You Got Peanut Butter in My Chocolate...D&D and Science-Fiction

[Mallus]

I've always had a little sci-fi (but no SF!) in my D&D fantasy.

My homebrew, the not-quite-right World of CITY, is currently ultratech, alien, and spaceship-free. However, quite of bit of madcap quasi-Victorian steampunk technology has crept in. It started innocently enough with one PC's clockwork cat familiar.

Last session featured a bad guy covering his cohorts escape --by submarine-- with a portable cannon equipped with Prismatic Spray shells while an enraged samurai dueled the party's steam-powered robot knight --who's actually piloted by a tiny pneumatically-driven robot lemur that sits in the head.

Been something of a downward spiral, it has...

For the record, I can't quite understand the problem in modeling contemporary weapon damage in D&D. Or futuristic weapon damage, for that matter. The key is D&D models damage extraordinarily badly.

This is a system where a naked PC of mid-level can get shot in the chest with a longbow, at point blank range, or cracked across the face with a maul, or thrown off a 100 ft. cliff onto pointy rocks, or soaked in flaming oil with nary the chance of him being knocked out, let alone grieviously injured...

Make guns and lasers touch attacks (unless you have modern armor), give them high damage and big threat ranges, treat mortars like fireballs... simple stuff, really.

Why should damage from a technological source be treated any differently from other types, ie, with even the slightest nod towards realism?

 

[Celebrim]

For the record, I can't quite understand the problem in modeling contemporary weapon damage in D&D. Or futuristic weapon damage, for that matter. The key is D&D models damage extraordinarily badly

There is no problem in the sense that as long as you are willing to accept the same level of extraordinary lack of realism in the damage that battle axes do in the damage that rifles do. If you are willing to accept that a character can take dozens of bullet wounds, a few criticals before even slowing down, there is no problem whatsoever.

With that.

Make guns and lasers touch attacks (unless you have modern armor), give them high damage and big threat ranges, treat mortars like fireballs... simple stuff, really.

The problem is with that. The problem guns present is even if they aren't realistic, if they are at the least superior to more primitive weapons, the game suddenly gets wierd. Take your suggestion. If I equip goblins with weapons that make a ranged touch attack, this makes even and ordinary 1st level warrior a real threat to a relatively high level PC. I'd go so far as to suggest that 1st level goblin warriors become 500% more dangerous to high level PC's than they would be otherwise, and that's even before we deal with automatic weapons.

And that creates problems for D&D's rule system, not because it can't be done with a nod to realism, but because a nod to realism tends to diminish the game. The assumptions in D&D is that the PC's are capable of facing down hoards of bad guys in open mortal combat. If your 5th level fighter dies just as quickly to 1st level goblins as he did at 1st level, it totally changes the way you play the game.

Why should damage from a technological source be treated any differently from other types, ie, with even the slightest nod towards realism?

It isn't. That isn't the problem.

 

[RFisher]

By the American civil war, bayonets were an insubstantial part of the actual mass of the battlefield, but commanders kept ordering them anyway and getting men killed uselessly. It's been calculated that less than 1% of the deaths of the American civil war occurred as the result of any melee weapon at all, much less the bayonet which many experienced soldiers didn't use in favor of swinging thier gun like a club.

This is interesting stuff, Celebrim! I'm surprised that there ever was anything called a "bayonet charge".

Melee weapons may be obsolete on the battlefield, but weapons aren't only used by organized forces on the battlefield.

Make guns and lasers touch attacks (unless you have modern armor), give them high damage and big threat ranges

...or touch attacks that result in save-or-die (or save-or-all-your-hp).

The problem guns present is even if they aren't realistic, if they are at the least superior to more primitive weapons, the game suddenly gets wierd. Take your suggestion. If I equip goblins with weapons that make a ranged touch attack, this makes even and ordinary 1st level warrior a real threat to a relatively high level PC. I'd go so far as to suggest that 1st level goblin warriors become 500% more dangerous to high level PC's than they would be otherwise, and that's even before we deal with automatic weapons.

Good point, but just because you have guns in the campaign doesn't mean that they're common. Without adding guns, you could equip goblins with something like wands of polar ray with a high caster level & have roughly the same effect.

 

[Mallus]

There is no problem in the sense that as long as you are willing to accept the same level of extraordinary lack of realism in the damage that battle axes do in the damage that rifles do.

Seeing that an extraordinary lack of realism is a core feature of the combat system, yes, that isn't a problem.

If you are willing to accept that a character can take dozens of bullet wounds, a few criticals before even slowing down, there is no problem whatsoever.

The odd thing is that a crit is still just a graze if have a high enough HP total... D&D can't model a 'really good hit' after low levels, unlike say, a system w/a damage save mechanic like Mutants and Masterminds.

The problem guns present is even if they aren't realistic, if they are at the least superior to more primitive weapons, the game suddenly gets wierd.

It gets a little different, yes.

If I equip goblins with weapons that make a ranged touch attack, this makes even and ordinary 1st level warrior a real threat to a relatively high level PC.

I wasn't thinking about this in terms of firearms (or ray guns) being commonplace weapons in the hands of grunts, more like 'ancient artifacts' or the creation of singular mad geniuses. But OK...

I'd go so far as to suggest that 1st level goblin warriors become 500% more dangerous to high level PC's than they would be otherwise, and that's even before we deal with automatic weapons.

Sure, why not. Goblins with Kalashnikov's would be more dangerous. But let's look at what we've actually done in arming them like that... we've decoupled offensive and defensive capabilities more so than in the standard model. The goblins still go down like mooks, but they pack more punch.

I see that a plus. I never liked how tightly bundled unrelated abilities are in D&D.

The assumptions in D&D is that the PC's are capable of facing down hoards of bad guys in open mortal combat.

I don't see how rifle-toting goblins makes the above statement untrue. All it would mean is a change in tactics. No more charging a goblin squad over a open field. Unless you have a high touch AC...

Besides this is no different from making magic use more commonplace. A unit full of goblin sorcerers w/magic missile wands is legal under the RAW, and even more deadly. They don't miss.

If your 5th level fighter dies just as quickly to 1st level goblins as he did at 1st level, it totally changes the way you play the game.

And this would be a bad thing? Getting more mileage out of low CR creatures? I know a few DM's who make that their specialty.

 

[Celebrim]

Sure, why not. Goblins with Kalashnikov's would be more dangerous. But let's look at what we've actually done in arming them like that... we've decoupled offensive and defensive capabilities more so than in the standard model. The goblins still go down like mooks, but they pack more punch.

What I'm saying is that the tight coupling between offensive and defensive capabilities is part of the 'heroic' theme. In fact, the more the PC's defensive capabilities overwhelm threats, the more the game system is designed to a have 'heroic' feel to it. When you move in the other direction, offensive capabilities that overwhelm the PC's defenses, then you are moving in the direction of gritty realism, horror, and other sorts of games in which life is cheap. I'm not convinced that the D&D game system is well suited to that without a good deal of overhauling. In other words, its not just a matter of bringing in guns. It's that bringing in guns may well force you to change the rules.

I don't see how rifle-toting goblins makes the above statement untrue. All it would mean is a change in tactics. No more charging a goblin squad over a open field. Unless you have a high touch AC...

In general it would mean less 'heroic' of tactics. Charging over an open field is what heroes do. It's what heroes do because in heroic ages (Early Bronze, Medieval) it works, and its works well because your armor can take the hit and you just keep on going like some sort of (to the guys you are charging) invincible super-hero with say skin that is invulnerable to weapons every where but your heal. Guns change that. Ever watched a Kurosawa film like say 'Seven Samurai'?

Besides this is no different from making magic use more commonplace. A unit full of goblin sorcerers w/magic missile wands is legal under the RAW, and even more deadly. They don't miss.

A sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.

All I'm saying is that I've never played in a game with high tech stuff that wasn't either extraordinarily lethal or else unintentionally comical in the same way that, ""These blast points... too accurate for Sand People. Only Imperial Stormtroopers are so precise." is unintentionally comical.

And this would be a bad thing? Getting more mileage out of low CR creatures? I know a few DM's who make that their specialty.[/QUOTE]

 

[Mallus]

What I'm saying is that the tight coupling between offensive and defensive capabilities is part of the 'heroic' theme.

Is it absolutely necessary to produce a 'heroic feel'?

When you move in the other direction, offensive capabilities that overwhelm the PC's defenses, then you are moving in the direction of gritty realism, horror, and other sorts of games in which life is cheap.

Aren't you essentially saying 'Every challenge that can't be met by direct and open force moves the game toward 'grim-and-gritty'?

In general it would mean less 'heroic' of tactics. Charging over an open field is what heroes do.

What about 'heroic' cunning and guile? Didn't some of the classical Greek heroes sneak around, in addition to their crazy 1 vs. 100 antics?

Guns change that. Ever watched a Kurosawa film like say 'Seven Samurai'?

Seven Samurai is a wonderful film. Mifune is a genius at physical acting. But what does that have to do with D&D?

If the world of Seven Samurai operated under the RAW, it would be a much different film. Much shorter....

All I'm saying is that I've never played in a game with high tech stuff that wasn't either extraordinarily lethal or else unintentionally comical in the same way that, ""These blast points... too accurate for Sand People. Only Imperial Stormtroopers are so precise." is unintentionally comical.

All I'm saying is that high tech stuff isn't that different from the magical effects commonly available in the game, and should be considered more as 'flavor', rather than campaign-breaking 'crunch'.

 

[Celebrim]

Is it absolutely necessary to produce a 'heroic feel'?

No. There are alot of other ways we could diminish or even eliminate the heroic feel.

Aren't you essentially saying 'Every challenge that can't be met by direct and open force moves the game toward 'grim-and-gritty'?

Now that is a very good question. I don't know. I'm going to have to think about that one. It broadens the scope of what I'm saying considerably, and I'm not normally open to people broadening my scope because they are usually trying to make a strawman argument out of what I'm saying, but in this case - whatever your intention - I can see that there might be something interesting down that road. But I'm not sure where it leads yet.

Seven Samurai is a wonderful film. Mifune is a genius at physical acting. But what does that have to do with D&D?

How is the musket viewed as a weapon within the film? What is the effect of musketry on the heroism of the Samurai? What role does it play in the story? Are the Samurai eager to adopt this new technology?

All I'm saying is that high tech stuff isn't that different from the magical effects commonly available in the game, and should be considered more as 'flavor', rather than campaign-breaking 'crunch'.

And I'm saying that there is indeed a very big difference between magical effects commonly available in the game and technology based weapons, and that's precisely why the people are willing to have settings filled with 19th century elements but so often consider firearms in a campaign beyond the pale. There is a big difference between Excaliber and a Winchester model 1894.

 

[Set]

Fred Saberhagen's Empire of the East and CS Friedman's Black Sun Rising are both excellent novels that integrate magic and technology in unusual manners.

For me, one of the big genre differences is what defines a hero.

In a fantasy setting, the hero is of mysterious or noble birth, and taps into special powers that few, if any, can touch, as a result of destiny, bloodline, prophecy, whatever.

In a sci-fi setting, the hero can be some chick with no special powers or glorious pre-written destony who watches her entire crew get hunted down by a xenomorph and straps a flamethrower to a gun and goes after the darn thing.

Despite Star Wars being a 'sci-fi' setting, Luke Skywalker is a 'magical hero,' all special by birth and with access to kewl powers. Han Solo is a 'sci-fi hero,' who is stuck using the same gear and advantages that anyone else can use against him, forcing him to actually *behave* in a heroic manner, or accomplish heroic things, to become a hero, rather than have it handed to him for having super-powers. Spock / Data / Seven of Nine are 'magical heroes,' being more specialer by birth (or creation) than the little people around them. Kirk / Picard / Sisko are 'sci-fi' heroes, being normal people who stepped up to the plate and, instead of being *born* heroes, *became* heroes.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

I've always enjoyed a little sci-fi in my D&D, but moderation and actual placement is important. Most SF tech should be ancient, malfunctioning artifacts and relics like the Machine of Lum the Mad, and the Mighty Servant of Leuk-O. High-tech masquerading as Steampunk. It has always SEEMED like it should be fun to include The City of the Gods, and Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, they've never really worked like I wanted them to. Temple of the Frog is more my taste in this regard.