Forums of the Megaverse®

Killer Cyborg wrote:Followup question:
How often have you seen PCs or NPCs fire from a prone position in game play?

Killer Cyborg wrote:Followup question:
How often have you seen PCs or NPCs fire from a prone position in game play?

Proseksword wrote:You're going to find it hard to find anywhere with 500' of natural ground that's perfectly flat. Ergo, any natural variation in the intervening surface terrain combined with presenting a less than 1' vertical profile should constitute cover, I should think.

Shark_Force wrote:

Proseksword wrote:You're going to find it hard to find anywhere with 500' of natural ground that's perfectly flat. Ergo, any natural variation in the intervening surface terrain combined with presenting a less than 1' vertical profile should constitute cover, I should think.

well that's gonna provide cover to your target as well then.

Proseksword wrote:

Shark_Force wrote:

Proseksword wrote:You're going to find it hard to find anywhere with 500' of natural ground that's perfectly flat. Ergo, any natural variation in the intervening surface terrain combined with presenting a less than 1' vertical profile should constitute cover, I should think.

well that's gonna provide cover to your target as well then.

That's going to be completely contingent on the nature of the target. If you're shooting at another prone humanoid, sure! If you're shooting at a 12m tall power armor lumbering across the countryside or a fury-beetle mounted simvan? The rolling hills probably wouldn't interfere with your shot.

The Beast wrote:Yeah, I'm fairly certain that KC said "The terrain is a flat, infinite, featureless plain." just so we wouldn't argue about it.

jingizu999 wrote:I can't find an answer in the rules as written, so here is my interpretation. And it is just MY interpretation.

If a target (player or npc) goes prone, a ranged shot should come at a penalty to strike. It should only be treated as cover if they are in defilade, that is having gone prone behind cover or being shot from a low angle such that the ground itself is between shooter and target. IE, prone on a hill. A called shot is not a fitting mechanic for this situation as written. A called shot specifically refers to deliberately striking/shooting one portion of a larger target, not for shooting a small target. To use a ridiculous example, it is not a called shot to shoot a halfling standing in the open just because he's short. That's not how the called shot mechanic works. If you want to shoot a giant in the head, that's a called shot, even if hitting the giant is generally easier because of his size. Shooting a rabbit running across a field isn't a called shot, it’s just a difficult one.

As for hit locations, if the target is prone in the open likely impact locations when shot by a standing shooter are head, shoulders, lower back, and legs. Likelihood of hits to the back and legs varies with the height and distance of the shooter, and is a simple geometry problem, but they are far less likely at 500’. Since Rifts is a game that has never handled random hit locations particularly well, If using the r.a.w. I would continue to have shots hit the "main body”, just in the back instead of the front. Not very realistic, but then Rifts and realism rarely walk hand in hand. That being said, I play with a heavily modified homebrew version of the Palladium combat rules, so we use semi-random hit locations heavily weighted towards center of mass shots (stolen from another game) and a far more lethal critical hit system. That means my players focus a lot more on not being hit in the first place, rather than hoping their armor will save them.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Followup question:
How often have you seen PCs or NPCs fire from a prone position in game play?

Prone in the open? Almost never. In defilade or behind cover? Every single game. I live next to an Air Force base. 75% of my players are former military personnel, and the other 25% are either related to or working with active duty personnel. The biggest challenge I face is getting them to approach a situation in a non-tactical manner. We once did what was supposed to be a light-hearted Scooby-Doo game where the gang investigated the "haunted funhouse". Instead, while Shaggy and Scooby patrolled the perimeter, Fred and Daphne breached the front door, while Velma lobbed in a flash bang before double-tapping Mr. Caruthers in his ghost costume, freeing the hostages, and falling back to the Mystery Machine for exfil. Throw a few engineers into the mix and well planned chaos and violence are the group’s norm.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

The Beast wrote:Yeah, I'm fairly certain that KC said "The terrain is a flat, infinite, featureless plain." just so we wouldn't argue about it.

As far as the original scenario goes, yes. But I don't mind people discussing alternate scenarios as examples of how/why they would handle things.

Proseksword wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

The Beast wrote:Yeah, I'm fairly certain that KC said "The terrain is a flat, infinite, featureless plain." just so we wouldn't argue about it.

As far as the original scenario goes, yes. But I don't mind people discussing alternate scenarios as examples of how/why they would handle things.

I'm not sure where such a situation would actually occur, but I'd say they'd gain no benefit - RIFTs does not provide bonuses or penalties to hit for main body target size. Faeries gain no natural defense bonus due to their size, only a dodge bonus. Why should a prone person?

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Proseksword wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

The Beast wrote:Yeah, I'm fairly certain that KC said "The terrain is a flat, infinite, featureless plain." just so we wouldn't argue about it.

As far as the original scenario goes, yes. But I don't mind people discussing alternate scenarios as examples of how/why they would handle things.

I'm not sure where such a situation would actually occur, but I'd say they'd gain no benefit - RIFTs does not provide bonuses or penalties to hit for main body target size. Faeries gain no natural defense bonus due to their size, only a dodge bonus. Why should a prone person?

So, basically as long as there’s arguable a fairy-sized part of the torso exposed, you wouldn’t see a need for strike penalties or a Called Shot?

Proseksword wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Proseksword wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

The Beast wrote:Yeah, I'm fairly certain that KC said "The terrain is a flat, infinite, featureless plain." just so we wouldn't argue about it.

As far as the original scenario goes, yes. But I don't mind people discussing alternate scenarios as examples of how/why they would handle things.

I'm not sure where such a situation would actually occur, but I'd say they'd gain no benefit - RIFTs does not provide bonuses or penalties to hit for main body target size. Faeries gain no natural defense bonus due to their size, only a dodge bonus. Why should a prone person?

So, basically as long as there’s arguable a fairy-sized part of the torso exposed, you wouldn’t see a need for strike penalties or a Called Shot?

Sure. The need for the called shot is to avoid the nearby intervening material, not to hit the overall area of the target. A prone man at 200 ft. & a standing man at 1200 ft. should present roughly the same target area, yet neither carry a to-hit penalty.

Prysus wrote:If the PC pushed for "cover" rules, I'd allow it though. Then allow the NPC to shoot without a Called Shot. If the NPC hits, it would be an automatic head shot. This sounds harsh at first (maybe even after), but the NPC did NOT target the head. The NPC targeted your main body by default. It's not his fault that you're using your head as cover for your main body. Note: I might actually just damage their rifle, if held in front of them, to be nice. This would probably depend on my mood.

TeeAychEeMarchHare wrote:Questions like this illustrate perfectly why I may use Palladium's settings, but their mechanics go directly in the bin. Same goes for D&D/Pathfinder.

Warshield73 wrote:

TeeAychEeMarchHare wrote:Questions like this illustrate perfectly why I may use Palladium's settings, but their mechanics go directly in the bin. Same goes for D&D/Pathfinder.

Which system do you use for your game mechanics? I ask because I have only played a few other systems besides PB and they all have there problems and a don't think I have ever seen one specifically mention laying prone.

I have always agreed that PBs system, combat and otherwise, is incomplete but I have never found an issue that I couldn't easily house rule. My group came up with a system for firing from cover, including laying prone, since we played 1st edition Southern Cross back in '89. It was really important with the use of arm shields and using downed mecha as cover. I think with any system there just has to be an understanding that not everything will be covered in the rules (although I will admit I would like PB to try harder to cover a few more things in theirs) and that some things will need to be house ruled.

TeeAychEeMarchHare wrote:Questions like this illustrate perfectly why I may use Palladium's settings, but their mechanics go directly in the bin. Same goes for D&D/Pathfinder.

Proseksword wrote:

TeeAychEeMarchHare wrote:Questions like this illustrate perfectly why I may use Palladium's settings, but their mechanics go directly in the bin. Same goes for D&D/Pathfinder.

RPGs don't need hard and fast rules - the GM is God, & what they say goes. I like that the Palladium system is fast & loose. When something arises we're not sure about, I make a ruling as GM & we roll on. If something comes up where I don't like the rule, I toss it, devise something else & roll on. The last thing I need at my table is more reasons to reference a table or encourage rules-lawyering.....

TeeAychEeMarchHare wrote:I haven't done anything with Rifts since 1997, but if you don't mind crunch I like the Reflex System that Twilight: 2013 uses. It seems pretty daunting at first but once you learn it it's pretty easy IMO. I'd love to play Rifts converted to that system. I'd even be willing to GM it, and for me that's saying something cuz I burned out almost two decades ago and I just want to play instead of being GM now.

I've considered using the setting for a Genesys game but it hasn't gone past the consideration stage.

I've gotten to the point that I really dislike level-based systems. There are a few reasons for that, the mechanics are just one of them.

jingizu999 wrote:I live next to an Air Force base. 75% of my players are former military personnel, and the other 25% are either related to or working with active duty personnel. The biggest challenge I face is getting them to approach a situation in a non-tactical manner. We once did what was supposed to be a light-hearted Scooby-Doo game where the gang investigated the "haunted funhouse". Instead, while Shaggy and Scooby patrolled the perimeter, Fred and Daphne breached the front door, while Velma lobbed in a flash bang before double-tapping Mr. Caruthers in his ghost costume, freeing the hostages, and falling back to the Mystery Machine for exfil. Throw a few engineers into the mix and well planned chaos and violence are the group’s norm.

Hotrod wrote:Palladium's combat system was built for a fantasy RPG setting, and even with the modifications to include modern combat, the focus seems to be more cinematic, dynamic, and fun than practical. Shooting enemies from the prone, while quite effective in real life, isn't cinematic, dynamic, or fun.

It's also very difficult to simulate. Let's say you go down in the prone. Unless you're on a very flat area or a slope, there are likely to be some obstructions between you and an enemy 500 feet away. Lie down in a random spot and see how far you can see a person-sized feature; it's quite often less than the football field and change presented in the OP, because low rises and bumps here and there often get in the way. This is a crappy form of cover; your enemy can't see or hit you, but you can't see or shoot your enemy. Even if you're on very flat ground, unless it's sand, mowed grass, or salt flats, there's likely to be tall grass, which is likely to conceal you from your enemy and vice-versa either completely (you're now firing blind) or partially (penalties to strike).

Movement in the prone is slow, but it's also incredibly important both for avoiding enemy fire and getting to a more advantageous position. This is generally done in a couple of ways: jumping up and sprinting for a few seconds, or crawling. Crawling might help you avoid being seen/shot, but it's slow, and you really can't shoot while crawling, even wild. Sprinting exposes you, but it's fast, and you can shoot enemies as you run (a wild shot). However, there really isn't a mechanic for these short sprints or crawling in the game.

Then there's the flipside to firing from the prone: you can use the ground to steady your aim. This is very helpful, and can be effectively simulated by a bonus to strike. However, it's also somewhat limited, as you can't just turn and shoot as quickly as someone on their feet, and your effective firing arc is fairly limited.

Capturing all this nuance into a game system is problematic, and it can easily become counterproductive because just as in real life, going into the prone is likely to slow and bog down combat, making your character live longer while accomplishing tasks slower.

Blue_Lion wrote:

Hotrod wrote:Palladium's combat system was built for a fantasy RPG setting, and even with the modifications to include modern combat, the focus seems to be more cinematic, dynamic, and fun than practical. Shooting enemies from the prone, while quite effective in real life, isn't cinematic, dynamic, or fun.

It's also very difficult to simulate. Let's say you go down in the prone. Unless you're on a very flat area or a slope, there are likely to be some obstructions between you and an enemy 500 feet away. Lie down in a random spot and see how far you can see a person-sized feature; it's quite often less than the football field and change presented in the OP, because low rises and bumps here and there often get in the way. This is a crappy form of cover; your enemy can't see or hit you, but you can't see or shoot your enemy. Even if you're on very flat ground, unless it's sand, mowed grass, or salt flats, there's likely to be tall grass, which is likely to conceal you from your enemy and vice-versa either completely (you're now firing blind) or partially (penalties to strike).

Movement in the prone is slow, but it's also incredibly important both for avoiding enemy fire and getting to a more advantageous position. This is generally done in a couple of ways: jumping up and sprinting for a few seconds, or crawling. Crawling might help you avoid being seen/shot, but it's slow, and you really can't shoot while crawling, even wild. Sprinting exposes you, but it's fast, and you can shoot enemies as you run (a wild shot). However, there really isn't a mechanic for these short sprints or crawling in the game.

Then there's the flipside to firing from the prone: you can use the ground to steady your aim. This is very helpful, and can be effectively simulated by a bonus to strike. However, it's also somewhat limited, as you can't just turn and shoot as quickly as someone on their feet, and your effective firing arc is fairly limited.

Capturing all this nuance into a game system is problematic, and it can easily become counterproductive because just as in real life, going into the prone is likely to slow and bog down combat, making your character live longer while accomplishing tasks slower.

The scenario presented was a flat featureless terrain. It would be like spotting some one in laying down on a runway of an airport, or the middle of a foot ball field. With no terrain feature there is a clear line of sight to the target.

So if the main body is the largest area of the target if the only thing you saw of the target was the head of a 50' tall giant robot over the top of a building would that be a called shot?

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Prysus wrote:If the PC pushed for "cover" rules, I'd allow it though. Then allow the NPC to shoot without a Called Shot. If the NPC hits, it would be an automatic head shot. This sounds harsh at first (maybe even after), but the NPC did NOT target the head. The NPC targeted your main body by default. It's not his fault that you're using your head as cover for your main body. Note: I might actually just damage their rifle, if held in front of them, to be nice. This would probably depend on my mood.

That is an interesting take on things!

Alrik Vas wrote:Give them -2 (aiming overcomes it), call it a day. I understand the need to discuss, but ultimately you have to look at 2 factors.

1. The player is taking an action with their character to improve their survival chances. While not completely within the rules, they are making an effort that makes sense on a lot of levels. As a GM we should try to support our PC's when they think in this way instead of "shoot, dodge, simultaneous attack because i have more MDC"

2. The penalty equals the benefit of aiming, which costs an action, which generally does negate the use of most tricks like this, as it's not real cover anyway. They could throw a grenade and there'd be no penalty, for instance.

Blue_Lion wrote:

Alrik Vas wrote:Give them -2 (aiming overcomes it), call it a day. I understand the need to discuss, but ultimately you have to look at 2 factors.

1. The player is taking an action with their character to improve their survival chances. While not completely within the rules, they are making an effort that makes sense on a lot of levels. As a GM we should try to support our PC's when they think in this way instead of "shoot, dodge, simultaneous attack because i have more MDC"

2. The penalty equals the benefit of aiming, which costs an action, which generally does negate the use of most tricks like this, as it's not real cover anyway. They could throw a grenade and there'd be no penalty, for instance.

How does laying down out in the open to reduce chance of being killed. They are clearly visible on a open flat open terrain. If you lay down out in the open and the other person is standing he can clearly see your legs and back. So you are not a smaller target, but it would be harder to dodge. It would make you more stable of a shooter, but it will not make you harder to shoot.

I have exerince as miltiary instructor, and even acted as opfor, I can tell you shooting people going prone out in the open is really easy. Attacking a squad that lays down in the middle of road or field is like shooting fish in a barrel. You can still shoot them in the sides or back.

shadrak wrote:

Blue_Lion wrote:

Alrik Vas wrote:Give them -2 (aiming overcomes it), call it a day. I understand the need to discuss, but ultimately you have to look at 2 factors.

1. The player is taking an action with their character to improve their survival chances. While not completely within the rules, they are making an effort that makes sense on a lot of levels. As a GM we should try to support our PC's when they think in this way instead of "shoot, dodge, simultaneous attack because i have more MDC"

2. The penalty equals the benefit of aiming, which costs an action, which generally does negate the use of most tricks like this, as it's not real cover anyway. They could throw a grenade and there'd be no penalty, for instance.

How does laying down out in the open to reduce chance of being killed. They are clearly visible on a open flat open terrain. If you lay down out in the open and the other person is standing he can clearly see your legs and back. So you are not a smaller target, but it would be harder to dodge. It would make you more stable of a shooter, but it will not make you harder to shoot.

I have exerince as miltiary instructor, and even acted as opfor, I can tell you shooting people going prone out in the open is really easy. Attacking a squad that lays down in the middle of road or field is like shooting fish in a barrel. You can still shoot them in the sides or back.

I have experience as a military instructor and as OPFOR as well...

if you lay down in the road, you are going to die...because you are in the open and you are not moving.

If you are in a field of grass then going prone can provide a degree of concealment.

Additionally, the cross sectional area of your profile should be reduced if you are at ranges beyond 150 meters. A 6' tall man standing 150 meters away is a LARGER target than a 6' man laying on the ground 150 meters away.

Blue_Lion wrote:

shadrak wrote:

Blue_Lion wrote:

Alrik Vas wrote:Give them -2 (aiming overcomes it), call it a day. I understand the need to discuss, but ultimately you have to look at 2 factors.

1. The player is taking an action with their character to improve their survival chances. While not completely within the rules, they are making an effort that makes sense on a lot of levels. As a GM we should try to support our PC's when they think in this way instead of "shoot, dodge, simultaneous attack because i have more MDC"

2. The penalty equals the benefit of aiming, which costs an action, which generally does negate the use of most tricks like this, as it's not real cover anyway. They could throw a grenade and there'd be no penalty, for instance.

How does laying down out in the open to reduce chance of being killed. They are clearly visible on a open flat open terrain. If you lay down out in the open and the other person is standing he can clearly see your legs and back. So you are not a smaller target, but it would be harder to dodge. It would make you more stable of a shooter, but it will not make you harder to shoot.

I have exerince as miltiary instructor, and even acted as opfor, I can tell you shooting people going prone out in the open is really easy. Attacking a squad that lays down in the middle of road or field is like shooting fish in a barrel. You can still shoot them in the sides or back.

I have experience as a military instructor and as OPFOR as well...

if you lay down in the road, you are going to die...because you are in the open and you are not moving.

If you are in a field of grass then going prone can provide a degree of concealment.

Additionally, the cross sectional area of your profile should be reduced if you are at ranges beyond 150 meters. A 6' tall man standing 150 meters away is a LARGER target than a 6' man laying on the ground 150 meters away.

Vertically yes but it adds to the horizonal profile. You just trade a vierticle profile for a horizonal one. The whole body is still visible when laying down. When some one lays down in the open you still see the legs and back at 150m. It is a 3d world not 2d if both people are laying down at the same elevation facing each other then the head and shoulders would be the only part visible but it one person has any height on the other he can see the whole body.

So the 6' person standing can shoot the person laying down in the but, back or legs. Unless the terrain provides cover or concealment. (Think of it this way if you are on a straight flat road you can see the white line along the side even though it is all the same height. Yo can also see it past a rock on the line.)

Alrik Vas wrote:except we're talking about two completely different things here.

You are applying your experience from life/job to mechanics of a game that doesn't explicitly cover the situation.

I'm applying thoughts on what might be fun and fair, which doesn't care a lick about reality when I can just narrate how it helps rather than get into nitty gritty.

It's a game, not a simulation.

Blue_Lion wrote:The scenario is flat featureless terrain, so grass in a uncut field is irrelevant.(I did acknowledge that terrain could out side this provide cover and concealment, but that is irrelevant to this scenario.) This scenario would be like laying down in a road or parking lot tactically in this situation the only advantage would be stable firing position, not difficulty to shoot the person laying prone. (the exact range is 500' or 152.4 meters) At the range given in the scenario a person laying out in the open the person is not harder to spot because they are laying down, you would still see most the body if you are standing.(At a significantly further range that would change, unless there was optics or other vision modifiers involved.)

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Blue_Lion wrote:The scenario is flat featureless terrain, so grass in a uncut field is irrelevant.(I did acknowledge that terrain could out side this provide cover and concealment, but that is irrelevant to this scenario.) This scenario would be like laying down in a road or parking lot tactically in this situation the only advantage would be stable firing position, not difficulty to shoot the person laying prone. (the exact range is 500' or 152.4 meters) At the range given in the scenario a person laying out in the open the person is not harder to spot because they are laying down, you would still see most the body if you are standing.(At a significantly further range that would change, unless there was optics or other vision modifiers involved.)

At what kind of range would it change?

shadrak wrote:The point is less to indicate that experience in one realm does not mean much. And, if you paid attention to the thread, the whole point is about house rules...

So, your comment about whether this is a game or a simulation, in fact, your entire commentary, is ignorant of the point of the thread.

Of course it is a game, and some people run their ga,es more like simulations

Alrik Vas wrote:

shadrak wrote:The point is less to indicate that experience in one realm does not mean much. And, if you paid attention to the thread, the whole point is about house rules...

So, your comment about whether this is a game or a simulation, in fact, your entire commentary, is ignorant of the point of the thread.

Of course it is a game, and some people run their ga,es more like simulations

KC asked for house rules. I gave my judgment on it.

BL commented on my post, I replied.

That's all that happened. That doesn't make me ignorant to the point of the OP.

Blue_Lion wrote:I asked a question about how you justified the bonus, your reply did not address my question.

The mechanics do not address any special bonus to laying down out in the open and that kind of matches my exerince on it. I asked how your rule was justifitified and you replied it is a game not a simulation.
(Basically I pointed out that the system as is matches my experince and your reply was it is a game not a simulation. That is amounting to saying make it less relistic.)
So your reply did not match what I was asking instead just saying house rule it to make it less relistic.