Forums of the Megaverse®

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.

The elimination of the original burst/spray rules makes the game a LOT less lethal, and the GI-Joe rule made matters worse.
Get rid of those rules, and it's pretty bloody... but pretty good.

A good part of the problem is simply the GM's fault, though. If you're trying to simulate the kind of action-movie scene where the main characters quickly and silently take out a guard (or a group of guards) in a few seconds, then don't write the script with guards that take a long time to kill. If you're trying to simulate the kind of epic battle-scene where the main character duke it out with an unusually tough foe, then use a foe that takes them a good while to drop.
Meaning that if your PCs can't drop a 400 MDC brodkil in one round of attacks, and you want the battle to last one round of attacks or so, then don't stick a brodkil into the mix. It's not like there's some shortage of potential enemies to stick into a scene, and even if there was, new ones could easily be created using the random monster generation rules in the RMB or Creatures of Chaos.
Without the burst/spray rules, the damage-per-round of most parties is pretty easy to calculate. I just think that a lot of GMs don't bother with trying.

That's true, a great deal rests with the GM to create a scene that works. Yet they can do it by just changing numbers, working outside the book.

Also, in your example, about taking out guards quietly...did you have anything specific in your mind? I'm envisioning the scene and not picking up much aside unarmored opponents unless they're being jumped in melee by something with excessive supernatural strength.

Alrik Vas wrote:That's true, a great deal rests with the GM to create a scene that works. Yet they can do it by just changing numbers, working outside the book.

Also, in your example, about taking out guards quietly...did you have anything specific in your mind? I'm envisioning the scene and not picking up much aside unarmored opponents unless they're being jumped in melee by something with excessive supernatural strength.

Unarmored opponents, lightly armored opponents, heavily-armed opponents with a specific vulnerability that the main characters know about, seemingly badass opponents who turn out to be cowards who immediately surrender... there's all kinds of ways to make a quick fight.

It all depends on what you're working with.
Say you have a party of 5 PCs with vibro-swords. That's a potential of around 35 MDC per round of melee attacks.
For a really quick fight, set them up to dogpile a guy in Plastic-Man (35 MDC), and even if he parries and such, he should be down by the 2nd round of attacks.
Two guys in Plastic Man would last about twice as long... which is still less than one full melee round.
You want a more dramatic (but short) fight, put them up against 5-6 guards wearing homespun armor that has about 10 MDC each.

I still see a lot of one-shot kills for a very simple reason; I emphasize that people don't live in armor. If they're not expecting to be shot at, players are very likely to find their enemies with at least their helmets off. It does go both ways though, I penalize characters for spending extended periods in their armor and require mental endurance checks to resist getting more comfortable when there's no obvious threat. I had a group sniper a witch's head off a few weeks ago. It was a nice reminder that they're carrying death-rays and a great contrast with the cyborgs they had to deal with as part of the same encounter..

I like some back-and-forth. It gives the damage numbers more meaning, and allows more time for retreating and such. With so many suits of armor being ancient-but-oft-repaired, attrition fighting is how I view a lot of rifts combat.

One compromise I have done in my games is to give MDC critters split pools too.
You have MDC and MHP. This allows for 'direct to HP' attacks to still have that scary 'they are not messing around' vibe while still having the 'its just a flesh wound' action movie/anime vibe of huge damage pools.

I do hit location multipliers.

say652 wrote:I do hit location multipliers.

White Wolf does that, I like the idea.

Killer Cyborg wrote:The elimination of the original burst/spray rules makes the game a LOT less lethal, and the GI-Joe rule made matters worse.
Get rid of those rules, and it's pretty bloody... but pretty good.

A good part of the problem is simply the GM's fault, though. If you're trying to simulate the kind of action-movie scene where the main characters quickly and silently take out a guard (or a group of guards) in a few seconds, then don't write the script with guards that take a long time to kill. If you're trying to simulate the kind of epic battle-scene where the main character duke it out with an unusually tough foe, then use a foe that takes them a good while to drop.
Meaning that if your PCs can't drop a 400 MDC brodkil in one round of attacks, and you want the battle to last one round of attacks or so, then don't stick a brodkil into the mix. It's not like there's some shortage of potential enemies to stick into a scene, and even if there was, new ones could easily be created using the random monster generation rules in the RMB or Creatures of Chaos.
Without the burst/spray rules, the damage-per-round of most parties is pretty easy to calculate. I just think that a lot of GMs don't bother with trying.

Yeah, this is the perfect answer. Save that 400 MDC brodkil for the "boss battle" portion of the adventure. To get to him, throw a bunch or Orcs in plastic man armor armed with Wilks laser pistols and vibro swords first to create a Sucker Punch type of battle.

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.

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.

My modifiers.
Head, heart called shot 14 or higher.
Times three damage.
Eye cost two attacks called shot 14 no bonuses.
Times ten damage.

I once killed an entire planed adventure with a natural 20 on a called shot on a major opponents eye.
And I believe it should be luck, and not commonplace.
A 400 MDC broadkill should not dye in a single round, unless he's dumb enough to face a pair of Glitterboys in ranged combat..... Four players could and should know it's hard to kill, it has more MDC then some power armors for a reason....

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.

While I do agree that whittling down hundreds of hit points, SDC, MDC, health levels, etc. (depending on the rules set) is boring and leads to long combat, taking the opposite approach allowing non-combat methods for achieving goals, one shot kills (or one burst, making machine guns in RPGs truly effective), eliminating the GI Joe rule and truly competent enemies, a lot of groups will...be surprised.

A lot has to do with genre conventions and what is allowed, expected. Dirty tricks and quick deaths are a staple of Cyberpunk and Shadowrun style games, where the PCS are bad ass but will never be able to challenge a MegaCorp. Survival Horror games like Call of Cthulhu and Beyond the Supernatural posit that PCS are not bad ass and better be smart and paranoid to simply survive and maybe take out a small cult once in a while. Superhero games posit that PCS can be street level all the way up to megaversal powers (similar to Rifts) but the idea is that colleral damage is expensive, mostly non-lethal, bystanders don't get hurt and the populace loves you, although Heroes Unlimited does make their setting a bit more plausible with death more likely than in other games and the heroes need to be very heroic or be labelled anti-heroes or villains. In war themed games, the PCS can either be common soldiers doing their duty and trying not to die, or elite soldiers doing their best to win the war one mission at a time. In heroic fantasy , the trope is start off as some low level, know nothing nobody and through force of arms and potent magic work your way to a position of power such that kings and emperors speak of you in deference.

If you change the genre conventions, it may lead to unhappy players. I am notorious for having the same GM style regardless of the game. In D&D, if a PC can get their hands on it, you better bet that the king can as well. If wizards want to play scry and die, well so can the evil cult. Basically, I play by Cyberpunk rules in all my games, so when new players show up thinking that lots of HP, SDC or MDC is going to make life easy, they are surprised when the bad guys use called shots, cover, withdraw from combat and I make the group track their ammo, repair costs, food and other things that are handwaved away in most games. To be fair, the dice are always in the PCs favor, since the enemies usually have all the other advantages, and if they can describe what they want to do, I will usually let them roll the dice just to make sure they don't roll a critical failure, and let them succeed.

But if the PCs are stupid, like attacking a planet with a small fighter...then they die for being stupid.

TL,DR the genre conventions inform the rules in use, not going with convention can lead to surprised and unhappy players.

-STS

When did the Brodkil go from being something who could destroy the average Rifts PC to being a throwaway Shock-trooper? Those things are SCARY.

I guess a level 1 Shifter now being able to control 2 of them in RUE is a reflection of them paling in comparison to accruing power creep.

I guess the stuff in the random creation tables at the back of RMB could've rivalled a Brodkil in SB1/Triax. Shifters could start off summoning those. But it didn't last indefinitely and cost a huge amount of PPE and there weren't any 'store PPE over your max' rules, meaning you had to have talismans or else peopel in a ritual or a time of advanced power to make use of it.

slade the sniper wrote:While I do agree that whittling down hundreds of hit points, SDC, MDC, health levels, etc. (depending on the rules set) is boring and leads to long combat, taking the opposite approach allowing non-combat methods for achieving goals, one shot kills (or one burst, making machine guns in RPGs truly effective), eliminating the GI Joe rule and truly competent enemies, a lot of groups will...be surprised.

One thing I like about the longer fights, is it allows people to try and talk during fights, convince the other side to stop fighting, use tricks, etc..


Being able to empty a full e-clip and kill someone means that there's often little reason not to- since they'll do it *first* if you don't. But if you have a slower combat, you can convince them to surrender if they're losing, let them go in exchange for (x), and so on.

Emptying your mag every available action and failing puts you at the utter mercy of your enemy. Reload time isn't very forgiving.

Alrik Vas wrote:Emptying your mag every available action and failing puts you at the utter mercy of your enemy. Reload time isn't very forgiving.

Also, ammunition is expensive if you play by the book.
Also, it's not always available.

1 action is pretty forgiving.

It's not as if being able to shoot back at your opponent makes you more able to dodge their hits.

The point of combat is to defeat the enemy in the shortest, most efficient way possible. Some enemies will be less willing to kill, want to parlay, surrender, run away, etc. but you should temper those encounters with some truly sneaky murderous enemies. Every dirty trick the PCs use, they should use as well. Mine the escape path from the L shaped ambush, confirm the kills, concentrating fire on the strongest enemies, suppress the weaker PCs so they can't help the stronger ones. Use smoke, use flash bangs, use indirect fire, use infiltration, all of it.

It has to be about making it fun, but challenging... because if the PCs ever think they are in charge of the world, the challenge goes away and the game suffers.

"Listen up you primitive screwheads" (an old GM supplement for Cyberpunk by R. Falsifiable Games) had some great advice for how to keep a game challenging, lethal and fun

-STS

I have no problem implementing it in game if the players want it. But I would warn them that the baddies have the same opportunity they do if we put this into effect. Its all in the dice.

Tor wrote:1 action is pretty forgiving.

It's not as if being able to shoot back at your opponent makes you more able to dodge their hits.

Reloading takes 2 actions. And if your enemy is interested in dodging, they either don't shoot back at all, or take a penalty because they dodged while trying to fire back.

So actually, it does make it easier.

Alrik, you don't seem to realise that the odds eventually come. If there's a one in two hundred chance of being one shot killed, after about 200 attacks, that character is dead.

If you were talking about one shot being made unconcious and slowly dying, I'd get you.

But a one shot kill is a character who will just eventually die (unless your campaign ends before the odds of his death come up - and even then he might still die early)

Tor wrote:1 action is pretty forgiving.

It's not as if being able to shoot back at your opponent makes you more able to dodge their hits.

Right. And if they're down, then the reloading time becomes very forgiving.

If you have multiple people all unloading a full clip, you're almost certain to take a chunk of the opposition down, which reduces the amount of return fire that they *can* dish out.


Plus, aside from reloading, there's the possibility of simply carrying multiple guns, for the purpose of unloading on the spot then reloading after, so you can save on action economy there too.

It makes the tactical scenario a case of unload as fast as possible (least your opponent do so first), and carry multiple guns if possible.


Which is why I don't favor including it.

Noon wrote:Alrik, you don't seem to realise that the odds eventually come. If there's a one in two hundred chance of being one shot killed, after about 200 attacks, that character is dead.

If you were talking about one shot being made unconcious and slowly dying, I'd get you.

But a one shot kill is a character who will just eventually die (unless your campaign ends before the odds of his death come up - and even then he might still die early)

Actually, I do very much realize it. And even more so, if I were advocating for any hit being a kill, the odds are better than 1:200, even better than 1:20.

That's why I wouldn't play with all hits kill. My post calls the abstraction of health in RPGs out, I think there is a better, more intense and more exciting way to do it. I think a one hit kill should be more possible, but rarely automatic.

It takes skill and the right tools. Odds are that planning and tactical awareness make it happen more reliably than just casting the die and hoping for luck. What I find bothersome is the hero padding a lot of games do, but I don't think it should be completely unforgiving either. It is still a game and they're supposed to be fun. Though I like tense, hair raising challenges.

Alrik Vas wrote:

Noon wrote:Alrik, you don't seem to realise that the odds eventually come. If there's a one in two hundred chance of being one shot killed, after about 200 attacks, that character is dead.

If you were talking about one shot being made unconcious and slowly dying, I'd get you.

But a one shot kill is a character who will just eventually die (unless your campaign ends before the odds of his death come up - and even then he might still die early)

Actually, I do very much realize it. And even more so, if I were advocating for any hit being a kill, the odds are better than 1:200, even better than 1:20.

That's why I wouldn't play with all hits kill. My post calls the abstraction of health in RPGs out, I think there is a better, more intense and more exciting way to do it. I think a one hit kill should be more possible, but rarely automatic.

He's not talking about all hits automatically killing.

What he's saying is that if one-shotting somebody without blowing through their MDC is possible at all in regular combat, then it's going to happen to the PCs at some point.
If a guy with a 1d6 MD vibro-blade can kill a 400 MDC Brodkil with one blow, then an NPC with a vibro-blade can kill a PC Hatchling Dragon with one blow.
Even if the odds of it happening are only 1 in 200, the odds are good that a PC will be attacked 200 times over the lifespan of the character.

It takes skill and the right tools. Odds are that planning and tactical awareness make it happen more reliably than just casting the die and hoping for luck. What I find bothersome is the hero padding a lot of games do, but I don't think it should be completely unforgiving either. It is still a game and they're supposed to be fun. Though I like tense, hair raising challenges.

I'm not sure how one-shotting a 400 MDC Brodkil is a tense, hair-raising challenge.
It seems like it takes the challenge out of things.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Alrik Vas wrote:

Noon wrote:Alrik, you don't seem to realise that the odds eventually come. If there's a one in two hundred chance of being one shot killed, after about 200 attacks, that character is dead.

If you were talking about one shot being made unconcious and slowly dying, I'd get you.

But a one shot kill is a character who will just eventually die (unless your campaign ends before the odds of his death come up - and even then he might still die early)

Actually, I do very much realize it. And even more so, if I were advocating for any hit being a kill, the odds are better than 1:200, even better than 1:20.

That's why I wouldn't play with all hits kill. My post calls the abstraction of health in RPGs out, I think there is a better, more intense and more exciting way to do it. I think a one hit kill should be more possible, but rarely automatic.

He's not talking about all hits automatically killing.

What he's saying is that if one-shotting somebody without blowing through their MDC is possible at all in regular combat, then it's going to happen to the PCs at some point.
If a guy with a 1d6 MD vibro-blade can kill a 400 MDC Brodkil with one blow, then an NPC with a vibro-blade can kill a PC Hatchling Dragon with one blow.
Even if the odds of it happening are only 1 in 200, the odds are good that a PC will be attacked 200 times over the lifespan of the character.

It takes skill and the right tools. Odds are that planning and tactical awareness make it happen more reliably than just casting the die and hoping for luck. What I find bothersome is the hero padding a lot of games do, but I don't think it should be completely unforgiving either. It is still a game and they're supposed to be fun. Though I like tense, hair raising challenges.

I'm not sure how one-shotting a 400 MDC Brodkil is a tense, hair-raising challenge.
It seems like it takes the challenge out of things.

That a player can one shot a Brodkil does not mean that the character will do so every time. The challenge comes in figuring out how to best be able to do so. The strategy is all the more important, as if the character fails, the Brodkil has the chance to retaliate.

The character should be aware they can be one shot. In Rifts it should be pretty obvious. I think players should often be put in situations where they could be one shot. They're at an inn. They are not sleeping in their EBA. They go to the bar in the evening to get a drink, and are not wearing armor like everyone else, and are unarmed cause they gave up their guns. Bandits walk into the bar, guns in hand, and cause trouble for some patron, or the owner or whatever. Security may or may not be inbound. What do the characters do in the meantime. If fired upon, and hit, they will die.


If the player can shoot a Brodkil in the eye, and either kill it or pretty much take it out, then the Brodkil should be able to do the same to the player. The player should be aware of this, and, like in the bar scene above, act accordingly. However, the GM might also kinda want the players to feel pretty badass and have fun. The Coalition Soldiers take pot shots and shoot wild at the players, scared of their awesomeness. Eventually the players run into the CS Special Forces assassin. He doesn't miss.

Yes. The players have a good chance of dying. What's the point of rolling the dice otherwise? There has to be that tension.

Also, I much prefer games of story, strategy and roll-playing one's way out of situations, over round after round of tactical combat. One shot one kill leads to story.

Anything can lead to story.
One-shotting is just a shorter story.

Jorick wrote:The character should be aware they can be one shot. In Rifts it should be pretty obvious. I think players should often be put in situations where they could be one shot. They're at an inn. They are not sleeping in their EBA. They go to the bar in the evening to get a drink, and are not wearing armor like everyone else, and are unarmed cause they gave up their guns. Bandits walk into the bar, guns in hand, and cause trouble for some patron, or the owner or whatever. Security may or may not be inbound. What do the characters do in the meantime. If fired upon, and hit, they will die.

Right.
But this conversation is about opponents who are fully armed, armored, and ready for combat.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Jorick wrote:The character should be aware they can be one shot. In Rifts it should be pretty obvious. I think players should often be put in situations where they could be one shot. They're at an inn. They are not sleeping in their EBA. They go to the bar in the evening to get a drink, and are not wearing armor like everyone else, and are unarmed cause they gave up their guns. Bandits walk into the bar, guns in hand, and cause trouble for some patron, or the owner or whatever. Security may or may not be inbound. What do the characters do in the meantime. If fired upon, and hit, they will die.

Right.
But this conversation is about opponents who are fully armed, armored, and ready for combat.

I was trying to illustrate that the two situations (unready, or armed and ready) aren't really different.

And I was responding to specific points.

So, like, one shotting a 400 MDC Brodkil can be a "tense, hair-raising experience" if there's more to it. 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.


And NPC with a vibro-blade taking out a PC Hatchling Dragon is also "good" in my opinion. The "balance" of a hatchling in RMB is that it's stupid and silly. "I can do anything!" yells the hatchling, as he strolls into the bandit camp. "I'll take care of them all by myself with brute strength and a few spells. No Problem." Not much hair-raising tension there. Until he ignores the bandit with the vibro-bade and ends up having to roll against coma/death for the privilege of being rescued by his friends who are more careful.

It's more exciting (in my opinion) when the friends say "Woah woah, little crazy super-strong buddy. Lets take our time. You go that way, make some noise, get some guards to go away from the camp, cast carpet of adhesion so they don't get to you, and either pick them off or tank them from a distance. We'll come in the other way and do [whatever this encounter calls for]." Or whatever cleverness PCs can come up with.


I don't think it takes away from things when a character makes a low percentage shot to the brain of a demon. A lot can happen before that shot gets off or actually lands. Two demons can make such a possibility for the party mandatory (depending on their power level). It's often that or running away, even if the demons aren't one-shotting anything.

If the fight is too short/unexciting, all things considered, there's always the next one. And the new Brodkil warmaster can have an armor of ithan talisman on him (which makes me realize defensive magic is a really good way to deal with this issue). The more strategy forced upon both the players and the GM, the more tense and hair-raising each encounter gets.

Your examples are pretty dramatic situations. How would you feel about adding drama points to the game? A finite resource that the players can spend to achieve a fortuitous one-shot kill or other unlikely outcome that advances the story in an exciting fashion, but not to instantly take out leaders, recurring villains, and other plot devices that are necessary to the story?

Bill wrote:Your examples are pretty dramatic situations. How would you feel about adding drama points to the game? A finite resource that the players can spend to achieve a fortuitous one-shot kill or other unlikely outcome that advances the story in an exciting fashion, but not to instantly take out leaders, recurring villains, and other plot devices that are necessary to the story?

I think that's a cool idea. But I also think that the GM can do this without making it rule based. I think often the GMs plans are laid to waste by players, regardless of one-shotting. It's up to the GM to create the drama and give the players a way to play it out. This happens in movies a lot, and it's especially easy against good guys. Yes, you could go in and kill the bad guy super quick, but it's the innocents with bombs strapped to them that are the real worry. Etc.

Every encounter is different. It shouldn't, in my opinion, ever be a simple numbers game. Palladium isn't really set up for a numbers game anyway.

Alrik Vas wrote:It takes skill and the right tools. Odds are that planning and tactical awareness make it happen more reliably than just casting the die and hoping for luck. What I find bothersome is the hero padding a lot of games do, but I don't think it should be completely unforgiving either. It is still a game and they're supposed to be fun. Though I like tense, hair raising challenges.

Skills and the right tools strike me as a way to kill someone quickly, but not necessarily one shot. Like if you lure someone into an ambush and then have several people all blast them before they know what's going on, or if you detonate a couple fusion blocks all laying at the person's feat.


Or if you have them immobilized, so you can set up the perfect called shot to the head- but even that isn't exactly a 'one shot' as immobilizing someone that good is normally a multi-step process.

These are all good points, and they're the kinds of situations I'm talking about. I'm just proposing that the system have more opportunity for it to happen, and that the exchange indeed be fair between PC's and their opponents.

And yes, 1 hit killing a 400MDC demon with a knife is exciting as all get out, especially when it's all you've got to use, you have no way to escape and said demon has already crushed two of your comrades like they were paper.

Jorick wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Jorick wrote:The character should be aware they can be one shot. In Rifts it should be pretty obvious. I think players should often be put in situations where they could be one shot. They're at an inn. They are not sleeping in their EBA. They go to the bar in the evening to get a drink, and are not wearing armor like everyone else, and are unarmed cause they gave up their guns. Bandits walk into the bar, guns in hand, and cause trouble for some patron, or the owner or whatever. Security may or may not be inbound. What do the characters do in the meantime. If fired upon, and hit, they will die.

Right.
But this conversation is about opponents who are fully armed, armored, and ready for combat.

I was trying to illustrate that the two situations (unready, or armed and ready) aren't really different.

Except that they are very different.

So, like, one shotting a 400 MDC Brodkil can be a "tense, hair-raising experience" if there's more to it. 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.

That's not a tense experience.
That's a hopeless experience that you magically win against all odds and reason, when you didn't deserve the win.

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.

That's great, as long as you bring along a weapon powerful enough to do the job.

And NPC with a vibro-blade taking out a PC Hatchling Dragon is also "good" in my opinion. The "balance" of a hatchling in RMB is that it's stupid and silly. "I can do anything!" yells the hatchling, as he strolls into the bandit camp. "I'll take care of them all by myself with brute strength and a few spells. No Problem." Not much hair-raising tension there. Until he ignores the bandit with the vibro-bade and ends up having to roll against coma/death for the privilege of being rescued by his friends who are more careful.

Or he just dies, because he was expecting his massive MDC to save him, not to get vibro-shivved to death by a minor guy with a minor weapon.

I don't think it takes away from things when a character makes a low percentage shot to the brain of a demon. A lot can happen before that shot gets off or actually lands. Two demons can make such a possibility for the party mandatory (depending on their power level). It's often that or running away, even if the demons aren't one-shotting anything.

I see only two options:
1. the percentage is low enough that the game plays out essentially as if the option to try it wasn't even there.
2. the percentage is high enough that PCs are going to die from it in inopportune and unrealistic times.

Alrik Vas wrote:And yes, 1 hit killing a 400MDC demon with a knife is exciting as all get out, especially when it's all you've got to use, you have no way to escape and said demon has already crushed two of your comrades like they were paper.

How is that exciting?
To me, it just sounds like a cheat.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Alrik Vas wrote:And yes, 1 hit killing a 400MDC demon with a knife is exciting as all get out, especially when it's all you've got to use, you have no way to escape and said demon has already crushed two of your comrades like they were paper.

How is that exciting?
To me, it just sounds like a cheat.

I think we just have different ideas about how to play the game.

In my opinion, Palladium games arent tactics games. They arent combat games. Combat can be resolved with rules, but the point of the game is the story.

I think Palladium suffers as a tactics game. There arent enough rules, and there are too many at the same time.

That being said, there some balance and pace in combat according to the rules, and in general in Rifts combat takes a while due to high levels of defense.

I think, this being the case, even if the gm allows one shots for whatever reason, combat can go very badly for the players very quickly. It doesnt give a huge advantage.

Similarly, even if NPCs can one shot, the outcome isnt generally worse for the players. They can die pretty easily without it. All it does ia force extra care and thought. "I dont want to get one shot bythis guy so im gonna control him with x spell, or set up a trap for him." Etc. Instead of the character just betting on his mdc outlasting hers.

In general I think the GM is forced, by the system, to allow for situational combat events, outside a very strict ruleset. The limiting factor is story and "common sense."

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Alrik Vas wrote:And yes, 1 hit killing a 400MDC demon with a knife is exciting as all get out, especially when it's all you've got to use, you have no way to escape and said demon has already crushed two of your comrades like they were paper.

How is that exciting?
To me, it just sounds like a cheat.

I suppose it is, in a way, but it isn't like I don't have circumstantial modifiers that can bring a kill faster, or even be more difficult. I run the game to the liking of my group and myself. A much more immediately dangerous setting in combat appeals to us. Everything does more damage and armor isn't adjusted along with it, so if you are talented, it creates more opportunity to grease a target that would normally be like clinching a mountain.

It doesn't mean that it can't still take a lot of effort.

This convo about called kill shots to high MDC stuff is reminding me of the Juicer Uprising cover and the snipe hole in the old-style Deadboy helmet (back then did helmets even have their own MDC? Don't recall that until CWC)

Alrik Vas wrote:Reloading takes 2 actions.

For which weapons? When did this change? RUE? Pretty sure it used to be 1 action to reload an e-clip for a long while.

SA2p166 the ATL-7 took 2 actions to reload as a special note which I figured was due to it being so heavy and stuff.

If RUE increased it for all weapons then should we add 1 to the ATL7 to take 3, or double it to be 4?

Jorick wrote:I don't think it takes away from things when a character makes a low percentage shot to the brain of a demon.

Do we know which, if any, demons actually have a brain organ? I'd be skeptical of making assumptions about the anatomy of alien creatures, particularly supernatural ones. Metamorphing creatures of magic like dragons too...

Unless we're explicitly told something about the organs of particular creatures, it could be up to the GM if they have them or where they are located.

At best I know SOME kinds of dragons/demons have skulls since necros are talked about using them.

Tor wrote:Do we know which, if any, demons actually have a brain organ? I'd be skeptical of making assumptions about the anatomy of alien creatures, particularly supernatural ones. Metamorphing creatures of magic like dragons too...

Unless we're explicitly told something about the organs of particular creatures, it could be up to the GM if they have them or where they are located.

At best I know SOME kinds of dragons/demons have skulls since necros are talked about using them.

Indeed. This is one of the many reasons why a "common sense" one shot isnt always available. Brodkil is kinda basic. But lots of demon have lots of heads and eyes and whatever.

As a GM one doesnt have to have a detailed anatomy of every creature. Just make a common sense decision, and explain the result of the action. "You shoot his eye out but he has 5 more so it doesnt really matter." Or, "this brodkil is basically human in physiological organization and when you shot out his eye, on a roll with a -4 or -5 modifier from 5 feet (a distance you had to fight to close within) the lazer went through to his brain (because it would)."

Alrik Vas wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Alrik Vas wrote:And yes, 1 hit killing a 400MDC demon with a knife is exciting as all get out, especially when it's all you've got to use, you have no way to escape and said demon has already crushed two of your comrades like they were paper.

How is that exciting?
To me, it just sounds like a cheat.

I suppose it is, in a way, but it isn't like I don't have circumstantial modifiers that can bring a kill faster, or even be more difficult. I run the game to the liking of my group and myself. A much more immediately dangerous setting in combat appeals to us. Everything does more damage and armor isn't adjusted along with it, so if you are talented, it creates more opportunity to grease a target that would normally be like clinching a mountain.

It doesn't mean that it can't still take a lot of effort.

Okay... so what talent is involved in one-shotting a Brodkil with a vibro-knife in the above scenario?

FYI: I don't have a problem with deadly; that's why I still prefer using the original burst/spray rules.

In the extreme situation, you would have to critical on a called shot, even better from surprise, and would still need to roll good damage.

As I've said in many previous threads, I allow PS to help with mega damage melee attacks. I've also stated that I don't use just fencing, but make it apply to any melee weapon of your choosing and it's +6 rather than +1d6. So, say you've got a 25 PS. You're rolling 1d6+16 damage as a human. Double if you critical, double from surprise, triple if both.

It's up to 3d6+48, or around 57 damage with a decent roll. If you spend the extra action and make the attack with penalty, previously declaring you were going for the brain though the shortest distance (between spine and skull) with least resistance, I'd give it to them for all the hard work they put into setting up position and getting lucky on the roll, absolutely.

Alrik Vas wrote:In the extreme situation, you would have to critical on a called shot, even better from surprise, and would still need to roll good damage.

As I've said in many previous threads, I allow PS to help with mega damage melee attacks. I've also stated that I don't use just fencing, but make it apply to any melee weapon of your choosing and it's +6 rather than +1d6. So, say you've got a 25 PS. You're rolling 1d6+16 damage as a human. Double if you critical, double from surprise, triple if both.

It's up to 3d6+48, or around 57 damage with a decent roll. If you spend the extra action and make the attack with penalty, previously declaring you were going for the brain though the shortest distance (between spine and skull) with least resistance, I'd give it to them for all the hard work they put into setting up position and getting lucky on the roll, absolutely.

What's the hard work on making a called shot and rolling well?

Killer Cyborg wrote:
What's the hard work on making a called shot and rolling well?

You need to read everything. I feel like you're just trolling here. It's not just making a shot. It's playing the game. The shot is the ultimate action in a scenario that leads to and allows for the shot.

What's hard work about outlasting an opponent's MDC?

Jorick wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:
What's the hard work on making a called shot and rolling well?

You need to read everything.

I have:
" If you spend the extra action and make the attack with penalty, previously declaring you were going for the brain though the shortest distance (between spine and skull) with least resistance, I'd give it to them for all the hard work they put into setting up position and getting lucky on the roll, absolutely."

I feel like you're just trolling here.

I'm not.

It's not just making a shot. It's playing the game. The shot is the ultimate action in a scenario that leads to and allows for the shot.

The scenario posed here is:
"1 hit killing a 400MDC demon with a knife is exciting as all get out, especially when it's all you've got to use, you have no way to escape and said demon has already crushed two of your comrades like they were paper."

What's hard work about outlasting an opponent's MDC?

That's an odd question that doesn't have much to do with anything that I've said.

And, instead of increasing damage and changing the rules so that powerful enemies can be killed in one hit, why not just leave the rules the same and pit the party against enemies that could be killed in one hit anyway?
A vibro-knife that rolls a 20 on an attack from behind (or whatever) can do up to 18 MD on a good roll.
Why's it better to kill a 400 MDC using a 1d6 MD dagger and changed rules than to slice off the arm of a guy in Urban Warrior?
Is it just the illusion that you've accomplished something more impressive by negating the actual stats?

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Jorick wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:
What's the hard work on making a called shot and rolling well?

You need to read everything.

I have:
" If you spend the extra action and make the attack with penalty, previously declaring you were going for the brain though the shortest distance (between spine and skull) with least resistance, I'd give it to them for all the hard work they put into setting up position and getting lucky on the roll, absolutely."

I feel like you're just trolling here.

I'm not.

It's not just making a shot. It's playing the game. The shot is the ultimate action in a scenario that leads to and allows for the shot.

The scenario posed here is:
"1 hit killing a 400MDC demon with a knife is exciting as all get out, especially when it's all you've got to use, you have no way to escape and said demon has already crushed two of your comrades like they were paper."

What's hard work about outlasting an opponent's MDC?

That's an odd question that doesn't have much to do with anything that I've said.

The "getting into position" part, for example, is not a simple thing. The story behind the two comrades being cut down and character in question being cornered suggests more has happened beyond "You see a Brodkil." "Ok, I stab him in the back of the head with a dagger." FIN.

He makes other examples elsewhere, talks of things like "planning and awareness" etc. "Reading everything" encompasses the thread, the conversation we are engaged in, not just the last comment. The conversation provides context and fleshes out the idea. Caring about that context prevents unnecessary nitpicking about specific points out of context, as if they were the entire argument. Or as if one were just arguing for argument's sake.


"Hard work" in this context is a relative term. We're talking about the possibility of a one-shot to a 400 MDC creature as an example (which would also open the possibility of the creature doing the same to the player). The "normal" situation, the alternative situation, the desirable situation that would occur if not for the one-shot, would be depleting the creature's MDC from 400 to 0. Or in any combat, depleting the main body MDC of an opponent, while the opponent tries to do the same to you. That is "outlasting an opponent." It's not an odd question at all. It's completely on point. Because it is at the heart of the point Alrik, the person to whom you are responding, and the originator of the thread, is making.

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 hadn'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.