Called Shot Mechanic
From reading some of the examples and playing a bit RAW, I’m struck by how much the outcome of “I shoot him in the goddamn head” is “scalp injury” or “shot in the throat.”
I think there’s a disconnect between the intended fictional function and the mechanical outcome, based mostly around effect. You can say your shooting someone in the head, but if you only get standard effect, your still only filling two ticks. The bad guy therefore can’t be dead, because there’s still a few more ticks in the clock, so I guess that whole “getting shot in the head” thing wasn’t that huge a deal.
There are obvious work-arounds already written. From a fiction-first perspective, if a player says “I shoot him in the goddamn head,” the GM could reply “OK, it sounds like your pushing yourself to shoot him in the head and get better effect.” or “Sounds like your trading position for effect, so this will be a desperate roll.
But these don’t quite work for me. To me, a “called shot” is a question of proficiency. Are you good enough to make the shot? As the action roll dice are the closest measure of proficiency in the game (roll X dice depending on how good you are to see if you do the thing), they track well for a called shot mechanic. In my mind, a called shot is trading proficiency for effect, ie, 1d off the action roll for +1d effect later.
Obvious caveat is if your using this mechanic, and a player does a called shot, don’t have one of the consequences be “reduced effect”. That’d be kind of a dick move.
The Mechanic
Called Shot: When a character attempts to do something that requires increased accuracy with the benefit of an increased effect, they may lose -1d on their action roll to gain +1 effect.
I’m still kind of new to this but you don’t have to use clocks in combat situations right? I thought they were for really formidable foes or large/complicated conflicts.
Couldn’t the Standard Effect of shooting someone in the head be that you do just that and they are dead as can be?
Guy Sodin That is very true, you definitely don’t have to use clocks in combat. But if you were using clocks (as in the tough enemy situation), it seems fictionally a little weird to have a shot to the head be just as effective as a punch to the gut, mechanically speaking.
That being said, I like the idea of maybe using this mechanic even when your not using clocks, because again, fictionally, the outcome of shooting someone in the head vs. punching them in the gut is different.
Note that there are already mechanical ways to represent this distinction, I think the example in-book is that that “fighting to the death” is desperate, where as “fighting to injure / maim” is risky.
What I’m offering here is just a different mechanical way of representing this distinction. Just another tool in the toolbox, so to speak.
This is an interesting idea, and I can’t speak for your group’s needs, but this feels more like a special ability for the Hound or a crew upgrade than a standard mechanic to me (see also: the Lurk’s Daredevil ability). As you say, the proficiency of the character is already represented by the action rating, and the difficulty of the shot is represented by the position of the action roll. The ability to drop a die for increased effect in a firefight is pretty much just going to slow stress gain, and that feels like the kind of relief a PC should earn through play rather than start with.
That’s just my opinion, though.
Wright Johnson Ah, see, this is where it gets interesting, because situation is sometimes, not always tied directly to difficulty. In the the fatal vs. non-fatal combat example, it’s is the risk that makes the situation in desperate.
In fact, the example for a controlled Hunt roll is shooting Baz in the head from a prepared sniping position across the street through a window. Not exactly an easy feat, but one that does pose relatively little immediate risk.
Also, sometimes the rules seem to use Effect as a measure of difficulty. The difference between picking a lock with a hairpin or picking it with proper tools is a difference in quality which in turn effects effect. Same with differences in Tier.
It seems to me that there isn’t a cut-and-dried way to represent the situation of “more difficult but more effective action”, hence the mechanic.
That said, your point about the mechanical impact on the game is well-taken. It would probably take some playtesting to see if the greater risk of a low roll balances the greater reward of higher effect (and therefore less stress over time).
Honestly, I feel like this is encompassed under Position. If you’re taking the time to line up a headshot, for Great effect, that is likely a Desperate position with the possible consequences likely being taking extra time (ticking other troublesome clocks), reduced effect (you get a body shot instead) or, at worst straight up losing the opportunity for action. I don’t think there’s really a need to introduce a new mechanic. Position models risk, yes, but “risk” doesn’t have to mean “direct conseuqences against the actor.” Wasting time is often just as meaningful a risk (think of playing a sniper in a first-person shooter and spending all your time lining up the perfect shot, only to be taken out yourself before pulling the trigger).
I will say, however, that this exact issue is something I’ve come across before and I have had the same thoughts as you as to its weirdness. It wasn’t until just now that I realized you could manifest the extra difficulty of a headshot using the Position system. So thanks for making me think about this more carefully.
My default assumption is that when a player says “I shoot him” they are trying to get maximum damage.
I don’t need to play word games with them and say “aha, you shoot him… in the little finger!”
So if a standard attack killed the opponent we describe them shooting him in the head, or whatever else the player thinks is cool.
I also let them say they’re shooting him in the head as a narrative description rather than a called shot.
If they want to do a called shot, then I have a discussion about what they want to achieve with it. If they are just trying to do max damage then I use the normal system and they can push for additional effect or whatever.
But if they want something specific, I roll with it. Shoot the super tough guard in the head so he’s disoriented and they can fight their way through the gate. Shoot the snitch in the head because they’re sending a message.
But it’s not just something the player can say to trick the GM into agreeing that the shot automatically kills.
A called shot means they are aiming at the head. It doesn’t necessarily mean they hit their target or kill with one shot. There is a reason the real world professionals aim for centre of mass.
This sounds more like a poor choice of which mechanics to apply, not an instance of game rules being unable to handle a fictional situation. If, fictionally, a character can conceivably kill this target in one shot, choose a mechanic where that can happen. A clock that doesn’t allow an immediate kill may be appropriate if you’re in a crowded environment and need to corral the target into the open or something, but otherwise it may be mismatched to the fiction.
Alternatively, you are not locked into a specific meaning for what clock ticks do narratively. All the clock means is that their opportunities for survival are being whittled down, and injury is only one way to play that. Maybe they shove a henchman into the path of the bullet when they see you aiming and start to run down an alley. It’s not that the character’s shot was bad, just that the target is quicker and wilier than your ordinary goon.
Just my two slugs as a GM. I feel you can safely work this with position and effect or setups, no extra mechanic needed. In the heat of a battle, taking extra time to line up a shot on a smaller target is dangerous [reduced positon] but offers the opportunity for greater damage [increased effect]. Meanwhile, if your far off and sniping, its not as likely that taking the extra time is more dangerous, thus a setup action with study (or hunt, possibly with reduced effect depending on the GM) can ensure Great or even Overwhelming effect.
You could very well use the mechanics in the reverse scenario if it seems appropriate, taking the time to perform a setup mid battle or risking a worse position from a snipers roost.
Also, a sniping shot can be desperate even if you are far from danger: on a 1-3 you missed and the target is out of sight (lose opportunity) and you are spotted (major complication), on a 4-5 you hit but the target is only wounded (reduced effect) and/or you’re spotted (major complication).
Sometimes desperate it’s not about immediate danger, but it’s about how much you lose if you miss the opportunity or what types of danger my arise after you act.
Doesn’t seem like this needs an extra rule to me either. If you read Potency in the book it says: “The potency factor considers particular weaknesses, taking extra time or a bigger risk, enhanced effort from pushing yourself” so you could just rule that if the sniper character has the advantage of surprise, positioning, and time to make the shot then they can get a +1 effect. As a GM likely still require a hunt or survey roll to have found the right sniper position to begin with as a setup action to get that +1.
Also I agree that the positioning system also works fine here since positioning is more than just is the character in danger it also involves if they overreaching their abilities. If the sniper character is in a safe place with easily line of sight and and set up then it’s a Controlled position to take a normal shot or Risky if the target is far away or in a crowd (either way possibly with +1 effect from a setup action). As mentioned body shots are easier so if you want to make a called shot to the head that raises the positioning to Risky “You Take a Chance” or Desperate “You overreach your capabilities” in exchange for better effect thru Potency.
Even with a clock, it sometimes makes sense to count effect higher than great as lethal. That clock doesn’t even have to disappear if you roll the consequences of that conflict into the next ordeal.
But I’m here to agree with other GMs here. Called shots work fine with position/effect.
If you could just choose to shoot someone in the head and kill them dead with no effort or opposition, you shouldn’t have to roll in the first place OR the contest shouldn’t be about inflicting the lethal blow but something else entirely (like detection).
To add to Justin Ford’s comment if you say have the big bad boss as a 4+ clock then you could rule as the GM that it just kills them but personally I wouldn’t. Clocks aren’t hit points. Clocks are narrative devices accounting for a particular character or things narrative difficulty/persistence. Much like the BitD characters ability to use Stress to sidestep damage. Think of it like a movie. The protagonist lines up their shot. It’s a perfect line of sight kill and they fire but no! A waiter steps in the way at the last minute!
… and the players know how the game mechanics work.
So the player won’t be surprised or think it’s “unfair” that the waiter steps in the way – they’ll think that the GM had a fun narrative explanation for why the “sure kill” didn’t happen – since they already knew it wasn’t going to succeed even with a successful roll – and they get to react to this new complication and have fun as everything spirals out of control.
If the players do know how the mechanics work, and were trying to describe a “sure kill” that the GM couldn’t stop, as a way to bypass the clock (rather than by using the game mechanics to push rolls, spend stress, sacrifice position etc.), then they’re being a weasel.
BitD relies on players being cooperative with the GM and each other, rather than trying to “win” every conflict. So best to talk directly with the player about how you feel that this action is bypassing the game mechanics, and how you’d prefer to handle it.
If the players were confused about how the game works – since sometimes it IS totally fine and reasonable to bypass a clock – then that’s a communication issue more than a game issue. I try to handle this by being really clear when the player asks for a dice roll.
I talk through the steps and game mechanics more with new players, and as we all find our groove and get used to the system we don’t need to be so very explicit anymore.
Indulge me with my long example!
Obviously, most dice rolls won’t have such a long conversation – only the key moments, or when a player is trying to do something special and doesn’t know what mechanics to use.
It’s worth noting how the conversation allows the player and GM to brainstorm what happens next in the story, and lets other players also contribute. So it becomes “part of the gameplay”, not just an explanation of the rules. Instead of a one-hit-kill murder that either succeeds or fails, we’ve cooperatively made the plot more awesome, and also created a new objective for the other PCs to help out with.
Player: “I line up my sniper shot. I’m going to shoot him in the head.”
Me: “No problem. So, I’m giving him a 4 slice clock, which means a standard attack like this will only take 2 slices. Did you still want to take the shot?”
Player: “But if I shoot him in the head, he’s dead, right?”
Me: “You’d assume so. But mechanically, this conflict requires more than just one roll to resolve. So, you’ve got a few choices. You can take a normal attack, and if you’re successful we’ll describe it in a way that explains why he didn’t die, or why he did die but you still aren’t finished. You can use the other game mechanics to increase the impact of this dice roll, and make it powerful enough to do all four slices at once. Or you or the other players could do other actions that are related to this sniper shot, such as having another PC distract him, or trick him into walking into the open to provide you with a good shot.”
Player: “So wait, I can successfully roll to shoot him in the head, and then you might describe that killing him isn’t enough to finish this assassination contract? That sounds lame!”
Me: “Yeah, that would be lame if I did that. No, we’d agree together before you roll the dice what will happen if you succeed or fail. Feel free to make your own suggestions!”
Player: “Like what? I shoot him, but the contract said that we need to bring his head as proof that we did it?”
Other Player: “Yes! That’s awesome! Hey, maybe just bring his ear.”
Me: “Why the ear? If you bring the head, they can see that you killed the right person. Who would recognise someone from their ear?”
Other player: “Dunno, but a bloody ear is cooler.”
Me: “Who am I to stand in the way of cool? OK, are we all happy that a successful shot will kill the target and mark two slices on the clock, but you’ll still need to get the ear. And will need to mark the remaining 2 slices to achieve that?”
Player: “Yes!”
Me: “OK. But whether you succeed or fail, the gunshot will alert all nearby guards and the target’s henchmen. Additionally, if you fail you will have hit and maybe killed an innocent civilian. Also, if you fail, someone will have recognised you and the crew will get an extra point of heat from this mission for such a brazen public execution.”
Player: “But I can resist those, right?”
Me: “Yep, if you’ve got the stress to spend and can give a reasonable explanation of how you resist.”
Player: “Great! I resist by…”
Me: “Just roll, we don’t need to worry about how you resist unless you fail.”
… and so on.
Also, it’s often reasonable for players to completely bypass a clock.
For example, if there’s a clock for negotiating a price for an expensive diamond, I’d absolutely allow a player to say “Oh, I shoot the guy and just take the diamond” without filling the clock. I wouldn’t even make them roll the dice unless the guy had bodyguards.
They’ve bypassed that clock, but created a new, interesting situation for the crew to deal with. Leaving options like that open to players is good – it means they can decide when they want to play to their PCs strengths, and can control the complications coming their way – that player might have more fun roleplaying their rooftop chase trying to escape from the bluecoats with the stolen diamond than they would have if they roleplayed out the haggling while slowly filling the clock. It’s kinda cool to leave those sorts of decisions up to the players.
Where do you draw the line? When is it OK to bypass a clock, and when do we insist the players fill the clock?
For me it’s whether the player is describing how they fill a clock vs whether the player is doing an action that bypasses the clock’s goal and creates a significantly new situation or goal.
So with the diamond, the player has essentially just traded one clock (haggling) for a different clock (escape from the law). The PC never “succeeds” at haggling – they’ve given up on that goal, which is why they never had to fill that clock.
In the case of the sniper, the clock is measuring the difficulty of completing the assassination. The called shot is describing how they fill that clock. The PC still wants to succeed at the assassination, so they need to fill the clock and can’t bypass it by describing a headshot.