What is aiming?

[anselyn]

Ok - this may sound like a dumb question. But: What is aiming - or perhaps - where is aiming in the logical process of the rules?

After all, who shoots at someone without aiming the gun at them? There must be some aiming in every shot. So, where and when does aiming occur.

If we think of a snapshot then a dictionary definition gives "a quick shot fired by a hunter without deliberate aim." So - is the standard Ranged Attack effectively a snapshot such that Aiming increases the chance to hit?

However, if we think of the typical trained shooter in a movie then they take a trained stance before shooting. E.g. ee: http://www.policeone.com/police-products/firearms/training/articles/7981637-The-3-shooting-stances-Which-ones-right-for-you/

Now. I would say that taking a stance is implicitly aiming. The stance is built to give a deliberate aim on the target. It is definitely not a snapshot. So - is this the standard ranged attack for a trained shooter?

Now the current rules say: Aiming:A Traveller who spends a Minor Action aiming at a target will receive DM+1 to his next ranged attack on the target, so long as he does nothing else but aim."

I think this should be changed to say: "Aiming: A Traveller who spends a Minor Action to spend extra time aiming at a target will receive DM+1 to his next ranged attack on the target, so long as he does nothing else but aim."

This indicates that there is obviously some aming in the standard ranged attack (unless we think there isn't).

 

[-Daniel-]

While I think it is interesting to break things down beyond the rules, in this case I think the rest of the aim action description is needed to clarify any confusion.

Max spends a minor action to aim through his scope of his rifle, then he does so again, then he does so again. Next round he does so again, then spends a major action to attack. That offers him a +4 DM to his shot. Had he used any other minor action during those two rounds he would have lost those Aim DMs. The key to seeing the minor action of Aim is it already reflects you spending additional time aiming beyond the split second sighting down the weapon.

As for shooting without "aiming", yes, when Max draws his pistol (1 minor action) and fires (1 major action) it is assumed he is aiming to some degree, just not the same amount of time as the Aim minor action reflects. Thus he neither has a negative nor positive DM on his attack.

At least that is how I read the rules as written right now.

 

[anselyn]

[Order changed in reply]

As for shooting without "aiming", yes, when Max draws his pistol (1 minor action) and fires (1 major action) it is assumed he is aiming to some degree, just not the same amount of time as the Aim minor action reflects. Thus he neither has a negative nor positive DM on his attack. At least that is how I read the rules as written right now.

While I think it is interesting to break things down beyond the rules [...]

I agree that that is the current written rules. However, I think that we don't want Traveller rules that exist only to perfectly replicate Traveller. The rules have to pass two checks:
(a) Do they give a satisfying game by having the right of game detail, the right level of character options and the right feel for task success rates.
(b) Is there sufficient verisimilitude that the rules simulate things as expected - with some balance between the real world reality (e.g. Experienced Stewards don't frequently burn food) and cinematic reality which is the origin of most people's expectation of action sequences.

My point - under (b) - is that while the rules are about there under (a) and you can deduce the in game reality, it's clear to me what that is showing in terms of our usual experience from (b) - often the pictures in my/our head

So - here's another example. In films, we see shooters hunkered down behind cover (Hiding - in the rules) who then pop up, take a shot and then go back to Hiding. So, how do we interpret this in the rules (RAW).

If you are Hiding then sticking head, arm and gun out and taking a shot is not changing stance - as you are not moving from crouching to standing. So - the popping up isn't a Minor Action it's therefore a Free Action. So, every shooter who is Hiding can pop-up, aim and shoot in a round. So - an average combatant (see p87) is shooting at +3 rather than +2 when Hiding. This is the same as an extra 11% chance to hit. Is increasing your chance to hit a benefit of popping up from Hiding something that we want? Is that how we picture that it should work?

I suggest that moving to shoot from Hiding (and moving back into Hiding) should be a minor action in a round. You don't get the chance to aim unless you choose to be in Cover rather than Hiding.

 

[-Daniel-]

If you are Hiding then sticking head, arm and gun out and taking a shot is not changing stance - as you are not moving from crouching to standing. So - the popping up isn't a Minor Action it's therefore a Free Action.

Not sure where you got pop-up is not a minor action. As a GM you might make such a call, but in my mind, in order to "pop up" you are standing and thus it would be a minor action under the "changing your stance" section.

I suggest that moving to shoot from Hiding (and moving back into Hiding) should be a minor action in a round. You don't get the chance to aim unless you choose to be in Cover rather than Hiding.

So you want to allow both the pop up and pop down to be a single minor action split in half by the major action of ranged attack? In other words create a new minor action clearly called the "pop up" or something similar?

 

[anselyn]

If you are Hiding then sticking head, arm and gun out and taking a shot is not changing stance - as you are not moving from crouching to standing. So - the popping up isn't a Minor Action it's therefore a Free Action.

Not sure where you got pop-up is not a minor action. As a GM you might make such a call, but in my mind, in order to "pop up" you are standing and thus it would be a minor action under the "changing your stance" section.

As a GM (especially a playtesting one) I don't want to have to make calls. I want the rules to be clear.

Where I got this from is observation. In films/cop shows shooters lean out from hiding by slightly altering their stance in order to take a pop-up shot. They often do not fully stand (from a crouch), shoot and then return to a crouch. Thus, it's not a change of stance which is the section header in the rules - and which implies to me a total change from one stance to another.

Now - if you want something more realistic try this - especially at 3:00 onwards for a couple of minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdcNWW7sFyk
Are you saying that those soldiers in cover are standing up in order to shoot. They are making a slight alteration to their crouch in order to shoot. I don't see that move being covered by "Changing Stance" as written.

It could be that "Altering Stance" - to include fully changing stance or adapting stance - as a minor action would be a fix to cover this.

I suggest that moving to shoot from Hiding (and moving back into Hiding) should be a minor action in a round. You don't get the chance to aim unless you choose to be in Cover rather than Hiding.

So you want to allow both the pop up and pop down to be a single minor action split in half by the major action of ranged attack? In other words create a new minor action clearly called the "pop up" or something similar?

If that's the best way to do it - Yes.

 

[-Daniel-]

As a GM (especially a playtesting one) I don't want to have to make calls. I want the rules to be clear.

I am not suggesting you have to do so, I am saying you did when you elected to allow a Pop-Up to be a free action.

Where I got this from is observation. In films/cop shows shooters lean out from hiding by slightly altering their stance in order to take a pop-up shot.

I would say that was enough to alter the stance. We will just have to agree to disagree on this point because it clearly makes a difference on how we perceive the value of the rule as written.

So you want to allow both the pop up and pop down to be a single minor action split in half by the major action of ranged attack? In other words create a new minor action clearly called the "pop up" or something similar?

If that's the best way to do it - Yes.

Because of our difference in how we see what it takes to "Alter the Stance" I would suggest this as a clear way to include in the rules your point of view. 8)

 

[anselyn]

As a GM (especially a playtesting one) I don't want to have to make calls. I want the rules to be clear.

I am not suggesting you have to do so, I am saying you did when you elected to allow a Pop-Up to be a free action.

Fair point. I did so as my reading of the rules was that as the move for a pop-up takes less time or effort than a "Changing Stance" minor action then it would be a free action. I could have classed it as a generic Movement (of 0m), which would also be a minor action - and probably a better choice. Although a move of no metres is, er, interesting.

Where I got this from is observation. In films/cop shows shooters lean out from hiding by slightly altering their stance in order to take a pop-up shot.

I would say that was enough to alter the stance. We will just have to agree to disagree on this point because it clearly makes a difference on how we perceive the value of the rule as written.

Not so much the value as the interpretation. I've got nothing against the the rule. I think we've shown it could be clarified or extended.

So you want to allow both the pop up and pop down to be a single minor action split in half by the major action of ranged attack? In other words create a new minor action clearly called the "pop up" or something similar?

If that's the best way to do it - Yes.

Because of our difference in how we see what it takes to "Alter the Stance" I would suggest this as a clear way to include in the rules your point of view. 8)

A clarification of Changing Stance would be sufficient. Alternatively we can kick snapshots and/or pop-up shots into the long grass of the Companion.

Also - to be fair- and after an afternoon of being sucked into watching gun nut videos. If you look at this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbhNpNIhBCs
then this shows someone moving and changing a clip in 6s (0:34-0:41), which is nice, and (0:54 onwards) people going standing to crouch as an automatic response- then standing to shoot. It does depend on how big a thing you're hiding behind .

This is idealised training rather than actual footage - no incoming fire to worry about.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcf0wYJXWfs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seMNyBOF_tY
But - the theory at least looks like: Run and assume a Stance - in cover - Shoot from that stance - Move again. Moves to and from Hiding are major moves of Stance. All that can be covered in RAW.