Forums of the Megaverse®

When I GM, I use my laptop and multiple note pads and spreadsheets to keep track of every thing. If you dont have access to a computer for the game, I'd suggest just taking good notes.

we use minis and a ruler and a lot of warhammer 40k style house rules for things like missed projectiles, cover and spell templates. i use a scale of 1 cm = 1 m. i mostly play pf but we have a long bowman and occasionally hes so far away from the fight that i dont put his miniature on the table, or i give him a smaller spot on the side and figure out how far away it is from the melee in case there will be someone shooting back at him, or actually engaging him in melee.

Usually I leave the descriptions hazy, saying things like "he's far away, but probably within gun range" and giving brief descriptions to where people are in relation to the players.
This often works, but if the players start feeling like they want to plan some tactics beyond "Open fire!" then often a quick sketch on a piece of paper suffices. We use some guestimation on distances moved and whatnot, and if someone complains about not moving far enough I pull something out of my rear that slowed him down as he went.

"But I can move just as fast as so-and-so, why didn't I move farther on the sketch?"
"Because as you turn the corner you find the pavement is somewhat slick with blood from the last four goons you stabbed, and you have to check your speed slightly to avoid falling"
They generally like this, as it adds atmosphere to the game, and keeps them from guessing that really it's just because I want the bad guy to be able to round a corner and hide so he can come back later to bring them more information or so his boss knows what went wrong. There is a fine balance between "railroading" and "furthering the plot", but lines are blurred by smoke and lightshows.

Long range without a scope is probably still within range
Long range with a scope just take a quick look and it's still probably ok
If they are using longer range weapons they probably won't be able to see the target and if that is the case they are probably using orinance and if THAT is the case then those using melee weapons are the one you have to worry about

Ranges have never really played a huge part in the game for me. If it's a ridiculous amount of space between attacker and target then I would either ask for the range (and they better have it) or look it up myself and quick judgement call

McBane wrote:I have played rifts many times but not for a few years. I have decided to get behind the game masters screen as I have several story ideas.
My understanding of game mechanics is sketchy at best so I know I have alot of reading ahead of me.
I will be running a new west/vampire kingdom game so any pointers would be greatly appreciated.
One question that comes to mind how do you deal with/keep track of ranges and distances ? You can have really long range weapons and melee all going on at the same time.

Robin Laws has an essay entitled "The map is not your friend" which I found very useful. Robins laws, excellent reading for a new GM. The following is kind of a trick from his repertoire. When I run, my bad guys have really only 5 possible range categories

1) close enough to punch

2) close enough to shoot, but becomes close enough to punch if the PC spends a melee action

3) close enough to shoot, but becomes close enough to punch if the PC spends a melee round

4) close enough to shoot, but too far away to punch with any reasonable time of charging (I use this one very rarely)

5) Too far away to shoot or punch, and probably too far for anything (not much happens here, but I suppose it's a category).

Beyond these categories, it becomes a bit too much effort to keep track of a combat of any given size. I'm a big believer in "If it takes more than 3 seconds to calculate..... it slows the game". My most basic pointer is this...

Player time is valuable... do not waste it. Everything that costs time is a hinderance. However you interpret the rules, you should be able to do so *quickly*. A quick hasty rule call (3 seconds or less) is almost always better than a meticulously evaluated rule mechanic which takes 5 minutes to calculate. And Palladium distances take a long time to futz with, and definitely more trouble than it's worth when there are so few range modifiers in the game.

Another good tool I've used is this. I was running one game and they wanted to surprise the bad guy, they made their checks, and before combat they said "Ok, how close are we to him".

My response, "You made your checks, how close do you *want* to be?".

Easiest way to make a 3 second rule call on a complex mechanic without the PC's getting ticked? Just call it in the PC's favor more times than not.

congrats on the new addition.

We only do maps if the group is assaulting a base/camp. Our maps are quick scribbles, with labels, and when needed, distance lines. As someone closes distance, erase or cross out the distance on the map and write a new one.

We find using a grid with 1 square = X distance doesn't work, unless you have something big enough to cover miles for that glitterboy sniping from max distance, etc.

Palladium games are much more fun to run off the cuff with less rules the better. The power and drama is in the settings. The system does not play well as a tactical minis game (unlike D&D 4e), but works terrific if you are telling a fast paced story in a cinematic fashion.

The GM is not the slave to the rules. Bend, twist, break or toss anything that does not further the fun and excitement of your game.

rearnakedchoke wrote:If a character wants to know the distance of something then he had better have a laser distancer or start walking it with his feet.

A good sniper can make a pretty accurate estimate of distance if his spotter is dead. Good enough to hit his target, if not maybe the desired sweet spot. Denying the player that info is pointless if his character should be able to guesstimate it.

rearnakedchoke wrote:But I'm not going to let a player say "I wait till the target is 2,000ft away, then called shot to head."

Which could be interpreted as, "I'm going to wait until they are what I think is 2000ft away and feels like a good distance, and shoot for the head." It might not actually be 2000ft, but the character thinks it is, and that's good enough.

Characters using firearms are going to know how far their targets are in most cases.

Why? At 3000cr per laser targetting system, that expensive piece of crap better have a range-finder, as well as several zoom features.
Additionally a scope is calibrated on a distance measure; knowledgeable people using weapons with scopes know what ranges their scope can see, and how far a target is for the adjusted shot; basically the shooter knows at what distance each zoom is; a x2 zoom is for 200 feet, a x4 zoom is 400 feet, etc... If you're using x16 zoom, you're shooting at 1600 feet.

If they're iron-sighting it, they're likely having a tough time just seeing 2000 feet; basically if they can see a target to head-shot it, it's within range. This is really the only instance where they wouldn't know the exact distance, but apon sight confirmation they can make effective hits against targetted locations.

Also, people (like crazies) have installed zooms; if they can perfectly sight a target, it is likely within their guns' range, as these people are trained combatants.

Finally, you don't need to be some crazy killer assassin/soldier/sniper; a novice hunter can unually make a good estimation on the distance of a target.
To punish a character for the player not knowing this kind of technical information is a bad call; nobody should be expected to know this stuff for a role-playing game. Really, I'd reward a player for bringing it up for their character - it shows that they've thought about and researched a role, meaning they have expressed an interest in the game above and beyond just showing up.

I mean, if you wanted to get really technical, you could start penalizing characters for their stance while firing, how lasers and other energy weapons reach within atmosphere, or what frequency their weapons are firing at. You could do all this, but doesn't it seem..... nit-picky?

One last thing; just because a beam of light flashes for 0.2 micro-seconds doesn't mean a shooter has given away their position. The target might glean the direction, but they would have to spot the guy first - a hard task at even 1000 feet, unless that guy is wearing a glowing neon suit.

Have any of you ever seen a movie?

Have you ever seen this meaningless drivel matter to an action hero?

Nitpicking details that delay the fun must always be avoided. Say yes to the cool bits and the excitement.

Spinachcat wrote:Have any of you ever seen a movie?

Have you ever seen this meaningless drivel matter to an action hero?

Nitpicking details that delay the fun must always be avoided. Say yes to the cool bits and the excitement.

But cool is subjective. That's why it's not always meaningless drivel and why some action hero movies suck.

rearnakedchoke wrote:First off I would like to thank Natasha for that response. It's completely true.

woot!

rearnakedchoke wrote:

dG|Mabuchi wrote:Plus if you can see them, they can see you.

The only thing I'll say to this is my job in real life is proof that this statement is not true.

You're either a ninja or a hardcore bird watcher.

rearnakedchoke wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:Additionally a scope is calibrated on a distance measure; knowledgeable people using weapons with scopes know what ranges their scope can see, and how far a target is for the adjusted shot; basically the shooter knows at what distance each zoom is; a x2 zoom is for 200 feet, a x4 zoom is 400 feet, etc... If you're using x16 zoom, you're shooting at 1600 feet.

Not really. Just because a scope can zoom in at x16 doesn't mean that target is standing exactly 1600ft away.

Yes really. You'll note that this was an example, and for the the example it is this accurate. It was to provide context, not a ruling.

rearnakedchoke wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:If they're iron-sighting it, they're likely having a tough time just seeing 2000 feet; basically if they can see a target to head-shot it, it's within range. This is really the only instance where they wouldn't know the exact distance, but apon sight confirmation they can make effective hits against targetted locations.

If anyone can hit anything at 2,000ft range by iron sight with no help at all, then it is all accident or luck. I don't care who you are, without any help people can't see that far clearly. At that range characters would be taught to shoot for center mass, because everything is gonna be kinda blurry when trying to focus on the little peice of metal sticking up from the barrel.

That is exactly what I just said.
Is there an echo in here?

rearnakedchoke wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:Also, people (like crazies) have installed zooms; if they can perfectly sight a target, it is likely within their guns' range, as these people are trained combatants.

Notice the word in bold and then read this.

rearnakedchoke wrote:most of my players try to get to an area that they can bet the farm is about 1500ft, give or take, that way they know they are going to give the target more than just a small, circular tan on the target's forehead.

I've already said players should get to an area they know is probably within range of their weapons and then fire, not to just guess max distance and the gm give it to them.

When in Rifts does a character guess? As I've previously stated, they likely can't see that range to make the shot, and if they can, they know where the max. range of their gun would be.
Really, why would you make them fret guessing what should be given to them?
Unless a particular player was being obstinant and using iron-sights with an unaided eye, where is there a time when the character would not know if he is or is not within range?

rearnakedchoke wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:To punish a character for the player not knowing this kind of technical information is a bad call; nobody should be expected to know this stuff for a role-playing game. Really, I'd reward a player for bringing it up for their character - it shows that they've thought about and researched a role, meaning they have expressed an interest in the game above and beyond just showing up.

I'm sorry if I prefer my players to think about a plan of execution before they just start opening fire and expect me to just give to them. Is it a bad call on the GM to want players to try and think before they act? I didn't know it was very technical for a character trying to snipe someone to not forget to bring his laser distancer. I'd reward players who did some reseach and tried to formulate a plan of attack that would succeed on it's own without any helping hand from a very generous GM.

Player - "okay, I wait hidden just inside my guns' maximum range of the road".
DM - "okay; roll dice to guess. Oh you failed and the ambush is screwed. You die."
Player - "but why? I said 'within my guns' range - why would I need to guess that? I've only been using it for the past 6 months..."

The above satirical account is what you are telling me you're making your players do, unless they all carry measuring tape just so they can appease your requirements of a "proper" plan.
A skilled character knows how far he can shoot - that and why are you penalizing players for assuming that advanced tech. 300 years ahead of our own would include a range-finder with the weapons' scope?

rearnakedchoke wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:I mean, if you wanted to get really technical, you could start penalizing characters for their stance while firing, how lasers and other energy weapons reach within atmosphere, or what frequency their weapons are firing at. You could do all this, but doesn't it seem..... nit-picky?

I would consider everything you wrote here to be micro-managing....and if you would read all my post in this thread, I have already stated I don't micro-manage. I just think my player group has more fun when they have to think for themselves instead of me just letting them get away with stuff....that's all.

"Knowing how far their weapon shoots and its relative distance to their location". That's "getting away with stuff"?
Do you ask them what hand they wipe with, and then not assume they used toilet paper as well? I mean really, think about your statement there. They are trained combatants that don't know the distance of the weapons they are using, beyond specs. That is both illogical and severely micro-managed forcing them to "experiment" in-game.

rearnakedchoke wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:One last thing; just because a beam of light flashes for 0.2 micro-seconds doesn't mean a shooter has given away their position. The target might glean the direction, but they would have to spot the guy first - a hard task at even 1000 feet, unless that guy is wearing a glowing neon suit.

I never said they would know exactly which bush the shooter was behind or what tree the shot came from instantly, but people would know where the direction came from and if the shooter didn't try to get away, then he would be found and pretty quickly too. Within about 10-15 mins I'd say.

You said "would give away their position". Unless your definition of "position" includes a mile square area, that is exactly what you said. I'll quote you for you so you can remember;

rearnakedchoke wrote:Sorry, I misunderstood what you were trying too say. This is my point, the character thinks it is, but sometimes, in my games much less than half the time, the character could be wrong and just gave away his position.

Yes, I know my retort here to you mainly consists of me being a jerk, as well as other more descriptive words. I do this because you are being hipocritical.

rearnakedchoke wrote:First: Seemed to me like you were trying to state a fact.

A misunderstanding then.

rearnakedchoke wrote:Second: I'm sorry if agreeing with you makes you feel like coming back with an insult.

You felt the need to correct me when I needed no correction; this is insulting to me. Thus my retort on your reitteration of my words. This amounts to the miscommunication of the above misunderstanding.

rearnakedchoke wrote:Third: If the pc can't likely see at that range, then why would you just give it to them?

I wouldn't; if you can't see your target, then you can't hit it, period. If they can see their target at what would be 2000ft (whether they knew it or not) then that is when and where I would just allow it without micro-management. That was the message I was trying to convey.

rearnakedchoke wrote:Fourth: If that is what you're thinking I'm saying then you're just taking my words out of contexted and making stuff up just to be, as you put it, a jerk.

You multi-quoted and discontexted my words first. I don't mean to put all the blame on you; I tend to be hard-nosed an coarse with people, so I can see why you feel this way.

rearnakedchoke wrote:Fifth: I never said anything about knowing the max range of the weapon. What I said was the character can make a good guess as to the distance to the target. Meaning that if the character doesn't have a laser distancer or combat computer or an IQ of 300 then they would have to make a guess at what the distance is. You, buy the way, said a character should just automatically know the distance they are to their target, reguardless of any situations or gear or spells.

I did say things about knowing the max. range of a weapon though. A trained shooter isn't going to use a laser with a 2000ft range to shoot at targets 3000ft away, so why would your first assumption be that he would use said weapon at a guessed range or blind range, when it is likely he would know the accurate range, or only shoot at targets he can see?
This is where I think all the crossed wires are occuring at.

rearnakedchoke wrote:Sixth: Your right. I did say give away their position, but I never said the character stands up and yells out what tree he's in. I sorry, but I'm not gonna explain every single common phrase I use just for your benefit because you seem to have too much fun trying to start a fight. And because that would be nit-picky too, and I don't like being nit-picky.

While that may be okay to do within your circle of friends, this is the internet; you must say exactly what you mean, 'else problems such as this creep up. I assumed that you meant what you said - should I not have?

rearnakedchoke wrote:Last: If you don't think something is right about how another gm runs their game the polite thing to do would be to inquire as to why that gm would do those things, not just start out insulting and saying they're a bad gm just because you don't agree with it. I'm done on this thread because I don't like flame wars and Dog_of_War just seems to want to have a fight with me instead of trying to answer the PO's question.

I never said you were a bad GM; I stated (very specifically as I always say what I mean, unless context or emphasis provided would indicate otherwise) that that is a bad call.

Dog_O_War wrote:To punish a character for the player not knowing this kind of technical information is a bad call

People, humans do make mistakes. My own first mistake in almost every post I write is that I tend to be condiscending.

Please don't mistake my words as personal attacks, or that I wish to start a flame-war. I hear things that sound overtly harsh or illogical and I tend to..... "correct" the person in an unfriendly manner.
Basically, I'm sorry if I offended you. I tend to do this (offend people) often, and without knowing. My words are best read with a light heart.