Prone & DCV with ranged weapons

[Brian Stanfield]

Sorry. I didn't see anything but here's the entry from 4th:

 

This is EXACTLY the situation I'm talking about! And exactly the example I'm looking for. What part of the rules is this example given for? Rules for cover, prone targets, or something else? I can't find anything like this in 6e.

 

Notice, however, at the end of that section that it brings up exactly the same problem I was originally asking. 40 meters away gives her a bonus, while standing right next to her puts her at a disadvantage. So what I'm curious about is when the switch happens.

[Armory]

Does it have to be a switch?  I figure the half-DCV for being prone represents the fact that you're less maneuverable, you can't dodge like you could standing up.  That doesn't change based on the location of the attacker.  It seems to me the minuses for range or cover or circumstances are applied to the attacker's chance to hit, not the target's chance to avoid it.  Two different things.

[mrinku]

Does it have to be a switch?  I figure the half-DCV for being prone represents the fact that you're less maneuverable, you can't dodge like you could standing up.  That doesn't change based on the location of the attacker.  It seems to me the minuses for range or cover or circumstances are applied to the attacker's chance to hit, not the target's chance to avoid it.  Two different things.

 

Yeah, both factors should combine. It's not one or the other, though there are a couple of exclusive ways of gaming the effect of cover (a flat OCV penalty based on what's showing OR applying the protection of any cover that the rolled hit location is behind are two common ones.)

[Brian Stanfield]

Does it have to be a switch? I figure the half-DCV for being prone represents the fact that you're less maneuverable, you can't dodge like you could standing up. That doesn't change based on the location of the attacker. It seems to me the minuses for range or cover or circumstances are applied to the attacker's chance to hit, not the target's chance to avoid it. Two different things.

Now I'm wondering why DCV even applies to a gun shot. Can I actually dodge a bullet? I guess I can run around like crazy and make myself harder to hit, but DCV doesn't assume that. I can stand there, motionless, and still have full DCV. Again, I'm not criticizing the HERO System, I'm just looking for solid ground for making rulings. Or, conversely, optimizing the hit modifiers if I'm the one making the decision to drop for "cover."

 

 

Yeah, both factors should combine. It's not one or the other, though there are a couple of exclusive ways of gaming the effect of cover (a flat OCV penalty based on what's showing OR applying the protection of any cover that the rolled hit location is behind are two common ones.)

Then why bother ever going prone? It will always be a penalty. Remember, the situation I'm describing assumes no cover. The OCV penalty for presenting a smaller target is offset by the DCV penalty for being immobile. The example from the 4e book suggests it's an advantage to be prone but doesn't actually say why. It's in a rule on cover, but going prone isn't really cover. Maybe it's related to target size or hit locations in the 6e rules, but the range modifiers already explicitly say that the range penalty is a function of the target being "smaller" in appearance the farther away he is. So is it fair to add more penalties when the rule already accounts for decreased appearance of size? Or is it legit to just stack all of those penalties?

 

So far we've come up with some workable ways to do this that I'm satisfied with. But I'm still curious about why being prone is explicitly presented as a bonus in 4e for ranged attacks.

 

We could apply all of the rules presented so far: 1/2 DCV for being prone, but a range penalty, smaller target size penalty, special hit location penalty (high shot, etc.), cover, and whatever else makes sense. But again, why bother going prone? Why not just squat down and keep the full DCV?

 

Does my question make sense in this context? The 4e rules flat out say it's an advantage to go prone, and I'm thinking it's flat out never and advantage if it requires the 1/2 DCV. Just squat down and get all the advantages without the DCV penalty, right?

 

Or does going prone offer a significantly smaller target (again, assuming flat terrain, no cover, etc.) than squatting down?

 

I was going to just go with what everyone was saying right up until the 4e example was given which restates exactly the problem I originally described. I'm not trying to argue just for the hell of it, although it must seem so. I'm honestly a little flummoxed by this oddity.

[dmjalund]

Now I'm wondering why DCV even applies to a gun shot. Can I actually dodge a bullet? I guess I can run around like crazy and make myself harder to hit, but DCV doesn't assume that. I can stand there, motionless, and still have full DCV. Again, I'm not criticizing the HERO System, I'm just looking for solid ground for making rulings. Or, conversely, optimizing the hit modifiers if I'm the one making the decision to drop for "cover."

you're not dodging the bullet, you are dodging the guy who holds the gun

[dsatow]

The 4e quote is from Concealment.  The example and rule seems to indicate it's a GM call.  I would rule in my game, the distance would be as soon as you get a range modifier (over 8m/26').

[mrinku]

 

The suggestions to use the hit location and cover rules, etc., to increase the penalty, are what I'm inclined to apply in this situation, but the RAW for range modifiers presumably already are taking into account the "smaller target size." Is that double dipping on the penalties? 

 

 

No. A smaller target at the same range is harder to hit. 

 

There are basically three factors in your scenario - range, target size and inherent ability to dodge (DCV). It's only the latter that's penalised by dropping to the ground.

 

If you use the simple cover rule dropping prone will normally impose a -4 cover penalty on the shooter if all they can see are the head and arms. A shooter firing from the side might only get a -2 or no penalty. Unlike range and DCV, this penalty is going to vary based on the position of the shooter vs the target.

[Brian Stanfield]

you're not dodging the bullet, you are dodging the guy who holds the gun

 

But the guy holding the gun is shooting a bullet that moves faster than I can dodge. Again, the rules assume in HtH that there is some movement, give-and-take, etc. in the combat. Ranged combat assumes no such thing from what I can tell (and I may be wrong here). Shooting at a distance applies my DCV even if there's no movement, etc. There are, of course, ways to move that are designed to make tracking you more difficult, but that would be a specialized skill.

 

I'm assuming, by what you're saying, that flinching, running for cover, etc., are part of the ranged combat DCV. If this is the case, I'm ok with that. But as for me, I'm still a little bit puzzled. Not to be obstinate, just because I'm curious to see how far the rules can be pushed to simulate "reality."

 

Thanks for the correction.

[Brian Stanfield]

The 4e quote is from Concealment.  The example and rule seems to indicate it's a GM call.  I would rule in my game, the distance would be as soon as you get a range modifier (over 8m/26').

 

The confusing part is that it's in a Concealment section. It's a great example, and is exactly what I was trying to get at in my original post. I bought the .pdf last night and looked it up, but it really only exemplified my confusion rather than solve it because at no point does the 4e rule say the DCV is lifted for the prone target, although it seems to imply it. I may be completely wrong in that, and general consensus seems to be to keep the DCV at 1/2 and then subtract the OCV penalties in addition.

 

I appreciate the simplicity and fluidity of the rules in 4e, but in 6e there is a rationalization for every rule, so I'm just trying to nail down the rules to use in this one particular situation. 

[Brian Stanfield]

No. A smaller target at the same range is harder to hit. 

 

There are basically three factors in your scenario - range, target size and inherent ability to dodge (DCV). It's only the latter that's penalised by dropping to the ground.

 

If you use the simple cover rule dropping prone will normally impose a -4 cover penalty on the shooter if all they can see are the head and arms. A shooter firing from the side might only get a -2 or no penalty. Unlike range and DCV, this penalty is going to vary based on the position of the shooter vs the target.

 

I realized that as I was writing it, and forgot to go back and change that bit about the smaller target. The half-sized target is as hard to hit as a full-sized target twice as far away. But the range penalties are specifically designed to simulate the target appearing smaller as the distance increases, so adding a "half size" penalty when one drops prone seems to be double-dipping.

 

As to your cover solution, I ultimately agree with it. But you say "use the simple cover rule," which doesn't actually cover prone targets, although by extrapolation from the 4e example it seems like maybe this is in fact the solution. Are you using the modifiers for 1/2 cover, 1/4 cover, etc. and applying it to the position of the target on the ground? If so, that seems to be a good solution. This may be the part that I've been overthinking.

 

​Thanks for your patience, everyone!

[dsatow]

The confusing part is that it's in a Concealment section. It's a great example, and is exactly what I was trying to get at in my original post. I bought the .pdf last night and looked it up, but it really only exemplified my confusion rather than solve it because at no point does the 4e rule say the DCV is lifted for the prone target, although it seems to imply it. I may be completely wrong in that, and general consensus seems to be to keep the DCV at 1/2 and then subtract the OCV penalties in addition.

 

I appreciate the simplicity and fluidity of the rules in 4e, but in 6e there is a rationalization for every rule, so I'm just trying to nail down the rules to use in this one particular situation. 

 

Yeah, but it varies.  A prone person on a level surface against a standing person might have concealment at 8m.  But if that person was standing 4m in up, the angle should eliminate the cover bonus while only increasing range a few meters at best.  The same goes for a shrinking target.  Yes the target might be smaller so it should be harder to hit but the angle they are being shot at might eliminate the cover bonus.  In a reverse problem, a colossal hero might get no cover at all.  It will be best to let it be on the GM's call.

[mrinku]

Dodging a bullet is a whole other thing. The basic HERO rules assume any ranged attack can be dodged, which is an artefact of its origin as a Superhero game. A more realistic approach might be to apply DCV based on velocity at all times against firearms, lasers etc, so a laterally fast moving target has a better chance of not getting hit than a stationary one, but it pretty much comes down to the shooter's skill, range and target size/cover as far as picking off a stationary person vs a walking one. Normal rules should apply for thrown weapons, arrows and melee attacks that CAN be dodged or blocked directly by observation. High velocity arrows and bolts probably need to fall into the "firearms" category. I know from SCA experience that you can dodge birding blunts fired from 30 pound bows, but those arrows are pretty sluggish.

[Brian Stanfield]

Yeah, but it varies.  A prone person on a level surface against a standing person might have concealment at 8m.  But if that person was standing 4m in up, the angle should eliminate the cover bonus while only increasing range a few meters at best.  The same goes for a shrinking target.  Yes the target might be smaller so it should be harder to hit but the angle they are being shot at might eliminate the cover bonus.  In a reverse problem, a colossal hero might get no cover at all.  It will be best to let it be on the GM's call.

 

Yeah, except I'm the GM. I'm supposed to know this stuff! God help us all!   

[IndianaJoe3]

But the guy holding the gun is shooting a bullet that moves faster than I can dodge. Again, the rules assume in HtH that there is some movement, give-and-take, etc. in the combat. Ranged combat assumes no such thing from what I can tell (and I may be wrong here). Shooting at a distance applies my DCV even if there's no movement, etc.

 

The fastest bullet in the world won't hit the target if the gun is pointed somewhere else. That's what DCV represents - moving to throw off the attacker's aim. It's active, not reactive.

[mrinku]

Brian, what's the context here anyway? 4 colour Superheroes, WW1 trench warfare, Noir, 80's action movie, or what?

[Brian Stanfield]

The fastest bullet in the world won't hit the target if the gun is pointed somewhere else. That's what DCV represents - moving to throw off the attacker's aim. It's active, not reactive.

 

My point is not about the shooter: obviously he needs to be able to hit me if he's going to hit me. My point is about the DCV modifiers. Am I required to move to get full DCV? The RAW say nothing about this. As I wrote in an earlier post, it is assumed that HtH combat will have movement and interaction, etc. But at range it's more problematic and not explicit at all. If I just stand there, do I get my full DCV? If not, why? And if I do, then why don't I also get it while being prone (the equivalent of just standing there, but in a much more advantageous position)?  How about if I squat, and combine the best of both: I get a smaller silhouette and I also don't have to take the 1/2 DCV for being prone. Am I required, as I said above, to run around like crazy to throw off the shooter in order to get full DCV? If not, then what's the difference between standing there like normal and being prone? Now we've come full circle: it seems like being prone would be an advantage at range, not a disadvantage.

 

Obviously there are a lot of moving parts here, as everyone has rightly pointed out. I'm just plumbing the depths of the rules to see how they best fit together in these kind of judgments. 

[Brian Stanfield]

Brian, what's the context here anyway? 4 colour Superheroes, WW1 trench warfare, Noir, 80's action movie, or what?

Good point. I haven't said anything about this, have I? I'm looking at a more gritty kind of Danger International or low heroic Dark Champions kind of game. I'm ok with superheroes dodging blasts and bullets, and all the other crazy stuff that might happen. But how does this all play out in a more low-powered, lethal setting where how you react to a shooter really does have consequences.

 

I hope nobody thinks I'm being obtuse or intentionally obstinate. I'm looking for a rationale that makes sense if I try to explain it to a player, and I'm also just curious where the break-points are in the RAW for 6e. And I'm just bored and curious about how this all can be applied. 

 

And by the way, what kind of horrible game would a WWI trench game be?! "Ok, wait for a while. Hopefully there won't be gas. Ok, the whistle's blowing, now jump up and get shot. You're dead. Ok, next: you get to crawl around in the mud for a minute before you get shot and die." Worst game ever!

[Doc Democracy]

I think you are in the dark places of the system.  The CV system was not designed to be a detailed simulation of combat - it was built to encompass all the things that make you harder or easier to hit - you can presume it includes all of the things you might expect someone to do to make a difference.

I think Nolgroth was not telling you to go RTFM but instead that the manual will not be able to cover everything and that there is a need for a guiding intelligence to decide which of the options to utilise.  I would be careful about what detail you go into.

 

I do think that there is a case to be made for a prone target being more difficult to hit.  If only the head and shoulders are visible then that is harder to hit - it should also mean that any hit is hitting either the head or the shoulders...

 

What you need to do is pull together the various penalties and modifiers and then you can discuss with the players...

 

"You are on a low flat roof with guards on the ground, shooting at you from behind some trash cans; some from a window opposite and one from the roof. Yes, if you drop prone then the guys shooting at you from behind those trash cans are going to find it impossible to hit you unless they can gain some height, the guys at the windows will have a smaller target to shoot at if you are head on but, if you do that, any hits are automatically on head or shoulders while the guy on the roof is not going to be inconvenienced at all.  Remember that if you do drop prone you will lose half your DCV, so that will counterbalance (partially or completely) the bonuses you get for being a small target."

 

 

Doc 

[rravenwood]

The fastest bullet in the world won't hit the target if the gun is pointed somewhere else. That's what DCV represents - moving to throw off the attacker's aim. It's active, not reactive.

 

My point is not about the shooter: obviously he needs to be able to hit me if he's going to hit me. My point is about the DCV modifiers. Am I required to move to get full DCV? The RAW say nothing about this. As I wrote in an earlier post, it is assumed that HtH combat will have movement and interaction, etc. But at range it's more problematic and not explicit at all. If I just stand there, do I get my full DCV? If not, why? And if I do, then why don't I also get it while being prone (the equivalent of just standing there, but in a much more advantageous position)?  How about if I squat, and combine the best of both: I get a smaller silhouette and I also don't have to take the 1/2 DCV for being prone. Am I required, as I said above, to run around like crazy to throw off the shooter in order to get full DCV? If not, then what's the difference between standing there like normal and being prone? Now we've come full circle: it seems like being prone would be an advantage at range, not a disadvantage.

 

Obviously there are a lot of moving parts here, as everyone has rightly pointed out. I'm just plumbing the depths of the rules to see how they best fit together in these kind of judgments. 

 

DCV is ultimately an abstraction, but there are some things that can be said about it by looking at other aspects of the system. As IndianaJoe points out, DCV represents the ability of a character to actively avoid incoming attacks; this doesn't mean that the character specifically Dodges (as in the Combat Maneuver) an attack, just that they are at least making an attempt to be aware of and avoid any attacks being made against them.  Even if a character - in game mechanical terms - is not performing a movement action, they are still assumed to be actively trying to avoid harm, unless the player states otherwise.  So in your example of a character "just standing there" it depends on how that is meant: if it just means that the character doesn't perform a half- or full-move, that doesn't mean that the character is pretending to be a statue in the middle of the field; however, if the player states that their character is "freezing" or otherwise making an effort to remain perfectly still, then the GM may well be justified in assessing a DCV penalty against them while doing so.  (I don't think this is given in RAW, but seems like a logical ruling to me.)  If we consider some of the many DCV penalties possible, we see penalties for restricted movement abilities: half DCV for being prone or Stunned, 0 DCV for being Entangled or Knocked Out, various penalties for being in a cramped space, on slippery surfaces, etc.  These all support the notion that at least part of DCV depends on the character being able to move around a little (again, not talking about a movement action) - one aspect of the abstraction of combat where characters don't actually freeze in space when their Phase ends.

 

DCV also depends on the character's ability to be aware of actual or potential threats, as illustrated by the DCV penalties suffered for being Flashed, or in Darkness, or when being attacked by surprise, etc.

 

Lastly, DCV can also represent various other factors that make a character harder to hit, things that would apply to pretty much all attackers, such as the DCV bonus from the Shrinking Power, or other factors that could be ascribed to the character's "special effects" such as just being darned elusive.  (Sometimes these factors end up being applied as OCV penalties, such as the Target Size modifiers, but I don't think that confuses the situation all that much.)

 

Shifting over to the whole question of the effectiveness of being prone - in game mechanical terms, at least, it depends on the typical CV levels in your game.  If you're looking at typical (non-Dodging) DCVs of 5 or 6, going prone equates to a -2 or -3 DCV penalty, which doesn't completely offset the -4 OCV penalty suffered by an attacker who can only target someone's head and shoulders (assuming they're facing head-on, etc.), so it's still a benefit.  Once you're dealing with characters of 8 DCV or higher, then that half-DCV modification definitely starts becoming a liability when compared to the potential benefit.  You could always house-rule something if you didn't like the "feel" of that result - say, a flat -4 penalty when prone.

 

As far as more of a real-world idea of when being prone really starts to mask the rest of the body and make a smaller target, you could always take a friend to a level field or parking lot, have them lay flat, and then just start walking away from them slowly, stopping once you can only see their head and shoulders.  Measure or estimate the distance and you're done ;-)  Taking a quick stab at doing just that in the long clear space between my back wall and front door, I think that the -4 OCV of having only head and shoulders visible should start when regular Range Modifier penalties do, at 9m (about 30 feet).  This penalty could be decreased at closer distances - maybe -3 OCV at 7m, -2 OCV at 5m, and just -1 OCV at 3m.  (For gameability and ease of recall, these could probably be decreased by 1m each to make it 2m/4m/6m/8m.)

[Brian Stanfield]

DCV is ultimately an abstraction, but there are some things that can be said about it by looking at other aspects of the system. As IndianaJoe points out, DCV represents the ability of a character to actively avoid incoming attacks; this doesn't mean that the character specifically Dodges (as in the Combat Maneuver) an attack, just that they are at least making an attempt to be aware of and avoid any attacks being made against them.  Even if a character - in game mechanical terms - is not performing a movement action, they are still assumed to be actively trying to avoid harm, unless the player states otherwise.  So in your example of a character "just standing there" it depends on how that is meant: if it just means that the character doesn't perform a half- or full-move, that doesn't mean that the character is pretending to be a statue in the middle of the field; however, if the player states that their character is "freezing" or otherwise making an effort to remain perfectly still, then the GM may well be justified in assessing a DCV penalty against them while doing so.  (I don't think this is given in RAW, but seems like a logical ruling to me.)  If we consider some of the many DCV penalties possible, we see penalties for restricted movement abilities: half DCV for being prone or Stunned, 0 DCV for being Entangled or Knocked Out, various penalties for being in a cramped space, on slippery surfaces, etc.  These all support the notion that at least part of DCV depends on the character being able to move around a little (again, not talking about a movement action) - one aspect of the abstraction of combat where characters don't actually freeze in space when their Phase ends.

 

DCV also depends on the character's ability to be aware of actual or potential threats, as illustrated by the DCV penalties suffered for being Flashed, or in Darkness, or when being attacked by surprise, etc.

 

Lastly, DCV can also represent various other factors that make a character harder to hit, things that would apply to pretty much all attackers, such as the DCV bonus from the Shrinking Power, or other factors that could be ascribed to the character's "special effects" such as just being darned elusive.  (Sometimes these factors end up being applied as OCV penalties, such as the Target Size modifiers, but I don't think that confuses the situation all that much.)

 

Shifting over to the whole question of the effectiveness of being prone - in game mechanical terms, at least, it depends on the typical CV levels in your game.  If you're looking at typical (non-Dodging) DCVs of 5 or 6, going prone equates to a -2 or -3 DCV penalty, which doesn't completely offset the -4 OCV penalty suffered by an attacker who can only target someone's head and shoulders (assuming they're facing head-on, etc.), so it's still a benefit.  Once you're dealing with characters of 8 DCV or higher, then that half-DCV modification definitely starts becoming a liability when compared to the potential benefit.  You could always house-rule something if you didn't like the "feel" of that result - say, a flat -4 penalty when prone.

 

As far as more of a real-world idea of when being prone really starts to mask the rest of the body and make a smaller target, you could always take a friend to a level field or parking lot, have them lay flat, and then just start walking away from them slowly, stopping once you can only see their head and shoulders.  Measure or estimate the distance and you're done ;-)  Taking a quick stab at doing just that in the long clear space between my back wall and front door, I think that the -4 OCV of having only head and shoulders visible should start when regular Range Modifier penalties do, at 9m (about 30 feet).  This penalty could be decreased at closer distances - maybe -3 OCV at 7m, -2 OCV at 5m, and just -1 OCV at 3m.  (For gameability and ease of recall, these could probably be decreased by 1m each to make it 2m/4m/6m/8m.)

 

Ah! Actual data! Well done!

 

The rest of your analysis is dead on. Thanks for your input!

[Brian Stanfield]

I think you are in the dark places of the system.  The CV system was not designed to be a detailed simulation of combat - it was built to encompass all the things that make you harder or easier to hit - you can presume it includes all of the things you might expect someone to do to make a difference.

I think Nolgroth was not telling you to go RTFM but instead that the manual will not be able to cover everything and that there is a need for a guiding intelligence to decide which of the options to utilise.  I would be careful about what detail you go into.

 

I do think that there is a case to be made for a prone target being more difficult to hit.  If only the head and shoulders are visible then that is harder to hit - it should also mean that any hit is hitting either the head or the shoulders...

 

What you need to do is pull together the various penalties and modifiers and then you can discuss with the players...

 

"You are on a low flat roof with guards on the ground, shooting at you from behind some trash cans; some from a window opposite and one from the roof. Yes, if you drop prone then the guys shooting at you from behind those trash cans are going to find it impossible to hit you unless they can gain some height, the guys at the windows will have a smaller target to shoot at if you are head on but, if you do that, any hits are automatically on head or shoulders while the guy on the roof is not going to be inconvenienced at all.  Remember that if you do drop prone you will lose half your DCV, so that will counterbalance (partially or completely) the bonuses you get for being a small target."

 

 

Doc

Great examples. I appreciate the input. And no, I don't think Nolgroth was wrong in his comments, but I was just asking for some assistance in directing the guiding intelligence in the midst of all of these moving parts. I respect pretty much everyone's insights on these forums, and value the advice, and I realize that the rules don't cover everything, but trying to figure out which rules apply when is part of the collective intelligence of these forums. I don't see being curious or thorough as a bad thing.

 

And you're right, this is one of the dark places of the system, but I kinda like it here!

[Brian Stanfield]

And I was just reminded of the "Dive For Cover" rule, which I think gives some valuable options in this area. Trading a combat action for avoiding an attack, at the expense of rendering oneself prone, covers many of the concerns I had over how to apply all these rules. There is a clear benefit traded off for being prone, at least for the first attack, which now makes it seem like a more desirable option than before I remembered this maneuver.

 

For whatever it's worth . . . .

[mrinku]

 

And by the way, what kind of horrible game would a WWI trench game be?! "Ok, wait for a while. Hopefully there won't be gas. Ok, the whistle's blowing, now jump up and get shot. You're dead. Ok, next: you get to crawl around in the mud for a minute before you get shot and die." Worst game ever!

 

I'd imagine you'd be playing out the military/social side of things between over-the-top attacks a lot. It could also be done as a particularly powerful finite timeline campaign. Or make the setting more rear echelon; the Korean War was often not much better than the Great War as far as frontline conditions went, but M.A.S.H. managed to make 8 years of television out of it.

 

Charley's War is one of the very best comics ever written and I could easily make that into a game. The film Gallipoli can serve as a good yardstick, too. Even if (or especially if) the players know how it's going to end.

 

Statistically, most soldiers survived. Of the 6 million or so British enlistees, about 11% died. They were rotated out of the front line trenches quite regularly too.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-25776836

 

Having said that, fictional treatments are always going to zone in on extremes. Charley in Charley's War spent an unusually varied and active few years!

[Brian Stanfield]

I'd imagine you'd be playing out the military/social side of things between over-the-top attacks a lot. It could also be done as a particularly powerful finite timeline campaign. Or make the setting more rear echelon; the Korean War was often not much better than the Great War as far as frontline conditions went, but M.A.S.H. managed to make 8 years of television out of it.

 

Charley's War is one of the very best comics ever written and I could easily make that into a game. The film Gallipoli can serve as a good yardstick, too. Even if (or especially if) the players know how it's going to end.

 

Statistically, most soldiers survived. Of the 6 million or so British enlistees, about 11% died. They were rotated out of the front line trenches quite regularly too.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-25776836

 

Having said that, fictional treatments are always going to zone in on extremes. Charley in Charley's War spent an unusually varied and active few years!

 

And Wonder Woman sure made it seem really exciting this summer as well!

[Durzan Malakim]

I believe real-world military tactics should have already answered this question for you as part of training soldiers on "what to do when someone is shooting at you." I'm not a veteran myself so this information is purely based on what I could find from sites talking about firefights and tactics. In general, I believe you want to:

• Minimize the target area you present to attackers. Going prone can do that but is not a guarantee as the real-world data provided by @rravenwood indicates. In game terms, I think it is appropriate to double-dip and apply both range modifiers and hit-location modifiers from a high shot when the attacker is trying to hit a smaller target at range.
• Find soft cover that offers concealment from attackers. Ideally you'd want total concealment because your cover isn't going to offer any protection. In game terms, you can use the normal concealment rules or hit location rules, but any hits will do full damage.
• Find hard cover that offers protection from attackers. You get concealment and armor at the expense of mobility and possibly field of fire.
• Neutralize your attacker before they can neutralize you. The best defense is a good offense.

FYI: Here's an interesting resource for firefight dynamics for military science fiction. This information makes me wonder why there aren't OCV penalties for run-and-gun:

 

A moving person is a very bad shot in the real world and professionals know it is a waste of ammo to move and shoot at the same time. Standing and shooting are less accurate than laying down and shooting.