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

[Oofta]

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.

When this topic came up I did a bit of googling, and 19th century rifles have about the same effective range as longbows with a few exceptions (such as the Sharps rifle which was the equivalent of a sniper rifle). But your basic Winchester? About the same. Pistols? Close to shortbows. Add in the fact that they used black powder and I don't even see that much of a need for dramatically increased damage.

But it is all make believe after all. If we assume that in a world were magic is real there can be armor that stops bullets, I don't see much need for adjustment. I might come up with a feat for speed firing or similar, but I'd probably just use bows and maybe increase the damage die one size and be done with it. In any case, most of what I hear is "they wouldn't work because getting shot once is always fatal" with details on what the rules would actually be.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

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?

As I've mentioned, I've played Traveller and FASA Star Trek quite extensively, and I don't think they particulalrly encorage tactical ranged combat. I think once you get away from D&D tabletop RPGs tend to become less focused on combat full stop. Although the Starship Combat in Trek was awesome.

Traveller did spawn the Snapshot skirmish rules that had action points and the like, but I think they where really too cumbersome for a fun tabletop game. However, the Rebel Star Raiders -> X-Com -> Shadowrun computer games are pretty much direct decedents. You basically need a computer to keep track of the cover, otherwise it's just not fun.

I did read the Boot Hill rules a long time ago. If I remember correctly that had a "three hits and you are dead" rule instead of hit points. Which made it far too random to make a fun game.

 

[CapnZapp]

And yet again, it's not about increased "realism" or whether bullets or arrows kill you faster. I thought that argument had been comprehensively shown to only be the shallow face of a complex problem. Sigh.

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

You can keep bows pretty much intact. And still, change damage model (so any hit could be impactful, not just the last one) and combat changes drastically; people seeking to get "the drop" on their foes, moving from cover to cover etc. Even though melee would be just as deadly it would feature much less, since with no hit points you would want to kill the monsters before they reach you.

Or in short, acting the way many people expect you to act in a firearms-enabled game.

 

[Leatherhead]

I don't understand CapnZap's argument.

Taking cover in combat has absolutely nothing to do with HP, or whatever alternative name you give to your injury tracking subsystem. For instance, all of the popular shooting video games use HP.

It has everything to do with your to-hit mechanics, a totally different subsystem.

 

[Fenris-77]

And yet again, it's not about increased "realism" or whether bullets or arrows kill you faster. I thought that argument had been comprehensively shown to only be the shallow face of a complex problem. Sigh.

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

You can keep bows pretty much intact. And still, change damage model (so any hit could be impactful, not just the last one) and combat changes drastically; people seeking to get "the drop" on their foes, moving from cover to cover etc. Even though melee would be just as deadly it would feature much less, since with no hit points you would want to kill the monsters before they reach you.

Or in short, acting the way many people expect you to act in a firearms-enabled game.

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.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I don't understand CapnZap's argument.

You are not the only one.

What point is he trying to make? You can't ever have guns and HP in the same game? Everyone on the planet accepts HP for swords but no-one in the universe will accept them if there are guns? He want's top play a tabletop game with hard cover and flanking?

The last isn't unreasonable (but I don't know of any), it might be worth starting a thread asking for suggestions?

 

[MarkB]

As I've mentioned, I've played Traveller and FASA Star Trek quite extensively, and I don't think they particulalrly encorage tactical ranged combat. I think once you get away from D&D tabletop RPGs tend to become less focused on combat full stop. Although the Starship Combat in Trek was awesome.

Traveller did spawn the Snapshot skirmish rules that had action points and the like, but I think they where really too cumbersome for a fun tabletop game. However, the Rebel Star Raiders -> X-Com -> Shadowrun computer games are pretty much direct decedents. You basically need a computer to keep track of the cover, otherwise it's just not fun.

I did read the Boot Hill rules a long time ago. If I remember correctly that had a "three hits and you are dead" rule instead of hit points. Which made it far too random to make a fun game.

Thanks. XCOM is actually what specifically comes to mind for me. It's been a back-burner project for me for some time to make an XCOM based campaign, but I've never found a nice system to use, with ready-made modern weapons and armour, and a decent tactical combat system.

Maybe once the forthcoming Stargate system is released, I'll try adapting that.

 

[Oofta]

And yet again, it's not about increased "realism" or whether bullets or arrows kill you faster. I thought that argument had been comprehensively shown to only be the shallow face of a complex problem. Sigh.

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

You can keep bows pretty much intact. And still, change damage model (so any hit could be impactful, not just the last one) and combat changes drastically; people seeking to get "the drop" on their foes, moving from cover to cover etc. Even though melee would be just as deadly it would feature much less, since with no hit points you would want to kill the monsters before they reach you.

Or in short, acting the way many people expect you to act in a firearms-enabled game.

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.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Thanks. XCOM is actually what specifically comes to mind for me. It's been a back-burner project for me for some time to make an XCOM based campaign, but I've never found a nice system to use, with ready-made modern weapons and armour, and a decent tactical combat system.

Maybe once the forthcoming Stargate system is released, I'll try adapting that.

Since Stargate is closely based on 5e I doubt it will be what you are looking for. I would see if you could hunt down Snapshot: http://wiki.travellerrpg.com/Snapshot

 

[CapnZapp]

I don't understand CapnZap's argument.

Taking cover in combat has absolutely nothing to do with HP, or whatever alternative name you give to your injury tracking subsystem. For instance, all of the popular shooting video games use HP.

It has everything to do with your to-hit mechanics, a totally different subsystem.

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