Is it unwise to have NPC police officers with Pacifism?

[vicky_molokh]

Since not all police officers even carry firearms, I guess getting away with Reluctant Killer is possible, as long as the GM allows treating the asp (or whatever weapon they carry) as not a lethal attack, thus avoiding triggering the penalties from RK - as long as the constable believes so. Sure, one could kill with it, but OTOH, one could kill with bare hands with sufficient effort, and RK is definitely not meant to penalize all attacks against sophonts the character ever makes.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Rocket Man

Good point -- most cops require extensive time off after an officer-involved shooting, even when the suspect was only wounded. Still, I've known a lot of cops who had no difficulty discharging their weapon when the time came; the major effects on them came after the shooting rather than before. The in-combat penalties (can't Aim, reduced chance of hitting, etc.) don't seem to fit that experience.

Note that a skilled shooter will probably hit in at least 50% of aimed shots he makes*. To get closer to real world hit probabilities in officer involved shootings, we need to assume penalties of some sort.

I find Reluctant Killer to be as likely as anything else.

*Skill 12, aiming for 2+1 (bracing) and range penalty of -3 or so (most police gunfights take place within 7 yards).

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by Icelander

Note that a skilled shooter will probably hit in at least 50% of aimed shots he makes*. To get closer to real world hit probabilities in officer involved shootings, we need to assume penalties of some sort.

I find Reluctant Killer to be as likely as anything else.

*Skill 12, aiming for 2+1 (bracing) and range penalty of -3 or so (most police gunfights take place within 7 yards).

Two hands on the pistol qualifies for braced, but "sighted shooting" probably doesn't allow much of the Aim maneuver, which is a near monomaniacal focus on the sights in many cases.

Let's keep the -3 penalty for range, just add +1 for Braced, drop Aim, and toss in 0 to -3 for poor light. That's a net of -2 to -5. Real-world hit percentages at that range are, as you know, about equal to a roll of 6-7 or less (probably 6). So right in the middle of that (6.5+3.5) is about a skill of 11-. So anything in the Guns(Pistol)-10 to 12 range is credible. It should be closer to 9-10 if you really believe most of those shootouts involve the Aim maneuver as opposed to sighted shooting, and 11-12 if you believe they're not Aiming, but instead have target-focus or using sighted shooting.

Icelander's primary point, however, stands: Skill 13 or higher is PC grade.

[Icelander]

I do believe that Aiming is very common in combat, yes. Adrenal responses like tunnel vision and target fixation make it very likely that when faced by a threat, the officer or armed citizen will focus on it to the exclusion of everything else. Also, in most police gunfights, the magazine is generally not emptied at a rate which suggests rapid unaimed fire at the threat. It is easy to see why training for police would emphasise fire control and downrange awareness*.

Lighting penalties are a good point, given how many gunfights occur in the dark. Of course, with modern sights, the penalties are 1 point less, but that doesn't make that much of a difference.

I believe police gun skill ranges between 10-13, with those with skill 13+ probably being shooting enthusiasts on their own time and/or belonging to tactical teams of some sort. With Aiming, bracing and AoA, this means an effective skill of 9-12 at 7 yards, even in insufficient lighting (-3).

So applying the -4 for Reluctant Killer only serves to bring the hit probability in line with reality.

This doesn't mean that I consider a flat -4 penalty an accurate rules-mechanical representation of the psychological problems most humans have with killing. A mechanism which involved Will rolls and varied depending on how obvious the personhood of the other party was, how much time there was to think, state of mind, etc. would obviously be much more realistic. In a game which focused on psychological issues, I'd house rule Reluctant Killer for more realism in that direction.

That being said, though, Reluctant Killer is the mechanism GURPS uses to distinguish normal humans from that minority which is able to kill without hesitation. And I think most cops belong to the Reluctant Killer majority, not the 'warrior/killer' minority.

*Though with hit rates below 10%, that's obviously an ideal more than reality. But at least it's better than below 1%, which is what you get with soldiers who primarily fire to prevent the other side from firing back.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Icelander

I do believe that Aiming is very common in combat, yes. Adrenal responses like tunnel vision and target fixation make it very likely that when faced by a threat, the officer or armed citizen will focus on it to the exclusion of everything else. Also, in most police gunfights, the magazine is generally not emptied at a rate which suggests rapid unaimed fire at the threat. It is easy to see why training for police would emphasise fire control and downrange awareness*.

Lighting penalties are a good point, given how many gunfights occur in the dark. Of course, with modern sights, the penalties are 1 point less, but that doesn't make that much of a difference.

I believe police gun skill ranges between 10-13, with those with skill 13+ probably being shooting enthusiasts on their own time and/or belonging to tactical teams of some sort. With Aiming, bracing and AoA, this means an effective skill of 9-12 at 7 yards, even in insufficient lighting (-3).

So applying the -4 for Reluctant Killer only serves to bring the hit probability in line with reality.

This doesn't mean that I consider a flat -4 penalty an accurate rules-mechanical representation of the psychological problems most humans have with killing. A mechanism which involved Will rolls and varied depending on how obvious the personhood of the other party was, how much time there was to think, state of mind, etc. would obviously be much more realistic. In a game which focused on psychological issues, I'd house rule Reluctant Killer for more realism in that direction.

That being said, though, Reluctant Killer is the mechanism GURPS uses to distinguish normal humans from that minority which is able to kill without hesitation. And I think most cops belong to the Reluctant Killer majority, not the 'warrior/killer' minority.

*Though with hit rates below 10%, that's obviously an ideal more than reality. But at least it's better than below 1%, which is what you get with soldiers who primarily fire to prevent the other side from firing back.

I'm actually sad that Reluctant Killer is a Disadvantage, and a cheap one at that. I would be much happier it was a 'highly encouraged optional rule', which could be bypassed either by GMs running cinematic hack/slash games, or by purchasing the appropriate Resistant (Reluctance to kill) trait (or equivalent). In fact, I think it would be interesting to treat it similar to Advantageous Callous: you get +lots to your will roll to kill other persons and to your subsequent Fright Check (for a lack of better name), but get a negative reaction modifier good folk with Empathy/Body Language/Psychology/access to your profile (with all that stuff ignored in hackslash/bangbang campaigns).

[HANS]

Originally Posted by Icelander

I do believe that Aiming is very common in combat, yes.

I don't. Not for most police officers. Aim takes time, which is the first thing you don't have in a police shooting (they are usually over in a few seconds, one way or the other). Most analysts of police shootings I have read, beginning with Fairbairn but by far not ending there, have come to the conclusion that police officers don't aim (hence the various styles that emphasis instinctive shooting) because much of their (often limited) training in elaborate stances like the Weaver instantly goes out of the window once they have to shoot. Even if it doesn't Aim is entirely useless/impossible in most of the conditions of the average police shooting. These are dominated by poor lighting (you typically simply can't see the sights -- try that out for yourself some time) and extremely short range (less than 7 yards, often less than 2 yards). Nobody truly aims at such distances, especially if the perp is closing in. Not in GURPS terms, anyways, which means 1 second of standing more or less still.

Originally Posted by Icelander

Adrenal responses like tunnel vision and target fixation make it very likely that when faced by a threat, the officer or armed citizen will focus on it to the exclusion of everything else.

Yes. But that actually means the opposite of what you postulate. You can't concentrate on the sights if you're focusing on the other chap. I quote Sergeant Major Eric Haney in GURPS Tactical Shooting, who wrote:

". . . before you can shoot a target, you must identify it . . . You must separate the deadly threat from the innocent bystander. And to do that effectively you have to look at people instead of your sights . . . That’s why so many cops fire shots that miss during an armed confrontation. They’re looking at their opponents, but they trained looking at their sights."
– Eric Haney, Inside Delta Force (2002)

Cheers

HANS

[rosignol]

Originally Posted by Icelander

Note that a skilled shooter will probably hit in at least 50% of aimed shots he makes*. To get closer to real world hit probabilities in officer involved shootings, we need to assume penalties of some sort.

Speaking as someone who has gone shooting at the Seattle Police Range on occasion, I daresay most police officers are unlikely to be 'skilled shooters' in GURPS terms. A fair number of them seem quite content with being good enough to qualify, and have little interest in improving that particular skill.

Obviously, Seattle is not a particularly dangerous city. I dunno what the standards are for NYPD/LAPD/etc.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by HANS

because much of their (often limited) training in elaborate stances like the Weaver instantly goes out of the window once they have to shoot.

Indeed.

My theory is that the real world explanation of the -4 penalty for Reluctant Shooter is precisely this effect. Firing at paper target during qualification, the officer is at a positive TDM of some sort. Thus, his skill of 11 is entirely adequate to ensure that he'll almost never miss a man-shaped silhouette at 7 yards.

When in fear of his life, the positive TDM goes away. Even so, a skill of 11 would be enough to ensure a hit rate of 50% or more, far in excess of real world data. Thus, something else is penalising him.

I say it is that firing at other humans is harder than firing at paper targets for most people. This explains why he's ignoring his training and failing to achieve a proper sight picture, for example. Hence the -4 penalty.

Originally Posted by HANS

Even if it doesn't Aim is entirely useless/impossible in most of the conditions of the average police shooting. These are dominated by poor lighting (you typically simply can't see the sights -- try that out for yourself some time) and extremely short range (less than 7 yards, often less than 2 yards). Nobody truly aims at such distances, especially if the perp is closing in. Not in GURPS terms, anyways, which means 1 second of standing more or less still.

Aim is not useless in GURPS rules terms. It adds Acc to the shooter's effective skill. As such, the logical thing to do is interpret the Aim maneuver as anything that takes approximately a second and improves the odds of the shooter hitting.

Yes, in darkness, the sights are hardly visible. This is why darkness penalises shooting. This doesn't change the fact that attempting to align the weapon with the target does help, even in poor visibility. -3 or more is already a huge penalty to skill, there's no mechanical reason to say that it's also impossible to Aim.

Whether Aim represents gauging precise distance and adjusting for windage and elevation or simply taking a breath and steadying the nerves is really irrelevant to the game effects. At long range, what a shooter does to improve his odds of shooting is different than what he does at short range. Sure.

But that doesn't change the fact that when a character Fast-Draws and then shoots immediately within the same second, he has less chance of hitting than if he fires slightly more deliberately. This holds true in reality and in GURPS rules. In GURPS rules, it is modelled by Fast-Draw + Aim followed by an Attack maneuver being more accurate than Fast-Draw + Attack.

It doesn't really make a difference here that the Aim lasts for less than a second. It does mean that the character fires a turn later and more accurately, so it has the same game effects.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Icelander

Whether Aim represents gauging precise distance and adjusting for windage and elevation or simply taking a breath and steadying the nerves is really irrelevant to the game effects. At long range, what a shooter does to improve his odds of shooting is different than what he does at short range. Sure.

There is a difference in real life between sighted combat shooting and aiming at a distant target.

It doesn't really make a difference here that the Aim lasts for less than a second. It does mean that the character fires a turn later and more accurately, so it has the same game effects.

What do you call AoA:Determined then if not sighted shooting?

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

There is a difference in real life between sighted combat shooting and aiming at a distant target.

Of course.

But it does not follow that they need to use different game mechanics. There is a lot of difference between shooting at 70 yards and 700 yards in real life, but GURPS uses the same rules for both.

By the same token, there are many, many firing positions that have the purpose of providing a stable platform. GURPS does not distinguish in any way between them. Bracing your gun adds +1, no matter how you do it.

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

What do you call AoA:Determined then if not sighted shooting?

AoA: Determined is sighted shooting where you can move at a fast clip of 2-3 meters per second while you shoot and you don't pause between shots or before you start shooting.

In general, when modelling, I ask myself 'Did the character shoot as soon as his gun was Ready or did he take some time to make sure that his fire was efffective?'.

If getting off a shot ASAP to at least potentially distract the opposition is the primary consideration, he's probably using AoA: Determined. If he could have fired earlier, but waited for a couple of heartbeats, I guess it's Aim followed by AoA: Determined.