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

Paul Farquhar · Jun 23, 2019

Matthia05718273 said:
- Renaissance era, with things like pirates, and some gunpowder. Flying ships as blimps and stuff.

Pillars of Eternity 2 goes there. And it manages to combine firearms with hit points.

Fenris-77 · Jun 23, 2019

[MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] I think you're mistaking my point for something it's not. The lack of understanding specifically indexes the inability (by design) of HP to simulate damage from any real world weapons - HP as simulation. One big subset of arguments about HP and firearms is how while they might work for melee they don't for firearms (as a simulation). They don't 'work' for either, the only difference is the extent to which people don't realize that they don't work for melee (again, as a simulation). In both cases they are a heavily fictionalized account of combat. It's not that I don't understand the complaints, I just don't have a lot of sympathy for them - HP is what it is and asking it do something very different from what it's designed to do is always going to messy and complicated. Maybe worth it as a hack (who doesn't love a good rules hack) but don't complain that it doesn't fit like a glove. So, to sum up, I am only addressing some specific points about the value of HP as simulation as regards melee versus firearms damage for people who complain about the lack of 'realism' in the HP system.

To your point, which is about how HP interact with the tactical considerations in the game at range, I probably agree. The pace of ranged centric combat probably requires some kind of tweak to the tactical mechanics of the game. The turn by turn thing is hard to overcome unless you want to buff the role of reactions, and maybe stretch multiple attacks over multiple initiative steps to try and interweave things more. Rules for overwatch and holding actions become more necessary too. That actually sounds like a fun thread, we should do that - the tactics and game play are probably a bigger barrier to satisfying play than HP anyway.

Fanaelialae · Jun 23, 2019

I've always wanted to run a modern day game where the PCs are ordinary people by day, but enter a Dreamland by night where they are D&Desque characters. At first it would seem that these two aspects are distinct, but it would become apparent that these two worlds are connected in some fashion. At night they would be Big Damn Heroes, but by day they would need to manage the risks they take (as well as other aspects of their lives) because they're functionally normal people. Slaying demons by night and contending with mall security by day.

CapnZapp · Jun 23, 2019

Fenris-77 said:
[MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] I think you're mistaking my point for something it's not. The lack of understanding specifically indexes the inability (by design) of HP to simulate damage from any real world weapons - HP as simulation. One big subset of arguments about HP and firearms is how while they might work for melee they don't for firearms (as a simulation).

Well, as I said, this is only part of why you might see complaints. And it is the easiest part to dismiss.

That is, I see a lot of posters choosing to define the complaints as this only, in order for them to ignore the complaints.

To your point, which is about how HP interact with the tactical considerations in the game at range, I probably agree.

If that means you're no longer as dismissive of the complaints (that you take in the possibility the complainers aren't merely applying double standards to hp in melee and ranged) then my presence here is working.

The pace of ranged centric combat probably requires some kind of tweak to the tactical mechanics of the game. The turn by turn thing is hard to overcome unless you want to buff the role of reactions, and maybe stretch multiple attacks over multiple initiative steps to try and interweave things more. Rules for overwatch and holding actions become more necessary too. That actually sounds like a fun thread, we should do that - the tactics and game play are probably a bigger barrier to satisfying play than HP anyway.

Sure, but now you make it sound like you're discussing an issue completely separate from hit points.

My points is that hit points are intrinsically linked to the question of tactics in the gameplay.

That is, you can always skip minding cover if all you stand to lose is a couple of hit points. Yes, in the long run you can't afford to lose hp carelessly, but skipping cover is a definite choice to weigh against getting to your destination quicker.

Contrast to other games where getting shot at means risking a Dodge check, and possibly having to pay a rare Fate Point. You're much more likely to choose the safer but slower path.

So the hit points damage model directly impacts how the game plays out; creating an argument against using it that is not nearly as easy to dismiss than merely "I dislike hp-as-simulation for ranged combat even though I don't mind it for melee combat".

Best regards

PS. As always, that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with using hit points for a gunpowder game.

I'm only trying to bridge two different viewpoints by explaining why resistance against hit points have real solid origins, rather than it being just "wrong"

Fenris-77 · Jun 23, 2019

I was only addressing a specific portion of the complaints, and even then not dismissing them outright, just adding some much needed context. There are all sorts of other very legitimate complaints about the HP depending on what a group wants their campaign to feel like. It's not your presence either (awesome as that may be) as I was only indexing a limited portion of the conversation. Sorry if it seemed like I was being outright dismissive, that wasn't the intent - I just think the focus should be on mechanics and game play, and not on the philosophy of HP as simulation.

As for the tactics, I feel like HP are one moving part in what needs to be a larger conversation. To change the tactical feel of the game HP do need to be addressed, but not, i think, in isolation. You could layer in more consequences and another mechanic or two, along with appropriately leveled damage to give the 5E rule set some of the vibe your looking for (be it from Fate or whatever). I would start with an idea - "I want combat to feel like X" and then list the mechanics involved plus things that are missing. Those mechanics are all interwoven, so changing one can change another, and I think you'd need to balance things out as a package. I think the idea of consequences would be central to that conversation, but I also think that there are probably a lot of ways to add consequences other than just massaging the HP system. This could obviously apply to non-firearms games as well if a group wanted a crunchier, grittier, feel to combat.

CapnZapp · Jun 23, 2019

Very well.

But remember you don't need to reinvent the wheel here. The problem has been tackled before. You know, by other games.

(And yet again, you might end up keeping hit points, if only because it's simple and familiar.

Not here to dump on hit points, after all.

Only here to dump on the notion you must be shortsighted somehow to dismiss them)

MarkB · Jun 24, 2019

CapnZapp said:
Very well.

But remember you don't need to reinvent the wheel here. The problem has been tackled before. You know, by other games.

Now that you mention it, while I've seen injury and death handled differently in a variety of systems, I can't think of any I've played that specifically support and encourage tactical ranged combat - and it's something I've occasionally looked for in a system. Is there a particular system that does it well?

Fenris-77 · Jun 24, 2019

Personally, I'm not actually going to rejig 5E for ranged combat at all. I use 5E for more traditional fantasy games and I'm completely happy with it (and the HP system)as-is. My first choice for a ranged heavy game would be a different system. However, playing with rules is fun, and I'm always interested in conceptual rules hacking.

Oofta · Jun 24, 2019

Fenris-77 said:
Personally, I'm not actually going to rejig 5E for ranged combat at all. I use 5E for more traditional fantasy games and I'm completely happy with it (and the HP system)as-is. My first choice for a ranged heavy game would be a different system. However, playing with rules is fun, and I'm always interested in conceptual rules hacking.

But do you really need to? I think the thing that bothers me most about this "D&D doesn't work with guns" is that unless you assume fully automatic weapons and an unlimited ammo supply, guns are really all that much different in game terms than what we already have. Particularly if you limit to 19th century or earlier tech, they really aren't all that much more effective. Cheaper? Easier to use? More portable and reliable in the real world? Sure. But D&D ignores most of those factors.

In the real world, most hunters won't use even a modern compound bow on a deer more than 30 feet away, in D&D there's no penalty to hit out to 50 yards or 200 yards with a feat. Heck, I had a guy with a 2nd level character and a sling (and hex) doing 20+ points of damage at 100 feet away when using sharpshooter.

So tell me ... what would a firearm look like from a rules perspective that it would be so much more deadly? Or are people just saying that guns are automatic death delivery devices?

Fenris-77 · Jun 24, 2019

Don't get me wrong, I think D&D works fine with guns, up to a point. I'll quite happily use 5E for steampunk settings that use firearms and it's dandy. The firearms I use don't tend to be that much different than the missile weapons already in the game though. I up the damage a little, maybe monkey with the ranges, but I'm not changing much. I'm not aiming for deadly firearms though, which is the main reason I don't have any issues IMO.