D&D General If you could put D&D into any other non middle ages genre, what would it be?

MonkeezOnFire · Jun 17, 2019

I'm currently running a short series play testing rules to set D&D 5e in a cyberpunk + biopunk setting called Gene Funk 2090. I've only run 1 session of it so far but it's been fun to explore the character options. I'm most excited for the much expanded equipment options. Between cybernetic and biotic enhancements, huge weapon tables, vehicles and gadgets there's tons of stuff to spend money on.

Oofta · Jun 17, 2019

Sacrosanct said:
So can we please, please stop with this "guns need to be way more lethal than swords or it's not realistic" nonsense? The mechanics of D&D are just fine for emulating a heroic wild west genre. To argue otherwise is to hold a double standard of lethality for swords vs guns, and to ironically ignore what you're claiming you need to have: reality

I agree ... getting your head chopped off by a claymore is probably going to hurt just as much if not more than being shot with a Colt .45.

It's only related to the topic in that if you're talking a genre that has guns, what system would you implement so that people would take guns in the first place if they just do the same damage as bows but are really loud? Unless you're Jack Churchill, of course. Historically it was because they were easier to train people to use and as we approach the modern era (or future) have a higher rate of fire. So you can either give guns some mechanical advantage, remove proficiency for bows without special training or just hand-wave and say "people use guns".

Then there's the issue of support for melee tank type characters if you care to support that play style. If you assume armor is effective against bullets (not that big of a stretch), is there still room for melee types?

So those are the issues I ponder when thinking of running a campaign higher on the tech tree than typical "medieval fantasy" campaigns.

Paul Farquhar · Jun 17, 2019

For Wild West you would want to upgrade the effectiveness of fists and improvised weapons in melee.

The thing to focus on is you are not trying to simulate reality (D&D doesn't do that in any setting), you are trying to create something that is fun to play whilst emulating a fiction genre.

CapnZapp · Jun 17, 2019

Paul Farquhar said:
The point is, hp are stupid irrespective of if you are fighting with a gun or a hat pin. What matters is where the hit happens, not the nature of the weapon.

People of have gotten used to the idea of hp with traditional D&D weapons through playing D&D and knock-off video games, but that doesn't make it any less unrealistic than using hp for firearms or sci fi weapons.

Yes, I'm telling you expectations trump "realism".

My whole point is that the genre sets expectations that impacts your damage model of choice.

CapnZapp · Jun 17, 2019

Oofta said:
Most people are level 1 commoners with 4 HP. How many hits with any D&D weapon do you expect them to survive? As far as who's level 12, well obviously they're the protagonists of an action movie that have Hollywood magical plot armor. Or you justify it exactly the same way you justify getting hit in the face with a club by an hill giant a dozen times and walking away. You don't.

Any system that uses HP is fundamentally flawed and doesn't make a lot of sense if you think about it. I don't care if it's D&D or the vast majority of video games I've ever played. But how many times in action movies or TV do the heroes get shot but it's "just a flesh wound" that they bandage up and ignore 5 minute later.

Okay.

Meanwhile, we're discussing what settings to expand D&D to. Firearm-centric settings encounter trouble that melee-centric settings don't.

You can't say one damage model is more flawed than the other. The only flaw is using one that is a mismatch to the expectations of the setting's genre.

Paul Farquhar · Jun 17, 2019

CapnZapp said:
Okay.

Meanwhile, we're discussing what settings to expand D&D to. Firearm-centric settings encounter trouble that melee-centric settings don't.

No, they don't.

You can't say one damage model is more flawed than the other.

No one is saying that.

Hp is equally flawed, for the purpose of simulation, no matter what setting you use it in, but equally good, for the purpose of fun, on matter what setting you use it in.

CapnZapp · Jun 17, 2019

Fanaelialae said:
I think you're conflating gritty with Western.

Not really, since...

Perhaps gritty is the default assumed tone for a Western

Nailed it in one!

my point is that as long as one establishes that that's not the intended tone of the campaign, there's no issue.

Yes.

This discussion, though, started when someone yelled "mockery".

My entire point is that unless you do *something*, whether to change the damage model (ie not use D&D) or the expectations, that's pretty much what you're gonna hear...

CapnZapp · Jun 17, 2019

Sacrosanct said:
So can we please, please stop with this "guns need to be way more lethal than swords or it's not realistic" nonsense?

Of course I've made about a dozen posts offering a different perspective:

That it's *not* about myths and believing guns are more lethal.

But instead about genre, and whether your setting is melee-centric or ranged.

If you offer firearms that increases people's expectations of lethal attacks.

If you focus on swords, that decreases people's expectations.

Of course you can still *manage* those expectations. Of course you can still use D&D!

Fenris-77 · Jun 17, 2019

Oofta said:
Instead of "fundamentally flawed" how about "fundamentally over-simplifies damage" or "fundamentally unrealistic". I'm perfectly okay with HP in whatever game I'm playing as long as it's appropriate. Games have to make all sorts of compromises for the sake of fun and ease of play.

I don't even think it's over-simplified. It's a very particular approach to damage that has a lot of built in plot armor and very much represents the kinds of stories that inspired D&D in the first place. It's very pulpy, and it makes for very durable heroes. Is that super-realistic? Good heavens no, but it was never supposed to be. Lots of other systems have more 'realistic' damage systems. Even the HP system as written can be massaged in a number of more 'realistic' directions for a DM so inclined. However, that fact that the HP system as written ins't a hyper-realistic model of vaguely medieval combat damage isn't a flaw, it's a design choice, a design choice people can agree with or, and use or not.

Sacrosanct · Jun 17, 2019

CapnZapp said:
If you offer firearms that increases people's expectations of lethal attacks.

If you focus on swords, that decreases people's expectations.
!

And I'm saying this is wrong. It shouldn't do that, and for a lot of people, it doesn't. That's exactly the myth I'm talking about. The idea that what you're arguing is somehow true or accurate. It seems to me to be a lot of cognitive dissonance for one to argue that they make guns more lethal for "realism", when what's actually realistic doesn't support that.