I've seemed to have a problem the last couple sessions we've had with player's using terms like "I shoot him in the head".. And then after the attack is rolled saying things like, "well since I shot him in the head he should take extra hits or add a negative die next roll." Or they'll also say things like "well this is my third time I've shot him in the head so he should be having convulsions or almost dead." (Keep in mind they were fighting a hutt). If I say no, they'll say things like "well you have to be logical. If I shot you in the head three times, you'd be dead."

These guys are friends and family so I don't want to be rude, but at the same time, I don't want them to make themselves overpowered or exploit the system, since there is nothing mentioned in the rulebook about stating where you are firing on the opponent.

Any advice from you player's or GM's? What would you do in this situation?

It's 2 Setback dice to call where you are hitting a target if you use one Aim maneuver, it's 1 Setback if you use both maneuvers to Aim. If he lands the hit you should impose some kind of disabling effect on the target.

It's 2 Setback dice to call where you are hitting a target if you use one Aim maneuver, it's 1 Setback if you use both maneuvers to Aim. If he lands the hit you should impose some kind of disabling effect on the target.

If they dont aim then that's 3 setback die?

What kind of disabling effects would you personally add? Setback die and things of that nature?

3 setback for a non-aimed called shot? Heck, why not?

Disabling effects must then come from advantages or threats - that's why they're there.

Or you could look at the critical injury table for an appropriate effect within the Average (41-90) results - although this should not count as an actual critical injury for purposes for modifying future critical injuries. With 3 advantages you could look at the Hard (91-125) results. This is quite powerful though. The idea is taken from aiming vehicle weapons as they were suggested in the beta (you find the same ideas in the CRB on table 7-5 for vehicle weapons, and similar suggestions can be found on table 6-2, both in the 3 advantages suggestion box).

If they don't aim, they don't aim! So, they can't aim at the head.

When my players aim at specific body parts, I will usually give the attack an extra quality like Concussive 1, Disorient 1, Pierce 1, or Stun 1, wich they can activate for the regular advantage cost. And, "located" crits can result in the next lower crit, that can narratively affect the targeted limb.

Three setback dice for not aiming, two for aiming sounds about right. In L5R, a shot to the head requires three called raises.

Honestly, if you don't aim for the spot you want to hit, a successful combat roll is just a hit. If there is a Triumph in the roll and there is enough Damage being applied to bring the WT to 0, then I would let a player say that they hit the target in the head.

I am not sure what the issue is here. Are you allowing your players to decide where they hit the target? As has already been pointed out, in order to aim for something specific there is a mechanic for it. They don't get to just state they are shooting for the head without any adjustment to the attack. As to the results that is up to you as GM. You can have it result in a critical hit if they succeed or some other result you feel is appropriate. They have advantage to spend too possibly.

I hate systems that allow for called shots to specific body parts. Why wouldn't you always aim for the head? Two setback dice is a small price to pay for (presumably) an auto-kill if successful.

With my GM style, I always assume PCs are going for the kill shot (unless using stun), which makes aiming for the head a superfluous gesture. This lines up well with the rules, which is described as "aiming for a specific object or limb". So a PC can use aim to cripple a target or shoot the gun out of their hand, otherwise of course your aiming for the head or heart.

Besides, exceeding the wound threshold can easily be described as nailing the target right between the eyes, no need to have special rules to allow you to do that.

Why wouldn't you always aim for the head?

I've yet to have a player like OP described, but I think it would end with me staring at them and shaking my head in frustration a lot.

And ignoring them.

Others have covered the "not really aiming until you use the Aim maneuver" aspect. In case you need an answer if the players balk, I would use the following with mine.

The "character" is already attempting to shoot the enemy with killing intent, placing it appropriately to the level of ability they have based on the ranks in the skill used. The dice roll will be used to interpret that based on the ongoing narrative.

Did you kill a minion in one shot? Sure you put one between the eyes.

Did you get a critical hit on a rival with a result of slightly dazed? They twisted at the last second but now have a grazing head wound.

Nemesis, only caused some wounds? Minor anime cheek slash.

In my games I would probably only allow aiming for called shots if the intent is to produce a specific result, not just "do more damage".

Aiming to knock the gun from their hand. Got a few advantage, then yeah they drop the gun.

Aiming to disable their primary limb. Hit and got enough advantage for a critical, then I'll make up a new critical that is appropriate to the severity rolled.

Maybe I'm just pessimistic but I can easily see a situation where if I gave a consistent advantage to "Shoot 'em in the head" that is all I would hear, combat turn after combat turn.

To further hammer in my point, The Gunslinger specialization has a mid-tier talent called Call 'Em.

Call 'Em:

"The character does not add any <Setback> to his combat checks due the use of the Aim maneuver (see page 201 of Edge of the Empire Core Rulebook"

This would make would make using the Aim maneuver to go for the head a trivial and over-powered thing.

Called shots aren't really meant to be for inflicting damage as well imo. The Aim maneuver talks about shooting things out of opponents hands or a crippling shots to a limb. I think it's meant for narrative flair and some sort of mechanical effect aside from damage.

So you impose a setback for that turn maybe or something. If the opponents have already acted that wouldn't be much worth doing and should begin to discourage it.

If I say no, they'll say things like "well you have to be logical. If I shot you in the head three times, you'd be dead."

. . .

Any advice from you player's or GM's? What would you do in this situation?

I'd tell them that they're wrong and need to re-read the rules and to not try and apply too much real-world logic to game mechanics that are in no way intended to be a perfect simulation.

And also remind them that it's probably for the best that characters are not that easy to kill in this system, because what goes around comes around. You want that level of lethality, I suggest Dark Heresy.

I guarantee that they want to apply this "logic" in their favor only. And further, this is not the system where that level of granularity is appropriate. Your friends are trying to be little ****s about it, frankly.

Any advice from you player's or GM's? What would you do in this situation?

Then all the NPCs can shoot them in the head too...

A called shot is just an intention it's not a guarantor that you do extra Damage to a location just because you make a Successful Attack roll, you still need the Successes or Advantages for a Critical (Which is essentially what a "Head Shot" would be). The Aim Maneuver gives you a Boost Die or two to help you get those extra Successes and Advantages but without them it's just a regular hit Damage wise. As for a Called shot all that happens is you hit that location and if there is a narrative effect so be it but thats it.

Also keep in mind that all damage is plot damage. Except for criticals which are to simulate more serious damage, all damage is the wear and tear of combat until you exceed the wound threshold and start inflicting critical wounds. Up till that point, even going for head shots means grazes and close calls unless, as GM, you decide differently. This is why there are advantages and options to spend on them. Your players need to understand the the length of rounds, roughly a minute or so, means that damage taken is not exclusively from individual damage. I think you need to sit down and talk about expectations.

Players gonna exploit.

The only thing being exploited here from what I see is an inexperienced GM.

A called shot is just an intention it's not a guarantor that you do extra Damage to a location just because you make a Successful Attack roll, you still need the Successes or Advantages for a Critical (Which is essentially what a "Head Shot" would be). The Aim Maneuver gives you a Boost Die or two to help you get those extra Successes and Advantages but without them it's just a regular hit Damage wise. As for a Called shot all that happens is you hit that location and if there is a narrative effect so be it but thats it.

There is a mechanic for called shots. It's on Page 214 of AoR CRB and it gives two Setback die for 1 maneuver spent Aiming a called shot, one Setback if they spend 2 maneuvers Aiming a called shot.

To be more specific the passage reads: "Target a specific item carried by the target or specific part of the target. This could allow the character to attempt to strike or shoot a weapon from his opponent's hand, for example, or target an opponent's limb to cripple him..."

Now it doesn't provide extra Damage but hitting a target's arm could prevent that arm from being used or hitting the target's leg could prevent him from escaping quickly. For the called shot to have any effect beyond that would require a Critical Hit.

Likewise hitting the weapon out of the opponent's hand may not damage the weapon but it temporarily prevents the weapon from being used.

Aiming for the head requires four successes, and does four extra damage.

Problem solved (change the number of successes to your liking).

Aiming for the head requires four successes, and does four extra damage.

Problem solved (change the number of successes to your liking).

This is so easy to do I would never allow it. It's too much of a gimme and, guess, what, now this becomes the action norm.

Called Shots to the head could provide Setbacks or even difficulty Upgrades when the target attempts to act for the rest of the encounter. But I absolutely would not give the attack a damage boost.

Aiming for the head requires four successes, and does four extra damage.

Problem solved (change the number of successes to your liking).

This is so easy to do I would never allow it. It's too much of a gimme and, guess, what, now this becomes the action norm.

Called Shots to the head could provide Setbacks or even difficulty Upgrades when the target attempts to act for the rest of the encounter. But I absolutely would not give the attack a damage boost.

The point is that there is no difference between shooting someone in the head and just shooting someone with four+ successes. There is no exploit, it's just using the rules as they are.

Trying to hurt someone as much as possible is already covered by the base attack. Called shots are for when you want to do something other than that.

I think you might just need to have a chat with your player about the nature of roleplaying games.

This isn't a reality simulator. It's a Star Wars narrative story simulator.

It's designed to simulate the swashbuckling adventure of Star Wars stories. As others have mentioned there are specific ways in the rules to aim for a certain body part, and the GM is at their discretion with applying the effects of such shots.

One subtle aspect of this game is that often the order of narration is switched around. It's not "I aim specifically for his head in order to blow up his head and kill him instantly" and then you make a roll which determines the success or failure of that.

It's more like "I attack him", then you make your roll. If you hit spectacularly and get a Triumph and a great Critical Hit as a result, then perhaps you *did* shoot the guy in his head. That's great, narrate it that way!

If you got one point of damage past his soak and a few threats, then you probably *didn't* shoot the guy in his head and instantly kill him. Narrate it a different way.

Aiming for the head requires four successes, and does four extra damage.

Problem solved (change the number of successes to your liking).

This is so easy to do I would never allow it. It's too much of a gimme and, guess, what, now this becomes the action norm.

Called Shots to the head could provide Setbacks or even difficulty Upgrades when the target attempts to act for the rest of the encounter. But I absolutely would not give the attack a damage boost.

The point is that there is no difference between shooting someone in the head and just shooting someone with four+ successes. There is no exploit, it's just using the rules as they are.

Trying to hurt someone as much as possible is already covered by the base attack. Called shots are for when you want to do something other than that.

Ah, sorry, my misreading!