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

multiple post

CapnZapp said:

Have you ever played another ttrpg than D&D and other hit points based games?

Click to expand...

No-hp
Traveller (classic)
Runequest
Tunnels and Trolls
Golden Heroes
MERP
Gamma World

Fenris-77 said:

You could also hack the action economy to make more robust use of bonus actions and reactions. Plus allow multiple attacks to be spread out of different initiative steps. For example, if everyone could use a bonus action (or reaction) to dodge in some way, they'd be more likely to try and move. Better mechanics for overwatch fire would help too, as would more granular rules for using cover. I think the basic tools are there in 5E, they just need to be tweaked into form.

Click to expand...

Assuming you're talking about things like how 5E allows you to move out of total cover, shoot, and move back again (only exposing you to reaction attacks and melee charges), that is not damage models and hit points, then yes.

You should probably start by giving disadvantage to any ranged attack where you move before the attack (representing a gunslinger who basically fires around the corner without properly looking first), so as to encourage "realistic behavior" where you stay behind half cover perhaps, but still need to see what you're shooting at.

But now we're discussing house rules fixes which I won't pursue further in this thread.

Paul Farquhar said:

You are not the only one.

What point is he trying to make?

Click to expand...

That only some but not all arguments against hit points in a game with firearms can be easily dismissed as holding melee and ranged to different standards.

You can't ever have guns and HP in the same game?

Click to expand...

Yes of course. I have never said you can't or shouldn't.

My aim here is to explain to people used only to D&D that people with the opposing preference aren't weird or stupid. There are real issues with the hit point based damage model that might not be apparent to people that has only ever played D&D.

In short, I'm explaining how the other side is thinking to ease everyone's appreciation of differing viewpoints.

Just hearing somebody railing against hit points as making a "mockery" of firearms and then using that to dismiss the entire idea that there is value in ditching hit points is reductive, simplistic and uninformed.

Oofta said:

No game system can handle every trope. I don't "expect" the PCs to act in any particular way. If I have a scenario where there's a lot of ranged combat (whether that's arrows, bullets or spells) and plenty of cover people can take advantage of it.

But you seem to be fixated on this idea of cover. Guess what? Probably 90% of what people use for cover on TV is BS. Cars (other than engine blocks) do not stop bullets. Neither do most walls, conference tables or that couch everybody hides behind so the special effects department can put squibs in the cushions. I remember watching some movie on TV where there's a shootout in a convenience store and the detective ducks behind bags of cheetos which of course stop every bullet. My wife and I looked at each and rolled our eyes.

As far as every hit being possibly deadly ... that's just not how D&D or most combat related video games work because it's not fun for the protagonist to die with one lucky shot. One solid hit with a sword will kill you just as dead as one lucky hit with a bullet. HP is just a mechanism to extend how long a person (or creature) can last in combat. Expecting it to be realistic is unreasonable. You can narrate that as the attacks being deflected by armor, dodging at the last second or sheer luck. I just reject that it's any more or less realistic in one type of combat but not another.

Click to expand...

I never claimed hit points are bad because they can't handle every trope.

I am not fixated with cover. I am merely pointing out something that really should be obvious: that people with backpack shield generators (aka hit points) don't act and move as you might expect from a reasonably modern game.

In no way have I said that this is better or worse. I have never said "taking cover" is realistic, only that if you want your game to mimic that, there are fundamental issues if you stick to hit points.

You keep reducing my argument about "only the last hit that kills you" to an issue about deadliness, which you then can dismiss. But that's not what I am saying, and I will keep repeating this until you stop arguing in bad faith. Read what I write, not what you might think I write, Oofta!

CapnZapp said:

It's about whether you want heroes to move about in order to not get shot.

Click to expand...

Why does this matter with guns and not melee weapons? In a melee, you will very rarely, if ever, see one swordsman run up to another one, stop adjacent to him, and then have the two just hack at each other without moving about in order to not get chopped. They will be moving forward and back, sideways, turning in circles and so on.

Why a desire to see PCs move about over guns, but not move about over melee weapons?

Here's where you bring this whole concept up first in this thread that I found

CapnZapp said:

In the Western genre it's important that each shot has a chance of killing you, however small (for the heroes). A game without levels or massive hit points, but with something like fate or drama points to separate the heroes from the mooks works better because you have changed the genre.

*That's* why firearms has never felt right in D&D.

Click to expand...

So you start with the assumption that every round should potentially kill you. Then you object to my (sarcastically I admit) labeling bullets as magic killing devices. But that's the basis of everything you've posted, that a single bullet can kill you.

CapnZapp said:

It's about whether you want heroes to move about in order to not get shot.
...so any hit could be impactful, not just the last one...people seeking to get "the drop" on their foes...want to kill the monsters before they reach you...acting the way many people expect you to act in a firearms-enabled game.

Click to expand...

So what am I missing? You want any single shot to matter whether it's the first or the 20th. In addition you want to elevate ranged combat and cover. You want a system that

CapnZapp said:

getting shot at means risking a Dodge check, and possibly having to pay a rare Fate Point.

Click to expand...

That's all fine, and D&D and guns may not work for you. But then you take your preference and generalize it. Personally I think you're missing a lot of things such as heavy armor being widely available and less cumbersome in D&D (and a lot of fantasy) than in real life. In reality only nobility could afford plate armor and would only put it on for tournaments or battle. In D&D many fighters will have it after only a half dozen sessions. In reality we don't have to deal with dragons, giants or any number of creatures that will engage you in melee.

I would say your "dodge" check is built into AC from dexterity or supernatural AC. Fate Points are just another limited resource that is a way of saying "I'm not going to die because of this particular attack".

But the funny thing is that you admit that you think that HP doesn't model melee combat particularly well either

CapnZapp said:

The entire *point* of having hit points in fantasy RPGs is to enable mighty melee heroes.

In real life, entering a sword skirmish is incredibly risky, and the notion that "as long as you're skilled you'll do alright" is nonsense. The reason "name" characters survive medieval fights is because they're kept out of the worst fighting.

Click to expand...

So again. What have I missed? Because you keep accusing me of just "not reading what you say" which is not true. I just disagree. When I narrate HP, it's a combination of luck, fate, skill and glancing blows. Throw in firearms and a hit that doesn't kill you is a graze, a "flesh wound", getting hit by a ricochet or shrapnel. Recovering HP quickly is due to salves and slower-acting but still effective magic healing.

So let's talk about the classic western genre for a moment. Somehow the white hats could be shot at a dozen times, pop out from behind that 2 inch thick piece of wood that's somehow stopping all bullets and shoot a bad guy at 50 yards with their six gun that never ran out of ammo who would clutch their chest and fall over dead. I agree that D&D doesn't model the classic duel or other aspects of the genre. Then again, the genre is pretty unrealistic in the first place so that doesn't really bother me.

Maxperson said:

Why does this matter with guns and not melee weapons? In a melee, you will very rarely, if ever, see one swordsman run up to another one, stop adjacent to him, and then have the two just hack at each other without moving about in order to not get chopped. They will be moving forward and back, sideways, turning in circles and so on.

Why a desire to see PCs move about over guns, but not move about over melee weapons?

Click to expand...

You're talking about the ducking and weaving that's implied but not actually governed by the rules.

But why would I be talking about that?

I'm obviously talking about movement at range; very simply which square on the battlemat your character occupies.

If every hit carries the potential to ruin your day (whether through pain penalties or outright unconsciousness) you're that much more likely to choose the longer, safer path to the position where you can engage the opposition.

If, on the other hand, only the last hit carries any consequences (which is the case in games with energy shields or hit points) you're that much more likely to take the direct path and just soak the incoming damage, thinking perhaps the time saved will make up for the increased risk of hp loss.

This really is very simple stuff.

And if everyone chooses the long safe path you end up with a long dull battle.

Oofta said:

So what am I missing? You want any single shot to matter whether it's the first or the 20th. In addition you want to elevate ranged combat and cover. You want a system that

Click to expand...

Only that I'm not taking sides, though I admit it can look that way when I'm attacked.

I am explaining to people why other people have problems with hit points.

Since you have impressive thread-collating skills I'm sure you have seen me making clear I'm not saying hit points cannot work for firearms-enabled campaigns.

I'm only bringing up the arguments that people who prefer alternatives to the hit point damage model bring up.

I'm pointing out that people dismissing this stance routinely oversimplify and misrepresent their position by only discussing the arguments easiest to shoot down.

That if you truly want to understand somebody saying "hit points is a poor fit for the Old West" there's more to it than "I don't like it".

Does this mean I can't see hit points working? That I myself consider hit points a "mockery"? That anyone using them in other contexts than fantasy are "wrong"?

No, no, and no.