Combat Reflexes as a Learned Trait

[CRMcNeill]

As I've gained more knowledge about such things, I've found it increasingly odd that characters seem to so readily be able to pick up a blaster and shoot a living being. In the process of becoming a gun owner and getting my CCW, it has been hammered into me that it is no easy thing to point a gun at another human being and pull the trigger with the intent to kill. In fact, it is very much a trait that must be learned, and is not innate in all save a rare few.

I assume this trait carries across most sentient species in the SWU, and I have several questions for the forum as to how this is handled, if at all. Is this something you take into account? If so, how do you represent this in game rules? Is it assumed to be a learned trait that all PCs with combat skills automatically have? Or do you just fold it into the Blaster or Firearms skill, with the assumption that learning how to shoot more accurately includes the necessary detachment / strength of will to be able to shoot and kill a living being when necessary?

Personally, I don't think tying it to the appropriate Ranged combat skill is enough; there are many people who are incredibly accurate with a firearm against paper targets, but balk when asked to do it "for real". I could see it as being part of a larger Advantage / Disadvantage system, such as a Disadvantage where the character has to make a successful Willpower skill roll to be able to make an attack (and even then has to soak the MAP for the Willpower skill).

Thoughts?
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index

[Leona Makk]

Hmmm. Depends on the "feel" of the game of course. I think it is an immersive idea for a campaign with space for character development. In a fast paced, Instant Adventure game group, maybe it is too detailed.

I would take this on a Template by Template basis, I suppose.
Templates/Backgrounds like, Bounty Hunter, Cyborg Pirate, Tough Native, Smuggler or even Failed Jedi might not even blink before declaring 4 attacks in a round. I know players that would HOWL bloody murder if I made them make a check before rolling for Blaster with these kinds of characters.

Whereas, Templates like, Curious Explorer, Young Jedi, Alien Student of the Force, Kid, and Sullusten Free Trader might all be shocked/appalled by their first few fire fights. (not to mention any 3PO droid players who can't even take blaster).
The naive Curious Explorer or ASF might come from cultures where war doesn't even exist!

I think a Willpower check is a good way to show the determination it would take for certain characters to "pull the trigger." The Difficulty Number could go down as they become more battle hardened. Like the Language skill getting easy with successful rolls.

Alternatively, if you have a Character coming out of retirement, this kind of Willpower check could reflect how the character has lost their "edge." Templates like Retired Imperial Captain, Failed Jedi, Old Senatorial, or in my game the retired SpecForce Rebel could all suddenly find themselves freezing up when caught in a fight.

I think there is a lot of room for good story building with a rule like this. Will the character choke last minute? Does the team lose confidence in the old veteran? Does the player give up on using Blasters and weapons all together?
Could make for a great story with players who are committed.

[CRMcNeill]

All fair points. What came to my mind is that something like this would be on a linear scale of civilized vs. uncivilized, with the civilized side getting higher rankings in certain non-combat situations on account of living in a society where combat isn't really necessary, whereas someone who's from a feral or death planet would have combat reflexes ingrained into them practically from birth.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index

[Whill]

[cheshire]

I don't think I'd any sooner integrate mechanics for this than I would any of the real-life consequences of pulling a trigger or not pulling a trigger on a living being. Moral injury, PTSD, survivor's guilt, and a whole host of real human factors come into play.

I'm really not prepared to break all of this down at the table and integrate it into an evening's entertainment.
_________________
__________________________________
Before we take any of this too seriously, just remember that in the middle episode a little rubber puppet moves a spaceship with his mind.

[Raven Redstar]

I agree with cheshire on this one.

However, this might be a really interesting thing to delve into for a solo game, though. I found Kanan's wartime flashbacks in the comics to be a really interesting facet of the character. It did remind me that the characters in these games are largely human (or at least sentient), and imagine how many of the survivors of the clone wars might be dealing with all of that horror.

I think that for me... Star Wars is a thing that helps me forget about the hard problems of the world today. Which is why I might explore this in a game for myself, but not at a friendly gaming table.
_________________
RR
________________________________________________________________

[MrNexx]

I would say it works as a role-playing consideration... a story factor for an individual.

Anyone remember the X-man Havok, aka Alex Summers? Havok has the natural ability to throw blasts of plasma... he's pretty much a blaster in a black onesie. And through the late 80s, there was a thing where he was pretty torn up about the fact that his powers could pretty easily kill someone.

I could see a character... a kid or a young jedi... who was conflicted about using deadly force. IIRC, this was something with Ezra in the first season of Rebels. I could also see them exclusively using blasters on stun, for example. And then, one day, they wind up pulling a blaster on someone who needs to be shot and realizing that it wasn't on stun... after they shot them.
_________________
"I've Seen Your Daily Routine. You Are Not Busy!"
“We're going to win this war, not by fighting what we hate, but saving what we love.”
http://rpgcrank.blogspot.com/

[garhkal]

[CRMcNeill]

In the OP, I mentioned making it part of a Advantage/Disadvantage system. In the Serenity RPG (which has such a system, divided into Assets and Complications), they have a Complication called Combat Paralysis, which cause the affected character to freeze up for anywhere from 1-4 rounds when a fight starts.

I can see the points about not wanting to incorporate something like this into a game, but I can definitely see how it provides for some great roleplaying potential (with attendant CP rewards for playing it out).
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index

[Dredwulf60]

When I was running a zombie apocalypse RPG I had a skill I referred to as 'hard hearted'.
When you had to shoot someone you had to make a successful roll with that skill. A failure means you lose your action due to hesitation.

Since one of the horrors of 'zombies' is that they seem quite human this roll had to be made for them as well.

The modifiers made it much easier the less human they were...ie decomposition and/or actively attacking the character.

Harder to kill were the fresher ones...and especially the ones the character had known in life...

Then there were other living humans which were difficult, ranging from strangers to acquaintances.

Characters with military training, were war veterans and/or Law enforcement or heavy criminal backgrounds tended to have higher skill levels in 'Hard Hearted'.

But that was a much different game set up.

When I run Star Wars or most other games, I assume that the ability to kill is part of what makes the player characters exceptional.
(It sounds funny putting it that way...)

[CRMcNeill]

[Raven Redstar]

I could definitely see this as a disadvantage using the advantages/disadvantages system. I rolled up a Duros "Smuggler" he was just getting started out as a free trader, but had worked as a working stiff pilot for a bigger shipping company for many years to save up to get his start on his own ship and business. The character had a heavy blaster pistol that the gun shop owner convinced him "made a statement" he'd never actually fired a hand held weapon before. I made sure to note it on his sheet. I'd probably give him this disadvantage.

He was more of a live and let live, run for your life type.
_________________
RR
________________________________________________________________

[garhkal]

[Naaman]

I don't know if others want to share personal things, but I'll offer that everytime I've had a living target in my sights, there was no "worry" or fear of the consequenses of pulling the trigger.

For me there was a simple calculus: "this individual has given me reason to believe he might pose a deadly threat to me or others. If he does xyz, I shoot. Until then, I observe and stay ready."

For good guys, the use of deadly force boils down to knowing in advance certain huristic standards or processes. Once a certain threshold is crossed, I MUST shoot.

I tend to agree that certain training or indoctrination can POTENTIALLY mitigate any hesitation or psychological boundaries.

But as far as my perception of reality on this issue, I suspect most people whould be willing to shoot if the totality of circumstances justified it in their minds (this threshold will vary from person to person).

Finally, from a good guy perspective, there is never a reason to "shoot with the intent to kill." Even though the reality is that death is probable, the objective of firing the gun is to eliminate or neutralize the threat presented by the target. Death may or may not be a biproduct of that action. If we use a sniper taking a head shot as an example, the purpose of the shot placement is to prevent the ability to raise an alarm (for example). Not simply to just kill a guy.

Which refers back to the aforementioned indoctrination. If the target is an enemy combatant, it is understood by both sides that shooting (even WITH intent to kill) is not murder. The enemy target has a blaster for a reason, after all.

I like the idea of it being a disadvantage for character/story purposes.
_________________
.
SpecForce Combat Elements
All About Lightsabers: Designing, Building, and Fighting

[CRMcNeill]

How much of that willingness to pull the trigger would you say is the result of your military training?
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index