Forums of the Megaverse®

This message has been moved to the GMs Forum, where the topic is more applicable and appropriate. If you have a problem with how this post was handled please direct all inquires to deific.nmi@gmail.com, including the url to the post in question.

We have a rule. If you don't agree on a ruling you have 2 minutes to plead your case and the GM will listen. At the end of 2 minutes the DM decides and play continues. If you still don't like the decision then it will be discussed after the game session at length. This gives everyone to have a say without interrupting game play and provides opportunity later to address issues not completely settled.

MASTERMIND wrote:We have a rule. If you don't agree on a ruling you have 2 minutes to plead your case and the GM will listen. At the end of 2 minutes the DM decides and play continues. If you still don't like the decision then it will be discussed after the game session at length. This gives everyone to have a say without interrupting game play and provides opportunity later to address issues not completely settled.

i have a similar rule....disagree with a ruling...discussion will take place after the game...

Same as others - I'll listen briefly to the case, and if it either makes more sense than what I initially ruled, or the person can, in that time, show me where I am canonically wrong (and it wasn't something houseruled otherwise), I'll change it. If not, my decision is final, and I don't want to hear any more crap - we can talk after the game for future reference.

People who won't accept the GM's rulings and move on should be removed from the game, permanently if necessary.

Speaking as the GM of the campaign in question, lemme give a quick blow by blow of what had gone down.
I have an NPC hanging out with the player group to keep them on their toes, he's quite powerful and not very mentally stable. I rolled secretly and had my NPC "adopt" one of the players based on the roll.
Well, two other players, over the course of several game sessions, have tried to befriend the NPC, presumably to manipulate him later (group is all evil alignments).
During this last session is where it all blew up!
Our gunslinger made nice with a powerful tribe leader and sold another player (titan juicer) into slavery. Titan juicer's responds by crushing his own head with his bear hands. Gotta admit I did not see tht coming.
Later, psycho stalker (player adopted by crazy npc) draws a knife on our operator (who has a bout of "rules lawyerism") and picks a fight. Operator kills psycho stalker, which naturally sets off crazy NPC, who kills operator.

Oh wait it gets worse....
Former Titan Juicer and Operator have back up characters (both full conversion borgs). Being the wonderful GM that I am I try to not only get them back into play as quickly as possible, but also levle the playing field a little by setting the two of them on a simple mission to kill the gunslinger (so he breaks out a back up and everyone starts out near same level).
Well, they manage to botch it up terribly.
Gunslinger is in a casino, "mourning" the loss of his companions with drinking and cards.
These two, who must have been drinking themselves, decide to attack gunslinger in the middle of the casino floor, the most well gaurded building in town with its own security force. Gunslinger, who fights very smart by the way, nearly dispatches one borg and blinds the other (double critical strike at point blank range to the borgs eyes with laser pistols, crazy shot). Things decend from there. The rules lawyer (now blind borg) starts flipping out over this shot to his eyes, mostly casue he didnt want to lose to characters in one day and didnt believe that the slinger should be able to make these kinda shots (even though he had like 3 copies of new west in front of him). Then the gunslinger started barking back and things degenerated. Reminds me of my old group and one player versus the GM...
Ultimately, I broke down and rolled back the sequence of events to replay the action with all players consent. Sigh, sometimes we've had disputes but not ugly like that.
Such are the pit falls of miscreant characters all trying to stab the other one in the back.

Sounds like the blinded guy is just a whiny punk who doesn't want to face the consequences of his own idiotic actions. He's lucky you didn't rule that the double-critical to the face took his entire head off, instead of just blinding him. I'd have told him to shut-up and deal, and if he didn't, I'd have told him to leave - he would no longer be welcome. It's not like FC borgs can't have replacement bionic eyes put in.

When you fight other players, you have to accept that they are just as quick, just as flexible, and just as prone to pulling a cool move as you. If you're on the receiving end, it's your own damn fault.

J. Lionheart wrote:When you fight other players, you have to accept that they are just as quick, just as flexible, and just as prone to pulling a cool move as you. If you're on the receiving end, it's your own damn fault.

Well put.

Quite simple.
"Rocks fall. Everyone dies. Have a nice day please don't come again..."

bob the desolate one wrote:ok folks i feel its ok to question the gms logic from time to time but eccesive drawn out 20 minute arguments over rules to the point where the whole group is saying enough already your killing the fun any suggestions on how to stop this crap?

If he's right, then the rest of you need to learn the rules.
If he's wrong, then he needs to learn the rules better.

asajosh wrote: Gunslinger, who fights very smart by the way, nearly dispatches one borg and blinds the other (double critical strike at point blank range to the borgs eyes with laser pistols, crazy shot). Things decend from there. The rules lawyer (now blind borg) starts flipping out over this shot to his eyes, mostly casue he didnt want to lose to characters in one day and didnt believe that the slinger should be able to make these kinda shots (even though he had like 3 copies of new west in front of him).

I don't have New West in front of me.
Which part states that gunslingers can make that kind of shot?

And what penalties (if any) did you assign?

My initial reaction is that if one of my players tried to do that I'd tell him to forget about it.
The game mechanics aren't set up to make called shots to eyeballs, except in rare cases where the eyes are large enough to have their own listed MDC.

Killer Cyborg wrote:
I don't have New West in front of me.
Which part states that gunslingers can make that kind of shot?

And what penalties (if any) did you assign?

My initial reaction is that if one of my players tried to do that I'd tell him to forget about it.
The game mechanics aren't set up to make called shots to eyeballs, except in rare cases where the eyes are large enough to have their own listed MDC.

I agree with KC here, I wouldn't call your player 'rules lawyering' since there aren't any rules for what happenned. If all you needed to totally blind a borg was 2 wilks pistols and a natural 20, then everyone would be doing it. (A 5% chance of blinding a Borg down with one shot? Sign me up! Does it work on Gods too?) It's a textbook 'bambi vs Gozdilla' situation. A more sane ruling would have been double or triple damage. If your gunslinger complains about triple damage (which, in this case, would *not* have been enough), then you have a whole other problem.

then again, the all powerfulness of the natural 20 is also a problem. Aunt May does not have a 5% chance of knocking Thor unconscious, even if she has boxing and rolls a natural 20. I know what the rules say, but sometimes the rules are dumb.

There is an aspect to rules lawyering that goes a little beyond it. This is every rules-lawyer fight in microcosm... (and the following will probably not be agreed with, but I'll throw it out).

Player, "I do X,"
GM, "you can't do it!"
Player "Yes I can!" (pulls out rulebook)
GM, "No you can't!" (pulls out rulebook)

Rules lawyering always happens when something unpleasant happens to the players or when they're not allowed to do something. It's a sign of miscommunication. When a player does something slick, especially if it's something slick to an NPC, the GM should judge, but the player is more important. Mr Gunslinger wants to blind NPC borgs.... eh... let him if he rolls well..... he feels snazzy, then later when they come back with new cybernetic eyes and internal sensor systems, things become interesting. So, when it comes to rules lawyering, let the PC's abuse the NPC's how they like, at least most of the time. So when the rare occasion comes when they can't, they know there is a reason.

PC borgs, however, they deserve special treatment. It always sucks to have your character maimed. It doubly sucks to get your character maimed by something that's not in the rules, and the GM saying 'you were stupid' doesn't help because, you want to say "If your ruling was so logical, why did you have to invent rules out of the blue just for the purposes of screwing me?'.

When one PC attacks another, you will end up with at least one disgruntled player, and that means the GM has by definition failed. I don't think the problem was rules-lawyering, the problem was more fundamental. The GM was allowing the players to attack and kill one another, he was allowing party members who would do it, and then he was thinking it was the one player being a whiner when someone wins.

If it had gone *other* way (the cyborg pounding the gunslinger to jelly), then the gunslinger would have been the one complaining. The problem was not the players' attitudes after it happenined, the problem was the GM for designing things where it happenned in the first place.

Um heres how the gunslinger skill works,
They can do crazy trick shots (ricochettes, fire over a shoulder with a mirror, etc), with NO penalty! no bonus either, just a natural roll. I paraphrase the book here obviously.
The situation was this:
The borg and slinger are stnading less then 5 feet apart having a shouting match in the street (playing in character only, players not REALLY angry, yet).
'Slinger sez something along the lines of "Thems fightin words, tin man" and they roll inititiative. 'Slinger, who has guns drawn during argument, fires first (surprise surprise )
Called shot to the EYES, one pistol per eye (yes, slingers can simul strike with pistols). Remember they are about 5 feet apart. Roll strike: natural 20. Borg attempts to parry one pistol (like bat it out of the way) and counter strike with the other hand (yer guess is as good as mine as to his motives here, maybe he thinks he's Keanu Reaves bot). Rolls a 1 for parry and a 3 to counter punch. Not wanting to screw with his 20, slinger just takes punch damage (hes a minor MD being and wears at least some armor at all times).
Because of the rolls, I Ruled that the shots hit and slinger is knocked down, loses an action. The laser damage is critical however. Rolls MAX damage (I kid you not, i verified the dice myself). The damage he rolled was 80% of the borg's total head MDC! The shot simply HAD to blind the borg to make any sense! in actuallity it probobly should have damaged his hearing as well...

As far as shelving the slinger character, all players eagerly wanted to continue with the campaign as is.

asajosh wrote:
'Slinger sez something along the lines of "Thems fightin words, tin man" and they roll inititiative. 'Slinger, who has guns drawn during argument, fires first

I think The borg has reason to complain... you have a Player who shoots first, headshotting...... incoming players. That is a problem, the GM needs to stop it *before* it gets to this point.

I don't know about the Gunslinger *character*, but the *player*, should either be punted or spoken to that that attacking other PC's should be avoided at almost all costs. I'm sorry, but Character gen is too long for players to be killing one another. And when PC's fight to the death... it assures that one player is going to be ticked for the day.

It reminds me of something that happenned in my last party. I made a Shifter. One of the other players made a Navajo Technowizard. His character didn't speak English, mine didn't speak Navajo. Simple fix, Upon meeting his character, I looked at the GM and said

"I cast 'Tongues'"

The GM looks at his character and says "you see this man casting a spell". The other player, I kid you not, says, "A spell! I'm not getting hit by anything! I shoot him in the head!"

Now, luckily, my GM wasn't enough of a sticker for my character to be blinded, the shot didn't penetrate my helmet, I cast the spell, and then immediately put my hands up. But I knew, at that point, that player was a jerk, and the GM didn't know how to handle it.

I apologise, but if that TW had rolled a natural 20, and my character had died, on the first meeting, for the crime of casting 'tongues' in front of another mage.... I'd have simply left the game, the player and the GM having both demonstrated utter inability to keep things civil and enjoyable.

See now this is the sort of thing I've seen play out before too. As a GM I honestly wont stop a character from doing something they want to. But they can damn well expect concequences to their actions.

THey will be hunted, they will have bounty hunters, assassin etc go after them if it's called for etc. The only time I've ever stepped in is if PCs start offing each other left right and center. Even then it's purely under a 'medial' role. As in Guys.. please stop killing each other it's ruining the game.

I very much prefer that PCs in my games refrain from intentionally killing each other. Because I've very rarely seen this ever go well. Usually some one gets seriously pissed and it degenerates into a PK fest untill everyone is dead or what ever and at that point I just scrap the game and start a new one.

Usually after finding a new group to play with.

Though often it's more of a case of simply needing to boot a specific problem causing player. Most I've met tend to be willing to just 'let things be' in a way. I certainly dont ever pit PC vs PC on purpose when trying to continue on a game.

The only time I've ever poped the 'no you cant do that' line on peopel is when there's an actual reason. Even if I havent told them about it ahead of time. Like say.. some form of psionic mind control. I'll roll a save for them. But I wont allways tell them they've failed.

I normally actually have the player roll for me. I just dont tell them -why- they are rolling or what their rolling against.

Untill it's too late anway. Then to confuse them and keep them on their toes I'll some times have them roll for no reason at all. Just somethign random.

Bob Roll 1d20

Ted you too.

Sometimes I'll just make soemthing up on the fly like if they roll an odd/even number they have a random encounter or something.

BUt I've never said to a PC "You cant shoot him!" just.. because I didnt want them to shoot the NPC. I have however said "As the GM I wouldnt suggest doing that."

Which is generally all the warning they'll get from me on the matter.

I feel the need to comment on the situation yet again:
I set this encounter up deliberately so the borg charachters could:
A) Kill the slinger and force him to use his back up
OR
B) Play true to their alignments and betray their employer and befriend the gunslinger

The problem was that while both borgs decided to do option B, they started out on the option A path! Rolled into taht casino like "Hey, we're heavy combat borgs, no one can take us cause our main body MDC is XXX". Apparently they out of character assumed that the gunslinger would throw the fight or shoot only at their torsos.
It was a seriously bad choice of tactics. After the game session I suggested taht they maybe one of them should have lured the slinger outside (away from the casino security) and the other either snipe the slinger as he came out or hosed the area with AP mini-missiles.
Bottom line it was a poorly thought out plan (they had no plan really) that was poorly executed.

asajosh wrote:Um heres how the gunslinger skill works,
They can do crazy trick shots (ricochettes, fire over a shoulder with a mirror, etc), with NO penalty! no bonus either, just a natural roll. I paraphrase the book here obviously.

Right.
That's not a matter of being able to aim incredibly accurately, only being able to aim in bizarre circumstances.
It just means that they don't take any additional penalties from doing really bizarre stuff, not that they can make instant called shots or ignore standard strike penalties for a difficult target.

Edit:
To elaborate, it means this:
If Gunslinger Billy-Bob Bullhunter makes a called shot at a small target, it incurs a -4 penalty to hit.
If Vagabond Joe Junkpan makes a called shot at a small target, it incurs a -4 penalty to hit.
If Gunslinger Billy-Bob Bullhunter shoots over his shoulder, using a mirror to aim, making a called shot at the same target, then he is still at a -4 penalty to strike.
If Vagabond Joe Junkpan shoots over his shoulder, using a mirror to aim, making a called shot at the same target, then he is still at a -4 penalty to strike, plus he is -6 for firing wild, plus any other appropriate penalties the GM wants to assign.

(And if you're playing by RUE rules, then any called shot requires 2-3 attacks to complete)

The situation was this:
The borg and slinger are stnading less then 5 feet apart having a shouting match in the street (playing in character only, players not REALLY angry, yet).
'Slinger sez something along the lines of "Thems fightin words, tin man" and they roll inititiative. 'Slinger, who has guns drawn during argument, fires first (surprise surprise )
Called shot to the EYES, one pistol per eye (yes, slingers can simul strike with pistols). Remember they are about 5 feet apart. Roll strike: natural 20.

That touches on something I meant to bring up last time:
Two Eyes = Two Targets.

First, I don't remember if Gunslingers can aim paired pistols at seperate targets.
Second, if they CAN, then they should still require two different strike rolls.

Borg attempts to parry one pistol (like bat it out of the way) and counter strike with the other hand (yer guess is as good as mine as to his motives here, maybe he thinks he's Keanu Reaves bot). Rolls a 1 for parry and a 3 to counter punch. Not wanting to screw with his 20, slinger just takes punch damage (hes a minor MD being and wears at least some armor at all times).
Because of the rolls, I Ruled that the shots hit and slinger is knocked down, loses an action. The laser damage is critical however. Rolls MAX damage (I kid you not, i verified the dice myself). The damage he rolled was 80% of the borg's total head MDC! The shot simply HAD to blind the borg to make any sense! in actuallity it probobly should have damaged his hearing as well...

The dice are there for a reason, and it sounds like your player made an incredibly lucky shot. (what was the max damage for those pistols, btw?)

The main problem I see is letting the gunslinger attempt the shot in the first place. The rules aren't made for called shots to such specific locations, and even if they did, it sounds like you did it wrong.[/i]

bob the desolate one wrote:

damonS wrote:
I don't know about the Gunslinger *character*, but the *player*, should either be punted or spoken to that that attacking other PC's should be avoided at almost all costs. I'm sorry, but Character gen is too long for players to be killing one another. And when PC's fight to the death... it assures that one player is going to be ticked for the day.

umm ok but its a role playing game guy if you play a miscreant character and someone attacks you you attack back read the whole thread i even broke character and gave him a chance to walk away once i blinded him but he wouldn't take it so instead i aced him which if you go back to r.u.e and read the description for miscreant its just what i would do

A long as the players and GM all agree to allowing evil characters and in-party fighting, then it's perfectly acceptable in my book.
Which is one reason why I almost never allow evil characters, and always try to make sure that the PCs get along (unless them fighting each other is part of the overall plot).

When "Playing in character" leads to "a not fun game", then the player should choose the 'fun' rather than the 'playing in character'. The GM should also head it off at the pass if a Player wants to make a character who would kill other PC's. If situations like this are happenning, and players are getting ticked, this means something is going wrong. This entire thread started because something went wrong. And the solution was, simply, to not allow the situation to happen (not to browbeat the loser of the fight when it happens, because that's a great way to lose a player to something avoidable). The GM should not have allowed characters who turn on each other, or should have only allowed players who would not get ticked if their characters are summarily killed in initial encounters with other PC's (players of the latter variety are incredibly rare and should not be anticipated).

Most GM's could have seen this coming a mile away as soon as they saw the party composition and alignments.

"The borg was given opportunities to walk away", the problem there is the game only has one GM, and The Party has to stay together. Imagine if the borg had walked away, he had as much right to GM time as The Gunslinger. Should the GM turn the session into a series of solo adventures? If there were two people in one part, and one person in the other part, the GM should divide his time 66/33 between them, after all, The Borg walked away and should be allowed to role-play getting new eyes, and to adventure. Something suggests to me that this option was not on the table. Because of this, all PC/PC fights do tend to be steel cage matches (one character will end up out of the campaign for good, no way around it). That plus how much effort character generation is means that when someone dies, it's not fun. C'est la Vie, but that also means that players shouldn't try to kill each other, since if one player fights another to the death.... that means one of them aint going to enjoy the next twenty minutes. An 'offered reality warp' on the part of a player doesn't smooth things over, especially since it was on the part of the player who shot first (It's akin to saying something abusive and then immediately apologising; ask Don Imus how well that works out). The 'right' thing to do would have been to simply not shoot in the first place.

A party is like a team. Sure guys tough talk, some are showboaters and some are downright yutzes, but you never try to injure a teammate enough so that it puts him out for the next game. Not even Terrell Owens is that bad.... and when you're a worse team-member than Terrell Owens... that saying something! That isn't said enough. So I'm going to say it again. The Party is a team (A GM is a bizarre mix of 'Coach', 'Trainer', and 'other teams'). A character death is like a minor injury that makes a player sit out for a game. Not big, not horrible, happens all the time in the natural course of a game, but the picture changes considerably when it's another teammate doing the injuring.

Imagine, you're a Coach, you have a guy who, when tough talking with the other players, takes the fight too far and ends up injuring the other players enough that they either miss a game or miss the next practice (worse yet, he injures another player, intentionally, *during* the game! Now your QB needs to sit on the bench for the rest of the game. Sure the QB may have big mouth, but even so, you never ever ever attack your teammate during the game!). Add more to the picture, after he injures the guy, he still isn't satisfied and tries to continue the fight elsewhere (when it should have ended there).

I can imagine some coaches letting it happen.... once, if the player was the best of the best of the best. However, the second time this guy sprains someone else's finger.... he's off the team.

DamonS wrote:When "Playing in character" leads to "a not fun game", then the player should choose the 'fun' rather than the 'playing in character'. The GM should also head it off at the pass if a Player wants to make a character who would kill other PC's. If situations like this are happenning, and players are getting ticked, this means something is going wrong. This entire thread started because something went wrong. And the solution was, simply, to not allow the situation to happen (not to browbeat the loser of the fight when it happens, because that's a great way to lose a player to something avoidable). The GM should not have allowed characters who turn on each other, or should have only allowed players who would not get ticked if their characters are summarily killed in initial encounters with other PC's (players of the latter variety are incredibly rare and should not be anticipated).

Most GM's could have seen this coming a mile away as soon as they saw the party composition and alignments.

"The borg was given opportunities to walk away", the problem there is the game only has one GM, and The Party has to stay together. Imagine if the borg had walked away, he had as much right to GM time as The Gunslinger. Should the GM turn the session into a series of solo adventures? If there were two people in one part, and one person in the other part, the GM should divide his time 66/33 between them, after all, The Borg walked away and should be allowed to role-play getting new eyes, and to adventure. Something suggests to me that this option was not on the table. Because of this, all PC/PC fights do tend to be steel cage matches (one character will end up out of the campaign for good, no way around it). That plus how much effort character generation is means that when someone dies, it's not fun. C'est la Vie, but that also means that players shouldn't try to kill each other, since if one player fights another to the death.... that means one of them aint going to enjoy the next twenty minutes. An 'offered reality warp' on the part of a player doesn't smooth things over, especially since it was on the part of the player who shot first (It's akin to saying something abusive and then immediately apologising; ask Don Imus how well that works out). The 'right' thing to do would have been to simply not shoot in the first place.

<edit for relevance>

I can imagine some coaches letting it happen.... once, if the player was the best of the best of the best. However, the second time this guy sprains someone else's finger.... he's off the team.

Well first off, Im not going to tell my players how to play, I merely set the stage and let them role play it out. Two players had a bad plan and it worked out poorly. Never had a plan you thought was sure fire success and have it blow up in your face?

Secondly, I suggest you read the whole thread before commenting. If you have read it, re-read again.

Thirdly, the players were not told "seperate and never come back together". YES you can have parties divide and do seperate things, its not always easy for the GM but it can be done. People write notes back and forth, not too complicated. Some players use laptops and IM each other, technology is cool no? Besides which the borgs' task was to kill the slinger. They may or may not have betrayed their NPC employer, etc etc... You'd know all the details if you'd read the whole thread.

And one last thing, READ New West. Gunslingers CAN make these kinds of shots at the distances we're talking about with NO penalty (or bonus) AND with paired pistols (no other weapon). Add to that the slinger in question rolled a natural 20.

I had to once ban a player with these words: Being a GM or Player is more then buying a bunch of books, you must read them!

We have a saying in my gaming group:

"I'm God. Lightning bolt on your character for arguing with God."


We've shortened it to:

"I'm God. Lightning bolt."

Just to interject here since I've played both a gunslinger and gunfighter. Both of which get WP Paired pistols.

It does allow you seperately target two different people and fire at them with the same action. Though it does at least strongly suggset you use seperate rolls.

That said if he's firing at just one target and making a called shot to 'the eyes'. Well it's techncially the GMs call on if that gets treated as two targets or one. Either way you can make a simultaneous attack with both pistols.

There's also nothing saying you cant make a called shot to eyes, groin etc. There's just no specific rules to cover what happens next. That's left up to the GM. It's also a smaller target than the head so you'd be probably looking at -6 to -8 to strike.

Other than that it's perfectly possible and nat 20 hits every time unless the guy gets a nat 20 dodge.

As far as the rulings go about the borg going blind after he was not only struck in the eyes, but with enough power to practically blow his head off....

Well I'd have said he'd gone blind too.

The only thing i'd have done differently is had it a normal strike roll. As the no bonus/penalty thing is ment more for firing while doing some sorta stunt or similar.

See, Kesslan gets it

2 fighters less then 5 feet a part, guns drawn, glinger points his barrels over the eye slot of the borg, blammo (well laser equivalent of blammo), delivers 40 MDC thru the eyes to the 50 MDC head (80% damage)! Borg gets blinded!

Its not like i came up with damage specific to the eyes, the damage was done to the head MDC thru the eyes! If the shot had come thru the ears, Id have ruled him to be a deaf borg, thru the nose? no sniffin the flowers, simple as that

Thanks for all the input here folks, despite the un-informed comments of those who couldn't bother to read the whole thread (short attention span me thinks ), I feel vindicated in my decission.

bob the desolate one wrote:
we have been playing a campaign along these lines since 1997 never have i had this problem before so please before u talk bad about pepole you haven't even met know the situation in it entirety

never had this problem before?

bob the desolate one wrote:ok folks i feel its ok to question the gms logic from time to time but eccesive drawn out 20 minute arguments over rules to the point where the whole group is saying enough already your killing the fun any suggestions on how to stop this crap?

I thought this started because there were multiple arguments and desire to 'stop this crap'? Which is it? Is this regular 'crap' which needs to be stopped? If it was, I suggested how to stop it.

If it only happens rarely (never had the problem before means that this looks like it happenned once).. then my suggestion is again different from everyone else's... It was one bad session, nothing needs to be done, and you should simply forget about it. One bad session in ten years does not a crisis make.

Pick your poison.

However, given the first post, the campaign composition, and the "We just browbeat guys we don't like" tone of how the borg player was treated. Something tells me the first post was more on the mark. Input was wanted, so I gave it. And I laid the blame on the GM, I still do. If advice is being asked, don't be surprised when someone says "Well, take responsibility, and make changes in order to solve the problem". I hate to go all Dr. Phil, but in this case, Dr. Phil is appropriate.

If it's a bad player (possible), it's the GM's fault this guy is still in the campaign. Kick him out.

If it's a bad campaign setup (I definitely lean here), it's the GM's fault for setting up the campaign that way. Change the campaign design.

If it's a bad rules interpretation (debatable), it's the GM's fault for interpreting the rules that way. Apologise and tell the players a different interpretation.

If it's 2 or all 3 of the above (another possibility no one has mentioned, that *multiple* things could be wrong here), it's kind of moot, since the GM is responsible for all 3. The GM is the one who takes action.

Then again, if the problem only happenned once... the GM should just relax, call it a bad session and keep an eye out in case it repeats.

Pick your choice, GM, put the cause wherever you think it lies, understand that in the end it's the GM's responsibility, and take the appropriate action.

Kesslan wrote:Just to interject here since I've played both a gunslinger and gunfighter. Both of which get WP Paired pistols.

It does allow you seperately target two different people and fire at them with the same action. Though it does at least strongly suggset you use seperate rolls.

Interesting.
If all it does is "strongly suggest" that you use seperate rolls, then it's up to the GM whether or not he requires seperate rolls or not.
Although I think it's a bad judgement call to have it only be one roll.

That said if he's firing at just one target and making a called shot to 'the eyes'. Well it's techncially the GMs call on if that gets treated as two targets or one.

I disagree.
Two eyes = two targets.

Either way you can make a simultaneous attack with both pistols.

Of course.

There's also nothing saying you cant make a called shot to eyes, groin etc.

Agreed, but lack of forbiddance is NOT permission.
(And, actually, there are rules for attacks to the groin.)

By looking at the overall system, it's pretty clear that it's not built for that degree of precision in attacks, except where the Damage Capacity of the body part in question is listed.

There's just no specific rules to cover what happens next. That's left up to the GM.

Yes.
But that does not mean that it's impossible for a GM to make a bad call, which is what I believe happened here.

It's also a smaller target than the head so you'd be probably looking at -6 to -8 to strike.

Definitely.

Other than that it's perfectly possible and nat 20 hits every time unless the guy gets a nat 20 dodge.

Other than the fact that the rules do not permit such action, combined with the fact that the system is not built for that degree of precision, I suppose that it's possible.
But those facts, combined with the likely result that setting the "called shot to the eye" precedend, would prevent me from making such a call.

DamonS wrote:

bob the desolate one wrote:
we have been playing a campaign along these lines since 1997 never have i had this problem before so please before u talk bad about pepole you haven't even met know the situation in it entirety

never had this problem before?

bob the desolate one wrote:ok folks i feel its ok to question the gms logic from time to time but eccesive drawn out 20 minute arguments over rules to the point where the whole group is saying enough already your killing the fun any suggestions on how to stop this crap?

I thought this started because there were multiple arguments and desire to 'stop this crap'? Which is it? Is this regular 'crap' which needs to be stopped? If it was, I suggested how to stop it.

If it only happens rarely (never had the problem before means that this looks like it happenned once).. then my suggestion is again different from everyone else's... It was one bad session, nothing needs to be done, and you should simply forget about it. One bad session in ten years does not a crisis make.

Pick your poison.

However, given the first post, the campaign composition, and the "We just browbeat guys we don't like" tone of how the borg player was treated. Something tells me the first post was more on the mark. Input was wanted, so I gave it. And I laid the blame on the GM, I still do. If advice is being asked, don't be surprised when someone says "Well, take responsibility, and make changes in order to solve the problem". I hate to go all Dr. Phil, but in this case, Dr. Phil is appropriate.

If it's a bad player (possible), it's the GM's fault this guy is still in the campaign. Kick him out.

If it's a bad campaign setup (I definitely lean here), it's the GM's fault for setting up the campaign that way. Change the campaign design.

If it's a bad rules interpretation (debatable), it's the GM's fault for interpreting the rules that way. Apologise and tell the players a different interpretation.

If it's 2 or all 3 of the above (another possibility no one has mentioned, that *multiple* things could be wrong here), it's kind of moot, since the GM is responsible for all 3. The GM is the one who takes action.

Then again, if the problem only happenned once... the GM should just relax, call it a bad session and keep an eye out in case it repeats.

Pick your choice, GM, put the cause wherever you think it lies, understand that in the end it's the GM's responsibility, and take the appropriate action.

Your so right , with the dozens of campaigns I've run (all types of alignments and hundreds of players): ITS ALL MY FAULT for not brow beating my players and telling them what to do and how to play as per your prior suggestion.

Things you'd know if you'd read the entire thread:
1) Isolated incidident. Not only in the scope of this campaign but more or less an isolated incident in my entire time GMing.

2) One TEMPORARILY aggrivated player. His plan went poof and he darn near killed himself (again). But Im sure that could never happen in a campaign of yours, seeing as how you tell the players how to play.

I dont know about DemonS-whatever but I play with adults (in their 20s-30s) and they have THOUGHTS of their own, sometimes, try as I might gosh darn it I just cannot quash their creativity... <sarcasm emote here>

Just my opinion here, though I'm sure many will agree (not you of course): The GM telling his players how they can/should and cannot/should not behave is a bad plan. Sure you have order, but at what cost? May as well campaign solo, but you probobly already do.

In the End: I have all the information I need from this thread, good ideas and bad.

bob the desolate one wrote:i stand by my gm

You stand by your GM, who decided in your favor in the argument that prompted this thread?
Somehow I'm not surprised.

But yeah, I think this thread has gone about as far as it can/should go.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Kesslan wrote:Just to interject here since I've played both a gunslinger and gunfighter. Both of which get WP Paired pistols.

It does allow you seperately target two different people and fire at them with the same action. Though it does at least strongly suggset you use seperate rolls.

Interesting.
If all it does is "strongly suggest" that you use seperate rolls, then it's up to the GM whether or not he requires seperate rolls or not.
Although I think it's a bad judgement call to have it only be one roll.

I'm pretty sure it's 'strongly suggest' as upposed to 'must'. Either way. It's the GM. Personaly in most situations if I consider it two targets I make it two seperate rolls.

That said if he's firing at just one target and making a called shot to 'the eyes'. Well it's techncially the GMs call on if that gets treated as two targets or one.

I disagree.
Two eyes = two targets.

Which if you were the GM would be your call. I'm not flat out stating it's 'one target' but it's the GMs call to treat it as such if they want to. I for one are more inclinde to agree with it being two targets.

There's also nothing saying you cant make a called shot to eyes, groin etc.

Agreed, but lack of forbiddance is NOT permission.
(And, actually, there are rules for attacks to the groin.)

By looking at the overall system, it's pretty clear that it's not built for that degree of precision in attacks, except where the Damage Capacity of the body part in question is listed.

Ehh.. I kinda disagree on the lack of forbiddance not being permission. Imean if the GM lets me shoot for the eyes, which is a perfectly valid target. Then I'm allowed to. And certainly nothing stops me from being able to ask. Most RPGs dont cover things like shots to things like the eyes because there's just so many different ways that can go.

How you choose to interpret that damage is another story. TO me if you take that much damage to the eyes that's definately going to blind you. But then I tend to also come up with MDC/SDC values if need be for specific body parts like eyes etc.

There's just no specific rules to cover what happens next. That's left up to the GM.

Yes.
But that does not mean that it's impossible for a GM to make a bad call, which is what I believe happened here.

Bad call in what regard? That he caused the borg to be blinded when he was shot right in the eyes with enough damage to practically blow his head clean off? Bad cal in that he made it apparently 1 instead of two rolls? Both? Other?

Personally I dont see the blinding bit as being remotely a 'bad call'. You have eyes, I dont care if they are mechanical. You can still go blind. It just takes more to do it if they are mechanical. Having yoru head almost blown clean off in the process generally counts as doing far more than necessary to destroy even a mechanical eye.

Other than that it's perfectly possible and nat 20 hits every time unless the guy gets a nat 20 dodge.

Other than the fact that the rules do not permit such action, combined with the fact that the system is not built for that degree of precision, I suppose that it's possible.
But those facts, combined with the likely result that setting the "called shot to the eye" precedend, would prevent me from making such a call.

[/quote]

Actually I'm pretty sure the system does infact allow for it. I could be wrong but I'm pretty certain there's a few cases of statted bots etc in Palladium (in general) that actually give damage values for things like eyes. Though the only thing I can think of off the top of my head are the Invid in the RT series.

Either way it comes down to a 'called shot' and then it's up to the GM to decide (if it isnt listed) how much damage that given location can take. There's pleny of examples of how much damage say.. a hand or foot can take and i think there's a few caes where eyes have like 2 SDC/MDC or what have you.

Either way the precedents ARE there in the system itself if not specifically in Rifts.

Kesslan wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:I disagree.
Two eyes = two targets.

Which if you were the GM would be your call. I'm not flat out stating it's 'one target' but it's the GMs call to treat it as such if they want to. I for one are more inclinde to agree with it being two targets.

A GM can call 2 targets one target, but he'll be wrong.
Math beats GM opinion.

There's also nothing saying you cant make a called shot to eyes, groin etc.

Agreed, but lack of forbiddance is NOT permission.
(And, actually, there are rules for attacks to the groin.)

By looking at the overall system, it's pretty clear that it's not built for that degree of precision in attacks, except where the Damage Capacity of the body part in question is listed.

Ehh.. I kinda disagree on the lack of forbiddance not being permission.[/quote]

The books never state that normal human vagabonds don't get laserbeam vision, or that they don't fly.
Does that mean that it's permissable?

The books never state that a normal human boxer cannot K.O. a Death's Head transport.
Does that make it permissable?

Nope.

I mean if the GM lets me shoot for the eyes, which is a perfectly valid target. Then I'm allowed to. And certainly nothing stops me from being able to ask. Most RPGs dont cover things like shots to things like the eyes because there's just so many different ways that can go.

Most games don't cover shots to the eyes, because most games assume that you're always trying for as deadly a shot as possible, and that you're doing pretty well just to hit the opponent anywhere.
Palladium allows more specific shots than most systems, simply by letting you strike at the head or limbs on a called shot.
It's pretty clear that the system isn't meant to be any more specific than that, due to the simple fact that it isn't.

There's just no specific rules to cover what happens next. That's left up to the GM.

Yes.
But that does not mean that it's impossible for a GM to make a bad call, which is what I believe happened here.

Bad call in what regard? That he caused the borg to be blinded when he was shot right in the eyes with enough damage to practically blow his head clean off? Bad cal in that he made it apparently 1 instead of two rolls? Both? Other?

Bad Call in that:
a. The shot was allowed in the first place.
Called Shot head is as specific as the rules are built for, and as of RUE that takes 2-3 attacks to complete.
b. The natural 20 was applied to both shots at both targets.
That's not how paired firearms work in the rules.

The blinding isn't the issue.

Other than the fact that the rules do not permit such action, combined with the fact that the system is not built for that degree of precision, I suppose that it's possible.
But those facts, combined with the likely result that setting the "called shot to the eye" precedend, would prevent me from making such a call.

Actually I'm pretty sure the system does infact allow for it. I could be wrong but I'm pretty certain there's a few cases of statted bots etc in Palladium (in general) that actually give damage values for things like eyes. Though the only thing I can think of off the top of my head are the Invid in the RT series. [/quote]

And in those cases it is allowed by the system.
But only in those cases.

If you can find any cases where some human-sized eyes on a human-sized target are statted out, let me know.
As far as I recall, it's only when the eyes are larger than normal that they become viable (although difficult) targets.

Either way it comes down to a 'called shot' and then it's up to the GM to decide (if it isnt listed) how much damage that given location can take. There's pleny of examples of how much damage say.. a hand or foot can take and i think there's a few caes where eyes have like 2 SDC/MDC or what have you.

Hands and feet tend to be larger targets than eyes.

Either way the precedents ARE there in the system itself if not specifically in Rifts.

Nope. Not in this.
Unless I've missed a part where normal-sized eyes are statted our or described as targets.

OK! If this is going to continue, gosh darnitt... I wanna play too!

asajosh wrote:
Your so right , with the dozens of campaigns I've run (all types of alignments and hundreds of players): ITS ALL MY FAULT for not brow beating my players and telling them what to do and how to play as per your prior suggestion.

Yes, if one player does something to tick off another player, and you let it happen... it is your responsibility. Part of the job is to prevent that from happenning, or to choose paths that minimize it.

asajosh wrote:Things you'd know if you'd read the entire thread:
1) Isolated incidident. Not only in the scope of this campaign but more or less an isolated incident in my entire time GMing.

Then as the only one who said "if it's an isolated incident, then forget about it", I guess I am the only one who's correct. However, if it's so isolated, why even bother wasting time about it? Why was the elaboration a long-winded description of things rather than a "fundamental fact... it only happened once, we wont start worrying unless it happens again." Sounds to me like a long waste of time, unless the problem is indeed as deep as initially suggested.

asajosh wrote:2) One TEMPORARILY aggrivated player. His plan went poof and he darn near killed himself (again). But Im sure that could never happen in a campaign of yours, seeing as how you tell the players how to play.

I demand my players make characters who will work as a team. If one player makes an Elf, and another player makes a character who 'Kills elves on sight', you know something? It is good GM'ing to ask one or both players to change their character *before* an incident happens and one player is ticked off.

It's not 'telling the PC's how to play', it's 'anticipating problems and stopping them before they happen'. When the problem happens, it's already an indication that the GM has not done their job somewhere. GM's are not perfect, but the key is to take responsibility and learn from it, not 'hide from it' and 'blame the players' when it's at the GM's discretion that the players are there in the first place.

asajosh wrote:I dont know about DemonS-whatever but I play with adults (in their 20s-30s) and they have THOUGHTS of their own, sometimes, try as I might gosh darn it I just cannot quash their creativity... <sarcasm emote here>

These 'adults' get into firepower macho contests in the initial character introductions? I don't see the maturity there. These 'adults' try to kill each other, sell each other into slavery, and then these 'adults' get mad and into big arguments when one of them is killed? The story has already destroyed any credibility this group has towards 'adulthood'. This whole thing began with one player whining to the message board about another player.... over something that all of a sudden is an 'isolated incidident'?

If there are any mature players involved.... they've not been mentioned yet.

Creativity needs to be tempered with maturity. It's the difference between a child's fingerpainting and a Jackson Pollock.

asajosh wrote:Just my opinion here, though I'm sure many will agree (not you of course): The GM telling his players how they can/should and cannot/should not behave is a bad plan. Sure you have order, but at what cost? May as well campaign solo, but you probobly already do.

The GM starting the party with a shared purpose and constructing the party as a group of people who are working towards something is not 'telling the players what to do', it's good plotting. It's good planning. To do otherwise, is bad planning because groups of people only come together for one reason... a common purpose. It's the GM's job to provide that, and if he doesn't.... a mature party will find one, but an immature one.... well... they'll start selling each other into slavery and shooting each other in the head.

When you play Monopoly, do the rules state that a player can't rob the bank? No. So does the banker let another player help himself to extra cash, or does group cooperation and the desire for everyone to have a good time keep people from doing that?

When you play Uno, do you keep extra cards in your lap to help? Do the rules say flat out that you can't substitute the cards in your hand with cards from another deck? No. So do people change cards, or do they play by the spirit of the rules so everyone has fun?

When you play Yahtzee, do the rules say you can't flip the dice to show different numbers? But people don't do that, they play fairly so they can leave as friends.

Why would an RPG be different? Why would establishing another rule for the sake of player happiness be such a horrible thing when other games are given rules governing behavior and no one complains?

Natalya wrote:When you play Monopoly, do the rules state that a player can't rob the bank? No. So does the banker let another player help himself to extra cash, or does group cooperation and the desire for everyone to have a good time keep people from doing that?

When you play Uno, do you keep extra cards in your lap to help? Do the rules say flat out that you can't substitute the cards in your hand with cards from another deck? No. So do people change cards, or do they play by the spirit of the rules so everyone has fun?

When you play Yahtzee, do the rules say you can't flip the dice to show different numbers? But people don't do that, they play fairly so they can leave as friends.

Why would an RPG be different? Why would establishing another rule for the sake of player happiness be such a horrible thing when other games are given rules governing behavior and no one complains?

Excellent analogies!

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Natalya wrote:When you play Monopoly, do the rules state that a player can't rob the bank? No. So does the banker let another player help himself to extra cash, or does group cooperation and the desire for everyone to have a good time keep people from doing that?

When you play Uno, do you keep extra cards in your lap to help? Do the rules say flat out that you can't substitute the cards in your hand with cards from another deck? No. So do people change cards, or do they play by the spirit of the rules so everyone has fun?

When you play Yahtzee, do the rules say you can't flip the dice to show different numbers? But people don't do that, they play fairly so they can leave as friends.

Why would an RPG be different? Why would establishing another rule for the sake of player happiness be such a horrible thing when other games are given rules governing behavior and no one complains?

Excellent analogies!

See thats the thing though. There's no mechanic at all for deciding 'bank robberies' in Monopoly etc.

Yet there is a system for making called shots in Palladium. It's been there since day one. Also I've never heard of a game of Monopoly having 'house rules' yet thats a VERY common thing in RPGs. Because flat out RPGs are NOT board/card games. Their a great deal more complex in most cases.

I'm fairly certain (though could be wrong) that somewhere in one of the rifts books (I think RUE) gives an 'optional' rule for dividing up SDC etc to figgure out how much say.. a hand or an arm would have. It's hardly a stretch then to make it cover an eye.

Also small things such as eyes have been on occasion given stats. The Xiticix have hit locations for things like antenae, the devil unicorn has MDC listed for both it's horn and it's tail, the various dinosaurs in new west specifically have a hit location for their 'underbelly' never mind thats actually still part of the 'main body'. The mammoth brontodon even gives a hit location for its small mandables.

In contrast however, things like the dream snake, grigleaper etc only list main body MDC. So are you saying then that a PC can make a called shot to the head/mandible/arm/leg/other of creature A-F but not Creature Y?

The whole point of a called shot system is to allow a PC to shoot at very specific points on a target. The smaller the target the higher the required minimum number to hit it.

A GM can call 2 targets one target, but he'll be wrong.
Math beats GM opinion.

Incorrect. GM is the GM. GM call goes, by all means argue it when the GM is wrong but unless your the one running the game the ultimate call is his. This is one of the oldest RPG rules out there. Goes hand in hand with the 'special GM NPC' idea thats been around for ages. The exceptional NPCs that can do things NPCs of their normal type cant by standard book stats.

Afterall for some it's more about the story than niggling over every tiny detail. Thats why there are a few RPGs out there with only the most basic conflic resolution systems.

The books never state that normal human vagabonds don't get laserbeam vision, or that they don't fly.
Does that mean that it's permissable?

The books never state that a normal human boxer cannot K.O. a Death's Head transport.
Does that make it permissable?

Nope.

And here your throwing the whole point way off for the sake of argument. But again GM rules. If the GM wants to make the eyes called shot using the called shot system with additional penalty X. He can do so. Just like he can have a vagabond attack you using flight and laser beams from his eyes. Thats actually even entirely possible to pull off in Rifts assuming its some sorta mutant, multi OCC or RCC ability.

As for KOing DHTs thats going way off what I'm talking about here. The system gives no example of KOing DHTs or any vehicle for that matter. Though honestly if the GM is running a game to allow such things it's probably not one ment to be serious in the first place. SO yeah.. they could do that. (Not my kinda game mind you)

The whole point is agian called shot system exists. Stats for assorted hit locations much smaller than hands also exists. In the palladium system in general as a whole, eyes have been stated out as hit locations. In MANY cases, theres only one main body value. This is especially common in the older books and when dealing with PCs. RMB for example only lists MDC for main body on all the body armor. Yet that armor also protects arms, legs, the head etc because it's full body.

So how then do you decide how much MDC the helmet has? You could just subtract it from the whole listed under main body, or you can equally just assign it avalue based uppon the MDC value of the main body. Eyes are no different.

Most games don't cover shots to the eyes, because most games assume that you're always trying for as deadly a shot as possible, and that you're doing pretty well just to hit the opponent anywhere.
Palladium allows more specific shots than most systems, simply by letting you strike at the head or limbs on a called shot.
It's pretty clear that the system isn't meant to be any more specific than that, due to the simple fact that it isn't.

Pretty much allready adressed this. It is considerably more specific than that. Look through the books. There's tons of hit locations for things other than just 'main body, head, arms, legs'. And for in some cases some really small targets. It's purely because of who wrote up what and how much detail they wanted to give on a specific race/NPC/other.

And actually most games do NOT assume your trying to make the most deadly shot possible right off the bat. Palladium doesnt, it assumes your aiming center mass nmost of the time. But has the called shot system for hitting targets not normally aimed at. Shadowrun equally has a called shot system with several ways to handle it from doubling damage of head shots to bypassing armor etc.

Heavy Gear also has a simlar system in place to a degree, and even has rules to cover 'over damage' to the point where you can infact by giving you a fairly quick calculation for damage on a round that not only flat out killed the target, but then went on to hit anything -behind- the target because the round is then assumed to have blown right through the first one. Said shot can then continue on through multiple targets (in a straight line) damaging/killing anything in it's way untill it 'runs out of steam' so to speak. So that 40mm cannon round can easily pass through say.. a group of 10 soldiers in a line.

D&D on the other hand doesnt have anythign like this. Unless maybe 3.0/3.5 introduced something like this, been ages since I've played D&D. Yet plenty of players still state that their 'aiming for X' such as a hand, head arm what have you. It's entirely up to the GM then to decide the outcome of such calls. It allways has been. Palladium, Shadowrun and other RPGs simply offer basic resolution systems to handle such things.

Bad Call in that:
a. The shot was allowed in the first place.
Called Shot head is as specific as the rules are built for, and as of RUE that takes 2-3 attacks to complete.
b. The natural 20 was applied to both shots at both targets.
That's not how paired firearms work in the rules.

The blinding isn't the issue.

Sufice it to say I completely disagree with you on it being a bad call. There are basic rule sin place for covering making called shots. Such a system was used and stuck to. It seems for simplicity he just had one shot roll for two targets. Not how i'd have handled it but thats again the GMs call if things are slowing down to speed it up.

Paired firearms is not allways calling for two seperate attack rolls. If they attack the same target they use a single dice roll. For the sake of speed one can keep using that. It's simply suggested not to. Called shot to head etc isnt as specific as the rules are built for as I have shown and given you examples above.

Again many other damage locations than head, arms, legs, are given, such as hands, feet, wings, antenae, missile ports, guns, missiles, grenades, weapon points, ammunition feeds (Be it belt or power line), horns, claws, mandables, canteens, boots, etc.

Wow, it looks like not only does Kesslan OWN a copy of New West but actually READ it too! Kudos!


Everyone Else: Being a Player/GM means more then just BUYING books (but by all means keep buying them).

Yes you are right that two shots to two seperate (New West, pg 93, Gunslinger rule 3, yes I have read it hehe) targets should usually be 2 strike rolls but...
The 2 eyes as one target was a judgement call thing that all my players agreed upon because of the circumstances involved (standing less the 5 feet away, he's a gunslinger, no bonuses or penalties for the roll, etc).
Think about it, if the barrels of pistols in your hands were less then 5 feet from two dimes (set up on their flat side to simulate human eyes) is it reasonable that you could pull the triggers simultaneously and hit both targets? In real Life Id say yes, and in game terms all my players agreed that yes it was reasonable (even the player who was shot). Its even more probable when the shooter is a highly trained pistoleer, at least reasonable to me and my players.

The situation on my end, with me and my group, has been resolved to our satisfaction. Our game continues as does our riotous fun! Anyone in the Central Florida (407 and 321 area codes) send me a PM if you wanna get in on our game, we meet for an all day rager (11 am or so till 8 or 9) every other saturday.

Ya I shouldnt get drawn into a silly argument, especially on the boards (sorry for eating up space ).
But when people who've never met me, played with me, or even read the thread they are commenting on come out and attack me cause I dont GM like they do (I let my players tell ME how THEY play rather then ME tell them how to play), its a little irritating. I admit, I let the ramblings of DemonS get under my skin for a moment. Shant happen again.

The original posting was about how to shut down rules lawyers before they start (or shortly after they start). That question too has been answered. What say we all just agree to let this thread die a death that's far overdue? If anyone has some burning need to discuss this further, drop me a PM.

Kesslan wrote:See thats the thing though. There's no mechanic at all for deciding 'bank robberies' in Monopoly etc.

Just as there's no mechanic for deciding called shots to the eyes of a normal human-sized creature.

Yet there is a system for making called shots in Palladium.

Not to the eyes, not unless the damage capacity of the eyes is listed.

Also I've never heard of a game of Monopoly having 'house rules' yet thats a VERY common thing in RPGs. Because flat out RPGs are NOT board/card games. Their a great deal more complex in most cases.

House Rules are House Rules.
They're not official, therefore irrelevent in a discussion on how to interpret the official rules.

Also small things such as eyes have been on occasion given stats. The Xiticix have hit locations for things like antenae, the devil unicorn has MDC listed for both it's horn and it's tail, the various dinosaurs in new west specifically have a hit location for their 'underbelly' never mind thats actually still part of the 'main body'. The mammoth brontodon even gives a hit location for its small mandables.

In contrast however, things like the dream snake, grigleaper etc only list main body MDC. So are you saying then that a PC can make a called shot to the head/mandible/arm/leg/other of creature A-F but not Creature Y?

I'm saying that there is no official mechanism for it.

A GM can call 2 targets one target, but he'll be wrong.
Math beats GM opinion.

Incorrect. GM is the GM.

Math is math.
A GM can try to rule that 1+1=1, but he's just wrong.
Math wins.

Otherwise the whole system of dice goes out the window.

Player (rolls 6d6): I did 30 points of damage to the creature!
GM: Nope. You only did 5 points of damage. 5+5+4+4+6+6 now equals 5.
I'm the GM, and what I say goes.
It's one of the oldest rules of RPGs, you know....

The books never state that normal human vagabonds don't get laserbeam vision, or that they don't fly.
Does that mean that it's permissable?

The books never state that a normal human boxer cannot K.O. a Death's Head transport.
Does that make it permissable?

Nope.

And here your throwing the whole point way off for the sake of argument.

No, what I'm doing is showing you the absurdity that your argument leads to.
IF the rule of "It's not forbidden, therefore it's permissable" held true, then there would be nothing wrong with any of the above.
Yet it doesn't hold true, and the above examples are wrong.

But again GM rules. If the GM wants to make the eyes called shot using the called shot system with additional penalty X. He can do so. Just like he can have a vagabond attack you using flight and laser beams from his eyes. Thats actually even entirely possible to pull off in Rifts assuming its some sorta mutant, multi OCC or RCC ability.

The GM can houserule anything he wants.
This does not affect the actual rules of the game.

(And note that I specified a normal human in the above examples, not a mutant)

As for KOing DHTs thats going way off what I'm talking about here. The system gives no example of KOing DHTs or any vehicle for that matter.

You argue that since there is a system for Called Shots, that system is intended to be applied to everything.
Yet you find it absurd to think that since there is a system for Knock Outs, that that system should be applied to everything.

The whole point is agian called shot system exists.

As does the system for KOs.

Stats for assorted hit locations much smaller than hands also exists. In the palladium system in general as a whole, eyes have been stated out as hit locations.

Not normal human-sized eyes.

In MANY cases, theres only one main body value. This is especially common in the older books and when dealing with PCs. RMB for example only lists MDC for main body on all the body armor. Yet that armor also protects arms, legs, the head etc because it's full body.

Refresh your memory:
Where are the Called Shot rules located in the original main book?

So how then do you decide how much MDC the helmet has? You could just subtract it from the whole listed under main body, or you can equally just assign it avalue based uppon the MDC value of the main body.

You can, but not in accordance with the rules. (not the original rules)

Most games don't cover shots to the eyes, because most games assume that you're always trying for as deadly a shot as possible, and that you're doing pretty well just to hit the opponent anywhere.
Palladium allows more specific shots than most systems, simply by letting you strike at the head or limbs on a called shot.
It's pretty clear that the system isn't meant to be any more specific than that, due to the simple fact that it isn't.

Pretty much allready adressed this. It is considerably more specific than that. Look through the books. There's tons of hit locations for things other than just 'main body, head, arms, legs'. And for in some cases some really small targets. It's purely because of who wrote up what and how much detail they wanted to give on a specific race/NPC/other.

Again, only for targets that are larger than normal human eyes.

And actually most games do NOT assume your trying to make the most deadly shot possible right off the bat.

Yes, they do.

Palladium doesnt, it assumes your aiming center mass most of the time. But has the called shot system for hitting targets not normally aimed at.

That's how Palladium deals with MDC armor in the Rifts setting.
But that's new, relatively speaking, and it's an exception to the way that they normally handle things.
Otherwise a chainmail shirt would have the same AR as a full suit of chainmail.

Shadowrun equally has a called shot system with several ways to handle it from doubling damage of head shots to bypassing armor etc.

I'm only familiar with 1st edition Shadowrun, which wasn't really a RPG as much as a collection of artwork and some general hints at how a RPG in that setting might work, if somebody was ever to write one.

Heavy Gear also has a simlar system in place to a degree...

Never played it.

D&D on the other hand doesnt have anythign like this. Unless maybe 3.0/3.5 introduced something like this, been ages since I've played D&D.

Correct. D&D does not, and never has supported such a system of called shots.
It's one of the prime examples for my statement.

Yet plenty of players still state that their 'aiming for X' such as a hand, head arm what have you. It's entirely up to the GM then to decide the outcome of such calls.

No, according to the RULES, it doesn't matter one bit if the players say they're trying for a headshot or not.
A DM can houserule something different, but that's irrelevent in a discussion about what the actual rules are.

It allways has been. Palladium, Shadowrun and other RPGs simply offer basic resolution systems to handle such things.

And D&D, AD&D, other D20 games, White Wolf, GURPS, and the vast majority of other systems out there do NOT.

Bad Call in that:
a. The shot was allowed in the first place.
Called Shot head is as specific as the rules are built for, and as of RUE that takes 2-3 attacks to complete.
b. The natural 20 was applied to both shots at both targets.
That's not how paired firearms work in the rules.

The blinding isn't the issue.

Sufice it to say I completely disagree with you on it being a bad call. There are basic rules in place for covering making called shots. Such a system was used and stuck to.

No, such a system was improvised upon, and expanded beyond what it was meant to encompass.

It seems for simplicity he just had one shot roll for two targets. Not how i'd have handled it but thats again the GMs call if things are slowing down to speed it up.

1+1=2.

Paired firearms is not allways calling for two seperate attack rolls. If they attack the same target they use a single dice roll.

And 1 eye + 1 eye = 2 eyes.
NOT 1 eye + 1 eye = 1 eye.

Again many other damage locations than head, arms, legs, are given, such as hands, feet, wings, antenae, missile ports, guns, missiles, grenades, weapon points, ammunition feeds (Be it belt or power line), horns, claws, mandables, canteens, boots, etc.

Again, hopefully for the last time, all those are larger than human-sized eyes.

wolfe wrote:First off, the whole eyes can't be targeted is complete bunk as is saying there are no rules to target them.

The first core book said "specific" target, it doesn't get any more specific than the players stating the eyes, and its highly unlikely Mr. Siembieda was expecting folks to be going that far into it at the time he wrote the game and most likely expected the GM to make own judgement on what he didn't (as most RPG developers do) and I never saw a End User License Agreement that said I had to follow every rule to the letter and missing rule interpretation was completely forbidden or else have to stop playing, in any of the books.

The bolded part is essentially my point.
The rules were NOT written with called eye-shots in mind.

Nobody has said that a GM must stick to the rules; we're only discussing what the rules are, and what they are meant to do.

A few years after the core book we get the conversion book and lordy what do we see under called shot on page 12, the specific mentioning of "the sensor eye of a robot".

Sensor eyes on robots are usually pretty freakin' large.

asajosh wrote:Yes you are right that two shots to two seperate (New West, pg 93, Gunslinger rule 3, yes I have read it hehe) targets should usually be 2 strike rolls but...
The 2 eyes as one target was a judgement call thing that all my players agreed upon because of the circumstances involved (standing less the 5 feet away, he's a gunslinger, no bonuses or penalties for the roll, etc).
Think about it, if the barrels of pistols in your hands were less then 5 feet from two dimes (set up on their flat side to simulate human eyes) is it reasonable that you could pull the triggers simultaneously and hit both targets? In real Life Id say yes, and in game terms all my players agreed that yes it was reasonable (even the player who was shot). Its even more probable when the shooter is a highly trained pistoleer, at least reasonable to me and my players.

You're asking the wrong question, though.
The right question is not, "is it reasonable that you could pull the triggers simultaneously and hit both targets?"
The right question is, "is it reasonable that you could pull the triggers simultaneously and hit only one of the targets, but miss the other one?"

The situation on my end, with me and my group, has been resolved to our satisfaction.

And if your group is happy, that's one of the most important things.

Ya I shouldnt get drawn into a silly argument, especially on the boards (sorry for eating up space ).

This is nothing.
Sometime you should read the thread about whether or not it was possible to teleport into a vehicle.

What say we all just agree to let this thread die a death that's far overdue? If anyone has some burning need to discuss this further, drop me a PM.

I tried, but then somebody responded to my post...

bob the desolate one wrote:ok folks i feel its ok to question the gms logic from time to time but eccesive drawn out 20 minute arguments over rules to the point where the whole group is saying enough already your killing the fun any suggestions on how to stop this crap?

GM IS GOD!! if you don't like it gm it/ wing it... don't argue... and tell them "well i don't like to play it that way i will play this way in my games"

This thread is epic.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Kesslan wrote:See thats the thing though. There's no mechanic at all for deciding 'bank robberies' in Monopoly etc.

Just as there's no mechanic for deciding called shots to the eyes of a normal human-sized creature.

Again you totally ignore the whole called shot system. There is very much indeed a mechanic for deciding called shots on the eyes of a normal human-sized creature. There is a base suggested penalty for shooting small targets (usually suggested at around -4) other called shot locations listed in many a book goes as low as -6 and in a few cases in PB in general as low as -8. The harder it is it hit the target the larger the penalty or higher the base target number to make the called shot.

There is your system. It's quick and simple.

Yet there is a system for making called shots in Palladium.

Not to the eyes, not unless the damage capacity of the eyes is listed.

Why exactly must the damage capacity of the eye be listed? The GM can be free to make that up as allways. The book writers CANNOT list every tiny last hit location possible on a character. It wastes space and is ultimately pointless when any half competent GM can easily come up with reasonable numbers on their own.

Also I've never heard of a game of Monopoly having 'house rules' yet thats a VERY common thing in RPGs. Because flat out RPGs are NOT board/card games. Their a great deal more complex in most cases.

House Rules are House Rules.
They're not official, therefore irrelevent in a discussion on how to interpret the official rules.

Yet your the one talking about brining in bank theft to Monopoly. I'm not talking about house ruled anything here. But using the established called shot system to make a called shot. If there is no specific damage location to that target it's purely the GM call on if A) The target can be hit, B) is so what the target number is and C) the damage capacity of said location. This is the same for everything in rifts, when it comes to breaking through MDC walls (As in busting a hoel in vs destroying the whole wall) to shooting at the weapon or some other small location that doesnt show a specific damage capacity for said target, yet other things have it.

This even goes so far as to include arms and legs in many cases. Again I refer you to the points I made in my last post since you seem intent on ignoring it.

Also small things such as eyes have been on occasion given stats. The Xiticix have hit locations for things like antenae, the devil unicorn has MDC listed for both it's horn and it's tail, the various dinosaurs in new west specifically have a hit location for their 'underbelly' never mind thats actually still part of the 'main body'. The mammoth brontodon even gives a hit location for its small mandables.

In contrast however, things like the dream snake, grigleaper etc only list main body MDC. So are you saying then that a PC can make a called shot to the head/mandible/arm/leg/other of creature A-F but not Creature Y?

I'm saying that there is no official mechanism for it.

And I've proven that there infact, is.

A GM can call 2 targets one target, but he'll be wrong.
Math beats GM opinion.

Incorrect. GM is the GM.

Math is math.
A GM can try to rule that 1+1=1, but he's just wrong.
Math wins.

Otherwise the whole system of dice goes out the window.

Player (rolls 6d6): I did 30 points of damage to the creature!
GM: Nope. You only did 5 points of damage. 5+5+4+4+6+6 now equals 5.
I'm the GM, and what I say goes.
It's one of the oldest rules of RPGs, you know....

You see you try to counter my point yet only back it up. GM makes the call. Very few GMs are so horribly concerned with numbers that they'll let them get in the way if things are getting boged down. If the GM wants to let the PC make one strike roll at two targets he can. The books even back them up on this.

Math in this instance really has nothing to do with it. If RPGs were all about nothing but numbers combat would take 30 years to finish figuratively speaking because you'd have to calculate to the Nth decimal point just how much damage was done, angles of fire, rate of fire, MOA, kinetic energy, target weight vs force for knockback etc.

While I'm all for a certain level of detail (And how I've said repeatedly that I would personally call for 2 strike rolls to the eyes) I entirely backup the fact that it's up to the GM if they want to simplify things for the sake of speed. Personally I'd rather the GM fudge a few things than it take three hours to work out a fight that only in game time lasts 10 seconds.

Combat systems in table top RPGs tend to go for simplicity over complexity for a reason.

The books never state that normal human vagabonds don't get laserbeam vision, or that they don't fly.
Does that mean that it's permissable?

The books never state that a normal human boxer cannot K.O. a Death's Head transport.
Does that make it permissable?

Nope.

And here your throwing the whole point way off for the sake of argument.

No, what I'm doing is showing you the absurdity that your argument leads to.

IF the rule of "It's not forbidden, therefore it's permissable" held true, then there would be nothing wrong with any of the above.
Yet it doesn't hold true, and the above examples are wrong.

Only by going to totally inane and extreme lengths. I'm pulling up common examples of called shots players make all the time. Your pulling out the most munchkin and/or off the wall examples possible.

But again GM rules. If the GM wants to make the eyes called shot using the called shot system with additional penalty X. He can do so. Just like he can have a vagabond attack you using flight and laser beams from his eyes. Thats actually even entirely possible to pull off in Rifts assuming its some sorta mutant, multi OCC or RCC ability.

The GM can houserule anything he wants.
This does not affect the actual rules of the game.

(And note that I specified a normal human in the above examples, not a mutant)

How does it not affect the rules of the game when there are stated supplementary/replacement rules? Considering just how many rules are flat out stated as 'optional' in the core books and if the players accept said house rules. Then they are the rules. Period. House rules are all about affecting the actual rules of the game. The game is also designed to allow the GM a great deal of leeway when making a call to resolve an issue the game system simply cannot cover in the page space available to the printer.

As for KOing DHTs thats going way off what I'm talking about here. The system gives no example of KOing DHTs or any vehicle for that matter.

You argue that since there is a system for Called Shots, that system is intended to be applied to everything.
Yet you find it absurd to think that since there is a system for Knock Outs, that that system should be applied to everything.

Thats because I base it on a little something I call reality. In reality you can shoot at what eve rthe hell you want. You can even shoot a target as small as the burning wick of a candle and put it out. Hell I've even DONE that with a .22 rifle. And I'm not talking a big candle here either, but those small cheapo birthday candles. I can take a gun and shoot at what ever point I want, and even stand a chance of hitting it. The only thing that will ever change is the difficulty of doing so.

I cannot however go out and punch a car and 'knock it out' since there isnt a damn thing to knock out in the first place. It lacks any conciousness to knock out in the first place.

The whole point is agian called shot system exists.

As does the system for KOs.

Yet I'm using it for the intended purpose. You are on the other hand applying the KO system to things not ever intended.

Stats for assorted hit locations much smaller than hands also exists. In the palladium system in general as a whole, eyes have been stated out as hit locations.

Not normal human-sized eyes.

Doesnt have to be. THe point is the system has clearly shown it can be used to hit what ever target size you want and gives you suggestions on target numbers/penalties to apply. What do you honestly want each and every Race, Robot, Power suit, Vehicle etc to have every tiny last inch stated out for you?

I sure as hell dont that wastes far too much book space better left to the actual important details. Its all too easy to asign a reasonable HP/SDC/MDC value to a hit location.

In MANY cases, theres only one main body value. This is especially common in the older books and when dealing with PCs. RMB for example only lists MDC for main body on all the body armor. Yet that armor also protects arms, legs, the head etc because it's full body.

Refresh your memory:
Where are the Called Shot rules located in the original main book?

I'd have to pull out the RMB again which I dont have with me at the moment. Even the RMB however gave suggested MDC values for things like guns, and it listed alternative hit locations on power armor, vehicles etc. Later books statted out the rest of the hit locations long before RUE and GMG came out.

So how then do you decide how much MDC the helmet has? You could just subtract it from the whole listed under main body, or you can equally just assign it avalue based uppon the MDC value of the main body.

You can, but not in accordance with the rules. (not the original rules)

Now I coudl be mistaken about this but I belive at least the RMB actually gave you a suggestion somewhere for HP/SDC/MDC ammoutns to locations other than the main body by using X% of the main body value. If not the RMB one of the books that came out abit later certainly does.

Most games don't cover shots to the eyes, because most games assume that you're always trying for as deadly a shot as possible, and that you're doing pretty well just to hit the opponent anywhere.
Palladium allows more specific shots than most systems, simply by letting you strike at the head or limbs on a called shot.
It's pretty clear that the system isn't meant to be any more specific than that, due to the simple fact that it isn't.

Pretty much allready adressed this. It is considerably more specific than that. Look through the books. There's tons of hit locations for things other than just 'main body, head, arms, legs'. And for in some cases some really small targets. It's purely because of who wrote up what and how much detail they wanted to give on a specific race/NPC/other.

Again, only for targets that are larger than normal human eyes.

Not really. I suggest you look through the book again. There are a few called shot locations that arnt allways significantly bigger than the area covered by a human eye.

And actually most games do NOT assume your trying to make the most deadly shot possible right off the bat.

Yes, they do.

No they dont. Main mass does not equal most deadly shot possible.

Palladium doesnt, it assumes your aiming center mass most of the time. But has the called shot system for hitting targets not normally aimed at.

That's how Palladium deals with MDC armor in the Rifts setting.
But that's new, relatively speaking, and it's an exception to the way that they normally handle things.
Otherwise a chainmail shirt would have the same AR as a full suit of chainmail.

Define 'relatively new'. Called shots have been around for a LONG time. SO have alternative hit locations. They go back at least as far as the inital printing of the Robotech RPG. And I wouldnt be supprised if it goes back farther than that. They simply havent added that sort of detail to everything. That part has been due to a growing trend from gamers that want a touch more realism to the system

Shadowrun equally has a called shot system with several ways to handle it from doubling damage of head shots to bypassing armor etc.

I'm only familiar with 1st edition Shadowrun, which wasn't really a RPG as much as a collection of artwork and some general hints at how a RPG in that setting might work, if somebody was ever to write one.

Ironically 1st ed is the only one I dont even have the main book for (I have maybe.. 3 books from 1st ed but none are rule books). 2nd-4th ed have to assorted degrees handled this. THey keep it fairly simple though and it still works off the main damage bar.

Any specific effects such as shots to the head, eyes, hands, gear etc are left up to the GM along with some basic idea of how to handle it using the standard combat resolution system. But that same system is significantly different from PB.

D&D on the other hand doesnt have anythign like this. Unless maybe 3.0/3.5 introduced something like this, been ages since I've played D&D.

Correct. D&D does not, and never has supported such a system of called shots.
It's one of the prime examples for my statement.

It shouldnt be though. Palladium isnt D&D and it very much does support making called shots, and has for years. That said, think about it. Can you honestly tell me you've -never- played in a game where a Player at least tried to declare they were going to try to decapitate some one or some such thing?

I've seen it. I've also seen various GMs handle it differently since there's no actual system for it. IN the end it comes down to the same exact principle. GMs call. In D&D there isnt the slightest mechanic to cover making called shots. In the Palladium system however there is the long established called shot system with it's varied penalties. Just as other RPGs (SUch as SR and HG) cover a wide variety of ranged combat penalties (That Palladium lacks, yet the resolution style actually allows for flat out use of the tables).

Yet plenty of players still state that their 'aiming for X' such as a hand, head arm what have you. It's entirely up to the GM then to decide the outcome of such calls.

No, according to the RULES, it doesn't matter one bit if the players say they're trying for a headshot or not.
A DM can houserule something different, but that's irrelevent in a discussion about what the actual rules are.

So? That still doesnt stop the DM from making a call based uppon it. The Rules even state that the DM can make rulings not covered by the books. Same as every other RPG I've ever seen.

It allways has been. Palladium, Shadowrun and other RPGs simply offer basic resolution systems to handle such things.

And D&D, AD&D, other D20 games, White Wolf, GURPS, and the vast majority of other systems out there do NOT.

Still, ultimatley, we are discussing a game that DOES allow called shots. Not the ones that dont. There's alot of games that DO, or their basic combat system easily allows for such. Also as far as actual market share goes I'm pretty sure that vast majority isnt as quite vast as you think it is. Either way it doesnt really matter. Either a system is built for ultimate simplicity, and leaves a great deal up to the GM otherwise, or goes for alot of complexity. Palladium is definately in the latter group.

Bad Call in that:
a. The shot was allowed in the first place.
Called Shot head is as specific as the rules are built for, and as of RUE that takes 2-3 attacks to complete.
b. The natural 20 was applied to both shots at both targets.
That's not how paired firearms work in the rules.

The blinding isn't the issue.

Sufice it to say I completely disagree with you on it being a bad call. There are basic rules in place for covering making called shots. Such a system was used and stuck to.

No, such a system was improvised upon, and expanded beyond what it was meant to encompass.

Again I very much disagree with you. Either way.. So what? Stuff like called shots to X part are extremely common in the Palladium system because there is a called shot system. And ultimately nothing but the GM actually states what can/cant be shot at.

It seems for simplicity he just had one shot roll for two targets. Not how i'd have handled it but thats again the GMs call if things are slowing down to speed it up.

1+1=2.

Irellevant to the point. GMs call. Not everyone wants to spend all their time rolling dice, figguring out hit/miss/damage etc. I tend to go in for the more complex combat. But thats my own preference and I dont mind the extra few minutes it may take to resolve combat as a result. Not everyone however, likes that. So they use the Palladium system with a greater degree of laxity.

And you know what? Even the rule book allows for that and like any RPG has since day one. Thats why every one I've ever seen backs up GM calls. It's not my place, or yours for that matter to judge how fast and loose a given group plays with the rules. Neither of us were part of that group.

Paired firearms is not allways calling for two seperate attack rolls. If they attack the same target they use a single dice roll.

And 1 eye + 1 eye = 2 eyes.
NOT 1 eye + 1 eye = 1 eye.

Again you totally miss my point.

Again many other damage locations than head, arms, legs, are given, such as hands, feet, wings, antenae, missile ports, guns, missiles, grenades, weapon points, ammunition feeds (Be it belt or power line), horns, claws, mandables, canteens, boots, etc.

Again, hopefully for the last time, all those are larger than human-sized eyes.

[/quote]

Not all. The majority yes, but not all. Even if they are. So what? Apply a bigger penalty. Done.

Realistically I can shoot you right in the eye. In a game system that supports called shots to things like canteens, backpacks, legs, arms, hands, feet, antenae with increasing difficulty to target size. There is no concievable reason that I shouldnt, thus, be allowed to fire at a human eyeball.

The only problem with it really seems to be players like you who treat a flawed system as some sort of holy grail. And I say flawed not because Called Shot doesnt take into account things like eyes. But because it lacks a proper ranged combat penalty/bonus table in general unlike every other RPG that goes to even remotely the sort of 'detail' the Palaldium system does with things like called shots and hit locations.

General_Sarkoff wrote:I'd like to thank the OP for a vivid reminder of why I do not allow evil characters in my games.

Bah properly handled there's no reason not to allow evil characters. Especially when the whole point is to run an 'evil' game. I dont do that sort of thing often. But I've almost allways played an 'evil' character in Palladium.

That being Aberrant. But then again Aberrant characters tend to work quite well indeed with a group because they actually have some ethics like not betraying real friends etc.

Some of the best games I've RPed in was with an entirely evil group. Hell the most memorable TT experience I ever had was when I was playing a Draconian. Made half the party barf (The human contingient) when they found out I'd made the stew that night from the bodies of a bunch of humans and elves we'd killed just a few hours before hand. The goblin asked for seconds.

The only real issue I see at hand with the OP's problem, really only came about because he deliberately set one group of PCs against another from the get go. Rather than instead providing them with some motive (Or at least a strong enough motive) to work togeather.

The rest of the problems come from the PB system in general. As it allows things like blinding characters, but doesnt actually provide much of a basis to make calls on when a character should go blind or not etc. They tend to leave that up to so called 'common sense'. Course its' easy to say it's 'common sense'. It's however a totally different story for it to be such.

Afterall how many people have -you- shot in the face?

How many people have you seen getting shot in the face?

If the answer is at least 1. How many actually survived the experience long enough for it to even remotely matter if they were blinded (even temporarily).

For me the answer is 0. I've never ecountered anyone, even post shot to the face experience. What little I know comes from basic biology and fairly casual study into the effects of combat wounds etc. Even then that wont necessarily apply to things like cyborgs etc.

Again that goes for why RPGs tend to leave stuff like that so open and up to the GM. Lord knows I've run into RPG players that ranged from homless to a friend of mine who graduated with a PHD in Neural something or other.

Point is a GM makes a call based uppon what they know. And with the game system in general may cut corners to speed things up. It's as common as it is old in practice. The only times you ever see anyone complain is when it doesnt benifit them and all the more so when it instead, brings harm to their character.

Yet their all too happy when that exact same ruling works in their favour.

I already responded to this before, but apparently it failed to post.
So here goes again.

Kesslan wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Kesslan wrote:See thats the thing though. There's no mechanic at all for deciding 'bank robberies' in Monopoly etc.

Just as there's no mechanic for deciding called shots to the eyes of a normal human-sized creature.

Again you totally ignore the whole called shot system.

I'm not ignoring it.
I'm just not extending it beyond the scope that it was meant to be used.

Yet there is a system for making called shots in Palladium.

Not to the eyes, not unless the damage capacity of the eyes is listed.

Why exactly must the damage capacity of the eye be listed?[/quote]

Because otherwise there's no way to tell what the effects of the shot are, not offficially.
The GM can make stuff up, but that's just the GM making stuff up.
It has nothing to do with the official rules.

The GM can be free to make that up as allways. The book writers CANNOT list every tiny last hit location possible on a character. It wastes space and is ultimately pointless when any half competent GM can easily come up with reasonable numbers on their own.

The writers can and do list every tiny last hit location that is a valid target for a called shot

Also I've never heard of a game of Monopoly having 'house rules' yet thats a VERY common thing in RPGs. Because flat out RPGs are NOT board/card games. Their a great deal more complex in most cases.

House Rules are House Rules.
They're not official, therefore irrelevent in a discussion on how to interpret the official rules.

Yet your the one talking about brining in bank theft to Monopoly.

a. No, that was Natalya.
b. And she was using it as a prime example of what should not be done in a legitimate game of Monopoly.
See, she was illustrating the flaws in the idea that lack of forbiddance equals permission.

Again I refer you to the points I made in my last post since you seem intent on ignoring it.

You're going to have to be more specific if you want a response here.
Let me know what points you think I've ignored.

So are you saying then that a PC can make a called shot to the head/mandible/arm/leg/other of creature A-F but not Creature Y?

I'm saying that there is no official mechanism for it.

And I've proven that there infact, is.[/quote]

Uh, no...
All you've done is to point out that there is a system for Called Shots, not that there is a system for making Called Shots at unlisted targets.

Math is math.
A GM can try to rule that 1+1=1, but he's just wrong.
Math wins.

Otherwise the whole system of dice goes out the window.

Player (rolls 6d6): I did 30 points of damage to the creature!
GM: Nope. You only did 5 points of damage. 5+5+4+4+6+6 now equals 5.
I'm the GM, and what I say goes.
It's one of the oldest rules of RPGs, you know....

You see you try to counter my point yet only back it up. GM makes the call.

Sorry, but GMs do not actually determine how mathematics work.
They can claim that 1+1=1, but it's simply not ever true.

Very few GMs are so horribly concerned with numbers that they'll let them get in the way if things are getting boged down.

There are very few good GMs.

If the GM wants to let the PC make one strike roll at two targets he can. The books even back them up on this.

Where?
Quote the passage and page number.

Math in this instance really has nothing to do with it.

Actually, math is used in the rules of the game to determine the effects of various actions.
I'm rather surprised that you haven't noticed this.

If RPGs were all about nothing but numbers combat would take 30 years to finish figuratively speaking because you'd have to calculate to the Nth decimal point just how much damage was done, angles of fire, rate of fire, MOA, kinetic energy, target weight vs force for knockback etc.

Uh, no...
First of all, the system doesn't use decimal points.
Second, the rules don't really deal with angles of fire.
Third, the rate of fire is described in the rules already; you don't have to try to calculate it out every single time. Just follow the rules.
Third, I'm not sure what the Mall of America has to do with anything.
Fourth, the kinetic energy is already covered by the damage listings of weapons and the knockdown tables.
Fifth, the target weight vs force for knockback is already covered by the rules.
And the rules use math.

Somehow you seem to be confusing "GMs cannot change the laws of basic math" to mean "The entire system must be a 100% representation of reality."
I'm not sure how you're making this leap.

While I'm all for a certain level of detail (And how I've said repeatedly that I would personally call for 2 strike rolls to the eyes) I entirely backup the fact that it's up to the GM if they want to simplify things for the sake of speed. Personally I'd rather the GM fudge a few things than it take three hours to work out a fight that only in game time lasts 10 seconds.

Yeah, I knew these guys back in high school who played AD&D.
One of them was extremely proud of the fact that his character had killed the god Hades, and taken over the god's powers and divine office.
It turns out that his group didn't want to spend the time involved to work things out according to the rules of the game, so they fudged it down to:
"Roll 1d6. If it's odd, then the PCs win. If it's even, then the NPCs win."

If you're taking three hours of work for 10 seconds of in-game combat, then you're doing it wrong.
But guess what?
If you're fudging and ignoring the rules to speed things up, then you're also doing it wrong.

(I'm not saying that you can't have house-rules. You pretty much have to in most games. But once a house-rule is established, it should not be ignored or fudged for simplicity.)

Combat systems in table top RPGs tend to go for simplicity over complexity for a reason.

Ironically, you're the one arguing for complexity here, trying to stretch the rules to be more complex than they are.
I'm the one saying, "It's simple. If a body part isn't statted out, and if there are no rules for shooting at that specific body part, then you can't make a called shot at it."

You're the one building a world where you can't even trust basic math, because the GM can change it out from under you.
I suppose you might claim that blind, unthinking obedience to every whim of the GM is the height of simplicity, but that will only end in a philosophical debate about whether slavery is easier than freedom, etc. etc.

IF the rule of "It's not forbidden, therefore it's permissable" held true, then there would be nothing wrong with any of the above.
Yet it doesn't hold true, and the above examples are wrong.

Only by going to totally inane and extreme lengths.

Irrelevent.
-IF the rule is true, than the above examples would be acceptable.
-The above examples are not acceptable.
~The rule is not true.

I'm pulling up common examples of called shots players make all the time. Your pulling out the most munchkin and/or off the wall examples possible.

a. What "common examples" are you talking about?
If you're talking about eye-shots, then no, people don't do that all the time.
And even if they do, then it's not according to the rules.

b. If you think that those are the most munchkin and/or off the wall examples possible, then you have been living a very sheltered life.

The GM can houserule anything he wants.
This does not affect the actual rules of the game.

How does it not affect the rules of the game when there are stated supplementary/replacement rules?

Look through the books.
See any of my house-rules there?
No.
See any of the house-rules of any of the zillions of other players?
No.

Because house-rules don't affect the actual rules of the game.

You argue that since there is a system for Called Shots, that system is intended to be applied to everything.
Yet you find it absurd to think that since there is a system for Knock Outs, that that system should be applied to everything.

Thats because I base it on a little something I call reality. In reality you can shoot at what eve rthe hell you want.

And in REALITY, if you pull two guns out, fire each weapon at each one of a person's eyes, then it's fully possible to hit one eye and not to hit the other one.
Yet you are arguing that it makes sense for a GM to rule that it's impossible for this to happen; that you either hit both eyes with both guns, or you miss both eyes with both guns.
If you're going to go for reality, be consistant about applying it.

But we're not talking about reality; we're talking about a game.
The game simulates reality, but it's not a perfect simulation.
In the simulation that is Palladium's system, it is not designed for the level of accuracy required to make called shots at human eyes.

I cannot however go out and punch a car and 'knock it out' since there isnt a damn thing to knock out in the first place. It lacks any conciousness to knock out in the first place.

You could always knock it out of commission, though.
Knock a few wires loose, etc.

The whole point is agian called shot system exists.

As does the system for KOs.

Yet I'm using it for the intended purpose. You are on the other hand applying the KO system to things not ever intended.

I am using the KO system to do things not ever intended.
Just as you're using the Called Shot system to do things not ever intended.
That's the point.

What do you honestly want each and every Race, Robot, Power suit, Vehicle etc to have every tiny last inch stated out for you?

Nope. All I want is for every viable target for a potential Called Shot to be statted out.
Fortunately for me, they already are.

But let's look at that "every tiny last inch" part for a minute.
Let's play by your rules for a bit, because I'm curious how you'd handle it.
You are shooting at a man in old-style Heavy Deadboy armor (80 MDC to the main body).
You shoot at the armor once, with a JA-11 sniper rifle's 4d6 MD laser, and the blast leaves a burn spot on the armor. Assume that the damage is 10 MD each time you fire.

According to you, the rules support making a called shot at anything, so logically you could take a called shot at the exact same spot that you hit last time.
Shooting at this exact same spot, how many shots (at 10 MD per shot) would you say it takes before the armor is breached and the person inside the armor is killed?
How many shots if you're shooting at random spots on the chest, instead of firing at that exact same inch every time?
How many shots if the target is turning in circles, and your shots are hitting not only the chest of the armor, but also the back of the armor?

I sure as hell dont that wastes far too much book space better left to the actual important details. Its all too easy to asign a reasonable HP/SDC/MDC value to a hit location.

What's the reasonable MDC value for 1 square inch of that Deadboy armor?

Refresh your memory:
Where are the Called Shot rules located in the original main book?

I'd have to pull out the RMB again which I dont have with me at the moment.

I'll help you out on this one.
They are in the rules for High-Tech War Machine Combat, on pages 40-41.
Let's look at the intro to that section of the book (p. 38):
"The following are the rules that ar used when playing characters who operate power armor or robot vehicles. You will find that the basic rules are only minor modifications of the standard, Palladium Books' combat rules just described. The use of giant war machines requires some special considerations, modifications and clarification."

Now look at the rules for Called Shots:
"Called shots can be an important strategy enabling characters to disable robots and military vehicles rather than destroy the whole unit. This means a character can destroy specific targets on robots and vehicles, such as radar antennas, weapon barrels, sensors, mechanical legs, arms, etc."

"Any shot which is not called will strike what is identified as the main body of the robot or vehicle."

Notice the theme here:
-The Called Shot rules are only listed under the rules for giant robots, power armor, and vehicles.
-The rules descriptions refer constantly to called shots against robot vehicles and power armor. NOT against normal human foes.

Even the RMB however gave suggested MDC values for things like guns,

No, it didn't. That was CB1.
Unless you're talking about stats for guns built into robots, power armor, and vehicles.

and it listed alternative hit locations on power armor, vehicles etc.

Because power armor, robots, and vehicles are what the rules for Called Shots were written for.
This is why those things have different hit locations, but normal body armor does not.
Because Called Shots were for robots, power armor, vehicles, and other larget targets, NOT for shooting at normal human beings.

Now I coudl be mistaken about this but I belive at least the RMB actually gave you a suggestion somewhere for HP/SDC/MDC ammoutns to locations other than the main body by using X% of the main body value. If not the RMB one of the books that came out abit later certainly does.

IIRC, it was in the RGMG, which came out WAY after the main book.

I suggest you look through the book again. There are a few called shot locations that arnt allways significantly bigger than the area covered by a human eye.

Give me some specific examples.

And actually most games do NOT assume your trying to make the most deadly shot possible right off the bat.

Yes, they do.

No they dont. Main mass does not equal most deadly shot possible.

Most games don't assume that you're only hitting the main mass.
Most games assume that you're hitting the opponent wherever you can get a shot in, which is why they only have one HP pool that covers the entire body.

That's how Palladium deals with MDC armor in the Rifts setting.
But that's new, relatively speaking, and it's an exception to the way that they normally handle things.
Otherwise a chainmail shirt would have the same AR as a full suit of chainmail.

Define 'relatively new'.

Probably around the time of the RGMG, which means about 10 years after the main Rifts book was published, and one hell of a long time after Robotech was published.

Called shots have been around for a LONG time. SO have alternative hit locations.They go back at least as far as the inital printing of the Robotech RPG. And I wouldnt be supprised if it goes back farther than that.

Yes.
For robots, vehicles, and certain other large targets.
NOT for normal human-sized targets.
Because the Called Shot rules weren't meant for normal human-sized targets.

D&D does not, and never has supported such a system of called shots.
It's one of the prime examples for my statement.

It shouldnt be though. Palladium isnt D&D and it very much does support making called shots, and has for years.

Uh... this part of the argument is about whether the majority of other systems include rules for Called Shots, not about whether Palladium does.

That said, think about it. Can you honestly tell me you've -never- played in a game where a Player at least tried to declare they were going to try to decapitate some one or some such thing?

Certainly.
And in every case, it only affects the flavor description of the game, NOT the actual mechanical effects of the attack.

Except, of course, for those special cases where a creature's body parts are listed out specifically, and rules are included for making called shots at those specific creatures.

It's not my place, or yours for that matter to judge how fast and loose a given group plays with the rules. Neither of us were part of that group.

It's everybody's place to judge everybody.

Paired firearms is not allways calling for two seperate attack rolls. If they attack the same target they use a single dice roll.

And 1 eye + 1 eye = 2 eyes.
NOT 1 eye + 1 eye = 1 eye.

Again you totally miss my point.

Well, at least one of us is missing the other person's point.
If you want to restate your point, go for it.

Again, hopefully for the last time, all those are larger than human-sized eyes.

Not all. The majority yes, but not all. Even if they are. So what? Apply a bigger penalty. Done.

So what?
So the system isn't meant for that level of precision.

The only problem with it really seems to be players like you who treat a flawed system as some sort of holy grail.

Unless you are saying, for some reason, that players like me are on a holy quest for a flawed system, because we need it to restore health to the king of England, and thereby restore health and prosperity to the land itself, I have no idea what you're talking about.

Actually, even if that is what you're saying, I still have no idea what you're talking about.

And I say flawed not because Called Shot doesnt take into account things like eyes. But because it lacks a proper ranged combat penalty/bonus table in general unlike every other RPG that goes to even remotely the sort of 'detail' the Palaldium system does with things like called shots and hit locations.

Palladium has all kinds of flaws.

Shadow_otm wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

The books never state that normal human vagabonds don't get laserbeam vision, or that they don't fly.
Does that mean that it's permissable?

The books never state that a normal human boxer cannot K.O. a Death's Head transport.
Does that make it permissable?

Nope.

And here your throwing the whole point way off for the sake of argument.

No, what I'm doing is showing you the absurdity that your argument leads to.
IF the rule of "It's not forbidden, therefore it's permissable" held true, then there would be nothing wrong with any of the above.
Yet it doesn't hold true, and the above examples are wrong.

Okay... trying to shoot someone's eyes is quite different from someone trying to KO a Death's Head transport. To say they are the same would be saying that a man wrestling a bunny to death is the same as a man wrestling a Tyranosaur to death. Keep things in context of the arguement.

I'm perfectly within the scope of the argument.
What's being argued, in this part, is whether lack of forbiddance by the rules equates to permission by the rules.
I've shown that it does not.

So unless you have a counter-argument...

Shadow_otm wrote:This is about called shots, not about Vagbonds having heatbeam eyes or being able to punch and "KO" a vehical.

This thread is about a lot of things.

One of the things it is about is the question of whether lack of forbiddance equals permission.

Which is what brings us to the vagabond with laser beam eyes.

IF lack of forbiddance meant permission, THEN because the books do not specifically forbid a normal human vagabond from flying around shooting lasers out of his eyes, it would be perfectly permissable in any Rifts game.
But it's NOT perfectly permissable, therefore, lack of forbiddance does NOT mean permission.

Capiche?

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Shadow_otm wrote:This is about called shots, not about Vagbonds having heatbeam eyes or being able to punch and "KO" a vehical.

This thread is about a lot of things.

One of the things it is about is the question of whether lack of forbiddance equals permission.

Which is what brings us to the vagabond with laser beam eyes.

IF lack of forbiddance meant permission, THEN because the books do not specifically forbid a normal human vagabond from flying around shooting lasers out of his eyes, it would be perfectly permissable in any Rifts game.
But it's NOT perfectly permissable, therefore, lack of forbiddance does NOT mean permission.

Capiche?

SIgh.. I'd go over all this again KC but were just going to go in an endless circle. Part of the issue here is that we start off discussing specifically called shots. Nothing else. Next thing you know Monopoly gets dragged into it and you latch onto it as yet another example of why Called shots cant/shouldnt be applied to general combat etc.

Yet KOing DHTs, board games in general etc have -nothing- to do with what is ultimately being discussed.

I mean you go on to say that the called shot system is ment only for robots and equal sized things. Yet plenty of -small- creatures etc have listed alternative hit locations. The only book offered method for determining if you hit anything other than the main mass period is with called shots, or, unofficially the blast radius of explosives. Unless RUE chagned it to state that you specifically apply damage to the whole body. Nothign by the book infact states that explosion damage does anything but the main body.

Yet alot of people apply it everywhere. It simply doesnt make any sense otherwise in the vast majority of situations. And agian all this comes into play with ALL the books in Rifts. RMB (Now actually RUE) is the main core book sure. But follow up books have altered/enhanced/clarified/expanded uppon the existing rules that RMB initally introduced for Rifts. Just like it goes for every other RPG out there that I've ever seen. Shadowrun 3E (I'd use 4th E for an example but the rest of the 'core' books arnt out yet) for example offers advanced combat rules for hand to hand and ranged wepaons in CC, the expanded matrix rules in Matrix, vehicle rules in Rigger 3 revised, expanded magic rules/abilities in street magic etc.

With Rifts rules got quickly expanded with new world and dimension books, later slightly consolidated in GMG and a few years later with the release of RUE which flat out replaces RMB.

You say the Called Shot system doesnt lend itself to X degree of precision. Yet how does it not? It establishes somethign the size of a human head would be aproximately -4 to strike. That an insect antenae no bigger than say.. a standard ruler would be I belive it's somethign like -6 (I'd have to check Xiticix War). It's hardly a streatch of the imagination then to cut the target down in size yet again and apply an even bigger penalty to hitting something like a human eye.

It doesnt even 'break the system' at all. There's thousands of examples through out all of the palladium books. Which I'll remind you use the exact same basic system with rare exception (The only major difference being MDC settings but that's honestly a very minor difference). And from the standpoint of flat out 'realism' not only does the job quite admirably but requires litterally zero modification of the existing system. Only the minor addition of an expanded penalty table.

I mean everyone knows what happens when you loose an eye. It's even more blatantly obvious when you loose the use of both eyes (Be it temporariliy or permenantly). And there are stated rules for handling blindness. There's very set and specific blindness penalties. There may be a few specific different variations with spells/explosives or what have you but those can be considered specific to those particular causes. Everythign else falls under the standard blindness penalties. THere's even book examples if I recall for the effects of -partial- blindness, and even, if I recall with reduced depth perception. Probably listed under cyclopses.

Thats a fair bit of difference in game effects from letting the KO rule from boxing apply to everything. Especially given that there's litterally no basis for handling 'knocking out' something that doesnt even have a head to begin with. Thats partially the reason for my response about folk allowing it to apply to a DHT being fine if thats really how they want to play in the first place. Back when there was a question posted by a GM who'd allowed it to apply -by the book- to well.. pretty much everything and he wanted Palladiums 'official' response on what it actually applied to.

Since the KO rules still to this day, far as I know, dont actually state what they apply to. They assume the GM will use common sense, and in all other cases simply flat out make a call on it not applying to things like robots, DHTs etc.

The Called Shot system is much like this. It's left open ended intentionally. More to the point, unlike allowing the KO rules as is so that an infant can KO an ancient god or some silly thing like that. The Called Shot rules, when expanded to encompass other things and used with even a slight degree of comon sense breaks nothing. Infact for many of us it simply -enhances- game play in an entirely 'realistic' manner to the point, where, if you want to you can drill a guy right though the eye socket with a sniper rifle.

The more unrealistic part of it comes from the fact that your target is actually quite likely to survive such an experience even in a pure SDC setting, when in most cases IRL it's an all too lethal one (But not allways. Like that one poor bugger that got a 2 inch drill bit right through his head and lived.)

Ultimately man, the only thing I'd have with you it seems is that you nitpick every last thing to an extreme extent. I mean hell I can get kinda bad that way too but you go well beyond that. Thats fine, your play style. Me? I prefer moving on with the damn story over fighting tooth and nail over a GM treating two targets as one etc.

You can kick and scream and pull your hair out all you like that the GM is 'wrong'. But unless you are the one GMing. Well then the basic and primary rule of 'what the GM says goes' applies. That may well mean he's not being 'fair' or 'cheating' or what have you. But if you dont like it. GM the game yourself. Or find a new group to play with. Because who ever is the GM is the one running the show.

End of story.

Kesslan wrote:End of story.

Oh God I hope not. I'm only half-way through my popcorn.

Jesterzzn wrote:

Kesslan wrote:End of story.

Oh God I hope not. I'm only half-way through my popcorn.

Oh well because you used a smilie then I will carry this on!

As per RANGE COMBAT RULES. RUE page 361

A 'Called shot' target specification. This is a shot that homes in on a specific part of a larger target such as a bull's-eye, an oppenent's head, hand, gun, radio, radio antenna, sensor cluster spotlight, tires, etc. But counts as two melee attacks.

Bla blah blah about specifics until you get to this point:

Penalties on a Called Shot: Furthermore, a bull's-eye or any small target is difficult to shoot, and even with an aimed and/or Called Shot the shooter suffers a penalty of -3 or -4 (Sometimes more dependign on the target)

Now unless we are talking about Archery, a Bull's-Eye is a pretty small target. The full sized target for an average handgun is aproximately the size of a regular dinner plate. The bull-eye on such a target is about the size of a two dollar coin or there abouts.

The bull's-eye on a rifle target however is considerably smaller. On standard (at least in Canada) competition targets it is, infact exactly the size of a .22 round.

That's considerably smaller than the human eye. Infact thats like aiming for the pupil on an eyeball at about 20 yards.

These are all sizes effectively covered by Called Shot rules with an average of -3 or -4 to strike. Or as stated sometimes more this is how it has been for several years now.

EDIT: Because my spelling was extra terrible today.

Kesslan wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Shadow_otm wrote:This is about called shots, not about Vagbonds having heatbeam eyes or being able to punch and "KO" a vehical.

This thread is about a lot of things.

One of the things it is about is the question of whether lack of forbiddance equals permission.

Which is what brings us to the vagabond with laser beam eyes.

IF lack of forbiddance meant permission, THEN because the books do not specifically forbid a normal human vagabond from flying around shooting lasers out of his eyes, it would be perfectly permissable in any Rifts game.
But it's NOT perfectly permissable, therefore, lack of forbiddance does NOT mean permission.

Capiche?

SIgh.. I'd go over all this again KC but were just going to go in an endless circle. Part of the issue here is that we start off discussing specifically called shots. Nothing else. Next thing you know Monopoly gets dragged into it and you latch onto it as yet another example of why Called shots cant/shouldnt be applied to general combat etc.

Yet KOing DHTs, board games in general etc have -nothing- to do with what is ultimately being discussed.

Since you haven't been paying attention, I'll recap for you.
We started off talking about Called Shots.

Then this happened:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Kesslan wrote:There's also nothing saying you cant make a called shot to eyes, groin etc.

Agreed, but lack of forbiddance is NOT permission.
(And, actually, there are rules for attacks to the groin.)

By looking at the overall system, it's pretty clear that it's not built for that degree of precision in attacks, except where the Damage Capacity of the body part in question is listed.

The monopoly analogy, the KO rules comparison, and the other stuff that seems to have you so confused are all supporting the statement of "lack of forbiddance is NOT permission."

That's how they're relevent.

Either admit that the statement is correct, or come up with some sort of coherent rebuttal that does not involve pretending that it's not relevent to the conversation at hand.

I mean you go on to say that the called shot system is ment only for robots and equal sized things.

No, I go on and point out the fact that the called shot system was designed for robots and other large targets.
It has been expanded since then, but still not to the point of including eye-shots at human targets.

Yet plenty of -small- creatures etc have listed alternative hit locations.

Yes.
NOW.
Over a decade since the main Rifts book was written.
But it's not what the rules were designed for.

With Rifts rules got quickly expanded with new world and dimension books, later slightly consolidated in GMG and a few years later with the release of RUE which flat out replaces RMB.

Yes, the rules have expanded over time.
This isn't always a good thing, and it's all too often a problem.
A game system is like a house.
Add too much onto the frame, and the foundation will not support the new structure.
What Palladium needs to do is what D&D did; level the entire structure including the foundation, and rebuild it all from scratch, using the best parts of the old system, but with a foundation that is designed to support everything that the new system does.

RUE is good for now, and buys some time, but eventually the rebuilding will need to be done anyway.

Speaking of RUE, it's pretty obvious that the game in question wasn't using RUE rules, since the Called Shot was made in a single attack.
So RUE doesn't really matter in this discussion.

You say the Called Shot system doesnt lend itself to X degree of precision. Yet how does it not?

Because, and I'm not sure how to put this any simpler, the rules do not cover it happening.
If something doesn't have a listed Damage Capacity, then there's no mechanism for damaging it.

It establishes somethign the size of a human head would be aproximately -4 to strike. That an insect antenae no bigger than say.. a standard ruler would be I belive it's somethign like -6 (I'd have to check Xiticix War). It's hardly a streatch of the imagination then to cut the target down in size yet again and apply an even bigger penalty to hitting something like a human eye.

It hardly stretches the imagination, but it certainly stretches the rules farther than they were meant to go.

It doesnt even 'break the system' at all. There's thousands of examples through out all of the palladium books.

Examples of what?
Called shots at targets that have no listed damage capacity?
Called shots at targets the size of a human eye or smaller?

If so, then great.
It shouldn't tax you to find ten examples out of the thousands and to post them.
I'm still waiting for even one example.

I mean everyone knows what happens when you loose an eye.

L-o-s-e.

It's even more blatantly obvious when you loose the use of both eyes (Be it temporariliy or permenantly). And there are stated rules for handling blindness. There's very set and specific blindness penalties. There may be a few specific different variations with spells/explosives or what have you but those can be considered specific to those particular causes. Everythign else falls under the standard blindness penalties. THere's even book examples if I recall for the effects of -partial- blindness, and even, if I recall with reduced depth perception. Probably listed under cyclopses.

But there are no rules for causing somebody to lose their eyes, not for normal human-sized targets.
So that's all pretty moot.

Thats a fair bit of difference in game effects from letting the KO rule from boxing apply to everything. Especially given that there's litterally no basis for handling 'knocking out' something that doesnt even have a head to begin with.

You've never punched or kicked a piece of machinery and had it cease working properly?

Since the KO rules still to this day, far as I know, dont actually state what they apply to. They assume the GM will use common sense, and in all other cases simply flat out make a call on it not applying to things like robots, DHTs etc.

I thought you were the champion of the "The GM's Call is Divine and Cannot Be Questioned, even if it conflicts with basic math" school of thought.
Yet it seems here that you're saying that a GM's decision to allow a character to KO a Death's Head transport would be... (gasp!)... a bad call.

The Called Shot system is much like this. It's left open ended intentionally.

No, it's not.
As I've pointed out, the rules in Rifts are for shooting at robots.
And the various parts of the robots are therefore statted out.
For example the hands of a Glitterboy have 100 MDC each.
Why didn't they list the MDC for the GB's fingers?
Because those are part of the hand, and cannot be picked off individually with a Called Shot.
Just like they didn't list the MDC for every square inch of the surface area of the main body, they just listed the MDC for the whole thing.

RGMG, p. 39
"A Called Shot is an aimed shot that homes in on a specific part of a larger target such as the head, hand, gun, or radio on a character or the radio antenna, sensor cluster, spotlight, tires, etc. of a vehicle."
Note that all of these things are statted out.
Note that there is NO mention of shooting at a normal person's eyes.
Note the lack of stats for a person's eyes.

It's not left open at all, not beyond the stuff that is statted out in the rules.

More to the point, unlike allowing the KO rules as is so that an infant can KO an ancient god or some silly thing like that. The Called Shot rules, when expanded to encompass other things and used with even a slight degree of comon sense breaks nothing. Infact for many of us it simply -enhances- game play in an entirely 'realistic' manner to the point, where, if you want to you can drill a guy right though the eye socket with a sniper rifle.

Okay, go back to my last post to you and address my scenario about targeting the same spot on a suit of armor.
Common Sense says that this would be physically possible to do in the real world.
Rifts is not the real world.

Ultimately man, the only thing I'd have with you it seems is that you nitpick every last thing to an extreme extent. I mean hell I can get kinda bad that way too but you go well beyond that. Thats fine, your play style. Me? I prefer moving on with the damn story over fighting tooth and nail over a GM treating two targets as one etc.

I prefer to get the rule right, and to play by them (with consistant houserules to fill in the gaps).

But yes, I'd much rather play than just argue about the rules.
And it's a lot simpler to stick to the rules than to make up stuff on the fly.

In this case, it would have been a lot simpler for the GM to say, "The rules don't support called shots with that level of precision, although you can shoot him in the head with a paired called shot" than to make a questionable call, to argue about it for however long they argued about it, then to end up with a thread the size of this one exploring the ramifications.

You can kick and scream and pull your hair out all you like that the GM is 'wrong'.

I don't kick, or scream, or pull my hair out.
I don't have any real investment in this case, since I wasn't a player.

But that doesn't make the GM in this case not wrong, and it doesn't mean that I can't point out that it was a bad call.

But unless you are the one GMing. Well then the basic and primary rule of 'what the GM says goes' applies. That may well mean he's not being 'fair' or 'cheating' or what have you. But if you dont like it. GM the game yourself. Or find a new group to play with. Because who ever is the GM is the one running the show.

End of story.

No, it's not the end of the story.
Being a Game Master is a republic, not a dictatorship.
You can only GM with the consent of the players, and if you expect them to blindly accept everything and anything you say as GM, especially if you redefine basic math and logic at your whim, then you'll run out of players.
Which is why being a good GM requires the shocking notion of listening to your players when they have an issue with one of your calls, and even sometimes (brace yourself!) recognizing and admitting if you make a mistake.

That's right: Game Masters can make mistakes!
They're not actually unrestricted tyrants of space and time, not even in the game; they can actually screw up and make bad calls and bad decisions.
In fact, it's quite common.

Every time the GM screws up, there are two viable options:
1. If it's not important, then just gloss over it and move on with the game.
2. If it's important, then the players and the GM need to explain their views, and a consensus needs to be reached.

Kesslan wrote:As per RANGE COMBAT RULES. RUE page 361

A 'Called shot' target specification. This is a shot that homes in on a specific part of a larger target such as a bull's-eye, an oppenent's head, hand, gun, radio, radio antenna, sensor cluster spotlight, tires, etc. But counts as two melee attacks.

Bla blah blah about specifics until you get to this point:

Penalties on a Called Shot: Furthermore, a bull's-eye or any small target is difficult to shoot, and even with an aimed and/or Called Shot the shooter suffers a penalty of -3 or -4 (Sometimes more dependign on the target)

Now unless we are talking about Archery, a Bull's-Eye is a pretty small target. The full sized target for an average handgun is aproximately the size of a regular dinner plate. The bull-eye on such a target is about the size of a two dollar coin or there abouts.

The bull's-eye on a rifle target however is considerably smaller. On standard (at least in Canada) competition targets it is, infact exactly the size of a .22 round.

That's considerably smaller than the human eye. Infact thats like aiming for the pupil on an eyeball at about 20 yards.

These are all sizes effectively covered by Called Shot rules with an average of -3 or -4 to strike. Or as stated sometimes more this is how it has been for several years now.

Not a bad argument.
Still, here's what we have:
Kev refers to a Bulleye as being a difficult target to strike, incurring a -3 or -4 to strike.
A human head requires a -4 penalty to strike.

I think it's safe to assume that Kev has a different idea on the size of bulleyes than you do.

In other news, that page also mentions that Called Shots can only be made as a "single, sniper-style shot".
Which likely rules out paired weapons anyway.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Kesslan wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Shadow_otm wrote:This is about called shots, not about Vagbonds having heatbeam eyes or being able to punch and "KO" a vehical.

This thread is about a lot of things.

One of the things it is about is the question of whether lack of forbiddance equals permission.

Which is what brings us to the vagabond with laser beam eyes.

IF lack of forbiddance meant permission, THEN because the books do not specifically forbid a normal human vagabond from flying around shooting lasers out of his eyes, it would be perfectly permissable in any Rifts game.
But it's NOT perfectly permissable, therefore, lack of forbiddance does NOT mean permission.

Capiche?

SIgh.. I'd go over all this again KC but were just going to go in an endless circle. Part of the issue here is that we start off discussing specifically called shots. Nothing else. Next thing you know Monopoly gets dragged into it and you latch onto it as yet another example of why Called shots cant/shouldnt be applied to general combat etc.

Yet KOing DHTs, board games in general etc have -nothing- to do with what is ultimately being discussed.

Since you haven't been paying attention, I'll recap for you.
We started off talking about Called Shots.

Then this happened:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Kesslan wrote:There's also nothing saying you cant make a called shot to eyes, groin etc.

Agreed, but lack of forbiddance is NOT permission.
(And, actually, there are rules for attacks to the groin.)

By looking at the overall system, it's pretty clear that it's not built for that degree of precision in attacks, except where the Damage Capacity of the body part in question is listed.

The monopoly analogy, the KO rules comparison, and the other stuff that seems to have you so confused are all supporting the statement of "lack of forbiddance is NOT permission."

That's how they're relevent.

Either admit that the statement is correct, or come up with some sort of coherent rebuttal that does not involve pretending that it's not relevent to the conversation at hand.

Except that there is no forbiddance or lack there of. There is a clear statement that you can make a called shot to a target. The called shot system gives you a very basic guidline for hitting assorted small targets. The general results of which are covered by the combat system etc. Where they are not, as anything else it's left up to the GM.

I mean you go on to say that the called shot system is ment only for robots and equal sized things.

No, I go on and point out the fact that the called shot system was designed for robots and other large targets.
It has been expanded since then, but still not to the point of including eye-shots at human targets.

Suffice it to say I very much disagree with you on that point. The called shot system works as well as any other game system when it comes to dealing with making very specific shots to a small target. It's simple, straightforward, and it works.

Yet plenty of -small- creatures etc have listed alternative hit locations.

Yes.
NOW.
Over a decade since the main Rifts book was written.
But it's not what the rules were designed for.

That may not have been the inital intent but that is how it has been used for ages now by many a GM without any problems.

With Rifts rules got quickly expanded with new world and dimension books, later slightly consolidated in GMG and a few years later with the release of RUE which flat out replaces RMB.

Yes, the rules have expanded over time.
This isn't always a good thing, and it's all too often a problem.
A game system is like a house.
Add too much onto the frame, and the foundation will not support the new structure.
What Palladium needs to do is what D&D did; level the entire structure including the foundation, and rebuild it all from scratch, using the best parts of the old system, but with a foundation that is designed to support everything that the new system does.

RUE is good for now, and buys some time, but eventually the rebuilding will need to be done anyway.

Speaking of RUE, it's pretty obvious that the game in question wasn't using RUE rules, since the Called Shot was made in a single attack.
So RUE doesn't really matter in this discussion.

I'm not so sure it wasn't. I'm pretty sure a Called shot has allways suposed to have been at least two attacks, though I could be mistaken. It was allways a more involved 'aimed shot'

You say the Called Shot system doesnt lend itself to X degree of precision. Yet how does it not?

Because, and I'm not sure how to put this any simpler, the rules do not cover it happening.
If something doesn't have a listed Damage Capacity, then there's no mechanism for damaging it.

Sure there is. The GM gives the location a value. It's not exactly hard to do that. It's the same way as the GM comming up with the damage code for an improvised weapon or any other ruling a GM MUST pull out of the air. No RPG system out there I have ever used, or even heard of remotely covers every last little aspect a GM can run into in the course of a game.

In every RPG in cases where the rules do not cover something hapening it's left up to the GM to make a call on what DOES happen. Much like the wish spell, or older versions of D&D when you put a bag of holding in a bag of holding or some such. Eventually they came out with actual rules to cover this. But initially it was purely up to the GM as to what happened. Just as it is up to the GM to decide what you run into, what the layout of that dungeon or building your going into is.

I mean hell. What do you think all those optional rules in the Rifters are? It's all stuff assorted people have come up with to enhance/alter/add to the game system to cover things that it doesnt. Some of the more notable ones that I've seen come up are the PPE channeling rules, expanded range combat rules and so on.

You may see these people as the devil incarnate but I dont.

It establishes somethign the size of a human head would be aproximately -4 to strike. That an insect antenae no bigger than say.. a standard ruler would be I belive it's somethign like -6 (I'd have to check Xiticix War). It's hardly a streatch of the imagination then to cut the target down in size yet again and apply an even bigger penalty to hitting something like a human eye.

It hardly stretches the imagination, but it certainly stretches the rules farther than they were meant to go.

Perhaps but it still works just as well for those of us that want that level of detail in combat.

It doesnt even 'break the system' at all. There's thousands of examples through out all of the palladium books.

Examples of what?
Called shots at targets that have no listed damage capacity?
Called shots at targets the size of a human eye or smaller?

If so, then great.
It shouldn't tax you to find ten examples out of the thousands and to post them.
I'm still waiting for even one example.

Mini missiles for one. Coke can size, as such it's only slightly larger than the area covered by the eye socket depending on the angle your shooting at it from. The antena of a Xiticix. Longer yes, but the width is actually smaller unless perhaps your dealing with a queen or some such. I dont for a moment doubt I can dig up more examples than that as well. Mind you not while I'm at work.

I mean everyone knows what happens when you loose an eye.

L-o-s-e.

So I hit o one too many times and missed it. Big deal, and has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. I'm allready well aware that my spelling can be lacking at times.

It's even more blatantly obvious when you loose the use of both eyes (Be it temporariliy or permenantly). And there are stated rules for handling blindness. There's very set and specific blindness penalties. There may be a few specific different variations with spells/explosives or what have you but those can be considered specific to those particular causes. Everythign else falls under the standard blindness penalties. THere's even book examples if I recall for the effects of -partial- blindness, and even, if I recall with reduced depth perception. Probably listed under cyclopses.

But there are no rules for causing somebody to lose their eyes, not for normal human-sized targets.
So that's all pretty moot.

Again I disagree. If nothing else there's a few precendents that can easily be used in place of it. And even if there were not. What the hell do you think a part of GMing involves? It's a little something called making decisions. And allways on stuff not covered by the books, because there is -allways- something not covered by the books. Unless your GM cant think up their own scenarios what so ever and needs a step by step adventure book to even run a game.

Thats a fair bit of difference in game effects from letting the KO rule from boxing apply to everything. Especially given that there's litterally no basis for handling 'knocking out' something that doesnt even have a head to begin with.

You've never punched or kicked a piece of machinery and had it cease working properly?

Actually, to be honest. No. But then I dont exactly make a habit of doing so. Metal vs Flesh tends to be a loosing proposition. And doing damage to equipment is a far cry from knocking it out as far as the system goes. A KO doesnt actually -do- any damage as far as the system is concerned. Not that it really matters. I've certainly never heard of some one say... punching a tank and having it stop dead in it's tracks. Which is what your talking about.

Since the KO rules still to this day, far as I know, dont actually state what they apply to. They assume the GM will use common sense, and in all other cases simply flat out make a call on it not applying to things like robots, DHTs etc.

I thought you were the champion of the "The GM's Call is Divine and Cannot Be Questioned, even if it conflicts with basic math" school of thought.
Yet it seems here that you're saying that a GM's decision to allow a character to KO a Death's Head transport would be... (gasp!)... a bad call.

You see, and thats where you at least partialy fail to understand what I've been getting at the whole time. I never said the GM couldn't make bad calls. All GMs do time to time. I also don't consider a GM requring one strike roll for two targets something to make a huge deal out of. Not exactly 'proper' by the system but so what? Any game system is ultimately only a conflict resolution system. Some are extremely basic, others like Palladium are reasonably complex.

I also dont consider there being anything wrong with trying to change a GM's mind about a given call. And I fully expect the GM to apply the same rules all around. But at the same time I'm not going to waste 30 minutes arguing about the GM making one strike roll for two targets the way he did in this case.

Hell half the reason I support it, as I've even explained to a degree before hand, is because even if the guy wasnt aiming directly for the eyes he is then only aiming at the head. Simultaneous strike, only one roll. Blam hits the head right in the face and almost blows the guys head clean off. To me that's ample reason alone to saddle him with some sort of penalty and rendering him visually blind seems quite fitting.

The Called Shot system is much like this. It's left open ended intentionally.

No, it's not.
As I've pointed out, the rules in Rifts are for shooting at robots.
And the various parts of the robots are therefore statted out.
For example the hands of a Glitterboy have 100 MDC each.
Why didn't they list the MDC for the GB's fingers?
Because those are part of the hand, and cannot be picked off individually with a Called Shot.
Just like they didn't list the MDC for every square inch of the surface area of the main body, they just listed the MDC for the whole thing.

RGMG, p. 39
"A Called Shot is an aimed shot that homes in on a specific part of a larger target such as the head, hand, gun, or radio on a character or the radio antenna, sensor cluster, spotlight, tires, etc. of a vehicle."
Note that all of these things are statted out.
Note that there is NO mention of shooting at a normal person's eyes.
Note the lack of stats for a person's eyes.

It's not left open at all, not beyond the stuff that is statted out in the rules.

Again I disagree it is open ended. I've even shown you where it says -any small target-. Your interpretation of that is obviously different than mine. That a given location doesn't have a pre listed damage value means nothing. A GM can easily assign a reasonable value to that location should they so chose to do so. Just as the GM can introduce new gear, weapons, vehicles etc if they so desire. Infact in many cases that sort of thing is not only encouraged but even provided with a basic system to do so. I mean look at the TW device construction rules.

More to the point, unlike allowing the KO rules as is so that an infant can KO an ancient god or some silly thing like that. The Called Shot rules, when expanded to encompass other things and used with even a slight degree of comon sense breaks nothing. Infact for many of us it simply -enhances- game play in an entirely 'realistic' manner to the point, where, if you want to you can drill a guy right though the eye socket with a sniper rifle.

Okay, go back to my last post to you and address my scenario about targeting the same spot on a suit of armor.
Common Sense says that this would be physically possible to do in the real world.
Rifts is not the real world.

So what? Doesnt mean god will smite me for making the system 'more realistic'. I mean I sure dont see KS comming in here and bashing all GMs who 'dare' apply called shots and damage values to things like eyes, fingers etc. And he's certainly been more than supportive of alternative rule systems and the like as evidenced in my opinion by the simple existance of the Rifters and the fact that they are loaded with custom rules on handling things from hacking, spell casting and combat.

Ultimately man, the only thing I'd have with you it seems is that you nitpick every last thing to an extreme extent. I mean hell I can get kinda bad that way too but you go well beyond that. Thats fine, your play style. Me? I prefer moving on with the damn story over fighting tooth and nail over a GM treating two targets as one etc.

I prefer to get the rule right, and to play by them (with consistant houserules to fill in the gaps).

But yes, I'd much rather play than just argue about the rules.
And it's a lot simpler to stick to the rules than to make up stuff on the fly.

In this case, it would have been a lot simpler for the GM to say, "The rules don't support called shots with that level of precision, although you can shoot him in the head with a paired called shot" than to make a questionable call, to argue about it for however long they argued about it, then to end up with a thread the size of this one exploring the ramifications.

You realize that the thread is only this long because of the two of us. NOT because of anything the GM chose to make a call on right?

Between the two of us we account likely for at least 50% of this thread if not more. Also what you consider best and easier isnt allways what others will consider as such. Consistancy in GM rulings is certainly a good thing, which is a large part of why HRs exist in the first place. But if your the type of GM to use HRs then your equally obviously the type to make up rules to cover things not covered by the basic rule system in the first place. Granted that may not be true 100% of the time but most HR's I've seen for RPGs are clarifications and expansions uppon the existing ruleset.

And I've certainly never been in a game where a GM didnt at least once make a call on something not directly covered by the rules. Which is what you get into when it comes to things like 'what would be the damage capacity of X?"

You can kick and scream and pull your hair out all you like that the GM is 'wrong'.

I don't kick, or scream, or pull my hair out.
I don't have any real investment in this case, since I wasn't a player.

But that doesn't make the GM in this case not wrong, and it doesn't mean that I can't point out that it was a bad call.

A slip perhaps. A call I've said before I dont 100% agree with sure. But you've certainly gone to great lengths to make a huge deal out of something relatively minor as allowing some one to make called shots to the eyes.

Hell if you want to get into it he made a number of bad calls in my opinion, starting with intentionally pitting the players against each other in the first place, even if it was an 'evil' game. But so what? I'm not playing in it. And no one seems to have slit their wrists or been permanently scared for life over the event. By the sounds of it it was a dispute that got settled and now everyone's happy on their side of things.

But unless you are the one GMing. Well then the basic and primary rule of 'what the GM says goes' applies. That may well mean he's not being 'fair' or 'cheating' or what have you. But if you dont like it. GM the game yourself. Or find a new group to play with. Because who ever is the GM is the one running the show.

End of story.

No, it's not the end of the story.
Being a Game Master is a republic, not a dictatorship.
You can only GM with the consent of the players, and if you expect them to blindly accept everything and anything you say as GM, especially if you redefine basic math and logic at your whim, then you'll run out of players.
Which is why being a good GM requires the shocking notion of listening to your players when they have an issue with one of your calls, and even sometimes (brace yourself!) recognizing and admitting if you make a mistake.

That's right: Game Masters can make mistakes!
They're not actually unrestricted tyrants of space and time, not even in the game; they can actually screw up and make bad calls and bad decisions.
In fact, it's quite common.

Every time the GM screws up, there are two viable options:
1. If it's not important, then just gloss over it and move on with the game.
2. If it's important, then the players and the GM need to explain their views, and a consensus needs to be reached.

Again I dissagree on a few points. The GM is a dictator for the most part. If the GM wasn't you'd face some of the following scenarios:

GM: As you round the bend you find a locked door blocking your path.
Player: I keep on walking.
GM: You cant there's a locked door in the way.
Player: No there isnt.
GM: Yes there is.
Player: No there isnt.
GM: But the rules say...
Player: Who cares about the rules!? I say there isnt a locked door there.

Ad infinitum. Or you have the GM suddenly retracting anything the players dont want to deal with. Ambush! Oh.. you dont like ambushes? Oh well ok then I guess your not after all. Oh! Sure you can pull all sorts of rune weapons out of your totally mundane pockets since your PCs and all....

While I certainly agree there requires a degree of consensus. You know.. any dictatorship ultimately requires that. Otherwise you wind up with a littl something often called a rebellion. GMs have faced this before, especially bad GMs when the players refuse to play anymore etc.

And since no one is GMing and forcing players to accept their rulings at gun point a measure of diplomacy is indeed required. With that I agree. In the end however, when ever there is a disagreement it's up to the GM to eventually make a decision and put their foot down about it. Especialy mid game. That's actually part of a common GM tactic when a disagreement is taking up too much time.

Put your foot down. X is what the ruling will be -for now- and discussion at length can continue -after- the game session. Unless of course it's one of those rare cases where all the players are up in arms about a given ruling or something. At which point I doubt any of them would mind having the discussion, at length, right then and there.

Most of the time however it's only one, maybe two individuals in a much larger group. Also when it comes to what is important, well. Thats entirely different from one game group to the next. Some want Role Play. Others want Roll Play. Some want story over sticking to the rules, other individuals, such as the type the title of the thread talks about. Instead care more about the exact letter of the rules. Anything not in the rules doesnt count. Unless it benifits them, for scarece is the rules lawyer who actually will complain about things that benifit them even if they arnt by the book.

This I think is part of the reason of our disagreement. Alot of what you go on about pretty much points to a classic 'Rules Lawyer'. Where as I must say, I'm more for the story. I see nothing wrong with fudging the odd rule, dice roll etc where appropriate for the sake of the story. As to what's considered appropriate I generally go by what I at least see to be -fair- and usualy in favour of the PCs assuming it even affects them.

I mean if say.. I have a group NPCs that have we'll say.. 1d4X10 MDC I'm perfectly fine with giving them 30 MDC across the board if I damn well feel like it, instead of rolling 1d4 for say.. 40 NPCs. If for no other reason, than it saves me a considerable ammount of time in the long run and allows me to concentrate on what I at least consider the important things. The actual gameplay itself.

Not a bad argument.
Still, here's what we have:
Kev refers to a Bulleye as being a difficult target to strike, incurring a -3 or -4 to strike.
A human head requires a -4 penalty to strike.

I think it's safe to assume that Kev has a different idea on the size of bulleyes than you do.

In other news, that page also mentions that Called Shots can only be made as a "single, sniper-style shot".
Which likely rules out paired weapons anyway.

Quite possibly. And that hardly supprises me. I dont know about KS. But I've certainly fired guns, quite a few different types infact and given the times I've been actually asked by gunclubs to either join as a member, or even compete in provincial games. I like to consider myself a reasonable shot.

Not an expert mind you but certainly some one who has a fair idea of what their doing etc. Working off the assumption that KS has never fired a gun (He may have. I dont have a clue) and his own aptitude if he has, with firearms. Then I could easily see how the two of us would have entirely different ideas of how hard a given shot would be, and if it would be even remotely possible at all. Afterall I've certainly met a few other shooters who are considerably better shots than I am.

It's also partially why I only sort of agree with this whole 'sniper like shot' buisiness. With a good gun and some training you can get quite accurate with even a handgun.

Now take some one like a gunslinger, which is the case here. Who has not only paired pistols. But sharpshoing for said pistols. And likely some pretty crazy bonuses. Throw in the fact that sharpshooting as an ability allows for -accurate fire- one handed with a rifle....

Well then I dont actually see it as a serious streach then, for some one who specializes so heavily in the use of handguns to actually make 'sniper like shots' with handguns.

I would certainly have made such a shot count for more than one attack. But even so. By the rule system, the shot happens on the first action far as I know. Though I tend to have any extended actions actually only take effect on the -last- action for a reason. IE so others have a chance, as in real life to take advantage of your standing still or what ever and interrupt what ever it is your doing.