enemies in order to kill those enemies faster by exploiting the new made-up weakness, in order to speed up combat, when one could just as easily pit the party against different enemies that require no such made-up weakness in order to kill quickly.
It's like cutting halfway through a two-by-four, then breaking it with your bare hands; you might as well just break a thinner board without fixing the fight.

I'm not allowing a player to get away with "Look behind you!" and a stab at the heart of a vampire without some good rolling, either. And even then, the rolls are gonna be based on the broader situation (does he have to roll perception? initiative? a skill check? etc....and what's the Vamp doing?).

Okay.
So... what sort of rolls, what sort of penalties?
Give me an example.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Jorick wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:
So... I'm still left with "Look behind you!" followed by a groin-stab.
Which is great. I'd give that player extra XP and a critical strike... Just not an automatic kill for a pretty simple maneuver that goes against the nature of the gameworld that has been crafted.

I think we're just not gonna see this the same way. I feel like lots of people run into the issue of the game breaking the flow of reasonable player creativity, and the problem is the rules as written. And I feel like the rules aren't written to get in the way of the flow. They're just there to help with give a guide to structure, which can then be expanded upon.

If what you're talking about is any more creative than "Look behind you!" followed by a groin-stab, then by all means give me an example.
If it's NOT more creative than that... then man... just tell me that's what you're talking about when you talk about "hard work" and "creativity."

As the writers do constantly. For instance, Vampires have only one weak spot. The rules for this weak spot and how to get to it, are written out because the vampire calls for such a description. The writers said "well, we have these basic rules, but they don't cover what to do in this particular situation that we want to detail because it's a significant part of the regular drama of fighting this creature. We came up with the rule after we came up with the story."

Any individual situation can be given the same treatment, but it is not possible for the writers to describe every situation. The creating of the specific rule is left up to the GM.

Brodkil have brains. They must because they get MOM implants in their heads. Their brains affect their bodies in similar ways as do human brains. It is reasonable to think that hitting the brain directly does similar things to Brodkil as well.

I think the fact that Palladium spells out such unusual weaknesses indicates that Brodkill don't have any.

Maybe we can rule that Brodkil's heads are super shielded from every angle and therefore cannot be penetrated by one thrust of a vibro dagger. But I'm willing to bet the laser scalpel that cut into the skull in order to place the implant wasn't stronger than a laser rifle. It is reasonable for a player to conclude that shooting the brain will take the Brodkil out, and that the brain can actually be shot (or knifed, or something).

I'm willing to bet that the laser scalpel beam was on for more than a small fraction of a second.

Just because the writer's didn't write WB 128: Brodkil Empires (or even if they did, just because they didn't get deep into the physiology), does not mean that a rule couldn't be made for this specific situation.

Agreed.
But I don't see the point of house-ruling new weaknesses into existing powerhouse enemies in order to kill those enemies faster by exploiting the new made-up weakness, in order to speed up combat, when one could just as easily pit the party against different enemies that require no such made-up weakness in order to kill quickly.
It's like cutting halfway through a two-by-four, then breaking it with your bare hands; you might as well just break a thinner board without fixing the fight.

I'm not allowing a player to get away with "Look behind you!" and a stab at the heart of a vampire without some good rolling, either. And even then, the rolls are gonna be based on the broader situation (does he have to roll perception? initiative? a skill check? etc....and what's the Vamp doing?).

Okay.
So... what sort of rolls, what sort of penalties?
Give me an example.

I gave examples. Some story based (stealthing through a camp,etc.) some not so much (Vampires).

Do you have Dinosaur Swamp. I dunno where this is, but I recall a passage that talks about a rifle one-shotting dinosaurs. One would have to create such a rule in order for this to be possible. I strongly disagree with "I think the fact that Palladium spells out such unusual weaknesses indicates that Brodkill don't have any."

The reasons to fight Brodkil instead of half armed humans can be many and varied. Perhaps your players want to be NGR military, and do what NGR military types do. Perhaps they're special forces out assassinating Brodkil. The story behind the assassination attempt itself should be tense. THAT is up to the GM. If they make it through the scenario well, then however NGR special forces operatives take out baddies without spending 2 minutes whittling them down while all their friends look on is how the player's can do it.


Again, Brodkil may have super thick skulls. Impossible to shoot them in the head for a kill. That's up to the GM. They do have brains, and eyes in sockets, or even MOM implants that reach through the skull (apparently). It doesn't matter what the case is. If the player can make a better argument for why a thing should be possible than the GM can make for why it isn't, just as a matter of description and reason, then the GM, I think, should find a way to roll.


The vibro blade example. A called shot on a finger still does hundreds of damage. Is the finger misted? I don't think so. I think it can be a clean cut. When the same knife does hundreds of damage to the wooden cart, and destroys the cart, it's not cause hundreds of damage were rolled. It's cause they player slashed right through the important parts of the cart, preventing it from being a cart for all intents and purposes. The cart is in two pieces? Three? I dunno. It was cut by a knife. Not "misted" despite hundreds more damage being done to it than it had to give.

Such troubles explain all those perhaps optional rules KS wrote about what happens to body parts given different types of energy weapons. The damage roll is a simple metaphor, that mostly determines success or failure (or the amount thereof). What actually happens is described by the GM.

I am with Killer Cyborg on this. I don't see how 'stealthing through camp' is a tactic that allows one to instantly kill a 400mdc Brodkil.
Can you share the specifics of the story where a person one shots a Brodkil to save himself from the cook pot?

eliakon wrote:I am with Killer Cyborg on this. I don't see how 'stealthing through camp' is a tactic that allows one to instantly kill a 400mdc Brodkil.
Can you share the specifics of the story where a person one shots a Brodkil to save himself from the cook pot?

The specifics in such a immediate situation would be reasoning given by the player/GM.

Player Character successfully rolls (as in, a physical action) to the gun lying there for some reason, and picks it up. This could entail an initiative roll, a speed check given distance, a prowl roll, etc.

What the Brodkil is doing and where the Brodkil is can have an affect as well. The Brodkil, lets say, is unarmed, and turned away, unawares (so a prowl roll is in order).

Player thinks that shooting the Brodkil in the eye will be a big deal. GM agrees (for reasons stated in the previous post). Player needs to get a good shot at the Brodkil's eye. So player says "Hey, Brodkil!" to get him to turn around. This also might call for rolls (initiative for when the Brodkil turns, maybe with penalties to the Brodkil, trust/intimidate to get the demon to care?, determination of distance, and what Brodkil must do to prevent or avoid damage if he has the chance).

Player makes a called aimed shot once the Brodkil turns. It's a hard shot, modifiers determined by size of target, distance, time (maybe he doesn't really have time to aim, so no aiming bonus), then the Brodkil's dodge attempt (alternatively, I could be nice to the player when the Brodkil wins initiative and spends his first action rushing at the player). Etc.


Maybe I can make the shot even harder, requiring a roll of 12 with a -4 (or whatever) to hit the eye, but an even higher roll to go through the eye right into the brain (a 14? 16?). Maybe the character has to be a sharpshooter with lots of bonuses to make the shot. But, however the shot is made, if it is made, it destroys the Brodkil's brain, and thus at the very least knocks him out (maybe rolls coma/death, or something).

Ultimately, the determining factors for all of these choices would be how they affect the broader story. Is the Brodkil just a minor badguy? Did I somehow force the characters into the cookpot? Or were the characters just really dumb? Will the players accept the loss as reasonable (they should, but maybe it's my fault not theirs), and if they get the win will it be epic, or boring? Will future events following the same basic rules be boring, or will they be as, or nearly as epic? Maybe this is the kind of thing one keeps a sharpshooter around for.

KC, flesh and armor react differently to damage. There's a lack of similarity between a knight with a steel sword vs a modern tank and an NG equipped group of soldiers vs a Brodkill.

I actually use a different rule altogether to illustrate this (infantry vs power armor vs robots etc). My way of looking at creatures is that they aren't power armor or tanks, they're fleshy. Hydro-shock can kill just as bad as a foreign object to the brain. However, as they're demons, I give them a lot of leeway. Their toughness is in their MDC, not in their scale, basically. If you can deplete that they'll die, sure, but if you can destroy something vital to their continued existence, then they'll die faster.

So in regards to winning a fight in a single blow vs a large and terrifying monster of doom, it's tough to do and doesn't always work, but when it does it usually comes at a cost and is difficult to pull off. For example:

(DISCLAIMER: YOU ARE BEING WARNED IN ALL CAPS THAT THERE ARE HOUSE RULES AFOOT)

4 man team, holed up in a building. Armed with NG IP-7's, 1 HE, 1 smoke, 1 vibro-knife each and wearing upgraded Hunt armor (80 MDC). They're fleeing a group of demon cultists, so far escape has meant they've taken no damage. A brodkill, invisible, as they do, armed with a giant vibro-sword and a C-27 he uses like a pistol, stalks up to the building. The group fails to hear him pad up.

He bursts in and with surprise on his side, kills one of the troops with a 90 damage attack (SN PS stacking with damage bonus stacking with weapon damage on a x2 from surprise). Initiative is rolled, big B is unlucky, goes last...but luck comes back and only 1 of the remaining men make their HF saves.

The guy who can act runs further into the building, away from the demon.

Big B's turn. He charges after, uses his vibro sword to cleave a load-bearing wall (random chance), brings the house down. They all survive, but only the broadkill is strong enough to climb out. He sifts through the rubble, cleaving limbs off the trapped humans and laughing like...well...a demon. He's won, he's got them, and he's a demon, so it's about time for a little bit of evil BWAHAHAHA...etc.

Except, one of the troopers, the one who ran, wasn't fully trapped. However, he can't find his rifle and it's only a matter of time before this thing finds him. Should he run? The player decides not to. He wants revenge, but the only viable weapon he has is a grenade and a knife. Above board, the player knows the grenade shouldn't kill his friends, or the brodkill, but realistically speaking...who would throw a grenade when their friends are right there? If there's a chance they could live, he's got to handle this thing more precisely. So, creeping about, he looks for a weak spot. He sees the demon's hide is thick and tough, it's muscle meaty, the knife probably won't do much good either...unless, the neck. Things gotta breathe, after all. Will that kill it though? Probaby not, it can still crush him one handed while holding it's throat closed while on regen...so...

...behind the head, if he waits until the brodkill makes one of those big, cleaving strikes, the body bends, the demon lobster style armor along the spine separates a bit, he can go through the back and use the vibro-knife like a spoon stirring noggin soup.

So, succeed on prowl (might totally fail), succeed on a HF check (just because I hate my players sometimes), wait until it's basically killing another one of your friends (north America is a rough joint) and strike with perfect precision and stab like you've never stabbed before (called shot, taking a -6, or -3 for small, then another -3 for tiny. need at least 10% (or 50 damage, whichever is more) of his health, and it gets to make a save vs pain. success means it takes the damage and is just really annoyed with you). Even then, the thing is going to thrash around, might still kill you in it's death throws, who knows?

(and if you have to ask how a vibro-knife can possibly do 50 damage, you didn't read my previous posts, or the above disclaimer about house rules )

If you have a missile launcher, it's much easier. But that's happened before.

So success means you've saved what's left of your comrades, had a tough choice to make, and were probably biting your nails IRL the whole time about whether or not you were going to botch the roll to hit or damage. Seems like tension to me. Seems like making due with a terrible situation, using a little bit of planning as well.

Jorick wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Jorick wrote:I'm not allowing a player to get away with "Look behind you!" and a stab at the heart of a vampire without some good rolling, either. And even then, the rolls are gonna be based on the broader situation (does he have to roll perception? initiative? a skill check? etc....and what's the Vamp doing?).

Okay.
So... what sort of rolls, what sort of penalties?
Give me an example.

I gave examples. Some story based (stealthing through a camp,etc.) some not so much (Vampires).

Offhand, I remember two examples:
"Maybe you have to one-shot him cause he's about to put you in a cookpot, and you rolled free and grabbed a loose gun from the rack."
"Maybe you spent the entire game session making prowl roles through the war camp, sabotaging this and that, on your way to take out the leader. "

Neither of which tell me:
a) what specific tactic was used to justify a one-shot against a 400 MDC creature.
b) what rolls were made at what sort of penalties.

Do you have Dinosaur Swamp. I dunno where this is, but I recall a passage that talks about a rifle one-shotting dinosaurs. One would have to create such a rule in order for this to be possible.

If by "one" you mean "Todd Yoho," then sure.
And his rule was (DS 12):
From a game mechanics point of view, [vital shots to the knee/ankle joint, the base of the spine, the neck, a well-placed head shot, the eye, and so forth] would be considered Critical Strikes, and could possibly do as much as triple damage, but require a Called Shot, and the creature's movement and ground cover may add additional penalties to strike.

I strongly disagree with "I think the fact that Palladium spells out such unusual weaknesses indicates that Brodkill don't have any."

The reasons to fight Brodkil instead of half armed humans can be many and varied. Perhaps your players want to be NGR military, and do what NGR military types do.

NGR military do NOT, insofar as I know, one-shot brodkill using 1d6-2d6 MD weapons.
If a player wants to do what the NGR does, then that would involve a lot of shooting and/or heavy weapons.

Perhaps they're special forces out assassinating Brodkil. The story behind the assassination attempt itself should be tense.

That could be both tense and awesome... as long as the assassination includes more than "Look behind you!" followed by a groin-stab, or something similar that should only yield x2-x3 damage.
I'd have a lot of fun with a good Assassinate The Brodkil game, because it would take a lot of time, energy, planning, and the right equipment, because brodkil are tough. By the rules, you'd have to groin-stab them for a heck of a lot more than 1d6 MD in order to drop them.

THAT is up to the GM. If they make it through the scenario well, then however NGR special forces operatives take out baddies without spending 2 minutes whittling them down while all their friends look on is how the player's can do it.

That would most likely be by using concentrated firepower and some good weapons, probably power armor, not to mention tactics.

Pulling out my NGR book...
A typical Brodkil has 250 MDC.
Using CB1 rules, a single NGR soldier with a TX-43 laser rifle could fire a half-clip burst for 4d6x3 (average of 42 MD).
If they successfully ambush the brodkil, their first attack is free, which means that if three NGR soldiers were in the attack, they could likely inflict 126 MD on the ambush round of attacks, then another 126 or so on the next round of attacks, and they'd have a dead brodkil in about 5 seconds of game-time combat.
If there are more brodkil than just the one, then they can (if they've planned well) retreat for the time being and set up another ambush.

Using the RUE rules instead of the original burst/spray rules, they'd have to use different weapons and/or tactics. I'm not sure what, because I don't have the second NGR book.
Let's say that they have the equivalent of Wilk's 457s, though. In that case, they could all make Called Shots to the head (x2 damage) in their ambush round, which would be an average of 60 MD per shooter, for a total of 180 MDC gone in the ambush round of attacks. During the next round, they'd inflict an average of 105 more MD (on average), more than killing the brodkil.

And I don't think that his friends would just stand around and watch. They'd get to return fire or try to run after the ambush round, but when I plan an ambush I try to do it from behind cover or concealment, so that should impair their effectiveness.

Again, Brodkil may have super thick skulls. Impossible to shoot them in the head for a kill. That's up to the GM. They do have brains, and eyes in sockets, or even MOM implants that reach through the skull (apparently). It doesn't matter what the case is. If the player can make a better argument for why a thing should be possible than the GM can make for why it isn't, just as a matter of description and reason, then the GM, I think, should find a way to roll.

For example?

The vibro blade example. A called shot on a finger still does hundreds of damage. Is the finger misted? I don't think so. I think it can be a clean cut. When the same knife does hundreds of damage to the wooden cart, and destroys the cart, it's not cause hundreds of damage were rolled. It's cause they player slashed right through the important parts of the cart, preventing it from being a cart for all intents and purposes. The cart is in two pieces? Three? I dunno. It was cut by a knife. Not "misted" despite hundreds more damage being done to it than it had to give.

Seems like a tangental or unrelated argument to what we're talking about.

Such troubles explain all those perhaps optional rules KS wrote about what happens to body parts given different types of energy weapons. The damage roll is a simple metaphor, that mostly determines success or failure (or the amount thereof). What actually happens is described by the GM.

Sure, to an extent.
But the stats are there for a reason, and that reason is to describe how powerful a weapon is and how tough a target is.
A metaphor of 1d6 MD shouldn't kill a being with metaphorical 400 MDC; the metaphorical math just doesn't add up that I can see.

Alrik Vas wrote:KC, flesh and armor react differently to damage.

Not necessarily, no.

There's a lack of similarity between a knight with a steel sword vs a modern tank and an NG equipped group of soldiers vs a Brodkill.

Such as?

I actually use a different rule altogether to illustrate this (infantry vs power armor vs robots etc). My way of looking at creatures is that they aren't power armor or tanks, they're fleshy. Hydro-shock can kill just as bad as a foreign object to the brain.

CB1 18
Mega-Damage creatures are different than creatures of human flesh and blood. MDC flesh is a special armor-like skin that is resistant to even most point-blank attacks. They can use their bodies to smother an MDC grenade or block a particle beam. While the blast will hurt, it will not kill until all mega-damage points have been depleted. The only possible exception may be a direct and powerful point-blank shot to the head; GM's discretion.

That's following the rules for SDC creatures, where it describes (optional) rules for a Point Blank shot to the head or the heart inflicting full SDC damage and half HP damage, with optional impairment rules.
So there is a good argument for a good head/heart shot (at the GM's triple option) being able to inflict 1.5x damage to a MDC creature.

Page 18 also has the passage:
Depending on the situation, the victim of a point-blank attack may be automatically killed too....
...Likewise, similar effects can be implemented for mega-damage inflicted to MD creatures, such as the dragon, when exposed to massive point-blank damage to the head; GM's option.

All of which goes roughly in the direction that you're going in, except that:
-It doesn't go as far
-It hinges on the attacks being "powerful" or the damage being "massive," neither of which apply to a 1d6-2d6 MD weapon against a target with hundreds of MDC.

However, as they're demons, I give them a lot of leeway. Their toughness is in their MDC, not in their scale, basically. If you can deplete that they'll die, sure, but if you can destroy something vital to their continued existence, then they'll die faster.

So in regards to winning a fight in a single blow vs a large and terrifying monster of doom, it's tough to do and doesn't always work, but when it does it usually comes at a cost and is difficult to pull off. For example:

(DISCLAIMER: YOU ARE BEING WARNED IN ALL CAPS THAT THERE ARE HOUSE RULES AFOOT)

4 man team, holed up in a building. Armed with NG IP-7's, 1 HE, 1 smoke, 1 vibro-knife each and wearing upgraded Hunt armor (80 MDC). They're fleeing a group of demon cultists, so far escape has meant they've taken no damage. A brodkill, invisible, as they do, armed with a giant vibro-sword and a C-27 he uses like a pistol, stalks up to the building. The group fails to hear him pad up.

He bursts in and with surprise on his side, kills one of the troops with a 90 damage attack (SN PS stacking with damage bonus stacking with weapon damage on a x2 from surprise). Initiative is rolled, big B is unlucky, goes last...but luck comes back and only 1 of the remaining men make their HF saves.

The guy who can act runs further into the building, away from the demon.

Big B's turn. He charges after, uses his vibro sword to cleave a load-bearing wall (random chance), brings the house down. They all survive, but only the broadkill is strong enough to climb out. He sifts through the rubble, cleaving limbs off the trapped humans and laughing like...well...a demon. He's won, he's got them, and he's a demon, so it's about time for a little bit of evil BWAHAHAHA...etc.

Except, one of the troopers, the one who ran, wasn't fully trapped. However, he can't find his rifle and it's only a matter of time before this thing finds him. Should he run? The player decides not to. He wants revenge, but the only viable weapon he has is a grenade and a knife. Above board, the player knows the grenade shouldn't kill his friends, or the brodkill, but realistically speaking...who would throw a grenade when their friends are right there? If there's a chance they could live, he's got to handle this thing more precisely. So, creeping about, he looks for a weak spot. He sees the demon's hide is thick and tough, it's muscle meaty, the knife probably won't do much good either...unless, the neck. Things gotta breathe, after all. Will that kill it though? Probaby not, it can still crush him one handed while holding it's throat closed while on regen...so...

...behind the head, if he waits until the brodkill makes one of those big, cleaving strikes, the body bends, the demon lobster style armor along the spine separates a bit, he can go through the back and use the vibro-knife like a spoon stirring noggin soup.

So, succeed on prowl (might totally fail), succeed on a HF check (just because I hate my players sometimes), wait until it's basically killing another one of your friends (north America is a rough joint) and strike with perfect precision and stab like you've never stabbed before (called shot, taking a -6, or -3 for small, then another -3 for tiny. need at least 10% (or 50 damage, whichever is more) of his health, and it gets to make a save vs pain. success means it takes the damage and is just really annoyed with you). Even then, the thing is going to thrash around, might still kill you in it's death throws, who knows?

(and if you have to ask how a vibro-knife can possibly do 50 damage, you didn't read my previous posts, or the above disclaimer about house rules )

If you have a missile launcher, it's much easier. But that's happened before.

So success means you've saved what's left of your comrades, had a tough choice to make, and were probably biting your nails IRL the whole time about whether or not you were going to botch the roll to hit or damage. Seems like tension to me. Seems like making due with a terrible situation, using a little bit of planning as well.

1. Thank you. THAT is the kind of example I was looking for.
2. I still don't see the point of effectively nerfing powerful enemies by increasing damage, instead of simply using less powerful enemies.
Replay that scenario, except:
-Use official rules (ignoring the GI-Joe Rule, because it's lame)
-Instead of a brodkil, it's a different kind of demon/sub-demon/monster that's just as large and strong, but has different stats.
-The PCs are in Huntsman armor (40 MDC), and the demon attacks with a Gargoyle Firebrand Spear for 8d6 MD (average of 21, x2 damage from surprise, for a total of 41 MD)
-The demon has 10 MDC or so underneath his armor, or is even an SDC being, so the vibro-knife doesn't have to include a variety of bonuses in order to be lethal, only a x2 modifier from hitting a vital spot.

To me, it looks like it'd happen the same way, with the same excitement and such.

You could, sure, but I don't scale encounters. When my players enter an area, if they have opportunity to gather information, they may learn there are places to avoid...like a gargoyle next, or a mountain path that other demons frequent. Its a big bad world, I can't go setting them up for victory, that's their responsibility.

We got differing views, I'm cool with it.

Alrik Vas wrote:You could, sure, but I don't scale encounters. When my players enter an area, if they have opportunity to gather information, they may learn there are places to avoid...like a gargoyle next, or a mountain path that other demons frequent. Its a big bad world, I can't go setting them up for victory, that's their responsibility.

You don't have to scale encounters; you've scaled the game.

We got differing views, I'm cool with it.

Same here.

Scaled the game? I think I get your meaning, but I wouldn't go that far. Death Blow between MDC creatures is pretty brutal, I just didn't think it was brutal enough.

Twelve Brodkill.
Not to nitpick but, 250mdc is more like Brodkill.
400mdc is an Anti Monster! But back to example.

Flying snow. Init....yay.
Attack roll 13, hey a crit...1500md and an extra attack.
They Shootin!!
Parry.
Attack roll 17 oop triple damage, 3000md and an extra attack...
Volley of Frag missiles... boom, make roll with impact....no damage from kinetic...
Dey Chootin...
Parry..
Attack 9...dammit I missed.
Borg Demon charges, Simo Strike!
16 yes triple damage 3000md and an extra attack.
This continues until eventually I one shot them all.
Check the Blackvault, powers arent munchkin.
Its all up to you to find the inner munchkin in whatever you do.
Stay munchkin my friend. Lol

KC, also from DS:

"A well placed head shot will kill just about anything, and if the weapon at hand wont pierce the hide or skull, or do much damage, the eye is a perfectly viable target."

The gun, in the same book, that is mentioned as being able to one shot dinosaurs, does 1D6 MD. The weakest dinosaur head (not even Main Body) listed in the book is 55 MDC. Most are 100 MDC or more (sometimes much more). Tripling the damage of a 1D6 gun (according to the rule that you quote) will not cover any of that. When he's thinking of taking out important bits he must be thinking of taking out parts that are smaller and weaker than those listed (and for which we have no data, but we can still imagine exist--like eyes, brains, joints, etc.).


What if it were a knife fight between two naked humans? One human has 200+ SDC (not to mention hit points). The other has a 1D6 SD knife. Can the knife wielder make a called shot to the eye of the one with 200+ SDC, and upon a successful high roll (called shot with a high negative modifier) perform a one shot?

Jorick wrote:KC, also from DS:

"A well placed head shot will kill just about anything, and if the weapon at hand wont pierce the hide or skull, or do much damage, the eye is a perfectly viable target."

Correct.
Notice how the first part is contingent on the weapon being able to penetrate the skull.
And notice that while the eye is a "viable target," ultimately the result of hitting it is the x2-x3 damage that I already quoted.

The gun, in the same book, that is mentioned as being able to one shot dinosaurs, does 1D6 MD.

I'm not near my books now.
Care to give an exact quote on that?

Alrik Vas wrote:You could, sure, but I don't scale encounters. When my players enter an area, if they have opportunity to gather information, they may learn there are places to avoid...like a gargoyle next, or a mountain path that other demons frequent. Its a big bad world, I can't go setting them up for victory, that's their responsibility.

We got differing views, I'm cool with it.

When I create a paned encounter I scale it to how hard I want it to be and then do not change it. It is not tailored to the party but how hard I want to be. (note if you have an idea of the party and plan a encounter with X you may be doing this weather you know it are not.)

An easy encounter might be a squad in light armor with 1 combat borg.
A hard encounter could be CS special forces squad with indirect fire support, Or a group of high MDC creatures with advanced weapons.
Realy hard encounters have a good chance of killing the whole party. example a group of low MDC armored witches on a Nexus point summoning a AI. Party has 1 minute to kill all witches and stop the summoning.(the witches where casting the summing but preventing the power from being stopped.) Out of the 21 witches 3 have invincible armor spell TW item casting at level 8. Do to the celestial aliment the witches have access to 10X ppe from the nexus point. a Group of 4 players must kill them, to kill the 3 that have the Tw items they party must kill them in 1 initive pass so first 3 must do in access of 600 MDC and the last must kill him, or he recast the armor spell. Note do the location the giant robot and tank where left outside, the hard to kill witches are spread out so no shared aoe, and only had access to 40 plasma mini missiles with voiles ranging from 4-6.
Insane encounters the PC have to do something amazing to live. EI a sploogy and large force of minions just rifted in on top of you.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Jorick wrote:KC, also from DS:

"A well placed head shot will kill just about anything, and if the weapon at hand wont pierce the hide or skull, or do much damage, the eye is a perfectly viable target."

Correct.
Notice how the first part is contingent on the weapon being able to penetrate the skull.
And notice that while the eye is a "viable target," ultimately the result of hitting it is the x2-x3 damage that I already quoted.

The gun, in the same book, that is mentioned as being able to one shot dinosaurs, does 1D6 MD.

I'm not near my books now.
Care to give an exact quote on that?

There is no MDC given for any eye of a dinosaur (or anything other than an alien intelligence). The result of taking out the eye, or a "joint" or anything else he talks about in that section would have to be determined by the GM.

Reading all of that section "hunting dinosaurs and other creatures" is enlightening. "In terms of straight statistics, it would take a few characters in power armor armed with MD rail guns to stand tow to toe with a T-Rex...", but "such weapons [rail guns, explosives, heavy weapons] don't leave much of the creature left to eat." ... "Even barbarians hunt dinosaurs. How do they manage it?"

He goes on to talk about tricks and traps, then gets to "high tech hunting methods." "Hunting is about the precision placement of a single killing, or at least disabling shot."


The gun in question is on pg. 75. "The Provider single shot breach loading rifle." Mega Damage 1D6 (it is the only MD weapon in the line). In the description: "In the hands of a Dinosaur Hunter, the rifle has been known to bring down an adult dinosaur with a single shot to the head."

Jorick wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Jorick wrote:KC, also from DS:

"A well placed head shot will kill just about anything, and if the weapon at hand wont pierce the hide or skull, or do much damage, the eye is a perfectly viable target."

Correct.
Notice how the first part is contingent on the weapon being able to penetrate the skull.
And notice that while the eye is a "viable target," ultimately the result of hitting it is the x2-x3 damage that I already quoted.

The gun, in the same book, that is mentioned as being able to one shot dinosaurs, does 1D6 MD.

I'm not near my books now.
Care to give an exact quote on that?

There is no MDC given for any eye of a dinosaur (or anything other than an alien intelligence). The result of taking out the eye, or a "joint" or anything else he talks about in that section would have to be determined by the GM.

Reading all of that section "hunting dinosaurs and other creatures" is enlightening. "In terms of straight statistics, it would take a few characters in power armor armed with MD rail guns to stand tow to toe with a T-Rex...", but "such weapons [rail guns, explosives, heavy weapons] don't leave much of the creature left to eat." ... "Even barbarians hunt dinosaurs. How do they manage it?"

He goes on to talk about tricks and traps, then gets to "high tech hunting methods." "Hunting is about the precision placement of a single killing, or at least disabling shot."


The gun in question is on pg. 75. "The Provider single shot breach loading rifle." Mega Damage 1D6 (it is the only MD weapon in the line). In the description: "In the hands of a Dinosaur Hunter, the rifle has been known to bring down an adult dinosaur with a single shot to the head."

Without giving mechanics for how the weapon does that, it is just flavor text. Without mecanics to justfy it the text can not create a RAW option to do one shot kill on a 400 MDC. (are there not some small SDC dinosaurs on the books?)

Blue_Lion wrote:Without giving mechanics for how the weapon does that, it is just flavor text. Without mecanics to justfy it the text can not create a RAW option to do one shot kill on a 400 MDC. (are there not some small SDC dinosaurs on the books?)

The author spends a good portion of the intro discussing the reasoning behind one shot kills or other methods of avoiding straight up destruction of MDC (as I noted). And he talks about MDC dinosaurs. And only MDC dinosaurs are listed in this book.

If one cannot deal with, or does not like the idea of creating one's own mechanics for the frequent situations players find themselves in where they are not given specific instructions or mechanics in the books, then don't play that way.

I do not, however, think the books were designed to only allow for exactly that which is written in them. The rules are guidelines to help create further rules where circumstances require. I think this is true of most old school RPGs.

If it makes sense, find a way to roll it.

It is about RAW not house rules.
If the mechanics do not exist in writing then it is a house rule.
And while you may agree with the house rules others may have problem with avoiding actually dealing with the MDC of the target. Some may even feel that doing so is cheating the system and throw the M word in the mix.
So while you may feel the text justifies the house rule others would disagree.

I doubt a section on a house rule justification will over turn the fact some one is using RAW and wanting justification in that sense.

Jorick wrote:

Blue_Lion wrote:Without giving mechanics for how the weapon does that, it is just flavor text. Without mecanics to justfy it the text can not create a RAW option to do one shot kill on a 400 MDC. (are there not some small SDC dinosaurs on the books?)

The author spends a good portion of the intro discussing the reasoning behind one shot kills or other methods of avoiding straight up destruction of MDC (as I noted). And he talks about MDC dinosaurs. And only MDC dinosaurs are listed in this book.

If one cannot deal with, or does not like the idea of creating one's own mechanics for the frequent situations players find themselves in where they are not given specific instructions or mechanics in the books, then don't play that way.

I do not, however, think the books were designed to only allow for exactly that which is written in them. The rules are guidelines to help create further rules where circumstances require. I think this is true of most old school RPGs.

If it makes sense, find a way to roll it.

Ok. People can feel that way.

I tend to think of house rules as changing the RAW.

What I'm suggesting, in my mind, is not a change, but a rule for a player's decision not expressly spelled out in the RAW. In general, MDC is some approximation of the entirety of the thing being attacked (whether it's every atom, or just the practical viability, or something in between...it's pretty broad what it could be). It makes sense that a player would want to take out a part of a thing. Hence rules for parts of robots. Or the suggestions in Dinosaur Swamp.

It makes sense that some things (maybe not everything) can be one shot by attacking specific elements of those things. You can reasonably kill human with one good hit from an SDC knife, even though that's not in the RAW. You can do the same to (at least some) MDC beings with an MDC implement.


EDIT: and I also think it's pretty much how one's supposed to play the game, or the kind of activity expected of players when the game is designed/written.

House rules do not change RAW, but how you play the game. RAW is rules as written and house rules do not change what is written.
AS a GM you have every right to create house rules or ignore RAW as is best for your game, but that does not change the RAW.

It may make sense to you but is not supported by the mechincs of RAW.

I actually have house rules that cover things not in raw such as weapon design but I would not use those rules to justify something in the boards hear that is not supported by RAW.

If you look at KC post he is addressing things in RAW not his personal groups house rules. You then provide a justification for house rule quote, instead of a mechanical support. He tends to stick to debating things as they are in books in my experience.

Blue_Lion wrote:House rules do not change RAW, but how you play the game. RAW is rules as written and house rules do not change what is written.
AS a GM you have every right to create house rules or ignore RAW as is best for your game, but that does not change the RAW.

It may make sense to you but is not supported by the mechincs of RAW.

I actually have house rules that cover things not in raw such as weapon design but I would not use those rules to justify something in the boards hear that is not supported by RAW.

If you look at KC post he is addressing things in RAW not his personal groups house rules. You then provide a justification for house rule quote, instead of a mechanical support. He tends to stick to debating things as they are in books in my experience.

Not sure what you're trying to argue here.

The OP wasn't asking a question about the RAW, or asking for help with the RAW. He was wondering if anyone found value in one-shot kills. People had a problem with one-shot kills on thick skinned beings. I don't think the books have that problem. They just don't spell out the mechanics for every being.

We know KC is explicitly going by the RAW, and no further. That's what this conversation revolves around. One could make the argument that sticking WITHIN the RAW, and not creating similar rules for situations as they arise, goes against many other things written in the books.

My contention is that this kind of RPG is not meant to be played like a board game. The story comes first, then the rules, instead of the other way around. I think KS has tried pretty hard to express that in various ways. I think most old school RPGs are built this way. I think the amount of crying about the inconsistencies or difficulties with the RAW on these boards is evidence that playing strictly within the rules, as an end in and of itself, is not very workable.

If it is workable to you, or to whomever, and it's more fun that way, then please do so. But reasonable one-shotting, with reasonable rolls involved, is not "cheating." It's very much in the spirit of the rules of the game.

Alrik Vas wrote:So in most RPGs, we have health as an abstract. You can get shot, stabbed, even fall off a cliff and it doesn't kill you unless it brings you to zero or some kind of negative. In many games, it doesn't even slow you down until you're dead...which is just stopping.

Even in more lethal games, there is still a capacity to survive a mass of injury. However, in rifts in particular, there is a possibility for a relative paper cut to issue a kill in the meeting of SDC and MDC.

I can understand why being instantly killed is undesired, it takes you out of the game, eliminates a character you spent time developing and can be a real bummer. However, I've found that this kind of imminent death can really up the quality of play. It makes battles less frequent, encourages planning and keeps people thinking.

It isn't for everyone, true, but it can be a lot of fun.

So the point of the post is to see what experiences are best. Palladium, even in SDC settings, has a better grasp on injury vs death because of HP (vitals) and SDC (Clint Eastwood damage). Some optional rules even direct us to deal damage direct to HP with certain lethal attacks.

So I pose the question: Should 1-shot kills be more common in Palladium's system or should they remain simply a product of luck on rolling critical hits when striking vital areas with a massively powerful weapon?
This comes from my basic assertion that overall in Rifts, the shield is mightier than the sword.

My opinion?
No 1-shot kills should not be more common. The problem with 1-shot kill mechanics is that it massively tilts the playing field in favor of the PCs.
The reason I say that is that the PCs have no meta-game information when they set up their 1HKs. However the GM is incapable of not-having meta-information when doing so. This means that the PCs can literally use 1HK tactics in every fight and 'get away with it' But when the GM does so it edges into 'Killer GM' territory since the GM is, effectively using their GM power to instantly kill a PC with no or highly limited chance for survival.
To put more plainly. The PCs are not the ones that are making the setting, so if they choose to set up a sniper shot on an NPC, its because the GM puts the sniper position and NPC in the game. But if the GM is the one sniping the PC, the only choice the PC had was if they were playing.....

That's a grim view of gaming and in my experience, unrealistic. When I was a teenager, I came across manipulative, megalomaniac players and GMs, but most of them grew up or quit gaming.

A great burden is on the GM in meta, that's true, but saying the players bare no responsibility is going a bit far.

You're telling the story together.

Edit: but let me be clear that I don't see your opinion as invalid. I just haven't had the same experience overall.

Jorick wrote:

Blue_Lion wrote:House rules do not change RAW, but how you play the game. RAW is rules as written and house rules do not change what is written.
AS a GM you have every right to create house rules or ignore RAW as is best for your game, but that does not change the RAW.

It may make sense to you but is not supported by the mechincs of RAW.

I actually have house rules that cover things not in raw such as weapon design but I would not use those rules to justify something in the boards hear that is not supported by RAW.

If you look at KC post he is addressing things in RAW not his personal groups house rules. You then provide a justification for house rule quote, instead of a mechanical support. He tends to stick to debating things as they are in books in my experience.

Not sure what you're trying to argue here.

The OP wasn't asking a question about the RAW, or asking for help with the RAW. He was wondering if anyone found value in one-shot kills. People had a problem with one-shot kills on thick skinned beings. I don't think the books have that problem. They just don't spell out the mechanics for every being.

We know KC is explicitly going by the RAW, and no further. That's what this conversation revolves around. One could make the argument that sticking WITHIN the RAW, and not creating similar rules for situations as they arise, goes against many other things written in the books.

My contention is that this kind of RPG is not meant to be played like a board game. The story comes first, then the rules, instead of the other way around. I think KS has tried pretty hard to express that in various ways. I think most old school RPGs are built this way. I think the amount of crying about the inconsistencies or difficulties with the RAW on these boards is evidence that playing strictly within the rules, as an end in and of itself, is not very workable.

If it is workable to you, or to whomever, and it's more fun that way, then please do so. But reasonable one-shotting, with reasonable rolls involved, is not "cheating." It's very much in the spirit of the rules of the game.

If you scroll up you will see it started as me addressing some one providing a quote asked for by KC that did not address any way what KC said.

When some one is asking for justification from the books for deviating from the rules that he has found written in the books, and reply is house rule justification you did not truly address RAW.

(I have already said that you are in your own game free to make what changes you want but that does not change RAW.) We can not debate house rules as every ones are different we can only debate RAW as most have the books.

My personal view is that one shot kills are outside off the spirit of a high HP stile game. Employing this can really screw the balance and challenge factor. It is more likely to tilt the field in favor of the players as they can now create one shot kills on super hard to kill NPC, but most GM will not use it back as constantly killing PCs can ruin the game for allot of people.

Blue_Lion wrote:

Jorick wrote:

Blue_Lion wrote:House rules do not change RAW, but how you play the game. RAW is rules as written and house rules do not change what is written.
AS a GM you have every right to create house rules or ignore RAW as is best for your game, but that does not change the RAW.

It may make sense to you but is not supported by the mechincs of RAW.

I actually have house rules that cover things not in raw such as weapon design but I would not use those rules to justify something in the boards hear that is not supported by RAW.

If you look at KC post he is addressing things in RAW not his personal groups house rules. You then provide a justification for house rule quote, instead of a mechanical support. He tends to stick to debating things as they are in books in my experience.

Not sure what you're trying to argue here.

The OP wasn't asking a question about the RAW, or asking for help with the RAW. He was wondering if anyone found value in one-shot kills. People had a problem with one-shot kills on thick skinned beings. I don't think the books have that problem. They just don't spell out the mechanics for every being.

We know KC is explicitly going by the RAW, and no further. That's what this conversation revolves around. One could make the argument that sticking WITHIN the RAW, and not creating similar rules for situations as they arise, goes against many other things written in the books.

My contention is that this kind of RPG is not meant to be played like a board game. The story comes first, then the rules, instead of the other way around. I think KS has tried pretty hard to express that in various ways. I think most old school RPGs are built this way. I think the amount of crying about the inconsistencies or difficulties with the RAW on these boards is evidence that playing strictly within the rules, as an end in and of itself, is not very workable.

If it is workable to you, or to whomever, and it's more fun that way, then please do so. But reasonable one-shotting, with reasonable rolls involved, is not "cheating." It's very much in the spirit of the rules of the game.

If you scroll up you will see it started as me addressing some one providing a quote asked for by KC that did not address any way what KC said.

When some one is asking for justification from the books for deviating from the rules that he has found written in the books, and reply is house rule justification you did not truly address RAW.

(I have already said that you are in your own game free to make what changes you want but that does not change RAW.) We can not debate house rules as every ones are different we can only debate RAW as most have the books.

I think maybe you missed the conversation before that. We'd been talking about the content of Dinosaur Swamp for a few posts. The quote about the gun was what he explicitly asked for, not an argument.

Use super powers.
Some increase the chance to critical hit, others increase damage some even offer powerful ranged attacks. Lol.

Seriously though, I when the party is dying in a relatively easy encounter (300-400 troops in body armor etc) will ...
Add my sterious reinforcements, some of the pc's attacks (fire for example) inflict double damage, Deific intervention, somehow the villians are beset by lifedrain or another helpful debilitating spell, also the storm tropper rifle training(anything under 18 misses)

As far as one hit kills....not possible unless you deal at least 25% of the total mdc in one shot.
In this case a JA12 pulse on a good hit deals 50md, called shot to the head 17 or better and of course the due roll must be 14 or you miss no matter bonuses. For double damage 100md. If you crit thats 200md!! You got big ugly head clean off at 4000 FEET!!

eliakon wrote:My opinion?
No 1-shot kills should not be more common. The problem with 1-shot kill mechanics is that it massively tilts the playing field in favor of the PCs.
The reason I say that is that the PCs have no meta-game information when they set up their 1HKs. However the GM is incapable of not-having meta-information when doing so. This means that the PCs can literally use 1HK tactics in every fight and 'get away with it' But when the GM does so it edges into 'Killer GM' territory since the GM is, effectively using their GM power to instantly kill a PC with no or highly limited chance for survival.
To put more plainly. The PCs are not the ones that are making the setting, so if they choose to set up a sniper shot on an NPC, its because the GM puts the sniper position and NPC in the game. But if the GM is the one sniping the PC, the only choice the PC had was if they were playing.....

I like this as an argument against. However, I think it can be made for most things in game. The GM is always in control. The GM has to measure what he puts in front of a player. A sniper is bad without the player being able to avoid it. An ancient dragon is bad if the players are 2 city rats and a cyber doc.

The story is what matters. The players will want to do things to be clever and heroic. Let them, within reason. And put whatever in their way as long as they have a chance to stop it.

You could have the sniper about to shoot an NPC the heroes need to save. They could know about the sniper somehow in advance, etc. But the danger is still very real to them, and they still have to be careful. No marching into unknown territory without a care in the world, without some recon and intelligence, because, yes, a sniper, or an ancient dragon, could be right around the corner.

Jorick wrote:

Blue_Lion wrote:

Jorick wrote:

Blue_Lion wrote:House rules do not change RAW, but how you play the game. RAW is rules as written and house rules do not change what is written.
AS a GM you have every right to create house rules or ignore RAW as is best for your game, but that does not change the RAW.

It may make sense to you but is not supported by the mechincs of RAW.

I actually have house rules that cover things not in raw such as weapon design but I would not use those rules to justify something in the boards hear that is not supported by RAW.

If you look at KC post he is addressing things in RAW not his personal groups house rules. You then provide a justification for house rule quote, instead of a mechanical support. He tends to stick to debating things as they are in books in my experience.

I did read it. He stated how RAW treated a situation and asked for a quote from mechanics for the gun that showed diffrent mechanic. The flavor text from the gun can be countered by the on the books SDC dinasours. No where did you list a quote of mechnics.

Not sure what you're trying to argue here.

The OP wasn't asking a question about the RAW, or asking for help with the RAW. He was wondering if anyone found value in one-shot kills. People had a problem with one-shot kills on thick skinned beings. I don't think the books have that problem. They just don't spell out the mechanics for every being.

We know KC is explicitly going by the RAW, and no further. That's what this conversation revolves around. One could make the argument that sticking WITHIN the RAW, and not creating similar rules for situations as they arise, goes against many other things written in the books.

My contention is that this kind of RPG is not meant to be played like a board game. The story comes first, then the rules, instead of the other way around. I think KS has tried pretty hard to express that in various ways. I think most old school RPGs are built this way. I think the amount of crying about the inconsistencies or difficulties with the RAW on these boards is evidence that playing strictly within the rules, as an end in and of itself, is not very workable.

If it is workable to you, or to whomever, and it's more fun that way, then please do so. But reasonable one-shotting, with reasonable rolls involved, is not "cheating." It's very much in the spirit of the rules of the game.

If you scroll up you will see it started as me addressing some one providing a quote asked for by KC that did not address any way what KC said.

When some one is asking for justification from the books for deviating from the rules that he has found written in the books, and reply is house rule justification you did not truly address RAW.

(I have already said that you are in your own game free to make what changes you want but that does not change RAW.) We can not debate house rules as every ones are different we can only debate RAW as most have the books.

I think maybe you missed the conversation before that. We'd been talking about the content of Dinosaur Swamp for a few posts. The quote about the gun was what he explicitly asked for, not an argument.

I have read it. If you look KC stated the mechanic that applied in RAW and asked for the quote on the weapon that people are placing on a pedestal as saying things are different.
The weapons flavor text does not provide a mechanic to counter the rules KC posted and is counted by the fact there are SDC dinosaurs on the books that it could 1 shot.

You are simply using dinosaur swamp to try justify house rules but no change is supported to raw from any of the quotes provided.

I say Munchkin UP!
One shot kills and crits dealing sseveral hundred megadamage are common in my games.
Add in Sharpshooting bonuses to hand to hand weapons call it Weapons Mastery.
Add in more pc's with supernatural strength. (The top tier damage power in heroes unlimited)
If you want larger than life battles and roleplaying let your players use larger than life characters.

Blue_Lion wrote:
I have read it. If you look KC stated the mechanic that applied in RAW and asked for the quote on the weapon that people are placing on a pedestal as saying things are different.
The weapons flavor text does not provide a mechanic to counter the rules KC posted and is counted by the fact there are SDC dinosaurs on the books that it could 1 shot.

You are simply using dinosaur swamp to try justify house rules but no change is supported to raw from any of the quotes provided.

You're reading that exchange differently than I do.

KC wanted an example of a situation, not a mechanic. When I said "a rule can be made for a specific situation" he agreed and said "But I don't see the point of house-ruling new weaknesses into existing powerhouse enemies in order to kill those enemies faster by exploiting the new made-up weakness..."

He also said, about vampire weaknesses "I think the fact that Palladium spells out such unusual weaknesses indicates that Brodkill don't have any."

I responded by recalling, inexactly, that some gun in Dinosaur Swamp talked about one shotting dinosaurs, in support of the idea that the creators of the game do indeed imagine weaknesses in monsters, despite the fact that they do not spell each one out.

KC is the one that found a n entire section supporting this, and quoted the very mechanic presented. However, my further points were that this mechanic applied to the damage done to things like eyes (and the brains behind them) and joints and other weak spots. That entire section in the book (not the one with the gun, but related to it) is about doing damage to weak points, and the reasoning behind such action.




That gun's text may be "flavor text," but it is written after a discussion about dinosaur hunters and their techniques, and the fact that energy weapons are overly damaging of the flesh, and it's the only gun in the book that is expressly made for the purpose of hunting big game. That suggests to me that the gun was written to be a gun that should be able to (not always) one shot dinosaurs. The weakest dinosaur in the book cannot be one shot (in the head--or anywhere) by that gun doing three times it's damage (the mechanic expressed in the earlier section). It must be doing damage to the "eyes" "brains" "joints" or that part of the back Yoho spends a while talking about that makes the animal bleed out in order for 3D6 to be a one shot. There is no listing of MDC for these parts of the creature. Therefore this is evidence, probably the best in the books, but not the only, that the creators expect rules to be created for reasonable/reasoned "realistic" situations.

It may not be the creators of the whole game but the writer of that book that perceives the one shot weakness.
AS I pointed out not all dinos are MDC so it does not really equate to justifying a 1 shot kill of a 400 MD creature at best a ruling of critical strike.

What KC posted was not rules for a one shot kill but that the weapon used in this way gets a damage multiplier, same as critical strike. So you are justifying a 1 shot kill when he is saying it is a damage multiplier. With no quote from a book that provides a mechanic for a 1 shot kill on a high MD creature with a 1d6MD weapon.

Blue_Lion wrote:It may not be the creators of the whole game but the writer of that book that perceives the one shot weakness.
AS I pointed out not all dinos are MDC so it does not really equate to justifying a 1 shot kill of a 400 MD creature at best a ruling of critical strike.

That's a perfectly fine opinion, and if that's how you feel it's best to play the game, then by all means. My opinion is that doing so takes away from the game. No matter how much you want to "rules lawyer" what they, a number of the writers, and the editor, seem to be saying throughout the books, and fit all that they say into a strict rules as written regimen, without any ability to create story outside those rules, or to understand the world outside the rules, I simply do not see that as the case. Story comes first. The rules are written to help move/create the story.

eliakon wrote:

Alrik Vas wrote:
So I pose the question: Should 1-shot kills be more common in Palladium's system or should they remain simply a product of luck on rolling critical hits when striking vital areas with a massively powerful weapon?
This comes from my basic assertion that overall in Rifts, the shield is mightier than the sword.

My opinion?
No 1-shot kills should not be more common. The problem with 1-shot kill mechanics is that it massively tilts the playing field in favor of the PCs.
The reason I say that is that the PCs have no meta-game information when they set up their 1HKs. However the GM is incapable of not-having meta-information when doing so. This means that the PCs can literally use 1HK tactics in every fight and 'get away with it' But when the GM does so it edges into 'Killer GM' territory since the GM is, effectively using their GM power to instantly kill a PC with no or highly limited chance for survival.
To put more plainly. The PCs are not the ones that are making the setting, so if they choose to set up a sniper shot on an NPC, its because the GM puts the sniper position and NPC in the game. But if the GM is the one sniping the PC, the only choice the PC had was if they were playing.....

Hm.
Good point.

Alrik Vas wrote:That's a grim view of gaming and in my experience, unrealistic. When I was a teenager, I came across manipulative, megalomaniac players and GMs, but most of them grew up or quit gaming.

A great burden is on the GM in meta, that's true, but saying the players bare no responsibility is going a bit far.

You're telling the story together.

Edit: but let me be clear that I don't see your opinion as invalid. I just haven't had the same experience overall.

I don't see how this has anything to do with players and GMs being manipulative or immature. Nor does it mean that gamers just need to 'grow up' to play with 1HK (which frankly is an insulting thing to say)
What it means is that the players can use things in the game, because those things exist in the game already because the GM put them there. They are not responsible for making those things, and thus there is no possible way that they can be abusing them. They didn't make the world.
The GM on the other hand by definition can not use things that they did not make. When they put a sniper in to shoot at the players the GM created that sniper. The players didn't make a sniper and then go off to see if it can kill them from total surprise. The GM made it up. ANYTHING the GM does the GM is making up. Ergo when the GM makes up something that has the possibility of killing the player, in 1 hit with no chance to defend by definition the GM is choosing to kill that player. That is what I mean by it is, at best the edge of Killer GM territory. At worst it is the archetypical 'rocks fall'. It has nothing to do with the maturity of the players. It is simply a fact of how the mechanics work. If you are putting stuff in that kills players in one hit, then by definition your killing the players. If you use the same tactics the same as the players then you have either a lot of dead players or a lot of bad guys holding idiot balls who are too stupid to use the obvious successful tactics that the PCs can.

Jorick wrote:

Blue_Lion wrote:It may not be the creators of the whole game but the writer of that book that perceives the one shot weakness.
AS I pointed out not all dinos are MDC so it does not really equate to justifying a 1 shot kill of a 400 MD creature at best a ruling of critical strike.

That's a perfectly fine opinion, and if that's how you feel it's best to play the game, then by all means. My opinion is that doing so takes away from the game. No matter how much you want to "rules lawyer" what they, a number of the writers, and the editor, seem to be saying throughout the books, and fit all that they say into a strict rules as written regimen, without any ability to create story outside those rules, or to understand the world outside the rules, I simply do not see that as the case. Story comes first. The rules are written to help move/create the story.

I never said you could not use house rules just that the quotes provided do not justify a 1 shot kill in PB fallowing RAW. To me you are your argument comes across as rules lawyering to cheat the system and justify 1 shot a powerful creature with a weak weapon. I was merely pointing out that the weapon does not provide a mechanic to one shot with.

Eliakon, that's an interesting thing to take offense from. Wasn't intended.

I'm any case, I didn't imply that using 1HK is required for growing up as a gamer. I find it difficult to not place responsibility (in part) on the players if they want to play the game with the rules provided.

Pass out Soul drinkers.

Jorick wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Jorick wrote:KC, also from DS:

"A well placed head shot will kill just about anything, and if the weapon at hand wont pierce the hide or skull, or do much damage, the eye is a perfectly viable target."

Correct.
Notice how the first part is contingent on the weapon being able to penetrate the skull.
And notice that while the eye is a "viable target," ultimately the result of hitting it is the x2-x3 damage that I already quoted.

The gun, in the same book, that is mentioned as being able to one shot dinosaurs, does 1D6 MD.

I'm not near my books now.
Care to give an exact quote on that?

There is no MDC given for any eye of a dinosaur (or anything other than an alien intelligence). The result of taking out the eye, or a "joint" or anything else he talks about in that section would have to be determined by the GM.

Whether or not the eye is destroyed by the attack would indeed fall into the realm of GM's decision, but the outright damage would just go to a damage pool.
The standard for damage distribution in that case is that it goes to the closest damage pool.
If a human is shot in the head, the damage comes from his main SDC/HP damage pool, not from a new pool for his head specifically. That's why such shots do x2 damage; to represent that something vital was hit that doesn't have it's own pool.
Headshots against creatures that have damage pools specifically for their head take x1 damage to the head from head attacks. Creatures with no damage pool for their head take x2 damage from the main.
Likewise, a creature with a specific damage pool for the eye would take x1 damage to the eye, and a creature without that specific damage pool would take x2-x3 damage to the nearest applicable damage pool (the head, or the main damage pool depending).

Reading all of that section "hunting dinosaurs and other creatures" is enlightening. "In terms of straight statistics, it would take a few characters in power armor armed with MD rail guns to stand tow to toe with a T-Rex...", but "such weapons [rail guns, explosives, heavy weapons] don't leave much of the creature left to eat." ... "Even barbarians hunt dinosaurs. How do they manage it?"

He goes on to talk about tricks and traps, then gets to "high tech hunting methods." "Hunting is about the precision placement of a single killing, or at least disabling shot."

Right.
He does NOT talk about killing a dino with hundreds of MDC with a single shot to the head. If THAT was possible/likely, then the hunters wouldn't bother with the tricks, traps, knee-shots, and so forth.

The gun in question is on pg. 75. "The Provider single shot breach loading rifle." Mega Damage 1D6 (it is the only MD weapon in the line). In the description: "In the hands of a Dinosaur Hunter, the rifle has been known to bring down an adult dinosaur with a single shot to the head."

DS 13
Similar winged dinosaurs to the Leatherwing or pterodactyl typically have simnilar builds to the Leatherwing, but are not as big or tough. Take the stats for the Leatherwing and resuce the attributes, MDC, and damage rates by 1d4x10+30%.

Leatherwings have 100 MDC in their head/beak.
Reduce that by 70%, and you're left with 30 MDC.
An Eye Shot for x3 damage to the head, with a Critical HIt (Easier with the Provider), could inflict up to 24 MD, taking out 80% of the target's MDC in 1 shot. That's enough relative damage to arguably pierce the brain, going by the CB1 rules regarding "massive" damage and such.
24 MD against something with hundreds of MDC, though, would not be "massive."
Also, one of these creatures that had been wounded in a fight against another dino (or had simply fallen ill or something), and had taken 6+ MD and had not fully healed would be able to be dropped by a single shot by this rifle using damage alone.

DS 34
Spitfire Leapers have 25 MDC in their head. Again, 24 MD would be "massive" against such a target. Also, the target might have lost 1+ MDC at some point before it encountered the hunter, and not fully healed.

DS 13
All breeds of dinosaur, from the smallest to the gargantuan, make their homes in what once was Florida, Georgia, and the Carolinas.
and
Presented below are dinosaurs common to Dinosaur Swamps...
...These listings are far from exhaustive, and there are many more creatures lurking in Dinosaur Swamp waiting to be discovered.

I think that it's safe to say that with dinosaurs listed in the DS book being almost able to be outright killed from a single shot by that weapon, that there are other dinosaurs that are weaker and easier to kill. There is nothing indicating that the dinos listed are the "smallest" in the swamps.
In fact, there is nothing eliminating the dinosaur stats from the RMB, and IIRC even the post-NW stats included some weaker dinos.