> See this sniping example: a hero archer (in my campaign a hero has
> 3w3 in crossbow) snipes an enemy. In most cases, even if he is so
> much skilled, he will simply achieve a minor victory (critical vs.
> success) forcing me, as the narrator, to decide "contra rules" that
> he killed/maimed his foe with a single shot, as is more
> cinematic/plausible.
Is the target important to the narrative? If so, he _shouldn't_ be killed with a single shot, as that would be a real anti-climax.
If the target is nobody important, what does it matter whether he dies or not? He's out of the way, unable to interfere with the player heroes, on any victory. _That's_ cinematic for you. At least most heroic movies don't dwell on the gory details: henchmen get bowled over, fall out of frame and the camera doesn't bother with them anymore.
It helps not to think of every contest involving weapons as a combat. What is the sniper really trying to accomplish? In most cases I don't think it's something as bloodthirsty as "kill that guy dead". It's more likely to be along the lines of "stop that guard from alerting his comrades". Any victory will accomplish this, though a better one would give the heroes more time to follow through with their plans.
Powered by hypermail