[TS] Lack of psychological pressure and shots at people

[Andreas]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

This does not mean that that shooting attacking zombies or robots is a stress free situation either.

But unlike for shooting humans, it could be right? It is hard to see why there would be psychological pressure when shooting robots if the conditions "no risk to self", "no risk to others" and "no political or military stake in the outcome" are all fulfilled.

So, are there good reasons to not use those modifiers for shooting against such non-people targets?

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

But really the spirit of the rule is that you can't claim any free bonus for all shots in combat.

It wouldn't really be a free bonus for all shots in combat. The conditions "no risk to self", "no risk to others" and "no political or military stake in the outcome" are all rare for adventuring combat.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Andreas

Do you mean only sapients or things like zombies and animals as well?

You can probably claim some of those bonuses in some highly controlled non-survival hunting situations. Human zombies look too much like people and in most games that's going to be enough to mean you can't claim the bonus.

If it is not about how psychologically traumatic it is to kill humans, it does however bring back the question of what the rationale for the rule is. You earlier mentioned 4e desiring to avoid normal uses of skills under adventuring conditions getting routine modifiers, but the psychological mentioned in that rule box does not seem like they would be applicable during most adventuring situations, so they would not be routine modifiers.

If you have some highly contrived situation where they could apply, sure. "Tying people behind paper targets and not telling the shooters" isn't probably going to come up in 99% of actual games.

[Andreas]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

You can probably claim some of those bonuses in some highly controlled non-survival hunting situations. Human zombies look too much like people and in most games that's going to be enough to mean you can't claim the bonus.

Hmm, computer game opponents can also look like humans (for long range shooting at least, you can visually get pretty close to the real thing), but (presumably because of the intellectual understanding that they aren't hurting real people) people rarely hessitate with shooting them. I guess it should depend on how most people view zombies in that setting.

If you have some highly contrived situation where they could apply, sure. "Tying people behind paper targets and not telling the shooters" isn't probably going to come up in 99% of actual games.

While such adventuring situations are rare, they need not be as contrived as that. For example, shooting at long range with no people anywhere close to where you are aiming could easily qualify for "no risk to others".

[Ulzgoroth]

The 'people' clause in the 'no psychological pressure' rules is really quite a pickle.

GURPS characters don't necessarily recognize people as people, or may profoundly not care. And, for that matter, when you particularly do care there's a Disadvantage for that. And the old 'just buy up skill to represent not caring' staple doesn't work: those 3 +1s each have a highly limiting circumstantial requirement. Lifting the 'people' constraint doesn't make them gimmies.

Still, it's very possible to get at least a few of those bonuses for shooting at vehicles, equipment, animals, or robots in adventuring-relevant contexts even before getting into fantasy setups.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

For most neurotypical humans lethal violence against other humans is psychologically traumatic.

Bizarre, because in other old threads where I suggested as such, nearly everyone vehemently disagreed.

[The_Ryujin]

Originally Posted by Andreas

Hmm, computer game opponents can also look like humans (for long range shooting at least, you can visually get pretty close to the real thing), but (presumably because of the intellectual understanding that they aren't hurting real people) people rarely hessitate with shooting them. I guess it should depend on how most people view zombies in that setting.

For video games this is simple. 1)You know they're not real so you both know that no one is getting hurt and they can not hurt you. 2)Shooting a gun in most video games is nothing like shooting a gun in real life.

For zombies it would depend. If you are game shooting them from somewhere they can not possibly hurt you from and you are totally confadent in your safety then I see no problem with treating it as a non-combat situation. If you are out in the world shooting at a undead thing that can possibly hurt you or the firing of your gun could potentally revival your position to other zombies then, no. I can not see any way a player can justify saying this is a no stress situation.

So all in all, if there is even the slightest chance of danger, either for you getting hurt or killed or some kind of negitive ramification then no bonus.

Now for shooting at another person or something that would be considered a person in a setting I don't see any time the bonus could be applied. From all evidence I've seen even monsters like Castro and other dictators that would personally execute prisoners would have them turn their back or put a bag over them. Even these monsters had to dehumanize them to shoot them in cold blood.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by The_Ryujin

So all in all, if there is even the slightest chance of danger, either for you getting hurt or killed or some kind of negitive ramification then no bonus.

That is contrary to to the rules as written. Specifically, you could still get the 'no risk to others' bump: add +1 for each of “no risk to self” (nobody else shooting, just-serviced weapon, etc.), “no risk to others” (all allies behind you, no risk of overpenetration or ricochet), and “no political or military stake in the outcome.”

[Kallatari]

Personally, I ignore that specific rule from TS because there's too many arbitrary decisions to make: is it "human" or not? when is there really nothing at stakes (if you're in a shooting competition, would there therefore not be something at stake)? etc.

Instead, I went back to the intention of the rules: to bring the skills to a level to better match real-world accuracy at a firearm range as opposed to in a combat situation, but not increase skills in combat so that they exceed the real-world combat accuracy (which GURPS apparently models fairly well).

So, what tends to get used easily out of combat but not as often in combat? In my games, that was All-Out Attacks for missiles weapons. I therefore came to the conclusion that it was much easier to just make a house rule to change All-Out Attack so that missiles weapons receive a +4 bonus to hit - as they do with melee weapons - instead of just a +1.

I try to mitigate its use in combat by requiring a Will roll (modified by Fearlessness, etc.) to do an All-Out Attack if there's any chance someone might shoot back at you as not being able to defend should be just as scary as running out into suppressive fire, which also requires a Will roll (well, according to the new rules in TS).

This rule then required a couple of secondary rule changes:

First, TS requires that you take an All-Out Attack to benefit from an Aimed attack. I switched it to only requiring a Committed Attack (but All-Out gets it as well).

Second, when Aiming, I also narrow the aimer's field of vision (No Peripheral Vision, or Tunnel Vision when using a scope), meaning the aimer can't see attacks coming from any of those directions and thus can't defend against them. This sort of - but not exactly - maintains the cannot dodge effect taking an All-Out would have done using the original TS rules.

I'm not saying this is the perfect rule to match all expectations, but it does remove the hassles of trying to determine when the bonuses apply, and thus in my opinion makes it easier.

Use or not as you see fit.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Andreas

While such adventuring situations are rare, they need not be as contrived as that. For example, shooting at long range with no people anywhere close to where you are aiming could easily qualify for "no risk to others".

In which case then you aren't shooting at people...

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by Kallatari

First, TS requires that you take an All-Out Attack to benefit from an Aimed attack. I switched it to only requiring a Committed Attack (but All-Out gets it as well).

Second, when Aiming, I also narrow the aimer's field of vision (No Peripheral Vision, or Tunnel Vision when using a scope), meaning the aimer can't see attacks coming from any of those directions and thus can't defend against them. This sort of - but not exactly - maintains the cannot dodge effect taking an All-Out would have done using the original TS rules.

I'm not saying this is the perfect rule to match all expectations, but it does remove the hassles of trying to determine when the bonuses apply, and thus in my opinion makes it easier.

Use or not as you see fit.

On Target, from Pyr #3/77, pretty much is an entire article dedicated to variations on this theme. I consider it some of my best work.