Topic: Aiming?

[Ramoran]

Hey guys.  Got a question.

I've been considering which ICE system to start playing/running (starting with running) for a while now, and I think I'm going to go with HARP and HARP SF to start.  Something that's always bothered me about the systems I've played, though, is the idea of aiming.

It started when I was playing DnD at my local store a few months back.  Up until that time I had only run DnD, not played it, and I tried to allow my characters to do just about anything.  This included aiming, special attack situations...I tried to reward my characters for being innovative, so anything they could cook up was fair game.  So I've got my bow out, and I'm getting ready to hit this troll, and I say, "Okay, I'm shooting this troll, and I'm aiming for..."

Immediately somebody interrupts me.  "There's no aiming, dude."

"What?  No aiming?  Why?"

"It's not in the rules.  All you can do is attack."

Then, when I started playing Spacemaster, it popped up again.  I was looking through the scope of a sniper rifle, and trying for a headshot.  Again I was informed that there is no aiming, only attacking.

This all begs the question...what kind of sniper, ranger, rogue, or any other marksman wouldn't be able to choose his target, aim at it, and hit it?  If somebody is trying to kill a dude with a sniper rifle, they're obviously going to be aiming at a specific target like the chest or head.  A dragon's weak points are traditionally the eye or the heart, so any archer worth his salt will pick out those organs, right?  Why has aiming been left out of these systems?  It especially makes sniping and stealth pointless, because if you're sniping an unawares opponent in real life, you're chances of killing him are much higher than if you're in a full-blown firefight.  In a game, though, even with a high roll you'll likely only alert the enemy to your presence without really killing him.

My solution?  Well, with HARP, I was thinking about adding modifiers based on the difficulty of the location, like taking five, ten, or even twenty off a roll for parts such as limbs, heads, or eyes, respectively.  The shooter would only be able to aim at such locations in a relatively low-stress situation such as sniping from a distance or sneaking up on someone (a good rogue should be allowed to sneak up and slash throats, don't you think?).  The risk, of course, is a higher chance of failure, which constitutes a total miss and alerting the enemy to your presence.  The reward is that success is an instant kill for head/chest/throat shots and the like, and wounding limbs will cripple a character, which is sometimes desireable over killing an enemy.

What do you guys think of this idea?  Sure, it adds a little complexity, but I'm coming off of d20, here.  I think if I add this, I'll still have a ways to go before HARP presents a rules problem, and I think it will add to the overall authenticity of the gaming experience.

[Right Wing Wacko]

There are already mechanics for called shots and sniping is a skill in the Core Rules.
And combat is already pretty deadly (depending on which combat system you use).

[WoeRie]

I think what you want is part of the Sniping skill. It works just as Ambush, you have to be undetected and make an additional maneuver roll on sniping. If it succeeds you can add the ranks on top of the critical and have no damage cap.

However in addition to sniping there are also rules to aim for specific body parts (at least in the H&S and ML combat systems), but the aiming for a hit location is not as lethal as sniping, maybe you are looking for a combination of both.

Finally, I use a very small house rule to allow aiming in the same way as concentrating for a spell (+5 per round up to +30 for 6 rounds). I only allowed that because it is a known rule (for spell casting) and adds therefore nearly no further complexity.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

This all begs the question...what kind of sniper, ranger, rogue, or any other marksman wouldn't be able to choose his target, aim at it, and hit it?  If somebody is trying to kill a dude with a sniper rifle, they're obviously going to be aiming at a specific target like the chest or head.  A dragon's weak points are traditionally the eye or the heart, so any archer worth his salt will pick out those organs, right?  Why has aiming been left out of these systems? 

Couple of things......

1) Remember, in HARP (and in RM) an attack is not a single discreet action, it is the best (or cumulative) attack opportunity over the course of the round.

2) The shooter can aim all they want. However, that is never a guarantee that they will hit what they are aiming at, regardless of their skill.

3) Easiest way for a GM to handle this is to let them "aim" for a given spot, and then for the GM to change the flavor text of the critical to reflect the spot aimed for.

For example: if the crit says something to the effect that you shot him in the gut and did some organ damage. ANd the attacker was aiming for the head, then you might say:

You aim carefully for his head, and release. However, he raises his arm just as your shot was loosed, and the arrow  ricocheted off his bracer in into his abdomen.

Or if it says broken wrist and -20 to all actions and +15 hits, you could change the flavor text to read that the shot hit his wrist, breaking it, on its way to his head, but that it also deflected it enough to only graze his head. Of course, now that he is aware of the attack, he it taking cover. 

4) Others have mentioned the sniping skill -- this is used to do a more deadly attack overall usually.

5) What you are really wanting is something along the lines of a "Called shot". You can handle this as above, using changes to the flavor text or you could also check into Martial Law which has critical tables by general location, and rules for called shots.

[Ramoran]

I see.  Well, we were playing Spacemaster 2, and my GM didn't seem to think I could call a headshot before taking it.  I've never seen the core rules for any of these systems, so I assumed he was correct.

Are called shots a more succinct method of resolving such situations?  It sounds to me like you end up adding a roll and doing more math, and to me it makes more sense just to modify the actual attack itself and doing a straight-up all or nothing system for these attacks.  Either you kill your target, or you don't.  It makes the character think about whether or not he wants to take the risk.  I'll have to look at the actual rules before I can actually make any iron-clad decisions about this, though, and you guys know the system better than I do.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

In the Martial Law rules, the location is determined by the initial dice roll. The tens die determines left or right. The ones die determines location (and then you use the dice normally for seeing how good you hit him).

To make a called shot, you reduce your OB to be able to modify the number taken from the ones die to determine the loction (up to 5 points plus or minus)

However, one thing you should never allow, is something that lets the character make an instant kill if he succeeds. The target should ALWAYS have a chance somehow. (be it the randomness of the crit roll, or a RR, or whatever). I say this because the first time you have a foe do the same thing to them, htey will be screaming for such...

[Ramoran]

Both player characters and NPCs can already perform one-hit kills in most systems.  I'm just trying to add a little realism to the whole idea of sniping and stealth kills.  Yes, the players would be upset if one of them were killed in one hit, but it's possible for players to get killed in one hit anyway.  I can see what you're saying about game mechanics, but the idea of random hit location, in my opinion, completely fouls up the idea of marksmanship, and that's what bothers me about it.  If a character, player or otherwise, wants to drill someone in the side of the head with a crossbow bolt, to me that's valid...the upshot is that aiming this way increases chances of failure.  If an assasin wants to creep up behind somebody and slash his throat, I think that should be allowed, because hey, that's what assasins do.  Like I said before, I like to allow my characters to be as strategic and creative as possible...they just need to understand that trying such risky and dangerous maneuvers comes with a high price.  If a halfling wants to try to jump onto a dragon, scramble up its neck, and stab it in the eye, she's free to try...she just needs to understand that she'll have to make a large number of opposed rolls and run a high risk of dying at every single one of them.  I just feel like battles in most games consist of too much  "I'm attacking with my sword,"  "Okay, you hit,"  "Okay, I'm shooting with my bow," "Well, you missed..." and so forth.  Real combat is much more colorful and organic than that, and I like to reflect that in my GM style.  Maybe I should devise my own rule system or something, but I don't feel I should have to when I can modify one that already exists.

[Thos]

You could always make a house rule that would allow that for every round the character is aiming, he/she would then recieve a +5 or something to offset the penalty for the called shot. I think that makes sense, but I just woke up...

[Ramoran]

You could always make a house rule that would allow that for every round the character is aiming, he/she would then recieve a +5 or something to offset the penalty for the called shot. I think that makes sense, but I just woke up...

I'm not quite sure what that meant.  Aiming isn't an action in and of itself, so a character wouldn't take a whole round aiming and then fire in the next...to aim, all they'd have to do is call their target.

[WoeRie]

You could always make a house rule that would allow that for every round the character is aiming, he/she would then recieve a +5 or something to offset the penalty for the called shot. I think that makes sense, but I just woke up...

I'm not quite sure what that meant.  Aiming isn't an action in and of itself, so a character wouldn't take a whole round aiming and then fire in the next...to aim, all they'd have to do is call their target.

What you call "aim" others call "Called shot". What Thos (and I in a previous post) suggested was aiming on a target for some time to improve the chance of a hit at the specific location (it is not as easy to hit the eye of a dragon as the dragon itself, so some extra bonus would help). So a combination of called shot (to hit a specific location), aiming for some time (to improve the chance to hit) would be helpful.
Oh, and not all hits to the head are deadly, sometimea it's only a scratch, so I would also suggest the skill Sniping to make the hit more deadly.

But I think you should first explain which combat system you are using for your game. With this information it would me much easier to know what you need.

[Thos]

Absolutely! WoeRie summed up exactly what I was trying to say. Thanks, WoeRie!

[NicholasHMCaldwell]

In addition to the Called Shot technique (aiming for a specific body location and taking OB penalties to be able to adjust the rolled location), HARP SF introduces Careful Aim:

Careful Aim: If the character carefully aims a ranged weapon (modern or archaic) at a specific target, this
Combat Action reduces any range penalties incurred by the character by 5 per full consecutive round of aiming. All rounds of aiming must be consecutive (no interruptions or breaks from Aiming), the target may not be moving faster than 5 meters per round, and the shooter must be able to maintain visual line-of-sight on the target at all times. Range penalties cannot be reduced below zero using this Combat Action.

Best wishes,
Nicholas

[Witchking20k]

Purchase Martial Law, I think the PDF is $10.  There are hit location criticals in there.  Assign a difficulty based on Character Size vs. Target size & Weapon type (Melee vs Missile).

Example
Medium vs Medium: Head & Neck -50, Chest & Back -20, Abdomen & Groin -30, Legs & Feet -30, Hands & Arms -30.


This makes attacking a location a skill that PCs can get better at in time.  You can build other templates like Large vs. Small, Large vs. Medium, Small vs. Large, Smal vs. Medium, etc and slightly change the penalties to reflect the difficulty of hitting the desired location....a good example would be a Halfling trying to hit a Troll in the head with a sword (small vs. Large)  this might be -80...

Don't forget to take into consideration the weapon type: missile weapons would probably always attack on the Medium vs. Medium:  Spears might provide some reach bonus of smaller foes, etc.

I've used this before.  Players love the idea of being able to do it, but it usually only happens if they have managed to surprise a foe, or the foe is stunned or prone enough to make them an easier target.

Cheers
James

[Arioch]

If a character, player or otherwise, wants to drill someone in the side of the head with a crossbow bolt, to me that's valid...the upshot is that aiming this way increases chances of failure.  If an assasin wants to creep up behind somebody and slash his throat, I think that should be allowed, because hey, that's what assasins do.  Like I said before, I like to allow my characters to be as strategic and creative as possible...they just need to understand that trying such risky and dangerous maneuvers comes with a high price. 

As you say a character can well aim at a vital spot if he wants, but that doesn't mean that he will automatically hit it!
Rolemaster and HARP combat system assume that the attacker is always aiming at a vital part, while  the defender is trying to avoid being hit. If the defender is unaware of the incoming blow, attacker get a lot of bonuses (not counting that an unaware target cannot evade the blow so he basically has only DB from armor or magical protection to defend himself) and can use skills like Ambush or Sniping which greatly increase the chance of killing his target with a single blow.
If the character need to hit a certain location of the enemy (for example: the golem only weak point is on his head, or you want to hit the hand of the wizard holding the staff...) you can use the called shot rule. If he's just trying to kill his opponent in a quick way attack normally and then change the flavor text of the critical ("you try to hit him in the head, but he suddenly drop to the ground so you hit him on the shoulder instead..." or somthing like that), keeping the same damage on the table. Remember that the flavour text on the crit is just flavour text, a suggestion for the GM on how the attack scene can be described, not the only way to resolve the attack!

[Ecthelion]

Both player characters and NPCs can already perform one-hit kills in most systems.  I'm just trying to add a little realism to the whole idea of sniping and stealth kills.

There is often a trade-off between realism and fun in RPG games. Instant kills is one of the items where this applies to.

  Yes, the players would be upset if one of them were killed in one hit, but it's possible for players to get killed in one hit anyway.

The important point is that the chance to get killed by just one shot is relatively low. And I am sure that was a deliberate choice and that the creators of RM and HARP were conscious about the fact that in reality combat is much deadlier. But who wants to roll a new character every one or two sessions or avoid every combat encounter? Not me at least...

[pastaav]

I see.  Well, we were playing Spacemaster 2, and my GM didn't seem to think I could call a headshot before taking it.  I've never seen the core rules for any of these systems, so I assumed he was correct.

Why would your character be better at shooting because you as player say "I want to use a headshot"?

RM, SM and Harp all assumes your characters know about what areas to hit. Your hit location is random because your character chooses the best possible one and not because your character is aiming badly.

[Ramoran]

The thing about RPGs, though, is that death is rarely final if you've got the right tools.  In fantasy campaigns, you can heal/resurrect a character even if they've been crushed by falling rocks and had the spatters incinerated by crazy goblins.  Sci fi campaigns tend to be a little less forgiving as far as death goes, but my first sci fi campaign is going to take place in Phillip Jose Farmer's Riverworld, where dying on causes you to be resurrected at a random point somewhere else down the river.

Also, the Called Shot thing sounds about like what I was talking about anyway, so I'll probably just end up using that.  Is that in the core rules, or do I need Martial Law or Hack & Slash.

Anyway, like I said before, the whole point of allowing so many options for my players is to promote player creativity.  It makes combat a lot more vivid, like the scene I described earlier with the halfling and the dragon.  If the player wants to do something that the rules don't talk about or provide resolutions for, but it's an interesting and valid character choice, I feel it's my responsibility as GM to allow for that in order to keep the fun going.  It might make my job just a touch harder, but it also makes the experience more immersive and enjoyable for the players, which is what we should all be after.

And I know that aiming at something doesn't necessarily preclude hitting it...in fact, the rule I was talking about instating in my first post would actually decrease a character's chances of hitting what he's aiming at, with the incentive being a kill or at least massive damage if he succeeds.

And the point isn't to be better at shooting.  Like I said, the chances of missing are higher.  The point is to be better at killing.  Sure, I'm more likely to miss his head, but I'm also more likely to kill him if I hit his head.

[mocking bird]

I'm not quite sure what that meant.  Aiming isn't an action in and of itself, so a character wouldn't take a whole round aiming and then fire in the next...to aim, all they'd have to do is call their target.

In this context, isn't that what the OB is?  In HARP there is only one attack roll so high attack roll = death crit, unlike where a high attack roll does not mean this and usually = sucky crit roll.  All you have to do is change the flavor text a bit and voila - no monkeying around with the rules.

And the point isn't to be better at shooting.  Like I said, the chances of missing are higher.  The point is to be better at killing.  Sure, I'm more likely to miss his head, but I'm also more likely to kill him if I hit his head.[/color]

This is the reason I have a severe dislike for called shots in general.  They promote instant kills and never really work well.  In other words, why would you attempt to do anything else?

RM, SM and Harp all assumes your characters know about what areas to hit. Your hit location is random because your character chooses the best possible one and not because your character is aiming badly.

It took me a few reads to realizy how obvious this statement really is.  To the contrairy of 'called shots for easy kills', we have used them more for non-lethal attacks - hitting a leg to disable an opponent or hitting the arm holding the staff for example.

IIRC the crit charts in ML, the head shots aren't significantly more deadly than the other crit tables.  So lowering your OB to hit a target directly reduces the damage done.  Unless you are using armor reductions in ML which may change this.

[Fidoric]

In addition to the Called Shot technique (aiming for a specific body location and taking OB penalties to be able to adjust the rolled location), HARP SF introduces Careful Aim:

Careful Aim: If the character carefully aims a ranged weapon (modern or archaic) at a specific target, this
Combat Action reduces any range penalties incurred by the character by 5 per full consecutive round of aiming. All rounds of aiming must be consecutive (no interruptions or breaks from Aiming), the target may not be moving faster than 5 meters per round, and the shooter must be able to maintain visual line-of-sight on the target at all times. Range penalties cannot be reduced below zero using this Combat Action.

Best wishes,
Nicholas

Hi guys,
having the chance to regularly train with firearms, I think something might be missing here.
The longer you aim, the higher the bonus. That's your postulate Nicholas. However, try to take an aim for more than 10 seconds (I believe that is 5 rounds in Harp), especially in a stressful environment (and snipers are usually in such conditions) and you will soon find your arms shaking (from exertion) and your eyes running. Aiming can only give so much bonuses but after a while, the process do reverse itself.
The "shaking arm" problem could even be worse with weapons such as bows, lighter but more demanding to stay drawn.
As for future weapons, laser rifles and others, maybe the lightweight materials and the quality of the sights may overcome these consideration but I am not sure, having missed the occasion to try one. Part of the limitations on multi-rounds aiming are not due to the weapons but to the users and will probably be around for ever.

[WoeRie]

However, try to take an aim for more than 10 seconds (I believe that is 5 rounds in Harp), especially in a stressful environment (and snipers are usually in such conditions) and you will soon find your arms shaking (from exertion) and your eyes running. Aiming can only give so much bonuses but after a while, the process do reverse itself.

Interesting. Luckily it fits into my house rule of a maximum of 6 round (12 seconds) of aiming. 

However, I saw a documentation about Asian (I think Japanese) Bowmen in TV some time ago. They used to aim for a couple of minutes before releasing the bow. Do you know about this technique? I assume this is something special.